JSouthworth wrote:
Despite the diversion of resources to the racial civil war taking place in Israel, the Ukrainian armed forces have achieved some excellent results recently. The UK and Germany are stepping up their support.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk … &ei=22

The reference cited does not cite ANY aide at all diverted from Ukraine to Israel as you falsely claim. Quite the opposite in fact. Imagine that.

You have shown beyond a doubt you do not read your own references....when you bother to cite other than your own biased opinions, of course. If you had, you would have learned that the "breakthrough"  in this case was a minor victory, and hardly a game-changer, and  having nothing at all to do with diversion of aid:

"But there are still believed to be tens of thousands of Russian troops still in the area, so the victory is by no means decisive."

"The victory for Ukraine comes after its counteroffensive largely failed to reclaim much of the territory captured by Putin's forces in February last year."

"A military expert said that the prospects for Ukraine this winter are looking dim. Sean Bell told Sky News: "The Ukrainians could probably not have been better prepared.

"They had all the weapons, they had all the training and the money, but frankly five to six months into that offensive the lines haven't moved a great deal and frankly the front line looks as if it's stalled."

"One of Zelensky's top aides also anonymously briefed the press on the true situation in Ukraine, simply saying: "We're not moving forward."

They also complained that some areas of Ukraine's frontline did not have enough troops to capitalise on all the aide sent from the West."

-All quotes from YOUR source.

Which, in this context, makes your post just another weak, biased, installment in the anti-Israeli screed this thread was created to be.

Focuspuller wrote:
The reference cited does not cite ANY aide at all diverted from Ukraine to Israel as you falsely claim. Quite the opposite in fact. Imagine that.

Which, in this context, makes your post just another weak, biased, installment in the anti-Israeli screed this thread was created to be.

Any military equipment sent to Israel is an unnecessary diversion of resources in my opinion. The Ukrainians are the people who can make effective use of it, in defending their country from an invasion by Russia as opposed to indiscriminately killing civilians to no military purpose, other than that of perpetuating a cycle of racial and sectarian violence and with it the dominant position of the military within the Israeli state.

Not all Israelis are far-right extremists or racists by any means and any decent person should be able to sympathise with the victims of this horrendous conflict and their relatives on both sides. But the Israeli state is a mirror image of Nazi Germany in some respects, which may be inevitable when the historical fact of the Holocaust is reified in law and politics to that extent.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has recently visited Ukraine;

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ru … r-AA1kdmpK

JSouthworth wrote:

Any military equipment sent to Israel is an unnecessary diversion of resources in my opinion. The Ukrainians are the people who can make effective use of it, in defending their country from an invasion by Russia as opposed to indiscriminately killing civilians to no military purpose, other than that of perpetuating a cycle of racial and sectarian violence and with it the dominant position of the military within the Israeli state.

Not all Israelis are far-right extremists or racists by any means and any decent person should be able to sympathise with the victims of this horrendous conflict and their relatives on both sides. But the Israeli state is a mirror image of Nazi Germany in some respects, which may be inevitable when the historical fact of the Holocaust is reified in law and politics to that extent.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has recently visited Ukraine;

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ru … r-AA1kdmpK

"Any military equipment sent to Israel is an unnecessary diversion of resources in my opinion. "

Your extremely expansive and laughable definition of "diversion" requires your particular biased opinion., but nice try.

"Not all Israelis are far-right extremists or racists by any means and any decent person should be able to sympathise with the victims of this horrendous conflict and their relatives on both sides"

Good God I almost fell for this ray of actual reason, but no, you went ahead and ruined it:

"But the Israeli state is a mirror image of Nazi Germany in some respects, which may be inevitable when the historical fact of the Holocaust is reified in law and politics to that extent."

In other words, you oppose laws against Holocaust denial. Got it.

Focuspuller wrote:
"Any military equipment sent to Israel is an unnecessary diversion of resources in my opinion. "

Your extremely expansive and laughable definition of "diversion" requires your particular biased opinion., but nice try.

Diversion. The act or an instance of diverting or straying from a course, activity, or use - Merriam-Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversion

JSouthworth wrote:

Diversion. The act or an instance of diverting or straying from a course, activity, or use - Merriam-Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversion

CIRCULAR REASONING DEFINITION AND EXAMPLES

"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises." AS IN:

"Diversion. The act or an instance of diverting...."

Your "definition" also fails in FACT.  SHOW EVIDENCE where specific materiel destined for Ukraine was "diverted " or "strayed" to Israel, or where the commitment to Ukraine's defense was attenuated  by support for Israel.

Poor old chap, letting your biases cloud your "logic."

JSouthworth wrote:
Not all Israelis are far-right extremists or racists by any means and any decent person should be able to sympathise with the victims of this horrendous conflict and their relatives on both sides. But the Israeli state is a mirror image of Nazi Germany in some respects, which may be inevitable when the historical fact of the Holocaust is reified in law and politics to that extent.

It would perhaps be more accurate to say that it is the right-wing Israeli conception of the Holocaust as being the result of a global anti-Semitic conspiracy that is reified in Israeli law and politics.

JSouthworth wrote:
It would perhaps be more accurate to say that it is the right-wing Israeli conception of the Holocaust as being the result of a global anti-Semitic conspiracy that is reified in Israeli law and politics.

OR it would perhaps be even more accurate to say. "I misspoke."

Focuspuller wrote:
OR it would perhaps be even more accurate to say. "I misspoke."

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, that would still be a big improvement over trying to pretend it was a typo, now wouldn't it?

LightDreams wrote:
Ignoring all of JSouthworth's comments and getting back to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which IS a serious topic...

[b]Republicans successfully STOPPED THE WAR AID for Ukraine and Israel today...

I'm not sure that Trump is capable of actually being happy, at least more than briefly, but this should make his day...

Oh, and I would guess the same probably goes for Putin.  Unfortunately.

Proving ONCE AGAIN that America as an ally is not dependable.

Trump does not seek happiness. He craves base gratification, vindication, and subservience.

Trump's handler Putin is reveling in the greatest covert intelligence operation in history - the recruitment of the former and possibly future President of the United States.

Focuspuller wrote:

Proving ONCE AGAIN that America as an ally is not dependable.

Trump does not seek happiness. He craves base gratification, vindication, and subservience.

Trump's handler Putin is reveling in the greatest covert intelligence operation in history - the recruitment of the former and possibly future President of the United States.

Donald Trump is a televangelist clown but some Joe Biden's recent decision making is questionable, especially his support for Israel's invasion of Gaza.

The cost of continued support for Ukraine will always less than that of fighting a war against Russia. The Ukrainian military have fought the Russians to a standstill using resources that are minimal by NATO standards, they deserve to be given what they need to complete the job.

JSouthworth wrote:
Donald Trump is a televangelist clown but some Joe Biden's recent decision making is questionable, especially his support for Israel's invasion of Gaza.

Please stop placing your anti-Israeli propaganda in places it doesn't belong.

LightDreams wrote:
Ukraine President Zelenskyy flew into Washington to "beg" House Republicans to restore the Ukraine war funding.  As more and more reports are now coming in of them running out of ammunition and arms, while Putin has "scaled up" his attacks with the recent shift in the battlefield advantage.

Afterward meeting with Zelenskyy, Republican House Speaker Johnson held a press conference where he flat out refused to do that.   With all of his ever-changing excuses, this time his excuse (to back Trump's desire to leave "disloyal" Ukraine to Putin) was that the Republicans didn't see a sufficient "plan" justifying why they should give Ukraine any money.

Republican Speaker Johnson then claimed that there's "no strategy to win", despite the remarkable success Ukraine has previously had (against all odds!) when the funding and arms were still being provided.

It's even worse.

JOHNSON ON UKRAINE DEAL: ‘NATIONAL SECURITY BEGINS AT OUR OWN BORDERS’

"Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) emphasized that the U.S. southern border should come first in negotiations with Democrats over aid for Ukraine, as senators show increasing doubt that the two sides can reach a compromise by the end of the year."

https://news.yahoo.com/johnson-ukraine- … 54610.html

Pathetic claptrap from the backbench MAGAt elevated to Speakership by knuckle dragger cult of  Putin's Agent Orange.

When the world finally concludes that the United States, after repeated betrayals, is no longer a dependable leader and defender of the "Free World" countries will make accommodations with China, the rising power, ushering in a new age of world order by the Chinese Communist Party, very likely culminating in a future struggle between China and an alliance between Russia and an authoritarian, trumpist America.

LightDreams wrote:
UPDATE:

The house has just passed a Defense Policy Bill involving spending for the U.S. Military.

Now that bill includes a tiny amount for the Ukraine, less than 1/2 a percent of what was immediately needed.  This was NOT  (above).

I am curious as to how much money Canada has put out to aid the Ukraine. This isn't meant to be provocative, it is a serious question.

Weldphoto wrote:
I am curious as to how much money Canada has put out to aid the Ukraine. This isn't meant to be provocative, it is a serious question.

There is no question that our size, financial contributions and military equipment / stockpile, is a fraction of what the U.S. has, and has been supplying.   As best as I can tell, at least as of 6 months ago, we had come up $8 Billion (far less than the U.S.).  I know there have been constant announcements for more, since then, but I can't find an up-to-date total that includes the last 6 months worth of announcements.  But they still won't be able to compare to the American figures.

The number one total contributor to the Ukrainian war effort, worldwide, is the European Union.  For obvious reasons as they're more at immediate risk than everyone else.  This "proxy war" is more immediately critical to them, than anywhere else.   Plus, they're also very much aware of the questions about American support for NATO after the 2024 election.  For them, it's a realization that this must be stopped at the Ukraine, and as quickly as possible.  Before any 2024 possibilities.

That's also one of the reasons that the E.U. "sent a signal" to the Russians TODAY with the formal start of the process for the Ukraine to officially join the E.U.   They're trying to offset the message that Russia has been getting with the Republican shutdown of the Ukraine funding (for the weapons, advanced weapon systems and plain old ammunition that the U.S. has been supplying to the Ukraine).

But when it comes just to military supplies (ignoring financial contributions), the U.S. is by far the world's largest supplier to the Ukraine's war effort.  At least until now.

That's not due to the lack of desire on the part of Europe, but the reality of who has the most weapons and military supplies to actually provide the Ukraine with (on a much more immediate basis).

Plus, there is also the matter of which country's military systems are going to be most effective against Russia (that's obviously the Americans).

That's as close as an answer as I could find for you.   Hope that helps!

LightDreams wrote:
Putin just announced that "Russians and Ukrainians are ONE PEOPLE".  He also makes clear that he will not stop until "ALL OF HIS OBJECTIVES, in the Ukraine, ARE MET".

Remarkable how his tone has completely changed over the last few weeks.  He was previously complaining that the Ukraine was refusing to even "talk about peace", or his bogus offer for a "ceasefire" while they talked about it (allowing him time to regroup).

Putin's sudden changes (or return to his old "Day One" war claims) have all been since the U.S. Republicans blocked support for the Ukraine and (with the ammunition shortages, etc) the tide started turning on the battlefront.

Putin's statements clearly imply that he intends to take the whole of Ukraine regardless of the cost in lives and roubles. So it's a simple question of whether we in Europe and in the United States are going to allow that to happen. We'd be very stupid if we did.

The war in Ukraine demonstrates that a modern industrial war is a war of attrition, and not a two week exercise in cost free combat with precision weaponry as some people in NATO like to imply. Artillery is still a critical factor in tactical warfare on land.

The continuing importance of landmines has also been demonstrated. NATO needs to develop and introduce new types of anti-armor and anti-vehicle/anti-personnel landmines as well as improving detection and clearing techniques. Field fortifications are another aspect of tactical warfare which has been emphasised by both the war in Ukraine and more recently the conflict in Gaza.

JSouthworth wrote:

Putin's statements clearly imply that he intends to take the whole of Ukraine regardless of the cost in lives and roubles. So it's a simple question of whether we in Europe and in the United States are going to allow that to happen. We'd be very stupid if we did.

The war in Ukraine demonstrates that a modern industrial war is a war of attrition, and not a two week exercise in cost free combat with precision weaponry as some people in NATO like to imply. Artillery rather than air power is still a critical factor in tactical warfare on land.

The United States is on a track leading to the decoupling from the world order it has led and managed since the end of WWII, a political development considered inconceivable until the ascension of the populist fascist cult of trump. The 2024 election will determine not only the fate of the United States, but the world and the planet.

"...a modern industrial war is a war of attrition, and not a two week exercise in cost free combat with precision weaponry as some people in NATO like to imply."

Nonsense. Cite evidence that is NATO doctrine. CREDIBLE evidence, not emanating from the conspiracy-riddled phantasmagoria of a febrile mind.

Focuspuller wrote:
The 2024 election will determine not only the fate of the United States, but the world and the planet.

What about the solar system?

JSouthworth wrote:

What about the solar system?

Sorry, old chap. Off-topic.

JSouthworth wrote:
Putin's statements clearly imply that he intends to take the whole of Ukraine regardless of the cost in lives and roubles. So it's a simple question of whether we in Europe and in the United States are going to allow that to happen. We'd be very stupid if we did.

The war in Ukraine demonstrates that a modern industrial war is a war of attrition, and not a two week exercise in cost free combat with precision weaponry as some people in NATO like to imply. Artillery is still a critical factor in tactical warfare on land.

The continuing importance of landmines has also been demonstrated. NATO needs to develop and introduce new types of anti-armor and anti-vehicle/anti-personnel landmines as well as improving detection and clearing techniques. Field fortifications are another aspect of tactical warfare which has been emphasised by both the war in Ukraine and more recently the conflict in Gaza.

The alternative to the military defeat of Russia in Ukraine is a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO.

If the Russians achieve their objective of annexing Ukraine the next targets will be Georgia, Moldova and the Baltic States, after that it will be Romania and Poland. Either we stop them now, or we stop them later at much greater cost.

Useful article and video here;

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ba … &ei=32

JSouthworth wrote:
The alternative to the military defeat of Russia in Ukraine is a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO.
If the Russians achieve their objective of annexing Ukraine the next targets will be Georgia, Moldova and the Baltic States, after that it will be Romania and Poland. Either we stop them now, or we stop them later at much greater cost.

Not quite. Stop Putin now, or we may not stop Putin at all.

Putin's recent display of confidence is likely based on satisfaction with the trumpist party's success in roadblocking Ukraine aid for now, and  the assumption that his asset, trump, will be restored to power and continue Putin's objective of a NATO abandoned by a US retreating to isolationism, leaving Europe to fend for itself. The Russian interference in the 2024 election will no doubt reach historic levels. Should Putin succeed, the coming war will not be between the US and Russia. It will be between a Russian-American alliance and China.

JSouthworth wrote:
Further evidence here of the increasing vulnerability of manned tactical fighter aircraft to air defense systems:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ru … &ei=15

What is your point? Anti-aircraft weapons have been in existence since the beginning of air warfare.

"Antiaircraft weapons development began as early as 1910, when the airplane first became an effective weapon"
https://www.britannica.com/technology/antiaircraft-gun

This proves nothing other than "further evidence" of your penchant for extrapolating grand fantasies based on anecdotal, and other scant, evidence. Name ONE national Air Force in the world which is unmanned, or even close, despite your adolescent longing for a robotic war of your mind becoming real.

Manned hypersonic hybrid fighters will be a part of every major Air Force for the foreseeable future, no matter how hard you stamp your feet in impatience. Those responsible for ACTUAL defense of ACTUAL countries are proceeding in a measured and responsible manner, despite your ill-informed whinging from the sidelines.

PROJECT MAYHEM, THE AIR FORCE'S SECRET HYPERSONIC BOMBER, HAS BEGUN COOKING
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita … m-updates/

And Europe is not asleep, either

THE ESPADON HYPERSONIC FIGHTER JET PROJECT

"The work on its Superman project studies a fighter flying at Mach 2.5, and will feed into technology for a manned new generation fighter in FCAS,
https://defense.info/air-power-dynamics … t-project/

Looks like your fantasy war of the future will have to be fought on your tabletop battlefield for years to come.

Focuspuller wrote:
PROJECT MAYHEM, THE AIR FORCE'S SECRET HYPERSONIC BOMBER, HAS BEGUN COOKING
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita … m-updates/

And Europe is not asleep, either

THE ESPADON HYPERSONIC FIGHTER JET PROJECT

"The work on its Superman project studies a fighter flying at Mach 2.5, and will feed into technology for a manned new generation fighter in FCAS,
https://defense.info/air-power-dynamics … t-project/

Looks like your fantasy war of the future will have to be fought on your tabletop battlefield for years to come.

I don't think any of those will get into production. Neither did this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame … 0_Valkyrie

Air forces like to daydream, but in today's climate they have to prove a genuine operation need for a new aircraft. A hypersonic manned bomber is a non-starter because missiles and unmanned aircraft, UCAVs or drones can do the job better at a fraction of the cost. Similarly, a hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft offers no real advantage over surveillance satellites, that's the reason they retired the Lockheed SR71 Blackbird.

Today, speed and altitude are not enough to make an aircraft difficult to shoot down, when even ICBMs can be intercepted by air defence systems. Missiles are faster and can out-turn and out-accelerate manned aircraft;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

Recent combat experience in Ukraine shows that manned tactical fighters are now useful mainly as launch platforms for stand-off missiles and that it is the performance of the missile, rather than the performance of the aircraft which determines effectiveness, as with the recent destruction of the Russian landing ship Novocherkassk;

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25163222/ … ion-putin/


The crass idea that the effectiveness of fighter aircraft was proportional to their maximum speed was disproved during the Vietnam War. The F4 Phantom, designed for Mach 2 proved inferior in maneuverability to the subsonic North Vietnamese MiG 17s and MiG 19s and a number were shot down in air-to-air combat although the majority of losses were to SAMs and AAA (Anti Aircraft Artillery).

Except for the Lockheed A12 reconnaissance aircraft, US aircraft in Vietnam rarely exceeded Mach 1, there were apparently only two or three occasions when this happened and Mach 2 was never even approached. Supersonic flight uses too much fuel and is usually only possible in the thin air at high altitude, where the low pressure causes physiological problems for human pilots unless they have pressure suits or pressurised cockpits. Neither are liked by combat pilots because if their aircraft is hit, a hole in either leads to rapid decompression with potentially fatal results. So in practice tactical fighter aircraft do not usually fly higher than 30,000 to 40.000 ft.

JSouthworth wrote:
This image was used recently to front a news story about a female UK medical worker who died in Ukraine;

https://th.bing.com/th?id=ORMS.407dcd90 … =1&p=0


Apparently this is a genuine picture even though it looks completely fake. Here is the story;


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b … d-31771547

So you think this is an unstaged, actual battlefield photo of a medic in eyeliner and makeup  wielding an assault weapon. Seriously.

Focuspuller wrote:

So you think this is an unstaged, actual battlefield photo of a medic in eyeliner and makeup  wielding an assault weapon. Seriously.

There may be a story behind that picture, I don't know.

Focuspuller wrote:
"The work on its Superman project studies a fighter flying at Mach 2.5, and will feed into technology for a manned new generation fighter in FCAS,
https://defense.info/air-power-dynamics … t-project/

Wherever you place a human, there is a possibility of human error, which will quickly be fatal at hypersonic speeds. A hypersonic fighter is an impractical proposition; It's endurance and range at hypersonic speed would be uselessly limited, and it wouldn't be capable of maneuvering or engaging targets at such speeds. Neither would it be difficult to shoot down in an absolute sense.

Some current aircraft such as the F15 are theoretically capable of Mach 2.5 speed, but never approach this in service use.

https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/s … ction=view

More about this crash here;

https://theaviationist.com/2023/02/23/f … tel-break/


Fighter aircraft used in speed and altitude record attempts are modified in various ways;

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-sto … op-flight/