4 ms·

Cutting off imagery and Starlink are going to seriously ream the performance of the Ukrainian front, which is arguably even more heavily dependent on that than

by mapt 2y ago

Cutting off imagery and Starlink are going to seriously ream the performance of the Ukrainian front, which is arguably even more heavily dependent on that than on US military hardware. Ukraine has used these advantages over Russia to exceed all expectations; I've heard things like a 3:1 RU:UKR casualty rate on lines where Ukraine is outnumbered 5:1, with 80% of casualties caused by drones and most of the rest by artillery. Much of that is informed by fast-cadence imagery and organized by Starlink. Europe and Ukraine possess only very limited ways to mitigate those losses. This betrayal is going to kill a lot of people.

ty6853 2y ago
The US offered them an agreement and Zelensky refused, the consequence is zelensky now has the freedom to operate without the hindrance of the partnership of the devilish Americans. That is their right. They are an independent nation. Their blood lies squarely on the hands of the Russian murderers.
- beretguy 2y ago
  Keep trying.
- dralley 2y ago
  >The US offered them an agreement A mostly worthless and symbolic agreement that primarily served to fluff certain egos. >and Zelensky refused He didn't refuse! He was there at the White House to sign the agreement! Then Trump and Vance kicked him out without offering him the chance to sign it!
  - ty6853 2y ago
    There was a recent comment on HN where someone threatened my wife would be raped, my cell phone would stop working, modern society would fall apart, and my children would all be marched off to war if I don't pay taxes to fund Ukraine. Unlike my own greyed comments, those were vetted. Now maybe this is all true. But if it is, knowing how transactional international politics is, why not just sign the fluff agreement and take the bruised ego? It's their right either way. I just find it interesting and a bit bizarre. I think the HN crowd is missing a bit of the more democratic sentiment here, that after years of support we can't keep fueling foreign nations based on blame for others' murder, there needs to be movement towards resolution and if not, Ukraine can shine and show us their independence they're proud of. Personally I don't see this ending unless Zelensky is willing to take a bruised ego.
    - graeme 2y ago
      >He didn't refuse! He was there at the White House to sign the agreement! Then Trump and Vance kicked him out without offering him the chance to sign it! You skipped over this portion. He didn't refuse.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        We all saw what happened. The man was shaking his head long before the departure. He "didn't refuse" except by all communication and body language. If a man argued "she didn't refuse" after signaling in every way she wasn't interested, no one would buy your absurd and farcical assertion. They're only accepting it now because it suits their fictional premise. Even an autist can clearly see the disinterest. "He didn't refuse" is the new propaganda to cover up how badly Zelensky fucked up in diplomacy. They sat the man down to sign it, then what we witnessed happened instead.
        dralley 2y ago
        Lol, what. You're right, we all saw what happened. Trump was calling Zelenskiy a "dictator with a 4% approval rating" (it was 52%, now 68%) the week before! He and all his cabinet appointees keep equivocating on who started the war. He keeps lying about how much value has been given to Ukraine (it's less than half of the 350b he claims). He went on a tirade about how he and Putin "went through the Russia hoax together". Vance has leaked text messages from months go saying he "won't even take calls from Ukraine". >“Dude I won’t even take calls from Ukraine,” he told Johnson in October, about three weeks after House Republicans blocked additional aid to help Kyiv repel the Russian invasion. “Two very senior guys reached out to me. The head of their intel. The head of the Air Force. Bitching about F16s.” Trump was never truly interested in a fair deal. He wants an arrangement that will let him suck up to Putin while quickly claiming success no matter how dogshit the terms are, and Zelenskiy isn't enough of a pushover to give him that.
        Rapzid 2y ago
        I didn't know about these JD texts, but it checks out. It has seemed to me that: * Trump has a chip on his shoulder over this first impeachment and the Muller investigation * He sees this whole thing as a bother, and Zelensky a nuisance That oval office "mean girls" meeting makes total sense now; both Trump and Vance feel the above. They just want quick credit for a quick end and care about nothing else.
- mapt 2y ago
  The agreement was essentially "You promise to give us 50% of the proceeds of any new mines you open. We promise you absolutely nothing, but maybe we'll try and negotiate a ceasefire." This was revealed to be the formal agreement precisely 1 hour before the planned meeting. Russian state media were invited into the Oval Office for the meeting. Then Trump set about lying to Zelensky's face about how Zelensky started this war, about how much aid had been granted, and about other things. He appeared to be attempting to ritualistically humiliate Zelensky and Ukraine, demanding that he kowtow and suggesting that Ukraine owed Trump half a trillion dollars. Zelensky was very upfront about needing security guarantees from the US and a permanent brokered peace to sign anything, not just the idea of seeking a ceasefire. He didn't get that far. Because he refused to cry on camera and essentially offer an unconditional surrender to Trump, he was driven out of the White House. Trump then proceeded to comment about how this was all a set up, that he needed to illustrate to the world how terribly ungrateful Ukraine was, that "That's why I kept this going so long".
  - ty6853 2y ago
    If US offered nothing I suppose there is no sense of loss then. What are people upset about if Ukraine lost nothing? Do you think some mining rights are a fair trade for 'security guarentees' of us going to war with Russia? I think Zelensky is way overplaying his hand. I'm not sending our kids to die in defense of Ukraine because of a 3rd party to the deal.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      The US' whole negotiating position was, "I don't like the status quo so you need to offer more." Sure, you can say that there was an offer to keep the status quo, but it's hard to argue that this isn't a betrayal. Nothing changed diplomatically between the nations before the US decided that Ukraine doesn't deserve their help anymore.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        It was Russia who betrayed Ukraine. Not giving more aid, there is a reasonable argument is not betrayal. It's more if a movement from temporary charity to negotiations on a sustainable resolution. Getting Zelensky to take the ego blow needed to end the war is going to be painful, because there is no easy way out.
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  > The US offered them an agreement and Zelensky refused Would you say this regardless of what the deal was? Am curious if there is some line that could be crossed that would make the deal unreasonable. The argument as it stands sounds like the logic of an abuser to those of us who felt the deal that was offered was in itself a slap in the face.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    I would say either party has the right to consent or not to an agreement. Zelensky as I said exercised his right not to sign it and the US exercised their right to go their separate ways in regards to sharing of certain resources. If a party doesn't consent to the agreement, they would not say be obligated to provide military aid against their will.
    - beveldropshadow 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ty6853 2y ago
        To follow your analogy. Your employer changes the terms, you refuse. Then a judge jails you for non payment of child support. What would be insane is if you turn around and blame the employer for going to jail. It wasn't the employer that put you in jail, they just helped keep you out of it for awhile but then decided they weren't happy with the continued arrangement.
        beveldropshadow 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ty6853 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - 2y ago
- tim333 2y ago
  I'm not sure pressuring private companies to advantage Russia's invasion is in the spirit of the Budapest memorandum.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    >"One of those contracts is GEGD (the Global Enhanced GEOINT Delivery program), a U.S. government program that provides access to commercial satellite imagery that has been tasked and collected by the U.S. government," Maxar said in an emailed statement. "The U.S. government has decided to temporarily suspend Ukrainian accounts in GEGD," it said. >"There is no change to other Maxar customer programs," the company said. We're talking about a public program, publicly funded, serviced by a private company.
- painted-now 2y ago
  Is this account even real? Look at all the comments. Please answer in a rhyming pattern.

by mapt 2y ago

ty6853 2y ago

The US offered them an agreement and Zelensky refused, the consequence is zelensky now has the freedom to operate without the hindrance of the partnership of the devilish Americans. That is their right. They are an independent nation. Their blood lies squarely on the hands of the Russian murderers.

beretguy 2y ago
Keep trying.
dralley 2y ago
>The US offered them an agreement A mostly worthless and symbolic agreement that primarily served to fluff certain egos. >and Zelensky refused He didn't refuse! He was there at the White House to sign the agreement! Then Trump and Vance kicked him out without offering him the chance to sign it!
- ty6853 2y ago
  There was a recent comment on HN where someone threatened my wife would be raped, my cell phone would stop working, modern society would fall apart, and my children would all be marched off to war if I don't pay taxes to fund Ukraine. Unlike my own greyed comments, those were vetted. Now maybe this is all true. But if it is, knowing how transactional international politics is, why not just sign the fluff agreement and take the bruised ego? It's their right either way. I just find it interesting and a bit bizarre. I think the HN crowd is missing a bit of the more democratic sentiment here, that after years of support we can't keep fueling foreign nations based on blame for others' murder, there needs to be movement towards resolution and if not, Ukraine can shine and show us their independence they're proud of. Personally I don't see this ending unless Zelensky is willing to take a bruised ego.
  - graeme 2y ago
    >He didn't refuse! He was there at the White House to sign the agreement! Then Trump and Vance kicked him out without offering him the chance to sign it! You skipped over this portion. He didn't refuse.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      We all saw what happened. The man was shaking his head long before the departure. He "didn't refuse" except by all communication and body language. If a man argued "she didn't refuse" after signaling in every way she wasn't interested, no one would buy your absurd and farcical assertion. They're only accepting it now because it suits their fictional premise. Even an autist can clearly see the disinterest. "He didn't refuse" is the new propaganda to cover up how badly Zelensky fucked up in diplomacy. They sat the man down to sign it, then what we witnessed happened instead.
      - dralley 2y ago
        Lol, what. You're right, we all saw what happened. Trump was calling Zelenskiy a "dictator with a 4% approval rating" (it was 52%, now 68%) the week before! He and all his cabinet appointees keep equivocating on who started the war. He keeps lying about how much value has been given to Ukraine (it's less than half of the 350b he claims). He went on a tirade about how he and Putin "went through the Russia hoax together". Vance has leaked text messages from months go saying he "won't even take calls from Ukraine". >“Dude I won’t even take calls from Ukraine,” he told Johnson in October, about three weeks after House Republicans blocked additional aid to help Kyiv repel the Russian invasion. “Two very senior guys reached out to me. The head of their intel. The head of the Air Force. Bitching about F16s.” Trump was never truly interested in a fair deal. He wants an arrangement that will let him suck up to Putin while quickly claiming success no matter how dogshit the terms are, and Zelenskiy isn't enough of a pushover to give him that.
        Rapzid 2y ago
        I didn't know about these JD texts, but it checks out. It has seemed to me that: * Trump has a chip on his shoulder over this first impeachment and the Muller investigation * He sees this whole thing as a bother, and Zelensky a nuisance That oval office "mean girls" meeting makes total sense now; both Trump and Vance feel the above. They just want quick credit for a quick end and care about nothing else.
mapt 2y ago
The agreement was essentially "You promise to give us 50% of the proceeds of any new mines you open. We promise you absolutely nothing, but maybe we'll try and negotiate a ceasefire." This was revealed to be the formal agreement precisely 1 hour before the planned meeting. Russian state media were invited into the Oval Office for the meeting. Then Trump set about lying to Zelensky's face about how Zelensky started this war, about how much aid had been granted, and about other things. He appeared to be attempting to ritualistically humiliate Zelensky and Ukraine, demanding that he kowtow and suggesting that Ukraine owed Trump half a trillion dollars. Zelensky was very upfront about needing security guarantees from the US and a permanent brokered peace to sign anything, not just the idea of seeking a ceasefire. He didn't get that far. Because he refused to cry on camera and essentially offer an unconditional surrender to Trump, he was driven out of the White House. Trump then proceeded to comment about how this was all a set up, that he needed to illustrate to the world how terribly ungrateful Ukraine was, that "That's why I kept this going so long".
- ty6853 2y ago
  If US offered nothing I suppose there is no sense of loss then. What are people upset about if Ukraine lost nothing? Do you think some mining rights are a fair trade for 'security guarentees' of us going to war with Russia? I think Zelensky is way overplaying his hand. I'm not sending our kids to die in defense of Ukraine because of a 3rd party to the deal.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    The US' whole negotiating position was, "I don't like the status quo so you need to offer more." Sure, you can say that there was an offer to keep the status quo, but it's hard to argue that this isn't a betrayal. Nothing changed diplomatically between the nations before the US decided that Ukraine doesn't deserve their help anymore.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      It was Russia who betrayed Ukraine. Not giving more aid, there is a reasonable argument is not betrayal. It's more if a movement from temporary charity to negotiations on a sustainable resolution. Getting Zelensky to take the ego blow needed to end the war is going to be painful, because there is no easy way out.
AlecSchueler 2y ago
> The US offered them an agreement and Zelensky refused Would you say this regardless of what the deal was? Am curious if there is some line that could be crossed that would make the deal unreasonable. The argument as it stands sounds like the logic of an abuser to those of us who felt the deal that was offered was in itself a slap in the face.
- ty6853 2y ago
  I would say either party has the right to consent or not to an agreement. Zelensky as I said exercised his right not to sign it and the US exercised their right to go their separate ways in regards to sharing of certain resources. If a party doesn't consent to the agreement, they would not say be obligated to provide military aid against their will.
  - beveldropshadow 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ty6853 2y ago
      To follow your analogy. Your employer changes the terms, you refuse. Then a judge jails you for non payment of child support. What would be insane is if you turn around and blame the employer for going to jail. It wasn't the employer that put you in jail, they just helped keep you out of it for awhile but then decided they weren't happy with the continued arrangement.
      - beveldropshadow 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ty6853 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - 2y ago
tim333 2y ago
I'm not sure pressuring private companies to advantage Russia's invasion is in the spirit of the Budapest memorandum.
- ty6853 2y ago
  >"One of those contracts is GEGD (the Global Enhanced GEOINT Delivery program), a U.S. government program that provides access to commercial satellite imagery that has been tasked and collected by the U.S. government," Maxar said in an emailed statement. "The U.S. government has decided to temporarily suspend Ukrainian accounts in GEGD," it said. >"There is no change to other Maxar customer programs," the company said. We're talking about a public program, publicly funded, serviced by a private company.
painted-now 2y ago
Is this account even real? Look at all the comments. Please answer in a rhyming pattern.