Is there going to be a war?

Things are going very wrong for Ukraine right now if you haven't been following events.

The Trump nutjobs in their version of Parliament have basically prevented funding from America to Ukraine for it to buy the arms and equipment to continue to fight the war and have been doing so since the start of December.

This has led to a shortage of shells on the front line, which in turn means they are unnecessarily losing men and land - most notably in a place called Avdiivka that has resisted the Russians since 2014 but now is on the point of being taken.

Similarly Ukraine are short of air defence shells and are having to leave none military targets such as cities, less and less defended against missile and drone attacks.

It's unclear and uncertain if the USA will vote any further military aid to Ukraine whilst the Trumpist MAGA group continues to block it in their Senate.

Today the President of Ukraine in effect sacked his commander of their armed forces.

The army commander is very popular in Ukraine - he's even more popular than the president according to polls that are taken there - seems he's taking the blame because last years expected Ukrainian summer advance failed badly and Russia is winning the Winter campaign and advancing in key areas.

Ukrainian relations with its neighbours, particularly Hungry, Poland and Slovakia have been so bad that many country's protesters have blocked their boarders with them - the reason being is that Ukraine produces a lot of crops, which are normally shipped out to African and Middle Eastern countries and now can't be done - so these crops are sold cheaply to the neighbouring countries who are undercutting their farmers, so much so that they can't compete on price.

Added to that Hungry and lately Slovakia have pro-Russian political parties in power and Hungry have been blocking the EU's funding to Ukraine to buy arms to continue to defend itself.

It's all gone a bit shitty for Ukraine right now.

Why should we care I here you ask, well I'll copy and post an explanation below that I've recently seen that I thought explains it well.

Denys Prokopenko
@D_Redis
Lt. Colonel Commander of the 12th Special Forces Brigade “Azov” of the National Guard of Ukraine.


Last week, there were two significant events in the world. First, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addressed one of the US strategic research institutes, The Heritage Foundation, with a speech in which the war in Ukraine took centre stage. Shortly thereafter, the US Senate did not pass a bill that included $60 billion in aid to Ukraine.

The differences between the positions of the NATO Secretary General and the foundation's leaders during the meeting at The Heritage Foundation, as well as the failed vote on aid to Ukraine in the US Senate, clearly outline the main problem areas that, unfortunately, remain a subject of debate and uncertainty for part of the Western establishment two years after the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The United States sees China, not the Russian Federation, as its main threat. On the one hand, in the long run, Washington's logic is clear: China's high level of technological development, extremely powerful mobilization resources, effective soft power in foreign policy, and rigid bureaucratic party system, multiplied by powerful statist propaganda, are much more worrisome to Americans than the rotten corruption system of Putin's Russia.

However, as Stoltenberg clearly hinted at in his speech, the war in Ukraine is part of a global confrontation front against the axis of Eastern dictatorships. It is here and now that they are testing the Western world's strength. Each time the US and NATO reduce or even stop supporting Ukraine, it will demonstrate weakness and indecisiveness, which could allow China to launch an attack on Taiwan and provide an opportunity for the Russian army to move further west. The Kremlin did not get its teeth kicked in after the annexation of Crimea, so it decided to invade in February 2022. If the West does not draw any conclusions and stops helping the Ukrainian Defence Forces, Russian tanks may appear in other, "unexpected" places.

The U.S. senators who did not support the bipartisan national security agreement are probably guided by the idea that the United States' own national interests should prevail over everything else. However, China and its allies have already taken note of the results of yesterday's vote. Sun Tzu wrote that the greatest military strategy is not to attack the enemy's army, but to destroy the enemy's plans and break its alliances. Perhaps the senators should have considered the national security of the United States from this perspective.

The NATO Secretary General's remark was also absolutely right about the enormous support (not any less and sometimes even more than the US) provided to Ukraine by its European allies. Europeans are well aware of the lessons of the twentieth century, so they understand the strategic importance of what a Ukrainian soldier is doing for the whole of Europe today. I have repeatedly said this and never tire of repeating it again and again: Ukraine is the shield of Europe, and it is Ukrainian soldiers who are the main reason why tens of millions of people can sleep peacefully in their peaceful countries behind our backs.

So, if Ukraine falls today, the price of security for the West will be much higher than all the costs of supporting our country in the war against Russia. It's not even about common human values, solidarity, and selfless mutual assistance. Ukraine's victory is beneficial for the United States and NATO. It was during the war in Ukraine that the alliance discovered that it did not have the capacity to produce the required amount of ammunition, which in the context of a war of attrition is an invaluable discovery. Solving this problem is directly related to jobs in the United States and Europe. And it is on the basis of the Ukrainian army's experience that the West will change its approaches to warfare, its algorithms and protocols, becoming stronger in the face of further dangers.

The future of the West is being decided not in a theoretical future confrontation with China, but on the lengthy front line of the current war in Ukraine.

The post-Yalta world is coming to an end. The breakdown of the existing order and the formation of new axes dictate the necessity of decisive steps.

The outcome of the war in Ukraine will determine not only whether Ukraine can become the military and political centre of the region, but also the geopolitical architecture of the future world as a whole. The challenges and tasks we face today are much more global than it might seem at first glance.

https://twitter.com/D_Redis/status/1755604639234617505

Not sure what is going on here?

In simple terms Trump's lot, led by the Speaker Mike Johnson deliberately blocked the US funding of $60 billion to supply arms and munitions to Ukraine, the bottom line being they run out of ammunition to defend themselves and the Russians have made huge gains because of it.

In the last week or so Russia has opened up another front and attacked Ukraine's boarder in the north.

Ukraine desperately needs to use western weapons to attack Russian forces in Russia that are shelling and bombing them - but the US and the EU won't permit it (The UK has).

Out of the blue about a month ago Johnson suddenly unblocked the bill and funding (and arms) immediately flooded into Ukraine and has helped to stem Russian advances.

Today Johnson has suddenly called for the US to allow Ukraine to use their weapons on Russian forces in Russia

He/they/Trump has gone from one extreme to another in less than a month?

Not sure what the politics behind all this is but the fucking about has been highly detrimental to Ukraine and cost a lot of unnecessary life's and the loss of a great deal of territory - indeed it had started to look very grim for them because they had severe munitions shortages and were close to being unable to defend themselves.

At least for now it looks as though the US is backing Ukraine again.