[CompSci87]

We're straying rather far into domestic politics here.

[CompSci87]

We're straying rather far into domestic politics here.

[BigJohn043]

And foreign aid almost always polls really poorly.

The public believes we spend much more on foreign aid than we actually do.  They want us to spend less than what they believe we spend, but more than what we actually spend.



Though the above is from 2010, the effect is pretty consistent over time.  A majority of Americans support funding Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan (even mores if the "Reagan Doctrine" is articulated: "The United States has historically provided security assistance to help its allies and friends defend themselves if they are willing to fight aggression against their own countries.")

https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-...nse-survey

BC

First, I think talking about foreign aid in general and Ukraine aid in particular isn't terribly political.  Or at least it doesn't break down along party partisan lines.

I broadly agree with your comment that foreign aid is an issue that the American public doesn't really understand the facts about.  One of many.  Here is a survey that shows that Americans support foreign aid policies but don't want to pay for them:

https://globalaffairs.org/about-us/press...-paying-it

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

[BigJohn043]

And foreign aid almost always polls really poorly.

The public believes we spend much more on foreign aid than we actually do.  They want us to spend less than what they believe we spend, but more than what we actually spend.



Though the above is from 2010, the effect is pretty consistent over time.  A majority of Americans support funding Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan (even mores if the "Reagan Doctrine" is articulated: "The United States has historically provided security assistance to help its allies and friends defend themselves if they are willing to fight aggression against their own countries.")

https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-...nse-survey

BC

First, I think talking about foreign aid in general and Ukraine aid in particular isn't terribly political.  Or at least it doesn't break down along party partisan lines.

I broadly agree with your comment that foreign aid is an issue that the American public doesn't really understand the facts about.  One of many.  Here is a survey that shows that Americans support foreign aid policies but don't want to pay for them:

https://globalaffairs.org/about-us/press...-paying-it

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

[Goose]

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

While it may be true that trying to convince the public that any particular policy is "good" and "necessary" by talking about it may fail, not talking about it surely will. It would be reasonable to say that if a policy is not popular and the public cannot be convinced to go along with it different means needs to be adopted to accomplish the necessary goal. Unfortunately it is almost always true these "different means" have serious problems of their own. Iran contra comes to mind :-). They also seldom work. The "heavy lift" of changing public opinion is sometimes a necessary part of leadership.

[Goose]

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

While it may be true that trying to convince the public that any particular policy is "good" and "necessary" by talking about it may fail, not talking about it surely will. It would be reasonable to say that if a policy is not popular and the public cannot be convinced to go along with it different means needs to be adopted to accomplish the necessary goal. Unfortunately it is almost always true these "different means" have serious problems of their own. Iran contra comes to mind :-). They also seldom work. The "heavy lift" of changing public opinion is sometimes a necessary part of leadership.

[Mick]

We're straying rather far into domestic politics here.

Countdown to thread shutdown, 10...9...8...

[Mick]

We're straying rather far into domestic politics here.

Countdown to thread shutdown, 10...9...8...

[TrumpCard]

Backing away from politics, here’s a sobering update from the battlefield:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/world...g%20morale.

[TrumpCard]

Backing away from politics, here’s a sobering update from the battlefield:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/world...g%20morale.

[Genuine Realist]

Backing away from politics, here’s a sobering update from the battlefield:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/world...g%20morale.

I think the attention span of the public on any armed conflict is soimewhat limited, a problem for democracies, but one that comes with the territory.

[Genuine Realist]

Backing away from politics, here’s a sobering update from the battlefield:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/world...g%20morale.

I think the attention span of the public on any armed conflict is soimewhat limited, a problem for democracies, but one that comes with the territory.

[BigJohn043]

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

While it may be true that trying to convince the public that any particular policy is "good" and "necessary" by talking about it may fail, not talking about it surely will. It would be reasonable to say that if a policy is not popular and the public cannot be convinced to go along with it different means needs to be adopted to accomplish the necessary goal. Unfortunately it is almost always true these "different means" have serious problems of their own. Iran contra comes to mind :-). They also seldom work. The "heavy lift" of changing public opinion is sometimes a necessary part of leadership.

Foreign aid has never been popular.  We do it because smart and well informed people on both sides of the aisle realize that it is way cheaper and more effective than the alternatives.  It is also small enough that the general public doesn't really care.

Biden doesn't need to give speeches on Ukraine.  He needs to convince some of the more responsible Rs that it is the right thing to do.  Better yet, convince Trump.  Speeches won't do that.

[BigJohn043]

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

While it may be true that trying to convince the public that any particular policy is "good" and "necessary" by talking about it may fail, not talking about it surely will. It would be reasonable to say that if a policy is not popular and the public cannot be convinced to go along with it different means needs to be adopted to accomplish the necessary goal. Unfortunately it is almost always true these "different means" have serious problems of their own. Iran contra comes to mind :-). They also seldom work. The "heavy lift" of changing public opinion is sometimes a necessary part of leadership.

Foreign aid has never been popular.  We do it because smart and well informed people on both sides of the aisle realize that it is way cheaper and more effective than the alternatives.  It is also small enough that the general public doesn't really care.

Biden doesn't need to give speeches on Ukraine.  He needs to convince some of the more responsible Rs that it is the right thing to do.  Better yet, convince Trump.  Speeches won't do that.

[dabigv13]

It's unrealistic to think Biden can convince Trump of the necessity of Ukrainian aid. Might as well wish Biden could turn the sky green.

Maybe more gruesome Russian atrocities will move the needle for pro-aid Republican congressmen if there is good footage for the news. Maybe then a few will sign onto a discharge petition or the speaker will allow the bill the senate passed to get a vote. Right now many R's are talking about getting aid to Ukraine, enough that a petition would pass, but none has signed onto it.

Otherwise I think the odds for further US aid are bleak through the election in November.

[dabigv13]

It's unrealistic to think Biden can convince Trump of the necessity of Ukrainian aid. Might as well wish Biden could turn the sky green.

Maybe more gruesome Russian atrocities will move the needle for pro-aid Republican congressmen if there is good footage for the news. Maybe then a few will sign onto a discharge petition or the speaker will allow the bill the senate passed to get a vote. Right now many R's are talking about getting aid to Ukraine, enough that a petition would pass, but none has signed onto it.

Otherwise I think the odds for further US aid are bleak through the election in November.

[TrumpCard]

Progress on issues like this tends to happen all at once.  It may appear for a while that there's no resolution on the horizon, and then, suddenly, we might have a bill that the Speaker will introduce.  Maybe a signed discharge petition will be necessary to precipitate that progress.  Maybe there won't be any progress at all until year end or longer.  I, however, remain sanguine because a clear majority of both houses of Congress wants Ukraine aid to pass.  I keep trying to get out of the predictions business, but I think we won't see many hints of what's happening behind the scenes unless/until a resolution becomes imminent.

[TrumpCard]

Progress on issues like this tends to happen all at once.  It may appear for a while that there's no resolution on the horizon, and then, suddenly, we might have a bill that the Speaker will introduce.  Maybe a signed discharge petition will be necessary to precipitate that progress.  Maybe there won't be any progress at all until year end or longer.  I, however, remain sanguine because a clear majority of both houses of Congress wants Ukraine aid to pass.  I keep trying to get out of the predictions business, but I think we won't see many hints of what's happening behind the scenes unless/until a resolution becomes imminent.

[Goose]

It's unrealistic to think Biden can convince Trump of the necessity of Ukrainian aid. Might as well wish Biden could turn the sky green.

Totally agree, unfortunately.

Maybe more gruesome Russian atrocities will move the needle for pro-aid Republican congressmen if there is good footage for the news. Maybe then a few will sign onto a discharge petition or the speaker will allow the bill the senate passed to get a vote. Right now many R's are talking about getting aid to Ukraine, enough that a petition would pass, but none has signed onto it.

And maybe if pro-aid Republican congressmen got a lot of letters from their constituents saying that said constituents are pro aid as well then a few more will sign onto a discharge petition or push the speaker to allow the bill the senate passed (or any similar bill) to get a vote. Undoubtedly there are some (too many) congressmen who are not pro-aid. There are also quite a few that are pro-aid but are afraid to say so. Constituent pressure, especially if it comes from donors, can provide backbone.

Biden and the rest of the administration can help with this constituent pressure. It may not succeed "globally" but it doesn't have to. It only has to move the needle "enough".

Otherwise I think the odds for further US aid are bleak through the election in November.

Agree. Unfortunately. That's why all that can be done must be done to make it not happen.

---

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

While it may be true that trying to convince the public that any particular policy is "good" and "necessary" by talking about it may fail, not talking about it surely will. It would be reasonable to say that if a policy is not popular and the public cannot be convinced to go along with it different means needs to be adopted to accomplish the necessary goal. Unfortunately it is almost always true these "different means" have serious problems of their own. Iran contra comes to mind :-). They also seldom work. The "heavy lift" of changing public opinion is sometimes a necessary part of leadership.

Foreign aid has never been popular.  We do it because smart and well informed people on both sides of the aisle realize that it is way cheaper and more effective than the alternatives.  It is also small enough that the general public doesn't really care.

I think it is important to not conflate military assistance with foreign aid. IMO what you say above is correct. Many "people on the street" think foreign aid is a handout and is ineffective. However, historically many of those same people have supported both military assistance and eventual military intervention. Military assistance has historically been an easier sell and had a more "right wing" support. The opposition to  military assistance has traditionally from the left who wanted more foreign aid and less "lethal" aid. The opposition from the left regarding Ukraine is not the problem.

Biden doesn't need to give speeches on Ukraine.  He needs to convince some of the more responsible Rs that it is the right thing to do.
Better yet, convince Trump.  Speeches won't do that.

Convincing many of the"more responsible Rs" is indeed a goal. Speeches may do that, or at least will raise the issue. However, giving the "more responsible but less courageous" Rs a political reason to support military assistance to Ukraine is what is most needed. Constituent pressure can do that. Speeches can generate constituent pressure. I am all for the supporters of whatever party working "behind the scenes" to make it happen. I am also all for the same group working on center stage to make it happen. It is the result that matters.

[Goose]

It's unrealistic to think Biden can convince Trump of the necessity of Ukrainian aid. Might as well wish Biden could turn the sky green.

Totally agree, unfortunately.

Maybe more gruesome Russian atrocities will move the needle for pro-aid Republican congressmen if there is good footage for the news. Maybe then a few will sign onto a discharge petition or the speaker will allow the bill the senate passed to get a vote. Right now many R's are talking about getting aid to Ukraine, enough that a petition would pass, but none has signed onto it.

And maybe if pro-aid Republican congressmen got a lot of letters from their constituents saying that said constituents are pro aid as well then a few more will sign onto a discharge petition or push the speaker to allow the bill the senate passed (or any similar bill) to get a vote. Undoubtedly there are some (too many) congressmen who are not pro-aid. There are also quite a few that are pro-aid but are afraid to say so. Constituent pressure, especially if it comes from donors, can provide backbone.

Biden and the rest of the administration can help with this constituent pressure. It may not succeed "globally" but it doesn't have to. It only has to move the needle "enough".

Otherwise I think the odds for further US aid are bleak through the election in November.

Agree. Unfortunately. That's why all that can be done must be done to make it not happen.

---

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

While it may be true that trying to convince the public that any particular policy is "good" and "necessary" by talking about it may fail, not talking about it surely will. It would be reasonable to say that if a policy is not popular and the public cannot be convinced to go along with it different means needs to be adopted to accomplish the necessary goal. Unfortunately it is almost always true these "different means" have serious problems of their own. Iran contra comes to mind :-). They also seldom work. The "heavy lift" of changing public opinion is sometimes a necessary part of leadership.

Foreign aid has never been popular.  We do it because smart and well informed people on both sides of the aisle realize that it is way cheaper and more effective than the alternatives.  It is also small enough that the general public doesn't really care.

I think it is important to not conflate military assistance with foreign aid. IMO what you say above is correct. Many "people on the street" think foreign aid is a handout and is ineffective. However, historically many of those same people have supported both military assistance and eventual military intervention. Military assistance has historically been an easier sell and had a more "right wing" support. The opposition to  military assistance has traditionally from the left who wanted more foreign aid and less "lethal" aid. The opposition from the left regarding Ukraine is not the problem.

Biden doesn't need to give speeches on Ukraine.  He needs to convince some of the more responsible Rs that it is the right thing to do.
Better yet, convince Trump.  Speeches won't do that.

Convincing many of the"more responsible Rs" is indeed a goal. Speeches may do that, or at least will raise the issue. However, giving the "more responsible but less courageous" Rs a political reason to support military assistance to Ukraine is what is most needed. Constituent pressure can do that. Speeches can generate constituent pressure. I am all for the supporters of whatever party working "behind the scenes" to make it happen. I am also all for the same group working on center stage to make it happen. It is the result that matters.

[81alum]

However, giving the "more responsible but less courageous" Rs a political reason to support military assistance to Ukraine is what is most needed. Constituent pressure can do that. Speeches can generate constituent pressure. I am all for the supporters of whatever party working "behind the scenes" to make it happen. I am also all for the same group working on center stage to make it happen. It is the result that matters.

Many of those Rs believe that Trump will defeat Biden, and Biden's anemic poll numbers reinforce their views.  Why should they risk their careers when they are convinced that the new administration will cut off Ukraine in less than a year?  Ukraine in their minds is already lost, and so there is no reason to "show courage" in a hopeless cause.

To get the Rs in Biden districts, and other residual hawkish Rs on board, Biden will have to start looking more like an 8 year President and Trump will have to start looking like he can't win.  That could happen, but it certainly has not so far. 

In short, the Rs in Congress are behaving very much like Trump and not Biden is the sitting President and likely to be reelected.  Trump is enjoying the benefits usually reserved for an incumbent--at least with his own party.

[81alum]

However, giving the "more responsible but less courageous" Rs a political reason to support military assistance to Ukraine is what is most needed. Constituent pressure can do that. Speeches can generate constituent pressure. I am all for the supporters of whatever party working "behind the scenes" to make it happen. I am also all for the same group working on center stage to make it happen. It is the result that matters.

Many of those Rs believe that Trump will defeat Biden, and Biden's anemic poll numbers reinforce their views.  Why should they risk their careers when they are convinced that the new administration will cut off Ukraine in less than a year?  Ukraine in their minds is already lost, and so there is no reason to "show courage" in a hopeless cause.

To get the Rs in Biden districts, and other residual hawkish Rs on board, Biden will have to start looking more like an 8 year President and Trump will have to start looking like he can't win.  That could happen, but it certainly has not so far. 

In short, the Rs in Congress are behaving very much like Trump and not Biden is the sitting President and likely to be reelected.  Trump is enjoying the benefits usually reserved for an incumbent--at least with his own party.

[Goose]

Many of those Rs believe that Trump will defeat Biden, and Biden's anemic poll numbers reinforce their views.  Why should they risk their careers when they are convinced that the new administration will cut off Ukraine in less than a year?  Ukraine in their minds is already lost, and so there is no reason to "show courage" in a hopeless cause.

To get the Rs in Biden districts, and other residual hawkish Rs on board, Biden will have to start looking more like an 8 year President and Trump will have to start looking like he can't win.  That could happen, but it certainly has not so far. 

In short, the Rs in Congress are behaving very much like Trump and not Biden is the sitting President and likely to be reelected.  Trump is enjoying the benefits usually reserved for an incumbent--at least with his own party.

I would modify your statement above to "Many of those Rs believe that Trump MAY defeat Biden, and Biden's anemic poll numbers reinforce their views.  Why should they risk their careers when they are convinced that the new administration MAY cut off Ukraine in less than a year?". One doesn't have to believe it is a certainty or even more probable than not to question taking a risk. It comes down to "Which is more risky, voting for Ukraine aid or doing nothing?". Doing nothing looks way better to many.

IMO there is a much more proximate problem that worries Rs who might/do support Ukraine aid even more than who wins the presidential election. They too face an election, and whether Trump wins in November or not, he will FOR CERTAIN condemn anybody who votes for Ukraine aid RIGHT NOW. This poses an immediate loss of votes and subsequent loss of job for Rs both in the primary and in the general (if they get that far). IMO these Rs need to fear loss of votes from pro-Ukraine aid constituents is also a big threat. In purple districts this could be a serious consideration. All incumbent politicians this time of year are in "survival" mode. The hope is that some who are afraid of the consequences of a "yes" vote can be made equally aware of similar consequences of a "no" vote (or no vote at all). One big reason the speaker is under pressure to not let the bill onto the floor is that many Rs would then be forced to pick a side publicly and visibly, and they would rather not do that.

[Goose]

Many of those Rs believe that Trump will defeat Biden, and Biden's anemic poll numbers reinforce their views.  Why should they risk their careers when they are convinced that the new administration will cut off Ukraine in less than a year?  Ukraine in their minds is already lost, and so there is no reason to "show courage" in a hopeless cause.

To get the Rs in Biden districts, and other residual hawkish Rs on board, Biden will have to start looking more like an 8 year President and Trump will have to start looking like he can't win.  That could happen, but it certainly has not so far. 

In short, the Rs in Congress are behaving very much like Trump and not Biden is the sitting President and likely to be reelected.  Trump is enjoying the benefits usually reserved for an incumbent--at least with his own party.

I would modify your statement above to "Many of those Rs believe that Trump MAY defeat Biden, and Biden's anemic poll numbers reinforce their views.  Why should they risk their careers when they are convinced that the new administration MAY cut off Ukraine in less than a year?". One doesn't have to believe it is a certainty or even more probable than not to question taking a risk. It comes down to "Which is more risky, voting for Ukraine aid or doing nothing?". Doing nothing looks way better to many.

IMO there is a much more proximate problem that worries Rs who might/do support Ukraine aid even more than who wins the presidential election. They too face an election, and whether Trump wins in November or not, he will FOR CERTAIN condemn anybody who votes for Ukraine aid RIGHT NOW. This poses an immediate loss of votes and subsequent loss of job for Rs both in the primary and in the general (if they get that far). IMO these Rs need to fear loss of votes from pro-Ukraine aid constituents is also a big threat. In purple districts this could be a serious consideration. All incumbent politicians this time of year are in "survival" mode. The hope is that some who are afraid of the consequences of a "yes" vote can be made equally aware of similar consequences of a "no" vote (or no vote at all). One big reason the speaker is under pressure to not let the bill onto the floor is that many Rs would then be forced to pick a side publicly and visibly, and they would rather not do that.

[TrumpCard]

There’s safety after the primaries and safety in numbers. By mid-March, a group of ~8 GOP members of congress, showing unity on the issue, will be insulated from attack.

[TrumpCard]

There’s safety after the primaries and safety in numbers. By mid-March, a group of ~8 GOP members of congress, showing unity on the issue, will be insulated from attack.

[81alum]

There’s safety after the primaries and safety in numbers. By mid-March, a group of ~8 GOP members of congress, showing unity on the issue, will be insulated from attack.

That is right.  What the discharge petition will need will be a small group of Republicans who are in Biden districts and who have finished their own primaries.  At that point they may fear the general election more than they fear Trump.  It is quite possible for Trump to win and to lose control of the House, so fear begins to balance fear.

I also don't know the foreign policy views of retiring members like Ken Buck, but they would be potential signers.

[81alum]

There’s safety after the primaries and safety in numbers. By mid-March, a group of ~8 GOP members of congress, showing unity on the issue, will be insulated from attack.

That is right.  What the discharge petition will need will be a small group of Republicans who are in Biden districts and who have finished their own primaries.  At that point they may fear the general election more than they fear Trump.  It is quite possible for Trump to win and to lose control of the House, so fear begins to balance fear.

I also don't know the foreign policy views of retiring members like Ken Buck, but they would be potential signers.

[Goose]

There’s safety after the primaries and safety in numbers. By mid-March, a group of ~8 GOP members of congress, showing unity on the issue, will be insulated from attack.

Insulated from attack? Not at all. The attacks will still come. They still have a general election to contest, but what may then be true is that the attacks will be much less effective. If their district is "purple" enough, the attacks will not matter in the general, although they possibly would have in the primaries.

The equation should be simple. It is pretty much accepted that the majority of the public supports military assistance to Ukraine. Therefore, voting that way would get you votes. The problem is that that majority isn't uniform across the country. There are districts where Ukraine aid isn't popular. However there are many more districts where Ukraine aid is at least 50/50 where Trump's condemnation all by itself, no matter what the issue, will cost you votes. These districts are the ones where constituent "yes" pressure may overwhelm the fear of  losing the "mandate of heaven" :-). We need all the votes we can get even to ensure there is a vote at all.

[Goose]

There’s safety after the primaries and safety in numbers. By mid-March, a group of ~8 GOP members of congress, showing unity on the issue, will be insulated from attack.

Insulated from attack? Not at all. The attacks will still come. They still have a general election to contest, but what may then be true is that the attacks will be much less effective. If their district is "purple" enough, the attacks will not matter in the general, although they possibly would have in the primaries.

The equation should be simple. It is pretty much accepted that the majority of the public supports military assistance to Ukraine. Therefore, voting that way would get you votes. The problem is that that majority isn't uniform across the country. There are districts where Ukraine aid isn't popular. However there are many more districts where Ukraine aid is at least 50/50 where Trump's condemnation all by itself, no matter what the issue, will cost you votes. These districts are the ones where constituent "yes" pressure may overwhelm the fear of  losing the "mandate of heaven" :-). We need all the votes we can get even to ensure there is a vote at all.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hunga...45480.html

[sarcasm] What a surprise! [/sarcasm]

I did think they might wait a "decent interval" before formalizing this agreement, but I suspect Orbán wanted payment "up front". He also probably needed the good publicity and an excuse to twist some arms in parliament (if needed). In reality, I doubt Sweden required much convincing. Having more users for their aircraft cuts their costs too. Also, Hungary does pay for maintenance, although probably not at "full retail".  So now, at long last, the vote to allow Sweden into NATO will pass and it will become a "done deal".

Of course, the US military may or may not have the money to do our part in the integration of Sweden into NATO. I am sure it was budgeted, but by now it might have gone other places.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hunga...45480.html

[sarcasm] What a surprise! [/sarcasm]

I did think they might wait a "decent interval" before formalizing this agreement, but I suspect Orbán wanted payment "up front". He also probably needed the good publicity and an excuse to twist some arms in parliament (if needed). In reality, I doubt Sweden required much convincing. Having more users for their aircraft cuts their costs too. Also, Hungary does pay for maintenance, although probably not at "full retail".  So now, at long last, the vote to allow Sweden into NATO will pass and it will become a "done deal".

Of course, the US military may or may not have the money to do our part in the integration of Sweden into NATO. I am sure it was budgeted, but by now it might have gone other places.

[TrumpCard]

I know it would never happen, but it would give Russia a taste of its own medicine if Germany and/or Poland were to take the position that Kaliningrad is historically Genmanic/Polish/Prussian and that Russia has no business being there.

[TrumpCard]

I know it would never happen, but it would give Russia a taste of its own medicine if Germany and/or Poland were to take the position that Kaliningrad is historically Genmanic/Polish/Prussian and that Russia has no business being there.

[Goose]

I know it would never happen, but it would give Russia a taste of its own medicine if Germany and/or Poland were to take the position that Kaliningrad is historically Genmanic/Polish/Prussian and that Russia has no business being there.

Actually, Poland has already taken that position. Germany has been mute on the issue. So what? Doing anything about it is the problem. That will never happen, unless Russia falls completely apart or, miracle of miracles, they realize that basing the Baltic Fleet there isn't worth the money and gives it up voluntarily. Kaliningrad's only purpose is military. It does (or did, not as much now) have a very dense air defense net and has the ability to launch many cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles into much of Europe. They also undoubtedly have some number of nuclear warheads there, whether they "own up to it" (which occasionally they have) or not. It is a major money sink, and most of the weaponry installed there is needed just to protect the fleet base and Kaliningrad itself. However, at this point touching it in any way will certainly start a major war.

[Goose]

I know it would never happen, but it would give Russia a taste of its own medicine if Germany and/or Poland were to take the position that Kaliningrad is historically Genmanic/Polish/Prussian and that Russia has no business being there.

Actually, Poland has already taken that position. Germany has been mute on the issue. So what? Doing anything about it is the problem. That will never happen, unless Russia falls completely apart or, miracle of miracles, they realize that basing the Baltic Fleet there isn't worth the money and gives it up voluntarily. Kaliningrad's only purpose is military. It does (or did, not as much now) have a very dense air defense net and has the ability to launch many cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles into much of Europe. They also undoubtedly have some number of nuclear warheads there, whether they "own up to it" (which occasionally they have) or not. It is a major money sink, and most of the weaponry installed there is needed just to protect the fleet base and Kaliningrad itself. However, at this point touching it in any way will certainly start a major war.

[dabigv13]

Russia lost another A-50 AWACS. Some impressive footage in this thread of the plane shooting off flares and trying to avoid. One missile explodes a distance away, but another takes it out. 

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/176...47199?s=20

The range from front, ~210km, seemed to be longer than known PAC2 Patriot interceptor distance. Some rumor that an old S-200 system could have done it. Or maybe it was the Russians, as they claim.

[dabigv13]

Russia lost another A-50 AWACS. Some impressive footage in this thread of the plane shooting off flares and trying to avoid. One missile explodes a distance away, but another takes it out. 

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/176...47199?s=20

The range from front, ~210km, seemed to be longer than known PAC2 Patriot interceptor distance. Some rumor that an old S-200 system could have done it. Or maybe it was the Russians, as they claim.

[Goose]

Russia lost another A-50 AWACS. Some impressive footage in this thread of the plane shooting off flares and trying to avoid. One missile explodes a distance away, but another takes it out. 

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/176...47199?s=20

The range from front, ~210km, seemed to be longer than known PAC2 Patriot interceptor distance. Some rumor that an old S-200 system could have done it. Or maybe it was the Russians, as they claim.

All true. However, it has long been suspected that the Patriot ranges were intentionally understated. I find it hard to credit that the Russians shot down their own AWACS. If I am a Russian missile battery I wouldn't be in a hurry to fire at a target with a large radar cross section. Ukraine doesn't have any of those, and if they did they wouldn't get anywhere "near" a Russian missile battery. Also, who in their right mind fires off flares to deflect/confuse a radar guided SAM? The guys on the A-50 should know if they are being illuminated. Chaff yes. Flares no. Makes one wonder about both the video and/or the Russian "cover story". Could it have been a Russian fighter that did it?

[Goose]

Russia lost another A-50 AWACS. Some impressive footage in this thread of the plane shooting off flares and trying to avoid. One missile explodes a distance away, but another takes it out. 

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/176...47199?s=20

The range from front, ~210km, seemed to be longer than known PAC2 Patriot interceptor distance. Some rumor that an old S-200 system could have done it. Or maybe it was the Russians, as they claim.

All true. However, it has long been suspected that the Patriot ranges were intentionally understated. I find it hard to credit that the Russians shot down their own AWACS. If I am a Russian missile battery I wouldn't be in a hurry to fire at a target with a large radar cross section. Ukraine doesn't have any of those, and if they did they wouldn't get anywhere "near" a Russian missile battery. Also, who in their right mind fires off flares to deflect/confuse a radar guided SAM? The guys on the A-50 should know if they are being illuminated. Chaff yes. Flares no. Makes one wonder about both the video and/or the Russian "cover story". Could it have been a Russian fighter that did it?