Raytheon CEO says the US provides real-time intel on the battlefield in Ukraine. “We see a Russian tank and that information gets fed to the Ukrainians…that’s something the Russians never contemplated.” The US is now in a direct confrontation with Russia.
- US real-time satellite intelligence
- US missiles and weapon systems
- US operators and remote control
- Ukrainian army bystanders
How do you call that? Sure, not at the full might of the US capabilities, thus "limiting" in a sense, but it's pretty clear who's running the game from one side.
To anyone actually paying attention and not just buying into Russian propaganda that claims Ukraine is not a real sovereign country, it's Ukraine and their military that are running things and achieving miracles. Unlike in Russia they don't force the military to carry out unrealistic political goals, they delegate. And the Ukrainian military has transformed greatly in the last 8 years.
I mean, you might as well, by that standard, say Russia is running both sides of the war, since Russia is Ukraine’s leading supplier of new (to Ukraine) armored vehicles since the war started.
I mean, the US government pays the salaries of Ukraine's government workers. They fund the Ukrainian GDP (which is basically zero without foreign aid). They supply 100% of new Ukrainian weapons (as domestic production of weapons is basically zero). You have tens of thousands of Polish troops trying to hold the line in Ukraine, and thousands of US, Canadian, Georgian mercenaries fighting there. The US and EU are 100% responsible for funding civil society and Ukraine's military.
The Ukrainian government at this point is unable to produce or fund anything on its own.
So in that case, you can be sure that the NATO is running the show, down to the company level.
Ukrainian generals are there along for the ride, to sit in briefings and be told by NATO what their next plan of action will be.
Between Zelensky's insistence that the information war take precedence over the war on the ground (e.g. he forbade Azov from surrendering in Mariupol until after the Eurovision Song contest, as he didn't want the optics of thousands of soldiers with their colorful historical tattoos interfere with the glory of Ukraine's victory in Eurovision. This resulted in hundreds of unnecessary deaths) -- and NATO micromanaging them -- I would not want to be a member of the Ukrainian general staff at the moment.
Domestic production is basically zero? Wasn't that the chief producer of weapons in the USSR, so what happened? And tens of thousands of Polish troops, really? And the US pays the salaries of Ukraine's government workers?
Fairly big wow factor on all this, but citation needed.
But yes, in the USSR days, Ukraine was an industrial giant. Not all of Ukraine, the industry was concentrated in Donbas. Western Ukraine was always poor in relation to the Southeast and East. That's a big part of why there is so much radicalism in Galicia.
Fun Fact: Since 1991, Ukraine has not built a single power plant, dam, electrical substation, locomotive, or major bridge. 100% of Ukraine's infrastructure is inherited from the Soviet era. But before the war, Ukraine did have industry. The war ended all that. Hard to have an industry when you have no electricity, your businesses are closed, your men are on the front and half your population has fled.
We can ask a separate question, which is why hasn't Ukraine built more infrastructure after 1991 but before the war? Even before 2014? Well, what happened to Ukraine is the same thing that happened to Russia -- the government fell apart and western-backed oligarchs carved up the country and created an incredibly corrupt and non-productive society. But unlike Russia, there was no Ukrainian version of Putin to reign the oligarchs in, so they continued on that Yelstin economic path, leading Ukraine, which used to be one of the richest areas of the Soviet Union, to have 1/3 the GDP per capita of Russia now. Ukrainians, most of whom are intelligent and have college degrees, were earning $150 a month and dreaming of cleaning toilets in Germany. That's what happens when you adopt Western neoliberal "reforms". Even before the war, Ukraine was basically tied with Moldova (another post-Soviet republic that adopted Western reforms).
I think you forgot to try to back up the bit about how the US pays government workers. And the bit about tends of thousands of Polish soldiers too, come to think of it.
And the bit you did try to back up... I googled for the first story I could thought I'd read about industry there when the war started. I found https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wirtschaft/fnord,SyvASJz which is about the same thing (you'll probably need to use Google Translate) and you'll note that it says "west". Did I just have a stroke of luck to happen upon a story about what you say is the less indistrialised part of the country? It sort of makes your story sound less plausible when the first reality check is so implausible.
I don't know why you claim the oligarchs are western backed when they're locals. Or why you claim Putin is a departure from Yeltsin, Oligarchs told Yeltsin to appoint Putin as his chosen successor in exchange Putin protected him from corruption charges. The only real difference in Russia's economy since then is oil and gas. Putin reigned in oligarchs in terms of political influence but he largely let them keep their money and industries (occasionally breaking one like a piggy bank for the loose change). He also made many KGB men very wealthy/as influential as you can get under a dictator. Russia has utterly failed in reigning in corruption or nurturing any non hydrocarbon industry. Russian programmers had already been leaving Russia long before the war.
Ukraine had a strong democratic movement and was trying to actually purge corruption as hard as it was. It's also hard to grow when a neighbor invades and tries to steal many of your industrial cities and wrecks their industry.
> I don't know why you claim the oligarchs are western backed when they're locals.
Because I use words correctly that you apparently struggle with. If they weren't locals, they would be western oligarchs. As they are locals, they are merely western-backed oligarchs. I am unsure why you think "backed" means they must be westerners.
When the USSR dissolved, the ruble collapsed and Russia's state assets were sold for dollars. Those who had close relationships -- backing -- of western financial institutions and wealthy elites could buy up Russia's state owned enterprises for literally pennies on the dollar, as long as they had dollars. Jumbo jets loaded with pallets of dollars were flown from New York to Moscow, and used to buy up Russian oil, forest, fishing, coal, diamond, gas, and gold companies in a firesale. If the global reserve currency was CNY, and anyone who had the backing of Beijing elites could purchase Russian assets for pennies on the Yuan, then I would say "Eastern-backed". But that's not what happened, it was the western backed elites who became oligarchs. I am not sure why you think the fact that they were locals didn't mean that they weren't western-backed.
> Or why you claim Putin is a departure from Yeltsin
You might as well say "I don't know why you claim that the Soviet Union was socialist". Please study some history. The entire reason why the US hates Putin is because he held a meeting with the oligarchs and told them they could keep their gains under Yeltsin, but going forward they needed to stay out of politics and start paying taxes, including paying royalties on export of Russian oil. He also began to renationalize the most important companies. He put an end to the money spigot in which all of Russia's resources were being sold to profit both the oligarchs, and their actual financial backers in the West. The Russian state didn't receive royalties on the sale of oil and mineral wealth for the decade following the collapse of the USSR, it all went to Exxon, various western banks, and the various oligarchs who brokered these deals. Putin changed all that, and all of a sudden the Russian state began receiving tax revenue, pensions started being paid again, the state came alive, and household incomes more than tripled. Life expectancy began to go up. The West has never forgiven him for this. Those oligarchs who didn't accept these conditions fled to their backers in the West and began agitating for the overthrow of Putin and a return to Yeltsin-style looting. They are portrayed in the Western media as "pro-democracy" billionaires. Some went to Ukraine, which remained on the Yeltsin path, with oligarchs fielding private militias, refusing to pay taxes, and funneling money back to their western backers. Any time there was even a hint of someone like Putin winning an election in Ukraine that would put an end to this resource extraction game, NATO went in and overthrew them in a coup. This is why Ukraine, which used to be the wealthiest province in the USSR, has 1/3 the income per capita of Russia now, and is tied with Moldova for being the poorest nation in Europe (Moldova another former soviet republic controlled by "pro-democracy" forces). It's not because the Ukrainians are less capable or less educated, but because they are under the thumbs of western-backed oligarchs that loot the country, and NATO is their enforcer.
By "subvert democracy", you mean "oppose the latest NATO coup" -- e.g. "promote democracy". And Medvechuk is hardly an oligarch (although he is wealthy). He is not even a billionaire - the oligarchs were all billionaires, at least at their peak. Trillions worth of resources were plundered by the West during the Yeltsin era. Although it is true that those oligarchs who took Putin's deal and agreed to start paying taxes and stay out of politics can be called "former western-backed" and some may have even warmed to him although as a group they still remain enemies. I said Putin "reigned in"
the oligarchs, not "eliminated them". Seriously, at this point, I need to disengage, but please study the history of this region.
