All Things Russia & Ukraine

[CU88]

Wait a second. Let's go ez on the Pinto. I purchased a 'gently used 74 Pinto station wagon in 1977 for $2500 with 45k miles, (after a 6 mos waiting list for a new Honda Accord, then being told I'd have to pay an extra $500 to the dealer for paying sticker price for the Accord). Pinto wagon was a great little car -- peppy, tight 4 on the floor, stayed in the family for 10 years, passing 150k miles. Simple enough to do routine maint myself. The Pinto wagon was a great little hauler with back seat down, room to stretch out & sleep when camping or driving x-country. The extra body work of the station wagon provided the necessary crush zone that negated the exploding fuel tank hazard of the coupe. It was a much better car than it's successor -- an '81 Datsun B-210 wagon, which immediately became a rust bucket because of faulty designed rear wheel well body panel ledges.

What color was your Pinto? My wifes family had a pea green that I fear will come back to cars some day, just brutal.
We had a '79 Datsun 510 hatchback that ended up being a camp "truck" for hauling firewood. Ran FOREVER, but it was indeed a rust bucket after years of winter road salt in central NY.

I laugh when I think about Ralph Nader saying the automakers chose "style over safety"; I know he was right, but man was he so wrong...

Gold metallic w/ saddle tan interior. Looked sharp.

this one is brown metallic => https://driveshare.com/car/1974-ford-pinto-2128/

I can feel that synthetic leather burning and sticking to the back of my thighs!

[DocBarrister]

Russians pretty much confirmed two things: (1) they want to control most of Ukraine; and (2) they are not interested in peace until they do.

LONDON (Reuters) -Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that Moscow's military "tasks" in Ukraine now went beyond the eastern Donbas region, in the clearest acknowledgment yet that it has expanded its war goals.

In an interview with state media nearly five months after Russia's invasion, the foreign minister also said peace talks made no sense at the moment because Western governments were leaning on Ukraine to fight rather than negotiate.

https://news.yahoo.com/lavrov-says-russ ... 26193.html

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Four major points in this article: (1) Putin wants to control all of Ukraine; (2) the Russian military has made marginal gains at high cost since refocusing its efforts to Eastern Ukraine; (3) Russia is having trouble maintaining and replacing military equipment and parts; and (4) a U.S. general believes Russia could lose all of its territorial gains by 2023.

Still, NATO and the West warned that Russia still wanted to conquer all of Ukraine. The Kremlin announced earlier on Wednesday that its geographical goals in Ukraine are shifting as it plans to annex more territory beyond the Donbas region.

But Milley's comments on Wednesday underscore how brutal and slow-moving the five-month-long war has become — with shifting frontlines and a mounting death toll.

"The cost is very high. The gains are very low. There is a grinding war of attrition," Milley said. "The Ukrainians are making the Russians pay for every inch of territory that they gain. Advances are measured in literally hundreds of meters — some days you might get a kilometer or two from the Russians, but not much more than that."

Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of the US Army in Europe, told Insider that Russia lacks the resources and capabilities to make "meaningful progress" in Ukraine.

And with continued support from the West with weapons deliveries, he said, Ukraine could even wipe out Russia's territorial gains by 2023.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia- ... 2022-7?amp

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Lavrov is signalling to the EUroburghers that Russia will settle for the DPR, LPR, & the southern bridge to Crimea territory they now hold.

The more long range weapons the west provides, the more missiles Russia will lob into the rest of Ukraine.

WRM is using my lingo :
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wokeness-i ... 1657569787

Wokeness Is Putin’s Weapon
Russia and China capitalize on the West’s moral and political confusion.
by Walter Russell Mead, July 11, 2022

Five months into the war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s army continues to flounder. Kyiv’s defenders are making up for their smaller numbers and artillery shortages with better commanders, smarter tactics, higher morale and, increasingly, better weapons as Western high-tech arms reach the battlefield.

Mr. Putin has had the most success, paradoxically, in the domains of economics and politics, where the West thought its power was strongest. Fears that a Russian gas embargo could cripple European economies and leave comfortable German burghers freezing in the dark next winter have replaced hopes that Western sanctions would bring Moscow to its knees. Thoroughly intimidated by the consequences of an economic war with Russia, Germany is beginning to weasel out of its pledges to increase defense spending.

Similarly, the early Western optimism that values would unite the world against Russian aggression has fizzled. Led by China and joined by India and Brazil, countries around the world are choosing trade with Russia over solidarity with the Group of Seven.

Unfortunately, the West’s increasingly “woke” values agenda is not as credible or as popular as liberals hope. President Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia this week reminds the world of the limits on Western commitments to human rights. Many values dear to the hearts of Western cultural leaders (LGBTQ rights, abortion on demand, freedom of speech understood as allowing unchecked Internet pornography) puzzle and offend billions of people around the world who haven’t kept up with the latest hot trends on American campuses. Attempts by Western financial institutions and regulators to block financing for fossil-fuel extraction and refining in developing countries enrage both elites there and the public at large.

Moreover, the liberal West’s new, post-Judeo-Christian values agenda divides the West. Culture wars at home don’t promote unity overseas. If Mr. Biden, with the support of the European Parliament, makes abortion on demand a key element of the values agenda of the world order, he is more likely to weaken American support for Ukraine than to unite the world against Mr. Putin.

The moral and political confusion of the contemporary West is the secret weapon that the leaders of Russia and China believe will bring the American world order to its knees. Messrs. Putin and Xi might be wrong; one certainly hopes that they are. But their bet on Western decadence has been paying off handsomely for more than a decade. Western survival and global flourishing require more thought and deeper change than the Biden administration and its European allies can currently imagine.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Lavrov is signalling to the EUroburghers that Russia will settle for the DPR, LPR, & the southern bridge to Crimea territory they now hold.

The more long range weapons the west provides, the more missiles Russia will lob into the rest of Ukraine.

Ukraine dealt with worse the previous 5 months than they are now. Doesn't seem like they will capitulate.

Russia was lobbing missiles into all of Ukraine long before the west provided new weapons. Now Russia is suffering more.

Wonder what Ukraine will settle for.

What more would you like Ukraine to give up to Russia?

I fought against Russia when it mattered. O6 out.

[old salt]

Lavrov is signalling to the EUroburghers that Russia will settle for the DPR, LPR, & the southern bridge to Crimea territory they now hold.

The more long range weapons the west provides, the more missiles Russia will lob into the rest of Ukraine.

WRM is using my lingo :
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wokeness-i ... 1657569787

Wokeness Is Putin’s Weapon
Russia and China capitalize on the West’s moral and political confusion.
by Walter Russell Mead, July 11, 2022

Five months into the war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s army continues to flounder. Kyiv’s defenders are making up for their smaller numbers and artillery shortages with better commanders, smarter tactics, higher morale and, increasingly, better weapons as Western high-tech arms reach the battlefield.

Mr. Putin has had the most success, paradoxically, in the domains of economics and politics, where the West thought its power was strongest. Fears that a Russian gas embargo could cripple European economies and leave comfortable German burghers freezing in the dark next winter ...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-g ... eatst_pos3

Germany’s Energy Crisis and Surrender
Putin won’t shut off the country’s supply of gas because he already has what he wants.
by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., July 19, 2022.

Here are the reasons Russia will turn the gas back on for Germany after the 10-day maintenance shutdown of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which would normally be expected to end the middle of this week. German newspapers and politicians have been fretting that Vladimir Putin will make the shut-off permanent, sending the German economy reeling.

Mr. Putin won’t shut off Germany’s gas because it wouldn’t improve his position. He understands democratic society well enough to know that no elected government can be seen submitting to naked blackmail by a foreign dictator. In wrecking the German economy, Mr. Putin would only earn for Russia 100 years of German hostility, and we know how that goes.

More importantly, Mr. Putin already has gotten the best terms from the Berlin government of Olaf Scholz he’s going to get in his present quandary, with Germany slow-walking aid to Ukraine, providing the stop-loss Mr. Putin needs.

Ukraine won’t get enough weapons and ammunition to threaten Russia’s occupation in the east and annexation of Crimea if Germany can help it. Mr. Putin will be spared the choice he clearly wishes to avoid, having to rebuild his depleted forces with a general call-up of Russian sons, husbands and boyfriends whose enthusiasm for the Ukrainian war does not extend to wanting to participate in it personally.

There’s also the overarching consideration: Mr. Putin is leery of doing anything that would finally break the long spell of Western stupidity that has served him so well.

Germany’s status, after all, as a self-immolator and co-conspirator plays a major role in its present situation. In a shallow gesture of green appeasement, its politicians shut down their nuclear plants, making themselves more dependent on Russian gas to prop up their subsidized, unreliable windmills and solar arrays, which of course have no effect on global climate and don’t even significantly reduce Germany’s emissions.

This stupidity is Western-wide and an asset to Mr. Putin. Witness a New York Times headline on Sunday that, in typical fashion, refers to climate change “cooking” the planet, a ludicrous image, false to the science, needlessly polarizing and contributing nothing to intelligent policy choices, which aren’t even on the table (though plenty of corrupt green pork-barrel is).

This prevailing Western politics of stupidity hangs over us all, and Angela Merkel, not a stupid person, was its godhead. Triumphantly navigating Germany’s coalition politics for two decades, she served a remarkable 16 years as chancellor and won four federal elections through a series of incoherent gestures that, as this column pointed out five years ago, never solved any real problem and sought primarily to delay disaster until somebody else’s watch.

Such is the model of success that Western politicians now aspire to. It’s clear this Merkelist straddling and deviousness in indecision will remain the prevailing norm of German politics under her successor Mr. Scholz, enabled, it’s important to note in the present case, by the one unalloyed victory so far, Ukraine’s stopping of Mr. Putin on his way to Kyiv.

Only this victory allows Mr. Putin’s European treaters (in Germany and France) to argue that Mr. Putin has been sufficiently defeated and deterred, and to see themselves as the true adults in the crisis who are working in the world’s interest to stabilize Mr. Putin’s regime for him.

In this they are likely kicking yet another can down the Merkelist road but there’s one thing that still can be done and should be. Mr. Putin, with his recent show of jaunty confidence, clearly wants to tell his people everything is fine, the war will not widen. This makes the moment propitious for the NATO reflagging exercise that would not so much break Russia’s blockade of southern Ukraine as cause Mr. Putin to pretend there never was a blockade in his alternatingly murderous and pathetic quest to save face.

The important battle today is in the south, not the east. If the Ukrainian national project is to survive and not become a hopeless basket case for Western charity, it needs to control its southern coast and ports that are crucial to a functioning economy. The West missed an opportunity to exploit Mr. Putin’s panic when his early plan failed and he feared his army might disintegrate. The West is missing an opportunity now to take advantage of his desire to be seen counting (and exaggerating) his winnings in eastern Ukraine.

Use the moment to take away his longer-term hope of keeping Ukraine economically on its knees by pushing aside a blockade that exists more because of the West’s unwillingness to challenge it than Mr. Putin’s willingness to enforce it. The Ukraine restoration project will be on stronger legs. Thankful U.S. taxpayers won’t have to foot so much of the bill for the long struggle ahead.

[old salt]

Lavrov is signalling to the EUroburghers that Russia will settle for the DPR, LPR, & the southern bridge to Crimea territory they now hold.

The more long range weapons the west provides, the more missiles Russia will lob into the rest of Ukraine.

Ukraine dealt with worse the previous 5 months than they are now. Doesn't seem like they will capitulate.

Russia was lobbing missiles into all of Ukraine long before the west provided new weapons. Now Russia is suffering more.

Wonder what Ukraine will settle for.

What more would you like Ukraine to give up to Russia?

I fought against Russia when it mattered. O6 out.

Ukraine does not need to capitulate. A cease fire & frozen conflict allows Ukraine to survive, rebuild & rearm, to deter futher Russian incursions, so long as they retain the port cities of Odesa & Mykolaiv. They can start to rebuild their Navy, Air Force & air defenses.

Russia would settle for the Donbas, the land bridge to Crimea, & the ports on the Sea of Azov.

That status quo could be defended by both sides.

Putin could claim that he recovered Novorossiya & the Crimea.

Refugees could return, easing the stress on EU nations.

Anxiety over EU energy supply & grain exports would cease, boosting the global economy.

[old salt]

I fought against Russia when it mattered. O6 out.

From behind the Foreign Affairs paywall. I only got 1 free look.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... t=20220720

How to Break Russia’s Black Sea Blockade
The World Must Act to Address the Global Food Crisis
by Mark Cancian, July 1, 2022

The world is facing a global food crisis brought on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine’s agricultural products are critical for global food security—Russia and Ukraine account for 13 percent and 8.5 percent of the world’s wheat exports, respectively—and sanctions against Russia, as well as Moscow’s naval blockade of Ukraine’s sea ports, have taken these vital exports off the market. As a result, millions of people are at risk of experiencing acute food insecurity, particularly in the developing world. The stakes are high: a food crisis on this scale could lead to catastrophic global hunger, fuel political instability in countries that depend on grain imports, and send shock waves throughout the global economy.

The international community has military and diplomatic options to ease this looming crisis, but all have downsides. NATO could use its formidable navies and extensive air power to escort Ukrainian grain ships. But a treaty known as the Montreux Convention limits the size of the force that can enter the Black Sea, and Russia might oppose convoys with its own naval arsenal, most likely by using mines and submarines. Alternative approaches, such as third-party convoys or shipping grain from non-Ukrainian Black Sea ports, would be less provocative but would still hinge on Russian acquiescence.

There are, in short, no easy fixes to this crisis. But difficult as the choices may be, the West cannot simply ignore the problem. Eventually, should hunger grow widespread and lead to political instability, there will be mounting pressure on the West to act. The United States and its allies must have a plan in place—even an imperfect one—if they wish to avoid a global disaster that could spiral out of control.

BACK TO SHORE
One way of circumventing Russia’s naval blockade and freeing up shipments of Ukraine’s agricultural exports would be to route them overland. With the help of neighboring countries such as Poland and Romania, Ukraine has already turned to roads and railways to ship grain. These methods of transport offer one major advantage: Russia lacks the ability to interdict such movement. Although rail lines are, in theory, vulnerable to attacks by missiles or aircraft, such interdiction is very hard to pull off for an extended period. As the Allies learned in World War II when they attempted to disrupt German and Japanese railways, rail lines are relatively easy to repair—one simply fills in craters and lays new tracks―so attacks must be continual. Russia lacks the means to carry out this approach: the country has depleted its arsenal of high-precision missiles necessary for such an assault, and its air force does not venture deep enough into Ukrainian territory to strike the rail lines bringing grain to European ports.

Unfortunately, Ukraine’s rail system lacks the capacity to make up for the loss of sea trade. Moving the entirety of Ukraine’s food exports—estimated at 30 million tons of grain—would require 100 shiploads, compared with a whopping 300,000 rail carloads. Some calculations suggest that it would take 14 months to move all the grain by rail but only four months by sea. Given the scale of the undertaking, a ground-shipment approach is a useful interim measure, but it is not a long-term solution to the developing food crisis.

TROUBLED WATERS
NATO could seek to break Russia’s naval blockade by providing convoys for merchant ships headed to Ukrainian ports, which would provide the rapid flow of food that the world needs. But this strategy would face several obstacles, foremost being Russia’s significant naval forces, which would have the capacity to attack any Western ships that intervene in the conflict. Russia’s Black Sea fleet currently has five frigates, some amphibious ships, dozens of coastal-defense craft, and most important, six new Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines. These submarines, the most advanced in the Russian inventory, were constructed with sophisticated quieting measures, incorporate an advanced sonar, and are armed with torpedoes, cruise missiles, and mines. Russia also has antiship missiles based in Crimea with ranges of at least 200 miles, but its recent abandonment of Snake Island opens a lower-risk zone in the west.

Russia’s grip on the Black Sea is not absolute: the loss of the Moskva, Russia’s flagship Black Sea missile cruiser, in April dealt a serious blow to Moscow’s ability to control Ukrainian waters. Although the Moskva had little capability against land targets and could not help with attacks on Ukrainian ground forces and infrastructure, it had 16 massive antiship missiles that would have dominated naval combat in the Black Sea had that occurred. As global attention turns toward Ukraine’s sea ports, the Russian military will feel the loss of the Moskva acutely.

NATO, however, will be limited in its ability to loosen Russia’s grip on the Black Sea because of the Montreux Convention. The 1936 agreement regulates maritime traffic in the Turkish straits linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. It allows unrestricted access to merchant vessels, and relatively free passage to Black Sea countries, but limits the size and number of warships that can transit the straits and the length of deployments by non–Black Sea countries. That caps the West’s ability to move forces into the area: non–Black Sea nations are each limited to a maximum weight of 30,000 tons, an aggregate total of 45,000 tons, and a stay of no more than 21 days. The convention also prohibits submarines from non–Black Sea nations, thus sidelining one of NATO’s great naval strengths. The United States is not a signatory to the Montreux Convention, so in theory these rules do not apply to the U.S. Navy. Washington has, nonetheless, complied with the agreement out of consideration for the rules-based international order and in deference to Turkey, a fellow NATO member.

Moscow’s naval blockade of Ukraine’s sea ports has taken Ukraine’s vital food exports off the market.
Ultimately, use of the straits will depend on Ankara, which could, in theory, bend the rules to facilitate a NATO naval buildup. But given Turkey’s relatively neutral stance in the conflict, its reluctance to jeopardize relationships with either Russia or the West, and its historical unwillingness to undermine the convention, the restrictions will likely hold. At most, Turkey might be willing to interpret some provisions flexibly, but such a concession would likely come at a high cost for the West, such as the provision of economic assistance, relief from some sanctions, or turning a blind eye to human rights violations.

NATO could work within the limitations set by the convention, which does permit some force buildup. The 45,000-ton restriction on vessels from external powers would allow about five destroyers. A U.S. DDG-51 class destroyer, an advanced multimission warship, would account for about 9,000 tons; a British Type 45 destroyer, which is also suited for a wide variety of tasks, would account for about 7,350 tons. Given the 30,000-ton cap on a single country’s forces, the United States could send three destroyers, and other countries such as Great Britain or France could send the other two. These five ships could provide a powerful escort for merchant ships carrying Ukrainian grain notwithstanding their limited numbers.

NATO could also bring its considerable air power to bear. Assuming that Romania and Bulgaria cooperate by providing bases and allowing NATO aircraft to fly over their territory, NATO’s airpower would dominate Russian surface forces and air forces in the Black Sea region—and help with the undersea battle.

IF THE SHOOTING BEGINS
If NATO sailed convoys to Ukrainian ports, it might have to contend with a Russian attack. Given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s repeated warnings to NATO to not intervene in the conflict, it seems unlikely that he would let a NATO convoy break Russia’s blockade without taking some kind of action. Russia would also have a strategic advantage in that it would not need to interdict all cargo movement. An attrition rate of even 25 percent would likely be more than NATO and maritime shippers would be willing to tolerate.

Russia would most likely use naval mines and submarines to attack the grain convoys, since these weapons are not only effective but also covert and deniable, which would mitigate the blame assigned for shooting first. Russia has already sown undersea mines in the approaches to Ukrainian ports. Ukraine could try to sweep them, but that would require a slow and painstaking search by small and vulnerable vessels. Further complicating the matter is the fact that Ukraine has also mined its coastline to defend against Russian forces; it would not be difficult for Moscow to point fingers at Kyiv should a mine damage a grain ship.

Russia’s grip on the Black Sea is not absolute.
The six Kilo-class submarines in Russia’s Black Sea fleet would pose the biggest threat to convoys, given that they are quiet and well armed. They could attack with torpedoes, launch cruise missiles from outside the escorts’ effective reach, or lay mines in the path of a convoy. Ground-based antiship missiles from Crimea could snipe at ships, and a major battle would likely erupt as NATO tried to suppress the Russian missile batteries. Other Russian forces would be unlikely to participate in any substantial way. Russia’s weak surface forces would not be a match for even a limited NATO escort. They could try sniping at convoy ships from close to shore, but that would expose them to Ukrainian antiship missiles and NATO airpower. Russia could also use its substantial air forces, but these are fully engaged in the ground war and have performed poorly thus far.

If Russia chose to contest the convoys, the world would likely find out when explosions rocked a grain ship. Russia would deny any involvement, claiming that the ship had hit a Ukrainian mine. NATO could accept Russian denials of involvement and try a different approach, should it wish to avoid further escalation. Alternatively, it could begin a naval campaign to clear mines and defeat Russian submarines. In that case, a naval shooting war would ensue.

Such a war would devolve into a series of convoy battles as NATO worked to push cargo vessels through the Russian blockade. There would be ample opportunity for such skirmishes given that a convoy sailing at a standard 12 knots would take about a day to sail from the port of Odessa to the straits. The outcome of such a battle would be uncertain because there is no modern precedent for a naval engagement between peer competitors. Unlike warfare in the air and on the ground, few naval engagements have occurred since the end of World War II. It is likely that NATO, with its powerful ships and its massive air power advantage, would prevail—perhaps quickly, perhaps after an extended series of convoy battles. But many NATO nations will not have the stomach for a direct military confrontation with Russia and all the risks of escalation that would inevitably bring, even if it could break Moscow’s blockade and relieve the mounting food crisis.

SAFER BETS
A less confrontational option would be to enlist non-NATO countries to provide escorts and cargo ships. A country like Egypt, which depends heavily on imported grain, might be willing to take on the risks a convoy would entail. This indirect approach would avoid a Russian narrative of NATO aggression and lean heavily on the humanitarian argument of relieving hunger. Ultimately, however, this is a diplomatic calculation because these third-party countries likely do not have the military capability to fight Russia effectively.

Ukraine could transport grain by rail to the Romanian port of Costanta, which is only 190 miles from Odessa, and from there, ship it by sea using third-party vessels. This would avoid any direct connection with Ukraine and the war, thus allowing Russia some distance if it wanted to avoid a confrontation. Russia might not be willing to let such a scheme slide, however, in the face of sanctions against its own exports.

Difficult as the choices may be, the West cannot simply ignore the problem.
The United States could take a direct approach by registering, or reflagging, merchant vessels as American ships, so that Russia would have to attack U.S. vessels to enforce the blockade. There is a precedent for such a move: the United States reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to provide U.S. naval protection during the Iran-Iraq War in 1987–88 to ensure the continued flow of oil. This is a risky strategy, though; even during the tanker war, these reflagged tankers were subject to sniping and mining, and they needed escorts as a result, regardless of their redesignated nationality. Russia likewise might not be deterred by this tactic.

There are also diplomatic options that could be worth pursuing. Putin, for instance, has stated that Russia would allow shipments from Ukraine under some conditions. One could imagine a ship-for-ship agreement, in which one merchant ship from Ukraine would be allowed to engage in international trade in exchange for one ship from Russia doing so. This t!t-for-tat proposal has gained little traction, given that it would provide Russia substantial financial resources and constitute a precedent for lifting sanctions. Still, Western nations have been reluctant to risk military confrontation, and the global food situation will grow increasingly dire. A diplomatic approach might win international support over time.

Countries depending on Ukrainian and Russian grain likely have enough supplies to last for a while, and their stores are being boosted by Western aid in the short term. There are no current reports of hunger. But over the longer term, the status quo will prove untenable. Should the war continue, dwindling supplies will cause shortages and food riots that could lead to social and regime instability. The West will face mounting pressure to act. Global hunger may not be acute yet, but when it hits, it will hit hard. It is the responsibility of NATO and the West to have a plan in place before the shortage becomes a crisis.

[DocBarrister]

Lavrov is signalling to the EUroburghers that Russia will settle for the DPR, LPR, & the southern bridge to Crimea territory they now hold.

The more long range weapons the west provides, the more missiles Russia will lob into the rest of Ukraine.

WRM is using my lingo :
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wokeness-i ... 1657569787

Wokeness Is Putin’s Weapon
Russia and China capitalize on the West’s moral and political confusion.
by Walter Russell Mead, July 11, 2022

Five months into the war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s army continues to flounder. Kyiv’s defenders are making up for their smaller numbers and artillery shortages with better commanders, smarter tactics, higher morale and, increasingly, better weapons as Western high-tech arms reach the battlefield.

Mr. Putin has had the most success, paradoxically, in the domains of economics and politics, where the West thought its power was strongest. Fears that a Russian gas embargo could cripple European economies and leave comfortable German burghers freezing in the dark next winter have replaced hopes that Western sanctions would bring Moscow to its knees. Thoroughly intimidated by the consequences of an economic war with Russia, Germany is beginning to weasel out of its pledges to increase defense spending.

Similarly, the early Western optimism that values would unite the world against Russian aggression has fizzled. Led by China and joined by India and Brazil, countries around the world are choosing trade with Russia over solidarity with the Group of Seven.

Unfortunately, the West’s increasingly “woke” values agenda is not as credible or as popular as liberals hope. President Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia this week reminds the world of the limits on Western commitments to human rights. Many values dear to the hearts of Western cultural leaders (LGBTQ rights, abortion on demand, freedom of speech understood as allowing unchecked Internet pornography) puzzle and offend billions of people around the world who haven’t kept up with the latest hot trends on American campuses. Attempts by Western financial institutions and regulators to block financing for fossil-fuel extraction and refining in developing countries enrage both elites there and the public at large.

Moreover, the liberal West’s new, post-Judeo-Christian values agenda divides the West. Culture wars at home don’t promote unity overseas. If Mr. Biden, with the support of the European Parliament, makes abortion on demand a key element of the values agenda of the world order, he is more likely to weaken American support for Ukraine than to unite the world against Mr. Putin.

The moral and political confusion of the contemporary West is the secret weapon that the leaders of Russia and China believe will bring the American world order to its knees. Messrs. Putin and Xi might be wrong; one certainly hopes that they are. But their bet on Western decadence has been paying off handsomely for more than a decade. Western survival and global flourishing require more thought and deeper change than the Biden administration and its European allies can currently imagine.

Your use of the terms “DPR” and “LPR” is repugnant. Those are the illegal terms of the Russian invaders.

I cannot believe you are still siding with Putin and Russia after witnessing their war crimes and atrocities.

As for the article … why would the authors introduce anti-abortion rights far-right garbage into a discussion on Ukraine.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Lavrov is signalling to the EUroburghers that Russia will settle for the DPR, LPR, & the southern bridge to Crimea territory they now hold.

The more long range weapons the west provides, the more missiles Russia will lob into the rest of Ukraine.

Ukraine dealt with worse the previous 5 months than they are now. Doesn't seem like they will capitulate.

Russia was lobbing missiles into all of Ukraine long before the west provided new weapons. Now Russia is suffering more.

Wonder what Ukraine will settle for.

What more would you like Ukraine to give up to Russia?

I fought against Russia when it mattered. O6 out.

Ukraine does not need to capitulate. A cease fire & frozen conflict allows Ukraine to survive, rebuild & rearm, to deter futher Russian incursions, so long as they retain the port cities of Odesa & Mykolaiv. They can start to rebuild their Navy, Air Force & air defenses.

Russia would settle for the Donbas, the land bridge to Crimea, & the ports on the Sea of Azov.

That status quo could be defended by both sides.

Putin could claim that he recovered Novorossiya & the Crimea.

Refugees could return, easing the stress on EU nations.

Anxiety over EU energy supply & grain exports would cease, boosting the global economy.

“Russia would settle for the Donbas, the land bridge to Crimea, & the ports on the Sea of Azov.”—OS

Why would you believe that?

That assertion is completely contrary to reality.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Your use of the terms “DPR” and “LPR” is repugnant. Those are the illegal terms of the Russian invaders.

I cannot believe you are still siding with Putin and Russia after witnessing their war crimes and atrocities.

...& yet you introduced LPR & DPR into the discussion. They were used in the Reuters article you linked.
Do you even bother to read the stuff you link ?

I'm not siding with Putin any more than you are. I was interpreting Lavrov, based on the Reuters article you linked, using the same terminology the Reuters reporters & editors used.

Shame on you for bringing those repugnant terms into this august forum.

[DocBarrister]

Your use of the terms “DPR” and “LPR” is repugnant. Those are the illegal terms of the Russian invaders.

I cannot believe you are still siding with Putin and Russia after witnessing their war crimes and atrocities.

...& yet you introduced LPR & DPR into the discussion. They were used in the Reuters article you linked.
Do you even bother to read the stuff you link ?

I'm not siding with Putin any more than you are. I was interpreting Lavrov, based on the Reuters article you linked, using the same terminology the Reuters reporters & editors used.

Shame on you for bringing those repugnant terms into this august forum.

The Reuters article was quoting Lavrov’s use of the terms.

That’s very different from your use of the terms in your own post and your own comments.

You do recognize that the “LPR” and “DPR” are not real entities but rather terms employed by Russia’s propaganda machine? Why have you adopted their use? This is not the first time.

DocBarrister

[LaxFan2000]

Lavrov is signalling to the EUroburghers that Russia will settle for the DPR, LPR, & the southern bridge to Crimea territory they now hold.

The more long range weapons the west provides, the more missiles Russia will lob into the rest of Ukraine.

WRM is using my lingo :
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wokeness-i ... 1657569787

Wokeness Is Putin’s Weapon
Russia and China capitalize on the West’s moral and political confusion.
by Walter Russell Mead, July 11, 2022

Five months into the war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s army continues to flounder. Kyiv’s defenders are making up for their smaller numbers and artillery shortages with better commanders, smarter tactics, higher morale and, increasingly, better weapons as Western high-tech arms reach the battlefield.

Mr. Putin has had the most success, paradoxically, in the domains of economics and politics, where the West thought its power was strongest. Fears that a Russian gas embargo could cripple European economies and leave comfortable German burghers freezing in the dark next winter have replaced hopes that Western sanctions would bring Moscow to its knees. Thoroughly intimidated by the consequences of an economic war with Russia, Germany is beginning to weasel out of its pledges to increase defense spending.

Similarly, the early Western optimism that values would unite the world against Russian aggression has fizzled. Led by China and joined by India and Brazil, countries around the world are choosing trade with Russia over solidarity with the Group of Seven.

Unfortunately, the West’s increasingly “woke” values agenda is not as credible or as popular as liberals hope. President Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia this week reminds the world of the limits on Western commitments to human rights. Many values dear to the hearts of Western cultural leaders (LGBTQ rights, abortion on demand, freedom of speech understood as allowing unchecked Internet pornography) puzzle and offend billions of people around the world who haven’t kept up with the latest hot trends on American campuses. Attempts by Western financial institutions and regulators to block financing for fossil-fuel extraction and refining in developing countries enrage both elites there and the public at large.

Moreover, the liberal West’s new, post-Judeo-Christian values agenda divides the West. Culture wars at home don’t promote unity overseas. If Mr. Biden, with the support of the European Parliament, makes abortion on demand a key element of the values agenda of the world order, he is more likely to weaken American support for Ukraine than to unite the world against Mr. Putin.

The moral and political confusion of the contemporary West is the secret weapon that the leaders of Russia and China believe will bring the American world order to its knees. Messrs. Putin and Xi might be wrong; one certainly hopes that they are. But their bet on Western decadence has been paying off handsomely for more than a decade. Western survival and global flourishing require more thought and deeper change than the Biden administration and its European allies can currently imagine.

Your use of the terms “DPR” and “LPR” is repugnant. Those are the illegal terms of the Russian invaders.

I cannot believe you are still siding with Putin and Russia after witnessing their war crimes and atrocities.

As for the article … why would the authors introduce anti-abortion rights far-right garbage into a discussion on Ukraine.

DocBarrister

Are you seriously this much of a one-trick pony? Where is this poster "siding with Putin"?? Do you understand just how serious of claim that is you are making? JFC. It's no wonder posters seem to ignore your hyperbole because you are entirely more interested in the emotion of what you post than whether or not there is any fact or substance to it. Beyond strange...

[NattyBohChamps04]

Are you seriously this much of a one-trick pony? Where is this poster "siding with Putin"?? Do you understand just how serious of claim that is you are making? JFC. It's no wonder posters seem to ignore your hyperbole because you are entirely more interested in the emotion of what you post than whether or not there is any fact or substance to it. Beyond strange...

Talk about a one trick pony.

Are you ever gonna discuss any actual topics, or just your opinion of posters?

[a fan]

Unfortunately, the West’s increasingly “woke” values agenda is not as credible or as popular as liberals hope.

What a steaming pile of sh*t.

So now in 2022 assuming that NATO would function as intended is "woke"?

Do YOU believe this, Old Salt? All those hours you spent in the air was to defend "wokeness"?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Unfortunately, the West’s increasingly “woke” values agenda is not as credible or as popular as liberals hope.

What a steaming pile of sh*t.

So now in 2022 assuming that NATO would function as intended is "woke"?

Do YOU believe this, Old Salt? All those hours you spent in the air was to defend "wokeness"?

That mask slipped years ago…..Actually very very shortly after I first made contact with Old Soviet. My very early days on the politics forum. He wouldn’t remember. Had no reason to…. But I did.

[LaxFan2000]

Are you seriously this much of a one-trick pony? Where is this poster "siding with Putin"?? Do you understand just how serious of claim that is you are making? JFC. It's no wonder posters seem to ignore your hyperbole because you are entirely more interested in the emotion of what you post than whether or not there is any fact or substance to it. Beyond strange...

Talk about a one trick pony.

Are you ever gonna discuss any actual topics, or just your opinion of posters?

Want my opinion?? DocBarrister's post that I replied back to is more Anti-American than any post that OS has ever made. How's that?

[a fan]

Are you seriously this much of a one-trick pony? Where is this poster "siding with Putin"?? Do you understand just how serious of claim that is you are making? JFC. It's no wonder posters seem to ignore your hyperbole because you are entirely more interested in the emotion of what you post than whether or not there is any fact or substance to it. Beyond strange...

Talk about a one trick pony.

Are you ever gonna discuss any actual topics, or just your opinion of posters?

Want my opinion?? DocBarrister's post that I replied back to is more Anti-American than any post that OS has ever made. How's that?

No. What Doc wrote was boilerplate post WWII Conservative American, and that's why you're confused, because he's a Hillary-latte-liberal.

If you were against ANY war (or proxy war) that we fought since the 40's? You were labelled a hippy, called unpatriotic, and lectured to that "you just don't understand that the world is dangerous, and this is what we HAVE to do". Oh, and you didn't support our troops. Questioning war is bad.

And for all this time, it was conservative America lecturing to the hippies as to why (insert military intervention) was necessary to American security, and that if they didn't get it and didn't support it? They were stupid. And didn't support our troops.

Enter Trump, and "America first". Suddenly NATO is stupid, and giving weapons to Ukraine was stupid. And playing cop to the world is stupid. 60 years of foreign policy burnt to the ground.

So now it's (some) 2022 Republicans who are questioning why we're fighting a proxy war in Ukraine...after supporting every. single. proxy. war for 60 years without hesitation or any thought whatsoever.

So libs are confused, and don't get where the support for war went.

It would take you thousands of years to explain this to an alien from Mars.

[MDlaxfan76]

Question: what do you think will happen to Putin if he Ukrainian forces push him out of Russia, Doc? What do you think will happen to Putin if he "loses"?

...& what will that prompt Putin to do ?

Old Salt gets why I'm asking the question....

So, tell us what you think he will do...given that you don't think we can know what Putin thinks...

I do think my question set at the end, above, is big and hairy...

EDIT...looks like you just answered...

I. don't. know. No clue.

The ONLY thing I said is: I wouldn't bet against Putin using nukes if Ukraine manages to fulfill Doc's wishes and "win", and starts lobbing missiles into Russia. That's not even close to the same thing as "he'll use nukes for sure". I don't know what he'll do. And I don't know what he'll settle for in Ukraine.

Yeah, anything that is "settled for" with Putin is only temporary...that's the problem. He's never going to be permanently satisfied with only a partial 'win' toward his rather delusional aspirations. and any show of Western weakness, fecklessness only strengthens his propaganda hand, both internally and around the world.

And yeah, gotta be careful about the "lobbing"...I understand the Biden administration being careful...

I don’t think anyone is certain how this will all end.

I suspect Putin would level Kyiv and every other major city in Ukraine before he concedes defeat. That doesn’t mean he will use nukes, but that cannot be ruled out either.

Putin will not accept any “off-ramp” from Ukraine or the allies.

But he is already expressing fear that Ukraine will begin attacking Crimea.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threate ... 5383?amp=1

Putin will not accept anything less than territorial control over most of Ukraine and de facto control over the government in Kyiv. That much is clear.

It’s also clear that Ukraine will never accept that outcome, and neither will the United States, NATO, and the EU.

If I had to guess, and it is an informed but still speculative guess, I would surmise the end of the war looking like this ugly, tragic mess:

(1) Most major Ukrainian cities are leveled, including Kyiv;

(2) both the Russian and Ukrainian militaries are exhausted with little functional capability remaining;

(3) over 100,000 Russian troops are dead;

(4) over 100,000 Ukrainians are dead;

(5) President Zelensky may be dead after being killed in a Russian bombardment of Kyiv;

(6) Putin lives, but his power is markedly diminished as Russian military and security forces belatedly restrict his control over Russia; Putin is indicted at The Hague as a war criminal;

(7) the United States and its allies have spent over $100 billion supporting Ukraine; and

(8) Putin’s war concludes with a messy stalemate where both sides have essentially lost.

I hope Putin’s demise comes long before that, but I don’t think this speculative ending is completely unrealistic.

DocBarrister

well, that's the scenario of a Putin "win" in Ukraine. Decimation of the vassal state.

I give that a 25% likelihood at this point, albeit that low estimate is based on whether the US and NATO countries stay the course with more advanced weaponry and support, both with sanctions vs Russians and financial support for Ukraine.

The total amount of that support, I believe, is actually less if done sooner rather than later.

[MDlaxfan76]

Are you seriously this much of a one-trick pony? Where is this poster "siding with Putin"?? Do you understand just how serious of claim that is you are making? JFC. It's no wonder posters seem to ignore your hyperbole because you are entirely more interested in the emotion of what you post than whether or not there is any fact or substance to it. Beyond strange...

Talk about a one trick pony.

Are you ever gonna discuss any actual topics, or just your opinion of posters?

Want my opinion?? DocBarrister's post that I replied back to is more Anti-American than any post that OS has ever made. How's that?

"opinion" about a poster, no explanation as to the basis of the "opinion", and no substance on the topic thread.