All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

I say again. Is use THE Ukraine when referring to the Soviet Republic or the region of Russia before 1991.
Just as my fellow Cold Warriors did & some still do.

Ok, but what's your answer to the initial question?
Please don't make me guess.

And secondly, how about any time before 1917?

Pay attention & find out. Was 1917 before 1991 ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

Isn’t old salt’s rationale for using “the Ukraine” a bit akin to using the word “colored” (or worse) when referring to African Americans because that’s what they were called in the past?

What justification is there for using today a pejorative term like “the Ukraine” in any discussion here?

DocBarrister

That was exactly what I thought….decided not to mention it. I believe that was the term during those undergraduate days.

You guys have got to learn how to chill with the ad hominem attacks, unless you’re doing this little two-step fake simply to get a rise out of Old Salt so you can report him.

Just cause someone says ‘The Ukraine’ instead of Ukraine does not de facto make him a fully paid up member of the KKK. I mean, seriously?

Snowflake….Orientals was used back in those days too….doesn’t mean you should still use it….

I don’t use any of the terms you mentioned, including “the Ukraine”. I also don’t look askance at anyone who does. People aren’t one-dimensional like the woke insists for their bizarre jeremiad. Sheesh.

You mean the “rednecks”.

I actually do use that one, a lot. I live and work with tons of’em, and they quite like the term. I consider myself one, proudly. You’re free to refer to me as that from now on. I shall take zero offense.

I can not, however, speak for the rest of the board nor the owner.

I was wondering if it were your redneck friends that you don’t look askance at for using pejorative terms?

[old salt]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

Isn’t old salt’s rationale for using “the Ukraine” a bit akin to using the word “colored” (or worse) when referring to African Americans because that’s what they were called in the past?

What justification is there for using today a pejorative term like “the Ukraine” in any discussion here?

DocBarrister

When Chernobyl melted down did you think -- oh my, that's in Ukraine ?

[DocBarrister]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

Isn’t old salt’s rationale for using “the Ukraine” a bit akin to using the word “colored” (or worse) when referring to African Americans because that’s what they were called in the past?

What justification is there for using today a pejorative term like “the Ukraine” in any discussion here?

DocBarrister

That was exactly what I thought….decided not to mention it. I believe that was the term during those undergraduate days.

You guys have got to learn how to chill with the ad hominem attacks, unless you’re doing this little two-step fake simply to get a rise out of Old Salt so you can report him.

Just cause someone says ‘The Ukraine’ instead of Ukraine does not de facto make him a fully paid up member of the KKK. I mean, seriously?

Snowflake….Orientals was used back in those days too….doesn’t mean you should still use it….

It really comes down to whether one wants to offend or not.

Some do.

I cut those who don't know better some slack.
I was bit taken aback when I thought I heard Panetta slip...but he's getting quite old...84 now.
Old dogs...
found a video from a week ago in which he does many times...and that drew a lot of comments..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vf-quvc42Y

Andrea doesn't. And she's no spring chicken either.

That’s the important distinction. Even President Obama has inadvertently used the term “the Ukraine” in his statements. It happens.

Those occasional mistakes are very different from knowingly choosing to use a pejorative term.

DocBarrister

I argued with a friend about the movie Parasite. He continued to call it a Chinese movie after I had told him twice it was a Korean movie. He said he calls them all Chinese… I called him an a-hole because that’s what he is.

Heh heh. Much appreciated.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

Isn’t old salt’s rationale for using “the Ukraine” a bit akin to using the word “colored” (or worse) when referring to African Americans because that’s what they were called in the past?

What justification is there for using today a pejorative term like “the Ukraine” in any discussion here?

DocBarrister

That was exactly what I thought….decided not to mention it. I believe that was the term during those undergraduate days.

You guys have got to learn how to chill with the ad hominem attacks, unless you’re doing this little two-step fake simply to get a rise out of Old Salt so you can report him.

Just cause someone says ‘The Ukraine’ instead of Ukraine does not de facto make him a fully paid up member of the KKK. I mean, seriously?

Snowflake….Orientals was used back in those days too….doesn’t mean you should still use it….

It really comes down to whether one wants to offend or not.

Some do.

I cut those who don't know better some slack.
I was bit taken aback when I thought I heard Panetta slip...but he's getting quite old...84 now.
Old dogs...
found a video from a week ago in which he does many times...and that drew a lot of comments..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vf-quvc42Y

Andrea doesn't. And she's no spring chicken either.

That’s the important distinction. Even President Obama has inadvertently used the term “the Ukraine” in his statements. It happens.

Those occasional mistakes are very different from knowingly choosing to use a pejorative term.

DocBarrister

I argued with a friend about the movie Parasite. He continued to call it a Chinese movie after I had told him twice it was a Korean movie. He said he calls them all Chinese… I called him an a-hole because that’s what he is.

Heh heh. Much appreciated.

DocBarrister

Leon Panetta said "the Ukraine" 8 times in that 9 minute clip. How big a racist dpes that make him ?

You guys are so much better qualified than Panetta to opine on this. Way to focus on the important stuff.

[dislaxxic]

Is It Amnesia or Hypocrisy That Fuels the GOP’s Crazy Response to Putin?

In the midst of an international crisis created by Russia that could potentially trigger a war in Europe, Republicans and right-wingers on and off Fox News have pledged allegiance to…Vladimir Putin. At the least, they are siding with the Russian autocrat and trash-talking President Joe Biden’s effort to block his aggression. But there’s nothing surprising about the ongoing romance between conservatives and the democracy-crushing thug-leader of Russia, who has invaded Ukraine and violated international law. Anyone shocked by this has forgotten one of the key facts of the 21st century: Putin waged war on the United States, and Donald Trump and his party aided, abetted, and benefitted from that attack.

In recent days, as Putin has threatened a conflagration, top conservatives and GOP officials have practically pinned “I’m-with-Vlad buttons” onto their lapels. One example: Mike Pompeo, Trump’s final secretary of state and before that his CIA director, had only praise for the corrupt Russian autocrat, describing him as “talented” and “savvy.” Donald Trump, speaking to a conservative podcaster on Tuesday, hailed Putin’s moves in Ukraine as “genius.” Referring to Putin’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, Trump said, “Putin declares a big portion of…of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful…I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper…Here’s a guy who’s very savvy.” Later in the interview, Trump continued to gush: “I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great. He liked me. I liked him. I mean, you know, he’s a tough cookie, got a lot of the great charm and a lot of pride. But the way he—and he loves his country, you know? He loves his country.”

..

[old salt]

Is It Amnesia or Hypocrisy That Fuels the GOP’s Crazy Response to Putin?

Did Christopher Steele ghost write that for David Corn ?

[Peter Brown]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

Isn’t old salt’s rationale for using “the Ukraine” a bit akin to using the word “colored” (or worse) when referring to African Americans because that’s what they were called in the past?

What justification is there for using today a pejorative term like “the Ukraine” in any discussion here?

DocBarrister

That was exactly what I thought….decided not to mention it. I believe that was the term during those undergraduate days.

You guys have got to learn how to chill with the ad hominem attacks, unless you’re doing this little two-step fake simply to get a rise out of Old Salt so you can report him.

Just cause someone says ‘The Ukraine’ instead of Ukraine does not de facto make him a fully paid up member of the KKK. I mean, seriously?

Snowflake….Orientals was used back in those days too….doesn’t mean you should still use it….

I don’t use any of the terms you mentioned, including “the Ukraine”. I also don’t look askance at anyone who does. People aren’t one-dimensional like the woke insists for their bizarre jeremiad. Sheesh.

You mean the “rednecks”.

I actually do use that one, a lot. I live and work with tons of’em, and they quite like the term. I consider myself one, proudly. You’re free to refer to me as that from now on. I shall take zero offense.

I can not, however, speak for the rest of the board nor the owner.

I was wondering if it were your redneck friends that you don’t look askance at for using pejorative terms?

Pejorative like “The Ukraine”?!

Most of my fellas couldn’t spot Texas on a map, much less Ukraine. I’m thinking not only would I not care in the least if they said “The Ukraine”, I might be pleasantly surprised they even knew about the country.

But hey, DocB says “The Ukraine” = “a bit akin to using the word “colored” (or worse)”. Gotta love the left’s even tempered analysis!!!

[Brooklyn]

Ukrainians do NOT use "the Ukraine" because it has colonial connotations:


https://www.bing.com/search?q=ukrainian ... A1&PC=EE04

[Typical Lax Dad]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

Isn’t old salt’s rationale for using “the Ukraine” a bit akin to using the word “colored” (or worse) when referring to African Americans because that’s what they were called in the past?

What justification is there for using today a pejorative term like “the Ukraine” in any discussion here?

DocBarrister

That was exactly what I thought….decided not to mention it. I believe that was the term during those undergraduate days.

You guys have got to learn how to chill with the ad hominem attacks, unless you’re doing this little two-step fake simply to get a rise out of Old Salt so you can report him.

Just cause someone says ‘The Ukraine’ instead of Ukraine does not de facto make him a fully paid up member of the KKK. I mean, seriously?

Snowflake….Orientals was used back in those days too….doesn’t mean you should still use it….

I don’t use any of the terms you mentioned, including “the Ukraine”. I also don’t look askance at anyone who does. People aren’t one-dimensional like the woke insists for their bizarre jeremiad. Sheesh.

You mean the “rednecks”.

I actually do use that one, a lot. I live and work with tons of’em, and they quite like the term. I consider myself one, proudly. You’re free to refer to me as that from now on. I shall take zero offense.

I can not, however, speak for the rest of the board nor the owner.

I was wondering if it were your redneck friends that you don’t look askance at for using pejorative terms?

Pejorative like “The Ukraine”?!

Most of my fellas couldn’t spot Texas on a map, much less Ukraine. I’m thinking not only would I not care in the least if they said “The Ukraine”, I might be pleasantly surprised they even knew about the country.

But hey, DocB says “The Ukraine” = “a bit akin to using the word “colored” (or worse)”. Gotta love the left’s even tempered analysis!!!

I know what they can spot….. and you do too!

[MDlaxfan76]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

I say again. Is use THE Ukraine when referring to the Soviet Republic or the region of Russia before 1991.
Just as my fellow Cold Warriors did & some still do.

Ok, but what's your answer to the initial question?
Please don't make me guess.

And secondly, how about any time before 1917?

Pay attention & find out. Was 1917 before 1991 ?

ok, so you use the Soviet-style language for all of history prior to 1991...

BTW, you missed the fist question, again. Why not answer?

[old salt]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

What do you call Ukraine now?

Are you solely distinguishing the period under Soviet domination as "the Ukraine" but before and after not?

In other words, using the preferred Soviet expression, which Putin continues to use now...which he does on purpose to imply there is no sovereign Ukraine?

As I said, I understand why the slippage happens to those who grew up using that phrase, but I'm not sure I'm buying using it now unless one is SUPER clear that one is referring only to that period of time. It's insulting otherwise and signals affinity to the Putin POV.

I say again. Is use THE Ukraine when referring to the Soviet Republic or the region of Russia before 1991.
Just as my fellow Cold Warriors did & some still do.

Ok, but what's your answer to the initial question?
Please don't make me guess.

And secondly, how about any time before 1917?

Pay attention & find out. Was 1917 before 1991 ?

ok, so you use the Soviet-style language for all of history prior to 1991...

BTW, you missed the fist question, again. Why not answer?

I say again -- pay attention & find out. You're smart enough to break the code.

[old salt]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

You’re not even bothering to hide your pro-Putin bias anymore.

DocBarrister

You are confusing analysis with approval.

I believe you are misrepresenting your approval as analysis.

DocBarrister

Understand your enemy.

[DocBarrister]

I've been referring to the region & the Soviet Republic as THE Ukraine since my undergrad courses on Russian & Soviet history, as did my professors & classmates. That was followed by 20 years of reading about THE Ukraine in intel reports & tactical documents.
When we targeted Sevastopol & Odessa, we did not refer to them as part of "Ukraine".
I plan to continue to use THE Ukraine to make the distinction to which I am referring.

You’re not even bothering to hide your pro-Putin bias anymore.

DocBarrister

You are confusing analysis with approval.

I believe you are misrepresenting your approval as analysis.

DocBarrister

Understand your enemy.

Identify your enemy first.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Ruh Roh, just saw a video clip of Nancy Pelosi saying " I think one thing we all agree upon -- an attack on the Ukraine by the Russians is an attack on democracy."

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ruh Roh, just saw a video clip of Nancy Pelosi saying " I think one thing we all agree upon -- an attack on the Ukraine by the Russians is an attack on democracy."

[old salt]

Accurate analysis (6 days old), from Fred Kaplan :

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... raine.html

It is true that Putin’s acts of 2014—annexing Crimea and sending in troops to support separatist militias in the Donbass—were motivated by the ouster of Ukraine’s pro-Russia president and the growing desire of Kyiv’s new leaders to move out of Moscow’s orbit and join the European Union. However, as Putin has been told many times, the idea of Ukraine joining NATO, though much desired by President Volodymyr Zelensky, is not remotely on the alliance’s agenda; the “military infrastructure” in Ukraine consists of a few hundred U.S military personnel; and the weapons the West has been sending to Ukraine consist mainly of fairly basic anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles—nothing to support an offensive operation.

Russia’s document is on somewhat more solid ground in lashing out against NATO’s “enlargement” policy of the 1990s, in which the U.S.-led military alliance—emboldened by its Cold War victory—absorbed nearly every former member of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact (who all practically begged to join). Ukraine was pointedly not among those nations, in part because even the policy’s most ardent advocates recognized that bringing in Russia’s largest Western neighbor—a country with which it had centuries-old historical, economic, and cultural ties—would be too provocative. Then, in 2008, at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, President George W. Bush crossed that Rubicon, committing NATO to bringing in Ukraine and Georgia—another former Soviet republic left out of the previous decade’s enlargement—at some point in the undefined future.

The Russian foreign ministry’s document demands the repeal of Bush’s resolution, the halt of further eastward enlargement, and the removal of U.S. military forces from many of the former Soviet allies that joined NATO a quarter-century ago.

As M.E. Sarotte chronicles in her fascinating new book, Not One Inch, NATO managed to expand so vastly in the decade following the end of the Cold War only because Russia was too weak to put up a fuss. The last Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, let the first wave of expansion happen on assurances that it wouldn’t go much farther. The first Russian Federation president, Boris Yeltsin, allowed the next, much larger waves only because—to put it bluntly—President Bill Clinton and other Western leaders paid him off: giving Russia tens of billions of dollars, letting Russia join the G-7 and other international institutions (from which it was expelled after annexing Crimea), and treating it with the pomp and grandeur of a great empire, which it no longer was.

Putin witnessed this whole history up close, first as a KGB agent in East Germany when the Berlin Wall fell, then as Yeltsin’s last prime minister. Now as Russia’s president, he looks back on that era with deep resentment. And now that Russia is back on its feet, to some degree, he wants to undo its humiliations.

There are problems with this: The deed is done; much of it was sanctified in treaties signed by Russia’s leaders at the time; and, most important, NATO’s new members—the former supplicants of Moscow—were eager for the shield of its Article 5 protections (an attack on one member is an attack on all members) and will not give it up just because the Kremlin’s current vicar says so.

However, there’s no question, Russia did get screwed over, and it’s perfectly reasonable to convene a summit to discuss and deal with Russia’s legitimate security interests. Bush’s Bucharest declaration was a huge mistake. George Kennan, the architect of America’s Cold War policy of the 1940s and ’50s, called NATO’s expansion “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

The Russian statement is also right that, just as the Charter for European Security enshrines the right of states “to freely choose or change the methods of ensuring their security, including union treaties,” it also forbids states to strengthen their position “at the expense of the security of other states.” The U.S. cites the first clause to justify allowing Ukraine to join NATO, at least in principle. Russia cites the second clause to justify its desire to forbid Ukraine from doing so. There must be a way to satisfy both positions on this score—especially since, as President Joe Biden and every other Western leader has said (and as even Zelensky is beginning to absorb), Ukraine, as a practical matter, is not going to be allowed into NATO in the foreseeable future.

Or, as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz put it, after a meeting with Putin on Tuesday, “Everyone must step back a bit here and make it clear to themselves that we just can’t have a possible military conflict over a question that is not on the agenda.”

The Russian foreign ministry’s statement makes some reasonable proposals to revive arms control accords that President Donald Trump repealed. Good, let’s do that.

[Brooklyn]

Online reports indicate bombings on Kharkiv and Kyiv. Whether true or not, any "bombings" on Kyiv cannot be from Russia as that city is nowhere near the border. Any missile from Russia would have been seen on satellite. Either they are false flags or done by dissenters. Whatever happens, let's hope there will be peace.

[old salt]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/20/ru ... ine-biden/

If Russia launches a further invasion of Ukraine, as U.S. officials increasingly fear, its advance deeper into the country is likely to be complemented by missile salvos that would turn the skies above Kyiv, Ukraine, into an effective no-go zone: using short-range missiles to knock out Ukraine’s runways, airports, and fighters on the ground.

In fact, Russia already appears to be sending its Iskander missiles—precision-guided munitions the Russian military has fired in Syria—to the front lines, covered in tarps, according to videos revealed on TikTok this week. Weapons experts were able to discern the contours of the Iskander missiles from under the tarp.
The Iskander can be fired from the back of a modified truck bed and is accurate to within 30 feet when it’s hooked up to the latest suite of Russian radar systems.
But what makes this missile system particularly nerve-wracking in the context of an expanded invasion into Ukraine is its ability to evade missile defenses. It can correct its course mid-flight and has decoys on board to spoof defensive batteries (though those features have yet to be shown off in combat).

Open-source intrigue about the Iskander system appears to track with official assessments and satellite data. A Ukrainian Ministry of Defence assessment provided to media outlets on Wednesday indicated that Russia has now built 36 Iskander medium-range ballistic missile systems near Ukraine’s border, some of which may have the ability to hit Kyiv. Imagery shared with Foreign Policy by satellite research firm Maxar Technologies showed Russia bolstering tank and artillery deployments to the so-called Pogonovo training area, near the Ukrainian border.

Iskander batteries can fire both ballistic and cruise missiles, and experts believe Russia is more than capable of saturating Ukrainian air defenses. And the missile systems could have a protective shell of Russian S-400 air defense batteries that the Kremlin could roll toward the front lines.

“Iskanders are devastating if used appropriately,” said Dara Massicot, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation who studies Russian military capabilities. “They would target things like airfields or army bases. They’re so destructive.”

But what has really caught the eye of experts is the collection of firepower alongside which Iskanders could be arrayed, such as self-propelled multiple rocket launchers like the BM-27 Uragan and heavy flamethrowers like the TOS-1 that can be mounted on a tank’s framework. “It would just disaggregate and disorganize the Ukrainian defenses, basically,” Massicot said.

The firepower Russia could bear on Ukraine, like the Iskander, has deep historical roots. Before World War II, Soviet generals envisioned a style of combat they called “deep battle,” which would drive Russian armor behind enemy lines to encircle their opponents. That came to life on the battlefield with the use of Katyusha rockets on the Eastern Front. With rapid technological advances during the Cold War, that idea evolved further, with the Soviets championing precision strikes to attack NATO forces far from the Berlin Wall, marrying the revolution of precision weapons and microcircuitry that had defined the space race.

But by the 1990s, it was clear the United States had managed to beat the crumbling Soviet Union at their own game. In Operation Desert Storm, during the First Gulf War, the United States used precision strikes from the air, alongside self-propelled artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, to take out most of then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s tank forces in a matter of days.

U.S. Defense Department officials only saw Russia begin to make major strides in precision strike capabilities in the early 2000s, after the seemingly blossoming relationship between Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin and the West had begun to sour. (The Iskander first entered into service in 2006 and was updated by 2012, but the missiles have seen relatively little use in combat.) In some parts of the U.S. military, this is seen as part of a pattern on the Kremlin’s part: using bigger guns to compensate for relatively inferior training.

In contrast to NATO, which primarily drops precision-guided munitions from the air, the Russians are using mobile artillery systems like Iskander to enable infantry to launch deeper surges. The program was also helped along by Russia’s intensive military modernization effort in the mid-2010s. Tests at two of Moscow’s largest exercises—the Kavkaz 2012 and Kavkaz 2016, a mock-up of conflict along Russia’s southern flank—in the Caucasus region and the Vostok 2014—which envisions a conflict in the East—caught the Pentagon’s eye.

Former military officials believe Russia’s long-range fires are ahead of what the United States has in its arsenal.
“It’s always been part and parcel of the way they fight,” said Ben Hodges, a retired lieutenant general who once commanded U.S. Army forces in Europe. “That gives a real advantage when you can shoot from inside Russia or from ships at sea or from vessels in the Sea of Azov. You can hit targets, such as command and control or transportation hubs deep inside Ukraine. That’s a heck of an advantage.”

The Kremlin is in the middle of another modernization plan, set to conclude in 2027, but the effort could be hamstrung by Russia’s worsening economic situation and new outlays that may come with an extended invasion into Ukraine. As part of that effort, Russia has sought to invest in precision-strike capabilities to counter what it sees as serious threats from the United States and make reforms to ground forces, which have seen less attention from the Kremlin in recent years.

The reverberations of Russia’s military leap are being felt beyond Ukraine too. Russia has repeatedly sent Iskander batteries to the Baltic Sea coast in Kaliningrad, Russia, where they could be used to target NATO forces or dissuade more U.S. military deployments to the alliance’s eastern flank.

But it isn’t just the firepower or raw destruction that systems like Iskander bring that worries the Pentagon and military experts. Russia’s deployments of accurate missile systems and ranged artillery is the latest sign in a worrying trend—including retaliatory Iranian ballistic missile attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq after the 2020 targeting of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani—that America and its allies are no longer dominant in the skies.

“This is kind of what we’ve been preparing for since we watched the 2014 conflict and we said, ‘Oh, we’ve got to do something different,’” said Tom Karako, director of the missile defense project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s waking up to the fact that air superiority is not a birthright.”

[Brooklyn]

Ambassador William Taylor on ABC News: "Putin made an unprovoked attack upon a sovereign nation in violation of international law. Many will die. He deserves a Nuremberg Tribunal for his crimes." It's precisely what I said about traitor Bush. The world looked the other way and refused to take corrective action. Strangely, Taylor feels the world should take actions on Putin that he was not willing to do against Bush. Double standards, much?