All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

Zelensky is trying to drag us into the fight.

I’m worried he’s not smart enough…or is perhaps too proud….. to give Putin an exit ramp.

Planes won’t fix a thing. It will make things worse .

[seacoaster]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

[old salt]

I've found way less persuasive some of the reporting bolstering the contention that the MiG's would not be helpful in combatting the Air Force attacks, because so much of the destruction is being done by missiles and artillery. I do understand the relative utility argument, but seems to me that the ability to contest the skies, especially in western Ukraine where people are fleeing and resupply is coming from is really important to sustaining the effort successfully. It's not an either/or.

... agree with you on the MiG issue. I suspect they will turn up there quietly.

Disregard the escalation issue. Do either of you dispute DoD's contention that the UAF is not using the Mig 29's they have & why they are not.
If the UAF wanted to contest the skies, why have they not done so with their Mig 29's & more capable SU-27's.

I'm sure that's a fair question, though I don't know that there isn't a good explanation, nor that they are in fact not using the weaponry they have to full effect. I'd need to know more to even agree or disagree that our DoD is contending so. And what they explain in return.

In his Pentagon press briefings, Adm Kirby has said, more than once, that the UAF still has several operational fighter squadrons that they are not using to, in effect, contest the skies.

I'm probably mistaken, or under informed, but my impression from his briefings (haven't seen them all or in their entirety necessarily) is that he's emphasized that the Russian Air Force hasn't played a preeminent role, that Ukraine does have some planes (but not that they weren't being used), and that the US thinks other air defenses would be much preferable to taking a potentially escalatory action.

I haven't heard an actual critique from Kirby that the Ukrainian AF wasn't doing what it could to combat the Russian AF...just that doing so wouldn't make a huge difference given the primary usage of missiles from afar and artillery fire.

Again, I'm probably under informed on this.

FNC Pentagon reporter just said : " Senior US defense official said UAF still has 56 working fighter jets, flying 5-10 sorties/day. This war is not being fought in the air. Even Russian warplanes are having a tough time flying over Ukraine, except in the east, because Ukrainian forces are artfully* using their mobile* air defense systems. Sending the Polish Migs would not stop the siege of the population centers because the airspace is so contested."

* my interpretation of artfully & mobile = shoot & scoot

ok, sounds like they're being used. But are they not flying more sorties because "the airspace is so contested" meaning that they'd be outnumbered?

And we're seeing reports of Russian AF now reaching to western areas for bombing runs...sure would want to "contest" that action.

Another question, seems to me is how well these fighters can be used to attack supply lines, tank, troop movements. Particularly, for instance, the effort by the Russian ground forces to move westward of Kyiv, potentially cutting off resupply.

Seems to me you'd want to attack those efforts best as possible. Again, I like the idea of drones, but whatever gets firepower striking hard, making it extremely difficult for the Russians to encircle, works for me.

Russia's S-400's cover nearly all of Ukraine. That's why we won't do a no fly zone.

The W airports hit are a UAF fighter base (I counted 26 Migs or SU's on their google map sat image of unknown vintage) & a run down former military airfield still used for small planes (5 utility bi-planes on the ramp) with a 5000 ft rwy which could handle C-130 logistics flights.

The Ukrainians are more effective using disruptive hit & run ground attacks.
They don't want to lose their Mig's & SU's, pilots & munitions to the S-400.
To effectively contest the airspace, the US would have to strike the S-400's inside Russia & Belarus via cruise missile, stealth aircraft & jamming "wild weasel" vulnerable strike aircraft.

[MDlaxfan76]

I've found way less persuasive some of the reporting bolstering the contention that the MiG's would not be helpful in combatting the Air Force attacks, because so much of the destruction is being done by missiles and artillery. I do understand the relative utility argument, but seems to me that the ability to contest the skies, especially in western Ukraine where people are fleeing and resupply is coming from is really important to sustaining the effort successfully. It's not an either/or.

... agree with you on the MiG issue. I suspect they will turn up there quietly.

Disregard the escalation issue. Do either of you dispute DoD's contention that the UAF is not using the Mig 29's they have & why they are not.
If the UAF wanted to contest the skies, why have they not done so with their Mig 29's & more capable SU-27's.

I'm sure that's a fair question, though I don't know that there isn't a good explanation, nor that they are in fact not using the weaponry they have to full effect. I'd need to know more to even agree or disagree that our DoD is contending so. And what they explain in return.

In his Pentagon press briefings, Adm Kirby has said, more than once, that the UAF still has several operational fighter squadrons that they are not using to, in effect, contest the skies.

I'm probably mistaken, or under informed, but my impression from his briefings (haven't seen them all or in their entirety necessarily) is that he's emphasized that the Russian Air Force hasn't played a preeminent role, that Ukraine does have some planes (but not that they weren't being used), and that the US thinks other air defenses would be much preferable to taking a potentially escalatory action.

I haven't heard an actual critique from Kirby that the Ukrainian AF wasn't doing what it could to combat the Russian AF...just that doing so wouldn't make a huge difference given the primary usage of missiles from afar and artillery fire.

Again, I'm probably under informed on this.

FNC Pentagon reporter just said : " Senior US defense official said UAF still has 56 working fighter jets, flying 5-10 sorties/day. This war is not being fought in the air. Even Russian warplanes are having a tough time flying over Ukraine, except in the east, because Ukrainian forces are artfully* using their mobile* air defense systems. Sending the Polish Migs would not stop the siege of the population centers because the airspace is so contested."

* my interpretation of artfully & mobile = shoot & scoot

ok, sounds like they're being used. But are they not flying more sorties because "the airspace is so contested" meaning that they'd be outnumbered?

And we're seeing reports of Russian AF now reaching to western areas for bombing runs...sure would want to "contest" that action.

Another question, seems to me is how well these fighters can be used to attack supply lines, tank, troop movements. Particularly, for instance, the effort by the Russian ground forces to move westward of Kyiv, potentially cutting off resupply.

Seems to me you'd want to attack those efforts best as possible. Again, I like the idea of drones, but whatever gets firepower striking hard, making it extremely difficult for the Russians to encircle, works for me.

Russia's S-400's cover nearly all of Ukraine. That's why we won't do a no fly zone.

The W airports hit are a UAF fighter base (I counted 26 Migs or SU's on their google map sat image of unknown vintage) & a run down former military airfield still used for small planes (5 utility bi-planes on the ramp) with a 5000 ft rwy which could handle C-130 logistics flights.

The Ukrainians are more effective using disruptive hit & run ground attacks.
They don't want to lose their Mig's & SU's, pilots & munitions to the S-400.
To effectively contest the airspace, the US would have to strike the S-400's inside Russia & Belarus via cruise missile, stealth aircraft & jamming "wild weasel" vulnerable strike aircraft.

Interesting.

The drones are therefore the better option from the air for now.

[old salt]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

I don't blame him. I understand what he's doing & why he's doing it.

It's working. Listen to the Ukrainians being interviewed on tv,
They're already blaming the US for not doing a no fly zone,
not giving them more Migs & not stopping the bombing.
Listen to the armchair warriors in Congress.

He's guilt-ing the US & NATO to intervene militarily.

...just like Churchill did.

[old salt]

I've found way less persuasive some of the reporting bolstering the contention that the MiG's would not be helpful in combatting the Air Force attacks, because so much of the destruction is being done by missiles and artillery. I do understand the relative utility argument, but seems to me that the ability to contest the skies, especially in western Ukraine where people are fleeing and resupply is coming from is really important to sustaining the effort successfully. It's not an either/or.

... agree with you on the MiG issue. I suspect they will turn up there quietly.

Disregard the escalation issue. Do either of you dispute DoD's contention that the UAF is not using the Mig 29's they have & why they are not.
If the UAF wanted to contest the skies, why have they not done so with their Mig 29's & more capable SU-27's.

I'm sure that's a fair question, though I don't know that there isn't a good explanation, nor that they are in fact not using the weaponry they have to full effect. I'd need to know more to even agree or disagree that our DoD is contending so. And what they explain in return.

In his Pentagon press briefings, Adm Kirby has said, more than once, that the UAF still has several operational fighter squadrons that they are not using to, in effect, contest the skies.

I'm probably mistaken, or under informed, but my impression from his briefings (haven't seen them all or in their entirety necessarily) is that he's emphasized that the Russian Air Force hasn't played a preeminent role, that Ukraine does have some planes (but not that they weren't being used), and that the US thinks other air defenses would be much preferable to taking a potentially escalatory action.

I haven't heard an actual critique from Kirby that the Ukrainian AF wasn't doing what it could to combat the Russian AF...just that doing so wouldn't make a huge difference given the primary usage of missiles from afar and artillery fire.

Again, I'm probably under informed on this.

FNC Pentagon reporter just said : " Senior US defense official said UAF still has 56 working fighter jets, flying 5-10 sorties/day. This war is not being fought in the air. Even Russian warplanes are having a tough time flying over Ukraine, except in the east, because Ukrainian forces are artfully* using their mobile* air defense systems. Sending the Polish Migs would not stop the siege of the population centers because the airspace is so contested."

* my interpretation of artfully & mobile = shoot & scoot

ok, sounds like they're being used. But are they not flying more sorties because "the airspace is so contested" meaning that they'd be outnumbered?

And we're seeing reports of Russian AF now reaching to western areas for bombing runs...sure would want to "contest" that action.

Another question, seems to me is how well these fighters can be used to attack supply lines, tank, troop movements. Particularly, for instance, the effort by the Russian ground forces to move westward of Kyiv, potentially cutting off resupply.

Seems to me you'd want to attack those efforts best as possible. Again, I like the idea of drones, but whatever gets firepower striking hard, making it extremely difficult for the Russians to encircle, works for me.

Russia's S-400's cover nearly all of Ukraine. That's why we won't do a no fly zone.

The W airports hit are a UAF fighter base (I counted 26 Migs or SU's on their google map sat image of unknown vintage) & a run down former military airfield still used for small planes (5 utility bi-planes on the ramp) with a 5000 ft rwy which could handle C-130 logistics flights.

The Ukrainians are more effective using disruptive hit & run ground attacks.
They don't want to lose their Mig's & SU's, pilots & munitions to the S-400.
To effectively contest the airspace, the US would have to strike the S-400's inside Russia & Belarus via cruise missile, stealth aircraft & jamming "wild weasel" vulnerable strike aircraft.

Interesting.

The drones are therefore the better option from the air for now.

Until they run out. They're vulnerable too.

[a fan]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

I can’t either!

My point is—-he has to know what it takes to get Putin to stop. Bravery won’t do it, as admirable as it is.

What’s best for his people. If he keeps that at the front of his mind, he’ll find a way to get Putin out

[MDlaxfan76]

I've found way less persuasive some of the reporting bolstering the contention that the MiG's would not be helpful in combatting the Air Force attacks, because so much of the destruction is being done by missiles and artillery. I do understand the relative utility argument, but seems to me that the ability to contest the skies, especially in western Ukraine where people are fleeing and resupply is coming from is really important to sustaining the effort successfully. It's not an either/or.

... agree with you on the MiG issue. I suspect they will turn up there quietly.

Disregard the escalation issue. Do either of you dispute DoD's contention that the UAF is not using the Mig 29's they have & why they are not.
If the UAF wanted to contest the skies, why have they not done so with their Mig 29's & more capable SU-27's.

I'm sure that's a fair question, though I don't know that there isn't a good explanation, nor that they are in fact not using the weaponry they have to full effect. I'd need to know more to even agree or disagree that our DoD is contending so. And what they explain in return.

In his Pentagon press briefings, Adm Kirby has said, more than once, that the UAF still has several operational fighter squadrons that they are not using to, in effect, contest the skies.

I'm probably mistaken, or under informed, but my impression from his briefings (haven't seen them all or in their entirety necessarily) is that he's emphasized that the Russian Air Force hasn't played a preeminent role, that Ukraine does have some planes (but not that they weren't being used), and that the US thinks other air defenses would be much preferable to taking a potentially escalatory action.

I haven't heard an actual critique from Kirby that the Ukrainian AF wasn't doing what it could to combat the Russian AF...just that doing so wouldn't make a huge difference given the primary usage of missiles from afar and artillery fire.

Again, I'm probably under informed on this.

FNC Pentagon reporter just said : " Senior US defense official said UAF still has 56 working fighter jets, flying 5-10 sorties/day. This war is not being fought in the air. Even Russian warplanes are having a tough time flying over Ukraine, except in the east, because Ukrainian forces are artfully* using their mobile* air defense systems. Sending the Polish Migs would not stop the siege of the population centers because the airspace is so contested."

* my interpretation of artfully & mobile = shoot & scoot

ok, sounds like they're being used. But are they not flying more sorties because "the airspace is so contested" meaning that they'd be outnumbered?

And we're seeing reports of Russian AF now reaching to western areas for bombing runs...sure would want to "contest" that action.

Another question, seems to me is how well these fighters can be used to attack supply lines, tank, troop movements. Particularly, for instance, the effort by the Russian ground forces to move westward of Kyiv, potentially cutting off resupply.

Seems to me you'd want to attack those efforts best as possible. Again, I like the idea of drones, but whatever gets firepower striking hard, making it extremely difficult for the Russians to encircle, works for me.

Russia's S-400's cover nearly all of Ukraine. That's why we won't do a no fly zone.

The W airports hit are a UAF fighter base (I counted 26 Migs or SU's on their google map sat image of unknown vintage) & a run down former military airfield still used for small planes (5 utility bi-planes on the ramp) with a 5000 ft rwy which could handle C-130 logistics flights.

The Ukrainians are more effective using disruptive hit & run ground attacks.
They don't want to lose their Mig's & SU's, pilots & munitions to the S-400.
To effectively contest the airspace, the US would have to strike the S-400's inside Russia & Belarus via cruise missile, stealth aircraft & jamming "wild weasel" vulnerable strike aircraft.

Interesting.

The drones are therefore the better option from the air for now.

Until they run out. They're vulnerable too.

Yup, but a lot less costly to lose, and we do have many. Now would be a time to use them. Order more...

It'd be interesting to know how many have actually been flown, how many lost if any, in these first weeks. Not that I want that to be public, but I'd think our folks would have that analyzed. Key is the intelligence to use them to maximum, timely effect.

[seacoaster]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

I can’t either!

My point is—-he has to know what it takes to get Putin to stop. Bravery won’t do it, as admirable as it is.

What’s best for his people. If he keeps that at the front of his mind, he’ll find a way to get Putin out

Our job in this mess is to stay measured, careful and reasonable. If there is a reasonable off-ramp, I understand that we can bring to bear all of the might of our country to bend Ukraine and Zelenskyy to that "solution." I'm just saying that he isn't blameworthy for anything here. As OS says, he's doing a modified Churchill in trying to goad us and NATO into the war, as such.

A country that surrenders its sovereignty to the Vandals doesn't recover for generations. I believe that, and hear it.

[old salt]

The drones are therefore the better option from the air for now.

Until they run out. They're vulnerable too.

Yup, but a lot less costly to lose, and we do have many. Now would be a time to use them. Order more...

It'd be interesting to know how many have actually been flown, how many lost if any, in these first weeks. Not that I want that to be public, but I'd think our folks would have that analyzed. Key is the intelligence to use them to maximum, timely effect.

We discussed this, in detail, before. We don't have anything comparable to provide. The Turkish drones are a knock off of the MQ-1 Predators we provided Turkey & stopped using ourselves several years ago. The MQ-9 Reapers which replaced them are too sophisticated for them to employ in time to make a difference.

I don't know if we have any Predators & control stations in mothballs or if we sold them all.

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoin ... -invasion/

[MDlaxfan76]

The drones are therefore the better option from the air for now.

Until they run out. They're vulnerable too.

Yup, but a lot less costly to lose, and we do have many. Now would be a time to use them. Order more...

It'd be interesting to know how many have actually been flown, how many lost if any, in these first weeks. Not that I want that to be public, but I'd think our folks would have that analyzed. Key is the intelligence to use them to maximum, timely effect.

We discussed this, in detail, before. We don't have anything comparable to provide. The Turkish drones are a knock off of the MQ-1 Predators we provided Turkey & stopped using ourselves several years ago. The MQ-9 Reapers which replaced them are too sophisticated for them to employ in time to make a difference.

I don't know if we have any Predators & control stations in mothballs or if we sold them all.

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoin ... -invasion/

why "too sophisticated"...where would they be that we can't get them to where they'd need to be?

[jhu72]

I've found way less persuasive some of the reporting bolstering the contention that the MiG's would not be helpful in combatting the Air Force attacks, because so much of the destruction is being done by missiles and artillery. I do understand the relative utility argument, but seems to me that the ability to contest the skies, especially in western Ukraine where people are fleeing and resupply is coming from is really important to sustaining the effort successfully. It's not an either/or.

... agree with you on the MiG issue. I suspect they will turn up there quietly.

Disregard the escalation issue. Do either of you dispute DoD's contention that the UAF is not using the Mig 29's they have & why they are not.
If the UAF wanted to contest the skies, why have they not done so with their Mig 29's & more capable SU-27's.

They are barely flying what they have, but yet they keep asking for the Mig29s. They aren't stupid, they must have their own reasons. Spare parts? There is more going on here than we know.

Send a list of spare parts needed. Easier to get them in than flying the entire plane there.

... agree. So why do the Ukrainians keep asking? I don't think this is just trying to keep pressure on the allies for support given the support we are known to be supplying. Asking without a valid reason backfires ultimately. Ukrainians aren't stupid.

Zelensky is trying to drag us into the fight. That's why he keeps agitating for things he knows we can't do. He knows that is the only way to end it without destroying his country & further devastating his population. He's scapegoating the US so his population won't blame him. No matter how much we do (short of full scale military intervention), it will never be enough & the US will be the villain for not doing more.

... I had considered this. It is plausible. But at this time, I am not buying it. There is more going on than we know I believe.

[jhu72]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

I can’t either!

My point is—-he has to know what it takes to get Putin to stop. Bravery won’t do it, as admirable as it is.

What’s best for his people. If he keeps that at the front of his mind, he’ll find a way to get Putin out

... I don't think people here are considering what Zelensky's people will think of him if he surrenders to the Russians. He doesn't have the ability to surrender to Putin. His countrymen will continue without him -- while cursing him and his family. There is a succession plan in place.

[Essexfenwick]

We need Trump back. The Afghanistan disaster and WW3 started has made it obvious we need to get the adult back in charge.

[MDlaxfan76]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

I can’t either!

My point is—-he has to know what it takes to get Putin to stop. Bravery won’t do it, as admirable as it is.

What’s best for his people. If he keeps that at the front of his mind, he’ll find a way to get Putin out

... I don't think people here are considering what Zelensky's people will think of him if he surrenders to the Russians. He doesn't have the ability to surrender to Putin. His countrymen will continue without him -- while cursing him and his family. There is a succession plan in place.

I don't know that he's worried about what people will think of him. No matter his decisions.

I do think you're right that the Ukrainians won't accept any sort of surrender and would fight on regardless. I think his "bravery" is more a reflection of the way the Ukrainians have been thinking about Russia for the past 8 years than that's he's leading them down this path. He's simply embodying that view. Representing Ukrainians. Who would rather fight and die than go back to the Russian yoke.

Made in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOCbW1hc6Ng

[jhu72]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

I can’t either!

My point is—-he has to know what it takes to get Putin to stop. Bravery won’t do it, as admirable as it is.

What’s best for his people. If he keeps that at the front of his mind, he’ll find a way to get Putin out

... I don't think people here are considering what Zelensky's people will think of him if he surrenders to the Russians. He doesn't have the ability to surrender to Putin. His countrymen will continue without him -- while cursing him and his family. There is a succession plan in place.

I don't know that he's worried about what people will think of him. No matter his decisions. -- this was not my point. My point was the second sentence. Zelensky doesn't care about what people think, but he is aware that they will not follow him into surrender.

I do think you're right that the Ukrainians won't accept any sort of surrender and would fight on regardless. I think his "bravery" is more a reflection of the way the Ukrainians have been thinking about Russia for the past 8 years than that's he's leading them down this path. He's simply embodying that view. Representing Ukrainians. Who would rather fight and die than go back to the Russian yoke.

Made in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOCbW1hc6Ng

[DocBarrister]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

I can’t either!

My point is—-he has to know what it takes to get Putin to stop. Bravery won’t do it, as admirable as it is.

What’s best for his people. If he keeps that at the front of his mind, he’ll find a way to get Putin out

... I don't think people here are considering what Zelensky's people will think of him if he surrenders to the Russians. He doesn't have the ability to surrender to Putin. His countrymen will continue without him -- while cursing him and his family. There is a succession plan in place.

Whatever short-term tactical gain Putin manages to obtain, Putin and Russia WILL suffer a long-term strategic loss. Putin can gain territory in Ukraine, but he will never be able to hold and control all of Ukraine … and that will always be seen as a defeat for him.

Zelenskyy knows this. Biden knows this. NATO Allies know this. Only Putin fails to see the inevitable.

This doesn’t mean regime change in Russia or the collapse of the Russian state. It does mean that, long-term, Putin and Russia must emerge weaker after this catastrophe.

It’s not a matter of what Zelenskyy chooses (he may not have much choice at all). The choice is Putin’s … a matter of coming to terms with the inevitable (a strategic loss for Russia and his own maniacal ambitions) and cutting his losses by ending this senseless war well short of his goal to incorporate Ukraine into Russia.


DocBarrister

[old salt]

why "too sophisticated"...where would they be that we can't get them to where they'd need to be?

Yes, way too sophisticated. RQ-9 pilots are fully qualified USAF pilots who completed the same undergrad flight training as all other USAF winged pilots.

Then they go through this transition training :
https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Arti ... rs-for-en/
The initial qualification training lasts about three and a half months, and consists of about 100 hours of classroom academics, 40 hours of simulator instruction, and 30 hours of flight training. Upon completion of the FTU, the pilots and sensor operators return to their home-station for mission specific training to become combat ready aircrew.

[old salt]

His f*cking nation and freedom is at stake; he is speaking and lobbying for generations. I can't blame him for playing every card, every Zimmerman Telegram, he finds lying around:

https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status ... 5327253504

I can’t either!

My point is—-he has to know what it takes to get Putin to stop. Bravery won’t do it, as admirable as it is.

What’s best for his people. If he keeps that at the front of his mind, he’ll find a way to get Putin out

Our job in this mess is to stay measured, careful and reasonable. If there is a reasonable off-ramp, I understand that we can bring to bear all of the might of our country to bend Ukraine and Zelenskyy to that "solution." I'm just saying that he isn't blameworthy for anything here. As OS says, he's doing a modified Churchill in trying to goad us and NATO into the war, as such.

A country that surrenders its sovereignty to the Vandals doesn't recover for generations. I believe that, and hear it.

In this case, maybe Ukraine needs a Chamberlin rather than a Churchill to survive, in the short term.
Remember, Chamberlin bought time for the Brits & US to prepare for war. (watch the movie Munich : The Edge of War).

If the US &/or NATO are going to engage Russia militarily, on the E flank or in Ukraine, we need more time to get forces in place & the assurance that we can fight from bases in Romania, Poland, Germany & the Baltic states. ...& maybe Japan & S Korea.

[seacoaster]

Actually enjoyed Edge of War, although I felt like it was an effort to revisit and recast Chamberlain in a more positive light. But good story, well told.

My concern is the West and liberal democracies. If they cannot stay firm against Russia — and you see the slow deterioration of support here, the slow loss of unity on this — they won’t survive. I know, dour and maybe unreasonable. But we are at a terrible crossroads and must make something good from it.