All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

It is a tragic mistake for the Ukrainians not to surrender Mariupol. The city is lost, the Russians will now hammer it to rubble. It is their #1 target. It completes their land bridge to Crimea. If they can't also take Odessa quickly, a land bridge to Crimes might satisfy their attainable territorial ambitions & induce them to agree to a cease fire in place & a negotiated end to hostilities. If not, they'll reduce Mariupol to Aleppo, push on for Odessa & continue to shell Kyiv, realizing it's not worth the cost of capturing & holding the capital. The Russians have better supply lines to the southern front.

If not, this will continue to be a bloody, horrific stalemate & a contest of logistics & resupply chains.

A tough choice for sure. However, the city is already mostly destroyed. Russians are reportedly sending busloads of residents to Russia against their will. Ironically, the city is populated with largely ethnic Russians who the invaders are killing in great numbers.

How does Ukraine survive in a post-conflict timeframe with no coastal access to the Black Sea where most of their commerce is exported and imported?

A partitioned rump Ukraine without Black Sea access would be a basket case. That's why the Ukrainians holding Mykolaiv is critical. It's blocking the Russians from encircling & taking Odesa & then cutting off the rest of the Black Sea coastline. That would be a protracted fight.
imho, that's why a cease fire in place now, before more of the south is lost, is in Ukraine's long term interest for retaining as much territory as possible.

[Kismet]

Thanks. Of course, it takes two to make a cease-fire and don't think Putin is up for one anytime soon or before he can control that entire coastline.

Interesting and ominous piece in NYT about possible Russian use of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons and how they might do it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/scie ... raine.html

and then there is this -

The Russian Defense Ministry has just reported the staggering figure of 9861 Russians killed & 16,153 injured in Ukraine so far. That's 379 dying every day, 1,000 a day being taken off the battlefield - or between 1/4 to 1/3 of their committed combat forces. That level of casualties does not seem sustainable, no? Let alone the corresponding lost of equipment both on the ground and in the air.

[DocBarrister]

It is a tragic mistake for the Ukrainians not to surrender Mariupol. The city is lost, the Russians will now hammer it to rubble. It is their #1 target. It completes their land bridge to Crimea. If they can't also take Odessa quickly, a land bridge to Crimes might satisfy their attainable territorial ambitions & induce them to agree to a cease fire in place & a negotiated end to hostilities. If not, they'll reduce Mariupol to Aleppo, push on for Odessa & continue to shell Kyiv, realizing it's not worth the cost of capturing & holding the capital. The Russians have better supply lines to the southern front.

If not, this will continue to be a bloody, horrific stalemate & a contest of logistics & resupply chains.

A tough choice for sure. However, the city is already mostly destroyed. Russians are reportedly sending busloads of residents to Russia against their will. Ironically, the city is populated with largely ethnic Russians who the invaders are killing in great numbers.

How does Ukraine survive in a post-conflict timeframe with no coastal access to the Black Sea where most of their commerce is exported and imported?

A partitioned rump Ukraine without Black Sea access would be a basket case. That's why the Ukrainians holding Mykolaiv is critical. It's blocking the Russians from encircling & taking Odesa & then cutting off the rest of the Black Sea coastline. That would be a protracted fight.
imho, that's why a cease fire in place now, before more of the south is lost, is in Ukraine's long term interest for retaining as much territory as possible.

Russia is inflicting horrendous damage to Ukrainian cities and killing numerous Ukrainian civilians.

Having said that, it seems as if Ukraine is actually beginning to win the ground war.

How pathetic is the Russian military? They are apparently posting online job ads in Ukraine to trick Ukrainians who know local roads to drive Russian trucks, including fuel tankers.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/21/10878694 ... ck-drivers

That is a startling indication of how much trouble the Russian ground invasion is in.

Putin can keep bombing Ukraine until the cities have been turned into rubble, but he’s not going to win this war on the ground. Now it’s a matter of how much bombardment President Zalenskyy and the Ukrainians are willing to take before settling on a peace, and how long Putin will keep bombing to gain leverage over Ukraine.

I think the answer is likely to be a long time for both sides.

The violent and vicious quagmire is here.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Thanks. Of course, it takes two to make a cease-fire and don't think Putin is up for one anytime soon or before he can control that entire coastline.

Interesting and ominous piece in NYT about possible Russian use of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons and how they might do it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/scie ... raine.html

and then there is this -

The Russian Defense Ministry has just reported the staggering figure of 9861 Russians killed & 16,153 injured in Ukraine so far. That's 379 dying every day, 1,000 a day being taken off the battlefield - or between 1/4 to 1/3 of their committed combat forces. That level of casualties does not seem sustainable, no? Let alone the corresponding lost of equipment both on the ground and in the air.

Apparently, the Russians have forced the original article to disappear, which probably means that the numbers are accurate.

https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war ... s-have?amp

That is an absolutely astounding casualty total. Completely unsustainable for Russia. At this pace, Russia may have no choice but to begin withdrawing its forces from Ukraine within several months.

Which is not necessarily a good thing for Ukraine.

My great concern?

Not the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which is even crazier than what I believe even Putin is capable of employing.

No, I’m worried he might use a massive conventional weapon of mass destruction (like America’s MOAB bombs) and destroy entire sectors of Ukrainian cities (and massacring thousands of civilians) at a time. That would be a crime against humanity that might crumble even Ukrainian resistance.

My only hope is that cities like Kyiv have a special place in Slavic lore … but Putin may not care much by that point.

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

It is a tragic mistake for the Ukrainians not to surrender Mariupol. The city is lost, the Russians will now hammer it to rubble. It is their #1 target. It completes their land bridge to Crimea. If they can't also take Odessa quickly, a land bridge to Crimes might satisfy their attainable territorial ambitions & induce them to agree to a cease fire in place & a negotiated end to hostilities. If not, they'll reduce Mariupol to Aleppo, push on for Odessa & continue to shell Kyiv, realizing it's not worth the cost of capturing & holding the capital. The Russians have better supply lines to the southern front.

If not, this will continue to be a bloody, horrific stalemate & a contest of logistics & resupply chains.

Yes, it will...and the Ukrainians have repeatedly made clear that they won't surrender any territory, they will continue to contest it, last man and woman and child.

No Donbass, no Crimea, no nothing. It's Ukraine, not Russia.

So, yeah, the Russians will continue to commit war crimes until and unless they are defeated.

[MDlaxfan76]

It is a tragic mistake for the Ukrainians not to surrender Mariupol. The city is lost, the Russians will now hammer it to rubble. It is their #1 target. It completes their land bridge to Crimea. If they can't also take Odessa quickly, a land bridge to Crimes might satisfy their attainable territorial ambitions & induce them to agree to a cease fire in place & a negotiated end to hostilities. If not, they'll reduce Mariupol to Aleppo, push on for Odessa & continue to shell Kyiv, realizing it's not worth the cost of capturing & holding the capital. The Russians have better supply lines to the southern front.

If not, this will continue to be a bloody, horrific stalemate & a contest of logistics & resupply chains.

A tough choice for sure. However, the city is already mostly destroyed. Russians are reportedly sending busloads of residents to Russia against their will. Ironically, the city is populated with largely ethnic Russians who the invaders are killing in great numbers.

How does Ukraine survive in a post-conflict timeframe with no coastal access to the Black Sea where most of their commerce is exported and imported?

A partitioned rump Ukraine without Black Sea access would be a basket case. That's why the Ukrainians holding Mykolaiv is critical. It's blocking the Russians from encircling & taking Odesa & then cutting off the rest of the Black Sea coastline. That would be a protracted fight.
imho, that's why a cease fire in place now, before more of the south is lost, is in Ukraine's long term interest for retaining as much territory as possible.

They aren't going to surrender any of it. That's the reality.

And the Russians will continue to commit war crimes. That, too, is the reality.

[jhu72]

Thanks. Of course, it takes two to make a cease-fire and don't think Putin is up for one anytime soon or before he can control that entire coastline.

Interesting and ominous piece in NYT about possible Russian use of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons and how they might do it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/scie ... raine.html

and then there is this -

The Russian Defense Ministry has just reported the staggering figure of 9861 Russians killed & 16,153 injured in Ukraine so far. That's 379 dying every day, 1,000 a day being taken off the battlefield - or between 1/4 to 1/3 of their committed combat forces. That level of casualties does not seem sustainable, no? Let alone the corresponding lost of equipment both on the ground and in the air.

Apparently, the Russians have forced the original article to disappear, which probably means that the numbers are accurate.

https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war ... s-have?amp

That is an absolutely astounding casualty total. Completely unsustainable for Russia. At this pace, Russia may have no choice but to begin withdrawing its forces from Ukraine within several months.

Which is not necessarily a good thing for Ukraine.

My great concern?

Not the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which is even crazier than what I believe even Putin is capable of employing.

No, I’m worried he might use a massive conventional weapon of mass destruction (like America’s MOAB bombs) and destroy entire sectors of Ukrainian cities (and massacring thousands of civilians) at a time. That would be a crime against humanity that might crumble even Ukrainian resistance.

My only hope is that cities like Kyiv have a special place in Slavic lore … but Putin may not care much by that point.

DocBarrister

... Kyiv is by far the most important, most special city in the Slavic world. Sure as hell isn't Moscow. Putin is destroying himself with every shell he directs at Kyiv.

[Brooklyn]

Good to see people express outrage over war crimes. The sad part being that such viewpoints were muted during Bush's imperialists campaigns and the wars in Africa. May I ask, why the sudden interest and what corrective steps do you propose to do about it all?

A thought occurred to me - I have an online pal in the Baltics who has harbored several refugees from Ukraine (he is an American scholar living overseas who is fluent in Russian). Since your war is creating a refugee crisis that will continue to grow, will any of you give sanctuary of this type to any refugees? Over the years so many of you have repeatedly condemned the influx of immigrants, will you continue to condemn this or have you changed your minds about these people and about all those folks fleeing from political injustices in Central America and elsewhere?

[MDlaxfan76]

Good to see people express outrage over war crimes. The sad part being that such viewpoints were muted during Bush's imperialists campaigns and the wars in Africa. May I ask, why the sudden interest and what corrective steps do you propose to do about it all?

A thought occurred to me - I have an online pal in the Baltics who has harbored several refugees from Ukraine (he is an American scholar living overseas who is fluent in Russian). Since your war is creating a refugee crisis that will continue to grow, will any of you give sanctuary of this type to any refugees? Over the years so many of you have repeatedly condemned the influx of immigrants, will you continue to condemn this or have you changed your minds about these people and about all those folks fleeing from political injustices in Central America and elsewhere?

That would be an easy 'yes' from me, but then again I've supported conflict refugee immigrants from all over the world, most recently Afghans. Opposite of "condemned".

You're probably directing this to our more Trumpy types on here.

[old salt]

Good description of how our Truman Carrier Strike Group flights are integrating into the NATO E flank air policing & air defense missions.
...lots of time in the air & on the tanker.

https://news.usni.org/2022/03/19/video- ... y-s-truman

NATO Patriot Missile Batteries from the Dutch & French are arriving in Slovakia, but they are in addition to, not instead of, Slovakia's S-300 system which has not yet been committed for transfer to Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sl ... 022-03-20/

per the WSJ, a SA-8 "Gecko" , a medium range, radar guided SAM system the US purchased for study from Belarus, is being shipped to the Ukrainians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sendin ... krainenato
U.S. Sending Soviet Air Defense Systems It Secretly Acquired to Ukraine
The Pentagon over the years has acquired Soviet equipment as part of a clandestine program, and now such weapons are going to Ukraine

The U.S. is sending some of the Soviet-made air defense equipment it secretly acquired decades ago to bolster the Ukrainian military as it seeks to fend off Russian air and missile attacks, U.S. officials said.

The systems, which one U.S. official said include the SA-8, are decades old and were obtained by the U.S. so it could examine the technology used by the Russian military and which Moscow has exported around the world.

The weapons are familiar to Ukraine’s military, which inherited this type of equipment following the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The Pentagon declined to comment on the U.S. decision to reach into its little-known arsenal of Soviet weapons, which comes as the Biden administration is mounting a major push to expand Ukraine’s air defense capabilities.

The secretive efforts received public attention in 1994 when a Soviet-made transport plane was observed at the Huntsville, Ala., airport within sight of a major highway. It was later disclosed that the plane was carrying an S-300 air defense system that the U.S. had acquired in Belarus as part of a clandestine project involving a Pentagon contractor that cost $100 million, according to a former official involved in the mission.

The S-300—called the SA-10 by NATO—is a long-range, advanced air defense system intended to protect large areas over a much wider radius. The SA-8 is a short-range, tactical air defense system designed to move with ground forces and provide cover from aircraft and helicopters. While the SA-8 has a shorter range, it is highly mobile and potentially easier to hide.

Some of the Soviet-style weapons have been kept at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, which its website notes serves as “the Army’s center for missile and rocket programs.” At least some of what the U.S. sent was from that base, said officials, who added that C-17s recently flew to a nearby airfield at Huntsville.

The S-300 from Belarus wasn’t among the systems that are being sent to Ukraine, one U.S. official said.

Ukraine already possesses some Russian air defense systems, including the S-300. It needs more such systems, however, that can operate at medium and long range to blunt Russia’s aircraft and missile attacks. The shoulder-fired Stinger missiles that the U.S. and NATO nations are providing to Ukraine are only effective against helicopters and low-flying aircraft.

The U.S. is hoping that the provision of additional air defenses will enable Ukraine to create a de facto no-fly zone, since the U.S. and its NATO allies have rebuffed Ukraine’s appeals that the alliance establish one. Such a step, Biden administration officials have said, could lead to a direct confrontation between the U.S.-led alliance and Russian forces, which it is determined to avoid.

Mr. Austin last week visited Slovakia to explore if the country would send an S-300 from its arsenal. Slovakia has said that it would do so if the U.S. would provide it with a replacement, but such an arrangement has yet to be agreed.

American-made weapons such as the Patriot air defense system are in short supply and require American military personnel or months of U.S. training to operate. German and Dutch Patriot units are being sent to Slovakia as a stopgap, those governments have said.

“We’ve been in discussion” with the U.S., Slovakia Minister of Defense Jaroslav Nad’ told reporters during a joint press conference with Mr. Austin on Thursday. “Should there be a situation that we have a proper replacement or that we have a capability guaranteed for a certain period of time, then we would be willing to discuss the future of [the] S-300 system.”

Racist alert : FTR -- Morning Joe said THE Ukraine today & quickly corrected himself. Leon Panetta still using THE Ukraine repeatedly.

[old salt]

It is a tragic mistake for the Ukrainians not to surrender Mariupol. The city is lost, the Russians will now hammer it to rubble. It is their #1 target. It completes their land bridge to Crimea. If they can't also take Odessa quickly, a land bridge to Crimes might satisfy their attainable territorial ambitions & induce them to agree to a cease fire in place & a negotiated end to hostilities. If not, they'll reduce Mariupol to Aleppo, push on for Odessa & continue to shell Kyiv, realizing it's not worth the cost of capturing & holding the capital. The Russians have better supply lines to the southern front.

If not, this will continue to be a bloody, horrific stalemate & a contest of logistics & resupply chains.

Yes, it will...and the Ukrainians have repeatedly made clear that they won't surrender any territory, they will continue to contest it, last man and woman and child.

No Donbass, no Crimea, no nothing. It's Ukraine, not Russia.

So, yeah, the Russians will continue to commit war crimes until and unless they are defeated.

So it's your analysis that the Ukrainians won't settle for anything less than recovering ALL previous territory, INCLUDING Crimea ?

[MDlaxfan76]

It is a tragic mistake for the Ukrainians not to surrender Mariupol. The city is lost, the Russians will now hammer it to rubble. It is their #1 target. It completes their land bridge to Crimea. If they can't also take Odessa quickly, a land bridge to Crimes might satisfy their attainable territorial ambitions & induce them to agree to a cease fire in place & a negotiated end to hostilities. If not, they'll reduce Mariupol to Aleppo, push on for Odessa & continue to shell Kyiv, realizing it's not worth the cost of capturing & holding the capital. The Russians have better supply lines to the southern front.

If not, this will continue to be a bloody, horrific stalemate & a contest of logistics & resupply chains.

Yes, it will...and the Ukrainians have repeatedly made clear that they won't surrender any territory, they will continue to contest it, last man and woman and child.

No Donbass, no Crimea, no nothing. It's Ukraine, not Russia.

So, yeah, the Russians will continue to commit war crimes until and unless they are defeated.

So it's your analysis that the Ukrainians won't settle for anything less than recovering ALL previous territory, INCLUDING Crimea ?

That appears to be the case.

Also, I don't recall anyone saying that the mistake of saying "the Ukraine", on purpose, is "racist". Just insulting to the people of Ukraine and dismissive of their preference to be considered independent.

[Brooklyn]

That would be an easy 'yes' from me, but then again I've supported conflict refugee immigrants from all over the world, most recently Afghans. Opposite of "condemned".

You're probably directing this to our more Trumpy types on here.

True. This post viewtopic.php?p=296716#p296716 proves that you have consistently approved of immigration.

But what of the others? Hundreds of thousands more to enter our shores - are you concerned about Americans losing jobs? Increases in social welfare costs and higher taxes to pay for them? American homeless veterans and their lack of access to good housing?

All too often in this forum we've seen people who are so happily gung ho about another war. Yet, they express no desire to fight or to pay for one. Let's see them address the matter of massive immigration for refugees and the increase in social welfare costs that it will bring. I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply.

[Peter Brown]

That would be an easy 'yes' from me, but then again I've supported conflict refugee immigrants from all over the world, most recently Afghans. Opposite of "condemned".

You're probably directing this to our more Trumpy types on here.

True. This post viewtopic.php?p=296716#p296716 proves that you have consistently approved of immigration.

But what of the others? Hundreds of thousands more to enter our shores - are you concerned about Americans losing jobs? Increases in social welfare costs and higher taxes to pay for them? American homeless veterans and their lack of access to good housing?

All too often in this forum we've seen people who are so happily gung ho about another war. Yet, they express no desire to fight or to pay for one. Let's see them address the matter of massive immigration for refugees and the increase in social welfare costs that it will bring. I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply.

Though I completely disagree with your Ukrainian war position, I appreciate you boxing MD in a corner here. You see, you can’t be for unlimited immigration unless you’re also for grossly higher taxation on your own self (not the mythical ‘tax that man over there’).

And if you’re for unlimited immigration and housing, which the left is, then you must also be for providing free housing to pretty much any American. And with free housing comes free services and food and healthcare and, well, everything!

And if you’re for unlimited freebies plus confiscatory taxation, you’re really an opponent of American greatness.

Appreciate your input, Brooklyn. Indirectly, you’re helping here.

[MDlaxfan76]

That would be an easy 'yes' from me, but then again I've supported conflict refugee immigrants from all over the world, most recently Afghans. Opposite of "condemned".

You're probably directing this to our more Trumpy types on here.

True. This post viewtopic.php?p=296716#p296716 proves that you have consistently approved of immigration.

But what of the others? Hundreds of thousands more to enter our shores - are you concerned about Americans losing jobs? Increases in social welfare costs and higher taxes to pay for them? American homeless veterans and their lack of access to good housing?

All too often in this forum we've seen people who are so happily gung ho about another war. Yet, they express no desire to fight or to pay for one. Let's see them address the matter of massive immigration for refugees and the increase in social welfare costs that it will bring. I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply.

Brooklyn, I obviously disagree with Petey's diatribe immediately above, certainly don't feel boxed in.

Let me say clearly that I abhor war, certainly don't want to encourage one, but I also feel that when there is a determined aggressor, it is entirely legitimate to resist and defeat them, including militarily. And that includes paying for the costs that are incurred in such resistance and effort.

I'm also for increased documented immigration to the US, especially of those fleeing persecution, violence, and/or destitution, those seeking a better life for their families. I'm not concerned about threats to employment. I'm confident that such immigrants will overwhelmingly be productive, not a net cost to society.

I do think we need to do far better for our homeless situation in America, including with veterans.

[Kismet]

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/22/putins ... in-moscow/

Interesting piece entitled - Putin's endgame: Will it be stalemate, nuclear war — or regime change in Moscow?
"Putin is a "rational actor," says scholar Matthew Schmidt — but he still might use nuclear weapons to avoid defeat"

I'd be curious for OS' thoughts on his premise

[NattyBohChamps04]

You know what I'd do about Ukraine?

Well what I would do, is I would—we would—we have tremendous military capability and what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they’re doing an amazing job.

[a fan]

Though I completely disagree with your Ukrainian war position, I appreciate you boxing MD in a corner here. You see, you can’t be for unlimited immigration unless you’re also for grossly higher taxation on your own self (not the mythical ‘tax that man over there’).

Uh oh. Petey's trying his hand at partisan math again. Where taxes are bad, borrowing every penny we spend makes perfect sense....and he and his party have never met a spending increase that they didn't vote "yes" for....so long as someone with a R by their name presents the bill.

[youthathletics]

Though I completely disagree with your Ukrainian war position, I appreciate you boxing MD in a corner here. You see, you can’t be for unlimited immigration unless you’re also for grossly higher taxation on your own self (not the mythical ‘tax that man over there’).

Uh oh. Petey's trying his hand at partisan math again. Where taxes are bad, borrowing every penny we spend makes perfect sense....and he and his party have never met a spending increase that they didn't vote "yes" for....so long as someone with a R by their name presents the bill.

Is debt, tax free?

[a fan]

Though I completely disagree with your Ukrainian war position, I appreciate you boxing MD in a corner here. You see, you can’t be for unlimited immigration unless you’re also for grossly higher taxation on your own self (not the mythical ‘tax that man over there’).

Uh oh. Petey's trying his hand at partisan math again. Where taxes are bad, borrowing every penny we spend makes perfect sense....and he and his party have never met a spending increase that they didn't vote "yes" for....so long as someone with a R by their name presents the bill.

Is debt, tax free?

...wanna rainbow curve that question again? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here....