All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

In the end, this is up to Ukraine. They'll decide what they will and won't accept from Putin. Our opinion doesn't---and shouldn't----matter.

I agree. But our support enables them to actually make those decisions in the context of being able to repel the Russians effectively.

Salty wants us to withdraw that support, leveraging Ukraine to surrender territory in return for cheap promises.

I don't.

[old salt]

The US & our allies - the ones providing the weapons & financial aid & levying sanctions - have the leverage to force a cease fire.

But they should not force such a cease fire until it is clear that it would lead to some sort of more lasting even if still temporary in the long term sense.

Not sure Putin is at the point where he would accept any "cease fire" without making gains beyond where he is currently. This is highly unfortunate, but the West should not be rewarding Putin in any way for his behavior.

There will soon come a point in the fighting when it is in Putin's interest to accept a cease fire & consolidate his gains.

If the West's criteria is to not reward Putin without any territorial gain, this war could drag on for years.
Are the direct & indirect costs in lives, damages & disruption worth it ? Don't discount our EU allies influence.

Ukraine is doing the fighting and dying, and they're the ones who will decide whether they want Putin to "consolidate his gains" in return for a temporary state of less dying.

And it's quite clear they won't accept Putin gaining from this aggression. They'll want the Russians to fully leave Ukraine.

And yeah, we should definitely not want this aggression rewarded with "gains". But if the Ukrainians decide to allow Putin any gains of any sort, we'll have to accept it as the go forward reality and be sure that Putin pays other prices that deter other such aggression or aggressors.

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

The Ukrainians can't fight on indefinitely without massive, unsustainable aid from the West.
The West is not just the US. It is also the EU, who are bearing more of the brunt of the sanctions, refugee flow & economic disruption than is the US.

Our EU allies can't & won't endure a protracted war. Those EU allies are not as unified & supportive of the war as the US is. That's why, in the negotiations, the Ukrainians are proposing that only 2 NATO members (Turkey & France) provide security guarantees if they accept neutrality.

The EU is less patient with this war than the US is. This reminds them of the endless conflicts in the Balkans which still smolder.
It's reminiscent of the breakup of Yugoslavia = Serbia vs the rest of the Balkans, ...on steroids. It took US military intervention to bring a cease fire & imperfect settlement there. To many EUros, this is just the latest wearisome tribal war between Slavs who will never live together in peace.
...& don't kid yourself that such ethnic prejudices are not significant within the EUros, ...see Brexit.

well, I think you underestimate the Europeans and their horror over Putin's aggression. This is on European TV non-stop, Balkans weren't. The visibility on what is happening is radically different, and we know that such makes a huge difference in public perceptions.

Time will tell on that, but I think there's a heck of a lot more resolve than you do, including a major priority to shift their oil and gas dependencies away from Russia, and overall pace of going green accelerated. That's going to happen, end of war or not.

Re Balkans, that was over 9 years, with worst parts over 3 years. One could make an argument that this current war has been going on since 2014, certainly the Ukrainians see it that way, but we're less than two months into full scale hot conflict.

This ain't gonna end fast.
Unless someone takes out Putin fast. Which is darn unlikely.

Would love to have it be otherwise, but I think being clear-eyed about what Putin's aggression is going to cost the world, and why we should be willing to pay that price to repel him, is important.

And yeah, we're sending drones. And should be.

Your memory is imperfect. The Balkan conflicts dominated the news in the EU. It was within their eventual territories & they had military forces involved.

[a fan]

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

In the end, this is up to Ukraine. They'll decide what they will and won't accept from Putin. Our opinion doesn't---and shouldn't----matter.

I agree. But our support enables them to actually make those decisions in the context of being able to repel the Russians effectively.

Salty wants us to withdraw that support

Does he? I didn't see that.

For me, I don't want to give Ukraine things that inadvertently take this war into bad outcomes. Planes come to mind. But ....where that line is? I have no idea. I'm glad I'm not POTUS.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The US & our allies - the ones providing the weapons & financial aid & levying sanctions - have the leverage to force a cease fire.

But they should not force such a cease fire until it is clear that it would lead to some sort of more lasting even if still temporary in the long term sense.

Not sure Putin is at the point where he would accept any "cease fire" without making gains beyond where he is currently. This is highly unfortunate, but the West should not be rewarding Putin in any way for his behavior.

There will soon come a point in the fighting when it is in Putin's interest to accept a cease fire & consolidate his gains.

If the West's criteria is to not reward Putin without any territorial gain, this war could drag on for years.
Are the direct & indirect costs in lives, damages & disruption worth it ? Don't discount our EU allies influence.

Ukraine is doing the fighting and dying, and they're the ones who will decide whether they want Putin to "consolidate his gains" in return for a temporary state of less dying.

And it's quite clear they won't accept Putin gaining from this aggression. They'll want the Russians to fully leave Ukraine.

And yeah, we should definitely not want this aggression rewarded with "gains". But if the Ukrainians decide to allow Putin any gains of any sort, we'll have to accept it as the go forward reality and be sure that Putin pays other prices that deter other such aggression or aggressors.

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

The Ukrainians can't fight on indefinitely without massive, unsustainable aid from the West.
The West is not just the US. It is also the EU, who are bearing more of the brunt of the sanctions, refugee flow & economic disruption than is the US.

Our EU allies can't & won't endure a protracted war. Those EU allies are not as unified & supportive of the war as the US is. That's why, in the negotiations, the Ukrainians are proposing that only 2 NATO members (Turkey & France) provide security guarantees if they accept neutrality.

The EU is less patient with this war than the US is. This reminds them of the endless conflicts in the Balkans which still smolder.
It's reminiscent of the breakup of Yugoslavia = Serbia vs the rest of the Balkans, ...on steroids. It took US military intervention to bring a cease fire & imperfect settlement there. To many EUros, this is just the latest wearisome tribal war between Slavs who will never live together in peace.
...& don't kid yourself that such ethnic prejudices are not significant within the EUros, ...see Brexit.

You mean England.

[old salt]

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

In the end, this is up to Ukraine. They'll decide what they will and won't accept from Putin. Our opinion doesn't---and shouldn't----matter.

I agree. But our support enables them to actually make those decisions in the context of being able to repel the Russians effectively.

Salty wants us to withdraw that support

Does he? I didn't see that.

For me, I don't want to give Ukraine things that inadvertently take this war into bad outcomes. Planes come to mind. But ....where that line is? I have no idea. I'm glad I'm not POTUS.

...he can't help himself speaking for me. Projection.

FTR -- I don't want to give Ukrainians stuff that they are not able to use effectively (like Polish Migs), will get destroyed before it is used (like Polish Migs), will prompt the Russians to increase bombing of the western border to stop the inflow., or will leave a critical hole in a NATO member's defense (like any NATO Migs).

Somebody's gotta pay for all this stuff & provide the backfill, fast. Where are all the S-300's our NATO allies were going to transfer ? Where is all the Soviet legacy armor & artillery that our E NATO allies have which the Ukrainians could employ quickly ? Talk is cheap.

[MDlaxfan76]

The US & our allies - the ones providing the weapons & financial aid & levying sanctions - have the leverage to force a cease fire.

But they should not force such a cease fire until it is clear that it would lead to some sort of more lasting even if still temporary in the long term sense.

Not sure Putin is at the point where he would accept any "cease fire" without making gains beyond where he is currently. This is highly unfortunate, but the West should not be rewarding Putin in any way for his behavior.

There will soon come a point in the fighting when it is in Putin's interest to accept a cease fire & consolidate his gains.

If the West's criteria is to not reward Putin without any territorial gain, this war could drag on for years.
Are the direct & indirect costs in lives, damages & disruption worth it ? Don't discount our EU allies influence.

Ukraine is doing the fighting and dying, and they're the ones who will decide whether they want Putin to "consolidate his gains" in return for a temporary state of less dying.

And it's quite clear they won't accept Putin gaining from this aggression. They'll want the Russians to fully leave Ukraine.

And yeah, we should definitely not want this aggression rewarded with "gains". But if the Ukrainians decide to allow Putin any gains of any sort, we'll have to accept it as the go forward reality and be sure that Putin pays other prices that deter other such aggression or aggressors.

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

The Ukrainians can't fight on indefinitely without massive, unsustainable aid from the West.
The West is not just the US. It is also the EU, who are bearing more of the brunt of the sanctions, refugee flow & economic disruption than is the US.

Our EU allies can't & won't endure a protracted war. Those EU allies are not as unified & supportive of the war as the US is. That's why, in the negotiations, the Ukrainians are proposing that only 2 NATO members (Turkey & France) provide security guarantees if they accept neutrality.

The EU is less patient with this war than the US is. This reminds them of the endless conflicts in the Balkans which still smolder.
It's reminiscent of the breakup of Yugoslavia = Serbia vs the rest of the Balkans, ...on steroids. It took US military intervention to bring a cease fire & imperfect settlement there. To many EUros, this is just the latest wearisome tribal war between Slavs who will never live together in peace.
...& don't kid yourself that such ethnic prejudices are not significant within the EUros, ...see Brexit.

well, I think you underestimate the Europeans and their horror over Putin's aggression. This is on European TV non-stop, Balkans weren't. The visibility on what is happening is radically different, and we know that such makes a huge difference in public perceptions.

Time will tell on that, but I think there's a heck of a lot more resolve than you do, including a major priority to shift their oil and gas dependencies away from Russia, and overall pace of going green accelerated. That's going to happen, end of war or not.

Re Balkans, that was over 9 years, with worst parts over 3 years. One could make an argument that this current war has been going on since 2014, certainly the Ukrainians see it that way, but we're less than two months into full scale hot conflict.

This ain't gonna end fast.
Unless someone takes out Putin fast. Which is darn unlikely.

Would love to have it be otherwise, but I think being clear-eyed about what Putin's aggression is going to cost the world, and why we should be willing to pay that price to repel him, is important.

And yeah, we're sending drones. And should be.

Your memory is imperfect. The Balkan conflicts dominated the news in the EU. It was within their eventual territories & they had military forces involved.

Not nearly to this extent in the news. Pictures matter and there was far less such in that period.

But yeah, we and Europeans eventually got involved directly.

[JoeMauer89]

The US & our allies - the ones providing the weapons & financial aid & levying sanctions - have the leverage to force a cease fire.

But they should not force such a cease fire until it is clear that it would lead to some sort of more lasting even if still temporary in the long term sense.

Not sure Putin is at the point where he would accept any "cease fire" without making gains beyond where he is currently. This is highly unfortunate, but the West should not be rewarding Putin in any way for his behavior.

There will soon come a point in the fighting when it is in Putin's interest to accept a cease fire & consolidate his gains.

If the West's criteria is to not reward Putin without any territorial gain, this war could drag on for years.
Are the direct & indirect costs in lives, damages & disruption worth it ? Don't discount our EU allies influence.

Ukraine is doing the fighting and dying, and they're the ones who will decide whether they want Putin to "consolidate his gains" in return for a temporary state of less dying.

And it's quite clear they won't accept Putin gaining from this aggression. They'll want the Russians to fully leave Ukraine.

And yeah, we should definitely not want this aggression rewarded with "gains". But if the Ukrainians decide to allow Putin any gains of any sort, we'll have to accept it as the go forward reality and be sure that Putin pays other prices that deter other such aggression or aggressors.

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

Are you in Putin's inner circle? I mean the way you make these claims is as if you have advance knowledge of what he is going to do is ridiculous. EVERYBODY has a breaking point, you have no god damn clue what his is. It could very well be that the Oligarchs cut him off completely, hard to continue to do what your doing without any financial support. You make these claims with an air of certainty. Are you incapable of realizing that it doesn't even come across as your opinion? It comes off as "This is how MD sees it, therefore, it's an incontrovertible fact, end of discussion"

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

In the end, this is up to Ukraine. They'll decide what they will and won't accept from Putin. Our opinion doesn't---and shouldn't----matter.

I agree. But our support enables them to actually make those decisions in the context of being able to repel the Russians effectively.

Salty wants us to withdraw that support

Does he? I didn't see that.

For me, I don't want to give Ukraine things that inadvertently take this war into bad outcomes. Planes come to mind. But ....where that line is? I have no idea. I'm glad I'm not POTUS.

...he can't help himself speaking for me. Projection.

FTR -- I don't want to give Ukrainians stuff that they are not able to use effectively (like Polish Migs), will get destroyed before it is used (like Polish Migs), will prompt the Russians to increase bombing of the western border to stop the inflow., or will leave a critical hole in a NATO member's defense (like any NATO Migs).

Somebody's gotta pay for all this stuff & provide the backfill, fast. Where are all the S-300's our NATO allies were going to transfer ? Where is all the Soviet legacy armor & artillery that our E NATO allies have which the Ukrainians could employ quickly ? Talk is cheap.

Sure, talk is indeed cheap. War is costly.
Even more costly is losing.

We're seeing the EU step up, Blinken was discussing this today, as we provide backfill capabilities, modern defense systems that they're buying. Not done overnight. Though the need is indeed immediate.

But yeah, we should be providing full capabilities with drones, training the Ukrainians, assisting the Ukrainians, on using the very best capabilities. Same for anti-ship capabilities, as well as defensive anti-missile capabilities.

The objective should be for Ukraine to win, and do so as expeditiously as possible. But without our (NATO) directly in battle.

If the MiG's don't help, that's fine by me...but whatever does work, get it to them.

and yeah, you said you want to withdraw/limit support such that the Ukrainians will be pressured into stopping the fight, with Russia in control of Ukrainian territory they "consolidate". You've speculated on how much of Ukraine Putin will accept as "gains".

So, the Europeans and Biden are the problem, not Putin...that's your constant refrain.

[a fan]

The objective should be for Ukraine to win, and do so as expeditiously as possible.

Yes, but is that REALLY the ojective.

What do you think Putins response would be if it became an even fight?

Up the ante, right?

Do we REALLY want that?

It's SO freaking complicated, imho. It's why I hate all the "arm the right guy" games we've been playing for 50+ years.

[MDlaxfan76]

The US & our allies - the ones providing the weapons & financial aid & levying sanctions - have the leverage to force a cease fire.

But they should not force such a cease fire until it is clear that it would lead to some sort of more lasting even if still temporary in the long term sense.

Not sure Putin is at the point where he would accept any "cease fire" without making gains beyond where he is currently. This is highly unfortunate, but the West should not be rewarding Putin in any way for his behavior.

There will soon come a point in the fighting when it is in Putin's interest to accept a cease fire & consolidate his gains.

If the West's criteria is to not reward Putin without any territorial gain, this war could drag on for years.
Are the direct & indirect costs in lives, damages & disruption worth it ? Don't discount our EU allies influence.

Ukraine is doing the fighting and dying, and they're the ones who will decide whether they want Putin to "consolidate his gains" in return for a temporary state of less dying.

And it's quite clear they won't accept Putin gaining from this aggression. They'll want the Russians to fully leave Ukraine.

And yeah, we should definitely not want this aggression rewarded with "gains". But if the Ukrainians decide to allow Putin any gains of any sort, we'll have to accept it as the go forward reality and be sure that Putin pays other prices that deter other such aggression or aggressors.

But there's no way we should leveraging our support to keep Ukraine from being able to prevail and determine their own choices.

Are you in Putin's inner circle? I mean the way you make these claims is as if you have advance knowledge of what he is going to do is ridiculous. EVERYBODY has a breaking point, you have no god damn clue what his is. It could very well be that the Oligarchs cut him off completely, hard to continue to do what your doing without any financial support. You make these claims with an air of certainty. Are you incapable of realizing that it doesn't even come across as your opinion? It comes off as "This is how MD sees it, therefore, it's an incontrovertible fact, end of discussion"

Joe

well, I'd say that you have a reading or a projection problem if you can't distinguish between what I think is my opinion versus fact. Much less an "incontrovertible fact, end of discussion".

So, how about instead of attacking me for my writing style, you just tell me where you think my opinion is wrong, or where you think I've cited a "fact" that's actually wrong. I certainly make mistakes, so won't be offended if something is pointed out to me in a respectful way. Heck, people do it in a not respectful way all the time, so have at it...but tell me where you think I'm wrong and why, with your logic and whatever facts you wish to cite in support.

Ok, on the one thing you seem to be saying, the everyone has a breaking point, so surely Putin has his, I quite agree. But from everything we've seen about how his "inner circle" works, he rules with an iron hand through fear. The oligarchs are dependent upon him, not the other way around, or at least that's what US intelligence thinks. Putin is reputedly the richest man in the world, and they depend upon his ongoing good will...but I think you're right that some group of them could decide to stage some sort of coup...but it ain't like he doesn't know that and is looking for it.

But here's another admission, US intel could be 100% wrong (and thus I'm wrong)...certainly, we overestimated Russia's military competencies, so it's also possible that we could overestimate Putin's stranglehold on power. It would be great if he's more vulnerable than we think.

So, consider my views to be speculation that, unfortunately, it's going to take much more in the way of military losses and much longer with economic sanctions, before Putin is actually vulnerable. Love to be wrong.

[MDlaxfan76]

The objective should be for Ukraine to win, and do so as expeditiously as possible.

Yes, but is that REALLY the ojective.

What do you think Putins response would be if it became an even fight?

Up the ante, right?

Do we REALLY want that?

It's SO freaking complicated, imho. It's why I hate all the "arm the right guy" games we've been playing for 50+ years.

First, I think your concern is eminently reasonable.

But no, I think Putin's military can and will be defeated, thoroughly, by Ukraine, and without an escalation to nuclear, though I would not be shocked if he resorts to chemical. But if he does, his military will be decimated even faster, IMO. But awful, horrible.

[old salt]

We're seeing the EU step up, Blinken was discussing this today, as we provide backfill capabilities, modern defense systems that they're buying. Not done overnight. Though the need is indeed immediate. Specifics plz.

But yeah, we should be providing full capabilities with drones, training the Ukrainians, assisting the Ukrainians, on using the very best capabilities. Same for anti-ship capabilities, as well as defensive anti-missile capabilities.Specifics plz. How do you get the Harpoon coastal defense batteries from Denmark to Odesa ? Any Switchblade 600's yet, or just 100 x tiny Switchblade 300's ? Are the NATO S-300's there yet ?

and yeah, you said you want to withdraw/limit support such that the Ukrainians will be pressured into stopping the fight, with Russia in control of Ukrainian territory they "consolidate". Show us where I said that's what I "want". You posit that the Ukrainians are the only ones with a vote in this. I merely ponted out that they can only do as much we enable. I missed the part where Biden (& Congress) gave carte blanche on our weapons & treasury.

You've speculated on how much of Ukraine Putin will accept as "gains".
So what ?

So, the Europeans and Biden are the problem, not Putin...that's your constant refrain.
... Biden & you (projecting for him) are not the only ones who have a say in how this ends

@ 3 hrs ago -- still working on it.
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/20 ... ing-on-it/
Lavrov -- "a legitimate target".
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global ... o-ukraine/
Bulgarian President Rumen Radev said that any arms supplies to Ukraine were equivalent to the country being dragged into war. Ultimately, he said, such an issue should be decided by Parliament.

He also said that Bulgaria needed its S-300 for its own air defence, particularly the Kozlodui Nuclear power plant.

To illustrate the need for credible air defences, Radev mentioned the recent incident with the drone that overflew two other NATO countries before crashing near Zagreb.

[old salt]

But yeah, we should be providing full capabilities with drones, training the Ukrainians, assisting the Ukrainians, on using the very best capabilities. Same for anti-ship capabilities, as well as defensive anti-missile capabilities.

The objective should be for Ukraine to win, and do so as expeditiously as possible. But without our (NATO) directly in battle.

So, the Europeans and Biden are the problem, not Putin...that's your constant refrain.

You may wish to re-calibrate your assessment about how much the Biden Admin is doing, & is willing to do, to help the Ukrainians "win", absent direct US military intervention.

It was a tough day for poor John Kirby. He had to bob & weave through an entire DoD presser filled with specific questions about the military aid.
Then he had to listen to this from a friend & former colleague, then respond, which he did, very professionally, cordially, respectfully, & credibly.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6302338168001#sp=show-clips

[MDlaxfan76]

But yeah, we should be providing full capabilities with drones, training the Ukrainians, assisting the Ukrainians, on using the very best capabilities. Same for anti-ship capabilities, as well as defensive anti-missile capabilities.

The objective should be for Ukraine to win, and do so as expeditiously as possible. But without our (NATO) directly in battle.

So, the Europeans and Biden are the problem, not Putin...that's your constant refrain.

You may wish to re-calibrate your assessment about how much the Biden Admin is doing, & is willing to do, to help the Ukrainians "win".

It was a tough day for poor John Kirby. He had to bob & weave through an entire DoD presser filled with specific questions about the military aid.
Then he had to listen to this from a friend & former colleague, then respond, which he did, very professionally, cordially, respectfully, & credibly.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6302338168001#sp=show-clips

I'm closer to Keane in his assessment of what we should be doing than you are...by a long shot.

My only objection to his analysis is this notion that the only appropriate consideration for the Biden Admin is what Keane or I think would help most...btw, he's calling for the MiGs, the tanks, etc, more of everything faster...opposite of you. He's saying we shouldn't be looking for an "off ramp" for Putin, we should be solely focused on the destruction of Putin's military.

Again, I'm closer...but I think the politics of going too far out in front on this is that such would likely get a backlash from allies, create a narrative that the US is the provocative, overly aggressive player, making everything worse and putting the whole world at risk...instead, the politics, as played to date, clearly keep Putin and Russia in the box of the aggressor with no moral standing. And, apparently in disagreement with Keane, I think that's super important.

I also think that Keane is exaggerating, for effect, the gap between what he's saying we should do and what we're actually doing, which has been massive and quite effective...maybe surprisingly effective, but that's why we're tripling down on our commitments to do more...not everything or as fast as Keane and I would perhaps like but more and more and more.

Send in the drones folks. And for the stuff that takes longer, work hard on it, and get it done as soon as practical, because this ain't gonna be finished overnight.

BTW, I don't really want Kirby or Biden or anyone else to announce what we're specifically doing at each step. Let the Russians guess. We don't need special credit, pats on the back from the media for big showy displays of muscle...let the destroyed Russian tanks and planes and missiles and ships and artillery batteries, the Russian casualties, do the talking.

[old salt]

But yeah, we should be providing full capabilities with drones, training the Ukrainians, assisting the Ukrainians, on using the very best capabilities. Same for anti-ship capabilities, as well as defensive anti-missile capabilities.

The objective should be for Ukraine to win, and do so as expeditiously as possible. But without our (NATO) directly in battle.

So, the Europeans and Biden are the problem, not Putin...that's your constant refrain.

You may wish to re-calibrate your assessment about how much the Biden Admin is doing, & is willing to do, to help the Ukrainians "win".

It was a tough day for poor John Kirby. He had to bob & weave through an entire DoD presser filled with specific questions about the military aid.
Then he had to listen to this from a friend & former colleague, then respond, which he did, very professionally, cordially, respectfully, & credibly.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6302338168001#sp=show-clips

I'm closer to Keane in his assessment of what we should be doing than you are...by a long shot.

My only objection to his analysis is this notion that the only appropriate consideration for the Biden Admin is what Keane or I think would help most...btw, he's calling for the MiGs, the tanks, etc, more of everything faster...opposite of you. He's saying we shouldn't be looking for an "off ramp" for Putin, we should be solely focused on the destruction of Putin's military.

Again, I'm closer...but I think the politics of going too far out in front on this is that such would likely get a backlash from allies, create a narrative that the US is the provocative, overly aggressive player, making everything worse and putting the whole world at risk...instead, the politics, as played to date, clearly keep Putin and Russia in the box of the aggressor with no moral standing. And, apparently in disagreement with Keane, I think that's super important.

I also think that Keane is exaggerating, for effect, the gap between what he's saying we should do and what we're actually doing, which has been massive and quite effective...maybe surprisingly effective, but that's why we're tripling down on our commitments to do more...not everything or as fast as Keane and I would perhaps like but more and more and more.

Send in the drones folks. And for the stuff that takes longer, work hard on it, and get it done as soon as practical, because this ain't gonna be finished overnight.

BTW, I don't really want Kirby or Biden or anyone else to announce what we're specifically doing at each step. Let the Russians guess. We don't need special credit, pats on the back from the media for big showy displays of muscle...let the destroyed Russian tanks and planes and missiles and ships and artillery batteries, the Russian casualties, do the talking.

What US drones do you expect us to send in, that the Ukrainians can maintain. launch & operate, without them being shot down ?
Right now, the SAMs on both sides own the airspace over & adjacent to Ukraine.

imo -- it is too late for us to be able to give the Ukrainians what they need to "win"'.
That's not second guessing Biden. We would have needed to start long before anyone expected Putin to invade.
We did an excellent job of training & equipping the Ukrainians to hold the line in Donbas & not yield any more territory there, but that was not sufficient to repel a full scale invasion. A Lend Lease of the necessary NATO Soviet legacy weapons systems & material would have taken years to fund, execute & back fill. Do you think the Russians will just watch us drive in convoys of armor, artillery & mobile missile systems ?

[old salt]

This is on European TV non-stop, Balkans weren't. The visibility on what is happening is radically different, and we know that such makes a huge difference in public perceptions.

How do you know that ? What is your frame of reference ? I spent a month in the UK in the summer of '93. That was at the height of the siege of Sarajevo. Just as brutal as Mariupol, only longer. It was on the BBC 24/7, in gruesome detail. Much more coverage than in the US. On the tele in all the pubs. I was struck with how invested the Brits were in it, compared to us in the US.

...& speaking of Mig-29's, while there I just happened to be in the crowd
for the Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford & I witnessed this.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Meanwhile, pitching in and helping out!!!

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat ... 2735584262

[tech37]

Meanwhile, pitching in and helping out!!!

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat ... 2735584262

Gee, I wonder where the Russian kompromat merchants came up with that angle

[Seacoaster(1)]

Meanwhile, pitching in and helping out!!!

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat ... 2735584262

Gee, I wonder where the Russian kompromat merchants came up with that angle

From Glenn?

[cradleandshoot]

Screw the MiGs. If you wanted to really help the Ukraine POTUS Biden could allocate a 100 or so A10s. The Warthog would actually make a difference and was designed to fly low and slow and take out armor. The right plane specifically built for the right roll. The Ukrainians don't need air superiority, they NEED to take out the Russian armor on the ground. Come on Joe... where are those Warthogs???