All Things Russia & Ukraine

[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

From Glenn?

So predictable.

[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?

So predictable.

Hah! Right back 'atcha.

[youthathletics]

Russia yearns to be aligned with NATO, an equal to the US...don't be fooled.

[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.

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 ?

Serious question, are our drones more vulnerable than the ones that are being used now out of Turkey?

Looks to me, at least if we think the news coverage is close to accurate, that the Russian forces are taking massive losses in both materiel and men. Most of that is probably from the ground, javelins etc, but we hear that drones are being effective as well. The reporting is that the Russian morale is very bad, including destroying their own equipment. The Ukrainians are asking for more air capabilities, tanks, and anti-ship missiles, all intended for counterattack.

Yes, this won't be overnight, but I think it's incredibly defeatist, and quite likely wrong, to say that Ukraine can't ever "win" at this point, pushing Russia out of occupied Ukraine.

[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 ?

Serious question, are our drones more vulnerable than the ones that are being used now out of Turkey?

Looks to me, at least if we think the news coverage is close to accurate, that the Russian forces are taking massive losses in both materiel and men. Most of that is probably from the ground, javelins etc, but we hear that drones are being effective as well. The reporting is that the Russian morale is very bad, including destroying their own equipment. The Ukrainians are asking for more air capabilities, tanks, and anti-ship missiles, all intended for counterattack.

Yes, this won't be overnight, but I think it's incredibly defeatist, and quite likely wrong, to say that Ukraine can't ever "win" at this point, pushing Russia out of occupied Ukraine.

US drones are bigger radar targets for SAM systems than the Turkish drones, thus more vulnerable. Both are non-maneuvering, without ECM & flares. They are sitting ducks, meant for use in uncontested air space. To survive in this environment, within the S-400's detection envelope, they must transit short distances at low altitude, which limits their utility.

We have yet to acquire from our NATO allies the Soviet legacy weapons the Ukrainians can use & need to push Russian forces out. Nor have we demonstrated the ability to get weapons systems of that size across the border & to front line units. They are not small arms or manpads. They are wheeled vehicles or heavy tracked vehicles which require road transport on haulers to get to the front lines, & are thus vulnerable to air or missile strikes. It is a long haul from the Polish border to where the fighting is taking place.

Being objective is not being defeatist. Putin may elect to withdraw & cut his losses, but (imo) the Ukrainians do not yet possess the capabilities to drive Russian forces out of contested territory, especially Crimea & Donbas, or even the southern land bridge where they've concentrated their best forces, which can be resupplied with less difficulty.

[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.

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 ?

Serious question, are our drones more vulnerable than the ones that are being used now out of Turkey?

Looks to me, at least if we think the news coverage is close to accurate, that the Russian forces are taking massive losses in both materiel and men. Most of that is probably from the ground, javelins etc, but we hear that drones are being effective as well. The reporting is that the Russian morale is very bad, including destroying their own equipment. The Ukrainians are asking for more air capabilities, tanks, and anti-ship missiles, all intended for counterattack.

Yes, this won't be overnight, but I think it's incredibly defeatist, and quite likely wrong, to say that Ukraine can't ever "win" at this point, pushing Russia out of occupied Ukraine.

US drones are bigger radar targets for SAM systems than the Turkish drones, thus more vulnerable. Both are non-maneuvering, without ECM & flares. They are sitting ducks, meant for use in uncontested air space. To survive in this environment, within the S-400's detection envelope, they must transit short distances at low altitude, which limits their utility.

We have yet to acquire from our NATO allies the Soviet legacy weapons the Ukrainians can use & need to push Russian forces out. Nor have we demonstrated the ability to get weapons systems of that size across the border & to front line units. They are not small arms or manpads. They are wheeled vehicles or heavy tracked vehicles which require road transport on haulers to get to the front lines, & are thus vulnerable to air or missile strikes. It is a long haul from the Polish border to where the fighting is taking place.

Being objective is not being defeatist. Putin may elect to withdraw & cut his losses, but (imo) the Ukrainians do not yet possess the capabilities to drive Russian forces out of contested territory, especially Crimea & Donbas, or even the southern land bridge where they've concentrated their best forces, which can be resupplied with less difficulty.

Ok, interesting re larger radar target...I'll look into that, but seems to me that we must have been working on such issues as surely we can't always assume that the air space is uncontested. Is that, for instance, where the radar jamming capabilities come into play...didn't you post a few days ago about our moving such capabilities closer, ready for deployment? Possible that we'll let the Ukrainians use these capabilities when they're ready for the push forward?

Yes, no argument that the Ukrainians aren't ready to fully expel the Russians, heck, we're probably only in the first inning of this war. But that's the point, though baseball innings aren't a great analogy...the Russian morale is already low and I haven't seen any path that would restore that, as I don't think the bulk of their military is all that different from our men and women...it's darn hard to fight your neighbor, who you've been told all your life is your friend and relative, unless they directly attacked you and your family, destroyed your home town. And the Russian troops know that they're the ones who attacked. They know they're the ones shelling civilians. And they know they've been repelled, that the Ukrainians don't want them there.

So, sure, Russia continues to have the Ukrainians outgunned and outmanned...but they don't have the morale, don't really believe in what they're doing...and they don't want to die for a cause that isn't their own. (obviously I'm saying that broadly as no doubt there are exceptions to that broad sentiment)

But all that's going to take time, as I think Putin will keep them fighting until he's personally removed. They'll try to "win" by destroying their enemy, decimating as necessary, committing war crimes...so, we need to get the Ukrainians more and more capacity to fight back.

But as you say, that's not a simple thing to do overnight.

[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 ?

Serious question, are our drones more vulnerable than the ones that are being used now out of Turkey?

Looks to me, at least if we think the news coverage is close to accurate, that the Russian forces are taking massive losses in both materiel and men. Most of that is probably from the ground, javelins etc, but we hear that drones are being effective as well. The reporting is that the Russian morale is very bad, including destroying their own equipment. The Ukrainians are asking for more air capabilities, tanks, and anti-ship missiles, all intended for counterattack.

Yes, this won't be overnight, but I think it's incredibly defeatist, and quite likely wrong, to say that Ukraine can't ever "win" at this point, pushing Russia out of occupied Ukraine.

US drones are bigger radar targets for SAM systems than the Turkish drones, thus more vulnerable. Both are non-maneuvering, without ECM & flares. They are sitting ducks, meant for use in uncontested air space. To survive in this environment, within the S-400's detection envelope, they must transit short distances at low altitude, which limits their utility.

We have yet to acquire from our NATO allies the Soviet legacy weapons the Ukrainians can use & need to push Russian forces out. Nor have we demonstrated the ability to get weapons systems of that size across the border & to front line units. They are not small arms or manpads. They are wheeled vehicles or heavy tracked vehicles which require road transport on haulers to get to the front lines, & are thus vulnerable to air or missile strikes. It is a long haul from the Polish border to where the fighting is taking place.

Being objective is not being defeatist. Putin may elect to withdraw & cut his losses, but (imo) the Ukrainians do not yet possess the capabilities to drive Russian forces out of contested territory, especially Crimea & Donbas, or even the southern land bridge where they've concentrated their best forces, which can be resupplied with less difficulty.

Ok, interesting re larger radar target...I'll look into that, but seems to me that we must have been working on such issues as surely we can't always assume that the air space is uncontested. Is that, for instance, where the radar jamming capabilities come into play...didn't you post a few days ago about our moving such capabilities closer, ready for deployment? Possible that we'll let the Ukrainians use these capabilities when they're ready for the push forward? Those US Navy EF-18G's are attack aircraft to take out Russian SAM sites &/or to jam Russian radars to cover US air strikes. They are for an all out air war, deployed to protect NATO's E flank & deter a Russian attack.

Yes, no argument that the Ukrainians aren't ready to fully expel the Russians, heck, we're probably only in the first inning of this war. But that's the point, though baseball innings aren't a great analogy...the Russian morale is already low and I haven't seen any path that would restore that, as I don't think the bulk of their military is all that different from our men and women...it's darn hard to fight your neighbor, who you've been told all your life is your friend and relative, unless they directly attacked you and your family, destroyed your home town. And the Russian troops know that they're the ones who attacked. They know they're the ones shelling civilians. And they know they've been repelled, that the Ukrainians don't want them there.

So, sure, Russia continues to have the Ukrainians outgunned and outmanned...but they don't have the morale, don't really believe in what they're doing...and they don't want to die for a cause that isn't their own. (obviously I'm saying that broadly as no doubt there are exceptions to that broad sentiment) That may be sufficient to prevent Putin from taking the entire country but won't necessarily be enough to get him to abandon what he now holds & can take/consolidate in the near term.

But all that's going to take time, as I think Putin will keep them fighting until he's personally removed. They'll try to "win" by destroying their enemy, decimating as necessary, committing war crimes...so, we need to get the Ukrainians more and more capacity to fight back.
Our NATO allies have the Soviet legacy stuff they need in the near term & they are reluctant to give it up. Logistically (& diplomatically), it will be a challenge to get that stuff to the Ukrainians & into the fight, as we saw with the Polish Migs (& they could fly). We don't have time to train the Ukrainians on the US weapons systems it would take & we can't take their best soldiers out of the fight to train them in the US. We're playing catch up in the middle of the war.

But as you say, that's not a simple thing to do overnight.We are playing catch up. To adequately arm & train the Ukrainians to repel the Russians, we would have needed to start much further in advance & there was not support in the US or NATO allies to give them that level of support. Nobody calculated that Putin would invade the entire country until our intell began warning that just prior, & even then, we couldn't get Zelensky or our non5eyes allies to believe it. We underestimated Putin's willingness to do a full scale invasion, just as we were surprised by Pearl Harbor or the speed of the Afghan total implosion.

[old salt]

America Must Do More to Help Ukraine Fight Russia
A Lend-Lease Plan for the Ukrainian Military
by Alexander Vindman and Dominic Cruz Bustillos, March 6, 2022

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ght-russia

Kyiv is still standing. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is still leading. Vladimir Putin, the Russian dictator, has still not brought Ukraine to its knees.

Contrary to the grim predictions and prognoses of Ukraine’s fate by many analysts, the Russian military has underperformed, and Ukrainian forces have repeatedly proved their mettle. Ukrainians have inflicted devastating losses on the Russian invaders, dominated the information war, and inspired significant action on the part of the international community, which had demonstrated relative apathy toward Ukraine in the eight years since Putin first invaded the country. It is impossible to overstate the significance of, among other things, the monumental surge in transatlantic unity, the about-face in Germany’s hitherto pacifistic foreign policy, the raft of new anticorruption measures enacted by Western democracies, and the renewed interest from Finland and Sweden in NATO membership.

All of these developments, however, trace back to Ukrainian resolve in the face of Russian aggression. In recent years, the world has been locked in a struggle between democracy and resurgent authoritarianism. Ukraine’s victory over Russia could prove to be a turning point in this struggle.

Yet Ukraine cannot hold out on its own. The Kremlin has suffered catastrophic losses in terms of personnel, vehicles, and equipment, but the Russian military has significant reserves to replenish its forces. Meanwhile, Ukraine will run short of fuel, ammunition, antitank weapons, air defense systems, unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), and aircraft long before its manpower is exhausted or its morale breaks.

Ukraine cannot hold out on its own.
Western democracies have the necessary resources to close this gap and ensure that Ukraine prevails. Talk of supporting a hypothetical Ukrainian insurgency is premature and counterproductive while the Ukrainian army and territorial defense battalions remain far from defeated. To give those forces a fighting chance, Washington and its allies should establish a lend-lease program modeled on the one that provided arms and assistance to U.S. allies in Europe during World War II. This program would allow the United States and other NATO members to loan or give aid to Ukraine at little or no cost; such aid could include medium- and long-range air defense systems, antitank weapons (beyond the Javelins that have already been provided), advanced extended-range antiarmor capabilities, coastal defense systems, high mobility artillery, and critically important UCAVs. Kyiv could also benefit from systems that could be leased from the United States and its allies, albeit with the understanding that the weapons and equipment would not necessarily be returned after the war.

Ironically, the chief beneficiary of the original lend-lease program was the government in Moscow: at the time, the Soviet Union was a bulwark in the fight against fascism. Today, however, the Kremlin has become a fascist threat, and it is Ukraine that is leading the charge to defend Europe—a fight that the world cannot afford to let the Ukrainians lose.

THE LOAN RANGERS
A new lend-lease program would expedite the transfer of much-needed lethal aid and equipment to Ukrainian defenders. Establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine may be too provocative, but if the West is unwilling to stage that sort of intervention, then it ought to supply Ukraine with the tools it needs to control the skies itself, including ones that would allow Ukraine to strike Russian warehouses or staging areas holding aircraft, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles beyond Ukraine’s borders. This would include UCAVs with air-to-surface and air-to-air capabilities, as well as fighter jets, such as the MiG-29s and Su-25s that Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had proposed to transfer to Ukraine before backtracking for reasons that remain unclear. (Unconfirmed media reports suggest that Washington may have pressured those countries to reverse course.) If NATO members express concerns over transferring fighter jets because of potential gaps in their own air defenses, then the United States and NATO should step in to provide donors with advanced air defense capabilities and more modern fighters, with corresponding training.

The long-term aim of a lend-lease arrangement would be to create stockpiles of military aid along Ukraine’s borders. Ideally, any time Ukraine would submit a request for support, the necessary materiel would be readily available for transport rather than subject to a lengthy procurement process. The most daunting hurdle to this proposal would likely be the initial stages of passing legislation and coordinating plans with allies. But bureaucracy should not stand in the way of waging an existential fight for democracy. Historically, providing aid to Ukraine has been a strong point of bipartisan cooperation, and majorities in both parties understand the importance of Ukraine’s victory in this war. Therefore, the Biden administration is well positioned to mobilize bipartisan support for a new Lend-Lease Act, much as President Franklin Roosevelt did in 1941 despite isolationist opposition. Doing so could even provide a rallying point for Washington after years of domestic polarization.

For such a plan to succeed, officials in Washington and in European capitals must not become paralyzed by a sense of defeatism as they listen to doomsayers foretell the fall of Kyiv, Zelensky’s death, and Putin’s subjection of Ukraine to the brutal measures he used to level Grozny during the Chechen wars and Aleppo during the Syrian civil war. War is unpredictable; nothing in this fight is predetermined. A narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Washington and its allies must not shrink from taking the actions that will help now in favor of steps that might be helpful only after Ukraine has already fallen. It is still well within the West’s ability to influence the outcome of this war; Western leaders must realize the agency they hold.

A narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another barrier to a new lend-lease agreement would be posed by the frequent overestimation of the risks involved in arms transfers to Ukraine. In confronting Russian aggression for the past two decades, Western policymakers have generally chosen to reduce short-term risks at the expense of long-term stability. This approach directly contributed to the catastrophe currently unfolding in Ukraine. The truth is that there are no risk-free options right now, and the longer the West waits, the worse the options will become. Accepting the risks of escalation now will prevent the need to confront greater risks in the future.

Putin has menacingly invoked Russia’s nuclear arsenal as a warning to the United States and its allies to stay out of the war. But ending this conflict as quickly as possible by directing massive resources to Ukraine is more likely to preclude a NATO-Russian confrontation than to hasten nuclear war. This does not mean the West should be reckless. But it is important to keep in mind that deconfliction channels, incentives among the military establishments on both sides, and the widespread acceptance of the idea that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought would all reduce the likelihood of a doomsday scenario.

ALL IS NOT LOST
Existing pledges on the part of Western democracies to provide Ukraine with antitank weapons, man-portable air defense systems, small arms, body armor, and munitions are necessary but insufficient to meet the demands of the battlefield. Moreover, although the Biden administration has formally asked Congress for $10 billion to support Ukraine, only a fraction of this sum will be earmarked for increased lethal aid, and it remains unclear if this aid will include the kinds of capabilities Ukraine desperately needs. Reacting to events on the ground with a steady stream of Band-Aids is not a sustainable strategy, and help that arrives only at the eleventh hour will be too late. A new Lend-Lease Act would help resolve this issue by codifying a long-term aid program of the kind that has been painfully absent throughout the entirety of Putin’s eight-year war on Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine is shaping up to be a protracted struggle because the Russian military has been unable to quickly achieve its objectives. Ukrainians are resisting in battle and through civil disobedience and protests. Morale will be a decisive factor. Despite immense destruction and suffering in Ukraine, the flight of more than a million refugees from the country, and the Russian military’s despicable war crimes, Ukrainians are holding firm in their belief that they will prevail. In contrast, the Russian economy is imploding without any prospects for relief, and morale remains low among the Russian military. It may be too soon for optimism, but there is still reason for hope. And although hope is not a strategy, hopelessness guarantees defeat.

LCOL Vindmann may have been a brilliant infantry officer, but he is not realistic in his assumptions about air warfare, manned & unmanned.. US & NATO air power, operating from NATO bases, transiting NATO air space could accomplish what he proposes. Ukraine cannot ...& we can't provide what they need to accomplish all of that.

[old salt]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... -rcna22066

Can the U.S. and NATO provide Ukraine with enough weapons?
It’s not clear the U.S. and other NATO members can sustain even the current level of weapons deliveries.
March 31, 2022, 1:21 PM EDT

Russia’s faltering campaign in Ukraine and the relative success of Ukrainian forces in fending off the invasion have forced the U.S. and other NATO governments to consider providing military aid for Kyiv on a scale Western leaders never anticipated, current and former officials say.

It’s not clear, however, that the U.S. and other NATO members can sustain even the current level of weapons deliveries.

The White House says that it has moved swiftly in an unprecedented way to get weapons in the hands of Ukrainians fighting the Russian troops, and that U.S. officials are working with NATO allies to keep the arms moving to Ukraine.

Since the Russian invasion began on Feb. 24, U.S. cargo planes have unloaded hundreds of anti-aircraft Stingers, thousands of anti-tank weapons, millions of rounds of ammunition and other gear destined for Ukraine’s armed forces, according to the White House. The weapons deliveries to Eastern Europe came as President Joe Biden recently approved more than $1 billion of military assistance for Ukraine in less than a week.

But these commitments threaten to deplete the existing supplies of some munitions, according to John Schaus of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

Under recent decisions, the United States will deliver about 4,600 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, the White House says. That would account for more than half of the 8,885 Javelins the Defense Department bought in the past 10 years, said Schaus.

Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain, Vadym Prystaiko, warned last week that its current supply of arms will run out soon as their forces are burning through the supplies at a rapid rate. Canada said it will now purchase military gear to send to Ukraine as it could not draw any further from its own supplies without undermining its own defense needs.

In Washington, lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern the Biden administration has yet to lay out a plan on how it will replenish the stocks of weapons being provided to Ukraine. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat from Washington, and the ranking Republican member, Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, recently wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin demanding the Pentagon explain how it intends to ramp up production to replace Stingers sent to Ukraine.

Now members of Congress and officials in Kyiv are calling for a more ambitious approach that would help Ukrainian forces roll back the Russians instead of merely holding them to a stalemate, a goal that would require a wider range of weapons and long-term plans for an open-ended war.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including senators who visited Eastern Europe this week, are urging the administration to aim their efforts at helping Ukraine deliver a decisive defeat to Russia.

“The U.S. mission in Ukraine must go beyond ensuring the country merely has the means to defend itself against Russian aggression,” said a bipartisan letter from 25 lawmakers. “The strategy must deliver Ukraine necessary weapons to defend itself, counter the Russian forces’ advance, and give the Ukrainian people a chance to win this war,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter Tuesday.

Ben Hodges, a retired U.S. Army general who served in Afghanistan and oversaw troops in Europe, said the administration needed to shift its goals in Ukraine and give additional weapons that could take out incoming Russian missiles and warships off the coast.

“There is not the sense of urgency that is needed to help the Ukrainians turn the tide. It seems as if we are giving them enough to keep them from losing but not enough to help them win,” said Hodges.

U.S. lawmakers also have demanded a full accounting of the weapons sent to Ukraine so far and of what’s left in U.S. and European stocks.

Where are the drones?
Critics, including Republican lawmakers, former U.S. diplomats and military officers and Ukrainian officials, say the Biden administration has consistently adopted an overly cautious stance on aiding Ukraine, hesitating to green-light the delivery of certain types of weapons — such as armed drones and Stingers — to avoid provoking an aggressive response from Moscow. They argue that the administration had to be pressured into almost every significant step it has taken so far to help Ukraine.

Despite appeals from Ukraine and from lawmakers, the administration did not approve American shipments of Stingers or armed “kamikaze” drones until after the Russian attack was launched in February. Significant numbers of anti-tank Javelin weapons did not start flowing until January.

As of Wednesday, small “kamikaze” Switchblade drones, recently approved by the administration, had yet to be delivered, according to the Pentagon. A larger, more powerful version of the Switchblade drone was not approved in the administration’s weapons package.

The administration initially chose not to share targeting intelligence with Ukraine, but after criticism from Congress, it relented.

In blunt language, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rebuked NATO countries, saying they are dithering about providing help while Russian shells and missiles rain down on Ukrainian cities.

Although Zelenskyy has made repeated public pleas, the White House remains opposed to helping Poland or other countries provide Soviet-era fighter jets to Ukraine, saying the planes are of limited utility and could risk escalating tensions with Moscow. Ukrainian pilots disagree, saying in interviews that their fighter aircraft are undermining Russia’s air attack but that they are outnumbered and need more planes and better radar.

Ukraine has also asked for more sophisticated S-300 air defense systems that can hit aircraft at a higher altitude, but Eastern European countries say they are not ready to deliver those to Ukraine until they acquire a replacement from the U.S. or other NATO states. U.S. officials say the issue remains under discussion.

Rogers, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said the Biden administration “has consistently slow-walked sending critical lethal aid to Ukraine.”

“The Biden White House should be haunted by the knowledge of the impact that U.S. Stingers, more Javelins, Switchblades, and air-defenses, would have had if they were provided pre-invasion,” Rogers said in an email.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, defended the administration, saying it has moved rapidly in an unparalleled situation, with the United States explicitly arming an opposing force fighting the Russians. Even during the Cold War, the U.S. did not overtly provide weapons to Moscow’s adversaries, he said.

“There’s not a single country in the world that’s done more for Ukraine than the United States, even though we’re on the other side of the world,” Murphy said.

Murphy said there are “very few signs that the administration is taking its foot off the accelerator in order to send messages to Putin.”

John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who urged the administration to move more decisively to arm and equip Ukraine before the invasion, said the current effort to send weapons to Ukraine “may end up being enough, but it’s far from what it should be.”

The administration rejects accusations that it has moved too slowly, or that Ukraine is not getting the weapons it needs. It also points to military training carried out over the past several years by the United States and other allies that is now bearing fruit on the battlefield.

“Armchair generals keep searching for some magical weapon that would be the difference maker, when the actual difference maker is staring them in the face — it’s the thousands of weapons of all sorts we’ve already delivered, which have kept the Ukrainians in the fight, sent the Russians into retreat, and ultimately will lead to Putin’s failure,” said a U.S. official, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Marc Polymeropoulos, who once oversaw clandestine operations in Russia and Europe for the CIA, said it was not realistic to provide Ukraine with everything it has asked for.

“Instead, we should be giving them what they actually require, based on the needs-based assessments of professional CIA and special operations officers who presumably maintain routine contact with their Ukrainian counterparts,” he said.

Polymeropoulos said the Biden administration’s caution has been frustrating at times, particularly amid reports of debates at the White House National Security Council over legal objections to various courses of action.

“It’s always nasty to see how the sausage is made, but ultimately it comes out tasting pretty good,” he said. “The administration was initially overly cautious over unfounded fears of escalation, but after pressure from the Hill, and in particular events on the ground, ultimately we wound up doing the right thing.”

With Russian forces struggling to advance and even pushed back around Kyiv and other battlefronts, and amid estimates from U.S. officials of high casualties among Russian troops, it appears the effort to arm the Ukrainians is proving effective, according to Polymeropoulos.

Given that the Ukrainians are currently “kicking the crap out of the Russians,” he said, the overall effort seems to be working

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... aines-aid/

The Czech Republic Comes to Ukraine’s Aid
by JOHN W. BUSH, March 31, 2022 1:50 PM

Eastern Europe is a tough neighborhood. Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, and the Baltic nations have struggled for centuries against imperial domination by larger neighbors.

The latest manifestation of this unhappy phenomenon is, of course, Russia’s attempt to reassert the dominance over Ukraine that it enjoyed during the Czarist and Soviet eras. Frightened by these imperial ambitions, Poland and the Baltic states have provided steadfast military and diplomatic support to Ukraine over the past month.

One country that has received less attention is the Czech Republic. The president is Miloš Zeman, an aging figure who rose to political prominence soon after Czech independence. Until recently, he was viewed by many as sympathetic to Putin, a political weak link in NATO’s eastern flank. No longer. As the AP reported the day Russia’s invasion began, Zeman denounced it as “an unprovoked act of aggression,” and “a crime against peace.” In the wake of the invasion, the Czech Republic has become one of NATO’s most forward-leaning advocates of the Ukrainian cause. Czech prime minister Petr Fiala even joined his Polish and Slovenian counterparts in visiting half-encircled Kyiv to signal solidarity with Ukraine.

This support has taken material as well as rhetorical form. In addition to humanitarian aid and welcoming over 300,000 refugees (more than half of them children), the Czechs have worked to support the Ukrainian military in more direct ways.

“We took our lead from President Zelensky’s comment, ‘I need ammunition, not a ride,’” Czech deputy defense minister ​​Tomáš Kopečný told National Review. Since the war began, the Czech government has dispatched weapons and ammunition worth over $130 million dollars to the Ukrainian military.

They are well-positioned to support Ukraine. The Czech arms industry was one of the largest in the Warsaw Pact, and to this day the Czechs are major weapons exporters. Unlike most NATO members, their expertise and weapons stockpiles (largely held by private companies) are in the Soviet-style systems with which the Ukrainian military has deep institutional familiarity.

As tensions rose between Russia and Ukraine back in December, the Czech Ministry of Defense identified privately held weapons systems that would be interoperable with and strategically beneficial to the Ukrainian military. The day of the invasion, the two governments began coordinating to get as much of this material as possible from Czech companies to Ukrainian soldiers.

“All the traditional bureaucratic burdens on exporting military hardware had fallen away within a few hours of the invasion of Ukraine,” Kopečný said. “It used to take 50-60 days to get an export license; it now takes two to four hours for Ukraine.” The Czechs have placed no restrictions on weapon categories available to Ukraine for purchase.

In addition to Czech donations and Ukrainian government outlays, a uniquely 21st-century source is now financing weapon acquisitions: crowdfunding.

Immediately after the war with Russia began, Ukraine’s embassy in the Czech Republic launched a global crowdfunding campaign to sponsor further arms purchases. It struck a chord with the Czech public, and even attracted some donors from elsewhere in Europe and in the United States. According to the Czech Ministory of Defense, the campaign has raised over $40 million in donations, every dollar of which has gone to purchasing vital anti-aircraft, anti-tank, and other weapon systems for the Ukrainian government.

There may be a long tradition of Russian imperialism in Eastern Europe, but Russia’s former vassals have no interest in seeing history repeat. Russian state propagandists may preach Slavic brotherhood, but nations like the Czechs and Ukrainians see their Slavic fraternity in a different light; it binds their fates together in a common struggle for national independence.

Too bad the Magyars & Bulgars do not share that Slavic sense of brotherhood.

[old salt]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-salv ... _lead_pos8

Russian forces are more likely to try to remain in parts of Ukraine. Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukrainian military intelligence, said Russia wants to “create North, South Korea.” But South Korea retains huge U.S. military garrisons to deter future land grabs. A comparable scenario is unlikely here unless the U.S. sends major troop deployments to western Ukraine.

Divided Cyprus offers another analogy. Since Turkey invaded in 1974, Ankara has sustained the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” and Turkish forces are based there despite low levels of diplomatic recognition. That didn’t stop the Republic of Cyprus from joining the European Union in 2004. The division has evolved into a feature on Europe’s political map.

Russia may try to secure a stretch of land from the Donbas to Crimea even if it faces insurgency later on. Ukraine will never willfully give up its territory, but barring an unforeseen escalation that brings other countries into the fight, a total Russian rout looks unlikely. Even if Ukraine dislodges Russian forces from the 2022 territorial gains, evicting Russia from the 2014 gains will be almost impossible.

This is a bleak prognosis for Ukraine, which is no stranger to division. Its lands were bisected by Austria-Hungary in the west and Russia in the east until both empires collapsed in World War I. Mr. Putin is bent on securing something from his military misadventure. Whether he can depends on his awareness of the shrinking reality of what Russia’s invasion force can achieve.

[old salt]

Extended US deployments on NATO's E flank.

The USMC squadron of 10 F/A 18's that were in theater for the joint exercise in Norway are staying for now, rather than returning to home base in Beaufort SC.

John Kirby today announced that " the 82nd Airborne is not coming home anytime soon, the Truman carrier strike group Med deployment is extended indefinitely & the Armored Brigade Combat Team currently on a rotational deployment will be staying, even after it's replacement BCT arrives :

US poised to have three armored brigades in Europe at once as troop numbers climb
by JOHN VANDIVER• STARS AND STRIPES • MARCH 22, 2022

The Army soon is likely to have three armored brigades in Europe for the first time in well over a decade, as one unit begins arriving while another has its nine-month tour extended in the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Weaponry belonging to the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Carson, Colo., will be offloaded at ports in Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands, and soldiers will arrive in April, U.S. Army Europe and Africa said in a statement this week.

The unit was scheduled to replace a separate armored brigade now at the end of a rotation along NATO’s eastern flank.

But in February, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division’s tour was extended by the Army in a move aimed at shoring up allied defenses in Poland, Romania and Latvia.

The Army is yet to announce when the Fort Riley, Kan., unit’s extension could end, saying it will continue its mission only as long as needed.

“Currently there has been no change to 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division’s mission,” USAREUR-AF said in a statement Monday.

With the arrival of the Fort Carson unit, the total number of American service members operating in Europe stands at over 100,000, a number not seen since 2005.

The 4,000 incoming Fort Carson soldiers are bringing with them about 90 Abrams tanks, 15 Paladins, 150 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles and more than 1,000 tracked and wheeled vehicles and equipment, USAREUR-AF said.

Since 2014, the Army has been sending armored units to Europe to bolster defenses along NATO’s eastern flank. The plan was sparked by Russia’s initial intervention in Ukraine.

But Moscow’s full-fledged invasion of that country last month has brought about a much larger troop buildup by the Pentagon, which has sent roughly 20,000 additional troops to Europe.

Meanwhile, NATO says it is considering broader changes to how it places forces in Europe, with significant increases potentially in the works for countries in the eastern part of the alliance.

https://news.usni.org/2022/03/29/u-s-se ... deterrence
U.S. Sends 200 Marines, 10 F-18 Hornets Sent to Eastern Europe for Russian Deterrence

The Pentagon is repositioning 200 Marines from Norway to Lithuania as part of the ongoing U.S. response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The Marines are part of Marine Air Control Group 28, which is based in Cherry Hill, N.C., Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby told reporters Tuesday. The group was in Norway as part of Cold Response 2022, an exercise during which four Marines died when their helicopter crashed.

Additionally, about 10 Marine Corps F-18 Hornets, stationed in Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, S.C., and an unspecified number of Marine Corps C-130s will head to eastern Europe, although Kirby did not have an exact location.

While Kirby did not specify the Hornet unit, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 312 deployed from Beaufort late last month for Cold Response.

The announcement comes a day after the Department of Defense it would send six U.S. Navy EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, part of the “Garudas” of VAQ-134 that is stationed at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash., to Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany.

The aircraft, which will be accompanied by 240 pilots, crew members and maintenance personnel, will take part in continued deterrence efforts and help bolster NATO relationships, Kirby said in a statement Monday.

“They are not being deployed to be used against Russian forces in Ukraine,” according to Kirby’s statement. “They are being deployed completely in keeping with our efforts to bolster NATO’s deterrence and defense capabilities along that eastern [front]. The deployment is not in response to a perceived threat or incident.”

The additional units are not NATO Response Force committed, but rather individual decisions made by the Department of Defense based on its capabilities, Kirby said during Tuesday’s press briefing.

“It’s not about a number goal. It’s really about capabilities, and it’s based on constant conversations with our NATO allies on the eastern [front],” Kirby said.

[old salt]

To incentivize E NATO members with Soviet legacy weapons systems to transfer them to Ukraine, the EU should offer to establish a Lend Lease fund to pay for new weapons systems to backfill those transferred. NATO should agree that member contributions to the fund count toward their 2% of GDP spent on defense. In the meantime, NATO members, including the US, should agree to deploy forces & systems necessary to cover the defensive needs of the donor nations until they are backfilled with replacement weapons systems & training for their operators. The backfill could be US or EU made, to common NATO standards. Update & upgrade NATO capability while arming Ukraine to defend themselves.

[ardilla secreta]

E821FC83-CF46-4B2D-BF06-698BB4E08863.jpeg (192 KiB) Viewed 666 times

[MDlaxfan76]

Apparently, Ukraine is now reaching into Russia to destroy supply capabilities.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... dn-vpx.cnn

[Brooklyn]

E821FC83-CF46-4B2D-BF06-698BB4E08863.jpeg

Secret weapon!

[old salt]

Apparently, Ukraine is now reaching into Russia to destroy supply capabilities.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... dn-vpx.cnn

Embedded CNN video clip trying to explain away the 15% rise in Putin's domestic approval rating to 85%.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... -conflict/

[DocBarrister]

Apparently, Ukraine is now reaching into Russia to destroy supply capabilities.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... dn-vpx.cnn

Embedded CNN video clip trying to explain away the 15% rise in Putin's domestic approval rating to 85%.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... -conflict/

Still openly rooting for Putin.

How embarrassing for this forum.

DocBarrister

[JoeMauer89]

Apparently, Ukraine is now reaching into Russia to destroy supply capabilities.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... dn-vpx.cnn

Embedded CNN video clip trying to explain away the 15% rise in Putin's domestic approval rating to 85%.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... -conflict/

Still openly rooting for Putin.

How embarrassing for this forum.

DocBarrister

He's not openly rooting for Putin, you should be banned from this site for even INSINUATING that. The fact that you could even suggest that notion is sickening and very scary. Cartoon Character.

Joe

[Typical Lax Dad]

Apparently, Ukraine is now reaching into Russia to destroy supply capabilities.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... dn-vpx.cnn

Embedded CNN video clip trying to explain away the 15% rise in Putin's domestic approval rating to 85%.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... -conflict/

Enjoy the USNA game this weekend.