All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Typical Lax Dad]

Our EU allies are terrified. They're not echoing our triumphalism. They're worried about surviving, not "winning".
They want a cease fire asap, so they can keep buying the Russian energy upon which their economies are still dependent.

SecDef can't promise a military victory when US forces are not involved.
He gave Putin the perfect talking point & justification for using a tac nuc.
He is creating false expectations among the US public.

Speak softly & wield a big stick, or better yet, give one to the Ukrainians.
No one can "win" without control of the airspace & the Black Sea.

This comes across as defeatist.

Our EU allies are not "terrified", though we all certainly should be very worried about Putin taking this nuclear when he's otherwise defeated. EU certainly. But as previously said, if he does, NATO should/will utterly destroy his conventional capacities and create that no fly zone. Don't escalate to respond with nuclear. The world, not just NATO, will rally in horror.

On energy, Poland is leading the way and everyone else in NATO is scrambling as well. But the entire region has decided that they MUST decouple from energy from Russia...the only reversal of that would be Putin's overthrow.

Defeatist ? It's not our war, or NATO's. It's a civil war between former Soviet states. Unresolved issues from the breakup of the USSR. We have chosen to support Ukraine with financial & military aid. That's it.

Watch the evening news from Germany, France & the UK. They're -- asking their "experts" w.t.f is Sec Austin proposing ? You don't hear any of their retired Generals calling to fill the skies over Ukraine with F-35's. The EUroburghers don't want to humiliate Russia & devastate their military. They want the killing & destruction to end asap so they can return to the status quo & resume trading with Russia & buying their energy. It will be years before they don't need Russian energy.

Russia is still holding & slowly gaining territory. They still control the sea & the skies. They are free to lob missiles into Ukraine at their liesure. They are far from defeated.
So you'd trade a tac nuc strike for a no fly zone ? That's just nuts. Once a tac nuc flies, if we escalate conventionally, more will follow.

“It's a civil war between former Soviet states. Unresolved issues from the breakup of the USSR.”—old salt

You can’t be serious.

Anyone who does not understand that Russia has invaded a sovereign European nation, Ukraine, with its own unique culture, language, and history, has a really distorted perspective of what’s going on.

DocBarrister

If you read enough RT, you get that way, apparently.

Stockholm syndrome

Have you tough guys sent your kids to join the Ukrainian foreign legion ?

My son is a money changer and daughter is in tech….you send yours to help ol’ Vlad.

Figures. Somebody else will do the fighting for them & you.

It pays well, obviously.

[old salt]

Very timely, ...but apparently not yet everyone.

From Slate
Everyone Is Starting to Admit Something Frightening About Ukraine

The conflict has become a proxy war between NATO and Russia, with more risks for everyone involved.
by FRED KAPLAN, APRIL 29, 2022

The war between Russia and Ukraine is swiftly evolving into a war between Russia and NATO. In one respect, this is good: It gives Ukraine a higher chance of repelling Moscow’s invasion and even winning. In another respect, it is risky: The wider the war spreads, and the more Russia seems to be losing, the more compelled Vladimir Putin may feel to lash out with extreme violence.

This shift in the West’s approach to the war was first signaled on Monday, when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said the United States’ goals in the war were not only to protect Ukraine as a democratic, sovereign country but also to “weaken” Russia as a military power. This has been obvious for some time, but even some U.S. officials were surprised to hear Austin express the fact so explicitly.

A few days later, Austin hosted a meeting of defense officials from 40 nations, as well as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, at Ramstein Air Base, headquarters of NATO Air Command, in Germany, to coordinate military assistance to Ukraine. The meeting prompted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to complain, “NATO, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy. War means war.”

Back in February, on the day he invaded Ukraine, Putin warned that “whoever tries to hinder us” will face “consequences that you have never faced in your history”—which many took, reasonably, as a threat to use nuclear weapons. Putin later said he would regard direct NATO intervention as a threat to Russia, triggering those same consequences.

For that reason, President Joe Biden and other Western leaders have stopped short of sending their own troops or mounting a no-fly zone with their own planes, noting that doing so would mean declaring war on Russia, which could set off World War III. In the first several weeks of the war, these leaders also declined to send Ukraine “heavy weapons,” including howitzers and artillery shells that, if fired from eastern Ukraine, could hit Russian territory.

In recent days, the Western nations have relaxed the limits on heavy weapons. Even the German parliament—which, for historical reasons, has steered clear of any sort of intervention in foreign wars, until two months ago—voted overwhelmingly to send Ukraine heavy weapons; earlier, the German chancellor boosted his country’s defense budget by extravagant sums.

On Thursday, Biden asked Congress for another $33 billion in aid to Ukraine—two-thirds of it for military assistance, enough to keep the fight going for another five months. This is on top of the $13.6 billion Biden requested just two months ago. To put this in perspective, the total sum slightly exceeds the $40 billion that the U.S. spent on average each year to support its own 20-year war in Afghanistan.

Biden also invoked the World War II–era Lend-Lease Act to speed up the transfer of weapons from the U.S. military’s stockpile. That legislation authorized the lending of military equipment to foreign countries “whose defense the president deems vital to the defense of the United States.”

There it is, then, in Biden’s own proclamation: The defense of Ukraine is “vital to the defense of the United States.”

Perhaps in response to this surge in U.S. and NATO assistance—though also no doubt to step up his own army’s dreadful performance—Putin is moving closer to viewing the conflict not merely as a “special military operation” against Ukraine, which he has dismissed as a mythical country, but a full-fledged war against a global superpower. On Wednesday, he appointed Valery Gerasimov, the Russian chief of the general staff, to take command of the offensive in eastern Ukraine.

This doesn’t necessarily mean the Russian army will suddenly snap to—chiefs of staff, even one as celebrated as Gerasimov, don’t necessarily have operational expertise—but it does signify that Putin has reassessed the nature of the war and elevated its stakes.

Nor is Putin conceding any ground to Ukraine, despite the recent retreat of Russian troops from the area around Kyiv. Though the fighting is now focused in the country’s eastern region of Donbas, where both sides are exchanging fierce artillery fire, Russia fired two cruise missiles at Kyiv just hours after U.N. Secretary General António Guterres visited the capital and met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The timing of the missile attack—which few see as mere coincidence—suggests that Putin regards the United Nations as another outside institution arrayed against his motherland. Whether or not he really believes this, it plays into his domestic political campaign to purge all Western influences from Russia—and to present the war in Ukraine, which he depicts as a hellhole led by Nazis, as one front in this campaign.

The intensifying barrages and the increasingly demonizing rhetoric make it hard to imagine a cease-fire or meaningful peace talks emerging anytime soon.

It is not inconceivable that Putin, seeing the war as a titanic struggle with the United States, might feel emboldened to dangle a peace feeler to Washington, if he ever feels like stopping the war at all. He may well feel more dignified negotiating with the president of the United States than he would with the president of Ukraine. Whether it’s in anyone’s interest to let him feel more dignified is another question. But if the war spirals out of control and seems on the verge of escalating to new, more far-flung horrors, doing so might be better than the alternative.

[old salt]

Javelin resupply demand.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/how-thi ... raine.html

Ukraine's Air Force

https://www.airforcemag.com/ukraine-wan ... r-success/
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany—Ukraine is calling for modern American fighter jets to face Russia’s overwhelming air advantage in the contested skies over the war-torn country, but senior Air Force officials say American F-16s, which require lengthy training, are not yet part of the aid picture.

More than 40 nations gathered at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, on April 26 to consider what type of weapons to supply, including air power assistance such as F-16s, to Ukraine. The war is now shifting to the eastern front in the Donbas region, an area where long-range weapons are desperately needed.

Recently, however, the Ukrainian Air Force has expanded its request beyond Soviet-era jets they already know how to fly, such as MiG-29s and Su-24s. Ukraine is asking for modern American jets, including F-15s, F-16s, and “maybe” F-18s, to shift the air advantage to their side, according to a video posted on the Ukrainian Air Force Twitter page April 26, the day of the Ramstein meeting.

Senior defense officials, including U.S. Air Forces in Europe commander Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, spoke about the possibility of supplying American-made F-16s to Ukraine.

“That doesn’t happen fast,” Harrigian told Air Force Magazine during a pull-aside interview at the Ramstein Officer’s Club where the meeting was taking place.

“At the end of the day, we’ve got to leverage what they have and offer them some other unique capabilities to make the problem challenging, and then there’s the longer-term view,” he added. “Clearly, they want to migrate from Russian capabilities to U.S., but that takes some time.”

On March 8, Poland offered to transfer its inventory of 23 MiG-29s to Ramstein, for the United States to give to Ukraine. The suggestion, made publicly by Poland’s foreign minister, was turned down by the Defense Department. Commander of U.S. European Command Air Force Gen. Tod. D. Wolters later issued a statement saying the move could be seen as “escalatory.”

Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak told Air Force Magazine that making the MiG delivery would now require a consensus among NATO nations.

“It should be a decision taken by all [the] alliance, the NATO alliance,” Błaszczak said during a pull-aside interview before the start of the Ramstein meeting.

“I’m sure that more defense assistance is needed for Ukraine,” he said, adding that he believed the meeting would provide an avenue for getting more weapons to Ukraine. “My opinion, this meeting is a success, and it’s a very good initiative. So, I’m optimistic.”

Ukrainian officials have said their Soviet-era jets are not enough to evade modern Russian weapons.

“To effectively protect our territory, Ukraine requires at least one squadron of modern fighter jets, such as American-made F-16s or F-15s,” former commander of the Ukrainian Air Force Serhii Drozdov wrote in an April 19 opinion piece.

“According to our estimates, our pilots can learn to fly such jets at an accelerated pace of two to three weeks,” he added.

That’s an extremely accelerated timeline. The Basic course at the F-16 schoolhouse at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., takes about 9 months and includes academics, simulation training, and flight sorties. But even before students arrive at Luke, they must complete six months of basic flight training in the T-6, seven months in the T-38, and six to eight weeks learning basic fighter fundamentals and advanced fighter maneuvers in the AT-38.

Drozdov said the Soviet-made Polish MiGs had received some upgrades to meet NATO standards but that they still have “outdated radar and missile technologies.”

“Pilots would continue to be sitting ducks in these planes—easy targets for the enemy,” he wrote.

The U.S. Air Force’s 2023 budget plans to retire more than 200 F-15s, but the Air Force considers the aircraft to be beyond their useful service life, and in some cases, the aircraft have safety of flight issues and can no longer fly.

At an April 28 background briefing, a senior defense official told Air Force Magazine that the United States continues to provide or facilitate the transfer of Soviet-era spare parts to keep Ukrainian jets flying.

“This is an air force that relies principally on old Soviet aircraft. That’s what they’re used to flying. That’s what they’ve got in their fleet. That’s what we’re trying to help them keep in the air,” the official said. “I’m not going to speculate about the future of aircraft deliveries one way or the other.”

At a Ramstein background briefing, defense officials revealed that a variety of training activities are taking place in Germany and other countries outside of Ukraine.

The senior defense official said April 28 that the trainings are typically short, such as the six-day training for how to use Howitzers, enabling fighters to quickly return to the front line.

Still, a defense official from the EUCOM Control Center Ukraine (ECCU) at EUCOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, said at a Ramstein background briefing for journalists that enhancing Ukraine’s air power was a topic of conversation at Ramstein.

Harrigian confirmed that air power conversations were going on, but he cautioned that training on American jets might be a step too far.

“Collectively, we’ve got to step up and understand what the Ukrainians’ requirements are and find a way to get it to them and get it to them quick,” Harrigian said.

“You just don’t throw somebody an F-16 and wish them good luck,” he said. “That is not a recipe for success, and we want to set them up for success.”

[old salt]

Here's what David Sanger of the NYT writes about Sec Austin's speech :
Behind Austin's call for a weakened Russia, Hints of a shift.
The immediate impetus for Mr Austin's carefully orchestrated declaration... several administration officials said, was to set up Pres Zelensky with what one senior State Dept official called "the strongest possible hand" for what they expect will be some kind of cease-fire negotiations in coming months. But over the long term, Mr Austin's description of America's strategic goal is bound to reinforce Putin's oft-stated belief that the war is really about the West's desire to choke off Russian power & destabilize his government.

More from David Sanger in that same NYT article :

And by casting the American goal as a weakened Russian military, Mr Austin and others in the Biden admin are becoming more explicit about the future they see... Years of continuous contest for power & influence with Moscow that in some ways resembles what President JFK termed the "long twilight struggle" of the Cold War.

[old salt]

Our EU allies are terrified. They're not echoing our triumphalism. They're worried about surviving, not "winning".
They want a cease fire asap, so they can keep buying the Russian energy upon which their economies are still dependent.

SecDef can't promise a military victory when US forces are not involved.
He gave Putin the perfect talking point & justification for using a tac nuc.
He is creating false expectations among the US public.

Speak softly & wield a big stick, or better yet, give one to the Ukrainians.
No one can "win" without control of the airspace & the Black Sea.

This comes across as defeatist.

Our EU allies are not "terrified", though we all certainly should be very worried about Putin taking this nuclear when he's otherwise defeated. EU certainly. But as previously said, if he does, NATO should/will utterly destroy his conventional capacities and create that no fly zone. Don't escalate to respond with nuclear. The world, not just NATO, will rally in horror.

On energy, Poland is leading the way and everyone else in NATO is scrambling as well. But the entire region has decided that they MUST decouple from energy from Russia...the only reversal of that would be Putin's overthrow.

Defeatist ? It's not our war, or NATO's. It's a civil war between former Soviet states. Unresolved issues from the breakup of the USSR. We have chosen to support Ukraine with financial & military aid. That's it.

Watch the evening news from Germany, France & the UK. They're -- asking their "experts" w.t.f is Sec Austin proposing ? You don't hear any of their retired Generals calling to fill the skies over Ukraine with F-35's. The EUroburghers don't want to humiliate Russia & devastate their military. They want the killing & destruction to end asap so they can return to the status quo & resume trading with Russia & buying their energy. It will be years before they don't need Russian energy.

Russia is still holding & slowly gaining territory. They still control the sea & the skies. They are free to lob missiles into Ukraine at their liesure. They are far from defeated.
So you'd trade a tac nuc strike for a no fly zone ? That's just nuts. Once a tac nuc flies, if we escalate conventionally, more will follow.

“It's a civil war between former Soviet states. Unresolved issues from the breakup of the USSR.”—old salt

You can’t be serious.

Anyone who does not understand that Russia has invaded a sovereign European nation, Ukraine, with its own unique culture, language, and history, has a really distorted perspective of what’s going on.

DocBarrister

If you read enough RT, you get that way, apparently.

Stockholm syndrome

Have you tough guys sent your kids to join the Ukrainian foreign legion ?

My son is a money changer and daughter is in tech….you send yours to help ol’ Vlad.

Figures. Somebody else will do the fighting for them & you.

It pays well, obviously.

Maybe they can send a donation to the family of the 22 year old US Marine vet who just died fighting alongside the Ukrainians, leaving behind a young wife & 7 month old baby. Rah rah. Let's go fight & die for " Ukraine, with its own unique culture, language, and history,"
We are getting sucked into what we spent 50 years avoiding in our last long twilight struggle. It's like we learned nothing about Russia & Russians.

[old salt]

How & when does this end & how much of Ukraine will resemble Syria when it does ?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssia-talks

Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now
Angus Roxburgh

By providing arms but avoiding military intervention western leaders are prolonging this hideous conflict. Talks are the best way out

Wed 27 Apr 2022 10.00 EDT

Few people in the west doubt that Ukraine is fighting a just war. Russia’s invasion was entirely unprovoked. Whatever complaints it may have had about Nato expansion or Ukraine’s mistreatment of Russians in Donbas, nobody had attacked Russia, and nobody was planning to. Vladimir Putin launched a straightforward war of aggression and territorial conquest.

It follows that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. But it is not at all clear that the kind of support we are giving (and not giving) is the right way to go about preserving the Ukrainian nation.

The longer this war rages on, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities, industry and economy. Yet the west’s current approach of supporting Ukraine’s war aim of defeating the aggressor, and providing arms for that purpose while pointedly avoiding direct military intervention, is guaranteed to prolong the war. Russia’s progress may be slowed, but it’s highly unlikely to be stopped, far less pushed out of Ukraine, and in the meantime the grinding destruction and hideous war crimes will continue.

No day goes past without some senior western politician proclaiming that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia is “failing”. This is certainly morale-boosting. But it is clearly nonsense.

The fact is, as time goes on, more towns and cities are destroyed and then fall to the Russians. In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just the breakaway parts of Donbas – has grown to perhaps five times the size. If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another two months the entire south of Ukraine will be in ruins, cities such as Odesa will resemble Mariupol, and thousands upon thousands more Ukrainians will have died.

Worse, as the war goes on, and more towns are destroyed, it becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to. How many citizens of Mariupol will ever return? If Russia’s aim was to exterminate the Ukrainian nation, then the west’s approach is helping to do just that.

Surely, if the lives of Ukrainian people are our concern then the west has to do something to stop the war – now. Encouraging the Ukrainians to continue, however just their cause, is merely making their country uninhabitable.

The trouble is, there are only two ways to stop the war quickly, and neither is palatable to most western leaders.

One would be for Nato to enter the war and make a quick, massive and decisive strike to cripple Russia’s invasion forces. Unlike with Russia’s actions, it would have every right under international law to do so. When Putin intervened in Syria, he very carefully framed this as a response to a request from Syria’s legitimate and internationally recognised government. The west could do the same in Ukraine. Putin himself has no such justification for his invasion.

The risk involved in this – of a third world war – is obvious, and it’s why the west refuses to intervene directly.

The other option is to persuade Putin to implement an immediate ceasefire, by inviting Russia to comprehensive peace talks. Western leaders are disinclined to parley with a butcher such as Putin. But they did it with Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević, only months after the massacre at Srebrenica, and the result was the Dayton agreement that put an end to the war in Bosnia in 1995.

To get Putin to the negotiating table at all, everything would have to be up for discussion – including Ukraine’s borders, Russia’s age-old security concerns, perhaps even the very logic of basing today’s international frontiers in that part of Europe on what were internal borders in the USSR, drawn up by communist leaders precisely to prevent Soviet republics and regions from being viable independent states. The outcome of the talks does not need to be predetermined. The important thing is to talk rather than fight.

Western leaders cannot bring themselves to broach these matters, which would seem to reward Putin for attempting to redraw the map by force. They would rather fight – or more accurately, let Ukraine fight, in the hope of defeating Russia. But if one thing is certain it is that Putin will never accept defeat. He is already too deeply invested in this war to back off with nothing to show for it. If western leaders think that their arms-length encouragement of Ukraine will bring about a Ukrainian military victory, then they are fatally misreading Putin’s intentions and resolve. For Ukraine’s sake, we need to stop him now, one way or the other, before nothing is left of the country we want to protect.

Angus Roxburgh is a former BBC Moscow correspondent and former consultant to the Kremlin. He is the author of The Strongman: Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia and Moscow Calling: Memoirs of a Foreign Correspondent

[old salt]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/russia- ... putin.html

Could there be war between Russia and the West? Strategists predict what could happen next

KEY POINTS

Tensions between Russia and the West appear to have risen dramatically over the last week.

In the last few days alone, Russia stopped gas supplies to two European countries and has warned the West several times that the risk of a nuclear war is very “real.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that any foreign intervention in Ukraine would provoke what he called a “lightning fast” response from Moscow.

The saber-rattling and rhetoric between Moscow and the West have become notably more aggressive this week, prompting concerns that a direct confrontation between the two power blocs could be more likely.

In the last few days alone, for example, Russia stopped gas supplies to two European countries and has warned the West several times that the risk of a nuclear war is very “real.”

In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that any foreign intervention in Ukraine would provoke what he called a “lightning fast” response from Moscow, while his Foreign Ministry warned NATO not to test its patience.

For their part, Western officials have dismissed Russia’s “bravado” and “dangerous” nuclear war rhetoric, with the U.K. calling on Western allies to “double down” on their support for Ukraine.

CNBC asked strategists about the likelihood of a direct confrontation between Russia and the West. Here’s what they said.

Nuclear attack?
At the start of the week, Russia’s foreign minister warned that the threat of a nuclear war “cannot be underestimated” and said NATO’s supply of weapons to Ukraine was tantamount to the military alliance engaging in a proxy war with Russia.

Putin doubled down on the bellicose rhetoric Wednesday, threatening a “lightning fast” retaliation against any country intervening in the Ukraine war and creating what he called “strategic threats for Russia.”

He then appeared to allude to Russia’s arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons when he warned that Russia has the “tools” for a retaliatory response “that no one else can boast of having now ... we will use them if necessary.”

But strategists told CNBC that Putin is playing on risk aversion in the West and that the chances of a nuclear war are remote.

“I think it’s outside the realm of possibility right now that there’s going to be a nuclear war or World War III that really spills over that far beyond Ukraine’s borders,” Samuel Ramani, a geopolitical analyst and associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told CNBC.

“If there’s a border spillover right now, we’re still probably most likely looking at something like Moldova being vulnerable to an invasion,” he said.

He noted that Russia has a long history of using “nuclear brinkmanship” as a way of preventing the West from pursuing security policies that it doesn’t like, with the escalation in hostile rhetoric aimed at deterring NATO members from making heavy arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Moment of danger
Nonetheless, Ramani noted the threat posed by Russia could become more acute if it felt humiliated on the battlefield. In particular, military setbacks in Ukraine around May 9 could pose some danger. That’s Russia’s “Victory Day” — the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat by the Soviet Union in World War II.

“Putin has had a history of escalating unpredictability if he feels that Russia is being humiliated in some way ... and if there are major setbacks, especially on around the 9th [of May] then there’s a risk of unbreakable action,” he said. “But also there’s a logic of mutually assured destruction that hopefully will rein everybody in.”

Threatening nuclear attacks is part of Putin’s “playbook,” said William Alberque, director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.

“Putin enjoys using risks and he thinks he has a much more appetite for risk than the West does,” he told CNBC on Thursday. “He’s trying to use the old playbook of ‘if I terrify you enough, you’ll back down’,” he said.

“Ultimately, if he uses nuclear weapons, even a demonstration strike, this would turn Russia into a global pariah,” Alberque said. He advised Western leaders, “We just need to be able to manage our risk and keep our nerve and not panic when he does something that we might not expect.”

There’s no indication that there will be a direct confrontation, Liviu Horovitz, a nuclear policy researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, told CNBC.

“Both the United States and Western European governments have repeatedly said that they have no interest in escalating this conflict beyond Ukraine, and I don’t see anything suggesting that NATO troops will be fighting in Ukraine anytime soon.”

How NATO is defending Eastern Europe
Still, if a wider war did break out, “NATO’s overall conventional capabilities outmatch Russia’s,” he noted. What’s important now is that “all sides should avoid any steps that could create misunderstandings,” he said — steps that could lead to an accidental and potentially catastrophic war.

Economic war
While NATO has shied away from providing any aid to Ukraine that could be misconstrued as a direct attack on Russia, Western allies continue to pile on the pressure on Moscow.

Indeed, the economic punishment on Russia has been increasing by the day, in the form of more sanctions on its businesses, key sectors and officials close to or within Putin’s regime. Russia’s own Economy Ministry expects the economy to contract as a result, by 8.8% in 2022 in its base-case scenario, or by 12.4% in a more conservative scenario, Reuters reported.

For its part, Russia has sought to inflict its own pain on European countries that are, awkwardly, heavily reliant on Russian natural gas imports. This week it suspended supplies to Poland and Bulgaria because they refused to pay for the gas in rubles. Russia’s move was branded as “blackmail” by the EU but defended by Moscow.

While a direct confrontation between Russia and the West remains unlikely, one close Russia watcher said Western governments need to imbue their populations with a “war mentality” to prepare them for the hardships they could face as the economic fallout from the war continues. Those include rising energy costs and disrupted supply chains and goods from Russia and Ukraine, among the world’s biggest “bread baskets.”

From soaring food prices to social unrest, the fallout from the Russia-Ukraine war could be immense
“We’re likely to see a further escalation of the economic war, because in some ways, that’s a rational and logical move from both sides that have a very difficult time fighting one another in a direct way because of the nuclear escalation risks,” Maximilian Hess, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told CNBC on Thursday.

“Russia will cut off gas to more countries, it will increase its ruble demands, because it wants to ensure the ruble convertibility remains open, and the West needs to be preparing for this with a full war mentality, making the Western populations understand that this is going to have real economic costs and real impacts on the cost of goods, the cost of living and inflation over the coming years.”

“If we don’t take this war mentality and apply it to the economic war, then it becomes a lot easier for Putin to win and have successes there,” Hess said.

Other flashpoints to watch
After more than two months of war, Russia has expanded its control of territories in eastern and southern Ukraine, trying to create a land bridge from Russia via the Donbas region to its annexed territory of Crimea. But it has also sustained large losses in terms of manpower and arms.

In the meantime, the West continues to pledge more and more support for Ukraine, and the country’s forces are mounting a strong resistance to Russian troops, signaling a protracted and bloody conflict ahead. NATO’s chief, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Thursday that the war in Ukraine could last for years.

Andrius Tursa, Central and Eastern Europe advisor at Teneo Intelligence, said that against this backdrop, “there is no end in sight to Russia’s war in Ukraine, and relations with the West will likely continue to deteriorate.”

“The rhetoric in Russia is already shifting from statements of fighting the ‘nationalists’ in Ukraine to an alleged (proxy) war with NATO. Multiple flashpoints could further escalate the tensions with the West,” he said. Those include recent explosions in the breakaway Moldovan region of Transnistria (which could serve as a pretext for an increased Russian presence in the region) which could bring the conflict “dangerously close to NATO’s borders,” Tursa said in a note Wednesday.

“Moscow could also step up threats to NATO over weapons supplies to Ukraine, especially after multiple military and energy facilities in Russia have been allegedly hit by Ukraine. Finally, decisions by Finland and Sweden to join NATO would be perceived by Moscow as another security threat to Russia and could increase military tensions in the Baltic region.”

[Typical Lax Dad]

Our EU allies are terrified. They're not echoing our triumphalism. They're worried about surviving, not "winning".
They want a cease fire asap, so they can keep buying the Russian energy upon which their economies are still dependent.

SecDef can't promise a military victory when US forces are not involved.
He gave Putin the perfect talking point & justification for using a tac nuc.
He is creating false expectations among the US public.

Speak softly & wield a big stick, or better yet, give one to the Ukrainians.
No one can "win" without control of the airspace & the Black Sea.

This comes across as defeatist.

Our EU allies are not "terrified", though we all certainly should be very worried about Putin taking this nuclear when he's otherwise defeated. EU certainly. But as previously said, if he does, NATO should/will utterly destroy his conventional capacities and create that no fly zone. Don't escalate to respond with nuclear. The world, not just NATO, will rally in horror.

On energy, Poland is leading the way and everyone else in NATO is scrambling as well. But the entire region has decided that they MUST decouple from energy from Russia...the only reversal of that would be Putin's overthrow.

Defeatist ? It's not our war, or NATO's. It's a civil war between former Soviet states. Unresolved issues from the breakup of the USSR. We have chosen to support Ukraine with financial & military aid. That's it.

Watch the evening news from Germany, France & the UK. They're -- asking their "experts" w.t.f is Sec Austin proposing ? You don't hear any of their retired Generals calling to fill the skies over Ukraine with F-35's. The EUroburghers don't want to humiliate Russia & devastate their military. They want the killing & destruction to end asap so they can return to the status quo & resume trading with Russia & buying their energy. It will be years before they don't need Russian energy.

Russia is still holding & slowly gaining territory. They still control the sea & the skies. They are free to lob missiles into Ukraine at their liesure. They are far from defeated.
So you'd trade a tac nuc strike for a no fly zone ? That's just nuts. Once a tac nuc flies, if we escalate conventionally, more will follow.

“It's a civil war between former Soviet states. Unresolved issues from the breakup of the USSR.”—old salt

You can’t be serious.

Anyone who does not understand that Russia has invaded a sovereign European nation, Ukraine, with its own unique culture, language, and history, has a really distorted perspective of what’s going on.

DocBarrister

If you read enough RT, you get that way, apparently.

Stockholm syndrome

Have you tough guys sent your kids to join the Ukrainian foreign legion ?

My son is a money changer and daughter is in tech….you send yours to help ol’ Vlad.

Figures. Somebody else will do the fighting for them & you.

It pays well, obviously.

Maybe they can send a donation to the family of the 22 year old US Marine vet who just died fighting alongside the Ukrainians, leaving behind a young wife & 7 month old baby. Rah rah. Let's go fight & die for " Ukraine, with its own unique culture, language, and history,"
We are getting sucked into what we spent 50 years avoiding in our last long twilight struggle. It's like we learned nothing about Russia & Russians.

Yours can send money too. The Ukraine needs to quit. We have learned to be sympathetic to the Russians.

[old salt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61237762

Ukraine war: The West is united for now - but what if it splits?

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has united the West, the conflict throwing its values into sharp focus. But when it comes to the next phase of the conflict, how long will that unity last? Here are five issues that could ultimately divide the Western alliance.

War aims
Before the war, liberal democracies appeared at times uncertain of their focus and future. Some questioned their alliances, while others succumbed to nationalist sentiment. But the conflict has reminded the West of what it represents - freedom, sovereignty and the rule of law. This in turn has produced a united response to Russia's aggression.

But despite all the diplomacy by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and others, this war may go on for some time. Might we be at the high watermark of consensus within the Western alliance? There are some tough choices ahead that may make it hard for Western powers to stay on the same diplomatic page.

Perhaps the most important tensions could come over the aims of the war. At the moment the West is united behind the defence of Ukraine. It is providing economic and military support to help the country resist.

But what is the longer-term aim? A cessation of hostilities, of course. But must Russia be defeated? Must Ukraine win? What would defeat and victory look like in practical terms? UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told MPs last week: "We must simply do everything we can collectively to ensure that Vladimir Putin fails, and fails comprehensively."

But what does "fail" mean? Mr Johnson did not say. One thing he did reject was pushing for regime change in Moscow. "It is very important… that we do not make it an objective to remove the Russian leader or to change politics in Russia," he said. "This is about protecting the people of Ukraine. Putin will try to frame it as a struggle between him and the West, but we cannot accept that."

Yet that is increasingly what the United States is doing. The US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin has suggested it would not be enough simply to defeat Russian forces. "We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine," he said.

That could mean targeting sanctions on Russia's defence sector. Or it could mean giving Ukraine the means to destroy a significant part of Russia's military forces. Either way, not all Western allies may share such ambitions, fearing Putin might exploit the rhetoric to claim the West was indeed posing an existential threat to Russia.

Military support for Ukraine
The West is largely united in supporting Ukraine militarily. But it differs over specifics. Some countries are reluctant to provide heavy weaponry, fearing it could prolong the bloodshed. Others are increasing their deliveries of ammunition and more powerful weapons.

Anti-tank weapons are amongst the military aid given by the UK to Ukraine
Tobias Ellwood, the Defence Select Committee chairman, wants Britain to give more. "We are doing enough to prevent Ukraine from losing but not enough to ensure they win," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We need to help Ukraine absolutely win rather than just defend the current lines."

Note how he links talk of the means to a debate about the ends.

But others in the West may fear turning the defence of Ukraine into a full proxy war with Russia could push Putin in escalating the conflict, either by attacking other Western targets, launching cyber-attacks or even using weapons of mass destruction.

Not for nothing did Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, warn of the "serious and real" risk of nuclear war.

Support for political settlement
At some point, there may be a military stalemate and pressure may grow for a political settlement. The overwhelming assumption is the West will back whatever Ukraine chooses to do. But what if that is not the case?

What if some Western countries put pressure on Ukraine to sue for peace but the leadership in Kyiv wants to keep fighting? Might some countries start limiting their military support for Ukraine? Or alternatively, what if Ukraine agrees a political settlement the West opposes, thinking it rewards Russia too much? Might some countries refuse to lift sanctions on Russia and potentially scupper a peace deal?

There is a critical debate taking place among Western policymakers about what kind of political settlement could be agreed in Ukraine. Will the priority be regaining control of territory seized by Russia - or ensuring the future security, integrity and viability of what is left of Ukraine after the fighting stops?

A senior western official revealed this tension in almost the same breath. "Putin cannot be seen to have successfully adjusted the sovereign boundaries of Ukraine by force," he said, before adding, "Our long-term plan for Ukraine is that it succeeds as a sovereign and independent state." Those two objectives are not necessarily the same thing.

In practical terms, this means there will be tough choices when it comes to agreeing a political settlement. Should, for example, the West push for Russian forces to withdraw fully to pre-February 2022 borders or leave just some of the areas they have occupied?

For Ben Wallace, the UK Defence Secretary, neither option would be enough. "For my part, I want Putin not only beyond the pre-February boundaries," he told MPs. "He invaded Crimea illegally, he invaded Donetsk illegally and he should comply with international law and in the long run leave Ukraine."

That may not be a view shared by others in the West.

Energy sanctions on Russia
Western powers could fall out over sanctions. For now, they have agreed to disagree over how hard to punish Russia, especially whether more sanctions should be imposed on its oil and gas exports.

Countries dependent on Russian energy say their economies could not survive without it. But if the fighting continues for some time, there may be counter pressures. Some countries might want to increase sanctions on Moscow to try to end the stalemate. Others might want to reduce energy sanctions as their own populations become less tolerant of the economic cost.

Ukraine's future
It is equally possible for the West to disagree over Ukraine's longer-term future. What happens if there are divisions within Ukraine? What if factions emerge, such as nationalists who want to continue fighting, and compromisers who want to agree a deal? Would the West have to take sides?

How bitter might the divisions be within Ukraine? Some analysts have even speculated about the possibility of civil war, making comparisons to the divisions within Ireland in 1922.

Or what if Ukraine began making policy choices the West might oppose?

Fiona Hill, the Russia expert and former US National Security Council official, has suggested Ukraine might even seek to own a nuclear weapon to ensure its future security.

"The more Putin keeps putting nuclear weapons out there… it's just more pressure on countries like Ukraine to think the only real way for defence is to rush out and get a nuclear weapon," she told a seminar at the Changing Europe think tank.

Would, in such circumstances, the West be willing to provide Ukraine with conventional weapons? Or even consider its possible membership of the European Union?

The point is that policy positions in conflict are rarely static and it may be wrong to assume Western unity will automatically sustain through the challenges ahead.

[old salt]

tic tac toe

https://www.maritime-executive.com/arti ... 14%20SSBNs.

[MDlaxfan76]

Our EU allies are terrified. They're not echoing our triumphalism. They're worried about surviving, not "winning".
They want a cease fire asap, so they can keep buying the Russian energy upon which their economies are still dependent.

SecDef can't promise a military victory when US forces are not involved.
He gave Putin the perfect talking point & justification for using a tac nuc.
He is creating false expectations among the US public.

Speak softly & wield a big stick, or better yet, give one to the Ukrainians.
No one can "win" without control of the airspace & the Black Sea.

This comes across as defeatist.

Our EU allies are not "terrified", though we all certainly should be very worried about Putin taking this nuclear when he's otherwise defeated. EU certainly. But as previously said, if he does, NATO should/will utterly destroy his conventional capacities and create that no fly zone. Don't escalate to respond with nuclear. The world, not just NATO, will rally in horror.

On energy, Poland is leading the way and everyone else in NATO is scrambling as well. But the entire region has decided that they MUST decouple from energy from Russia...the only reversal of that would be Putin's overthrow.

Defeatist ? It's not our war, or NATO's. It's a civil war between former Soviet states. Unresolved issues from the breakup of the USSR. We have chosen to support Ukraine with financial & military aid. That's it.

Watch the evening news from Germany, France & the UK. They're -- asking their "experts" w.t.f is Sec Austin proposing ? You don't hear any of their retired Generals calling to fill the skies over Ukraine with F-35's. The EUroburghers don't want to humiliate Russia & devastate their military. They want the killing & destruction to end asap so they can return to the status quo & resume trading with Russia & buying their energy. It will be years before they don't need Russian energy.

Russia is still holding & slowly gaining territory. They still control the sea & the skies. They are free to lob missiles into Ukraine at their liesure. They are far from defeated.
So you'd trade a tac nuc strike for a no fly zone ? That's just nuts. Once a tac nuc flies, if we escalate conventionally, more will follow.

“It's a civil war between former Soviet states. Unresolved issues from the breakup of the USSR.”—old salt

You can’t be serious.

Anyone who does not understand that Russia has invaded a sovereign European nation, Ukraine, with its own unique culture, language, and history, has a really distorted perspective of what’s going on.

DocBarrister

If you read enough RT, you get that way, apparently.

Stockholm syndrome

Have you tough guys sent your kids to join the Ukrainian foreign legion ?

My son is a money changer and daughter is in tech….you send yours to help ol’ Vlad.

Figures. Somebody else will do the fighting for them & you.

It pays well, obviously.

Maybe they can send a donation to the family of the 22 year old US Marine vet who just died fighting alongside the Ukrainians, leaving behind a young wife & 7 month old baby. Rah rah. Let's go fight & die for " Ukraine, with its own unique culture, language, and history,"
We are getting sucked into what we spent 50 years avoiding in our last long twilight struggle. It's like we learned nothing about Russia & Russians.

Yours can send money too. The Ukraine needs to quit. We have learned to be sympathetic to the Russians.

Salty learned appeasement of war crimes is a good idea...

[old salt]

Salty learned appeasement of war crimes is a good idea...

What do you propose we do about it ? Are you advocating the US intervene militarily to bring Putin, his Generals & soldiers to justice ?
...or do you hope to kill or displace the entire population of Ukraine in your quest ?

[Brooklyn]

freedom, sovereignty and the rule of law ...

appeasement ...

Perhaps I missed it but has anyone addressed the matter of why these principles and the consequences thereof where not addressed during the Bush regime?

[a fan]

Salty learned appeasement of war crimes is a good idea...

What do you propose we do about it ? Are you advocating the US intervene militarily to bring Putin, his Generals & soldiers to justice ?
...or do you hope to kill or displace the entire population of Ukraine in your quest ?

There's nothing to do militarily, imho. It's all about how we handle these countries economically. If the EU pulls their act together, and gets other energy sources, and shuts of trade with Putin....that's it. That's the message. It doesn't HAVE to be today. It can be in a few years. But if the world of trade disappears for Putin/Russia? That's all the message that needs to be sent.

But the biggest thing, is the US needs to make Ukraine their #1 trading partner. They do that? The message will be crystal clear as Ukraine catapults to G8 status, and Russia's GDP will continue to be at or below where it was when Putin took power.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Salty learned appeasement of war crimes is a good idea...

What do you propose we do about it ? Are you advocating the US intervene militarily to bring Putin, his Generals & soldiers to justice ?
...or do you hope to kill or displace the entire population of Ukraine in your quest ?

There's nothing to do militarily, imho. It's all about how we handle these countries economically. If the EU pulls their act together, and gets other energy sources, and shuts of trade with Putin....that's it. That's the message. It doesn't HAVE to be today. It can be in a few years. But if the world of trade disappears for Putin/Russia? That's all the message that needs to be sent.

But the biggest thing, is the US needs to make Ukraine their #1 trading partner. They do that? The message will be crystal clear as Ukraine catapults to G8 status, and Russia's GDP will continue to be at or below where it was when Putin took power.

Just lay down and surrender the country to Putin.

[a fan]

Salty learned appeasement of war crimes is a good idea...

What do you propose we do about it ? Are you advocating the US intervene militarily to bring Putin, his Generals & soldiers to justice ?
...or do you hope to kill or displace the entire population of Ukraine in your quest ?

There's nothing to do militarily, imho. It's all about how we handle these countries economically. If the EU pulls their act together, and gets other energy sources, and shuts of trade with Putin....that's it. That's the message. It doesn't HAVE to be today. It can be in a few years. But if the world of trade disappears for Putin/Russia? That's all the message that needs to be sent.

But the biggest thing, is the US needs to make Ukraine their #1 trading partner. They do that? The message will be crystal clear as Ukraine catapults to G8 status, and Russia's GDP will continue to be at or below where it was when Putin took power.

Just lay down and surrender the country to Putin.

He can't take the country militarily. And I don't see how he can hold what he has.

Do you see any other option other than: send in US Troops, and annihilate Russian forces, and deal what whatever crazy response Putin chooses?

We had our chance. If our intent was to militarily defend Ukraine from Putin? We should have parked our troops there a couple of decades ago. Problem solved. That was never our intent.

So we're left with: what now? And to me, money is power. Kill Putin and his country financially, and reward Ukraine.....and watch Ukraine sail past the standard of living in Russia. Can't see any other option. Can you?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Salty learned appeasement of war crimes is a good idea...

What do you propose we do about it ? Are you advocating the US intervene militarily to bring Putin, his Generals & soldiers to justice ?
...or do you hope to kill or displace the entire population of Ukraine in your quest ?

There's nothing to do militarily, imho. It's all about how we handle these countries economically. If the EU pulls their act together, and gets other energy sources, and shuts of trade with Putin....that's it. That's the message. It doesn't HAVE to be today. It can be in a few years. But if the world of trade disappears for Putin/Russia? That's all the message that needs to be sent.

But the biggest thing, is the US needs to make Ukraine their #1 trading partner. They do that? The message will be crystal clear as Ukraine catapults to G8 status, and Russia's GDP will continue to be at or below where it was when Putin took power.

Just lay down and surrender the country to Putin.

He can't take the country militarily. And I don't see how he can hold what he has.

Do you see any other option other than: send in US Troops, and annihilate Russian forces, and deal what whatever crazy response Putin chooses?

We had our chance. If our intent was to militarily defend Ukraine from Putin? We should have parked our troops there a couple of decades ago. Problem solved. That was never our intent.

So we're left with: what now? And to me, money is power. Kill Putin and his country financially, and reward Ukraine.....and watch Ukraine sail past the standard of living in Russia. Can't see any other option. Can you?

We can walk and chew gum. Support Ukraine and let Russia get bogged down in another Afghanistan while choking their economy. Giving in and making nice with Putin is an option, I suppose.

[a fan]

We can walk and chew gum. Support Ukraine and let Russia get bogged down in another Afghanistan while choking their economy. Giving in and making nice with Putin is an option, I suppose

Apologies, I wasn't clear with what I meant by "we have no military options". What I meant was: US troops going in isn't an option.

Our current path----arming them-----is fine by me in this particular case. Normally I despise the "arm the right guys" approach to war that we have used for so many years.

Yes. Bog them down. Drain Putin's money. I agree. I was just saying, I don't agree with sending in US troops to "win" the war, and kick Putin out.

It sucks all around....no good answers.

[old salt]

Salty learned appeasement of war crimes is a good idea...

What do you propose we do about it ? Are you advocating the US intervene militarily to bring Putin, his Generals & soldiers to justice ?
...or do you hope to kill or displace the entire population of Ukraine in your quest ?

There's nothing to do militarily, imho. It's all about how we handle these countries economically. If the EU pulls their act together, and gets other energy sources, and shuts of trade with Putin....that's it. That's the message. It doesn't HAVE to be today. It can be in a few years. But if the world of trade disappears for Putin/Russia? That's all the message that needs to be sent.

But the biggest thing, is the US needs to make Ukraine their #1 trading partner. They do that? The message will be crystal clear as Ukraine catapults to G8 status, and Russia's GDP will continue to be at or below where it was when Putin took power.

Just lay down and surrender the country to Putin.

He can't take the country militarily. And I don't see how he can hold what he has.

Do you see any other option other than: send in US Troops, and annihilate Russian forces, and deal what whatever crazy response Putin chooses?

We had our chance. If our intent was to militarily defend Ukraine from Putin? We should have parked our troops there a couple of decades ago. Problem solved. That was never our intent.

So we're left with: what now? And to me, money is power. Kill Putin and his country financially, and reward Ukraine.....and watch Ukraine sail past the standard of living in Russia. Can't see any other option. Can you?

You don't think he can hold what he has ? Despite the rah rah in our media, everytime you see a map, the red stain in the S & SE is spreading. Russia now holds all the land S of the Dnieper river, including the 2 bridges connecting to the N shore of the Dnieper. They now hold the land bridge connecting Russia & Donbass to Crimea. To expel them, the Ukrainians would have to fight their way across that wide Dnieper river basin, without air or naval support. Our media is not giving us specific casualty figures, beyond grudgingly admitting that casualties are high, on both sides, in the fighting in the E.

Waiting for your method to work, there won't be much worth left of Ukraine worth saving. Russia can turn all of SE & S Ukraine (the most productive parts) into rubble, like Syria, while driving out the population. He can threaten the entire country with missile & air strikes with impunity. Disrupting global markets in energy, ag & resources.

We might be able to arm Ukraine enough to reach a stalemate on the ground, but it will take a decade to get them to the point where they can contest the airspace or sea access. Even IF our reluctant EU allies were willing to give up all their Migs & S-300's (which they are not), that's still insufficient to deter Russian missile & air strikes, or to provide close air support. It would be a challenge for the US & NATO to enforce a no fly zone, even if we tried to fill the skies with F-35's (which would be based where ?)... & we can't get naval forces into the Black Sea, where they'd be penned up like sitting ducks anyway.

We are playing a cynical game, arming our Ukrainian proxies to degrade Russia's military strength, with no realistic hope of victory.
The West needs to force both Zelensky & Putin to the negotiating table to force a cease fire. Our NATO allies are still reluctantly following our lead, but those closest & most immediately threatened (the EU allies) are not as triumphal or jingoistic as the US & UK.

[a fan]

You don't think he can hold what he has ? Despite the rah rah in our media, everytime you see a map, the red stain in the S & SE is spreading. Russia now holds all the land S of the Dneiper river, including the 2 bridges connecting to the N shore of the Dneiper. They now hold the land bridge connecting Russia & Donbass to Crimea. To expel them, the Ukrainians would have to fight their way across that wide Dneiper river basin, without air or naval support. Our media is not giving us specific casualty figures, beyond grudgingly admitting that casualties are high, on both sides, in the fighting in the E.

OS, come on....this is what our media has done for every war we've EVER been involved it. You're acting like this is new. You're only insulting yourself with this stuff, as you "forgot" to point this fact out at any point in the last 15 years of being on the forum.

Waiting for your method to work, there won't be much worth left of Ukraine worth saving

Waiting for my method to work? This is the only method available. Make Russia a second class economic power going forward. That's pretty severe punishment if you're a Russian. Their economy was in shambles BEFORE the war. Now it's worse....and we need to really stick it to them when it's over.

We are playing a cynical game, arming our Ukrainian proxies to degrade Russia's military strength, with no realistic hope of victory.
The West needs to force both Zelensky & Putin to the negotiating table to force a cease fire.

Yes. I've said that from the word go, as you know. There's no other choice.