All Things Russia & Ukraine

[cradleandshoot]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.
{for the benefit of WP non-subscribers}

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... el-russia/

Opinion. Time is not on Ukraine’s side

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, January 7, 2023

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Is Biden willing to roll the dice, double down & finish it now ?

You do understand that what Gates and Rice are arguing is what I have been saying throughout?
(They are not arguing for direct US involvement, simply a faster pace of support, not retreat from such)
That first blued part is exactly why Ukraine cannot afford to let Russia control those lands.

But there's another train of thought, articulated repeatedly by you and right wing ultra nationalists around the world, especially Europe, that this is "not our war", 'it's a conflict between Russians', a legitimate play by Russia to reclaim its lands and peoples, and wrapped in the notion that we should tend to our own troubles not those of others, that Ukraine is corrupt and 'deserves' to be invaded because it had not become democratic and strong before now, it had 'missed its chance' to arm itself, that Putin was pushed into this war by NATO expansion. Much of the latter was intended to appeal to the left wing pacifists as well as the right wing isolationists, but really it was just Russian propaganda repeated by most predominantly the right wing.

Let's note that there's been a huge change in European sentiment and commitments led by Biden's iterative, but consistently advancing, approach. I'd want to go faster, but it's been very effective.

It has it been very effective in what Putin will finally do as a wounded animal trapped in a corner with no escape. The 64 thousand dollar question is if Putin is bluffing about how, where and when he will raise the stakes in this war that is turning rapidly into a very dangerous game of chicken. What does Putin have to lose at this point in time? I'm certain that Vlad is not too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about him.

I don't think this is actually a game of chicken; I think the nuclear threats have been neutered and are basically empty. Why? Because the Russian military knows that it will be utterly decimated if they go to that step. And, they've been warned that such a step would lose all Chinese and Indian support of any kind. Much, much better will be withdrawal from a misbegotten enterprise.

I do think that the incremental approach taken by the West has blunted the likelihood of radical escalation, though I think we could have gone faster. But our European allies were quite understandably more concerned than we about that, as well as the sudden and complete loss of energy supplies.

The slower pace has allowed them to adjust and prepare on the energy front, while helping the Ukrainians make progress on the battlefield.

That said, I think the sooner the West equips the Ukrainians for a spring/summer push, the better. Feels like that's what is happening.

In the meantime, though, the Russians are pouring bodies into the fray at Bakhmut etc. Devastating losses.

But yes, Putin's chief concern should not be so much the rest of the world (he's lost most of them as it is), but rather the domestic audience in the face of so many body bags and injured sons and husbands.

Putin is not a rational and some could argue a sane person. Putin at this stage of the game will never accept defeat or a stalemate and will do whatever it takes to achieve whatever his original objective was. What has become obvious to me is that the Russian army today is not the same army Stalin was in charge of in WW2. You are convinced that there are rational people surrounding Putin that will step in and intervene if Putin chooses to escalate. I don't know if that is the case. I hope your right in your estimation but I doubt it very much. The best case scenario would be the right person putting a bullet in Putins brain. That person has to be an individual who is scared about what Putin might be planning.

[MDlaxfan76]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.
{for the benefit of WP non-subscribers}

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... el-russia/

Opinion. Time is not on Ukraine’s side

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, January 7, 2023

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Is Biden willing to roll the dice, double down & finish it now ?

You do understand that what Gates and Rice are arguing is what I have been saying throughout?
(They are not arguing for direct US involvement, simply a faster pace of support, not retreat from such)
That first blued part is exactly why Ukraine cannot afford to let Russia control those lands.

But there's another train of thought, articulated repeatedly by you and right wing ultra nationalists around the world, especially Europe, that this is "not our war", 'it's a conflict between Russians', a legitimate play by Russia to reclaim its lands and peoples, and wrapped in the notion that we should tend to our own troubles not those of others, that Ukraine is corrupt and 'deserves' to be invaded because it had not become democratic and strong before now, it had 'missed its chance' to arm itself, that Putin was pushed into this war by NATO expansion. Much of the latter was intended to appeal to the left wing pacifists as well as the right wing isolationists, but really it was just Russian propaganda repeated by most predominantly the right wing.

Let's note that there's been a huge change in European sentiment and commitments led by Biden's iterative, but consistently advancing, approach. I'd want to go faster, but it's been very effective.

It has it been very effective in what Putin will finally do as a wounded animal trapped in a corner with no escape. The 64 thousand dollar question is if Putin is bluffing about how, where and when he will raise the stakes in this war that is turning rapidly into a very dangerous game of chicken. What does Putin have to lose at this point in time? I'm certain that Vlad is not too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about him.

I don't think this is actually a game of chicken; I think the nuclear threats have been neutered and are basically empty. Why? Because the Russian military knows that it will be utterly decimated if they go to that step. And, they've been warned that such a step would lose all Chinese and Indian support of any kind. Much, much better will be withdrawal from a misbegotten enterprise.

I do think that the incremental approach taken by the West has blunted the likelihood of radical escalation, though I think we could have gone faster. But our European allies were quite understandably more concerned than we about that, as well as the sudden and complete loss of energy supplies.

The slower pace has allowed them to adjust and prepare on the energy front, while helping the Ukrainians make progress on the battlefield.

That said, I think the sooner the West equips the Ukrainians for a spring/summer push, the better. Feels like that's what is happening.

In the meantime, though, the Russians are pouring bodies into the fray at Bakhmut etc. Devastating losses.

But yes, Putin's chief concern should not be so much the rest of the world (he's lost most of them as it is), but rather the domestic audience in the face of so many body bags and injured sons and husbands.

Putin is not a rational and some could argue a sane person. Putin at this stage of the game will never accept defeat or a stalemate and will do whatever it takes to achieve whatever his original objective was. What has become obvious to me is that the Russian army today is not the same army Stalin was in charge of in WW2. You are convinced that there are rational people surrounding Putin that will step in and intervene if Putin chooses to escalate. I don't know if that is the case. I hope your right in your estimation but I doubt it very much. The best case scenario would be the right person putting a bullet in Putins brain. That person has to be an individual who is scared about what Putin might be planning.

That would be one solution.
I do agree that Putin won't stop with a "stalemate".
His military will need to be thoroughly defeated (in Ukraine or threatening Ukraine) and the people will need to turn against the regime.

We're well off from there at this point, but it's at least feasible than an offensive in the spring/summer, after a hard winter, will develop into a rout...yes, there could be contemplation of going nuclear, but I think that's become clear to be a total loser for Russia that Putin won't be able to enforce such an order.

Of course, that could be wrong, and, if so, the result will be really awful for the Russian military.
And awful for all those impacted by a nuclear blast.

IMO, Putin is delusional, but "rational".
He's operating with a set of assumptions that keep getting proven wrong, but they were assumptions he'd derived from a belief set that justified, rationally, his decisions.

Hopefully, he'll figure out that there's no way to ever 'win' this aggression and look for a way to not lose everything, including his own life.

[cradleandshoot]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.
{for the benefit of WP non-subscribers}

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... el-russia/

Opinion. Time is not on Ukraine’s side

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, January 7, 2023

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Is Biden willing to roll the dice, double down & finish it now ?

You do understand that what Gates and Rice are arguing is what I have been saying throughout?
(They are not arguing for direct US involvement, simply a faster pace of support, not retreat from such)
That first blued part is exactly why Ukraine cannot afford to let Russia control those lands.

But there's another train of thought, articulated repeatedly by you and right wing ultra nationalists around the world, especially Europe, that this is "not our war", 'it's a conflict between Russians', a legitimate play by Russia to reclaim its lands and peoples, and wrapped in the notion that we should tend to our own troubles not those of others, that Ukraine is corrupt and 'deserves' to be invaded because it had not become democratic and strong before now, it had 'missed its chance' to arm itself, that Putin was pushed into this war by NATO expansion. Much of the latter was intended to appeal to the left wing pacifists as well as the right wing isolationists, but really it was just Russian propaganda repeated by most predominantly the right wing.

Let's note that there's been a huge change in European sentiment and commitments led by Biden's iterative, but consistently advancing, approach. I'd want to go faster, but it's been very effective.

It has it been very effective in what Putin will finally do as a wounded animal trapped in a corner with no escape. The 64 thousand dollar question is if Putin is bluffing about how, where and when he will raise the stakes in this war that is turning rapidly into a very dangerous game of chicken. What does Putin have to lose at this point in time? I'm certain that Vlad is not too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about him.

I don't think this is actually a game of chicken; I think the nuclear threats have been neutered and are basically empty. Why? Because the Russian military knows that it will be utterly decimated if they go to that step. And, they've been warned that such a step would lose all Chinese and Indian support of any kind. Much, much better will be withdrawal from a misbegotten enterprise.

I do think that the incremental approach taken by the West has blunted the likelihood of radical escalation, though I think we could have gone faster. But our European allies were quite understandably more concerned than we about that, as well as the sudden and complete loss of energy supplies.

The slower pace has allowed them to adjust and prepare on the energy front, while helping the Ukrainians make progress on the battlefield.

That said, I think the sooner the West equips the Ukrainians for a spring/summer push, the better. Feels like that's what is happening.

In the meantime, though, the Russians are pouring bodies into the fray at Bakhmut etc. Devastating losses.

But yes, Putin's chief concern should not be so much the rest of the world (he's lost most of them as it is), but rather the domestic audience in the face of so many body bags and injured sons and husbands.

Putin is not a rational and some could argue a sane person. Putin at this stage of the game will never accept defeat or a stalemate and will do whatever it takes to achieve whatever his original objective was. What has become obvious to me is that the Russian army today is not the same army Stalin was in charge of in WW2. You are convinced that there are rational people surrounding Putin that will step in and intervene if Putin chooses to escalate. I don't know if that is the case. I hope your right in your estimation but I doubt it very much. The best case scenario would be the right person putting a bullet in Putins brain. That person has to be an individual who is scared about what Putin might be planning.

That would be one solution.
I do agree that Putin won't stop with a "stalemate".
His military will need to be thoroughly defeated (in Ukraine or threatening Ukraine) and the people will need to turn against the regime.

We're well off from there at this point, but it's at least feasible than an offensive in the spring/summer, after a hard winter, will develop into a rout...yes, there could be contemplation of going nuclear, but I think that's become clear to be a total loser for Russia that Putin won't be able to enforce such an order.

Of course, that could be wrong, and, if so, the result will be really awful for the Russian military.
And awful for all those impacted by a nuclear blast.

IMO, Putin is delusional, but "rational".
He's operating with a set of assumptions that keep getting proven wrong, but they were assumptions he'd derived from a belief set that justified, rationally, his decisions.

Hopefully, he'll figure out that there's no way to ever 'win' this aggression and look for a way to not lose everything, including his own life.

I hate to have to make this analogy but I sadly find it the most relevant to the discussion. When Hitler chose to invade the USSR he was convinced he would succeed where Napoleon failed. The analogy is IMO that Putin is making the same mistake that Hitler did. Both leaders made the decision their army was strong enough to achieve the mission very quickly. The world knows and understands why Hitler failed. The world knows now that Putin is failing as well. The common thread for both of these murdering dictators is the dictator # 1 ignored what his generals were telling him. It is beginning to look like dictator # 2 is also choosing to ignore his generals as well.

[MDlaxfan76]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.
{for the benefit of WP non-subscribers}

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... el-russia/

Opinion. Time is not on Ukraine’s side

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, January 7, 2023

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Is Biden willing to roll the dice, double down & finish it now ?

You do understand that what Gates and Rice are arguing is what I have been saying throughout?
(They are not arguing for direct US involvement, simply a faster pace of support, not retreat from such)
That first blued part is exactly why Ukraine cannot afford to let Russia control those lands.

But there's another train of thought, articulated repeatedly by you and right wing ultra nationalists around the world, especially Europe, that this is "not our war", 'it's a conflict between Russians', a legitimate play by Russia to reclaim its lands and peoples, and wrapped in the notion that we should tend to our own troubles not those of others, that Ukraine is corrupt and 'deserves' to be invaded because it had not become democratic and strong before now, it had 'missed its chance' to arm itself, that Putin was pushed into this war by NATO expansion. Much of the latter was intended to appeal to the left wing pacifists as well as the right wing isolationists, but really it was just Russian propaganda repeated by most predominantly the right wing.

Let's note that there's been a huge change in European sentiment and commitments led by Biden's iterative, but consistently advancing, approach. I'd want to go faster, but it's been very effective.

It has it been very effective in what Putin will finally do as a wounded animal trapped in a corner with no escape. The 64 thousand dollar question is if Putin is bluffing about how, where and when he will raise the stakes in this war that is turning rapidly into a very dangerous game of chicken. What does Putin have to lose at this point in time? I'm certain that Vlad is not too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about him.

I don't think this is actually a game of chicken; I think the nuclear threats have been neutered and are basically empty. Why? Because the Russian military knows that it will be utterly decimated if they go to that step. And, they've been warned that such a step would lose all Chinese and Indian support of any kind. Much, much better will be withdrawal from a misbegotten enterprise.

I do think that the incremental approach taken by the West has blunted the likelihood of radical escalation, though I think we could have gone faster. But our European allies were quite understandably more concerned than we about that, as well as the sudden and complete loss of energy supplies.

The slower pace has allowed them to adjust and prepare on the energy front, while helping the Ukrainians make progress on the battlefield.

That said, I think the sooner the West equips the Ukrainians for a spring/summer push, the better. Feels like that's what is happening.

In the meantime, though, the Russians are pouring bodies into the fray at Bakhmut etc. Devastating losses.

But yes, Putin's chief concern should not be so much the rest of the world (he's lost most of them as it is), but rather the domestic audience in the face of so many body bags and injured sons and husbands.

Putin is not a rational and some could argue a sane person. Putin at this stage of the game will never accept defeat or a stalemate and will do whatever it takes to achieve whatever his original objective was. What has become obvious to me is that the Russian army today is not the same army Stalin was in charge of in WW2. You are convinced that there are rational people surrounding Putin that will step in and intervene if Putin chooses to escalate. I don't know if that is the case. I hope your right in your estimation but I doubt it very much. The best case scenario would be the right person putting a bullet in Putins brain. That person has to be an individual who is scared about what Putin might be planning.

That would be one solution.
I do agree that Putin won't stop with a "stalemate".
His military will need to be thoroughly defeated (in Ukraine or threatening Ukraine) and the people will need to turn against the regime.

We're well off from there at this point, but it's at least feasible than an offensive in the spring/summer, after a hard winter, will develop into a rout...yes, there could be contemplation of going nuclear, but I think that's become clear to be a total loser for Russia that Putin won't be able to enforce such an order.

Of course, that could be wrong, and, if so, the result will be really awful for the Russian military.
And awful for all those impacted by a nuclear blast.

IMO, Putin is delusional, but "rational".
He's operating with a set of assumptions that keep getting proven wrong, but they were assumptions he'd derived from a belief set that justified, rationally, his decisions.

Hopefully, he'll figure out that there's no way to ever 'win' this aggression and look for a way to not lose everything, including his own life.

I hate to have to make this analogy but I sadly find it the most relevant to the discussion. When Hitler chose to invade the USSR he was convinced he would succeed where Napoleon failed. The analogy is IMO that Putin is making the same mistake that Hitler did. Both leaders made the decision their army was strong enough to achieve the mission very quickly. The world knows and understands that Hitler failed. The world knows now that Putin is failing as well.

That's not a terrible analogy, though Putin thought he was making a "Sudetenland" decision, a blitzkrieg, not the opening of a second front, with enormous supply line challenges.

There are lots of reasons "Hitler failed" but it wasn't because he had a delusional view of the technological superiority of his military versus its opposition. They really were superior.

In this instance, Putin (and the Western military for that matter) overestimated the Russian military effectiveness and way underestimated Ukrainian citizenry's resolve and the West's willingness to step up for Ukraine. Big errors in judgement.

Western military technology and methodologies are proving to be far more effective on the battlefield, and most of the West's most lethal conventional capabilities haven't been utilized at all...yet.

Hitler never faced a technologically superior foe. Even when the US entered in full force, we were way behind in the technology of the German forces...but we had scale production and ultimately that mattered, a lot. Meanwhile, Russia had winter, massive #'s of human cannon fodder, and so 'absorbed' a tremendous amount of German effort. And, of course, the Brits had held...

So, a different set of factors.

But you're right, the world is witnessing Putin's failure.

[a fan]

You keep saying that but it hasn't happened yet. China, Iran, India & the rest of the non-aligned world are happy to continue trading with Russia. Russia was already under sanctions from the US & EU anyway.

And they built Nordrsteam 2 and took on EU customers....for fun? Cut off the world that can afford your sh(t, and nothing bad will happen, is that it? They teach supply and demand at the academy? This is your idea of winning in the economic area? Good thing you were on the .gov payroll, and didn't have to run your own business if you believe your own nonsense.

(you don't believe a word of what you're trolling me with here, and know full well Putin's dug his nation into a generations-long hole.)

Update to our conversation on supply and demand, OS. You getting the picture yet? Do you FINALLY understand that pipelines have two ends, and trade isn't a one way street, where you're telling me that Putin wins no matter what happens?

Few buyers, prices tumble. You can't stop selling stuff to half the civilized world, and expect prices to hold firm on a commodity.

What's Russia's plan when this war is over? Who the F is going to go back to buying energy from Putin? This is now a generational problem for Russia. They're royally F'ed no matter what happens with the war. I have no Earthly idea how Russia is going to get out of this mess in the next 20 years+

The 80's called Putin, and wants its foreign policy back.


Headline: Russia’s Flagship Oil Is Trading at Half Global Prices With Tiny Pool of Buyers

A key driver of prices has probably been the lost European market, because it put Russia at the mercy of a tiny pool of large buyers, most notably China and India. And with tankers having to sail thousands of miles further to get cargoes from western Russian ports to those buyers, freight costs soared. That forced barrels to be discounted to compete with shipments from the Middle East.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -of-buyers

[old salt]

You keep saying that but it hasn't happened yet. China, Iran, India & the rest of the non-aligned world are happy to continue trading with Russia. Russia was already under sanctions from the US & EU anyway.

And they built Nordrsteam 2 and took on EU customers....for fun? Cut off the world that can afford your sh(t, and nothing bad will happen, is that it? They teach supply and demand at the academy? This is your idea of winning in the economic area? Good thing you were on the .gov payroll, and didn't have to run your own business if you believe your own nonsense.

(you don't believe a word of what you're trolling me with here, and know full well Putin's dug his nation into a generations-long hole.)

Update to our conversation on supply and demand, OS. You getting the picture yet? Do you FINALLY understand that pipelines have two ends, and trade isn't a one way street, where you're telling me that Putin wins no matter what happens?

Few buyers, prices tumble. You can't stop selling stuff to half the civilized world, and expect prices to hold firm on a commodity.

What's Russia's plan when this war is over? Who the F is going to go back to buying energy from Putin? This is now a generational problem for Russia. They're royally F'ed no matter what happens with the war. I have no Earthly idea how Russia is going to get out of this mess in the next 20 years+

The 80's called Putin, and wants its foreign policy back.


Headline: Russia’s Flagship Oil Is Trading at Half Global Prices With Tiny Pool of Buyers

A key driver of prices has probably been the lost European market, because it put Russia at the mercy of a tiny pool of large buyers, most notably China and India. And with tankers having to sail thousands of miles further to get cargoes from western Russian ports to those buyers, freight costs soared. That forced barrels to be discounted to compete with shipments from the Middle East.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -of-buyers

Post war demand for Russian oil will be determined by the cost to get that oil to market. You can't assume that sanctions & embargoes will be sustained indefinitely. What if there's a regime change in Russia ? Is the West going to punish Putin's successor, & pass up cheaper oil in the process. You can't assume that Russia has lost the EUro energy market forever. The EUros are still worried about getting through this & next winter.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You keep saying that but it hasn't happened yet. China, Iran, India & the rest of the non-aligned world are happy to continue trading with Russia. Russia was already under sanctions from the US & EU anyway.

And they built Nordrsteam 2 and took on EU customers....for fun? Cut off the world that can afford your sh(t, and nothing bad will happen, is that it? They teach supply and demand at the academy? This is your idea of winning in the economic area? Good thing you were on the .gov payroll, and didn't have to run your own business if you believe your own nonsense.

(you don't believe a word of what you're trolling me with here, and know full well Putin's dug his nation into a generations-long hole.)

Update to our conversation on supply and demand, OS. You getting the picture yet? Do you FINALLY understand that pipelines have two ends, and trade isn't a one way street, where you're telling me that Putin wins no matter what happens?

Few buyers, prices tumble. You can't stop selling stuff to half the civilized world, and expect prices to hold firm on a commodity.

What's Russia's plan when this war is over? Who the F is going to go back to buying energy from Putin? This is now a generational problem for Russia. They're royally F'ed no matter what happens with the war. I have no Earthly idea how Russia is going to get out of this mess in the next 20 years+

The 80's called Putin, and wants its foreign policy back.


Headline: Russia’s Flagship Oil Is Trading at Half Global Prices With Tiny Pool of Buyers

A key driver of prices has probably been the lost European market, because it put Russia at the mercy of a tiny pool of large buyers, most notably China and India. And with tankers having to sail thousands of miles further to get cargoes from western Russian ports to those buyers, freight costs soared. That forced barrels to be discounted to compete with shipments from the Middle East.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -of-buyers

Post war demand for Russian oil will be determined by the cost to get that oil to market. You can't assume that sanctions & embargoes will be sustained indefinitely. What if there's a regime change in Russia ? Is the West going to punish Putin's successor, & pass up cheaper oil in the process. You can't assume that Russia has lost the EUro energy market forever. The EUros are still worried about getting through this & next winter.

Putin has.

[old salt]

You keep saying that but it hasn't happened yet. China, Iran, India & the rest of the non-aligned world are happy to continue trading with Russia. Russia was already under sanctions from the US & EU anyway.

And they built Nordrsteam 2 and took on EU customers....for fun? Cut off the world that can afford your sh(t, and nothing bad will happen, is that it? They teach supply and demand at the academy? This is your idea of winning in the economic area? Good thing you were on the .gov payroll, and didn't have to run your own business if you believe your own nonsense.

(you don't believe a word of what you're trolling me with here, and know full well Putin's dug his nation into a generations-long hole.)

Update to our conversation on supply and demand, OS. You getting the picture yet? Do you FINALLY understand that pipelines have two ends, and trade isn't a one way street, where you're telling me that Putin wins no matter what happens?

Few buyers, prices tumble. You can't stop selling stuff to half the civilized world, and expect prices to hold firm on a commodity.

What's Russia's plan when this war is over? Who the F is going to go back to buying energy from Putin? This is now a generational problem for Russia. They're royally F'ed no matter what happens with the war. I have no Earthly idea how Russia is going to get out of this mess in the next 20 years+

The 80's called Putin, and wants its foreign policy back.


Headline: Russia’s Flagship Oil Is Trading at Half Global Prices With Tiny Pool of Buyers

A key driver of prices has probably been the lost European market, because it put Russia at the mercy of a tiny pool of large buyers, most notably China and India. And with tankers having to sail thousands of miles further to get cargoes from western Russian ports to those buyers, freight costs soared. That forced barrels to be discounted to compete with shipments from the Middle East.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -of-buyers

Post war demand for Russian oil will be determined by the cost to get that oil to market. You can't assume that sanctions & embargoes will be sustained indefinitely. What if there's a regime change in Russia ? Is the West going to punish Putin's successor, & pass up cheaper oil in the process. You can't assume that Russia has lost the EUro energy market forever. The EUros are still worried about getting through this & next winter.

https://www.marketplace.org/2023/01/10/ ... e-working/

...if the goal of these sanctions is to deal a gut punch to Russia’s oil revenue, that’s not happening, said Ken Egan, European sovereign analyst for KBRA.

“Russian revenues have somewhat dwindled in 2022, but relative to recent years, revenues are still substantially high,” he said.

And some reasons for the sanctions appearing to work have nothing to do with the sanctions — oil demand has been depressed by a mild winter in Europe, and China’s oil-hungry economy hasn’t yet fully woken up from the country’s “zero-COVID” policy, added Joan Feldbaum-Vidra, senior managing director at KBRA.

“A lot depends on the global macro situation, as well as in terms of demand,” she said.

The longer the price controls and embargo persist, Feldbaum-Vidra said, the more opportunities to cheat those sanctions — and the greater the risk to their effectiveness.

[a fan]

The EUros are still worried about getting through this & next winter.

That's right. You got it.

And the worse the pain is........ when they come out of it.....what would possibly make you think they'll ask for more of this, and reestablish oil/natural gas dependency with Russia? A single politician could keep trade from happening. That's not a good place to be.

[a fan]

And some reasons for the sanctions appearing to work have nothing to do with the sanctions — oil demand has been depressed by a mild winter in Europe, and China’s oil-hungry economy hasn’t yet fully woken up from the country’s “zero-COVID” policy, added Joan Feldbaum-Vidra, senior managing director at KBRA.

“A lot depends on the global macro situation, as well as in terms of demand,” she said.

I get all that. You're not listening----when you're selling a commodity, you can't cut off the people who can afford your commodity at the best price, OS. The EU is a massive oceanliner....and its changing course to other energy sources because of Putin's stupidity. And when that new course is set, that's it, for a very long time.

And to get that ocean liner to change course, Russia needs to convince politicians and the free market to change back. This is no small thing.

[old salt]

And some reasons for the sanctions appearing to work have nothing to do with the sanctions — oil demand has been depressed by a mild winter in Europe, and China’s oil-hungry economy hasn’t yet fully woken up from the country’s “zero-COVID” policy, added Joan Feldbaum-Vidra, senior managing director at KBRA.

“A lot depends on the global macro situation, as well as in terms of demand,” she said.

I get all that. You're not listening----when you're selling a commodity, you can't cut off the people who can afford your commodity at the best price, OS. The EU is a massive oceanliner....and its changing course to other energy sources because of Putin's stupidity. And when that new course is set, that's it, for a very long time.

And to get that ocean liner to change course, Russia needs to convince politicians and the free market to change back. This is no small thing.

No, the course is not locked in. The market flexs, driven by cost. As soon as there's a fig leaf of an excuse to lift the embargo & sanctions on Russian gas & oil, the EUros will scramble to top off their reserve storage capacity as a hedge against future disruptions. Maintaining their energy independence does not require a permanent embargo of Russian gas & oil. Right now, the US can't produce enough LNG to replace the Russian pipeline NG now embargoed & meet the demand of other LNG customers. The way Biden & the (D)'s are constraining US production, there will always be demand for our self-limited LNG exports.

[a fan]

No, the course is not locked in.

Yet. There's no end in sight, OS.

[Brooklyn]

Miss Ukraine revisited:




https://i.redd.it/h3wcf6giyjba1.gif

[NattyBohChamps04]

CIA director secretly met with Zelenskyy before invasion to reveal Russian plot to kill him as he pushed back on US intelligence, book says

> President Joe Biden told Burns "To share precise details of the Russian plots."

Makes for an interesting what-if scenario had Biden lost the presidency.

[PizzaSnake]

CIA director secretly met with Zelenskyy before invasion to reveal Russian plot to kill him as he pushed back on US intelligence, book says

> President Joe Biden told Burns "To share precise details of the Russian plots."

Makes for an interesting what-if scenario had Biden lost the presidency.

Explains how they (Ukraine) eliminated the Spetsnaz forces. They were waiting for them. Shot down two of their air transports.

[MDlaxfan76]

And some reasons for the sanctions appearing to work have nothing to do with the sanctions — oil demand has been depressed by a mild winter in Europe, and China’s oil-hungry economy hasn’t yet fully woken up from the country’s “zero-COVID” policy, added Joan Feldbaum-Vidra, senior managing director at KBRA.

“A lot depends on the global macro situation, as well as in terms of demand,” she said.

I get all that. You're not listening----when you're selling a commodity, you can't cut off the people who can afford your commodity at the best price, OS. The EU is a massive oceanliner....and its changing course to other energy sources because of Putin's stupidity. And when that new course is set, that's it, for a very long time.

And to get that ocean liner to change course, Russia needs to convince politicians and the free market to change back. This is no small thing.

No, the course is not locked in. The market flexs, driven by cost. As soon as there's a fig leaf of an excuse to lift the embargo & sanctions on Russian gas & oil, the EUros will scramble to top off their reserve storage capacity as a hedge against future disruptions. Maintaining their energy independence does not require a permanent embargo of Russian gas & oil. Right now, the US can't produce enough LNG to replace the Russian pipeline NG now embargoed & meet the demand of other LNG customers. The way Biden & the (D)'s are constraining US production, there will always be demand for our self-limited LNG exports.

No, it would take an enormous change in Russian policy to significantly change the course of the Europeans. They might slow down a tad but directionally they're "locked in"...for quite awhile....very likely permanently.

What would the "change" need to be?
Putin's regime replaced by a conciliatory regime would enable the speed to slow down (lifting of embargoes), and ultimately for some small changes in direction, but it's a very big ocean liner and the momentum is strong. They're going to move away from dependence on fossil, period. Only the speed of that movement is going to be moderated.

Note, a replacement of Putin with other hard liners won't change either speed or direction.

[MDlaxfan76]

CIA director secretly met with Zelenskyy before invasion to reveal Russian plot to kill him as he pushed back on US intelligence, book says

> President Joe Biden told Burns "To share precise details of the Russian plots."

Makes for an interesting what-if scenario had Biden lost the presidency.

Indeed, and yikes.

[MDlaxfan76]

Tanks will matter to the push in the spring/summer.

Come on Germany, join your European allies sending tanks!

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/14/europe/e ... index.html

Meanwhile, it looks like conscription will be back in Russia...plans to increase force level to 1.5 million...that's going to make a lot of moms and wives very unhappy...and more drain over the borders.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru ... f7e123ad8d

[a fan]

CIA director secretly met with Zelenskyy before invasion to reveal Russian plot to kill him as he pushed back on US intelligence, book says

> President Joe Biden told Burns "To share precise details of the Russian plots."

Makes for an interesting what-if scenario had Biden lost the presidency.

Indeed, and yikes.

Old Salt and FoxNation claim that if Trump was in still in office, Putin wouldn't have invaded.

Chew on that logic.

[MDlaxfan76]

CIA director secretly met with Zelenskyy before invasion to reveal Russian plot to kill him as he pushed back on US intelligence, book says

> President Joe Biden told Burns "To share precise details of the Russian plots."

Makes for an interesting what-if scenario had Biden lost the presidency.

Indeed, and yikes.

Old Salt and FoxNation claim that if Trump was in still in office, Putin wouldn't have invaded.

Chew on that logic.

Well, theoretically, Putin could have 'terminated' Zelensky another way and de facto taken Ukraine without a shot fired. Poison needle, financing opposition, whatever.

But I think the key is that, according to Bolton, Trump was going to pull the US out of NATO after re-election and that was the really big win that Putin was looking for, before intimidating all of his neighbors of "Russian culture".

Ukraine would have felt very alone in such a situation and might well look like Belarus now, obeisant to Putin's regime. Russian forces would have moved westward, etc, threatening next...still no missiles fired, all in reserve...

But as Biden clearly was bringing NATO together diplomatically well before the Ukraine hostilities heated up, Putin thought a quick strike could decapitate Ukraine's democratic leadership before Europe could respond, intimidated by the dependence on Russian energy. But the US sniffed it out and, at Biden's direction, warned Zelensky of specifics, and the world more broadly, of what was coming...and the Ukrainians held their ground...

Had Putin chosen any form of 'termination', and US intelligence had sniffed it out, no way Trump would supported US intel much less Ukraine. Nor would he have responded negatively after the fact; nope, he'd have called Putin a "genius" and "strong". Oh yeah, he actually did that...