All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Typical Lax Dad]

Don't know how it could be done (Turkey?), but would Ukraine sacrifice its lost territory for a guarantee of full NATO membership?

Ukraine may accept that as a face saving way to end the war but I don't think all NATO members would vote to accept them yet.
Hungary & Turkey still won't accept Sweden.

You may find this a laughing matter, but Ukraine can't tolerate this level of casualties indefinitely, the west can't produce & provide sufficient munitions to sustain Ukraine's burn rate, & there's a limit to the amount & duration of military aid that the west can or will provide.
This war will likely stall out & conclude as a frozen conflict following Ukraine's coming offensive.

I find your position a laughing matter

Explain. What part do you find humorous ?

The fact that you fail to ever mention Putin taking any actions to resolve the conflict and save face is what is humorous…Having worked at a Japanese firm for years your use of the idea of “saving face”, in this instance, is misplaced. Putin needs to “save face”. You have pretty much laid all the blame at the feet of Zelensky and Biden……oh and what MD said…..

[Typical Lax Dad]

Don't know how it could be done (Turkey?), but would Ukraine sacrifice its lost territory for a guarantee of full NATO membership?

Ukraine may accept that as a face saving way to end the war but I don't think all NATO members would vote to accept them yet.
Hungary & Turkey still won't accept Sweden.

You may find this a laughing matter, but Ukraine can't tolerate this level of casualties indefinitely, the west can't produce & provide sufficient munitions to sustain Ukraine's burn rate, & there's a limit to the amount & duration of military aid that the west can or will provide.
This war will likely stall out & conclude as a frozen conflict following Ukraine's coming offensive.

I find your position a laughing matter

Explain. What part do you find humorous ?

Salty, I should let TLD explain, and I'm sure he will, but you've been a doomsayer on Ukraine's capabilities and the West's resolve from early days, and on, almost as if you've been rooting for their failure, or, conversely, rooting for at least partial Russian success. Or maybe it's Biden's failure.

You've been wrong about, way underestimating, Ukrainian and Western resolve. You still are, though it's fair to say that at every step it's been reasonable to wonder how much resolve, resilience, etc could possibly be sustained...but you've always been on the gross underestimation side.

And you have advocated, repeatedly, for resolutions that 1) would leave Putin with a third of Ukraine 2) would leave Russian war crimes unpunished 3) would leave Ukraine unprotected from further assault from Russia other than through the continued financial support of the West...except you appear to want that to end, or predict it will end...all in the face of Putin's clearly going to continue the aggression until his objectives to wipe out Ukraine are accomplished.

Moreover, you (and yes a lot of other military pundits) have been strikingly wrong about Ukraine's battlefield effectiveness versus Russia's unexpected ineptness. There's been a large gap, and there's no reason (at least IMO) to expect that gap to lessen as Ukraine gets increasingly supplied with more and more advanced capabilities, integrates that weaponry into their capabilities and tactics whereas Russia becomes exhausted in its own best capabilities, unable to produce replacements for it's expended capabilities.

And you seem to be advocating for all this before the Ukrainian counteroffensive has even begun!

But hey, forget about joining NATO...

It's laughable.

TLD's take may be different than mine.

But you're free to explain, correct, etc any of the above.

Salty, I think it's curious you positioned my scenario as face saving for only Ukraine, as I brought it up as face saving for both sides. Ukraine gets the safety of the NATO umbrella while Russia gets to say it "liberated" the Russian people of Eastern Ukraine, created a larger buffer and a land bridge to Crimean ports that are henceforth acknowledged by Ukraine as being part of Russia.

No mention of Putin needing to save face is laughable. He’s in a far worse situation than Zelensky, from that perspective.

[a fan]

Ukraine gets the safety of the NATO umbrella while Russia gets to say it "liberated" the Russian people of Eastern Ukraine, created a larger buffer and a land bridge to Crimean ports that are henceforth acknowledged by Ukraine as being part of Russia.

NATO can't do that. Or at least they can't if they're smart.

Picture NATO digging in along the "new" border to Ukraine.

Now Zelensky or a new leader in Ukraine decides to take the land back that Putin took, and invades, knowing Putin can't advance, or NATO will wipe him out.

Or rebel Ukrainian Forces start an infiltration campaign in the land Putin just took.....bombings in bars and train stations, etc.

Now what?


That's why I say I don't see how Putin can keep this new land. I can't see it. That doesn't mean It can't happen....but all I'm thinking about is all the Ukrainians who are fighting to the death, and watching schools and apartment complexes being bombed by Putin. Two generations that hate Putin with every fiber of their being.

Can't see them being willing to cede that land after all they've been through to keep it.

[old salt]

Don't know how it could be done (Turkey?), but would Ukraine sacrifice its lost territory for a guarantee of full NATO membership?

Ukraine may accept that as a face saving way to end the war but I don't think all NATO members would vote to accept them yet.
Hungary & Turkey still won't accept Sweden.

You may find this a laughing matter, but Ukraine can't tolerate this level of casualties indefinitely, the west can't produce & provide sufficient munitions to sustain Ukraine's burn rate, & there's a limit to the amount & duration of military aid that the west can or will provide.
This war will likely stall out & conclude as a frozen conflict following Ukraine's coming offensive.

I find your position a laughing matter

Explain. What part do you find humorous ?

Salty, I should let TLD explain, and I'm sure he will, but you've been a doomsayer on Ukraine's capabilities and the West's resolve from early days, and on, almost as if you've been rooting for their failure, or, conversely, rooting for at least partial Russian success. Or maybe it's Biden's failure.

You've been wrong about, way underestimating, Ukrainian and Western resolve. You still are, though it's fair to say that at every step it's been reasonable to wonder how much resolve, resilience, etc could possibly be sustained...but you've always been on the gross underestimation side.

And you have advocated, repeatedly, for resolutions that 1) would leave Putin with a third of Ukraine 2) would leave Russian war crimes unpunished 3) would leave Ukraine unprotected from further assault from Russia other than through the continued financial support of the West...except you appear to want that to end, or predict it will end...all in the face of Putin's clearly going to continue the aggression until his objectives to wipe out Ukraine are accomplished.

Moreover, you (and yes a lot of other military pundits) have been strikingly wrong about Ukraine's battlefield effectiveness versus Russia's unexpected ineptness. There's been a large gap, and there's no reason (at least IMO) to expect that gap to lessen as Ukraine gets increasingly supplied with more and more advanced capabilities, integrates that weaponry into their capabilities and tactics whereas Russia becomes exhausted in its own best capabilities, unable to produce replacements for it's expended capabilities.

And you seem to be advocating for all this before the Ukrainian counteroffensive has even begun!

But hey, forget about joining NATO...

It's laughable.

TLD's take may be different than mine.

But you're free to explain, correct, etc any of the above.

I'm not rooting for anybody. I'm making a realistic assessment.
Imo, we are prolonging a bloody conflict that is destined to end in stalemate,
which poses a credible risk of escalation to the use of dirty bombs or even tac nucs
You've been unrealistic in your expectations about what US & our allies will provide & Ukraine's ability to use it.
Ukraine doesn't need more advanced weaponry that the west is hesitant to provide.
They don't have sufficient munitions & trained soldiers to effectively use what they already have.
That's why Gen Milley is predicting they'll be limited to what they regain this year.
Of course he's just one of those military "pundits" who has been strikingly wrong in your opinion.
The west is as limited as Russia is in producing critical munitions - basically old fashioned gunpowder necessary to ignite more powerful explosives) in artillery & tank shells.
In a protracted war, Russia can field more soldiers than Ukraine, which has blocked the exit of military age men & is now conscripting them rather than relying on volunteers.
As Ukraine expends their air defense munitions, with the west unable or unwilling to resupply, Russia's Air Force will be able to strike further into Ukraine & to target within the battlespace, employing coordinated ops as they have in Syria.
The US & NATO allies are quietly unwilling to provide the more capable & long range weapons you"re hoping for. They/we don't want to further reduce their/our own limited stocks. They/we don't trust the Ukrainians to strike further into Russia causing an escalation to tac nucs. They/we don't want to risk the capture or compromise of sensitive weapons systems which can be exploited & reverse engineered.

Both Putin & Zelensky need to save face with their populations, because neither will be able to all that they have promised,
but both will be able to claim victory based on what they have accomplished.

Are you predicting that Ukraine will recover all their former territory, including Crimea ?

What's your prediction on how & when the war will conclude ?

Whatever your predictions are, if I respond, it will be with more than just brainlessly mocking with emojis.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Don't know how it could be done (Turkey?), but would Ukraine sacrifice its lost territory for a guarantee of full NATO membership?

Ukraine may accept that as a face saving way to end the war but I don't think all NATO members would vote to accept them yet.
Hungary & Turkey still won't accept Sweden.

You may find this a laughing matter, but Ukraine can't tolerate this level of casualties indefinitely, the west can't produce & provide sufficient munitions to sustain Ukraine's burn rate, & there's a limit to the amount & duration of military aid that the west can or will provide.
This war will likely stall out & conclude as a frozen conflict following Ukraine's coming offensive.

I find your position a laughing matter

Explain. What part do you find humorous ?

Salty, I should let TLD explain, and I'm sure he will, but you've been a doomsayer on Ukraine's capabilities and the West's resolve from early days, and on, almost as if you've been rooting for their failure, or, conversely, rooting for at least partial Russian success. Or maybe it's Biden's failure.

You've been wrong about, way underestimating, Ukrainian and Western resolve. You still are, though it's fair to say that at every step it's been reasonable to wonder how much resolve, resilience, etc could possibly be sustained...but you've always been on the gross underestimation side.

And you have advocated, repeatedly, for resolutions that 1) would leave Putin with a third of Ukraine 2) would leave Russian war crimes unpunished 3) would leave Ukraine unprotected from further assault from Russia other than through the continued financial support of the West...except you appear to want that to end, or predict it will end...all in the face of Putin's clearly going to continue the aggression until his objectives to wipe out Ukraine are accomplished.

Moreover, you (and yes a lot of other military pundits) have been strikingly wrong about Ukraine's battlefield effectiveness versus Russia's unexpected ineptness. There's been a large gap, and there's no reason (at least IMO) to expect that gap to lessen as Ukraine gets increasingly supplied with more and more advanced capabilities, integrates that weaponry into their capabilities and tactics whereas Russia becomes exhausted in its own best capabilities, unable to produce replacements for it's expended capabilities.

And you seem to be advocating for all this before the Ukrainian counteroffensive has even begun!

But hey, forget about joining NATO...

It's laughable.

TLD's take may be different than mine.

But you're free to explain, correct, etc any of the above.

I'm not rooting for anybody. I'm making a realistic assessment.
Imo, we are prolonging a bloody conflict that is destined to end in stalemate,
which poses a credible risk of escalation to the use of dirty bombs or even tac nucs
You've been unrealistic in your expectations about what US & our allies will provide & Ukraine's ability to use it.
Ukraine doesn't need more advanced weaponry that the west is hesitant to provide.
They don't have sufficient munitions & trained soldiers to effectively use what they already have.
That's why Gen Milley is predicting they'll be limited to what they regain this year.
Of course he's just one of those military "pundits" who has been strikingly wrong in your opinion.
The west is as limited as Russia is in producing critical munitions - basically old fashioned gunpowder necessary to ignite more powerful explosives) in artillery & tank shells.
In a protracted war, Russia can field more soldiers than Ukraine, which has blocked the exit of military age men & is now conscripting them rather than relying on volunteers.
As Ukraine expends their air defense munitions, with the west unable or unwilling to resupply, Russia's Air Force will be able to strike further into Ukraine & to target within the battlespace, employing coordinated ops as they have in Syria.
The US & NATO allies are quietly unwilling to provide the more capable & long range weapons you"re hoping for. They/we don't want to further reduce their/our own limited stocks. They/we don't trust the Ukrainians to strike further into Russia causing an escalation to tac nucs. They/we don't want to risk the capture or compromise of sensitive weapons systems which can be exploited & reverse engineered.

Both Putin & Zelensky need to save face with their populations, because neither will be able to all that they have promised,
but both will be able to claim victory based on what they have accomplished.

Are you predicting that Ukraine will recover all their former territory, including Crimea ?

What's your prediction on how & when the war will conclude ?

Whatever your predictions are, if I respond, it will be with more than just brainlessly mocking with emojis.

[old salt]

Or rebel Ukrainian Forces start an infiltration campaign in the land Putin just took.....bombings in bars and train stations, etc.
Now what?

That's why I say I don't see how Putin can keep this new land. I can't see it. That doesn't mean It can't happen....but all I'm thinking about is all the Ukrainians who are fighting to the death, and watching schools and apartment complexes being bombed by Putin. Two generations that hate Putin with every fiber of their being.

Can't see them being willing to cede that land after all they've been through to keep it.

The same way Assad is doing it in Syria, with Russian forces supporting him.
Where's the partisan insurgency in the areas Russia has held in Crimea & Donbas since 2014, or in the territory captured in the past year ?

[old salt]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/08 ... in-the-war

As Putin Bides His Time, Ukraine Faces a Ticking Clock

Ukraine is feeling short-term pressure from its Western backers for success in a looming counteroffensive.
Vladimir Putin seems to be operating on a longer timeline.

Both armies have tanks, artillery and tens of thousands of soldiers ready to face off on the battlefields of Ukraine in a long-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russia. But one thing clearly sets the two sides apart: time.

Ukraine is feeling immense short-term pressures from its Western backers, as the United States and its allies treat the counteroffensive as a critical test of whether the weapons, training and ammunition they have rushed to the country in recent months can translate into significant gains.

If the Ukrainians fall short of expectations, they risk an erosion of Western support. It is a source of anxiety for top officials in Kyiv, who know that beyond battlefield muscle and ingenuity, victory may ultimately come down to a test of wills between the Kremlin and the West — and which side can muster more political, economic and industrial staying power, possibly for years.

As a result, there is a sense in Ukraine that its war effort faces a ticking clock.

“In countries that are our partners, our friends, the expectation of the counteroffensive is overestimated, overheated, I would say,” Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksiy Reznikov, said in an interview this past week in Kyiv, the capital. “That is my main concern.”

The expectations of military success are only one pressure point for Ukraine.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yup, you aren't rooting for a side.

Kinda self-own with that statement.

You have any doubt about who most of the rest of us on here are rooting for?

Have I been "unrealistic"?

Quite early on I argued that morale was the critical component of difference, what the militaries were fighting for.

I had no basis to believe that the Ukrainians would be better equipped (they weren't) or trained, but we did know they had more motivation...but to repel the Russian military so thoroughly was surely a surprise.

Motivation.

I also had no basis to know that the Russians were so inept, though very early on in the war it became quite obvious they had miserable leadership and little comprehension within the decision structure about how even the most basic tactics were so poor...long convoys of vehicles???

Sure, the Russians pummeled Ukrainian cities, and continue to raze any are they focus on to the ground...but the people keep fighting.

Motivation.

I also predicted, contrary to you, that Europe would dramatically adjust its trade dependence on Russia, that they were willing to suffer economic turmoil, to stop Putin's aggression. They keep doing so, including now with focusing on Chinese companies...

I also had recognized, well earlier than the outset of the war, how important Biden's leadership would be relative to Trump's in bringing NATO back together. Putin accelerated that hugely, much to presumably his chagrin now.

Ok, so what I predicted last fall was that Ukraine would hold the line surprisingly well against further Russian attempts to advance, and then push forward in the spring/summer when they had the weapons systems and training in place to take advantage of firm ground for tanks, rapid troop movements, etc.

I predicted longer and longer range precision targeting of command centers, ammo depots, etc deeper within the Russian holdings of Ukrainian territory....that's begun.

What most of your fellow posters are hoping (given who we are "rooting" for) is that Ukraine successfully breaks through the Russian lines and the morale of the Russian military collapses. That's the long shot, and I'm not predicting it, but it would not be a surprise.

But it's most likely not going to be easy given the dug in defenses the Russians have done, many lines of such. If so, the next 'hope' is that the better precision targeting will render some of the Russian defenses much more vulnerable.

Do, I think they'll regain Crimea? Even tougher still.

I wouldn't be surprised as to whether that's the stalemate position, at least this year, that might be sacrificed in a peace agreement...and yeah, NATO entry or similar defense umbrella with de facto same reality, would need to be in place...but gotta deal with the war crimes and the return of children as I really don't see this completely ending until those are addressed.

So, I'd predict there's continued fighting for multiple years, albeit with Ukraine taking back the bulk of what it lost this past year.

And I doubt this ends until Putin is no longer in power.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/08 ... in-the-war

As Putin Bides His Time, Ukraine Faces a Ticking Clock

Ukraine is feeling short-term pressure from its Western backers for success in a looming counteroffensive.
Vladimir Putin seems to be operating on a longer timeline.

Both armies have tanks, artillery and tens of thousands of soldiers ready to face off on the battlefields of Ukraine in a long-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russia. But one thing clearly sets the two sides apart: time.

Ukraine is feeling immense short-term pressures from its Western backers, as the United States and its allies treat the counteroffensive as a critical test of whether the weapons, training and ammunition they have rushed to the country in recent months can translate into significant gains.

If the Ukrainians fall short of expectations, they risk an erosion of Western support. It is a source of anxiety for top officials in Kyiv, who know that beyond battlefield muscle and ingenuity, victory may ultimately come down to a test of wills between the Kremlin and the West — and which side can muster more political, economic and industrial staying power, possibly for years.

As a result, there is a sense in Ukraine that its war effort faces a ticking clock.

“In countries that are our partners, our friends, the expectation of the counteroffensive is overestimated, overheated, I would say,” Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksiy Reznikov, said in an interview this past week in Kyiv, the capital. “That is my main concern.”

The expectations of military success are only one pressure point for Ukraine.

Reznikov is right to lower expectations, there's no upside for him and Ukraine to do otherwise...they have been banging the drum hard that they'll need air superiority, or at least a real contest of the air, in order for the counteroffensive to be successful...and they probably won't have that, given not enough of the most modern planes.

Whether that's truly necessary to success or not, we'll see.
Certainly we've been reluctant to provide anything that would enable the Ukrainians to strike into Russia all the way...I don't buy the "it takes time to train" excuse, as they should have started training last spring. But I get that it's a progression...which is why I think this is a multi-year process and those demanding results right away are doing a huge disservice to the cause of defeating and punishing Putin's aggression.

I'd also suggest that time is also not on Russia's side...and you can see the fault lines in their society caused by economic strangulation beginning to break through their suppression of dissent.

[old salt]

You underestimate the resources & time it takes to stand up an effective modern air force using western aircraft.
Using Chinese & Russian aircraft, Sudan has a more effective, better equipped Air Force than Ukraine has.

...continued from NY Times above...consider this my reply.

The expectations of military success are only one pressure point for Ukraine. A presidential election in the United States looms next year, with the potential for a new, less supportive Republican administration.

In Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin faces his own challenges but is showing signs of operating on a much longer timeline, encumbered by economic and military limitations but free from the domestic political pressures that make continuing Western support for Ukraine so uncertain.

Having already mobilized some 300,000 recruits last September, Mr. Putin is laying the groundwork for a possible new round of conscription, having changed the law so Russian authorities can draft men by serving them with a “digital summons” online.

In private conversations, his defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, has professed a willingness to dig in for the long haul, vowing to carry out more mobilizations if necessary and emphasizing that Russia is capable of conscripting as many as 25 million fighting-age men.

Russia’s economy is under increasing strain, and its defense sector, like the West’s, is struggling to provide enough matériel for the front. There are signs of simmering anxiety over the Ukrainian counteroffensive. On Friday, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner mercenary group, castigated Russian military leadership over a lack of ammunition and threatened to pull his forces from the fighting in the embattled city of Bakhmut within days.

But Mr. Putin has defined the war effort as a top priority and vital national interest, telling Russians in a New Year’s address that “we must only fight, only keep going” against Western democracies intent on Russia’s destruction.

“Certainly I think there is a calculation in the Kremlin that Russia is more resilient than the West,” said Thomas E. Graham, a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who served as senior director for Russia on the National Security Council from 2004 to 2007.

“They do think about these electoral cycles,” Mr. Graham said. “Who knows what is going to happen in 2024 in the United States? It’s not clear where the American people are on this over the long run. I think the Kremlin and Putin do believe that in that sense, time is on their side.”

Ukraine’s leaders, on the jittery doorstep of the counteroffensive, have been making a point of projecting confidence — but not too much.

If they appear too ambitious, they could stir fears that Russia could respond with a tactical nuclear strike. Appear too modest, in contrast, and criticism arises that billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine has been spent in vain.

Ukrainian officials point to the considerable successes they have already achieved: forcing the Russian military to retreat from Kyiv last year; sinking the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva; and recapturing thousands of square miles of territory in two counterattacks last fall.

“After that, the world is ready to see the next stage of this competition, if we can use a sports metaphor,” Mr. Reznikov said.

He said the operation must be viewed as part of a larger whole.

“For me, every success during this war becomes a new stage, a new step, on the road to victory,” Mr. Reznikov said. The counteroffensive, he said, will be “just one story” in the war.

Military analysts have pointed to a likely period of probing assaults, feints and long-range strikes in the opening phase of the attack. Degrading the Russian military’s combat abilities will be as important as liberating territory, Mr. Reznikov said.

The Ukrainians see their enemy as having expended its offensive ability and as eager for a pause in fighting that could buy time to rearm and attack again.

Despite Ukraine’s worries about waning Western support, its allies have so far remained resolute, pledging hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and aid, training Ukrainian soldiers, imposing sanctions and, to varying degrees, weaning their economies off Russian energy. NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has said the alliance must brace itself to back Ukraine over a long war, and has singled out a summit planned for July in Lithuania as a moment to formalize that commitment.

In Washington, President Biden has pledged to support Kyiv for “as long as it takes,” and could request an additional supplemental aid package for Ukraine later this year, regardless of the counteroffensive’s outcome. Administration officials expect to retain bipartisan congressional support.

But Mr. Biden is heading into a presidential election cycle that could upend U.S. backing for Ukraine, particularly if Americans elect former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican front-runner. Mr. Trump has criticized Mr. Biden’s support for Ukrainian forces, saying in an interview this year with Fox News that “ultimately,” Mr. Putin “is going to take over all of Ukraine.”

“In Ukraine, we understand we have a shortage of time as well as ammunition,” Volodymyr Ariev, a member of Parliament in the European Solidarity Party, said in an interview. “Financial aid of the European Union and G7 seems not to be endless.”

In countries like Syria and Libya, Mr. Putin for years has exploited the tendency of Western governments to lose focus or shift priorities when it comes to foreign affairs.

“Russia’s hope right now is that the peak of Western military support is going to be around the summer,” and then will dissipate, said Michael Kofman, the director of Russia studies at CNA, a research institute in Virginia.

Already, the war has stretched for more than 14 months, making a yearslong protracted conflict more likely. Once wars have gone on for more than a year, they tend to last for more than a decade on average, the Center for Strategic and International Studies found in an analysis that used data on conflicts since 1946.

Mr. Putin has little incentive to end the war now, unless his hand is forced, because its continuation helps him retain power, said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Any negotiations after a military defeat would look like capitulation and make him more vulnerable at home, she said.

“Even if Ukraine is wildly successful in its upcoming counteroffensive, he is not going to be forced into some negotiated settlement,” Ms. Kendall-Taylor said. “Instead, he has every incentive to fight through the challenges.”

The only exception is if Mr. Putin can come away from negotiations with something he can sell back home as enough of a victory, she said.

Only 7 percent of authoritarian leaders with governments like Russia’s have found themselves unseated during a conflict that began on their watch, Ms. Kendall-Taylor found in an analysis of conflicts since 1919, which she conducted with the political scientist Erica Frantz.

“Leaders, when they initiate the war, they are rarely ousted so long as the war continues,” Ms. Kendall-Taylor said.

Some analysts believe Mr. Putin’s calculation could change if the Ukrainian counteroffensive manages to threaten Crimea.

“In polls, the only thing the Russian public was not willing to negotiate over was the status of Crimea,” said Max Bergmann, the director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “If Crimea is being bombarded, then it’s a failure. I think that would change things, potentially.”

Mr. Putin is also likely facing pressures that remain opaque to the outside world. In an authoritarian system, threats to the stability of a government often prove unpredictable.

Mr. Graham, the Council on Foreign Relations distinguished fellow, said Mr. Putin has security, business and political elites he still must keep on his side, noting that “it’s wrong to assume that Putin can just do anything he wants to at this point.”

“There are institutions of power and centers of power,” he added, “that you have to manage, control and dominate in some way if you’re going to stay in the game.

[MDlaxfan76]

yes, Putin and his supporters and apologists are undoubtedly hoping that Trump would win...glad to see you're recognizing that Trump is good for Putin.

But that would mean Ukraine is completely over run, not a phony 'peace'.

If correct that the West will fold if Trump wins, then Ukraine is over. Putin takes it.

So, sure, Ukraine feels under pressure, of course they do...but the right answer is Biden's answer, we're in it for the long haul, as long as it takes to push Russia out.

This notion that just because it's an authoritarian state, Putin can call up 25 million men to fight over, what?

Russians are not going to keep sending their children and young men to fight for a "special military operation". They simply aren't that dumb.
Instead they empty the jails of criminals.

So, all those people demanding or predicting a rapid end to the war, that "we can't afford it", back last spring, last fall, this winter, this spring are merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the Western world. Brute authoritarianism and aggression.

Best reason to support Biden over Trump, though there are SO MANY other important reasons as well.
Thank goodness Trump is such an a-hole and so many of our fellow Americans now know it.

[old salt]

https://ecipe.org/blog/eu-russia-trade- ... ber%202022.

Published February 2023

EU-Russia trade since the start of the war – recoupling for some, expansion for others
By: Vanika Sharma Renata Zilli

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was met with calls for economically alienating Russia. Countries were encouraged to impose sanctions, reduce trade with Russia, and offset any economic and resource dependencies. One year after the invasion, this blog explores changes in the trade values between EU and Russia, and a shift in EU’s economic alliances. There have been significant changes in the trade between EU and Russia over the past year, but the results are not as dramatic as they were initially thought to be. These changes have been driven by different EU member states and across a variety of sectors, resulting in important consequences for the future of EU-Russia trade....

EU trade with Russia
... despite the pressure to arrest economic relations, trade between the EU and Russia has not grounded to a halt. Several industries were responsible for slowing down the pace of economic disintegration between the two regions. EU imports from Russia of product categories such as pharmaceuticals, metals such as nickel, aluminum, and zinc, arms and ammunitions, and textiles such as silk, cotton, and leather, increased between January 2022 and October 2022. EU exports to Russia also increased in a variety of sectors, but most prominently in the pharmaceutical sector.

Even though the EU has been united in its stance to impose economic sanctions against Russia, there is significant variation in the degree to which EU economies have managed to reduce their trade with Russia. Firstly, not all EU countries have seen an equal decrease in their trade with Russia. In fact, imports from Russia increased for some EU member states such as Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Luxembourg, and Slovenia. For these countries, imports from Russia increased in product categories such as pharmaceuticals, miscellaneous chemical products, fuels and oils, fertilizers, aluminium and its products, optical, medical, and surgical instruments, and electric machinery. Hungary had the largest increase in imports from Russia between January 2022 and October 2022 of €1 billion, followed by Austria of €260 million...

Exports to Russia also increased for some EU member countries such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Slovenia between the same period.

The map below represents the change in trade between EU member countries and Russia between January and October 2022. Countries in red increased trade with Russia between this period, while countries in blue decreased trade with Russia. Although countries such as Greece, Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy are on the extreme ends of the spectrum in terms of change in trade values, changes by other member states with Russia have not been very large. Barring these five countries, the change in trade values ranged between an increase by €188 million and a decrease by €1.02 billion which represents a change of only 0.08% and 0.4% with respect to the total trade between the EU and Russia.

The varied trade responses of European member states towards Russia are also reflected in the countries’ political stance towards the aggressor. For instance, on multiple occasions, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, known for being close to the Kremlin, has called for an end to the sanctions on Russia. At a time when Europe is preparing for a new round of coercive measures against Russia, Orban has made promises to veto any future sanctions on Russia’s nuclear industry. Russia is a global supplier of nuclear material and technology and almost 50% percent of Hungary’s electricity needs are sourced from nuclear energy. These clashing political alliances among Member States have proven to be in detriment of Europe’s ability to act in a time of crisis.

In short, trade between the EU and Russia has decreased since the invasion of Ukraine. Yet, the differences across EU members states tell a more nuanced story. Not all member states have been able to reduce trade with Russia; in fact some states saw an increase in trade values during the same period. Another important area of change has been the reduction in trade dependencies of the EU on Russia. Imports by the EU in 8 out of 10 product categories fell in cumulative trade for August to October 2022 compared to their cumulative trade values in August to October 2021. Decoupling has been difficult for the EU and Russia as both are large players in the global economy. Many important changes have taken place over the last year, and yet it is still too soon to sketch out what these changes mean for the future of EU-Russia relations, but also for the future of global trade.

[MDlaxfan76]

straw man: "not grounded to a halt"

Nope, that wasn't actually expected, particularly because there's so much dependence.
And the countries aren't uniform.

Takes time and it's not ever been about ALL trade.

[old salt]

yes, Putin and his supporters and apologists are undoubtedly hoping that Trump would win...glad to see you're recognizing that Trump is good for Putin.

But that would mean Ukraine is completely over run, not a phony 'peace'.

If correct that the West will fold if Trump wins, then Ukraine is over. Putin takes it.

So, sure, Ukraine feels under pressure, of course they do...but the right answer is Biden's answer, we're in it for the long haul, as long as it takes to push Russia out.

This notion that just because it's an authoritarian state, Putin can call up 25 million men to fight over, what?

Russians are not going to keep sending their children and young men to fight for a "special military operation". They simply aren't that dumb.
Instead they empty the jails of criminals.

So, all those people demanding or predicting a rapid end to the war, that "we can't afford it", back last spring, last fall, this winter, this spring are merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the Western world. Brute authoritarianism and aggression.

Best reason to support Biden over Trump, though there are SO MANY other important reasons as well.
Thank goodness Trump is such an a-hole and so many of our fellow Americans now know it.

That's not an accurate interpretation of the NY Times analyses I posted or of my own position.
Are you predicting that if Trump is elected that all US military aid will stop & if it does, NATO aid will not continue or be sufficient ?

Not everyone shares your idealistic assessment that the exact location of Ukraine's SE border are critical to long term US national security interests.

We also conclude that further Russian expansionism can be contained & deterred without restoration of all Ukrainian territory to 2013 borders.

Nor that the pursuit of total victory in Ukraine supersedes the need to invest our limited military resources in other theaters such as W Pac.

Your dreams of war crimes tribunals are just that. The US public won't continue funding this war for that, compared to all the other war crimes in the world, just because the Ukrainians have white skin.

[Typical Lax Dad]

yes, Putin and his supporters and apologists are undoubtedly hoping that Trump would win...glad to see you're recognizing that Trump is good for Putin.

But that would mean Ukraine is completely over run, not a phony 'peace'.

If correct that the West will fold if Trump wins, then Ukraine is over. Putin takes it.

So, sure, Ukraine feels under pressure, of course they do...but the right answer is Biden's answer, we're in it for the long haul, as long as it takes to push Russia out.

This notion that just because it's an authoritarian state, Putin can call up 25 million men to fight over, what?

Russians are not going to keep sending their children and young men to fight for a "special military operation". They simply aren't that dumb.
Instead they empty the jails of criminals.

So, all those people demanding or predicting a rapid end to the war, that "we can't afford it", back last spring, last fall, this winter, this spring are merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the Western world. Brute authoritarianism and aggression.

Best reason to support Biden over Trump, though there are SO MANY other important reasons as well.
Thank goodness Trump is such an a-hole and so many of our fellow Americans now know it.

That's not an accurate interpretation of the NY Times analyses I posted or of my own position.
Are you predicting that if Trump is elected that all US military aid will stop & if it does, NATO aid will not continue or be sufficient ?

Not everyone shares your idealistic assessment that the exact location of Ukraine's SE border are critical to long term US national security interests.

We also conclude that further Russian expansionism can be contained & deterred without restoration of all Ukrainian territory to 2013 borders.

Nor that the pursuit of total victory in Ukraine supersedes the need to invest our limited military resources in other theaters such as W Pac.

Your dreams of war crimes tribunals are just that. The US public won't continue funding this war for that, compared to all the other war crimes in the world, just because the Ukrainians have white skin.

Let’s hope Putin hangs in there until Trump is re-elected.

[old salt]

yes, Putin and his supporters and apologists are undoubtedly hoping that Trump would win...glad to see you're recognizing that Trump is good for Putin.

But that would mean Ukraine is completely over run, not a phony 'peace'.

If correct that the West will fold if Trump wins, then Ukraine is over. Putin takes it.

So, sure, Ukraine feels under pressure, of course they do...but the right answer is Biden's answer, we're in it for the long haul, as long as it takes to push Russia out.

This notion that just because it's an authoritarian state, Putin can call up 25 million men to fight over, what?

Russians are not going to keep sending their children and young men to fight for a "special military operation". They simply aren't that dumb.
Instead they empty the jails of criminals.

So, all those people demanding or predicting a rapid end to the war, that "we can't afford it", back last spring, last fall, this winter, this spring are merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the Western world. Brute authoritarianism and aggression.

Best reason to support Biden over Trump, though there are SO MANY other important reasons as well.
Thank goodness Trump is such an a-hole and so many of our fellow Americans now know it.

That's not an accurate interpretation of the NY Times analyses I posted or of my own position.
Are you predicting that if Trump is elected that all US military aid will stop & if it does, NATO aid will not continue or be sufficient ?

Not everyone shares your idealistic assessment that the exact location of Ukraine's SE border are critical to long term US national security interests.

We also conclude that further Russian expansionism can be contained & deterred without restoration of all Ukrainian territory to 2013 borders.

Nor that the pursuit of total victory in Ukraine supersedes the need to invest our limited military resources in other theaters such as W Pac.

Your dreams of war crimes tribunals are just that. The US public won't continue funding this war for that, compared to all the other war crimes in the world, just because the Ukrainians have white skin.

Let’s hope Putin hangs in there until Trump is re-elected.

Are you predicting regime change in Russia if Trump is not re-elected ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

yes, Putin and his supporters and apologists are undoubtedly hoping that Trump would win...glad to see you're recognizing that Trump is good for Putin.

But that would mean Ukraine is completely over run, not a phony 'peace'.

If correct that the West will fold if Trump wins, then Ukraine is over. Putin takes it.

So, sure, Ukraine feels under pressure, of course they do...but the right answer is Biden's answer, we're in it for the long haul, as long as it takes to push Russia out.

This notion that just because it's an authoritarian state, Putin can call up 25 million men to fight over, what?

Russians are not going to keep sending their children and young men to fight for a "special military operation". They simply aren't that dumb.
Instead they empty the jails of criminals.

So, all those people demanding or predicting a rapid end to the war, that "we can't afford it", back last spring, last fall, this winter, this spring are merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the Western world. Brute authoritarianism and aggression.

Best reason to support Biden over Trump, though there are SO MANY other important reasons as well.
Thank goodness Trump is such an a-hole and so many of our fellow Americans now know it.

That's not an accurate interpretation of the NY Times analyses I posted or of my own position.
Are you predicting that if Trump is elected that all US military aid will stop & if it does, NATO aid will not continue or be sufficient ?

Not everyone shares your idealistic assessment that the exact location of Ukraine's SE border are critical to long term US national security interests.

We also conclude that further Russian expansionism can be contained & deterred without restoration of all Ukrainian territory to 2013 borders.

Nor that the pursuit of total victory in Ukraine supersedes the need to invest our limited military resources in other theaters such as W Pac.

Your dreams of war crimes tribunals are just that. The US public won't continue funding this war for that, compared to all the other war crimes in the world, just because the Ukrainians have white skin.

Let’s hope Putin hangs in there until Trump is re-elected.

Are you predicting regime change in Russia if Trump is not re-elected ?

No.

[MDlaxfan76]

yes, Putin and his supporters and apologists are undoubtedly hoping that Trump would win...glad to see you're recognizing that Trump is good for Putin.

But that would mean Ukraine is completely over run, not a phony 'peace'.

If correct that the West will fold if Trump wins, then Ukraine is over. Putin takes it.

So, sure, Ukraine feels under pressure, of course they do...but the right answer is Biden's answer, we're in it for the long haul, as long as it takes to push Russia out.

This notion that just because it's an authoritarian state, Putin can call up 25 million men to fight over, what?

Russians are not going to keep sending their children and young men to fight for a "special military operation". They simply aren't that dumb.
Instead they empty the jails of criminals.

So, all those people demanding or predicting a rapid end to the war, that "we can't afford it", back last spring, last fall, this winter, this spring are merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the Western world. Brute authoritarianism and aggression.

Best reason to support Biden over Trump, though there are SO MANY other important reasons as well.
Thank goodness Trump is such an a-hole and so many of our fellow Americans now know it.

That's not an accurate interpretation of the NY Times analyses I posted or of my own position.
Are you predicting that if Trump is elected that all US military aid will stop & if it does, NATO aid will not continue or be sufficient ?

Not everyone shares your idealistic assessment that the exact location of Ukraine's SE border are critical to long term US national security interests.

We also conclude that further Russian expansionism can be contained & deterred without restoration of all Ukrainian territory to 2013 borders.

Nor that the pursuit of total victory in Ukraine supersedes the need to invest our limited military resources in other theaters such as W Pac.

Your dreams of war crimes tribunals are just that. The US public won't continue funding this war for that, compared to all the other war crimes in the world, just because the Ukrainians have white skin.

Really, I thought that was pretty darn accurate conclusion coming off that article. Can't say for sure what your views are, but, yeah, it appears clear that you're rooting against Biden, want the war stopped before Ukraine re-takes their sovereign territory, and seem to hope Putin walks away without punishment.

I totally reject that Putin will walk away on his own, short of obtaining his objectives.
He's proven he won't, while lying through his teeth and every pore.

US and western security interests require Russia's aggression to be thoroughly defeated, not some BS "truce" while Putin re-arms. Thankfully, the Ukrainians have a very strong interest in doing so. But "total victory" is a term that I don't expect to be achieved militarily as I don't think we will, or should, support a full scale war on Russia. Just beat them out of Ukraine. All of it would be best case, possibly settle for Crimea for NATO membership.

Yes, I AM predicting that if Trump is elected there will be zero basis to expect ongoing aid to Ukraine of any sort from the US...and without US leadership most of the rest will shrivel as well. Trump will be totally unmoored from any political or legal or any other constraint of his actions. And we know that he regards all such as mere annoyances at most, as it is. But if, god forbid, he actually wins power back, katy bar the door.

That doesn't mean he won't wave his hands around, but unless someone pays him to do otherwise, he ain't funding Ukraine or anyone else.

I'm not predicting Putin's demise or overthrow, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's tossed out if the military defeat becomes overwhelming.

And as I've previously argued ad nauseam, and certainly am not alone, Russia's defeat by Ukraine, with strong Western resolve, may be the most effective deterrence to other great power hot war conflicts that may be just over the horizon, ie Asia with China.

[old salt]

yes, Putin and his supporters and apologists are undoubtedly hoping that Trump would win...glad to see you're recognizing that Trump is good for Putin.

But that would mean Ukraine is completely over run, not a phony 'peace'.

If correct that the West will fold if Trump wins, then Ukraine is over. Putin takes it.

So, sure, Ukraine feels under pressure, of course they do...but the right answer is Biden's answer, we're in it for the long haul, as long as it takes to push Russia out.

This notion that just because it's an authoritarian state, Putin can call up 25 million men to fight over, what?

Russians are not going to keep sending their children and young men to fight for a "special military operation". They simply aren't that dumb.
Instead they empty the jails of criminals.

So, all those people demanding or predicting a rapid end to the war, that "we can't afford it", back last spring, last fall, this winter, this spring are merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the Western world. Brute authoritarianism and aggression.

Best reason to support Biden over Trump, though there are SO MANY other important reasons as well.
Thank goodness Trump is such an a-hole and so many of our fellow Americans now know it.

That's not an accurate interpretation of the NY Times analyses I posted or of my own position.
Are you predicting that if Trump is elected that all US military aid will stop & if it does, NATO aid will not continue or be sufficient ?

Not everyone shares your idealistic assessment that the exact location of Ukraine's SE border are critical to long term US national security interests.

We also conclude that further Russian expansionism can be contained & deterred without restoration of all Ukrainian territory to 2013 borders.

Nor that the pursuit of total victory in Ukraine supersedes the need to invest our limited military resources in other theaters such as W Pac.

Your dreams of war crimes tribunals are just that. The US public won't continue funding this war for that, compared to all the other war crimes in the world, just because the Ukrainians have white skin.

Really, I thought that was pretty darn accurate conclusion coming off that article. Can't say for sure what your views are, but, yeah, it appears clear that you're rooting against Biden, want the war stopped before Ukraine re-takes their sovereign territory, and seem to hope Putin walks away without punishment.

I totally reject that Putin will walk away on his own, short of obtaining his objectives.
He's proven he won't, while lying through his teeth and every pore.

US and western security interests require Russia's aggression to be thoroughly defeated, not some BS "truce" while Putin re-arms. Thankfully, the Ukrainians have a very strong interest in doing so. But "total victory" is a term that I don't expect to be achieved militarily as I don't think we will, or should, support a full scale war on Russia. Just beat them out of Ukraine. All of it would be best case, possibly settle for Crimea for NATO membership.

Yes, I AM predicting that if Trump is elected there will be zero basis to expect ongoing aid to Ukraine of any sort from the US...and without US leadership most of the rest will shrivel as well. Trump will be totally unmoored from any political or legal or any other constraint of his actions. And we know that he regards all such as mere annoyances at most, as it is. But if, god forbid, he actually wins power back, katy bar the door.

That doesn't mean he won't wave his hands around, but unless someone pays him to do otherwise, he ain't funding Ukraine or anyone else.

I'm not predicting Putin's demise or overthrow, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's tossed out if the military defeat becomes overwhelming.

And as I've previously argued ad nauseam, and certainly am not alone, Russia's defeat by Ukraine, with strong Western resolve, may be the most effective deterrence to other great power hot war conflicts that may be just over the horizon, ie Asia with China.

Give the partisan "rooting" b.s. a rest. This issue is too important for that nonsense. It's a cop out when you don't like the facts.

FTR -- I hope you're right & I'm wrong. It will be a great thing if there's a black swan event & the western trained & equipped Ukrainian army spearheads a rout of the Russian army & proves to be a force multiplier for the Soviet legacy weapons which still constitute the vast majority of their heavy weapons. Prompting a collapse, surrender & withdrawal of Russian forces, toppling Putin in the process.

That would be a victory for Ukraine, NATO & the US. It would validate the superiority of US weapons, tactics, training & intelligence.
Our defense industry would be flooded with Foreign Military Sales orders for US weapons, while we feverishly scramble to restock our donated & expended missiles & munitions, at the expense of deficit dollars needed for replacement aircraft & warships. We can't continue donating $100 million/yr to arm, equip & train Ukraine for the long war that you predict, & experience has shown that our EUro allies won't pick up the slack.
...but it's fun to dream.

[old salt]

Showtime for the Patriot :

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2023/0 ... le/386036/

In Ukraine, A New Chance to Judge the Patriot Missile

The much-lauded air-defense system has a decidedly mixed record. The Pentagon should watch its performance carefully.

by Joe Cirincione, MAY 5, 2023

Ukraine is taking delivery of its first Patriot air-defense batteries, the weapon so highly and baselessly lauded during the 1991 Gulf War. Now, as upgraded Patriots take the battlefield once again, U.S. officials must judge how they fare—accurately, this time.

Video released by Ukrainian defense officials show Patriots provided by NATO countries deploying in Ukraine. DOD officials announced on May 3 that U.S.-supplied units have also arrived in country. “In high-intensity combat against the hardest targets, the Patriot can confirm or disprove its widely-regarded reputation as one of the world’s best air defense systems,” wrote Illia Ponomarenko for The Kyiv Independent on May 2.

The weapon has a checkered past. In 1991, U.S. officials and media excitedly reported a 100-percent success rate for the system, with claims that Patriots had intercepted Scud missiles launched from Iraq at Israel and Saudi Arabia. But the following year, Congressional hearings found that these claims were misleading and highly inaccurate. I was the lead staffer for the House Government Operations Committee investigation.

Rather than destroying 41 of 42 Scuds engaged, as President George H.W. Bush claimed at the end of the war, investigators from the Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting Office determined that Patriots only hit between zero and four of 44 Scuds engaged.

The incorrect claims of Patriot PAC-2’s success stem from misunderstanding of the way the interceptor works, how the system gauges its success, and its users’ failure to conduct ground damage assessments to determine whether the target was actually hit.

The PAC-2 variant sprays fragments, like a shotgun blast, as it nears a target. Explosions seen in the sky in the 1991 war were not signs of a Patriot hitting an incoming Scud, but of proximity fuzes detonating as the Patriot neared a Scud or a Scud fragment, or by the missile automatically self-destructing after missing a Scud, or by Patriots flying after false targets.

Nor can the system determine if a Patriot missile actually hits its intended target. It can only determine that it detonated near a point in space where it calculated the target should be, sending back a “probable kill” indicator.

These indicators are inaccurate. In the Gulf War, many of the targets turned out to be debris from the poorly designed Scuds as they broke up in flight. At least 45 percent of the 158 Patriots launched in the war were launched against debris or false targets, the Army reported.

The gap between assumptions and fact appeared during examination of the very first claimed Patriot hit on January 18, 1991. Television viewers were shown images of a Patriot streaking into the cloudy night sky and exploding. Announcers assumed a hit. In fact, there was no Scud there. The congressional investigation uncovered that there was no satellite confirmation of a Scud launch that day, nor was there any ground damage found. The Army confirmed as a result of the investigation that the Patriot system had registered a false target, the result of radar interference from nearby jet aircraft, and launched a Patriot which eventually self-destructed.

As a result of the congressional investigation, the Army revised its claims, saying it only had high confidence that the Patriot hit 25 percent of the Scuds, or 11 missiles. That claim is still higher than independent assessments.

Nonetheless, the myth of the Patriot’s success endures in both official and media sources. For example, the missile-defense lobby still claims the Jan. 18 phantom Scud “was brought down by two Patriot missiles” and “was the first anti-missile missile fired during combat operations.” Exaggerated claims of success against short-range missiles were used then and now to boost proposed budgets and estimates of effectiveness for anti-missile systems against long-range missiles.

Upgrade to PAC-3

In the decade after the Gulf War, the Pentagon upgraded its Patriots to a more effective PAC-3 configuration. While this new version has hit several short-range missiles and drones in combat, it has also mistakenly shot down U.S. and allied aircraft and missed several targets.

The PAC-3 “hit-to-kill” interceptor and improved electronics likely make the newer Patriots more effective at hitting short-range missiles, but there is still doubt.

“I am deeply skeptical that Patriot has ever intercepted a long-range ballistic missile in combat—at the least, I have yet to see convincing unclassified evidence of a successful Patriot intercept,” wrote Jeffrey Lewis in his 2018 review of the Patriot’s performance in Gulf combat.

The system may face just such longer-range missiles in Ukraine, where the military hopes it can intercept Russia’s Su-35 fighters, the S-300/400 missiles now used for surface attacks, and particularly the KH-22 cruise missiles that have devastated buildings in Ukrainian cities. They are not expected to be used against lower-value drone targets; Patriot manufacturer Raytheon charges $4 million for each missile.

It is not clear whether Ukraine is getting PAC-2 or PAC-3 Patriots. “Ukraine’s military did not reveal which version of the Patriot missile system it received,” reports Ponomarenko.

But Ukrainian forces, like the Israeli forces in 1991, will likely be in a good position to use ground debris to help evaluate the results of any Patriot use. They will be able to quickly determine if a system report of a “probable kill” is actually a successful intercept.

The performance of the Patriot system in Ukraine must not be manipulated to promote other agendas. The defense of Ukraine is too important. We all have to hope the Army has absorbed the lessons of past failures and that the new, improved Patriots can provide Ukraine the protection it desperately needs