All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Essexfenwick]

Trump Smart

Biden Tarded

[a fan]

And Biden and his team haven't done "pretty well;" they've done a superb job in an intractable situation.

Yep. They are waging a very effective stealth proxy war with Russia, with Ukrainians doing the fighting & bleeding.
The veterans of Maidan in the Biden Admin are pleased. Good fun, until it blows up.

You lost me....is this criticism, or praise? The alternative is to send our guys, no?

[a fan]

Biden is not a lone wolf; he acts with deliberation with the advice of Blinken and State, Austin and Defense, Sullivan, and with input from allies.

He blew them ALL off with his decision on if & when to abandon Afghanistan.

Which was the right move....or have you not seen all the zeros in the Afghanistan casualty reports this year?

You wanted to never leave, remember? So did the generals. So our guys just sit there for no purpose, racking up pointless casualties.

Have to say...that's not much of a plan. I like the plan we're in now. Betting our troops do, too.

[Brooklyn]

Just came back for watching and posting on a pro Russia youtube channel. Two funny things happened:

1) American communists and right wingers finally agree on something in their support of Russian claims

2) people of various persuasions finally agreeing with me that the USA and Russia should be allies, not enemies (it's what I've been saying for decades)



First time in my life that I have ever seen this. Frankly, I am startled as it was something I never expected to ever see. For decades people used to criticize me for daring to express sentiments like these. Now all of a sudden thousands are coming out of the woodwork to say what should have been said and done decades ago.

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/ ... ly-joined/

Is Biden Setting Us Up to Lose a War We Never Really Joined?

by MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY, March 28, 2022

We often blame the fog of war when faced with a lack of clarity about what precisely is happening on the ground in a given conflict. But the more honest truth is that during war, interested governments blow enough smoke to make the atmosphere impenetrable.

If you have only been following developments in the Ukraine war through Twitter or White House briefings, you likely believe that the war is an unmitigated disaster for Russia, and that Ukraine may even be winning as it starts to mount successful counter-attacks on Russian positions. And increasingly, you also likely believe that the war is going to result in the downfall of Vladimir Putin.

And you aren’t alone — many American experts are right there with you. Relying almost entirely on White House briefings and the Facebook posts of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, the Institute for the Study of War declared grandly on March 19, “Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war.”

It is far from the only rosy assessment. Almost daily, the Biden administration gives its own briefs on the progress of the war and its estimates of Russian losses. NATO analysts provided an estimate that Russia had suffered 40,000 casualties — somewhere between 7,000 and 15,000 killed, and the remainder lost to desertion or Ukrainian capture. That would amount to more than one-fifth of the initial Russian invading force. “We are seeing a country militarily implode,” one professor who studies air power told Vox.

The historian Niall Ferguson even reported last week that in an off-the-record meeting, he’d heard indications that American officials were starting to buy into the rosy picture painted by their own briefings:

I have evidence from other sources to corroborate this. “The only end game now,” a senior administration official was heard to say at a private event earlier this month, “is the end of Putin regime. Until then, all the time Putin stays, [Russia] will be a pariah state that will never be welcomed back into the community of nations. China has made a huge error in thinking Putin will get away with it. Seeing Russia get cut off will not look like a good vector and they’ll have to re-evaluate the Sino-Russia axis. All this is to say that democracy and the West may well look back on this as a pivotal strengthening moment.”

Finally, on Saturday, Biden ad-libbed a line in his militant speech in Poland: “For God’s sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power.”

Well, color me skeptical. It is easy to believe that Russia’s forces have been unusually disorganized, that they lack morale, and that they are suffering grave losses. It’s even plausible that, in the long run, the war’s costs on Russia might ultimately land on Vladimir Putin. But there are good reasons to be cautious in predicting the future of the conflict, particularly if you are a U.S. policy-maker.

The first is that Russian casualty estimates are rarely given with estimates of Ukrainian casualties. Some of the talking points used to give the impression of Ukrainian success, like “the Russians haven’t taken any big cities yet,” are familiar from their use in our own recently concluded Afghan misadventure. And as we saw in that case, the Taliban didn’t take cities with block-by-block fighting; they waited until taking them was a fait accompli.

What’s more, nobody writing reports about Ukraine’s “defeat” of the initial invasion knows or has access to Russia’s actual war plan, without which it’s impossible to know for sure whether Russia really has already failed.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky keeps sending up strong signals that he is willing to make some significant concessions to Russia in exchange for an end to hostilities, which is not what we’d expect someone who was decisively winning a war to do.

Anyone who raises doubts about the reports of Ukrainian triumph is likely to face torrents of abuse on Twitter and in comment sections. This is predictable, in part because people feel genuinely invested in the outcome, and think that wide recognition of Ukraine’s success is a pre-condition for yet more Ukrainian success. The more that influential people resign themselves to Russia’s grinding out something like victory, the more likely it becomes that the West pushes Zelensky to negotiate from a weak position.

But it is a serious problem for the United States that the White House and the Biden administration, in the absence of any strategy that could guarantee such an outcome, are continually feeding the belief that Russia will fail and Putin will fall.

Commitment to this belief could limit the Ukrainian government’s options for negotiating a settlement. It also risks embarrassing the United States itself. If Russia holds some kind of victory parade in an eastern-Ukrainian city, Putin will be able to cite President Joe Biden’s own words in claiming that he has not only beaten Ukraine, but that he has survived an American attempt at regime change in the Kremlin.

In other words, the White House, by continuing to over-invest U.S. honor and credibility in an outcome that it is unwilling or unable to bring about, is setting us up to come out as the “losers” of a war we never really joined.

[Essexfenwick]

Just came back for watching and posting on a pro Russia youtube channel. Two funny things happened:

1) American communists and right wingers finally agree on something in their support of Russian claims

2) people of various persuasions finally agreeing with me that the USA and Russia should be allies, not enemies (it's what I've been saying for decades)



First time in my life that I have ever seen this. Frankly, I am startled as it was something I never expected to ever see. For decades people used to criticize me for daring to express sentiments like these. Now all of a sudden thousands are coming out of the woodwork to say what should have been said and done decades ago.

We were allies with Russia against the National Socialist German Workers party. Now DementiaJoe has Russia allied with China like some kind of stupid person. Get Trump back in there quick before nuclear weapons start going off.

[Brooklyn]

Salty,

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky keeps sending up strong signals that he is willing to make some significant concessions to Russia in exchange for an end to hostilities, which is not what we’d expect someone who was decisively winning a war to do.

National Review may the news that way but we keep getting mixed signals as,


Despite his comments in Sunday’s interview, Zelenskyy’s position on peace talks is unclear. In a video message late Sunday, he vowed that Ukraine will not cede any territory to Russia and that Ukraine is winning the war.


https://www.courthousenews.com/zelensky ... ace-talks/


I have monitored several news sites and we continue to get mixed signals. You just don't know what the real truth is.

[MDlaxfan76]

Biden is not a lone wolf; he acts with deliberation with the advice of Blinken and State, Austin and Defense, Sullivan, and with input from allies.

He blew them ALL off with his decision on if & when to abandon Afghanistan.
He scares me much more than Trump did.

Big difference between being his own man, right or wrong, and not valuing the input and counsel of others.

Let's be clear, the only reason you could give us to not be worried about Trump was that you had faith in the judgments of the military folks he had on his staff....all of whom ultimately turned on Trump and have since told us that they were very concerned about him. You were right to have some confidence in them, but very wrong about Trump.

Reflexive, irrelevant TDS diversion.
The results speak for themselves. Trump followed their advice, even after they quit.
Their successors recommended & did the same things they would have.
Their reward was contempt from your cohort for serving their country.

TDS?? You brought up Trump.

Why can't you just be a little self reflective and admit that you were wrong to put any trust n Trump, but right to have confidence in some of the military folks. They clearly have been self reflective, and don't have much difficulty now in being forthright that Trump was incredibly dangerous and worried the heck out of them.They all ultimately left in disgust, some more publicly so than others, but all in frustration. Sure, they were inside and could see the danger up close, but that's all the more reason to believe them now.

And my "cohort"???
What was that, the one which recognized Trump from day one as the corrupt POS he was and is?
Why do you feel the need to bring him up as a contrast to Biden?

My take on this is that Biden is no genius, can certainly be impulsive and hard headed, but he's been taking exactly the right tone and posture re Putin and his aggression at each stage. It's clearly a coordinated strategy with his military and intelligence and diplomatic teams, putting an emphasis on rally and coordinating with NATO and other civilized countries with varying degrees of affinity in the global conflict between democracy and autocracy.

Putin is daily committing war crimes on a massive scale. It simply can't be tolerated by the civilized world...and Biden is saying so and taking action to have it come to its necessary end. And that end simply can't reward a tyrant, a war criminal, for his aggression. On the other hand, he's restraining from all out direct war in order to follow a path that ultimately defeats Putin's ideology, not just his military.

I'm rooting for that to work....sooner the better, but I believe that ultimately it will. Putin and the Russian people will control how badly this goes for everyone, and the timetable, but ultimately Putin's ideology must be defeated.

[Kismet]

Ukrainian border officer on Snake Island who told Russian Naval ship to eff off when they asked for his surrender is now repatriated and has received commendation for his actions

This guy should never have to pick up a bar tab EVER.

[DocBarrister]

Simone Ashley and Charithra Chandran are babelicious (and talented, intelligent, hard working … ya know, all that kind of stuff).

https://decider.com/2022/03/24/bridgert ... dwina/amp/

That is all.

(We now resume your regularly scheduled programming.)

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Ukrainian border officer on Snake Island who told Russian Naval ship to eff off when they asked for his surrender is now repatriated and has received commendation for his actions

This guy should never have to pick up a bar tab EVER.

There’s a Ukrainian postage stamp depicting the episode as well.

DocBarrister

[runrussellrun]

Biden is not a lone wolf; he acts with deliberation with the advice of Blinken and State, Austin and Defense, Sullivan, and with input from allies.

He blew them ALL off with his decision on if & when to abandon Afghanistan.

Which was the right move....or have you not seen all the zeros in the Afghanistan casualty reports this year?

You wanted to never leave, remember? So did the generals. So our guys just sit there for no purpose, racking up pointless casualties.

Have to say...that's not much of a plan. I like the plan we're in now. Betting our troops do, too.

where do the private guns report casualties?

and, IF...we are so out of Afhanistan.....why is the recently TAATS passed Defense Act budget contain such a large budget for this region, specifically, THIS country?

carry on.........Dan Crenshaw has some Raytheon options he wants to swap...

[old salt]

TDS?? You brought up Trump. ...in response to the Trump whataboutisms, up the thread, whenever I question Biden.

Why can't you just be a little self reflective and admit that you were wrong to put any trust n Trump, but right to have confidence in some of the military folks. They clearly have been self reflective, and don't have much difficulty now in being forthright that Trump was incredibly dangerous and worried the heck out of them.They all ultimately left in disgust, some more publicly so than others, but all in frustration. Sure, they were inside and could see the danger up close, but that's all the more reason to believe them now.
I never trusted Trump & said so from the start. I expressed my hope & confidence in our system of checks & balances to constrain him. I liked his cabinet & their successors.

And my "cohort"???
What was that, the one which recognized Trump from day one as the corrupt POS he was and is?Yeah, yeah, that was acknowledged from the start. We still had to get through his term.
Why do you feel the need to bring him up as a contrast to Biden? ...read further up the thread. You are not the only one posting.

My take on this is that Biden is no genius, can certainly be impulsive and hard headed, but he's been taking exactly the right tone and posture re Putin and his aggression at each stage. Not at this stage, when the principals are negotiating. You don't hear our allied leaders popping off like this.It's clearly a coordinated strategy with his military and intelligence and diplomatic teams, putting an emphasis on rally and coordinating with NATO and other civilized countries with varying degrees of affinity in the global conflict between democracy and autocracy. If it was a coordinated strategy, they wouldn't be doing so many walkbacs & cleanups.


Putin is daily committing war crimes on a massive scale. It simply can't be tolerated by the civilized world...and Biden is saying so and taking action to have it come to its necessary end. And that end simply can't reward a tyrant, a war criminal, for his aggression. On the other hand, he's restraining from all out direct war in order to follow a path that ultimately defeats Putin's ideology, not just his military.It is gratuitous, hollow rhetoric, unless he's willing to intervene militarily, ...that's where it sounds like he is pushing the US public & our allies.

I'm rooting for that to work....sooner the better, but I believe that ultimately it will. Putin and the Russian people will control how badly this goes for everyone, and the timetable, but ultimately Putin's ideology must be defeated. I'm hoping (not "rooting") that the killing & destruction ceases asap. Our supply of weapons will determine when that happens. Based on that, & Biden's rhetoric, it appears he intends for the war to drag on indefinitely & for the US to intervene militarily.

[old salt]

I am not hoping or "rooting" for this, but I think it is the most likely short term outcome.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hard-t ... eatst_pos1

OPINION POLITICS & IDEAS
The Hard Truth in Biden’s Gaffe
The U.S. can’t resume normal relations with Russia while Putin partitions Ukraine.
By William A. Galston, March 29, 2022 12:33 pm ET

The journalist Michael Kinsley famously proposed that “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” By this standard, the ad libbed final sentence of President Biden’s Warsaw speech may be a gaffe for the ages. Administration officials scurried to walk back the suggestion that regime change in Russia was among the objectives of U.S. assistance to Ukraine. America’s NATO ambassador, Julianne Smith, suggested (plausibly enough) that Mr. Biden’s words represented “a principled human reaction” to his encounter earlier in the day with hundreds of desperate Ukrainian refugees.

Mr. Biden’s impromptu remark, which dominated coverage of an otherwise strong speech, raises a larger question: Is it conceivable that the rest of the world can return to business as usual with Vladimir Putin as Russia’s president, or must he and his country be treated as international pariahs so long as he remains in power?

Much depends on how the war ends. It is now clear that Mr. Putin cannot achieve his initial objective: swiftly overthrowing Volodymyr Zelensky’s government and installing a compliant regime in Kyiv. Although it is too early to know for sure, recent statements by Russian officials suggest that Mr. Putin is pivoting to Plan B—securing the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as well as the coastal land bridge to Crimea. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, head of intelligence for Ukraine’s Defense Ministry, agrees with this assessment.

It is conceivable but unlikely that if the West expands the scope and accelerates the pace of arms deliveries, Ukraine’s forces could completely expel Russian invaders from their land. At this point, however, the most likely outcome is that both sides fall short of total victory and that a stalemate sets in, with Ukraine governing the west and Russian forces occupying the east. This would create what Gen. Budanov calls “North and South Korea in Ukraine.” Then what?

One possibility is that a version of the pre-invasion status quo might resume, with Russian and Russian-backed forces occupying much more Ukrainian territory than before the invasion. Fighting would probably continue at a lower intensity along the new informal line of demarcation between the contending forces.

Sanctions would continue, as would arms shipments to Ukraine and Europe’s effort to decouple from Russian energy. The U.S. and its allies would intensify their efforts to isolate Russia diplomatically.

There is a somewhat more optimistic scenario in which the negotiations hosted by Turkey between Russia and Ukraine continue to progress and the intensity of the fighting gradually subsides. Even so, the most Mr. Zelensky could offer without sparking domestic opposition would fall far short of the least Mr. Putin could accept without jeopardizing his survival as Russia’s leader. This matters because any draft agreement would be subject to approval by popular referendum in Ukraine.

Before the most recent Russian invasion, Ukraine refused to accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and it is less likely to do so after so much bloodshed and destruction at the hands of Russian forces. In a similar vein, if Ukraine did not accept the territorial gains that Russian forces achieved in the Donbas in 2014, why would it accept the larger gains Russia has made this year? Ukraine seems willing to abandon its long-held aspiration to join NATO and discuss some form of neutrality, but only in return for security guarantees from a Western coalition of the willing that Russia would find no more palatable.

The most likely outcome, I believe, is an armistice along the lines of the agreement that ended the shooting phase of the Korean War, leaving the large issues unresolved. Mr. Zelensky would tell his people that he had refused to cede an inch of Ukrainian territory, while Mr. Putin would say that he had achieved his principal objective—protecting the Ukrainians who identify with Russia linguistically and culturally from an oppressive “Nazi” government.

I do not see how the U.S. and its allies can resume normal relations with Russia while Vladimir Putin’s army enforces a de facto partition of Ukraine. Mr. Putin cannot be rewarded for naked aggression.

It is possible that over time Western sanctions will interact with the costs of occupation (including a guerrilla war against the invaders) to force Russia to withdraw, as the Soviets did from Afghanistan. But having paid such a heavy price for his invasion, Mr. Putin will not readily reverse it. Besides, a reversal would violate the pan-Russian ideology that—as much as any cost-benefit calculation—shapes his stance toward Ukraine.

In the meantime, there would be a frozen conflict—and a ticking time bomb—in the heart of Europe.

Could the kind of creative statesmanship that peacefully ended the Cold War succeed in these circumstances? Then, the West was dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom (as Margaret Thatcher famously opined) the West could do business. Now it would have to shake a bloody hand.

imo -- this will result in a massive semi-permanent buildup of (mostly US) military forces on NATO's E flank, which has already commenced.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world will return to buying the Russian energy, ag, minerals & potash upon which their economies depend.

[old salt]

Here is a rosy scenario which I am "rooting" for.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putins-war ... eatst_pos2

OPINION GLOBAL VIEW
Russia’s War With Ukraine Unifies Europe
The conflict positions Germany to be the military and economic powerhouse of the EU.
by Walter Russell Mead, March 28, 2022 6:29 pm ET[

Vladimir Putin hoped to break up the European status quo with his attack on Ukraine. Increasingly, it appears that the chief consequence will be to reinforce it. President Biden may have gaffed his way across Europe last week, but Mr. Putin’s unhinged behavior has removed any doubts European policy makers may have had about the value of the trans-Atlantic alliance. Worse for Russia, Mr. Putin’s war is making Germany more powerful, more activist and more Atlanticist, a combination likely to support American power and undercut Russian influence in Europe for many years to come.

To describe Germany as a winner in Mr. Putin’s war against Ukraine would go too far. The war upended the assumptions on which German energy and security policy has long rested and forced Germany to make harsh decisions it preferred to avoid. Angela Merkel’s Germany dreamed that its companies could prosper indefinitely while a great green energy transition rippled painlessly through an ever-democratizing, ever-disarming world. Thanks to the war, German business is reassessing its relations with China as well as Russia. The military plans spending increases, and energy policy is shifting from “climate first” to “security first” to reduce dependence on Russian imports.

The consequences of these changes for Germany’s place in Europe and Europe’s role in the world will be profound. Assuming Berlin follows through with its pledge to raise defense spending to 2% of gross domestic product, Germany is on course to become the military as well as economic powerhouse of the European Union. France will remain the only nuclear-armed EU member and will likely remain better placed to engage outside the EU than Germany, but Berlin’s growing conventional military power will inevitably tip the balance further toward Germany in the internal politics of the EU.

There is more. Managing a massive refugee program, supporting Ukraine economically in the wake of a devastating war, and building up the strength of frontline states are generational tasks that will engage European policy makers and soak up European economic resources for years. The EU expansion process had ground to a halt in recent years as some member countries fretted over the cost of including new members and others worried that a growing membership could make it harder to reach timely decisions and limit the prospects for a deeper and stronger union. Those concerns remain, but the need to promote economic and political stability on the EU’s eastern flank will likely make the case for expansion harder to resist as more EU money flows east.

All this makes Germany’s role as the EU’s central powerbroker—balancing the conflicting agendas of the Frugal North, the Endangered East and the Indebted South—more crucial to Europe’s future than ever. This will likely be good news for American strategists who have long hesitated between two scenarios for Europe’s future. On one hand, almost everyone in the world of American foreign policy wants Europe to become stronger militarily, as that would help stabilize the region while reducing the cost to the U.S. of European security. On the other hand, a Europe so powerful that it would no longer need American protection might become a political and economic rival in ways that Americans would not always welcome. The German awakening suggests that we are about to see a Europe that is both stronger and less Gaullist than most thought possible before Mr. Putin’s invasion.

Germany’s attitudes about European independence and American power are complex. Germans do not always see the world as Americans do, and the election of Donald Trump significantly reinforced German skepticism about American reliability and strategic competence. But strong trans-Atlantic ties help solidify Germany’s place in Europe. The American military presence in Europe calms countries like Poland that might otherwise fear a rearming Germany even as the NATO security guarantee provides much more confidence than EU security guarantees alone ever could.

Germany won’t, however, turn its back on Brussels or Paris. For both economic and security reasons, Germany needs the EU, and the commitment to a deep relationship with France remains embedded in German political culture and strategic thought. Berlin will deepen defense cooperation with Paris even as it bolsters its Atlantic ties. Presumably one aspect of this will be that much of its new defense budget ultimately will involve joint ventures with French and other European weapons makers.

Mr. Putin wanted a weaker Europe, increasingly separated from the U.S. It looks as if he’s going to get exactly the opposite. Mr. Putin’s war, so far at least, looks set to promote the emergence of a Europe that is militarily stronger and more deeply engaged with the U.S. than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Here is a rosy scenario which I am "rooting" for.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putins-war ... eatst_pos2

OPINION GLOBAL VIEW
Russia’s War With Ukraine Unifies Europe
The conflict positions Germany to be the military and economic powerhouse of the EU.
by Walter Russell Mead, March 28, 2022 6:29 pm ET[

Vladimir Putin hoped to break up the European status quo with his attack on Ukraine. Increasingly, it appears that the chief consequence will be to reinforce it. President Biden may have gaffed his way across Europe last week, but Mr. Putin’s unhinged behavior has removed any doubts European policy makers may have had about the value of the trans-Atlantic alliance. Worse for Russia, Mr. Putin’s war is making Germany more powerful, more activist and more Atlanticist, a combination likely to support American power and undercut Russian influence in Europe for many years to come.

To describe Germany as a winner in Mr. Putin’s war against Ukraine would go too far. The war upended the assumptions on which German energy and security policy has long rested and forced Germany to make harsh decisions it preferred to avoid. Angela Merkel’s Germany dreamed that its companies could prosper indefinitely while a great green energy transition rippled painlessly through an ever-democratizing, ever-disarming world. Thanks to the war, German business is reassessing its relations with China as well as Russia. The military plans spending increases, and energy policy is shifting from “climate first” to “security first” to reduce dependence on Russian imports.

The consequences of these changes for Germany’s place in Europe and Europe’s role in the world will be profound. Assuming Berlin follows through with its pledge to raise defense spending to 2% of gross domestic product, Germany is on course to become the military as well as economic powerhouse of the European Union. France will remain the only nuclear-armed EU member and will likely remain better placed to engage outside the EU than Germany, but Berlin’s growing conventional military power will inevitably tip the balance further toward Germany in the internal politics of the EU.

There is more. Managing a massive refugee program, supporting Ukraine economically in the wake of a devastating war, and building up the strength of frontline states are generational tasks that will engage European policy makers and soak up European economic resources for years. The EU expansion process had ground to a halt in recent years as some member countries fretted over the cost of including new members and others worried that a growing membership could make it harder to reach timely decisions and limit the prospects for a deeper and stronger union. Those concerns remain, but the need to promote economic and political stability on the EU’s eastern flank will likely make the case for expansion harder to resist as more EU money flows east.

All this makes Germany’s role as the EU’s central powerbroker—balancing the conflicting agendas of the Frugal North, the Endangered East and the Indebted South—more crucial to Europe’s future than ever. This will likely be good news for American strategists who have long hesitated between two scenarios for Europe’s future. On one hand, almost everyone in the world of American foreign policy wants Europe to become stronger militarily, as that would help stabilize the region while reducing the cost to the U.S. of European security. On the other hand, a Europe so powerful that it would no longer need American protection might become a political and economic rival in ways that Americans would not always welcome. The German awakening suggests that we are about to see a Europe that is both stronger and less Gaullist than most thought possible before Mr. Putin’s invasion.

Germany’s attitudes about European independence and American power are complex. Germans do not always see the world as Americans do, and the election of Donald Trump significantly reinforced German skepticism about American reliability and strategic competence. But strong trans-Atlantic ties help solidify Germany’s place in Europe. The American military presence in Europe calms countries like Poland that might otherwise fear a rearming Germany even as the NATO security guarantee provides much more confidence than EU security guarantees alone ever could.

Germany won’t, however, turn its back on Brussels or Paris. For both economic and security reasons, Germany needs the EU, and the commitment to a deep relationship with France remains embedded in German political culture and strategic thought. Berlin will deepen defense cooperation with Paris even as it bolsters its Atlantic ties. Presumably one aspect of this will be that much of its new defense budget ultimately will involve joint ventures with French and other European weapons makers.

Mr. Putin wanted a weaker Europe, increasingly separated from the U.S. It looks as if he’s going to get exactly the opposite. Mr. Putin’s war, so far at least, looks set to promote the emergence of a Europe that is militarily stronger and more deeply engaged with the U.S. than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Guess who was helping….. but he couldn’t even do that right. Long track record of having his pockets turned inside out.

[MDlaxfan76]

Not going to copy all of that, but a couple of things.

I see our Essex who is now in the penalty box again for trolling doing his thing of Biden Bad, Trump Smart crap and ticking a couple of people off...as he undoubtedly desired, but I don't think you needed to jump in with Biden bad, Trump didn't scare you so much...it's not me with the TDS...

Sure, the situation is incredibly challenging and could go a number of different directions.

But here we are a just few weeks in and drones, javelins, stingers are working...as I was hoping and saying on here from very early days, the Ukrainians did get drone support and it looks like they're getting much more...and more and more anti missile capabilities.

I don't know that this needs to be a standoff versus an actual full retreat by the Russian army. Occupying any part of Ukraine is going to get really difficult if we continue to supply the very motivated, high morale Ukrainian fighters with the technology and ammo to actually fight effectively. The Ukrainians are spitting mad, very likely to want revenge on any Russians still in country once they get the momentum...I don't see the Russian army as being willing to take these casualties the way the Ukrainians are clearly willing to absorb. They don't really have their hearts in it.

Personally, I think Biden made a call that was premeditated, if not pre-wired. He "says" he was just expressing his "personal moral outrage" (and surely that does indeed capture it), but this feels much more like my old pal's negotiating strategy of letting something offensive pop out of his mouth, then pull back, saying 'did I really say that?' ohh my...while getting the point across crystal clear.

But I think Biden is smart enough or well advised enough or both to not move this to direct conflict, that Putin could more easily rally his troops around instead of the "crush our Ukrainian brethren, there's no such thing as Ukraine" positioning he's found himself trying to sell his troops and their families.

But I do think you're right that Biden is trying to prepare the US and Europe for a long slog, while obviously hoping for faster. But our intel assessments are undoubtedly telling him that the timetable is Putin's and there's no real sign that Putin is prepared to step back other than as forced to do so. So, anything immediate is just naive wishful thinking.

[old salt]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putins-war ... eatst_pos2

Mr. Putin wanted a weaker Europe, increasingly separated from the U.S. It looks as if he’s going to get exactly the opposite. Mr. Putin’s war, so far at least, looks set to promote the emergence of a Europe that is militarily stronger and more deeply engaged with the U.S. than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Guess who was helping….. but he couldn’t even do that right. Long track record of having his pockets turned inside out.

^^^TDS^^^ ...
Russia started massing troops on Ukraine's border less than 2 mos after Biden took office.

[Kismet]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putins-war ... eatst_pos2

Mr. Putin wanted a weaker Europe, increasingly separated from the U.S. It looks as if he’s going to get exactly the opposite. Mr. Putin’s war, so far at least, looks set to promote the emergence of a Europe that is militarily stronger and more deeply engaged with the U.S. than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Guess who was helping….. but he couldn’t even do that right. Long track record of having his pockets turned inside out.

^^^TDS^^^ ...
Russia started massing troops on Ukraine's border less than 2 mos after Biden took office.

Maybe Putin was in a hurry to do something before Sleepy Joe rebuilt the alliance.....if it was his thought....it seems to have blown up in his face.

[old salt]

...as I was hoping and saying on here from very early days, the Ukrainians did get drone support from Turkey, which they already had and it looks like they're getting much more only 100 small backpack switchblades from the US, not MQ-9's with missiles & bombs...and more and more anti missile capabilities. have the Slovaks, or any other NATO users, agreed to treansfer their S-300's yet ?

Personally, I think Biden made a call that was premeditated, if not pre-wired. He "says" he was just expressing his "personal moral outrage" (and surely that does indeed capture it), but this feels much more like my old pal's negotiating strategy of letting something offensive pop out of his mouth, then pull back, saying 'did I really say that?' ohh my...while getting the point across crystal clear. keep polishing that turd.

no real sign that Putin is prepared to step back other than as forced to do so. So, anything immediate is just naive wishful thinking.
...a E Ukraine/N Korea of Europe would not be his choice, but a reality he would be forced to accept as the best he can get (for the foreseeable future).