All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

FTR -- I gave Obama (D) credit for trying.

I don't. He could have fixed this, too. He didn't. It's not a priority. Never has been for D's.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2431BQ
Farmers, who have been loyal supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump, have grown more reliant on immigrant labor in recent years. The Trump administration continues to issue agriculture visas while clamping down on tech workers, students and other groups.

The number of H-2A visas granted for agriculture equipment operators rose to 10,798 from October through March, the typical hiring period for harvesters looking for a labor force that starts cutting wheat in May. That was up 49% from a year earlier, according to the U.S. Labor Department.

That's a VERY specific VISA, shortages for ALL work VISAs abound. Under every President, OS.

It's an ag worker visa -- how is it specific ?

Because you can get American workers to drive a combine or trucks....Grain is different.

To qualify for H-2A nonimmigrant classification, the petitioner must:

Offer a job that is of a temporary or seasonal nature.

-Demonstrate that there are not enough U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work.

-Show that employing H-2A workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.

Generally, submit a single valid temporary labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor with the H-2A petition. (A limited exception to this requirement exists in certain “emergent circumstances.”See e.g., 8 CFR 214.2(h)(-5)(x) for specific details.)


The second bolded one trips up the application, because gringos will drive trucks and equipment.

The number of H-2A visas granted for agriculture equipment operators rose to 10,798 from October through March,
...in almost 11k cases, they were able to demonstrate no gringo drivers available.

[old salt]

Skeptics like me were slimed as people who ultimately sympathized with Putin and who saw strongmen as vigorous and democracies as weak. This was a lie.[/color] I believe nothing is so fearful as a democracy that has truly gone to war. But our people have not gone to war. Only a policy elite has done that, using money they borrowed from us.

So now a right winger understands how you're treated in America when you don't get behind our nonstop wars....and thinks he's the first guy this has happened to?

Called UnAmerican. America hater. Hate our troops?

Welcome aboard, dude. There's a seat right over here.

If the seat's on a Russian AA gun, will Jane Fonda sit on my ...lap ?
I remember getting pelted with tomatoes the first time I wore my new dress khakis outside the Yard.
Big difference between hating the troops & disagreeing with the politicians who send them to war.
All those Ukrainian soldiers being killed in WW-I style artillery & trench warfare won't live to fight again or defend what's left of their country.

[a fan]

Skeptics like me were slimed as people who ultimately sympathized with Putin and who saw strongmen as vigorous and democracies as weak. This was a lie.[/color] I believe nothing is so fearful as a democracy that has truly gone to war. But our people have not gone to war. Only a policy elite has done that, using money they borrowed from us.

So now a right winger understands how you're treated in America when you don't get behind our nonstop wars....and thinks he's the first guy this has happened to?

Called UnAmerican. America hater. Hate our troops?

Welcome aboard, dude. There's a seat right over here.

If the seat's on a Russian AA gun, will Jane Fonda sit on my ...lap ?
I remember getting pelted with tomatoes the first time I wore my new dress khakis outside the Yard.
Big difference between hating the troops & disagreeing with the politicians who send them to war.

Yes. Perhaps it was more luck than intellect on my part, but leading up to the Gulf War, I met organizers who were Vets that made sure everyone made the distinction between condemning the troops, and condemning the war.

I listened to those men, and was sure to honor the troops, while giving it to HW Bush and his horrible policies.

All those Ukrainian soldiers being killed in WW-I style artillery & trench warfare won't live to fight again or defend what's left of their country.

I'm not any happier about this than you. If I had a magic wand, I'd make Zelesnky and Putin stop this war immediately.

[youthathletics]

Great dialogue between the two of you....

[DocBarrister]

Skeptics like me were slimed as people who ultimately sympathized with Putin and who saw strongmen as vigorous and democracies as weak. This was a lie.[/color] I believe nothing is so fearful as a democracy that has truly gone to war. But our people have not gone to war. Only a policy elite has done that, using money they borrowed from us.

So now a right winger understands how you're treated in America when you don't get behind our nonstop wars....and thinks he's the first guy this has happened to?

Called UnAmerican. America hater. Hate our troops?

Welcome aboard, dude. There's a seat right over here.

If the seat's on a Russian AA gun, will Jane Fonda sit on my ...lap ?
I remember getting pelted with tomatoes the first time I wore my new dress khakis outside the Yard.
Big difference between hating the troops & disagreeing with the politicians who send them to war.

Yes. Perhaps it was more luck than intellect on my part, but leading up to the Gulf War, I met organizers who were Vets that made sure everyone made the distinction between condemning the troops, and condemning the war.

I listened to those men, and was sure to honor the troops, while giving it to HW Bush and his horrible policies.

All those Ukrainian soldiers being killed in WW-I style artillery & trench warfare won't live to fight again or defend what's left of their country.

I'm not any happier about this than you. If I had a magic wand, I'd make Zelesnky and Putin stop this war immediately.

It is an extremely discomfiting truth, but the only path to long-lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine is the unequivocal defeat of Putin and Russia. That could take years.

But even so, off-ramp remains the wrong metaphor and the wrong goal. The West should not aim to offer Putin an off-ramp; our goal, our endgame, should be defeat. In fact, the only solution that offers some hope of long-term stability in Europe is rapid defeat, or even, to borrow Macron’s phrase, humiliation. In truth, the Russian president not only has to stop fighting the war; he has to conclude that the war was a terrible mistake, one that can never be repeated. More to the point, the people around him—leaders of the army, the security services, the business community—have to conclude exactly the same thing. The Russian public must eventually come to agree too.

… Although saying so is considered undiplomatic, the American administration clearly knows that the defeat, sidelining, or removal of Putin is the only outcome that offers any long-term stability in Ukraine and the rest of Europe. “Putin,” said Joe Biden in March, “cannot remain in power.” In April, Lloyd Austin said that he hoped “to see Russia weakened to the degree it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” Both of these statements by the American president and his defense secretary were treated as gaffes or as policy mistakes—thoughtless remarks that might irritate the Russians. In truth, they were half-articulated acknowledgments of an ugly reality that no one wants to confront: Any cease-fire that allows Putin to experience any kind of victory will be inherently unstable, because it will encourage him to try again. Victory in Crimea did not satisfy the Kremlin. Victory in Kherson will not satisfy the Kremlin either.

… Military loss could create a real opening for national self-examination or for a major change, as it so often has done in Russia’s past. Only failure can persuade the Russians themselves to question the sense and purpose of a colonial ideology that has repeatedly impoverished and ruined their own economy and society, as well as those of their neighbors, for decades. Yet another frozen conflict, yet another temporary holding pattern, yet another face-saving compromise will not end the pattern of Russian aggression or bring permanent peace.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ia/629940/

DocBarrister

[old salt]

^^^ Anne Applebaum can't get what she wants without direct kinetic action against Russian military forces by US military forces operating from NATO territory. That should be obvious by now.

As a result of this proxy war, NATO is more resolute & increasingly better equipped to deter Russian aggression against NATO members.
The successes of the Ukrainians & the failures of the Russians are instructive & encouraging to NATO.

[MDlaxfan76]

^^^ Anne Applebaum can't get what she wants without direct kinetic action against Russian military forces by US military forces operating from NATO territory. That should be obvious by now.

As a result of this proxy war, NATO is more resolute & increasingly better equipped to deter Russian aggression against NATO members.
The successes of the Ukrainians & the failures of the Russians are instructive & encouraging to NATO.

I disagree that this is "obvious"; I'd modify it to say that it is obvious that without the full (non-nuclear) capacity of advanced western weaponry, both in 'best in class' and in volume of arms, Russia will be able to sustain a tactical, conventional advantage of sheer force.

But I don't think that we know that arming Ukraine fully is insufficient to repel Russia from Ukraine.

The problem, it seems to me, is whether we're really willing to fully arm Ukraine...we seem to be doing so incrementally, and seemingly slowly, rather than recognizing that the sooner we accomplish that, the sooner actual victory can be achieved. I'm not sure whether that's a fair statement, but it sure appears that the sense of urgency to actually tilt the scales has been lacking beyond a few of the western allies. So, right now, Russia appears to be able to deliver 10X the firepower, if not to precision advantage, to at least massive destruction. And, thus, is gaining ground, not in retreat.

However, though Russia continues to make small advances, various intelligence is indicating that the Russian armament is being significantly depleted, whereas Ukraine's capacities, especially in 'longer' range precision armaments, is slowly increasing. But at significant cost.

When we were discussing this about a month ago, I think the most optimistic predictions were that this shift in advantage to Ukraine would take many months of attrition on both sides, not something that could be accomplished overnight...many months at a minimum. These remain very early days.

So, until that's the case, and leaned into, I don't think we really know whether Applebaum's objective is achievable. I think it is, but the tilt in capacities needs to actually happen and be sustained. My own guess is that Russia's military morale crumbles at that point.

I quite agree with the bolded in blue.

[kramerica.inc]

NBC: Russian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says

https://www.aol.com/news/russian-missil ... 08708.html

[Peter Brown]

NBC: Russian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says

https://www.aol.com/news/russian-missil ... 08708.html

Slowly but surely we are being dragged into this mess.

Russia is going to be really successful at developing Ukrainian terrorists who will spend fifty years killing Russians in retaliation for their actions.

[old salt]

^^^ Anne Applebaum can't get what she wants without direct kinetic action against Russian military forces by US military forces operating from NATO territory. That should be obvious by now.

As a result of this proxy war, NATO is more resolute & increasingly better equipped to deter Russian aggression against NATO members.
The successes of the Ukrainians & the failures of the Russians are instructive & encouraging to NATO.

I disagree that this is "obvious"; I'd modify it to say that it is obvious that without the full (non-nuclear) capacity of advanced western weaponry, both in 'best in class' and in volume of arms, Russia will be able to sustain a tactical, conventional advantage of sheer force.

But I don't think that we know that arming Ukraine fully is insufficient to repel Russia from Ukraine.

The problem, it seems to me, is whether we're really willing to fully arm Ukraine...we seem to be doing so incrementally, and seemingly slowly, rather than recognizing that the sooner we accomplish that, the sooner actual victory can be achieved. I'm not sure whether that's a fair statement, but it sure appears that the sense of urgency to actually tilt the scales has been lacking beyond a few of the western allies. So, right now, Russia appears to be able to deliver 10X the firepower, if not to precision advantage, to at least massive destruction. And, thus, is gaining ground, not in retreat.

However, though Russia continues to make small advances, various intelligence is indicating that the Russian armament is being significantly depleted, whereas Ukraine's capacities, especially in 'longer' range precision armaments, is slowly increasing. But at significant cost.

When we were discussing this about a month ago, I think the most optimistic predictions were that this shift in advantage to Ukraine would take many months of attrition on both sides, not something that could be accomplished overnight...many months at a minimum. These remain very early days.

So, until that's the case, and leaned into, I don't think we really know whether Applebaum's objective is achievable. I think it is, but the tilt in capacities needs to actually happen and be sustained. My own guess is that Russia's military morale crumbles at that point.

I quite agree with the bolded in blue.

I am not confident that we can equip Ukraine sufficiently to push Russia back out of the territory they hold.

[CU88]

^^^ Anne Applebaum can't get what she wants without direct kinetic action against Russian military forces by US military forces operating from NATO territory. That should be obvious by now.

As a result of this proxy war, NATO is more resolute & increasingly better equipped to deter Russian aggression against NATO members.
The successes of the Ukrainians & the failures of the Russians are instructive & encouraging to NATO.

I disagree that this is "obvious"; I'd modify it to say that it is obvious that without the full (non-nuclear) capacity of advanced western weaponry, both in 'best in class' and in volume of arms, Russia will be able to sustain a tactical, conventional advantage of sheer force.

But I don't think that we know that arming Ukraine fully is insufficient to repel Russia from Ukraine.

The problem, it seems to me, is whether we're really willing to fully arm Ukraine...we seem to be doing so incrementally, and seemingly slowly, rather than recognizing that the sooner we accomplish that, the sooner actual victory can be achieved. I'm not sure whether that's a fair statement, but it sure appears that the sense of urgency to actually tilt the scales has been lacking beyond a few of the western allies. So, right now, Russia appears to be able to deliver 10X the firepower, if not to precision advantage, to at least massive destruction. And, thus, is gaining ground, not in retreat.

However, though Russia continues to make small advances, various intelligence is indicating that the Russian armament is being significantly depleted, whereas Ukraine's capacities, especially in 'longer' range precision armaments, is slowly increasing. But at significant cost.

When we were discussing this about a month ago, I think the most optimistic predictions were that this shift in advantage to Ukraine would take many months of attrition on both sides, not something that could be accomplished overnight...many months at a minimum. These remain very early days.

So, until that's the case, and leaned into, I don't think we really know whether Applebaum's objective is achievable. I think it is, but the tilt in capacities needs to actually happen and be sustained. My own guess is that Russia's military morale crumbles at that point.

I quite agree with the bolded in blue.

I am not confident that we can equip Ukraine sufficiently to push Russia back out of the territory they hold.

If we did it would be such a significant escalation that Putin would use tactical nukes.

Effort must be made to supply enough for them to slow the advance and hold ground. 5-10 year effort for sanctions to really impact on Putin seems likely, and for the EU to shore up their defenses and energy strategy. Getting Finland & Sweden are going to be HUGE gains for NATO, and a step toward the new EU & NATO posture towards Putin. UK needs to get over BREXIT and support EU on this front too.

[MDlaxfan76]

^^^ Anne Applebaum can't get what she wants without direct kinetic action against Russian military forces by US military forces operating from NATO territory. That should be obvious by now.

As a result of this proxy war, NATO is more resolute & increasingly better equipped to deter Russian aggression against NATO members.
The successes of the Ukrainians & the failures of the Russians are instructive & encouraging to NATO.

I disagree that this is "obvious"; I'd modify it to say that it is obvious that without the full (non-nuclear) capacity of advanced western weaponry, both in 'best in class' and in volume of arms, Russia will be able to sustain a tactical, conventional advantage of sheer force.

But I don't think that we know that arming Ukraine fully is insufficient to repel Russia from Ukraine.

The problem, it seems to me, is whether we're really willing to fully arm Ukraine...we seem to be doing so incrementally, and seemingly slowly, rather than recognizing that the sooner we accomplish that, the sooner actual victory can be achieved. I'm not sure whether that's a fair statement, but it sure appears that the sense of urgency to actually tilt the scales has been lacking beyond a few of the western allies. So, right now, Russia appears to be able to deliver 10X the firepower, if not to precision advantage, to at least massive destruction. And, thus, is gaining ground, not in retreat.

However, though Russia continues to make small advances, various intelligence is indicating that the Russian armament is being significantly depleted, whereas Ukraine's capacities, especially in 'longer' range precision armaments, is slowly increasing. But at significant cost.

When we were discussing this about a month ago, I think the most optimistic predictions were that this shift in advantage to Ukraine would take many months of attrition on both sides, not something that could be accomplished overnight...many months at a minimum. These remain very early days.

So, until that's the case, and leaned into, I don't think we really know whether Applebaum's objective is achievable. I think it is, but the tilt in capacities needs to actually happen and be sustained. My own guess is that Russia's military morale crumbles at that point.

I quite agree with the bolded in blue.

I am not confident that we can equip Ukraine sufficiently to push Russia back out of the territory they hold.

I think that's a fair lack of confidence, as we really don't know how this will play out. I'm apparently more confident than some that our superior weaponry and systems will attrit their capabilities to the point of morale collapse. Gonna take awhile, though. I don't think tactical nukes are the result, but obviously that's always a risk.

CU88 may be correct that this is a 10 year program; sure hope not.

[DocBarrister]

^^^ Anne Applebaum can't get what she wants without direct kinetic action against Russian military forces by US military forces operating from NATO territory. That should be obvious by now.

As a result of this proxy war, NATO is more resolute & increasingly better equipped to deter Russian aggression against NATO members.
The successes of the Ukrainians & the failures of the Russians are instructive & encouraging to NATO.

I disagree that this is "obvious"; I'd modify it to say that it is obvious that without the full (non-nuclear) capacity of advanced western weaponry, both in 'best in class' and in volume of arms, Russia will be able to sustain a tactical, conventional advantage of sheer force.

But I don't think that we know that arming Ukraine fully is insufficient to repel Russia from Ukraine.

The problem, it seems to me, is whether we're really willing to fully arm Ukraine...we seem to be doing so incrementally, and seemingly slowly, rather than recognizing that the sooner we accomplish that, the sooner actual victory can be achieved. I'm not sure whether that's a fair statement, but it sure appears that the sense of urgency to actually tilt the scales has been lacking beyond a few of the western allies. So, right now, Russia appears to be able to deliver 10X the firepower, if not to precision advantage, to at least massive destruction. And, thus, is gaining ground, not in retreat.

However, though Russia continues to make small advances, various intelligence is indicating that the Russian armament is being significantly depleted, whereas Ukraine's capacities, especially in 'longer' range precision armaments, is slowly increasing. But at significant cost.

When we were discussing this about a month ago, I think the most optimistic predictions were that this shift in advantage to Ukraine would take many months of attrition on both sides, not something that could be accomplished overnight...many months at a minimum. These remain very early days.

So, until that's the case, and leaned into, I don't think we really know whether Applebaum's objective is achievable. I think it is, but the tilt in capacities needs to actually happen and be sustained. My own guess is that Russia's military morale crumbles at that point.

I quite agree with the bolded in blue.

I am not confident that we can equip Ukraine sufficiently to push Russia back out of the territory they hold.

If we did it would be such a significant escalation that Putin would use tactical nukes.

Effort must be made to supply enough for them to slow the advance and hold ground. 5-10 year effort for sanctions to really impact on Putin seems likely, and for the EU to shore up their defenses and energy strategy. Getting Finland & Sweden are going to be HUGE gains for NATO, and a step toward the new EU & NATO posture towards Putin. UK needs to get over BREXIT and support EU on this front too.

This is correct.

The Allies likely want to supply enough heavy armaments to halt the Russian advance, and then to provide enough arms to slaughter as many Russian troops as possible as the Russians try desperately to hold onto their meager territorial gains.

The Allies, led by the United States and President Biden, are not trying to achieve some massive pushback of Russian forces. Instead, it’s clear now they are aiming to exhaust Russian combat capabilities and force at least a temporary cease fire.

Western intelligence services, for what it’s worth, estimate Russia is only several months away from exhausting their combat capabilities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... of-forces/

No doubt, the Ukrainians will be exhausted, too, but the advantage will be theirs in any exhaustion-imposed stalemate. Ukrainian forces will simply continue their steady slaughter of Russian troops.

Putin is a fool and he never ramped up production of ammunition, arms, and armored vehicles in the nearly year-long prelude to the invasion. Russia’s struggling weapons manufacturing industry will never keep up with the use and losses Russia’s forces are experiencing. Russia is even running low on fully trained combat troops.

Hate to say it, but the more Russian troops are slaughtered, the sooner this invasion will end. Meanwhile, Russia is committing daily atrocities and war crimes (such as today’s attack on a crowded shopping mall) in order to break Ukraine’s will.

Good luck with that.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

I am not confident that we can equip Ukraine sufficiently to push Russia back out of the territory they hold.

Agree. And if we did? Putin would simply escalate. Biden can't fix this.

Zelensky and Putin need to sort it out. It sucks, but I don't see how we escape this fact.

That said? I don't see how Russia holds this territory long term.

[youthathletics]

I am not confident that we can equip Ukraine sufficiently to push Russia back out of the territory they hold.

Agree. And if we did? Putin would simply escalate. Biden can't fix this.

Zelensky and Putin need to sort it out. It sucks, but I don't see how we escape this fact.

That said? I don't see how Russia holds this territory long term.

Be careful...you guys are about to be called pro-Putin, from the snipers around here, for talking like this.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I am not confident that we can equip Ukraine sufficiently to push Russia back out of the territory they hold.

Agree. And if we did? Putin would simply escalate. Biden can't fix this.

Zelensky and Putin need to sort it out. It sucks, but I don't see how we escape this fact.

That said? I don't see how Russia holds this territory long term.

Be careful...you guys are about to be called pro-Putin, from the snipers around here, for talking like this.

I don't think anyone will call either of these guys pro-Putin. But I do think we need to understand what may be the consequences of a cease-fire and allowing what is effectively a terrorist nation-state to consolidate its territorial thefts. Is it enough that the war resulted in a gelling of the NATO mission, the introduction of Sweden, Finland and Ukraine to NATO membership, an effort to reduce dependency on Russian oil and gas, and sanctions on the Russian economy?

[a fan]

I am not confident that we can equip Ukraine sufficiently to push Russia back out of the territory they hold.

Agree. And if we did? Putin would simply escalate. Biden can't fix this.

Zelensky and Putin need to sort it out. It sucks, but I don't see how we escape this fact.

That said? I don't see how Russia holds this territory long term.

Be careful...you guys are about to be called pro-Putin, from the snipers around here, for talking like this.

Well, you saw the previous conversation....i'm used to being called unAmerican because I don't mindlessly march to the drums of war.

There are no easy solutions in this mess.

[a fan]

But I do think we need to understand what may be the consequences of a cease-fire and allowing what is effectively a terrorist nation-state to consolidate its territorial thefts.

That's fine....but none of this is up to us. We don't get to make this call.

[Seacoaster(1)]

But I do think we need to understand what may be the consequences of a cease-fire and allowing what is effectively a terrorist nation-state to consolidate its territorial thefts.

That's fine....but none of this is up to us. We don't get to make this call.

Agreed. But I am not talking so much about theft of territory from the Ukrainians. I am talking about a world that, as the price of (almost certainly temporary) peace, allows this sort of adventurism, terrorism and destruction of both property and so-called norms to continue to exist. We have been here before.

[a fan]

But I do think we need to understand what may be the consequences of a cease-fire and allowing what is effectively a terrorist nation-state to consolidate its territorial thefts.

That's fine....but none of this is up to us. We don't get to make this call.

Agreed. But I am not talking so much about theft of territory from the Ukrainians. I am talking about a world that, as the price of (almost certainly temporary) peace, allows this sort of adventurism, terrorism and destruction of both property and so-called norms to continue to exist. We have been here before.

No. We haven't been through this before. Putin has nukes. If he didn't? Both the US and NATO would have taken care of business months ago.

See: Gulf War.

Both the EU and the US are still trading with Putin. THAT is where the pressure lies. And we're not using it. Russians can still travel to the US, FFS. What the heck is that all about? Are we serious about helping Ukraine, or not?