All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

Putin may not go away but it would provide Ukraine time to recover & rearm sufficiently to deter further invasion, especially if Crimea & the occupied part of the Donbas were secure as part of Russia. Then there'd be logical, defensible borders. Other issues could be resolved via negotiations & a peace treaty. The war has to eventually end with diplomacy & peace negotiations

What makes you think Vlad would settle for just the Donbass and Crimea as "logical borders" even as part of your proposed peace plan?

Because Putin knows he can't take much more territory. He's failed to take any more than he already has & been driven back in some areas. Both sides are now enduring tremendous losses to move the line of control a short distance back & forth, knowing it will be the basis of an eventual negotiated settlement. Both sides know that stalemate is inevitable. They won't admit it, but Putin knows he can't take all of Ukraine. Zelensky knows he can't drive the Russians out of Crimea & their Donbas enclaves. We're still not willing to give Ukraine the weapons they need to drive the Russians out of Donbas completely, let alone to take back Crimea. Putin can claim victory at home because he's secured Crimea & the ethnic Russian portion of the Donbas. The patience of the donor nations is not infinite. They're depleting their own military inventory & feeling the impact of inflation, the energy & food shortages & the burden of displaced Ukrainian refugees.

Who told you this? Are you able to re-enlist?

I think Salty is wrong on both points.

First, if Putin succeeds in securing these territories as Russia, he won’t settle for just these areas, rather he will look for the next vulnerability to exploit, whether militarily or politically. Belarus by annexation perhaps or back to undermining Ukraine’s democracy development..
Putin does not to invade Belarus. They are a compliant ally & buffer state. The same status he sought, & sometimes had, until Nuland, Soros & NeoCon associates fomented the regime changes that placed in jeopardy his Black Sea naval dominance. That's the same status he has with all the other former SSR's other than Georgia (where he still controls the ethnic Russian enclaves) & the Baltic states who now have NATO protection.

Second, I think Zelensky correctly believes they can and will drive Russia from their lands. He also knows that failure to do so will likely mean his political credibility will be lost, and likely with it the opening of Ukraine to Russian corruption forces.
Ukraine will still be vulnerable to corruption. Look at the shakeup Zelensky just did. Who knows how much aid has been skimmed off. He will have the credibility of repelling the invasion & securing the survival & independence of their nation. He can vow to rebuild, welcome home the displaced, including any Ukrainians who do not choose to live in the Russian territory, which has been reduced to rubble.

This will need to be won on the battlefield, not through an appeasement strategy.
How long. how much escalation, how much additional carnage ?

I think the Europeans are far more resolute than Salty predicted, and Vlad had expected, and both are frustrated to have been so wrong…but neither are willing, yet, to admit their error.How many years of war before they are willing to admit their error ?

[old salt]

Crimea & the Donbas are pert of Ukraine.

And Texas is part of America. Irrelevant to the conversation.

Putin didn't invade Ukraine, and you can't explain why...and that's because your explanation as to why Putin did what he did are plainly wrong.

When America left Ukraine alone militarily, Putin did nothing. The threat of them joining NATO has been around since Bush....and yet Putin did nothing. It was only when America started arming Ukraine that Putin finally acted. He knows that if he wanted to take Ukraine, that window/option was closing for him, as more and more arms came to Ukraine.

So when you say:

^^^ that aid had not been sent yet. It was assembled as a last minute bargaining chip, after Putin began massing his invaasion force on the border.

Use your head. Putin is now dealing with a second President that's willing to send more military aid and training to Ukraine. And naturally, because you're SO DESPERATE to not be proven wrong-----you're telling me that the arms that Trump and Biden sent, sent absolutely zero information to Putin. You turn into a five year old who doesn't want to admit to mommy that you ate a cookie when she wasn't looking.

OF COURSE the arming of Ukraine is what set this whole thing off. And by YOUR insistence? You're telling me that Trump's aid and training is what stopped the Russian Army cold.

And Biden was signaling to Putin that more arms were coming. Are you HONESTLY pretending you are too dumb to understand what information Putin got from that? That at some point, he'd be unable to invade Ukraine, because they were armed to the teeth? And more and more American intervention was arriving? So what did Putin do? Made the choice to invade before that choice was off the table.

You can even blame a little D for this, which should make you REALLY happy: Biden's last offered military package for Ukraine was the very last straw. It demonstrated that America would keep arming Ukraine until Putin couldn't invade.

So Putin pulled the trigger.

...so did you agree with Trump holding up the shipment of Javelins to Zelensky ? He was impeached for that ?

How much military aid had Biden authorized or promised before that Dec 2021 bargaining chip when Putin was massing his troops referenced in that Politico article you posted ?

[MDlaxfan76]

Putin "pulled the trigger" on Georgia in 2008.
As he did so, he made the case for his plan to recreate the Russian Empire...he told the West what he was going to do...
In 2014, he took Crimea, and funded the opposition to democracy in Donbas, etc, and throughout Ukraine for that matter.

I don't think either action was because the West was threatening Russia's sovereignty much less existence.

Nor do I think Obama's support for sanctions precipitated further action, nor Trump's green lighting of javelins (useful, but obviously not a deterrent to invasion), but Ukraine's resolve away from Russia and the West did matter, as Putin doesn't care about military use, if political de facto annexation is sufficient. Trump sought to undermine, likely witlessly, the Zelensky government, but Ukraine fought Russian proxies to a standstill, without significant help from the West...a resolve that Putin hadn't expected.

Trump provided Putin with some hope of NATO deterioration and discord, all the while working the anti-democratic forces throughout eastern Europe and even within NATO countries (including the US).

But when Trump lost and it was clear that window of opportunity for Russian expansion was closed for now, Putin grew impatient.

But it's always been about recreating the Russian Empire and that core objective will not go away with any 'truce' or 'accord', all of which will only bolster confidence in the ultranationalists in Russia that the West is weak and feckless.

They're going to have to lose on the battlefield.

If all of this was true? Putin would have marched to Kiev while he had a guy on the inside, way back in 2008. Or again in 2014, while the tank engines were warm.

He didn't do that. And none of you have come up with a plausible reason as to why he didn't simply take what he wanted (Ukraine) while the getting was good.

It was the threat of removing the option to invade Ukraine that prompted him to act.

OS asked me to think like a Russian. I did. This is where that leads. If Putin thought he "owned" Ukraine, he had easy chances to take an unarmed populace, all the way until 2019, when Trump started arming and training said populace.

He did nothing. You can't ignore this fact.

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.
I think Trump was an unwitting, "useful idiot" to Putin's gameplan, but nevertheless that was gameplan.
But spooking NATO was not his desire.

That said, I agree that when that gameplan was clearly not working, Putin went full on military option.

[a fan]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

[MDlaxfan76]

Putin may not go away but it would provide Ukraine time to recover & rearm sufficiently to deter further invasion, especially if Crimea & the occupied part of the Donbas were secure as part of Russia. Then there'd be logical, defensible borders. Other issues could be resolved via negotiations & a peace treaty. The war has to eventually end with diplomacy & peace negotiations

What makes you think Vlad would settle for just the Donbass and Crimea as "logical borders" even as part of your proposed peace plan?

Because Putin knows he can't take much more territory. He's failed to take any more than he already has & been driven back in some areas. Both sides are now enduring tremendous losses to move the line of control a short distance back & forth, knowing it will be the basis of an eventual negotiated settlement. Both sides know that stalemate is inevitable. They won't admit it, but Putin knows he can't take all of Ukraine. Zelensky knows he can't drive the Russians out of Crimea & their Donbas enclaves. We're still not willing to give Ukraine the weapons they need to drive the Russians out of Donbas completely, let alone to take back Crimea. Putin can claim victory at home because he's secured Crimea & the ethnic Russian portion of the Donbas. The patience of the donor nations is not infinite. They're depleting their own military inventory & feeling the impact of inflation, the energy & food shortages & the burden of displaced Ukrainian refugees.

Who told you this? Are you able to re-enlist?

I think Salty is wrong on both points.

First, if Putin succeeds in securing these territories as Russia, he won’t settle for just these areas, rather he will look for the next vulnerability to exploit, whether militarily or politically. Belarus by annexation perhaps or back to undermining Ukraine’s democracy development..
Putin does not to invade Belarus. They are a compliant ally & buffer state. The same status he sought, & sometimes had, until Nuland, Soros & NeoCon associates fomented the regime changes that placed in jeopardy his Black Sea naval dominance. That's the same status he has with all the other former SSR's other than Georgia (where he still controls the ethnic Russian enclaves) & the Baltic states who now have NATO protection.

Second, I think Zelensky correctly believes they can and will drive Russia from their lands. He also knows that failure to do so will likely mean his political credibility will be lost, and likely with it the opening of Ukraine to Russian corruption forces.
Ukraine will still be vulnerable to corruption. Look at the shakeup Zelensky just did. Who knows how much aid has been skimmed off. He will have the credibility of repelling the invasion & securing the survival & independence of their nation. He can vow to rebuild, welcome home the displaced, including any Ukrainians who do not choose to live in the Russian territory, which has been reduced to rubble.

This will need to be won on the battlefield, not through an appeasement strategy.
How long. how much escalation, how much additional carnage ?

I think the Europeans are far more resolute than Salty predicted, and Vlad had expected, and both are frustrated to have been so wrong…but neither are willing, yet, to admit their error.How many years of war before they are willing to admit their error ?

I think Russia will be fully chastened within 24 months, but I'm hoping before next winter they will have turned tail. Good chance, though not guaranteed, of that happening (they're well on their way to losing 500,000+ soldiers, massive materiel, and more than 500,000 brain drain...which is only going to worsen on all fronts)...depends a lot on the aid the West provides enabling such. Sooner we provide it, with the training necessary, the sooner it occurs. Looks like a lot of momentum that direction. At some point, the conscripts turn on the 'authorities'.

Yes, Zelensky will have a heck of challenge wrestling corruption, it's clear that they're serious about it, but it ain't gonna be easy. But he'd be out in a blink if he agreed to a 'deal' in which Russia holds the lands stolen, and pays no price to Ukraine in reparations, and takes no responsibility for its war crimes. Done and dusted, Zelensky would be.

But of course, that's what would play for Vlad... and apparently you.

Regarding Belarus, yes, obeisance is the first step, but annexation will be the next, absent Russia in retreat.

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO.

Neither of us can prove either view, but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

[old salt]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

[a fan]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

And folks complain about your use of shades of color too.....too hard to read, and yields posts that are miles long.

Happy to apologize for the mistake, though. I'm sorry about that mistake.

[a fan]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

[old salt]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

And folks complain about your use of shades of color too.....too hard to read, and yields posts that are miles long.

Happy to apologize for the mistake, though. I'm sorry about that mistake.

Stop chopping up my posts & I won't have to resort to a different color to respond.
They'll be shorter if you stop responding to my every post & repeating the same points & arguments I've already answered.
Stop hectoring me & I won't have to respond. Let me express my opinion as I do with you.
Stop posting what you think I think or say, using me to vent your angst against Fox & others, & I won't need to respond.

[a fan]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

And folks complain about your use of shades of color too.....too hard to read, and yields posts that are miles long.

Happy to apologize for the mistake, though. I'm sorry about that mistake.

Stop chopping up my posts & I won't have to resort to a different color to respond.
They'll be shorter if you stop responding to my every post & repeating the same points & arguments I've already answered.
Stop harassing me & I won't have to respond. Let me express my opinion as I do with you.
Stop posting what you think I think or say, using me to vent your angst against Fox & others, & I won't need to respond.

Letting me express my opinion? By calling me naive? Or a moron?


You don't like that I return your fire. The minute you ACTUALLY have a conversation with the rest of us? I'll be OVERJOYED to respond in kind.

Start with a big fat cup of humility in your posts. Start there. Watch how your fellow posters react.

You and I interacted for YEARS when you were being humble, not all knowing, and would actually utter the phrase "I might be wrong here, and you made a good point".

Now, it's lectures and condescension from on high. And you don't like it when I give you what you give the rest of us.

You want conversations? YOU start. Start with "I don't know why Putin invaded Ukraine". Start there.

Or......"It MAY have been because of increasing pressure from NATO". That works, too.

Because when you give us "It was because of Biden's disaster in Afghanistan".....I'm going to give you just as stupid of a an answer with the same bile you're handing us. If you act like a child....you earned the bile right back.

So: you first.

[old salt]

This is our war on Russia, the Ukrainians are just our proxy cannon fodder & Zelensky is our puppet.
They now have their marching orders & deadline. The further bloodshed will be on the scale of WW-I.
This background reporting, from unnamed Biden Admin officials, fed to the WP, allows Biden to have it both ways.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... al-moment/

U.S. warns Ukraine it faces a pivotal moment in war
As first anniversary nears, White House fears flow of arms may be harder to come by

by Yasmeen Abutaleb and John Hudson, February 13, 2023

As the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nears, U.S. officials are telling Ukrainian leaders they face a critical moment to change the trajectory of the war, raising the pressure on Kyiv to make significant gains on the battlefield while weapons and aid from the United States and its allies are surging.

Despite promises to back Ukraine “as long as it takes,” Biden officials say recent aid packages from Congress and America’s allies represent Kyiv’s best chance to decisively change the course of the war. Many conservatives in the Republican-led House have vowed to pull back support, and Europe’s long-term appetite for funding the war effort remains unclear.

Several officials noted the strong bipartisan support that has accompanied every Ukraine package, adding that Congress gave the White House more than it asked for, but they acknowledged that was under a Democrat-led House and Senate.

“We will continue to try to impress upon them that we can’t do anything and everything forever,” said one senior administration official, referring to Ukraine’s leaders. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters, added that it was the administration’s “very strong view” that it will be hard to keep getting the same level of security and economic assistance from Congress.

“'As long as it takes’ pertains to the amount of conflict,” the official added. “It doesn’t pertain to the amount of assistance.”

The war in recent months has become a slow grind in eastern Ukraine, with neither side gaining the upper hand. Biden officials believe the critical juncture will come this spring, when Russia is expected to launch an offensive and Ukraine mounts a counteroffensive in an effort to reclaim lost territory.

Underlining the importance of the moment for the administration, Vice President Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are heading to a major security summit in Germany this week and President Biden is traveling to Poland next week for a speech and meetings on the first anniversary.

The Biden administration is also working with Congress to approve another $10 billion in direct budget assistance to Kyiv and is expected to announce another large military assistance package in the next week and the imposition of more sanctions on the Kremlin around the same time.

The critical nature of the next few months has already been conveyed to Kyiv in blunt terms by top Biden officials — including deputy national security adviser Jon Finer, deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman and undersecretary of defense Colin Kahl, all of whom visited Ukraine last month.

CIA Director William J. Burns traveled to the country one week ahead of those officials, where he briefed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on his expectations for what Russia is planning militarily in the coming months and emphasized the urgency of the moment.

At the same time, Biden and his aides are eager to avoid any sign of defection or weakening resolve by Western allies ahead of the Feb. 24 anniversary, hoping to signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that support for Ukraine is not waning.

But some analysts warned that neither Russia nor Ukraine is likely to seize a decisive military advantage in the foreseeable future.

“It feels like we are playing for a long war,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. “I think it’s at odds with what so many people would hope for, that we’re actually trying to help Ukraine win militarily.”
She added, “It feels like a moment of really high uncertainty.”

Biden and his top aides say they are determined to back Ukraine as long and as fully as possible. But they warn that the political path will get tougher once Ukraine has exhausted the current congressional package, which could happen as early as this summer.

Some Western leaders have harbored reservations about sending certain types of heavy weaponry to Ukraine, worried about a direct confrontation with Russia, especially after Putin signaled a willingness to use nuclear weapons.

But loud public lobbying by Zelensky, followed by quiet behind-the-scenes dealmaking by U.S. officials, has changed the dynamic. Biden and Blinken spent much of December and January working to convince allies to help provide Ukraine with the tanks and missiles that his administration had resisted sending for months.

Biden aides encouraged the Netherlands, for example, to help the United States provide critical air defense systems. On Dec. 20, officials at the National Security Council met with senior Dutch officials and stressed the importance the United States was placing on air defense, according to a senior administration official familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal details of private discussions.

What the officials did not know was that the United States was working to bring Zelensky to Washington the next day, where Biden would announce that he was approving a Patriot Missile battery, Zelensky’s top request to help defend against Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure.

The battery needed a launcher — ideally one already in Europe — so Dutch officials worked through the holidays to see how they could assist the United States, the official said. In January, Biden invited the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, to visit the White House, and the Dutch came up with a solution. When Rutte visited on Jan. 17, he said the Netherlands would provide two Patriot Missile launchers and missiles to Ukraine.

But Biden faced challenges on other fronts as well. While Britain had announced it would supply tanks to Ukraine, Germany refused to send its own Leopard 2 tanks or to authorize other countries to transfer their own Leopards — unless the United States agreed to send its prized M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

For much of January, Pentagon and White House officials insisted the M1 Abrams tanks were not well-suited for Ukrainian troops because they are so complicated to operate and maintain. But Biden wanted to avoid the appearance of a fissure in the Western alliance.

In late January, Biden’s Cabinet came up with a plan for the United States to announce the provision of M1 Abrams tanks, which would placate Germany even though the U.S. tanks would not arrive for several months at the earliest. The following the day, Biden gave the go-ahead.

Now, as the United States prepares to send 31 of the premier tanks in the medium term, Europe is quickly assembling two Leopard tank battalions in the near term — the equivalent of at least 70 tanks — in a move that could significantly shift the balance of power on the battlefield.

Yet the public show of unity belies underlying tensions over how Ukraine should focus its resources in the coming months.

The frank discussions in Kyiv last month reflected an effort by the Biden administration to bring Ukraine’s goals in line with what the West can sustain as the war approaches its one-year mark. Getting Ukraine on the same page has not always been easy, according to people familiar with the discussions, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks.

For months, Ukraine has expended significant resources and troops defending Bakhmut in the eastern Donbas region. American military analysts and planners have argued that it is unrealistic to simultaneously defend Bakhmut and launch a spring counteroffensive to retake what the United States views as more critical territory.

Zelensky, however, attaches symbolic importance to Bakhmut, two senior administration officials said, and believes it would be a blow to Ukrainian morale to lose the city. On Friday, Zelensky said his country’s forces would “fight as long as we can” to hold the embattled city that Russia is on the brink of capturing.

While U.S. officials said they respect that Zelensky knows how best to rally his country, they have expressed concerns that if Ukraine keeps fighting everywhere Russia sends troops, it will work to Moscow’s advantage. Instead, they have urged Ukraine to prioritize the timing and execution of the spring counteroffensive, particularly as the United States and Europe train Ukrainian fighters on some of the more complex weaponry making its way to the battlefield.

“Generally, our view is they should take enough time that they can benefit from what we’ve provided in material and training,” a senior administration official said. If Russia takes Bakhmut, the official said, it “will not result in any significant strategic shift in the battlefield. Russians will try to claim it as such, [but] it’s a dot on the map for which they have expended an extraordinary amount of blood and treasure.”

Beyond Bakhmut, Zelensky has repeatedly rallied his country behind a military campaign to retake all of Russian-occupied Ukraine, including Crimea, the peninsula that Russia annexed in 2014.

Last month, Zelensky’s top aide, Andriy Yermak, reiterated that victory against Russia means restoring Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, “including Donbas and Crimea.” Anything less is “absolutely unacceptable,” he said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded, however, that retaking the heavily fortified peninsula is beyond the capability of Ukraine’s army right now, according to officials familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues. That sobering assessment has been reiterated to multiple committees on Capitol Hill over the last several weeks.

That discrepancy between aims and capabilities has raised concerns in Europe that the Ukraine conflict will persist indefinitely, overburdening the West as it grapples with other challenges including stubbornly high inflation and unstable energy prices.

Against that backdrop, Biden’s aides say they are pursuing the best course of action: empowering Ukraine to retake as much territory as possible in coming months before sitting down with Putin at the negotiating table.

That effort will benefit from an influx of Patriot missiles, HIMARS launchers and an array of armored vehicles. Optimists see a path for Ukraine to stave off further Russian incursions in the east, retake territory in the south and force Russia to negotiate an end to the war by year’s end.

But skeptics worry that time is not on Ukraine’s side as Russia throws hundreds of thousands of new troops onto the battlefield, including convicts, in advance of the expected spring offensive.

Western and Ukrainian intelligence officials estimate that Russia currently has over 300,000 forces in Ukraine, up from 150,000 initially, with plans to add hundreds of thousands more. The Russian campaign in the spring could see forces pouring over the Belarusian border and cutting off supply lines in western Ukraine that Kyiv has used to bolster its military.

Even seasoned military experts see a wide range of possible outcomes in coming months, underscoring how tenuous the situation is.

“It’s not clear how this ends. Will it end with a negotiated settlement? Will it just be protracted and we’ll see some version of the frozen conflicts we see elsewhere?” said Seth Jones, director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“You have sufficient support now and the Ukrainians are willing to fight, so there’s strong logic to getting Ukraine as much as you can,” Jones said. “How long you can continue to do that for is an open question.”

[old salt]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

And folks complain about your use of shades of color too.....too hard to read, and yields posts that are miles long.

Happy to apologize for the mistake, though. I'm sorry about that mistake.

Stop chopping up my posts & I won't have to resort to a different color to respond.
They'll be shorter if you stop responding to my every post & repeating the same points & arguments I've already answered.
Stop harassing me & I won't have to respond. Let me express my opinion as I do with you.
Stop posting what you think I think or say, using me to vent your angst against Fox & others, & I won't need to respond.

Letting me express my opinion? By calling me naive? Or a moron?


You don't like that I return your fire. The minute you ACTUALLY have a conversation with the rest of us? I'll be OVERJOYED to respond in kind.

Start with a big fat cup of humility in your posts. Start there. Watch how your fellow posters react.

You and I interacted for YEARS when you were being humble, not all knowing, and would actually utter the phrase "I might be wrong here, and you made a good point".

Now, it's lectures and condescension from on high. And you don't like it when I give you what you give the rest of us.

You want conversations? YOU start. Start with "I don't know why Putin invaded Ukraine". Start there.

Or......"It MAY have been because of increasing pressure from NATO". That works, too.

Because when you give us "It was because of Biden's disaster in Afghanistan".....I'm going to give you just as stupid of a an answer with the same bile you're handing us. If you act like a child....you earned the bile right back.

So: you firs

Fine. I'm done, happily. Don't quote me or call me out by name & I won't feel compelled to waste my time to reply.
We can each express our opinions & they can stand on their own.

[a fan]

Fine. I'm done, happily.

Because actually exchanging ideas is a bridge too far for you?

It's too bad we lost all those conversations we had in the early years of laxpower...you and I had NO PROBLEM doing that.

I could show you how much you've changed.



You don't get to tell me how or what to post. You have the same option you have always had: I'll treat you how you treat me, and treat others. Act nice, get nice. Act pompous, get pompous. Be condescending, you get it right back. Make partisan posts, you get 'em right back. Troll, and I troll back.

Same as it ever was. You control the postings, my man. It's up to you......

[DocBarrister]

Lots of differing opinions in this article.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... edictions/

My guess … and it is a guess … on what must happen to end this war:

(1) Ukraine must neutralize Crimea as a logistical support base for Russia’s invasion force (this will require long-range rocket artillery and missiles);

(2) Over a half-million Russian soldiers are slaughtered;

(3) Further military mobilization and recruitment in Russia becomes politically infeasible;

(4) The United States and NATO/EU allies have spent at least three times what they have already spent in support of Ukraine;

(5) Russia’s economy has collapsed; and

(6) Putin is deposed, debilitated, or killed.

In other words, this war could continue for years.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Fine. I'm done, happily.

Because actually exchanging ideas is a bridge too far for you?

It's too bad we lost all those conversations we had in the early years of laxpower...you and I had NO PROBLEM doing that.

I could show you how much you've changed.

You don't get to tell me how or what to post. You have the same option you have always had: I'll treat you how you treat me, and treat others. Act nice, get nice. Act pompous, get pompous. Be condescending, you get it right back. Make partisan posts, you get 'em right back. Troll, and I troll back.

Same as it ever was. You control the postings, my man. It's up to you......

In other words, you won't troll or hector, so long as I tell you what you want to hear.
The whole tone & tenor here is markedly different than it was on LP. It has become anti-social media.
You think you're not pompous & condescending & don't make partisan posts.
You don't want to knock it off ? Fine, don't whine when I reply in kind.

[old salt]

Lots of differing opinions in this article.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... edictions/

Making weapons
One key question that could determine the war’s end game is how long Ukraine’s backers can keep up their arms donations to Kyiv.

“There’s no such thing as infinite resources,” said Jensen, the CSIS analyst. “Heaven forbid this goes on another year, two years. At some point the fighting will exhaust even the entirety of the Western world’s support for Ukraine.”

While defense spending in the United States and Europe is trending upward, in large part because of Russia’s attack, industrial capacity to crank out weapons and ammunition has emerged as a bottleneck.

In response, companies on both sides of the Atlantic announced plans to restart production lines for artillery shells and other weapons considered somewhat arcane until recently.

Wicker said the fiscal 2023 government funding and defense authorization bills include money to expand munitions manufacturing, “doubling and even tripling production capabilities for weapons like 155mm shells, [anti-tank] Javelins and [the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System].”

Still, it’s an open question whether the U.S. will be able to indefinitely continue its current level of support, said Mark Cancian, a CSIS senior adviser who has studied the volumes of artillery used in the war.

“They’re going through it at phenomenal rates,” he said of the Ukrainian military firing artillery munitions. “The U.S. bins are very low. We’re going to increase production substantially, but it’ll still be way below what the Ukrainians are using.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, expects the war to end at the negotiating table, but said serious diplomacy hasn’t begun because Putin is still clinging to “maximalist” goals.

“The ultimate end to this is the Ukrainians take back as much pre-Feb. 24 territory as they can get, force Putin to the bargaining table, and then ultimately Ukraine would have to compromise somewhat on issues like Crimea and portions of the east and arrange for solid security guarantees going forward,”

But Smith also said ATACMS producer Lockheed Martin no longer makes the missiles, and the U.S. military still needs them in its stockpiles.

“We’re looking at a variety of different options there,” he said. “They’re not currently being made, so it is legitimately a question of readiness on our part and whether we’d have enough to spare. There are discussions about other longer-range munitions.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC, DW & France24 all did reports on the inability of western munitions makers to keep up with Ukraine's burn rate in artillery shells.

[a fan]

Fine. I'm done, happily.

Because actually exchanging ideas is a bridge too far for you?

It's too bad we lost all those conversations we had in the early years of laxpower...you and I had NO PROBLEM doing that.

I could show you how much you've changed.

You don't get to tell me how or what to post. You have the same option you have always had: I'll treat you how you treat me, and treat others. Act nice, get nice. Act pompous, get pompous. Be condescending, you get it right back. Make partisan posts, you get 'em right back. Troll, and I troll back.

Same as it ever was. You control the postings, my man. It's up to you......

In other words, you won't troll or hector, so long as I tell you what you want to hear.
The whole tone & tenor here is markedly different than it was on LP. It has become anti-social media.
You think you're not pompous & condescending & don't make partisan posts.

Well look who caught on! Good for you!

Why? Why am I pompous, condescending, and making partisan posts with you? Or Pete, when he was here?

(and you left out trolling)

That's right....the tone and tenor is different than it was on early LP. You didn't notice how much you changed since Trump arrived, like a frog getting slowly boiled in water on a stove.

It's up to YOU how I post. I return fire. That's it. Nothing more. Don't like being fired on? Don't shoot.....simple.

[DocBarrister]

Lots of differing opinions in this article.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... edictions/

Making weapons
One key question that could determine the war’s end game is how long Ukraine’s backers can keep up their arms donations to Kyiv.

“There’s no such thing as infinite resources,” said Jensen, the CSIS analyst. “Heaven forbid this goes on another year, two years. At some point the fighting will exhaust even the entirety of the Western world’s support for Ukraine.”

While defense spending in the United States and Europe is trending upward, in large part because of Russia’s attack, industrial capacity to crank out weapons and ammunition has emerged as a bottleneck.

In response, companies on both sides of the Atlantic announced plans to restart production lines for artillery shells and other weapons considered somewhat arcane until recently.

Wicker said the fiscal 2023 government funding and defense authorization bills include money to expand munitions manufacturing, “doubling and even tripling production capabilities for weapons like 155mm shells, [anti-tank] Javelins and [the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System].”

Still, it’s an open question whether the U.S. will be able to indefinitely continue its current level of support, said Mark Cancian, a CSIS senior adviser who has studied the volumes of artillery used in the war.

“They’re going through it at phenomenal rates,” he said of the Ukrainian military firing artillery munitions. “The U.S. bins are very low. We’re going to increase production substantially, but it’ll still be way below what the Ukrainians are using.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, expects the war to end at the negotiating table, but said serious diplomacy hasn’t begun because Putin is still clinging to “maximalist” goals.

“The ultimate end to this is the Ukrainians take back as much pre-Feb. 24 territory as they can get, force Putin to the bargaining table, and then ultimately Ukraine would have to compromise somewhat on issues like Crimea and portions of the east and arrange for solid security guarantees going forward,”

But Smith also said ATACMS producer Lockheed Martin no longer makes the missiles, and the U.S. military still needs them in its stockpiles.

“We’re looking at a variety of different options there,” he said. “They’re not currently being made, so it is legitimately a question of readiness on our part and whether we’d have enough to spare. There are discussions about other longer-range munitions.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC, DW & France24 all did reports on the inability of western munitions makers to keep up with Ukraine's burn rate in artillery shells.

I’ll wager that the West outlasts Russia with respect to munitions manufacturing. Putin is already dependent on Iran and North Korea, which is pathetic.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

LVIV, Ukraine — Creeping forward along a tree line late at night toward an entrenched Ukrainian position, the Russian soldier watched in horror as his comrades were mowed down by enemy fire.

His squad of 10 ex-convicts advanced only a few dozen yards before being decimated. “We were hit by machine-gun fire,” said the soldier, a private named Sergei.

One soldier was wounded and screamed, “Help me! Help me, please!” the private said, though no help arrived. Eight soldiers were killed, one escaped back to Russian lines and Sergei was captured by Ukrainians.

The soldiers were sitting ducks, sent forth by Russian commanders to act essentially as human cannon fodder in an assault.

And they have become an integral component of Russia’s military strategy as it presses a new offensive in Ukraine’s east: relying on overwhelming manpower, much of it comprising inexperienced, poorly trained conscripts, regardless of the high rate of casualties.

There are two main uses of the conscripts in these assaults: as “storm troops” who move in waves, followed by more experienced Russian fighters; and as intentional targets, to draw fire and thus identify Ukrainian positions to hit with artillery.

In interviews last week, half a dozen prisoners of war provided rare firsthand accounts of what it is like to be part of a sacrificial Russian assault.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/13/worl ... Position=2

DocBarrister