All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

[MDlaxfan76]

Assuming translation is accurate, I wonder if Biden will share this news with the American people.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/16 ... G2y_XvlDAw

Deterring the war criminal Putin and Russia from attacking a NATO member is one of the major purposes of supporting Ukraine.

What is there to “share?”

DocBarrister

Did you hear his words. He wants our soldiers fighting on the ground with his people.

Huh? Read it again.

That's NOT what he's saying...IF Ukraine loses, Zelensky is predicting that Putin will not stop, he'll be on NATO's doorstep and the fight will continue. And if that fight continues, America will be sending its sons and daughters to war.

Nowhere is he asking for them to come now.

Why would you misrepresent this?

sheesh….see the forest. Do you think we are going to allow Ukraine to lose? And if they do lose….who goes down with them in our current proxy war? What would be the next steps is we see that Russia is going to win?

sheesh yourself, look at what you wrote...it's a complete misrepresentation, a flat out lie, for that matter.

Did you just not read it yourself, listen yourself, or did you just vibe with the nutcases in your Twitter feed?

Now, if you have an actual issue with our helping Ukraine win this war, I'm all ears...but not for misrepresentations and lies, that are nothing more than Putinesque trolling.

I explained completely why I wrote what I did. And I heard Zelenskyy loud and clear. Would it help if I post it from a major news source so you can’t blame Twitter?l for what Zelenskyy said.

I guess you’re okay getting Americans killed….got it.

Huh?
You literally claimed he said something he absolutely did NOT say.

Try it again. With comprehension, please.

But putting words in someone's mouth, falsely, and then claiming that's what he really meant...nope, that's just trolling misinformation.

Again, you want to make an argument that we shouldn't be helping Ukraine win, have at it...just don't lie or "misrepresent" about what someone has said. It destroys the credibility of any argument you want to have considered.

Doubling down looks bad on you.

yes, it does on you.
You literally lied about what he said and are trying, rather desperately, to pivot away from just admitting that wasn't what he said. It's ok to say oops.

Go ahead and make your argument that we shouldn't be helping Ukraine win and I'll engage in an honest, straight discussion with you.

Just don't troll us with tripe.

this has nothing to do with helping via proxy/financially. Take your argument up with Zelenskyy. His comments puts us in a bind a rock and a hard place. Because losing at this point IS NOT AN OPTION. Zelenskyy is a saying if we can’t win, send in troops.

You’ve said you don’t want that, so you should agree Zelenskyy, by his very words spoke out of turn, unless Biden already called the ball.

In what world of confusion do you think this is any different than what he's said over and over and over again about the situation should Russia defeat Ukraine? He's always said that Putin will not stop with Ukraine (Salty disagrees) and I think Zelensky is right. Putin's and the hardliners around him ambitions don't stop with Ukraine.

Zelensky's "comments" do not put us in this bind, rather it's the reality that he predicts which do.

Yes, Putin must be defeated if we don't want to see America's troops in direct conflict with Russia. I've said that since early days of the conflict and still think that's the case.

Moreover, a loss by Ukraine because the western support falters will significantly increase the likelihood and timetable of China attempting to take Taiwan by force, Japan and the US drawn into that conflict.

Russia's defeat, with western resolve, would discourage that conflict.

It's simply false to claim Zelensky said more than that Putin will force a fight directly with NATO.

[youthathletics]

Assuming translation is accurate, I wonder if Biden will share this news with the American people.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/16 ... G2y_XvlDAw

Deterring the war criminal Putin and Russia from attacking a NATO member is one of the major purposes of supporting Ukraine.

What is there to “share?”

DocBarrister

Did you hear his words. He wants our soldiers fighting on the ground with his people.

Huh? Read it again.

That's NOT what he's saying...IF Ukraine loses, Zelensky is predicting that Putin will not stop, he'll be on NATO's doorstep and the fight will continue. And if that fight continues, America will be sending its sons and daughters to war.

Nowhere is he asking for them to come now.

Why would you misrepresent this?

sheesh….see the forest. Do you think we are going to allow Ukraine to lose? And if they do lose….who goes down with them in our current proxy war? What would be the next steps is we see that Russia is going to win?

sheesh yourself, look at what you wrote...it's a complete misrepresentation, a flat out lie, for that matter.

Did you just not read it yourself, listen yourself, or did you just vibe with the nutcases in your Twitter feed?

Now, if you have an actual issue with our helping Ukraine win this war, I'm all ears...but not for misrepresentations and lies, that are nothing more than Putinesque trolling.

I explained completely why I wrote what I did. And I heard Zelenskyy loud and clear. Would it help if I post it from a major news source so you can’t blame Twitter?l for what Zelenskyy said.

I guess you’re okay getting Americans killed….got it.

Huh?
You literally claimed he said something he absolutely did NOT say.

Try it again. With comprehension, please.

But putting words in someone's mouth, falsely, and then claiming that's what he really meant...nope, that's just trolling misinformation.

Again, you want to make an argument that we shouldn't be helping Ukraine win, have at it...just don't lie or "misrepresent" about what someone has said. It destroys the credibility of any argument you want to have considered.

Doubling down looks bad on you.

yes, it does on you.
You literally lied about what he said and are trying, rather desperately, to pivot away from just admitting that wasn't what he said. It's ok to say oops.

Go ahead and make your argument that we shouldn't be helping Ukraine win and I'll engage in an honest, straight discussion with you.

Just don't troll us with tripe.

this has nothing to do with helping via proxy/financially. Take your argument up with Zelenskyy. His comments puts us in a bind a rock and a hard place. Because losing at this point IS NOT AN OPTION. Zelenskyy is a saying if we can’t win, send in troops.

You’ve said you don’t want that, so you should agree Zelenskyy, by his very words spoke out of turn, unless Biden already called the ball.

In what world of confusion do you think this is any different than what he's said over and over and over again about the situation should Russia defeat Ukraine? He's always said that Putin will not stop with Ukraine (Salty disagrees) and I think Zelensky is right. Putin's and the hardliners around him ambitions don't stop with Ukraine.

Zelensky's "comments" do not put us in this bind, rather it's the reality that he predicts which do.

Yes, Putin must be defeated if we don't want to see America's troops in direct conflict with Russia. I've said that since early days of the conflict and still think that's the case.

Moreover, a loss by Ukraine because the western support falters will significantly increase the likelihood and timetable of China attempting to take Taiwan by force, Japan and the US drawn into that conflict.

Russia's defeat, with western resolve, would discourage that conflict.

It's simply false to claim Zelensky said more than that Putin will force a fight directly with NATO.

I see you are still not caught up. WE, CANNOT, ALLOW, A, LOSS, for the reason you stated, which we both agree. So why are you even considering a loss as an option? Which means what.....we have to be ALL IN, even if it means boots on the ground and THAT is what Zelesnkyy is projecting.

Play this out even further so we can move past you not understanding...

Let's assume a loss is on the horizon and russia is weeks away from taking UK over....

~ What do you propose? THEN
~ What do you propose if NATO drags their feet and we are left with everyone looking at us for muscle?

[MDlaxfan76]

Assuming translation is accurate, I wonder if Biden will share this news with the American people.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/16 ... G2y_XvlDAw

Deterring the war criminal Putin and Russia from attacking a NATO member is one of the major purposes of supporting Ukraine.

What is there to “share?”

DocBarrister

Did you hear his words. He wants our soldiers fighting on the ground with his people.

Huh? Read it again.

That's NOT what he's saying...IF Ukraine loses, Zelensky is predicting that Putin will not stop, he'll be on NATO's doorstep and the fight will continue. And if that fight continues, America will be sending its sons and daughters to war.

Nowhere is he asking for them to come now.

Why would you misrepresent this?

sheesh….see the forest. Do you think we are going to allow Ukraine to lose? And if they do lose….who goes down with them in our current proxy war? What would be the next steps is we see that Russia is going to win?

sheesh yourself, look at what you wrote...it's a complete misrepresentation, a flat out lie, for that matter.

Did you just not read it yourself, listen yourself, or did you just vibe with the nutcases in your Twitter feed?

Now, if you have an actual issue with our helping Ukraine win this war, I'm all ears...but not for misrepresentations and lies, that are nothing more than Putinesque trolling.

I explained completely why I wrote what I did. And I heard Zelenskyy loud and clear. Would it help if I post it from a major news source so you can’t blame Twitter?l for what Zelenskyy said.

I guess you’re okay getting Americans killed….got it.

Huh?
You literally claimed he said something he absolutely did NOT say.

Try it again. With comprehension, please.

But putting words in someone's mouth, falsely, and then claiming that's what he really meant...nope, that's just trolling misinformation.

Again, you want to make an argument that we shouldn't be helping Ukraine win, have at it...just don't lie or "misrepresent" about what someone has said. It destroys the credibility of any argument you want to have considered.

Doubling down looks bad on you.

yes, it does on you.
You literally lied about what he said and are trying, rather desperately, to pivot away from just admitting that wasn't what he said. It's ok to say oops.

Go ahead and make your argument that we shouldn't be helping Ukraine win and I'll engage in an honest, straight discussion with you.

Just don't troll us with tripe.

this has nothing to do with helping via proxy/financially. Take your argument up with Zelenskyy. His comments puts us in a bind a rock and a hard place. Because losing at this point IS NOT AN OPTION. Zelenskyy is a saying if we can’t win, send in troops.

You’ve said you don’t want that, so you should agree Zelenskyy, by his very words spoke out of turn, unless Biden already called the ball.

In what world of confusion do you think this is any different than what he's said over and over and over again about the situation should Russia defeat Ukraine? He's always said that Putin will not stop with Ukraine (Salty disagrees) and I think Zelensky is right. Putin's and the hardliners around him ambitions don't stop with Ukraine.

Zelensky's "comments" do not put us in this bind, rather it's the reality that he predicts which do.

Yes, Putin must be defeated if we don't want to see America's troops in direct conflict with Russia. I've said that since early days of the conflict and still think that's the case.

Moreover, a loss by Ukraine because the western support falters will significantly increase the likelihood and timetable of China attempting to take Taiwan by force, Japan and the US drawn into that conflict.

Russia's defeat, with western resolve, would discourage that conflict.

It's simply false to claim Zelensky said more than that Putin will force a fight directly with NATO.

I see you are still not caught up. WE, CANNOT, ALLOW, A, LOSS, for the reason you stated, which we both agree. So why are you even considering a loss as an option? Which means what.....we have to be ALL IN, even if it means boots on the ground and THAT is what Zelesnkyy is projecting.

Play this out even further so we can move past you not understanding...

Let's assume a loss is on the horizon and russia is weeks away from taking UK over....

~ What do you propose? THEN
~ What do you propose if NATO drags their feet and we are left with everyone looking at us for muscle?

You are projecting your conclusion, not what he said. Instead you've been misrepresenting his statement, blaming him or Biden for his "putting us in a bind".

But let's move to the argument that we are or should be considering sending troops to Ukraine to fight in those trenches...under the hypothetical that Ukraine is potentially close to capitulation under the weight of relentless barrages on civilian infrastructure and not enough weapons and manpower to repel the Russian horde on their own.

First, that's not the current reality.
The Ukrainian civilians are amazingly resilient and committed and the defensive weaponry they've been provided has dramatically reduced the impact of Russian barrages. They've pushed the Russians back and are preparing to push them back a lot further come spring and summer.

Second, if Russia made major gains despite the above, and NATO decided they MUST take action before Kiev falls, the reaction wouldn't be to send troops to trenches, it would be to dominate the airspace with fighters and drones manned by NATO. But yes, some Americans would die if we did so...it would also hugely escalate the probability of nuclear.

So, we haven't done so.

However, IF the west withdrew its financial and military arms support, Ukraine would soon exhaust what it has been provided...Russia's weight would likely prevail and at some point Kiev would fall, etc. Mass atrocities.

Zelensky is saying Putin would be emboldened, his troops hardened and experienced, and he would drive forward against NATO.

NATO will need to fight directly, IF Ukraine doesn't defeat Russia.

But only IF.

[old salt]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

[MDlaxfan76]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

It's possible, but man, every indication has been that we won't do so.
We didn't at the outset or early days, when it was undoubtedly being debated, and it's highly unlikely we will now.

But your stated scenario involves the Chinese playing a major role and that could create a different dynamic. But I don't think so.

Fortunately, I think the primary way that Kiev might be threatened to be overrun at this point, regardless of China's involvement, is if the west withdrew its support. The key is continued, and indeed increased, support from the west, sufficient to push Russia out else face continued massive destruction of personnel and systems in Ukraine. It'll take more if China gets involved, but same principle.

Or perhaps if Russia uses WMD and everything is threatened with chaos....that would indeed result in direct NATO action; indeed massively so.

I don't think either of those scenarios has much likelihood...while Biden is CinC...

[old salt]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

It's possible, but man, every indication has been that we won't do so.
We didn't at the outset or early days, when it was undoubtedly being debated, and it's highly unlikely we will now.

But your stated scenario involves the Chinese playing a major role and that could create a different dynamic. But I don't think so.

Fortunately, I think the primary way that Kiev might be threatened to be overrun at this point, regardless of China's involvement, is if the west withdrew its support. The key is continued, and indeed increased, support from the west, sufficient to push Russia out else face continued massive destruction of personnel and systems in Ukraine. It'll take more if China gets involved, but same principle.

Or perhaps if Russia uses WMD and everything is threatened with chaos....that would indeed result in direct NATO action; indeed massively so.

I don't think either of those scenarios has much likelihood...while Biden is CinC...

Even with western military aid at current & projected levels, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can hold out indefinitely if China makes up for Russia's shortfall in munitions. That's why the coming Ukrainian counteroffensive is key. If the current Ukrainian advantage is not exploited & does not break the Russian military now, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can regain the advantage. The stocks & production rate of western munitions & difference making expendable weapons are finite. Tough decisions are already being made.

[Typical Lax Dad]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

It's possible, but man, every indication has been that we won't do so.
We didn't at the outset or early days, when it was undoubtedly being debated, and it's highly unlikely we will now.

But your stated scenario involves the Chinese playing a major role and that could create a different dynamic. But I don't think so.

Fortunately, I think the primary way that Kiev might be threatened to be overrun at this point, regardless of China's involvement, is if the west withdrew its support. The key is continued, and indeed increased, support from the west, sufficient to push Russia out else face continued massive destruction of personnel and systems in Ukraine. It'll take more if China gets involved, but same principle.

Or perhaps if Russia uses WMD and everything is threatened with chaos....that would indeed result in direct NATO action; indeed massively so.

I don't think either of those scenarios has much likelihood...while Biden is CinC...

Even with western military aid at current & projected levels, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can hold out indefinitely if China makes up for Russia's shortfall in munitions. That's why the coming Ukrainian counteroffensive is key. If the current Ukrainian advantage is not exploited & does not break the Russian military now, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can regain the advantage. The stocks & production rate of western munitions & difference making expendable weapons are finite. Tough decisions are already being made.

China should stay out of it.

[a fan]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

That's a fair prediction, if you ask me.

But I cannot see China getting into this. They don't benefit from it. And Biden would retaliate economically, as he's already demonstrated with the Chip act.

Xi has to look at risk vs. reward here. What does he gain from aiding Putin? The ONLY way I see him doing that is if hes'----out of nowhere-----all in with Russia, and looking to cut ties with American, and take those 300K+ Chinese students back immediately.

I don't see what motive he has to do that.

[MDlaxfan76]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

That's a fair prediction, if you ask me.

But I cannot see China getting into this. They don't benefit from it. And Biden would retaliate economically, as he's already demonstrated with the Chip act.

Xi has to look at risk vs. reward here. What does he gain from aiding Putin? The ONLY way I see him doing that is if hes'----out of nowhere-----all in with Russia, and looking to cut ties with American, and take those 300K+ Chinese students back immediately.

I don't see what motive he has to do that.

He does have a bunch of hardliners around him, but indeed it would be a bad play.

We might want to stop insulting them on purpose for a spell, though.

[MDlaxfan76]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

It's possible, but man, every indication has been that we won't do so.
We didn't at the outset or early days, when it was undoubtedly being debated, and it's highly unlikely we will now.

But your stated scenario involves the Chinese playing a major role and that could create a different dynamic. But I don't think so.

Fortunately, I think the primary way that Kiev might be threatened to be overrun at this point, regardless of China's involvement, is if the west withdrew its support. The key is continued, and indeed increased, support from the west, sufficient to push Russia out else face continued massive destruction of personnel and systems in Ukraine. It'll take more if China gets involved, but same principle.

Or perhaps if Russia uses WMD and everything is threatened with chaos....that would indeed result in direct NATO action; indeed massively so.

I don't think either of those scenarios has much likelihood...while Biden is CinC...

Even with western military aid at current & projected levels, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can hold out indefinitely if China makes up for Russia's shortfall in munitions. That's why the coming Ukrainian counteroffensive is key. If the current Ukrainian advantage is not exploited & does not break the Russian military now, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can regain the advantage. The stocks & production rate of western munitions & difference making expendable weapons are finite. Tough decisions are already being made.

It'd definitely go longer and bloodier, and given that Putin has a lot more blood to spend, you could be right. But the Ukrainians are far, far more willing to spend whatever it takes to not let Russia crush them...they know what's at stake. Moreover, their troops are way better trained and led, and are way better tactically than the Russians...there are some hardened Russian troops with experience, but the horde is really poorly trained and led. They're being slaughtered in waves...I don't see that really changing regardless of ammo on the Russian side.

And western production is ramping up a lot.

The big weaponry factor, though, I'd contend, is the precision weaponry on Ukraine's side...it's devastating by comparison. That's the key to going serious momentum when the weather gets more conducive to a major push...which is several months away still, if I'm not mistaken.

We need to get them more, with longer range...make it absolutely hellish for anyone in command and control, weapons depots, major troop groups, tanks, etc.

Meanwhile, the Russian effort is aimed at the Ukrainian civilian population with very low 'precision'. Not gonna work.

[old salt]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

It's possible, but man, every indication has been that we won't do so.
We didn't at the outset or early days, when it was undoubtedly being debated, and it's highly unlikely we will now.

But your stated scenario involves the Chinese playing a major role and that could create a different dynamic. But I don't think so.

Fortunately, I think the primary way that Kiev might be threatened to be overrun at this point, regardless of China's involvement, is if the west withdrew its support. The key is continued, and indeed increased, support from the west, sufficient to push Russia out else face continued massive destruction of personnel and systems in Ukraine. It'll take more if China gets involved, but same principle.

Or perhaps if Russia uses WMD and everything is threatened with chaos....that would indeed result in direct NATO action; indeed massively so.

I don't think either of those scenarios has much likelihood...while Biden is CinC...

Even with western military aid at current & projected levels, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can hold out indefinitely if China makes up for Russia's shortfall in munitions. That's why the coming Ukrainian counteroffensive is key. If the current Ukrainian advantage is not exploited & does not break the Russian military now, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can regain the advantage. The stocks & production rate of western munitions & difference making expendable weapons are finite. Tough decisions are already being made.

It'd definitely go longer and bloodier, and given that Putin has a lot more blood to spend, you could be right. But the Ukrainians are far, far more willing to spend whatever it takes to not let Russia crush them...they know what's at stake. Moreover, their troops are way better trained and led, and are way better tactically than the Russians...there are some hardened Russian troops with experience, but the horde is really poorly trained and led. They're being slaughtered in waves...I don't see that really changing regardless of ammo on the Russian side.

And western production is ramping up a lot.

The big weaponry factor, though, I'd contend, is the precision weaponry on Ukraine's side...it's devastating by comparison. That's the key to going serious momentum when the weather gets more conducive to a major push...which is several months away still, if I'm not mistaken.

We need to get them more, with longer range...make it absolutely hellish for anyone in command and control, weapons depots, major troop groups, tanks, etc.

Meanwhile, the Russian effort is aimed at the Ukrainian civilian population with very low 'precision'. Not gonna work.

If the Ukrainians don't rout the Russian army this year, Biden's going to have to make some hard decisions, & not just on F-16's.
He can't count on continued domestic support like yours, & the EUroburghers are already wavering. They know they got lucky with a mild winter this year. They'll freak out if China starts supplying Russia, even covertly, on a limited basis. They're terrified of trade disruption with China, as is Wall St.

[MDlaxfan76]

IF Ukraine's lines are breached & Kyiv is in jeopardy, (thanks to China supplying military aid), I predict an intervention by US (& maybe NATO) air power (if Polish airbases & airspace can be used), at least while Biden is CinC.

It's possible, but man, every indication has been that we won't do so.
We didn't at the outset or early days, when it was undoubtedly being debated, and it's highly unlikely we will now.

But your stated scenario involves the Chinese playing a major role and that could create a different dynamic. But I don't think so.

Fortunately, I think the primary way that Kiev might be threatened to be overrun at this point, regardless of China's involvement, is if the west withdrew its support. The key is continued, and indeed increased, support from the west, sufficient to push Russia out else face continued massive destruction of personnel and systems in Ukraine. It'll take more if China gets involved, but same principle.

Or perhaps if Russia uses WMD and everything is threatened with chaos....that would indeed result in direct NATO action; indeed massively so.

I don't think either of those scenarios has much likelihood...while Biden is CinC...

Even with western military aid at current & projected levels, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can hold out indefinitely if China makes up for Russia's shortfall in munitions. That's why the coming Ukrainian counteroffensive is key. If the current Ukrainian advantage is not exploited & does not break the Russian military now, I'm not confident the Ukrainians can regain the advantage. The stocks & production rate of western munitions & difference making expendable weapons are finite. Tough decisions are already being made.

It'd definitely go longer and bloodier, and given that Putin has a lot more blood to spend, you could be right. But the Ukrainians are far, far more willing to spend whatever it takes to not let Russia crush them...they know what's at stake. Moreover, their troops are way better trained and led, and are way better tactically than the Russians...there are some hardened Russian troops with experience, but the horde is really poorly trained and led. They're being slaughtered in waves...I don't see that really changing regardless of ammo on the Russian side.

And western production is ramping up a lot.

The big weaponry factor, though, I'd contend, is the precision weaponry on Ukraine's side...it's devastating by comparison. That's the key to going serious momentum when the weather gets more conducive to a major push...which is several months away still, if I'm not mistaken.

We need to get them more, with longer range...make it absolutely hellish for anyone in command and control, weapons depots, major troop groups, tanks, etc.

Meanwhile, the Russian effort is aimed at the Ukrainian civilian population with very low 'precision'. Not gonna work.

If the Ukrainians don't rout the Russian army this year, Biden's going to have to make some hard decisions, & not just on F-16's.
He can't count on continued domestic support like yours, & the EUroburghers are already wavering. They know they got lucky with a mild winter this year. They'll freak out if China starts supplying Russia, even covertly, on a limited basis. They're terrified of trade disruption with China, as is Wall St.

As is China, fortunately.

I think you've underestimated the Europeans from the get-go, though it wasn't crazy to have that view.

I'm more concerned with the right wing "christian nationalist" wing of the GOP forcing the GOP candidates coming up in '24, including Presidential, to take the "isolationist" position...just to be opposed to Biden and the "establishment RINO's". And that placing more and more pressure.

I DO think that it'd be a heck of a lot better for Ukraine to bust the back of Russian military morale this year...and that MORE weaponry, with longer range, would really help.

As to F-16's, my view is that signaling long term availability and beginning training now would make sense...especially to get the available fighters in Europe into the action in time for actual push...big aspect though is to take out Russian air defenses over Ukrainian airspace.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.minusrus.com/en

600k Casualties

killed ~149.890
wounded ~449.670
prisoner of war ~1.000

Give ‘em hell Old Joe.

[old salt]

I think you've underestimated the Europeans from the get-go, though it wasn't crazy to have that view.

It's based on the contributions & level of commitment we actually see from our NATO allies.

My baseline to make it a credible alliance is the level of burden sharing we had during the cold war.

When you compare US contributions (in all forms) to our EU NATO allies, we're nowhere near the cold war level of burden sharing for an equally urgent threat to European security.

[a fan]

I think you've underestimated the Europeans from the get-go, though it wasn't crazy to have that view.

It's based on the contributions & level of commitment we actually see from our NATO allies.

My baseline to make it a credible alliance is the level of burden sharing we had during the cold war.

When you compare US contributions (in all forms) to our EU NATO allies, we're nowhere near the cold war level of burden sharing for an equally urgent threat to European security.

No need. If this mess has taught us anything, it's the the conventional forces needed to take down Russia is a fraction....a fraction...of what the military wonks thought not 12 months ago.

If I'm a wise political leader of a NATO nation, I'm spending less on the military, not more.

The US won't dissolve NATO. It's really that simple.

[old salt]

I think you've underestimated the Europeans from the get-go, though it wasn't crazy to have that view.

It's based on the contributions & level of commitment we actually see from our NATO allies.

My baseline to make it a credible alliance is the level of burden sharing we had during the cold war.

When you compare US contributions (in all forms) to our EU NATO allies, we're nowhere near the cold war level of burden sharing for an equally urgent threat to European security.

No need. If this mess has taught us anything, it's the the conventional forces needed to take down Russia is a fraction....a fraction...of what the military wonks thought not 12 months ago.

If I'm a wise political leader of a NATO nation, I'm spending less on the military, not more.

The US won't dissolve NATO. It's really that simple.

...to take down Russia, he blithely says. We'll attack with GDP spread sheets.

[youthathletics]

I think you've underestimated the Europeans from the get-go, though it wasn't crazy to have that view.

It's based on the contributions & level of commitment we actually see from our NATO allies.

My baseline to make it a credible alliance is the level of burden sharing we had during the cold war.

When you compare US contributions (in all forms) to our EU NATO allies, we're nowhere near the cold war level of burden sharing for an equally urgent threat to European security.

No need. If this mess has taught us anything, it's the the conventional forces needed to take down Russia is a fraction....a fraction...of what the military wonks thought not 12 months ago.

If I'm a wise political leader of a NATO nation, I'm spending less on the military, not more.

The US won't dissolve NATO. It's really that simple.

Curious, where does one find the investment contributions made by euro NATO allies. I spoke to a ranking O from Italy over a year ago, and it was implied they are standing back.

[a fan]

...to take down Russia, he blithely says. We'll attack with GDP spread sheets.

How am I supposed to have a polite conversation with you when this is what you serve up?

I didn't say anything rude. Didn't direct anything your way. Didn't insult your post. Just gave my opinion. That's it. I've changed tone, as requested....like a grown up.

So.....do you want to be polite to each other, or not? Your choice. Happy to go right back to mocking how many times you've been wrong about this situation, yet STILL acting like you've got all the answers...and every other opinion is wrong.

What path do you choose?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I think you've underestimated the Europeans from the get-go, though it wasn't crazy to have that view.

It's based on the contributions & level of commitment we actually see from our NATO allies.

My baseline to make it a credible alliance is the level of burden sharing we had during the cold war.

When you compare US contributions (in all forms) to our EU NATO allies, we're nowhere near the cold war level of burden sharing for an equally urgent threat to European security.

Times change.