Ukraine

[TomTX]

Some Republicans are just wanting equal money to secure our own border before sending 10's of billions to Ukraine to secure theirs.  Yes, the Ukraine people are suffering and we should help, but the Repubs are not being pro-Russia.  If memory serves me correctly, only during one President has Putin NOT invaded a neighbor...During the Trump administration.

This is a load of BS that could fertilize the Sinai.   

First, there isn't a fixed amount of money the federal government can spend.  If we so decide we can secure our borders (whatever you define that) and support Ukraine.  Saying otherwise is total BS.

If you look at actual arrests for border violations - in less than 2 years the Biden administration has done more to secure the border than the entire 4 years of Trump.

Sure Trump and the Republicans blathered about border security - but they were too busy shoveling pork for ineffective segments of fencing to actually work at securing the border.

[PeteD01]

Timothy Snyder
@TimothyDSnyder
Levin Professor of History at Yale. Author of "On Tyranny," with 20 new lessons on Ukraine, "Our Malady," "Road to Unfreedom," "Black Earth," and "Bloodlands"


I have been hearing the idea from some Republicans that Ukrainian resistance comes at a cost to Americans. Nothing could be more wrong. Ukrainian resistance provides extraordinary security benefits to Americans.
In fact, Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s genocidal invasion does more for American security than any American policy does – or could do. It has changed the global balance in a way that makes peace more likely in decades to come.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1589260108537610240.html?fbclid=IwAR3OZ13522ugOWbhZfxW_OsVu9LtCMn0fkxC3NSjno0ng-41v48vZ0ykWRo

[lemanfan]

Timothy Snyder
@TimothyDSnyder
Levin Professor of History at Yale. Author of "On Tyranny," with 20 new lessons on Ukraine, "Our Malady," "Road to Unfreedom," "Black Earth," and "Bloodlands"

He was also featured on a recent podcast with Sam Harris the other day - very interesting listen.  Only first hour available outside of paywall, but still interesting I think.

[pecunia]

A lot probably depends on what a republican controlled house decides to do about it. For some reason they've suddenly become very very pro-russia...

I wouldn't say that. They don't want unlimited funds flowing to the Ukraine which is what Biden is doing.
But I agree with Biden. Last time Russia took Crimea with little effort. You got to stand up to the bullies or there's consequences for the futures.

Well, you would be wrong. "Unlimited funds" "Biden" - LOL. Go back and read a few posts. Total so far is 2% of the annual US military budget - on top of that, a heck of a lot of the stuff we're sending was either nearing expiration (and thus needing disposal soon) - or in deep storage, unlikely to ever be used. Plus, the spending so far has nearly all been approved by Congress, including many Republicans.

Do you somehow think spending 4% of our military budget a year to massively degrade Russia's military capabilities could be better spent elsewhere? If so, please be clear about what it is and why other parts of the military budget shouldn't be used. Degrading the capability of a long-time enemy military without any casualties?

Biden has sole authority over Lend-Lease, but hasn't used that authority at all yet.

So - after they have been greatly degraded will there be scavengers picking at Russia? I could see driving the troops from Transnistria.  I could see them leaving Georgia.  Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.  I could see a "Land for Peace" deal.

[maizefolk]

Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.

Huh. I learned something today. Thank you, pecunia.

My first reaction to your post was that Manchuria is already part of China. It's the "head of the chicken," the bit north of north Korea. But then I googled that and it turned out that is inner Manchuria (like inner Mongolia, given that name to distinguish it from outer Mongolia the country), and there is a substantial region to the north and east of inner Manchuria, called conveniently enough outer Manchuria, which was ruled by China during the Yuan and part of the Qing dynasty before being ceded to Russia in the mid 1800s.

I think the Russia Ukraine war and particularly how badly Russia's army is doing, makes a war between China and Russia sometime in the next decade more likely. If China follows through on its invasion of Taiwan all bets are off. If they decide not to risk it, Xi is going to need a different big geopolitical win for domestic consumption and carving off big section of the resource rich and poorly populated Siberia from a further weakened Russia would fit the bill, especially since it could also be framed as restoring something China had lost in the past during a period of weakness and humiliation by foreign powers (just as the Taiwan issue is framed domestically).

[BicycleB]

Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.

Huh. I learned something today. Thank you, pecunia.

My first reaction to your post was that Manchuria is already part of China. It's the "head of the chicken," the bit north of north Korea. But then I googled that and it turned out that is inner Manchuria (like inner Mongolia, given that name to distinguish it from outer Mongolia the country), and there is a substantial region to the north and east of inner Manchuria, called conveniently enough outer Manchuria, which was ruled by China during the Yuan and part of the Qing dynasty before being ceded to Russia in the mid 1800s.

I think the Russia Ukraine war and particularly how badly Russia's army is doing, makes a war between China and Russia sometime in the next decade more likely. If China follows through on its invasion of Taiwan all bets are off. If they decide not to risk it, Xi is going to need a different big geopolitical win for domestic consumption and carving off big section of the resource rich and poorly populated Siberia from a further weakened Russia would fit the bill, especially since it could also be framed as restoring something China had lost in the past during a period of weakness and humiliation by foreign powers (just as the Taiwan issue is framed domestically).

China and Russia at war? Interesting (somewhat distressing) concept.

I had been assuming that over time, China would buy out Russia's interests in a range of locations and domains, while hiring Russia in some form to its bidding. Had been assuming that various agreements or deals preserving a shred of Russian dignity and a shred or more of Russian sovereignty would be the mechanism putting China in charge of key assets, and directing Russian energy / weapons / identity into actions that serve Chinese interests.

I suppose there's room for a clash to take the shape of war. It seems inefficient but I guess it's possible. Certainly your point about regaining face-saving historically linked territory from the easier donor / victim makes sense; will keep in mind.

[pecunia]

Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.

Huh. I learned something today. Thank you, pecunia.

My first reaction to your post was that Manchuria is already part of China. It's the "head of the chicken," the bit north of north Korea. But then I googled that and it turned out that is inner Manchuria (like inner Mongolia, given that name to distinguish it from outer Mongolia the country), and there is a substantial region to the north and east of inner Manchuria, called conveniently enough outer Manchuria, which was ruled by China during the Yuan and part of the Qing dynasty before being ceded to Russia in the mid 1800s.

I think the Russia Ukraine war and particularly how badly Russia's army is doing, makes a war between China and Russia sometime in the next decade more likely. If China follows through on its invasion of Taiwan all bets are off. If they decide not to risk it, Xi is going to need a different big geopolitical win for domestic consumption and carving off big section of the resource rich and poorly populated Siberia from a further weakened Russia would fit the bill, especially since it could also be framed as restoring something China had lost in the past during a period of weakness and humiliation by foreign powers (just as the Taiwan issue is framed domestically).

China and Russia at war? Interesting (somewhat distressing) concept.

I had been assuming that over time, China would buy out Russia's interests in a range of locations and domains, while hiring Russia in some form to its bidding. Had been assuming that various agreements or deals preserving a shred of Russian dignity and a shred or more of Russian sovereignty would be the mechanism putting China in charge of key assets, and directing Russian energy / weapons / identity into actions that serve Chinese interests.

I suppose there's room for a clash to take the shape of war. It seems inefficient but I guess it's possible. Certainly your point about regaining face-saving historically linked territory from the easier donor / victim makes sense; will keep in mind.

Wars are mot all fought violently.  China has 1.4 billion people .  It needs to produce for its populace and the world.  Russia has all those resources that it's 144 million people do not develop for use by the world.  Russia may be cash strapped after this war.  Putin has killed the golden goose.  Europe will be reticent to buy its products.  A deal among friends will allow Chinese development of their former land.  Chinese labor will be allowed on Russian soil to perform that development.  At the beginning of the deal, it will seem like a win win.  However after all those Chinese live on that land, it will become de facto Chinese.  Then perhaps a part of China.  This is something China has done throughout history.  Remember Genghis Khan was not Chinese, but Kublai Khan was Chinese.  The Mongol invaders had been assimilated.

[Sibley]

Well, Kyiv's mayor is warning citizens to prepare for potentially a winter without water, power or heat. Hopefully, they can quietly evacuate at least some of the most vulnerable. And also hopefully the infrastructure damage can be stopped. I'm rooting for Ukraine still.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/06/kyiv-winter-water-heat-power-ukraine-russia-00065327

[Just Joe]

Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia.  Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what?  Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst?  Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.

Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks.  Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons.  They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.

It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine.  The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand.  Experience is the best teacher.

There are a number of YouTube, Twitter, Telegram and other media outlets the Ukrainians are using effectively to convey the situation on the ground. Fortunately with shared languages even Russians can tune in if they have internet access. Many of the videos have closed captions in English.

https://www.youtube.com/c/HromadskeTvUkraine

I'll still eager for Ukraine to succeed too. Hopefully Russia will be tamed for a century or more.

[jinga nation]

A lot probably depends on what a republican controlled house decides to do about it. For some reason they've suddenly become very very pro-russia...

I wouldn't say that. They don't want unlimited funds flowing to the Ukraine which is what Biden is doing.
But I agree with Biden. Last time Russia took Crimea with little effort. You got to stand up to the bullies or there's consequences for the futures.

Well, you would be wrong. "Unlimited funds" "Biden" - LOL. Go back and read a few posts. Total so far is 2% of the annual US military budget - on top of that, a heck of a lot of the stuff we're sending was either nearing expiration (and thus needing disposal soon) - or in deep storage, unlikely to ever be used. Plus, the spending so far has nearly all been approved by Congress, including many Republicans.

Do you somehow think spending 4% of our military budget a year to massively degrade Russia's military capabilities could be better spent elsewhere? If so, please be clear about what it is and why other parts of the military budget shouldn't be used. Degrading the capability of a long-time enemy military without any casualties?

Biden has sole authority over Lend-Lease, but hasn't used that authority at all yet.

Yep.
McConnell and mainstream Republicans are happy. A cheap-ish way to find out and destroy Russia's capabilities and economy without US troops being involved. Or even NATO. And mil-industrial complex BFF oh so happy, donating to the superPACs.

[sixwings]

Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.

Huh. I learned something today. Thank you, pecunia.

My first reaction to your post was that Manchuria is already part of China. It's the "head of the chicken," the bit north of north Korea. But then I googled that and it turned out that is inner Manchuria (like inner Mongolia, given that name to distinguish it from outer Mongolia the country), and there is a substantial region to the north and east of inner Manchuria, called conveniently enough outer Manchuria, which was ruled by China during the Yuan and part of the Qing dynasty before being ceded to Russia in the mid 1800s.

I think the Russia Ukraine war and particularly how badly Russia's army is doing, makes a war between China and Russia sometime in the next decade more likely. If China follows through on its invasion of Taiwan all bets are off. If they decide not to risk it, Xi is going to need a different big geopolitical win for domestic consumption and carving off big section of the resource rich and poorly populated Siberia from a further weakened Russia would fit the bill, especially since it could also be framed as restoring something China had lost in the past during a period of weakness and humiliation by foreign powers (just as the Taiwan issue is framed domestically).

China and Russia at war? Interesting (somewhat distressing) concept.

I had been assuming that over time, China would buy out Russia's interests in a range of locations and domains, while hiring Russia in some form to its bidding. Had been assuming that various agreements or deals preserving a shred of Russian dignity and a shred or more of Russian sovereignty would be the mechanism putting China in charge of key assets, and directing Russian energy / weapons / identity into actions that serve Chinese interests.

I suppose there's room for a clash to take the shape of war. It seems inefficient but I guess it's possible. Certainly your point about regaining face-saving historically linked territory from the easier donor / victim makes sense; will keep in mind.

Yeah I agree with this take, a military war is probably unlikely, more likely is that China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face. China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally. Makes sense they would do this to a very weak  post-war Russia.

[LennStar]

China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face.
China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally.

For more than 2000 years. They have made it into a art. Have you heard of tribute trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China

[PeteD01]

Interesting. These actors are seeing the writing on the wall: If Putin is allowed to continue the war Russia will eventually lose the capability to project force throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Once that happens the Russian empire will be gone. The clock is ticking.

Russian Enemies of Kremlin Meet to Plot Violent ‘Elimination’ of Putin

Although various groups interested in Putin losing power have different ideas about how to go about ensuring his downfall, according to former senior members of the U.S. intelligence community, Putin’s ouster very well may be violent and come all of a sudden.

“Nobody’s gonna ask, ‘Hey Vladimir, would you like to leave?’ No. It’s a fucking hammer to the head and he’s dead. Or it’s time to go to the sanatorium,” Daniel Hoffman, a former CIA Moscow chief of station, told The Daily Beast. “They schwack him for it. That’s what they’ll do.”

Even Putin’s closest allies have been criticizing him in recent days in what could be a signal that Putin’s clutches on power—and his future as a leader—are disintegrating.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-enemies-of-kremlin-meet-in-poland-to-plot-violent-elimination-of-vladimir-putin?ref=home

[pecunia]

Interesting. These actors are seeing the writing on the wall: If Putin is allowed to continue the war Russia will eventually lose the capability to project force throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Once that happens the Russian empire will be gone. The clock is ticking.

Russian Enemies of Kremlin Meet to Plot Violent ‘Elimination’ of Putin

Although various groups interested in Putin losing power have different ideas about how to go about ensuring his downfall, according to former senior members of the U.S. intelligence community, Putin’s ouster very well may be violent and come all of a sudden.

“Nobody’s gonna ask, ‘Hey Vladimir, would you like to leave?’ No. It’s a fucking hammer to the head and he’s dead. Or it’s time to go to the sanatorium,” Daniel Hoffman, a former CIA Moscow chief of station, told The Daily Beast. “They schwack him for it. That’s what they’ll do.”

Even Putin’s closest allies have been criticizing him in recent days in what could be a signal that Putin’s clutches on power—and his future as a leader—are disintegrating.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-enemies-of-kremlin-meet-in-poland-to-plot-violent-elimination-of-vladimir-putin?ref=home

As per the above, if you think about it, what group in Russia js he helping?  Is he raising the living standard of the people? Nope  Is he helping the military? Nope  Is he helping the Oligarchs? Nope  Is he helping the FSB?  I don't see how.  He's just bad news for everyone.  He's like the bad apple in the barrel.  Does the world want to deal with the guy? Nope   Will world leaders trust any deal he cuts with them? Nope

The best thing he can hope for is to retain that chunk of Ukraine he grabbed and I don't think that's enough to satisfy the other Russians.

He better really watch what he eats to stay healthy.

[LennStar]

Well, if someone gets rid of Putin, I hope it is through defenestration.

[markbike528CBX]

Well, if someone gets rid of Putin, I hope it is through defenestration.

I was re-reading SchlockMercenary (a webcomic, https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-07-17)
and didn't realize it was a real term for political protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration.

Transcript

VOG: I can only conclude that my people pose no threat to you, and you know this.
Furthermore, we have nothing you care to take, nor even anything of value to offer.
The wars I fought, and planned to someday fight, are irrelevant.
This rage of mine is useless. I suspect I shall soon be replacing it with grief.

LANDON: He got all that from jumping out the window?

BUNNI: I'll quote you when I submit my grant proposal for auto-defenestration therapy.

[PeteD01]

Russia is withdrawing from Kherson city:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1590368333727424512

[pecunia]

Russia is withdrawing from Kherson city:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1590368333727424512

He really does look like Dr. Evil.  I've also read that they left a lot of their new recruits there.  What kind of trap could they have laid?  Will they blow up the entire city taking a lot of newly mobilized with many Ukrainian troops?

[zolotiyeruki]

Russia is withdrawing from Kherson city:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1590368333727424512

He really does look like Dr. Evil.  I've also read that they left a lot of their new recruits there.  What kind of trap could they have laid?  Will they blow up the entire city taking a lot of newly mobilized with many Ukrainian troops?

From what I've heard, they've basically stripped the city of anything that has value and isn't nailed down, and destroyed anything else that might be of use to Ukraine.  It sounds like they're actually managing to execute an orderly withdrawal.

They also have a very recent history of boobytrapping and mining everything as they withdraw, so there's that.

[PeteD01]

Russia is withdrawing from Kherson city:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1590368333727424512

He really does look like Dr. Evil.  I've also read that they left a lot of their new recruits there.  What kind of trap could they have laid?  Will they blow up the entire city taking a lot of newly mobilized with many Ukrainian troops?

From what I've heard, they've basically stripped the city of anything that has value and isn't nailed down, and destroyed anything else that might be of use to Ukraine.  It sounds like they're actually managing to execute an orderly withdrawal.

They also have a very recent history of boobytrapping and mining everything as they withdraw, so there's that.

Orderly disengagement and retreat are very difficult operations and I would be surprised if RU can execute that and does not simply collapse.
But then, I might be underestimating RU capabilities in Kherson.

[zolotiyeruki]

It seems hard to believe, given Russia's poor performance over the past nine months.  However, they've had a fair amount of time to entrench in Kherson, and reportedly have the best of their forces located there, and Ukraine hasn't been pressing them particularly hard, so perhaps they are showing a tiny bit of competence?

[Sibley]

The article I read had a quote from someone in Ukraine's Ministry of Defense that, essentially, they were watching what Russia did, not what they said. And Ukraine has been clearing all the mines and traps elsewhere, I'd be shocked if they didn't assume the entire city is a giant death trap. I really don't want to know how many mass graves they find in and around the city though.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia.  Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what?  Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst?  Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.

Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks.  Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons.  They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.

It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine.  The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand.  Experience is the best teacher.

But that won't happen. Even if the Ukrainians wanted to do that and not have their hands full, that is a real red line.
That's what would rally the Russians for the war, not against it, and it would mean atomic bomb is now "legal" by Russian doctrine, if you stretch it jsut a little bit.
I think that is what is behind the formula of "Russia cannot (is not allowed to meaning) win the war" that politicians have used while avoiding "Ukraine must win". If Russia get repelled from Ukrainian territory, Russia has not won. But you could also say it has not lost. But if the war moves to Russian territory, Russia has lost.

Bill Browder, who is near the top of Putin's enemies list, would disagree.  Russia getting expelled from Ukraine would be seen as weakness by the Russian people, and they would not tolerate that of Putin.  According to Mr Browder, in that situation Putin would be gone in a weekend.

It's unclear how many usable nuclear missiles Russia has, as they are expensive to maintain - especially for a government fueled by corruption.  If Russia was able to hit Ukraine with a nuclear explosion, if the radiation drifted into Europe that would be an act of war.  In that case, I hope the U.S. uses conventional missiles to blow up every workplace, home and school used by Russian hackers.  Get some revenge for the Solar Winds hack - and avoid retaliating with nukes, if possible.

All of the horrific things Russia has done have never been threats.  Their military exercises were not an invasion - until they were.  Russia's soldiers torture and kill civilians - again without a threat.  They target civilians with missiles - no threat there, either.  If you look at the evil things Russia does, it does them without threats.  So maybe nukes are some kind of exception, but why threaten them instead of using them?

I actually think most of the issues Russia is raising now are distractions.  When you see Russia try to create some drama, consider the last bit of news reporting you saw on Russia.  Maybe they were being accused of war crimes, and wanted the media to change the subject.  Maybe their prestiguous capital ship had blown up or their bridge symbolizing a connection with Crimea had been damaged.  I think Russia seeks to distract the news from events like that, which is why you hear about grain shipments stopping and starting.  The news media has no patience or persistence these days, so distraction works quite well.

[pecunia]

Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia.  Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what?  Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst?  Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.

Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks.  Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons.  They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.

It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine.  The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand.  Experience is the best teacher.

But that won't happen. Even if the Ukrainians wanted to do that and not have their hands full, that is a real red line.
That's what would rally the Russians for the war, not against it, and it would mean atomic bomb is now "legal" by Russian doctrine, if you stretch it jsut a little bit.
I think that is what is behind the formula of "Russia cannot (is not allowed to meaning) win the war" that politicians have used while avoiding "Ukraine must win". If Russia get repelled from Ukrainian territory, Russia has not won. But you could also say it has not lost. But if the war moves to Russian territory, Russia has lost.

Bill Browder, who is near the top of Putin's enemies list, would disagree.  Russia getting expelled from Ukraine would be seen as weakness by the Russian people, and they would not tolerate that of Putin.  According to Mr Browder, in that situation Putin would be gone in a weekend.

It's unclear how many usable nuclear missiles Russia has, as they are expensive to maintain - especially for a government fueled by corruption.  If Russia was able to hit Ukraine with a nuclear explosion, if the radiation drifted into Europe that would be an act of war.  In that case, I hope the U.S. uses conventional missiles to blow up every workplace, home and school used by Russian hackers.  Get some revenge for the Solar Winds hack - and avoid retaliating with nukes, if possible.

All of the horrific things Russia has done have never been threats.  Their military exercises were not an invasion - until they were.  Russia's soldiers torture and kill civilians - again without a threat.  They target civilians with missiles - no threat there, either.  If you look at the evil things Russia does, it does them without threats.  So maybe nukes are some kind of exception, but why threaten them instead of using them?

I actually think most of the issues Russia is raising now are distractions.  When you see Russia try to create some drama, consider the last bit of news reporting you saw on Russia.  Maybe they were being accused of war crimes, and wanted the media to change the subject.  Maybe their prestiguous capital ship had blown up or their bridge symbolizing a connection with Crimea had been damaged.  I think Russia seeks to distract the news from events like that, which is why you hear about grain shipments stopping and starting.  The news media has no patience or persistence these days, so distraction works quite well.

I guess all this just confirms what Bullwinkle and Rocky were trying to tell me years ago.

[sonofsven]

Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia.  Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what?  Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst?  Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.

Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks.  Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons.  They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.

It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine.  The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand.  Experience is the best teacher.

But that won't happen. Even if the Ukrainians wanted to do that and not have their hands full, that is a real red line.
That's what would rally the Russians for the war, not against it, and it would mean atomic bomb is now "legal" by Russian doctrine, if you stretch it jsut a little bit.
I think that is what is behind the formula of "Russia cannot (is not allowed to meaning) win the war" that politicians have used while avoiding "Ukraine must win". If Russia get repelled from Ukrainian territory, Russia has not won. But you could also say it has not lost. But if the war moves to Russian territory, Russia has lost.

Bill Browder, who is near the top of Putin's enemies list, would disagree.  Russia getting expelled from Ukraine would be seen as weakness by the Russian people, and they would not tolerate that of Putin.  According to Mr Browder, in that situation Putin would be gone in a weekend.

It's unclear how many usable nuclear missiles Russia has, as they are expensive to maintain - especially for a government fueled by corruption.  If Russia was able to hit Ukraine with a nuclear explosion, if the radiation drifted into Europe that would be an act of war.  In that case, I hope the U.S. uses conventional missiles to blow up every workplace, home and school used by Russian hackers.  Get some revenge for the Solar Winds hack - and avoid retaliating with nukes, if possible.

All of the horrific things Russia has done have never been threats.  Their military exercises were not an invasion - until they were.  Russia's soldiers torture and kill civilians - again without a threat.  They target civilians with missiles - no threat there, either.  If you look at the evil things Russia does, it does them without threats.  So maybe nukes are some kind of exception, but why threaten them instead of using them?

I actually think most of the issues Russia is raising now are distractions.  When you see Russia try to create some drama, consider the last bit of news reporting you saw on Russia.  Maybe they were being accused of war crimes, and wanted the media to change the subject.  Maybe their prestiguous capital ship had blown up or their bridge symbolizing a connection with Crimea had been damaged.  I think Russia seeks to distract the news from events like that, which is why you hear about grain shipments stopping and starting.  The news media has no patience or persistence these days, so distraction works quite well.

I guess all this just confirms what Bullwinkle and Rocky were trying to tell me years ago.

Here's a culture critics take on "Moose and Squirrel" : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-bullwinkle-taught-kids-sophisticated-political-satire-180964803/
I remember the "goof gas" episode she is referring to. The goof gas was designed to make Congress stupid (hmmm) but Bullwinkle proudly claimed that he would be immune to the effects because of his "built in stupidity".

[Travis]

It seems hard to believe, given Russia's poor performance over the past nine months.  However, they've had a fair amount of time to entrench in Kherson, and reportedly have the best of their forces located there, and Ukraine hasn't been pressing them particularly hard, so perhaps they are showing a tiny bit of competence?

The rumors of a Russian retreat started almost a month ago with people reporting that Russian senior officers moved their command posts to the other side of the river once it looked like the bridges weren't coming back and the ferries started getting hit. Other reports in the last two weeks stating the pro-Russian civilian leadership was quietly moving, then the looting picked up, then a few days ago reports of the better Russian units being replaced with conscripts. Yesterday Shoigu declared the Russian intention to withdraw. In the last 24 hours, Ukrainian forces are confirmed to have taken Kyselivka and Snihurivka which were critical to the Russian frontline after the last major offensive.

Whether this is a no-kidding full retreat of the Kherson front remains to be seen, but the evidence is piling up daily. What I'm curious to see is how much has already been completed and we missed it, whether Ukraine is attacking or just occupying evacuated ground, and just how many troops and equipment Russia can remove or get left behind.

[PeteD01]

Kherson city has been liberated - Slava Ukraini:


https://twitter.com/i/status/1591114773281656832

[zolotiyeruki]

And this puts Russian forces in southern Ukraine in a tough spot, because everything between Kherson and Crimea is within HIMARS range.  I've heard it suggested that Russia's retreat from Kherson was forced by their difficulty in supplying their forces west of the Dnipro River.  Well, now the land bridges from Crimea are in range, and there aren't many roads or railroads between Crimea and Ukraine in the first place.  So if Ukraine severs those supply links, Russia will have to supply their forces all the way from Rostov and Donbas.

[Glenstache]

And this puts Russian forces in southern Ukraine in a tough spot, because everything between Kherson and Crimea is within HIMARS range.  I've heard it suggested that Russia's retreat from Kherson was forced by their difficulty in supplying their forces west of the Dnipro River.  Well, now the land bridges from Crimea are in range, and there aren't many roads or railroads between Crimea and Ukraine in the first place.  So if Ukraine severs those supply links, Russia will have to supply their forces all the way from Rostov and Donbas.

The way things have unfolded in Ukraine reminds me of the Bradley Quote, "Amateurs strategy. Professionals talk logistics."

[Travis]

And this puts Russian forces in southern Ukraine in a tough spot, because everything between Kherson and Crimea is within HIMARS range.  I've heard it suggested that Russia's retreat from Kherson was forced by their difficulty in supplying their forces west of the Dnipro River.  Well, now the land bridges from Crimea are in range, and there aren't many roads or railroads between Crimea and Ukraine in the first place.  So if Ukraine severs those supply links, Russia will have to supply their forces all the way from Rostov and Donbas.

The land north of Crimea and south of the river is fed by a rail line and highway coming from the south and east. The Crimean rail line is barely functional thanks to the strike last month, and the east/west rail is in danger of becoming frontline property if/when Ukraine decides to finally attack from the Zap/southern Donbas direction. Satellite photos show Russians already digging trenches south of the river, and if an attack southwest from Zap materializes that area will be difficult to supply.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face.
China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally.

For more than 2000 years. They have made it into a art. Have you heard of tribute trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China

That article suggests it was nothing more than symbolic.

"The political sacrifice of participating actors was simply "symbolic obeisance".[8] Actors within the "tribute system" were virtually autonomous and carried out their own agendas despite sending tribute"

[LennStar]

China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face.
China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally.

For more than 2000 years. They have made it into a art. Have you heard of tribute trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China

That article suggests it was nothing more than symbolic.

"The political sacrifice of participating actors was simply "symbolic obeisance".[8] Actors within the "tribute system" were virtually autonomous and carried out their own agendas despite sending tribute"

Yes, but it's the firs step. The point is that China has a long experience in being the one on the top and letting others do what they want despite official independence.

[pecunia]

China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face.
China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally.

For more than 2000 years. They have made it into a art. Have you heard of tribute trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China

That article suggests it was nothing more than symbolic.

"The political sacrifice of participating actors was simply "symbolic obeisance".[8] Actors within the "tribute system" were virtually autonomous and carried out their own agendas despite sending tribute"

Yes, but it's the firs step. The point is that China has a long experience in being the one on the top and letting others do what they want despite official independence.

Russia has had a lot of their good people leave the country.  After this war, they will see how they need to develop, but will not have the people or resources to do it.  They will remain a de facto pariah country to the Western nations.  The Chinese have 1.4 billion people and are losing world markets.  They need to diversify.  The vacuum that Russia created by the people leaving the country can be filled by Chinese workers.  China has often used their own workers on their overseas belt and road initiative projects rather than using locals.  Is it so difficult to imagine entire Chinese industries moving into sparsely populated Siberia to develop resources needed for the Chinese economy?  The Russians moved many populations around when Stalin was in charge.

As parts of Russia become increasingly Chinese, the Chinese can use the same arguments the Russians used about the predominantly Russian areas of Ukraine.  This time the argument can be made that the areas have become predominantly Han Chinese.  The takeover will be quick and painless for this land now held by Russia to become a part of China.

Of course nobody can tell me I am wrong because it sill take a generation or two and we will all be gone.

[lemanfan]

A friend of a friend just managed to send a message to Russia in a rather distinct way:

https://twitter.com/leifnixon/status/1592449231276892161

The words written as a message says "Do you remember Svensksund, you Russian f**ks?"

The words spoken at the end says "From Sweden with love, FIRE"

[zolotiyeruki]

Two missiles crossed the border into Poland, killing two poles.  It's not clear yet whether they were Russian missiles aimed at Lviv that got the wrong targeting info or otherwise went astray, or Ukrainian SAMs that missed their targets, or remnants of destroyed Russian missiles.  In any case, it has a LOT of people riled up.

I still don't quite get why we aren't giving Ukraine ATACMS so that they can reach deeper into Russian-held territory.  I keep hearing "it'd be an escalation!" but I'm having trouble imagining how Russia could escalate in response.  The only thing they *haven't* done yet is drop a nuke, and I don't see that happening in response to NATO supplying longer-range missiles.

[pecunia]

Two missiles crossed the border into Poland, killing two poles.  It's not clear yet whether they were Russian missiles aimed at Lviv that got the wrong targeting info or otherwise went astray, or Ukrainian SAMs that missed their targets, or remnants of destroyed Russian missiles.  In any case, it has a LOT of people riled up.

I still don't quite get why we aren't giving Ukraine ATACMS so that they can reach deeper into Russian-held territory.  I keep hearing "it'd be an escalation!" but I'm having trouble imagining how Russia could escalate in response.  The only thing they *haven't* done yet is drop a nuke, and I don't see that happening in response to NATO supplying longer-range missiles.

Jake Broe did a video featuring possible reasons why.  You may find it interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs

He had the idea that I hadn't thought of.   Perhaps the Russian anti missile defense will work on the larger longer range ATACMS.  However, it appears to be only Jake's conjecture.

MY perspective is that if there is not a hidden flaw to the use of ATACMS, then their use could cut supply lines such as the Kerch bridge and shorten this war.

[zolotiyeruki]

Two missiles crossed the border into Poland, killing two poles.  It's not clear yet whether they were Russian missiles aimed at Lviv that got the wrong targeting info or otherwise went astray, or Ukrainian SAMs that missed their targets, or remnants of destroyed Russian missiles.  In any case, it has a LOT of people riled up.

I still don't quite get why we aren't giving Ukraine ATACMS so that they can reach deeper into Russian-held territory.  I keep hearing "it'd be an escalation!" but I'm having trouble imagining how Russia could escalate in response.  The only thing they *haven't* done yet is drop a nuke, and I don't see that happening in response to NATO supplying longer-range missiles.

Jake Broe did a video featuring possible reasons why.  You may find it interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs

He had the idea that I hadn't thought of.   Perhaps the Russian anti missile defense will work on the larger longer range ATACMS.  However, it appears to be only Jake's conjecture.

MY perspective is that if there is not a hidden flaw to the use of ATACMS, then their use could cut supply lines such as the Kerch bridge and shorten this war.

Given that Russia's air defense has so far failed pretty spectacularly to stop HIMARS rockets, I don't know how much water that argument holds.

[Glenstache]

Think how much we are learning about Russian capabilities by watching their troops, command, and hardware in action. Adversaries are taking detailed  notes on how our hardware is performing too. Not showing more cards than we have to is strategically good for us. I know nothing of the logistics and trying required to deploy those advanced systems, but suspect it is not trivial.

[zolotiyeruki]

Think how much we are learning about Russian capabilities by watching their troops, command, and hardware in action. Adversaries are taking detailed  notes on how our hardware is performing too. Not showing more cards than we have to is strategically good for us. I know nothing of the logistics and trying required to deploy those advanced systems, but suspect it is not trivial.

The funny thing is that, once we've learned all this good stuff, we will likely never need to use it, because after this is all over, Russia military will be pretty much destroyed and incapable of fighting another offensive war.

[pecunia]

Think how much we are learning about Russian capabilities by watching their troops, command, and hardware in action. Adversaries are taking detailed  notes on how our hardware is performing too. Not showing more cards than we have to is strategically good for us. I know nothing of the logistics and trying required to deploy those advanced systems, but suspect it is not trivial.

The funny thing is that, once we've learned all this good stuff, we will likely never need to use it, because after this is all over, Russia military will be pretty much destroyed and incapable of fighting another offensive war.

Two things to consider:

1)  Russia is not the only game in town.  Uncle Ching has his eye on every move and his technology is developing fast with his 1.4 billion souls at his disposal.  This would be a reason to limit exposure of the weapons capabilities.

2) Technology is advancing at an exponential rather than linear rate.  This would indicate that we should give Ukraine all the good stuff.  By the time the next war comes around, the stuff will be outdated.  They had no drones in Vietnam.  Computer guided missiles weren't invented until about 1983.  I wish I could imagine the stuff they will have in the next 15 years.

[LennStar]

There is a seperate thread for the incident, just saying.

Two missiles crossed the border into Poland, killing two poles.  It's not clear yet whether they were Russian missiles aimed at Lviv that got the wrong targeting info or otherwise went astray, or Ukrainian SAMs that missed their targets, or remnants of destroyed Russian missiles.  In any case, it has a LOT of people riled up.

I still don't quite get why we aren't giving Ukraine ATACMS so that they can reach deeper into Russian-held territory.  I keep hearing "it'd be an escalation!" but I'm having trouble imagining how Russia could escalate in response.  The only thing they *haven't* done yet is drop a nuke, and I don't see that happening in response to NATO supplying longer-range missiles.

Jake Broe did a video featuring possible reasons why.  You may find it interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs

He had the idea that I hadn't thought of.   Perhaps the Russian anti missile defense will work on the larger longer range ATACMS.  However, it appears to be only Jake's conjecture.

MY perspective is that if there is not a hidden flaw to the use of ATACMS, then their use could cut supply lines such as the Kerch bridge and shorten this war.

Given that Russia's air defense has so far failed pretty spectacularly to stop HIMARS rockets, I don't know how much water that argument holds.

It all comes down to time imho. I mean even the GDR Strela (those few that actually worked) can take down a plane.

The problem with the Himars is that you have an awfully small time window in which to do anything about them. In this time you have to detect and identify them, see where they are flying and have a AAA close enough to hit. You have what, 40 seconds on average for it I think I read?
Giving it a longer range will increse flight time, and sich significantly increase the time window for reaction and for the distance an AAA can be away to be still reach in time.

[gooki]

Other reasons could be NATO wanting Russian military to bleed out/self destruct.

Giving longer range artillery may simply cause Russia to surrender quickly, leaving the Russian military with more heavy equipment to invade a neighbor at a later date.

By supplying Ukraine with just enough equipment to keep Russia involved they end up destroying more Russian equipment, greatly reducing Russia's ability to wage war in the future. And even reduce Russia's influence on global arms trade.

5 more months of conflict at the current rate of loss and Russia will be all out of combat effective military hardware, with the exception of their artillery. We're talking, no fighter jets, no combat helicopters, no tanks, no AA, no APVs. And if sanctions remain Russia will struggle to rebuild their military. We're talking approx 50 years to get to where they were at the start of 2022. Russia isn't the manufacturing super power the USSR was.

If this is the case, I'd expect only a modest response from NATO on the recent shelling of Poland.

[Michael in ABQ]

In a lot of cases the west doesn't have that many weapons to give. The reality is that this isn't WW2 where a new tank or bomber is rolling off the production line every 15 minutes. There is one plant that makes every Abrahms tank. There's probably one plant that makes every HIMARS or MLRS. They might be able to produce a few new pieces of equipment per week, but that's a huge supply chain to ramp up in an industry used to getting orders that will take years to fulfill.

It's the same thing with the munitions. Most US units don't have dozens of Javelin anti-tank missiles. They get a few each year for training and there are some deployed in combat zones and that's about it. There are no massive stockpiles of munitions like the Soviets produced because these things are expensive and buying munitions is not sexy. Buying new helicopters, tanks, and artillery is something visible a General or member of Congress can point to. A bunker full of 155mm artillery shells isn't something you can easily show off.

If the US wants to provide equipment, in many cases it would have to come from a current unit.

[LennStar]

If the US wants to provide equipment, in many cases it would have to come from a current unit.

Not a problem when 10% of your active stock dwarfs most countries whole armies.

[Michael in ABQ]

If the US wants to provide equipment, in many cases it would have to come from a current unit.

Not a problem when 10% of your active stock dwarfs most countries whole armies.

Easier said than done.  I've dealt with weapons/equipment transfers before in the Army. It's not a quick process. Weeks at least, probably months. Then you're left with the problem of reequipping that unit that was just robbed of their equipment.

Readiness in the military is a three-legged stool. People, equipment, and training. You need all three to be functional. Remove one and you're not going to be able to complete your mission.

[maizefolk]

If the US wants to provide equipment, in many cases it would have to come from a current unit.

Not a problem when 10% of your active stock dwarfs most countries whole armies.

Dwarfing most countries armies isn't much comfort when we're locked in an escalating saber rattling contest with China over the de facto independence of Taiwan.

For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.

[YttriumNitrate]

For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.

While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.

[LennStar]

For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.

While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.

Not to mention that you don't need to take those units equipment. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, I dare say one of them is not swimming there ;)

[maizefolk]

For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.

While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.

Fighting across the Strait, yes. But an invasion of Taiwan would rapidly become fending off amphibious assaults and/or block by block fighting in urban environments. At that point the equipment and material needed to fight the current war in Europe and the hypothetical war in Asia converge significantly.

[rocketpj]

For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.

While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.

Fighting across the Strait, yes. But an invasion of Taiwan would rapidly become fending off amphibious assaults and/or block by block fighting in urban environments. At that point the equipment and material needed to fight the current war in Europe and the hypothetical war in Asia converge significantly.

I'm not privy to US or Taiwan war plans, but I am fairly sure that their plans revolve largely around sending as much of China's invasion force to the bottom of the strait as possible.  They've been planning it for about 75 years, so I'd imagine they have their ranges dialed in already.

One US aircraft carrier group would be very able to succeed at such a task.  2 or more and nothing bigger than a seagull would be above sea level for long.