Ukraine

[zolotiyeruki]

I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?

Please recognize that such views are not mainstream among the GOP, let alone the party leadership.  A little skepticism about writing a blank check, sure, that's common.  But despite the disproportionate media attention paid to these guys, they're on the fringes.

The money spent on Ukraine's fight is about the best bang for the buck you can get.  A fair portion (but not all) of what we sent have been older munitions approaching the end of their shelf life, which we would otherwise have had to dispose of.  And effectively removing Russia's military power at the cost of a few tens of billions of dollars and zero American lives is the deal of a century.

There are two militaries that, prior to 2022, were thought to be strong enough that they might challenge the US:  Russia and China.  Russia is clearly not what they stacked up to be, and what they did have is getting attritted at a fantastic rate.*  That potentially frees up a lot of resources for preparing for a potential attack by China.

* Something like 500-700 Russian soldiers are dying each day.  Compare that to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--I remember how, every day, the news reported the two or three or five deaths the US forces saw that day.  Russia is losing people at two hundred times that rate.

[Jack0Life]

It’s a complex situation. I don’t like cutting checks and sending equipment to a war we aren’t fighting. But man, we waste many many billions on totally worthless stuff.

We have a long history of not knowing what we are doing, especially with Russia, so who cares.

What the US have spent in supplying Ukraine is a very small part of the military budget.
Basically the US is using the Ukraine war to find out what works and doesn't work in fighting Russia. Money well spent.

[Jack0Life]

We have no interest to defend in Ukraine… he’d probably say the same about Estonia. And Latvia. And Lithuania. Perhaps he would have said the same about the Holocaust. He’d have us huddle scared of the Russian bear while they invade country after country, building strength for the inevitable time when we have to stand up to them.  Peace is easy to achieve in Ukraine. The Russians just need to go home.

Gosar has consistently shown he’s an idiot. He’s still an idiot.

Agreed.
If Germany was stopped before it invaded so many countries, maybe there wouldn't be a WWII.
Russia need to be stopped. They took Crimea without much effort so they thought taking over Kiev would be just as easy.
Confronting Russia right now vs when they get stronger is the right thing to do.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

[bwall]

The U.S. budget allocated to defending Ukraine is some of the most efficient military spending we've ever done:
https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1605681082048946187

+1

[sixwings]

The U.S. budget allocated to defending Ukraine is some of the most efficient military spending we've ever done:
https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1605681082048946187

+1

It's basically an american job program at this point

[GuitarStv]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking.  But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine?  Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.

[Tyson]

Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'.  I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.

[Radagast]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

As satisfying as that might seem, it’s very bad strategy. Russia has been doing that and it has united Ukraine against Russia and the world behind Ukraine. If Ukraine reciprocates the world will start to fracture and turn away. Plus focusing strictly on military targets generally in Ukraine is a divide and conquer strategy. If Russians aren’t concerned for themselves and their families except when they are sent to the front they will be at best indifferent and may secretly oppose the war, which greatly reduces Russia’s effectiveness. If Ukraine attacks Russian civilians they will unite behind Putin and fight to the end.

[pecunia]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking.  But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine?  Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.

Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.

As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail.  Like any other people, they will rebel.  I have watched the You Tube videos  of 1420.  This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues.  It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them.  Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy.  Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians.  Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world.  So let's say they receive a missile or three.  It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people.  I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.

Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest.  However, they could perform a sort of work slow down.  The war effort would be stifled.  It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.

Opinions will, as always, differ.

[GuitarStv]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking.  But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine?  Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.

Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.

As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail.  Like any other people, they will rebel.  I have watched the You Tube videos  of 1420.  This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues.  It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them.  Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy.  Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians.  Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world.  So let's say they receive a missile or three.  It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people.  I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.

Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest.  However, they could perform a sort of work slow down.  The war effort would be stifled.  It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.

Opinions will, as always, differ.

You don't know what the Russian people believe.  You know that a lot of them will say they believe the lies that Putin has put forth when publicly questioned about it.  There's an important difference there.

[pecunia]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking.  But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine?  Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.

Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.

As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail.  Like any other people, they will rebel.  I have watched the You Tube videos  of 1420.  This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues.  It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them.  Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy.  Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians.  Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world.  So let's say they receive a missile or three.  It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people.  I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.

Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest.  However, they could perform a sort of work slow down.  The war effort would be stifled.  It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.

Opinions will, as always, differ.

You don't know what the Russian people believe.  You know that a lot of them will say they believe the lies that Putin has put forth when publicly questioned about it.  There's an important difference there.

Nope I haven't walked a mile in their shoes.  As for you I do believe I did have a pair of Sorel boots once so perhaps i can more closely    relate.  It's even easier with Canada only a kilometer in the Sorels.  Merry Christmas and Boxing day.

[GuitarStv]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking.  But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine?  Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.

Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.

As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail.  Like any other people, they will rebel.  I have watched the You Tube videos  of 1420.  This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues.  It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them.  Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy.  Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians.  Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world.  So let's say they receive a missile or three.  It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people.  I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.

Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest.  However, they could perform a sort of work slow down.  The war effort would be stifled.  It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.

Opinions will, as always, differ.

You don't know what the Russian people believe.  You know that a lot of them will say they believe the lies that Putin has put forth when publicly questioned about it.  There's an important difference there.

Nope I haven't walked a mile in their shoes.  As for you I do believe I did have a pair of Sorel boots once so perhaps i can more closely    relate.  It's even easier with Canada only a kilometer in the Sorels.  Merry Christmas and Boxing day.

I'm reminded of the classic soviet joke . . . "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work!".   :P

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

As satisfying as that might seem, it’s very bad strategy. Russia has been doing that and it has united Ukraine against Russia and the world behind Ukraine. If Ukraine reciprocates the world will start to fracture and turn away. Plus focusing strictly on military targets generally in Ukraine is a divide and conquer strategy. If Russians aren’t concerned for themselves and their families except when they are sent to the front they will be at best indifferent and may secretly oppose the war, which greatly reduces Russia’s effectiveness. If Ukraine attacks Russian civilians they will unite behind Putin and fight to the end.

No, Russia killing tens of thousands of civilians is not the same as strikes on a city that may cause dozens of civilian deaths.  I think people misunderstand how ugly war can be - remember veterans in your family talking about it?  No, they didn't - not to you.  They talk about it with other veterans.

Let's say Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the border.  Then what?  Russia will keep destroying Ukrainian cities.  They have no incentive to stop, unless Russians stop Putin.

Most older Russians are insanely brainwashed - their children can be in Ukraine getting shelled, and they think their own children are lying to them, rather than Putin.  There's no way that changes with a war over the border.

So what happens when Ukraine pushes Russia back to the border, and Russia keeps shelling Ukrainian cities?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking.  But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine?  Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.

Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.

As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail.  Like any other people, they will rebel.  I have watched the You Tube videos  of 1420.  This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues.  It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them.  Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy.  Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians.  Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world.  So let's say they receive a missile or three.  It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people.  I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.

Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest.  However, they could perform a sort of work slow down.  The war effort would be stifled.  It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.

Opinions will, as always, differ.

You don't know what the Russian people believe.  You know that a lot of them will say they believe the lies that Putin has put forth when publicly questioned about it.  There's an important difference there.

It's not frustration, it's cold calculation of human lives.  There is nothing changing Russia's mind at the moment.

As to what Russians believe, as I mentioned upthread I have heard a number of stories of children of Russian parents living in Ukraine.  They try to explain events they see with their own eyes - and their own parents don't believe them.  It's very deep brainwashing.  There are old people tortured by the KBG who long for those glory days again.  What is clear is that they are very comfortable ignoring the war in Ukraine, and will continue to do so unless something shakes their world view.

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

Bill Browder lived in Russia for 10 years before he exposed too much corruption and had to leave.  He has said Russians will tolerate war crimes by their government, but what they will not tolerate is weakness.  He claims if Russia is pushed back to its own borders, Putin is as good as dead.  What if that could be accelerated by showing Putin's weakness now?

[LennStar]

What if that could be accelerated by showing Putin's weakness now?

Well, yes, you might get someone worse than Putin a lot faster. The war won't end if Putin dies, and likely it would get worse if he does.

[scottish]

What if that could be accelerated by showing Putin's weakness now?

Well, yes, you might get someone worse than Putin a lot faster. The war won't end if Putin dies, and likely it would get worse if he does.

And you might not.  The prime minister - Mikhail Mishustin - isn't someone I'd vote for, but he doesn't seem to be a outright sociopath like Putin.   

Do you have any insight into other candidates for president?

[LennStar]

What if that could be accelerated by showing Putin's weakness now?

Well, yes, you might get someone worse than Putin a lot faster. The war won't end if Putin dies, and likely it would get worse if he does.

And you might not.  The prime minister - Mikhail Mishustin - isn't someone I'd vote for, but he doesn't seem to be a outright sociopath like Putin.   

Do you have any insight into other candidates for president?

That soudns like you expect there will be an election and the people, in and out of their own free will, will elect an president.
Yeah.

If I had to bet today I would say Prigozhin.

[maizefolk]

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

That's what the Nazi's thought they were doing to the British when they launched the London Blitz. That's what the allies thought when we firebombed Dresden. We tried it when we bombed Pyongyang and Hanoi. The Irish tried bombing London to show the british that the war was coming to them.

"Capital strikes intended to push a government toward conciliation or retreat instead do much to close off those options. ...The public will often reach the same calculus, coming to see their attacker as an implacable threat that can only be neutralized through defeat. The stiffening resolve inspired by such strikes can be equal parts strategic and emotional."

The New York Times had a great article back in October walking through the failed and counterproductive history of bombing capitals believing it will cause a country's common people to reduce their support for a war rather than increase it.

[TomTX]

I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?

Well, also because Biden supports it - hardcores have to automatically oppose it, no matter what.

[LennStar]

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

That's what the Nazi's thought they were doing to the British when they launched the London Blitz. That's what the allies thought when we firebombed Dresden. We tried it when we bombed Pyongyang and Hanoi. The Irish tried bombing London to show the british that the war was coming to them.

"Capital strikes intended to push a government toward conciliation or retreat instead do much to close off those options. ...The public will often reach the same calculus, coming to see their attacker as an implacable threat that can only be neutralized through defeat. The stiffening resolve inspired by such strikes can be equal parts strategic and emotional."

The New York Times had a great article back in October walking through the failed and counterproductive history of bombing capitals believing it will cause a country's common people to reduce their support for a war rather than increase it.

Or you can view it like that: It's an attack. People have 2 deeply ingrained reponses to an attack: Either flee or fight.
Even if they could flee, they don't want to. So they fight.

[pecunia]

All they need do is plant small bombs at Russian oil refineries.  Places like that want to burn.  They don't take much encouragement. This will remove much of the Russian's capacity to wage war.  It will also irritate the general populace as fuel prices will rise.  How long will it take to repair a burned out oil refinery?  No more Western aid is available.  Then, sit back and blame the smokers.  Any smoking gun should be left in the charred remains.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

That's what the Nazi's thought they were doing to the British when they launched the London Blitz. That's what the allies thought when we firebombed Dresden. We tried it when we bombed Pyongyang and Hanoi. The Irish tried bombing London to show the british that the war was coming to them.

"Capital strikes intended to push a government toward conciliation or retreat instead do much to close off those options. ...The public will often reach the same calculus, coming to see their attacker as an implacable threat that can only be neutralized through defeat. The stiffening resolve inspired by such strikes can be equal parts strategic and emotional."

The New York Times had a great article back in October walking through the failed and counterproductive history of bombing capitals believing it will cause a country's common people to reduce their support for a war rather than increase it.

And again, I did not say to wipe Moscow off the map, firebomb it, or try to kill tens of thousands of civilians like the examples you cited.  I said:

No, Russia killing tens of thousands of civilians is not the same as strikes on a city that may cause dozens of civilian deaths.

Maybe I can say it like this - attack Russian structures with symbolic value in a way that avoids hundreds of deaths.  But shock Russians who think the war is only in Ukraine, and cannot impact Russia.

In the Vietnam war, the most wasteful thing the Viet Cong did was launch an attack that caused a large portion of their veteran troops to get killed.  U.S. forces had greater mobility than expected by helicopter... but the Tet offensive actually ended the war, because Americans had been told lies for years - and the Tet offensive laid bare those lies.  Same idea here - this is not a "special operation" but a war between Russia and Ukraine.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

If Russia gets pushed back to their borders, then what?  If Bill Browder is right, Putin will not want to show weakness, so won't he continue the war rather than admit he lost?  Even with no Ukrainian territory left occupied, why would Russia stop bombing civilian targets in Ukraine?

When Ukraine blew up part of the bridge connecting Crimea, how many people complained of war crimes?  Of killing innocent people driving on the bridge?  That is exactly the kind of attack which shocks Russians at minimal cost in lives.

[zolotiyeruki]

If Russia gets pushed back to their borders, then what?  If Bill Browder is right, Putin will not want to show weakness, so won't he continue the war rather than admit he lost?  Even with no Ukrainian territory left occupied, why would Russia stop bombing civilian targets in Ukraine?

When Ukraine blew up part of the bridge connecting Crimea, how many people complained of war crimes?  Of killing innocent people driving on the bridge?  That is exactly the kind of attack which shocks Russians at minimal cost in lives.

Here's one "then what": Currently, under the NATO charter, nations can't be accepted if they have contested borders.  Once Russia is out of Ukraine, Ukraine can say "leave us alone, or we'll apply for NATO membership."  Russia does NOT want NATO at its doorstep, and that's one reason Finland didn't apply until Russia showed itself to be a threat to Europe (and also incompetent).

[TomTX]

Here's one "then what": Currently, under the NATO charter, nations can't be accepted if they have contested borders.  Once Russia is out of Ukraine, Ukraine can say "leave us alone, or we'll apply for NATO membership."  Russia does NOT want NATO at its doorstep, and that's one reason Finland didn't apply until Russia showed itself to be a threat to Europe (and also incompetent).

Um, Back in September Zelenskiy signed the application for fast-track NATO membership for Ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-says-ukraine-applying-nato-membership-2022-09-30/

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Here's one "then what": Currently, under the NATO charter, nations can't be accepted if they have contested borders.  Once Russia is out of Ukraine, Ukraine can say "leave us alone, or we'll apply for NATO membership."  Russia does NOT want NATO at its doorstep, and that's one reason Finland didn't apply until Russia showed itself to be a threat to Europe (and also incompetent).

Um, Back in September Zelenskiy signed the application for fast-track NATO membership for Ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-says-ukraine-applying-nato-membership-2022-09-30/

I think there is a confusion on zolo's part with the requirements to join the EU, which does have uncontested borders as a prerequisite; NATO doesn't have any such requirement.

The Zelensky application is more of a symbolic gesture since there is little chance of approval by all 30 members in the current environment.

[LennStar]

I think Zelensky signed the Ukrainian decision to join NATO, not the official "I want to join" document??

Anyway, nobody may join NATO that is in an active war so he can send as many applications he wants to, it won't help. 

If Russia gets pushed back to their borders, then what?  If Bill Browder is right, Putin will not want to show weakness, so won't he continue the war rather than admit he lost?  Even with no Ukrainian territory left occupied, why would Russia stop bombing civilian targets in Ukraine?

When Ukraine blew up part of the bridge connecting Crimea, how many people complained of war crimes?  Of killing innocent people driving on the bridge?  That is exactly the kind of attack which shocks Russians at minimal cost in lives.

It was not a war crime. It is not a war crime to attack a valid target military target (and there is probably not one building in the whole war more important than that bridge) even if you know it will kill civilians. It is a matter of weighting and trying your best. You could say the reality of war.
Or do you think you would stop fighting because Russia has put a civilian on the turret of each tank?

[gooki]

Ukraine will join NATO.

Any agreements with Russia cannot be trusted. The only way to keep Russian imperial expansion at bay is to be part of a larger defensive force.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

If Russia gets pushed back to their borders, then what?  If Bill Browder is right, Putin will not want to show weakness, so won't he continue the war rather than admit he lost?  Even with no Ukrainian territory left occupied, why would Russia stop bombing civilian targets in Ukraine?

When Ukraine blew up part of the bridge connecting Crimea, how many people complained of war crimes?  Of killing innocent people driving on the bridge?  That is exactly the kind of attack which shocks Russians at minimal cost in lives.

It was not a war crime. It is not a war crime to attack a valid target military target (and there is probably not one building in the whole war more important than that bridge) even if you know it will kill civilians. It is a matter of weighting and trying your best. You could say the reality of war.
Or do you think you would stop fighting because Russia has put a civilian on the turret of each tank?

My mistake, the civilian casaulties were not the purpose of the attack, but rather Ukraine sought to gain a military advantage by preventing the Russian military from using that bridge in its supply lines.  So it seems that is a "legitimate military target":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target

The attack on the Kerch Bridge (Crimea bridge) had military value, but it was also a hugely symbolic target.  It looks like Ukraine thinks it can shock the Russian populace without directly attacking Moscow.

"A fourth implication is that this is a psychological blow against Russia. An attack on military targets deep inside Russia’s borders will cause consternation among a public who thought they were largely insulated from the effects of the war (besides mobilisation, that is)"
https://mickryan.substack.com/p/russian-airfield-attacks-ukraine?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf

Could a drone strike a specific spire of the Kremlin?  Once it nears the target, it can get a visual and attack - or are the chances too high of it going off course, and killing civilians?  Drone strikes, if precise, could be a way to hit symbolic targets with military value (like the Kremlin) while avoiding civilian deaths.  But I suspect shocking people with attacks on Moscow requires risking civilian deaths - which may not be a war crime if those deaths are incidental, and not the purpose.

[LennStar]

Imho the Ukrainians are doing those psycological attacks by attacking military bases deep inside Russia.

If those are not safe, what is?

[nereo]

@MustacheAndaHalf - I had a lengthy, detailed response but the computer ate it. However, I’ve point I’d like to contest is that Russia has somehow avoided “paying a cost” for invading Ukraine.

To me, it seems like this has become a historically costly military campaign for very little (and quite possibly almost zero) gain. The current cost is blood and treasure makes this one of the costliest wars in the last few generations for Russia. Over the next decade the cost of deminished political and global trade combined with a significantly smaller core workforce will likely cause years of contraction when they should have been growing.   And not to put too broad a point, but at least some of this has forced by western nations.

I think targeting Moscow would be a terrible idea, as Russia will suffer more greatly from its current role as a hostile force in a foreign state that’s supported by multiple nations with better equipment than they are left with

[zolotiyeruki]

@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.

In the aggregate, though, here's a list of long-term impacts off the top of my head:
--Over 100,000 able-bodied males killed
--Probably a similar number wounded that will need medical care, ranging from minor to life-altering*
--A permanent, near-100% loss of natural gas revenue to Europe.
--Various sanctions inhibiting technology imports, capping oil prices, etc
--Acceleration of the demise of the Russian Space program, since nobody will want to launch through them
--Several hundred thousand people, who had the means to do so, have fled the country.  How many of them will want to return?
--Long-term financial sanctions inhibiting global trade
--Hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets
--Their military might is substantially destroyed--the bulk of their tanks, APCs, etc.  They're losing hard-to-replace aircraft and helicopters, some of which are out of production and cannot be replaced. They've sent their training personnel into Ukraine, making training new recruits less effective.
--The reputation of Russia's military equipment, and their ability to build it, has been tremendously damaged.
--Russia's reputation in general is in the toilet.  Nobody's going to trust them, ever again.
--The war has forced Europe to actually recognize the threat that Russia represents, and so Europe is arming up.
--Sweden and Finland are joining NATO.  Russia says they're worried about western aggression, and historically, they have a point, although I would argue that the foundations for such a worry are no longer extant, let alone relevant.  The baltic states, Ukraine, Finland, etc represented a buffer between NATO and Russia.  Well, With Sweden and Finland in NATO, Russia now has the 'enemy' right on their doorstep, and we all know how well Russia does when fighting Finland...


* - For Western nations with better tactics, training, discipline, and field medicine, you'd expect a 3:1 wounded:dead ratio, but Russia is lacking all of those things, so they leave a lot more wounded to die.

[pecunia]

@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.

In the aggregate, though, here's a list of long-term impacts off the top of my head:
--Over 100,000 able-bodied males killed
--Probably a similar number wounded that will need medical care, ranging from minor to life-altering*
--A permanent, near-100% loss of natural gas revenue to Europe.
--Various sanctions inhibiting technology imports, capping oil prices, etc
--Acceleration of the demise of the Russian Space program, since nobody will want to launch through them
--Several hundred thousand people, who had the means to do so, have fled the country.  How many of them will want to return?
--Long-term financial sanctions inhibiting global trade
--Hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets
--Their military might is substantially destroyed--the bulk of their tanks, APCs, etc.  They're losing hard-to-replace aircraft and helicopters, some of which are out of production and cannot be replaced. They've sent their training personnel into Ukraine, making training new recruits less effective.
--The reputation of Russia's military equipment, and their ability to build it, has been tremendously damaged.
--Russia's reputation in general is in the toilet.  Nobody's going to trust them, ever again.
--The war has forced Europe to actually recognize the threat that Russia represents, and so Europe is arming up.
--Sweden and Finland are joining NATO.  Russia says they're worried about western aggression, and historically, they have a point, although I would argue that the foundations for such a worry are no longer extant, let alone relevant.  The baltic states, Ukraine, Finland, etc represented a buffer between NATO and Russia.  Well, With Sweden and Finland in NATO, Russia now has the 'enemy' right on their doorstep, and we all know how well Russia does when fighting Finland...


* - For Western nations with better tactics, training, discipline, and field medicine, you'd expect a 3:1 wounded:dead ratio, but Russia is lacking all of those things, so they leave a lot more wounded to die.

Most of these hurt Russia in the long term.  Putin and his cohorts are old KGB farts and I'm thinking they just don't care.  They want to restore the glory of Russia before they go to that spy headquarters in the sky.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

@MustacheAndaHalf - I had a lengthy, detailed response but the computer ate it. However, I’ve point I’d like to contest is that Russia has somehow avoided “paying a cost” for invading Ukraine.

Then you had a lengthy response where you misquote me.

Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.

Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing.  What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.

Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.

[nereo]

@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.

Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing.  What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.

Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.

I fail to see the difference here. 
Russia is paying an enormous cost, and a core component for that is the support of western nations, who are providing continued aide Ukraine in part because they are so outraged by the war crimes you reference.

How is that not ‘paying a cost’?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.

Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing.  What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.

Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.

I fail to see the difference here. 
Russia is paying an enormous cost, and a core component for that is the support of western nations, who are providing continued aide Ukraine in part because they are so outraged by the war crimes you reference.

How is that not ‘paying a cost’?

Russia paid a cost for invading Ukraine.  It then began targetting civilians, and no additional costs were imposed on Russia for that behavior.  So Russia is not "paying a cost" for its attacks on civilians, over and above any cost it paid in starting the war.

[BNgarden]

Another internal cost Russia seems to be paying, if this thread is accurate: criminals' easy access to weapons from the front.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1606249858926612485.html

[nereo]

@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.

Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing.  What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.

Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.

I fail to see the difference here. 
Russia is paying an enormous cost, and a core component for that is the support of western nations, who are providing continued aide Ukraine in part because they are so outraged by the war crimes you reference.

How is that not ‘paying a cost’?

Russia paid a cost for invading Ukraine.  It then began targetting civilians, and no additional costs were imposed on Russia for that behavior.  So Russia is not "paying a cost" for its attacks on civilians, over and above any cost it paid in starting the war.

Again, I believe this is wrong, that additional costs have been imposed on Russia for their behavior.

Just look at the aide which was supplied to Ukraine back in February/March vs several months in.  At first the US was supplying “no lethal weapons”.  Then we quickly started supplying short-range, limited use and largely defensive weapons (e.g. Javelin anti-tank misses) precisely when it became clear that Russia was hitting civilian targets and creating a humanitarian catastrophy. Then the way more complex HIMARS with precision-guided munitions with a 50mi range came as Russia started shelling cities into rubble. Now we’ve pledged our most advanced Patriot missle system, which takes an entire platoon to operate effectively. Or just look at the budget allocations, where the US just added another $44.9B on top of three earlier (and smaller) packages.

Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.

[Vashy]

Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.

This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed in Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.

What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.

[pecunia]

Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.

This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed in Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.

What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.

Well - As I remember it Mr. Obama was still president in 2014.  Had this man made more of an effort to keep the Russians out of Ukraine, he would have faced stiff opposition from the republican rascals.  There was stiff opposition to anything he tried to do.

[TomTX]

Or just look at the budget allocations, where the US just added another $44.9B on top of three earlier (and smaller) packages.

Nitpicking a bit, but it's really more like $33B. $12.9B is for replenishing US stocks of weapons to backfill what had been sent to Ukraine. The value was already accounted for in prior packages when the original weapons were shipped.

[nereo]

Or just look at the budget allocations, where the US just added another $44.9B on top of three earlier (and smaller) packages.

Nitpicking a bit, but it's really more like $33B. $12.9B is for replenishing US stocks of weapons to backfill what had been sent to Ukraine. The value was already accounted for in prior packages when the original weapons were shipped.

Ah, thanks for that correction

[zolotiyeruki]

@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price.  If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.

Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing.  What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.

Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.

I fail to see the difference here. 
Russia is paying an enormous cost, and a core component for that is the support of western nations, who are providing continued aide Ukraine in part because they are so outraged by the war crimes you reference.

How is that not ‘paying a cost’?

Russia paid a cost for invading Ukraine.  It then began targetting civilians, and no additional costs were imposed on Russia for that behavior.  So Russia is not "paying a cost" for its attacks on civilians, over and above any cost it paid in starting the war.

Russia targeted civilians from the outset.  Remember Bucha and Mariupol?

[BicycleB]

Ran across a Quora question on Bakhmut; liked the answer below from https://www.quora.com/profile/Toma%C5%BE-Vargazon, underneath the question link.

https://www.quora.com/The-Russians-are-attempting-to-encircle-Bakhmut-The-UK-Ministry-of-Defense-is-claiming-the-capture-of-Bakhmut-has-limited-operational-value-while-Ret-Gen-Wesley-Clarke-has-warned-Ukraine-to-hold-the-town-What-is

We may have been overthinking this battle of Bakhmut. There may be a simple, logical explanation for Russian fixation on Bakhmut, one that makes perfect sense, given Russian predicament.

Battle of Verdun, but it might as well be Bakhmut (photo of men in trenches)

The Russian predicament is quite precarious, Ukrainians are generating fresh forces much more rapidly than Russians, logistical situation of Russian army ranges from poor to attrocious, weapons stocks are dwindling, production is stalling, European resolve is unmoved. Russia needs breathing room, it needs a few months of peace to consolidate their forces, train fresh units and above all, to show Europeans the benefits of peace. So long as there is war, Ukraine will be supported come hell or high water. However if Russia manages to freeze the conflict aid to Ukraine is likely to take the backseat as Europe deals with their unenviable domestic situation. Therefore a cease fire and peace talks are what Kremlin wants, even if only as a temporary respite while they get their army in order.

To that end Russia must attack, to force Ukrainians to concessions, or at least prevent them from taking yet more ground. It doesn’t matter so much where it attacks, just that it does attack and fixes Ukrainian troops so they cannot be used for offensive purposes. Russian command structure is so poor they can’t effectively respond to Ukrainian attacks to launch their own counterattacks, so they need a position to launch attacks from.

It just so happens Bakhmut is where Russian ability to launch offensive operations is the highest, so that’s where they attack. Bakhmut is secondary to Russians, all they’re trying to do is have a front line where they aren’t losing ground and ties up a siezable number of Ukrainian troops and war materiel. The cost in blood is severe, but that’s a price the Kremlin is willing to pay.

Looking at Bakhmut from this perspective the whole thing begins to make sense. Russians aren’t really after Bakhmut, the battle is just the way they attempt to secure a cease fire and support defensive positions along more vulnerable areas of the front. It’s not a great plan, it’s not even a particularily good plan, but it might be the very best the depleted Russian army is still able to offer.

[pecunia]

Ran across a Quora question on Bakhmut; liked the answer below from https://www.quora.com/profile/Toma%C5%BE-Vargazon, underneath the question link.

https://www.quora.com/The-Russians-are-attempting-to-encircle-Bakhmut-The-UK-Ministry-of-Defense-is-claiming-the-capture-of-Bakhmut-has-limited-operational-value-while-Ret-Gen-Wesley-Clarke-has-warned-Ukraine-to-hold-the-town-What-is

We may have been overthinking this battle of Bakhmut. There may be a simple, logical explanation for Russian fixation on Bakhmut, one that makes perfect sense, given Russian predicament.

Battle of Verdun, but it might as well be Bakhmut (photo of men in trenches)

The Russian predicament is quite precarious, Ukrainians are generating fresh forces much more rapidly than Russians, logistical situation of Russian army ranges from poor to attrocious, weapons stocks are dwindling, production is stalling, European resolve is unmoved. Russia needs breathing room, it needs a few months of peace to consolidate their forces, train fresh units and above all, to show Europeans the benefits of peace. So long as there is war, Ukraine will be supported come hell or high water. However if Russia manages to freeze the conflict aid to Ukraine is likely to take the backseat as Europe deals with their unenviable domestic situation. Therefore a cease fire and peace talks are what Kremlin wants, even if only as a temporary respite while they get their army in order.

To that end Russia must attack, to force Ukrainians to concessions, or at least prevent them from taking yet more ground. It doesn’t matter so much where it attacks, just that it does attack and fixes Ukrainian troops so they cannot be used for offensive purposes. Russian command structure is so poor they can’t effectively respond to Ukrainian attacks to launch their own counterattacks, so they need a position to launch attacks from.

It just so happens Bakhmut is where Russian ability to launch offensive operations is the highest, so that’s where they attack. Bakhmut is secondary to Russians, all they’re trying to do is have a front line where they aren’t losing ground and ties up a siezable number of Ukrainian troops and war materiel. The cost in blood is severe, but that’s a price the Kremlin is willing to pay.

Looking at Bakhmut from this perspective the whole thing begins to make sense. Russians aren’t really after Bakhmut, the battle is just the way they attempt to secure a cease fire and support defensive positions along more vulnerable areas of the front. It’s not a great plan, it’s not even a particularily good plan, but it might be the very best the depleted Russian army is still able to offer.

Perhaps the cost to the Russians is not so great.  They take convicts and force them to make suicide runs against the Ukrainians.  Dead convicts don't have to be housed and fed.  They don't even pay fro the bullet that kills the convicts.  UKrainians state that Russians don't even pick up the dead bodies from the battlefield.

[gooki]

And the UA/allies happily taunt Russia on the frutality of attacking Bakhmut, to ensure Russia keeps filling the grinder with fresh meat.

[Radagast]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

As satisfying as that might seem, it’s very bad strategy. Russia has been doing that and it has united Ukraine against Russia and the world behind Ukraine. If Ukraine reciprocates the world will start to fracture and turn away. Plus focusing strictly on military targets generally in Ukraine is a divide and conquer strategy. If Russians aren’t concerned for themselves and their families except when they are sent to the front they will be at best indifferent and may secretly oppose the war, which greatly reduces Russia’s effectiveness. If Ukraine attacks Russian civilians they will unite behind Putin and fight to the end.

No, Russia killing tens of thousands of civilians is not the same as strikes on a city that may cause dozens of civilian deaths.  I think people misunderstand how ugly war can be - remember veterans in your family talking about it?  No, they didn't - not to you.  They talk about it with other veterans.

???

Let's say Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the border.  Then what?  Russia will keep destroying Ukrainian cities.  They have no incentive to stop, unless Russians stop Putin.

Most older Russians are insanely brainwashed - their children can be in Ukraine getting shelled, and they think their own children are lying to them, rather than Putin.  There's no way that changes with a war over the border.

?

So what happens when Ukraine pushes Russia back to the border, and Russia keeps shelling Ukrainian cities?

That's what I've been wondering. I strongly disagree that symbolic attacks which kill civilians are a good strategy. They will likely unite Russians and erode vital international support for Ukraine. I think the best strategy will be to attack assets used to attack Ukraine, which is already being done in Crimea and recently the long range bomber base. Beyond that the means of military production are probably Russia's most vulnerable area: they are likely in old Soviet facilities and lacking in redundancy, while the Russians are not particularly resourceful. Bombing missile, shell, tank, and other factories could be highly successful and importantly doesn't rely on assumptions about how Russia will react. A big problem is that the world is deeply respectful of Russia, to a fault, so Ukraine probably needs to develop the means of those deep facilities itself.

[Radagast]

Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.

This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.

What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.

I wonder how much Ukraine was even on its own map. In 2010 I met a Ukrainian-American in Moscow who was having a great time visiting all the museums and getting in at the discount local rate because nobody could tell from his accent that he was not local. He definitely seemed to think that Ukraine and Russia were BFFs, and that strongly influenced my thinking on the topic until 2022. My impression is that Ukraine was very friendly to Russia after the USSR ended, and was merely trying to get rid of a corrupt government. That was when they learned that fighting corruption is akin to fighting Russia, and a threat to corruption anywhere is a threat to Russia everywhere.