The_Capt

That is perfect. Now I would do the Blue defensive plan and see how they collide. I can see a really good range of scenarios already. That water crossing NW of Bonn looks epic.

You can’t make this stuff up.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polands-top-cop-injured-by-exploding-present-says-ministry-2022-12-15/ Any insights as to what this was about?

Explosive line breaching..you are now speaking my language. I have done a complex minefield breach (so 400m deep with AT ditch) onto a defensive position (wire and trenches) with plows and rollers, AEV/AVLB in 7 minutes from "mine strike, mines strike" to infantry inside the wire and in the trenches. Guys in Germany had it down to below 5 minutes. A lot faster than the flail - but no where near as cool as MCLC.

I have seen this...lotta dirt big target. Well I do not think that will do in the Ukrainian environment to be honest. So need to solve for mine warfare.

So we have three battles on that list, it is a leap to say "they have been on the lead in every operation during this war". They were leading the RA, and that did not go so well. On the UA side, there is simply too much real estate being covered for tanks to "lead" The Kherson corrosive effort was 125 kms long and the UA did not have a series of armoured punch throughs. At Kharkiv the graphics I saw had SOF and Light Infantry leading the breakout while armour held the shoulders. North of Kiev artillery blew the hell out of the Russia advance, very few tank actions but the ones that were, were intense. That RUSI report was also vague - tanks important...in the indirect fire role? I cannot come to the conclusion that "amrour leads" in this war, when we have seen way too much evidence of RA failures and UA light infantry with UAS linked back to artillery do a lot of the heavy lifting. Combined arms is happening but when and where, and why is critical to answering the future of tanks question. And again, who cares about freakin tanks? The future of military mass itself is in the wind at this point- Disperse, Dig or Die

I am not sure where everyone is from but the opinions on this thread kind of do impact the war. First of all some are close to policy makers and are drawing on this conversation to inform decisions at higher levels. Second, and more importantly, we live in western democracies so the opinions of the people count very much. I totally agree on trying to keep it above the belt, but informed decision is central to the democratic process and every conversation matters. Western democracies are not ruled by prime ministers and presidents - we rule them. And small conversations like the one's here are happening all over the internet and in every bar. If forum members go forth with a better view of the truth, or as best we can determine, then we have in some small way tried to make things better. This is why mis/dis information really needs to be hit hard, all of it. We cracked down on Bio Black sites, economic myths and a boatload of Russian lies and propaganda being pushed from some circles. We can be passionate, we can disagree but we should never become an echo chamber or any value we have in the bigger conversation, that will impact foreign policies at some point, will be lost.

Tricky. Does the UA have the capacity to take enough troops off the line for 6-12 months of training? Does the UA logistical system have the slack to be re-tooled? The West could set it up, nothing money couldn't solve. If we think this war is going to last another 12-24 months then I would seriously start thinking about it, along with a domestic Ukrainian arms industry. The UA is going to run out of Soviet-style equipment eventually and the Russian's have deeper pockets on paper. Gotta admit it is an idea.

I gotta be brutally honest here, and with due respect to the good general - the last person I would trust with an assessment of armour performance and trajectory within this war and beyond is a modern armoured general officer. Or even a Cbt Arms officer at this point. History is filled with examples of service general officers seeing what they want to through the lens of their service culture. Cavalry hated tanks. Battleship captains slagged carriers. I mean I am sure the man knows what he is talking about but I have heard so much biases coming out of western land forces on this one. I am waiting for an assessment of what the tank is actually doing because nothing is matching what doctrine says, or at least very little. I mean the RUSI report of tanks in the indirect role blew my mind. I don't think the tank is dead but its role is definitely going to evolve - we talked about that a few times now.

I cannot get over how right this sentence is. Bring them into NATO - arm the living daylights out of them. Get them to teach us about corrosive warfare and unmanned systems. But all of this is post-war or if this war goes on for 2-3 years, do it in parallel. This, is deterrence.

Sorry but I see a lotta of points of failure here. 1. In combat anything that can be damaged will be. 2. Shipping back to Poland for second line is going to be just crazy. You are going to have half those tanks out of battle in a few weeks while they slowly wind their way back across the Polish border. The UA does not have the German Army's setup. 3. River crossing are key - the RA died on at least on of them. Take a look at the map fo southern Ukraine a lot of water features and fording is one thing but snorkeling is going to be needed. 4. Mine breaching. I do not get the German Army's approach on this one. Both Canada and the Fins are employing them on theirs. In Ukraine this won't be optional in the least. I am not worried by the "limited kit" issue either to be honest - pretty low risk to take there. Still not convinced that Leo 2, M1s or whatever MBT is the way to go here. The UA is using their tanks for indirect fire right now so something is really going on there. The time and resources to create a fighting formation in the UA with all this kit is just not reasonable, and it might not make a serious difference.

I want to build on this and hit a cancerous myth that is hijacking this board - the Ukrainian nuclear backstory myth. Frankly it belongs to be in the outer darkness with the Bio Black Sites. I also think it is dangerously skewing the views of some members and feeding into some really unhealthy narratives that are counter-productive and likely going to sour things going forward. So looking this up the myth goes like this: Back in the mid 90s Ukraine had a big suite of nuclear weapons it inherited from the break up of the Soviet Union. Rather than hold onto them and being able to provide deterrence to Russian aggression almost 30 years later - Ukraine graciously decided to divest them back to Russia with the brotherly love of all mankind in their hearts. The US and other nations then promised on a stack of Bibles and pictures of Baby Jesus that should any threat befall Ukraine, they would come riding over the hills like the Riders of Rohan and smote the threat with their mighty hands. In 2014 - Russia did some shenanigan's in Donbas and Crimea, of which we all know and love, but the West yawned and went "well, are those really threats or is this kind of an internal issue?" Poor Ukraine struggled on by itself to hold off the rabid Russian Bear until 2022 when it rolled its mangy a$$ over the border. Ukraine is now calling in that nuclear favour...it is owed and "demands" the US and West honor its obligations and basically give Ukraine whatever it wants, whenever it wants because they gave up the nukes. Further it is the US and West's fault for this war in the first place because we did not smite Russia back in 2014, so pay up and be quick about it. I get the impulse and given Ukraine's position it makes sense. However, I would offer that "guilt, shame and demands" may not be the best way to go to guarantor the continued Western support Ukraine is going to need for about a decade after this war, let alone out the back end of next year. But first lets beat up on that myth: 1. Those nukes were nearly useless to Ukraine as deterrence towards Russia without significant cost and risks. Yes there were a lot of nuclear weapons but they had never been given over to Ukrainian control, they were housed in Ukraine but Russian controlled the whole time. Further, they were long range ballistic systems which were nearly useless at the tactical ranges Ukraine needed to deter Russian threats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction. Ukraine was a fledging ex-Soviet state and was hardly rolling in cash, so the option to re-tool those weapons was severely limited by resources. Finally, if Ukraine had said "screw you, we are keeping them and re-tooling them" they would have seen heavy sanctions and possible military action from Russia or the West because loose nukes makes everyone really nervous. 2. Ukraine was paid to lose the nukes, and freely took the money. Ukrainian parliament voted overwhelmingly "(301-8)" to take the payoff and get rid of the the things. This was not arm twisting or coercion, it was opportunism: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/. And smart opportunism for that matter because at the time they were more trouble than they were worth. 3. The famous "security guarantees". Promises of security for Ukraine. Not even close. These were assurances, which is diplomatic speak for "mayhaps", and Ukraine knew it. The Budapest Memo is not a security guarantee or collective security agreement, not even close. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/ It is a pretty vague agreement that the big powers would not pound on the small powers if they gave up their nukes. Also the only security resolution mechanism was the UNSC, which of course was presided over by the big powers. Ukraine is a sovereign state and had its big boy pants on when it signed this thing and knew it was tying its security on the UN Charter - https://www.icanw.org/faq_on_ukraine_and_nuclear_weapons. Which is great so long as a UNSC nation isn't the one to violate the freakin thing. The US did promise to assist Ukraine should their sovereignty be threatened but the details of that assistance were never made concrete. Frankly, given the assistance post-2014 and now I think the US is living up to its end of the agreement. So as far as legal obligation, there is not one, never was. Ukraine took the money and avoided becoming a pariah by trying to become a nuclear power. The US and West have actually delivered on assistance, to the point that Ukraine is winning this war. Further there is absolutely zero obligation to assist Ukraine in its reconstruction after this war. Here we are relying entirely on the good will and self-interests of the West, which is shaky ground on a good day. What is true is the moral obligation. How the EU got itself upside down on this whole Russian energy thing is beyond be, especially after 2014. Hell Europe is still buying Russian oil: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europe-Is-Buying-All-The-Russian-Oil-It-Can-Before-Banning-It.html. So ya, we definitely did not walk the walk on defending democracy or human rights in Ukraine against an obvious threat...we took the payoff. But before anyone jumps on that one...big.boy.pants.time. That is how the world works, as crappy and unfair as it is. We have been doing business with dictators and autocrats all over the world - Saudi Arabia looking at you - and turned a lot of blind eyes in many countries. Ukraine is getting the platinum response, it is about as good as it gets for an outside nation to be honest and if there is a shift in the political winds it could be cut off pretty quick. So "DEMAND" all you like; however, you are not entitled beyond the good will of the West and a self-interest need to ensure the global order holds against Russian aggression. You want to come on this forum and conduct a regular routine of western bashing - Germany is literally on a weekly clock - just know you are doing service to Russian interests when you do. You want to get emotional, totally understandable but 1) do not create or support mis/dis information in doing so, it is counter to everything we try to do here and 2) hold your own politicians to account when this is over, Ukraine has a obligation to itself and the decisions that led to this are not all on the West, and 3) remember that guilt and shame is not your best play here. Let me finish by perhaps expanding on the Western point of view - well US/5EYES as I cannot say I am privy to the entire western bloc. We are exhausted. 30 years of cat herding and dealing with everyone else's problems has not been rewarding. Sure we got the power and money, but for the love of gawd the endless whining and biting has really taken a shine off the whole thing. Terrorism, intra-state wars, insurgencies and now Russia is being a total dick and pushing us to the edge. There is a sentiment in the western power bases that we are sick of the rest of the world and its bullsh#t. Tired of spending endless streams of money and people on countries we wouldn't look for on a map, time zones away. Then there is the pandemic: the US lost nearly 1.1 million people, and with excess deaths that number could be over 2 million - https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm And at the end of all that we get a global economic recession in the making. So ya, snapping your fingers and waiving a Budapest Memo in our faces is likely to backfire really quickly. The US is incredibly divided right now, and frankly so is Canada as a result of COVID impacts. Good will for Ukraine is solid and damned well better hold; however, it is not guaranteed in the least. So no, you need not grovel or "by your leave here" but maybe just try and remember who is on your side in this thing and sometimes we can disagree and even say "no" without going all millennial. This thread stood up for reality when everyone thought we should get ready to bail and run on Ukraine -just this week I heard a retired Canadian 3-star say "there is no way Ukraine can secure victory in this conflict". We stood against the crazy conspiracy theories on it all being Ukraine's fault. We stood against mainstream "big money" analysist when they wrote the UA off. And we should stand for the truth even when we don't like it. If we can't do that then we should just close up this thread and we can all go to the Reddit threads of our choice and bask in those echo chambers of ignorance.

Gotta love how you are pulling numbers out of thin air without references or declaring your expertise. I guess an internet connection is all anyone needs these days. So you are talking about bringing up tank crews trained on the T-72s and converting them to the Leo 2 in a week? And cold training new crews in 3 weeks for drivers and 3 months as gunner loaders? So you came from a TDO position in an armored school? Which one? Sure you could compress training on conversion but risks go up dramatically. For example a driver with a weeks training is not going to have time to know how to handle mine ploughs and rollers, so first hillock taken to fast is going to knock out minefield breaching capability. Then there is river crossing/snorkeling - that is a major hurdle and training bill not to get crews drowned...but there are no rivers in Ukraine...no problem. As to your logistical plan of "send back to Poland", if the drivers and crew are lightly trained that is going to happen a lot more often because they will not know 1) how to avoid damaging the vehicle and 2) how to do first line repairs. And then there is the "how do you train maintainers?" issue but why confuse the issue with facts? The Pz2000 took about a solid month to get them out in ones and twos: https://eurasiantimes.com/german-monster-pzh-2000-breaking-down-in-fight-against-russia/ And of course we have reports of them breaking down along with a lot of the other western kit we sent in - not all of this is going to be crew training issues, as war is a contact sport, but it likely is not helping. The Pz2000 and other artillery were critical system that were thrown into the fight over the spring and summer, not the formed formations one would need to turn western armour and IFVs into to really make a difference. To take 100 Leo 2s and turn them into a coherent fighting force e.g. a Regiment or Battlegroup, that can do what everyone here wants them to do, from crew training, through troop and squadron, to combat team and battlegroup and finally in a formation context is going to take 6-12 months at best, if you do not want the thing flopping around the battlefield breaking itself. OR, here is a crazy idea...we give the UA the equipment it is already trained on and organized to fight on as a priority. We then pepper in critical systems that provide immediate payoff and can play to the ISR strengths we are also providing and give the critical range extensions - e.g. HIMARs. We will take risks with some systems but wholesale re-tooling of the UA ground force while it is in contact in the middle of a war is a very dumb idea.

So the 2014 - it is all the West’s fault argument. Well first of all Ukraine’s faltering democracy was not on us, high levels of corruption and one helluva crappy military did not really make Ukraine a sound investment to be brutally honest. Second, the West did what it could - provide assistance to Ukraine on many levels and helped them rebuild their military to pretty much do what is is doing now. Beyond that, not sure what else we were supposed to do besides sanctions - which definitely could have been more robust but there you go. Look basically Ukraine was not that important to the West in 2014, most couldn’t find it on the map. We were dealing with ISIL and the Arab Spring. Russia kept enough ambiguity in its little dance to keep us divided on response - and in the end we were ticked off and made symbolic gestures and angry noises. I am not sure what you would be looking for, airstrikes? I mean Russia’s actions were illegal and a challenge to the global order but not enough to really get us going. In fact if they had played it cool we likely would have simply forgotten about the whole Crimea thing and Donbas looked like a domestic situation. And then Putin went all Saddam H in 2022.

The German Army? You were told you were a trained tank crewman on the Leo 2 in a week, by the German Army? And you were told a tank platoon is ready when the crew are basically capable of not running over each other? Well if this is true then maybe Germany should be scared witless by Russia because their troop quality/training may be worse than the RA by now.

And you are basing this one what? I was an armoured engineer troop commander on the Leo 1 chassis for two years and these are conscript timelines. The Leo 1 drivers course was nearly six months to get a qualified crewman, gunners even longer. You send crews out with level of training and they will be a dead crew pretty quick because you haven’t even given them time together to learn to fight the vehicle. A week? What gong show military did you serve in where that was the standard? And how long in your professional opinion to get these incredibly poorly trained crews battle ready? A weekend? A qualified TC in a week? To fight a troop of Leo 2s? Hey let’s just do levels 3-7 in CM and roll out the Bn. Even if these were trained tank crews, say on T-72s, the Leo 2 has an entirely different FCS and fighting them with Soviet tactics won’t work. Utter amateur nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum Is this what we are talking about? Not a treaty and nothing in there about western intervention in case of violation. Russia was a signatory too and clearly violated the agreement - for the West there is no agreement outside the UNSC. But hey you made your point and position very clear - this war is as much the West’s, US specifically, fault and we owe you whatever you want like some wartime concierge while you bash us on a regular basis for not moving fast enough - good luck with that. Edit: billindc beat me to it. Thank god Ukrainian political leadership more sense than whatever this forum thread is becoming.

Seriously? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War And this does not even start to take into account training assistance or ISR support. If NATO nations were not involved in this war Ukraine would be a annexed province in the Russian Federation and we would be supporting resistance where we could. We are very involved in this war right now and if we do not stay involved in the post-war all this money and dying will be for nothing.

Well we can start with places like the Balkans, East Timor, Mail and Nigeria - hell pick a spot in the MENA and we have been through this at some level. The big ones are Iraq and Afghanistan of course - we actually had the ANA killing us in that one and we all know how it ended last summer. In fact pretty much all of our interventions over the last 30 years led us down this road - probably why the US public are really getting sick of them. “Oh wait, these are all the US’s fault!” Sure, everything is in some camps. And the west had nothing better to but go halfway around the world to try and stop someone else’s wars getting its young men killed in the process. I do not believe the Ukrainian government actually believes in the sentiments being expressed here by some but you can see how it’s gets pretty frustrating.

I agree with the first part - a quick end, followed by a quick retirement of Putin may just seal this thing off. That is a solid strategic end. Problem is how people are linking Ways and Means to this. Giving the UA another 200 tubes of artillery assumes they can generate quality crews to man then, logistics to maintain and support them, and C4ISR to integrate them. This is the problem with the “steel mountain strategy” - which is right next to the “magic bullet” strategy - it does not take into account force generation and sustainment, let alone operational integration challenges. People are convinced if we gave the UA a division worth of M1s, Leo 2s, or whatever that this thing would be over next week. Do any of you know how long it takes to create an modern armoured division with a whole new fleet of vehicles? It takes us years. Now then UA is under pressure so they will accelerate it but Ukraines military force generation is pretty fragile right now. They are still sending troops to be trained in foreign countries. Getting up to speed on how to fight and sustain M1s is not a job done in a long weekend. In fact if we had sent them on 25 Feb, I am not convinced they would be ready for prime time right now. The FCS requirements alone are pretty intense. Maybe this is a byproduct of a forum full of tactical war gamers who only see the last hour - they have very little idea of the months and years of work it takes to get that last hour to happen. The only way to get 200 tubes of anything shooting effectively and sustaining that, quickly, is if we do it ourselves and that is a non-starter. You will notice that the west has largely been sending the equipment that is easiest to set up and employ. We have reports of the guns we sent with 1/3 out of battle rates - this is not because these guns suck, it is because keeping guns in continuous action is really hard and doing it with crews who had to learn then thing very fast, used them hard and have no real logistics system to support them. So what? Keep it simple, stupid. Double down on what is working. Ramp up where we can. The West only has so much tolerance for investment in this war - we need to keep it focused and on point.

Oh goodie, another war with a begrudging and resentful partner we are supposed to arm to the teeth, be continuously told we suck and are doing it wrong, and then enjoy the post war sh#t show as we have to sink billions more into a resentful nation to keep it propped up. Seriously man, we get the frustration but why not follow the lead from your political leadership and offer a simple “thank you” now and again?

And peace and tranquillity has ruled the region to this day…

Now here is one area where I am in the “why won’t they give them?!” camp. The 600 series has the Javelin warhead and the Spike NLOS is in the same class. Spike NLOS has a 25 km range and the 600 Switchblade has a whopping 40km range. Both man portable and fits the UA approach extremely well. The 300 Switchblade is adorable but is only AP.

Well something got them out of the kitchen and I am not sure a whole lot of them dying is going to address whatever that was. Further, losing fathers, brothers etc tends to create grudges that last for generations. I would not count on flags and kisses when the UA re-takes Sevastopol or at least not from the entire population. I honestly hope I am wrong here because a long term armed occupation with this sort of baggage rarely ends well. The re-taking of Donbas and Crimea has been a concerning question to me since about May, and definitely after this fall. Ukraine has demonstrated incredible political nuance and few miss steps but if this goes sideways it could really mess up western support.

Seriously you are approaching the line where I normally get paid with this list. But here are some short shots because I love you guys that much: 1. Could be either to be honest. How the Russians vacate the occupied regions will matter in the post-war narratives, but in the short term either will do - negotiated likely gives the best chance of keeping Russia from collapsing, maybe and depending who one talks to. Defeat in detail and total collapse a la Kharkiv would remove any doubt of Ukrainian victory but may trigger a Russian identity crisis of epic proportions. An orderly withdrawal set us up for “stabs in the back” myths. Neither is great strategically to be honest but one second to midnight at a time. 2. Tough one, only guaranteed allied pressure and ultimatums will be at the Russian border - UA punching into Russia in a ground incursion is definitely off the table. So are the pre-Feb 24 borders enough? At what point does the west get bored of this and calls for a stop? Pre-2014? Not sure. One thing is sure, Putin needs to be gone before any of this becomes an option. He is never going to accept the pre- Feb 24 borders as it means after all this they gained nothing - he will be tossed out a window and he knows it. While I suspect pre-Feb 24 is the minimum western allies will accept. Who blinks where and when is one of the biggest unknowns in all this. 3. Sanctions will likely stay in place until a level of reparations are agreed and warcrimes prosecution is conducted - if we renormalize with Russia without that then shame on us, and the western order is going to look weak and shaky. After Bucha, blatant civilian targeting across Ukraine and numerous other warcrimes, if we let that slide then the LOAC is in tatters and so is western credibility. Russia get re-normalization if they agree. We can start buying gas again etc and perhaps return to whatever weird normal comes next. Russia could simply say “Screw you” and continue its slide into a third world nation. China and India may do business with them but Russia will get taken to the cleaners as their negotiating position will be incredibly weak. 4. Sure it could. This is Steve’s point - with enough Russian war dead the people in Russia may simply buck. More likely is a drug deal with some elites to depose him will be made and we get a bunch of gangsters with slightly cleaner hands. Total military defeat will definitely do it but in that scenario the risk of total collapse of Russia goes up in my mind. Transition of political power will likely not be orderly or peaceful in a total military defeat, or at least the risks go up. But the old bastard has had 20 years to solidify power and surround himself with dependent power players. Tough and tall order to remove him early but that is where we are. 5. Definitely. If Ukraine takes back the occupied regions by force, they are going to lose people doing so. Handing them back over to the international is very unlikely at that point. Better to have Russia pull out before that point and we get a chance to sell ZOS concept. The risk to occupation is one can go from being the “good guy” to bad in an afternoon. If Haikduk is right and they simply go quietly - fantastic, but I have my doubts. If they do go all insurgency (partisans is the wrong word) it is going to get ugly right when Ukraine needs the full support of the international community for reconstruction. Better to make them someone else’s problem for a few years until the see what western investment looks like and beg to reintegrate with Ukraine rather than by force. This sucks as there are a lot of people simply caught in the middle in those regions but this is ugly work when one gets into ethnic based conflicts. However this goes down Ukraine will be selling Ukraine in how it deals with those regions make no doubt about that. First hint of abuses and guys like Macgregor will be all over Fox News screaming about “Ukrainian Nazis” and why is the US spending billions etc. Hell they will make it up anyway but real abuses may swing moderates - really hard to keep hands clean in an insurgency. 6. Entry into NATO will be critical and we will waive whatever “rules” we have to in order to make it happen. Ukraine needs to be squarely in a western orbit after all this in order for this to be a clear western “win” for the rules based order. I am sure Turkey and a few other nations will make duck sounds but the US can buy off or break arms when it has too. Victory for the West is Ukraine inside NATO - hell they are already better armed than half of NATO, with NATO weapons and training. We mess that up then we risk the point of this entire war and the political level in NATO knows this. 7. Sanctions. And at the rate things are going removing Russia’s state sponsor of terror designation - if Russia goes on this list - https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/. They become pretty toxic pretty fast. US has not pulled this trigger yet but the EU has https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221118IPR55707/european-parliament-declares-russia-to-be-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism All that stays in place until the conditions we are talking about are met - even after the shooting stops. I am not an economist but this does not look good: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/impact-sanctions-russian-economy/ Now imagine that after 5 years, 10 years? At some point they will hit bottom but Putin is not a Kim, and the Russians will likely not accept becoming North Korea either. So navigating to this point is going to be incredibly hard and fraught with failure points, with cliffs on either side. For example Russia may not negotiate and Putin hangs on too long. Then the Russian collapse will be worse, Russia in free fall. Less likely but possible if Russia drags this out until western resolve falters. Or we fail on the follow through and leave Ukraine hanging on reconstruction. Or someone really missteps and the conflict widens. I am often afraid people think this is easy and simple - destroy the RA, they will leave, Russians will pick a new government and we can all get back to normal. Normal has left the building. Navigation of this crisis is incredibly hard. We need to keep the west together on this through the war and well beyond in the face of a recession and political divides. Ukraine has to win the war and the peace afterwards while landing on its feet facing west. Russia needs to lose but not too much, and have a relatively soft landing. Russia needs to get back in line and re- normalize. All of these concepts are in tension and could fly apart very easily. Oh and the spectre of a 70 year old pin head triggering WW3 is still out there. This is a strategic minefield if there ever was one - makes the Cuban Missile crisis look quaint.