DavidFields

Very flimsy reporting.

It was done because there was an existing agreement with the Afghan gov't.  It was not actually Biden's plan, it was Trump's.  That is not an intended criticism.  Getting out of Afghanistan was always going to be a mess whether it was implemented by a republican or democratic leadership.

Here is the newest trend in Western idiots being idiots.

I think that is actually from Dilbert
 
Elbonia | Dilbert Wiki | Fandom
Elbonia is an impoverished Eastern European country in the Dilbert universe. In the comic strip, and originally in the TV show, its major commerce was mud. There are also mentions of a currency called the Eye-Crud. Path-E-Tech Management often outsources work there, and has a factory for their subsidiary ElboCo. 

I'm confused.  We are watching the Russian position at Kherson start to collapse while around Kharkhiv the only thing it seems that will stop the AFU is outrunning their logistical lines.
So what is it Russia is going to do in order to achieve "it doesn't take much for Russia to win, to force Ukraine to the negotiating table".
Ukraine has already said they are not interested in any negotiations as long as Putin is in power.

Causeway?

On the contrary, this is the most important thing, because it is they who, like the party of hawks under Putin, determine the foreign aggressive policy of Russia. It was they who influenced Putin's decision to attack Ukraine (they have been asking for this since 2014). And if the invasion succeeds, they will remain the determining factor in Putin's decision-making.

Russian nationalists led by Prigogine fundamentally disagree with you. The Baltic countries Poland and Finland are legitimate targets for joining Russia from their point of view. The inability of NATO to stop Russia in Ukraine will be proof of the possibility of a successful capture of these countries by Russia (of course, after making up for losses and reorganizing the army following the war in Ukraine). This will strengthen them in the idea that despite all the commitments, the European countries of NATO do not have enough political will to stand up for the Baltics, and then for Poland, which will actually be the end of the North Atlantic Alliance.

All of his stuff is great, but there is real insight in this one.

With Steiner's attack, everything will be alright...

Of course. Wunderwaffen and Volkssturm will turn the tide of the war. 

Freedman extremely on point this morning: 
 
“Even by his own standards Vladimir Putin’s speech on 30 September in the Kremlin’s St George’s Hall was unhinged. For those who can face reading it, it can be found here. As he ranted about the west, denouncing it in lurid terms for a range of evils, from imperialism to satanism, it seemed, as Mark Galeotti observed, that he was trying to convince himself as much the outside world about this grand civilisational struggle with the West. The rant had a purpose, which was to demonstrate the irrelevance of legality. The annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, now to join Crimea as part of the Russian Federation, goes directly against the Charter of the United Nations. Instead of this being acknowledged as a foundational document of international law, it was wrapped up in a denunication of the West’s claims about a ‘rules-based international order’, which only reflected their selfish and malevolent interests. Russia was under no obligation to follow those rules. If it wanted to expand its borders, it was fully entitled to do so. 
Ever since the Kosovo War in 1999, and NATO’s use of the principle of self-determination and reports of atrocities to justify their support of the Kosovar Albanians, he has employed this same combination of claims to rationalise his violations of the sovereignty of neighbouring countries. Hence the contrived processes of sham referendums and fake claims of Ukrainian terror. 
Implications for Diplomacy
Although it is always disturbing listening to these rants, the conclusion was not surprising. He explained that this was an irreversible move. This was his political offer:
Should Kyiv do as he asked and accept the permanent transfer of these provinces, it is not clear what they would be getting in return: Putin presumably would be looking for Ukrainian neutrality and the ending of sanctions. If he was negotiating from a position of strength then these demands might have some credibility. But his position is weak. Ukraine’s only interest is total Russian withdrawal which Putin now says in constitutionally impossible.
Even those in the West most keen to push for a negotiation around the current territorial holdings should appreciate that however difficult it is to get Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, they are not going to convince Ukraine to withdraw from Ukraine. In addition, while Crimea had a separate status of all its own, because of its annexation back in 2014, it was possible to imagine how it might be dealt with in negotiations by special measures. Now it is just one of five illegally annexed provinces whose fate is tied together.
Putin has boxed himself in with these moves. Before it was possible to imagine, if always unlikely, that there could be some diplomatic means to bring the bloodshed to an end, for example by discussing forms of shared citizenship for those who wished to be attached to Russia or new forms of security arrangements. That path has now been blocked. The Ukrainian government’s response to the speech was to insist that that they could not negotiate with Russia so long as Putin remains in power. The war is now destined to carry on to its own bitter end. It also means that even should the fighting end it is not clear how issues such as war crimes, reparations and the unwinding of the sanctions’ regime will be handled.
Implications for Nuclear Use
Nuclear threats were not as prominent in this speech as they had been in the mobilisation announcement of 21 September. There was a strong implicit reference when he spoke ofRussia’s willingness to use ‘all available means’ to keep safe Russian territory, in its new expanded definition. There was also an explicit hint, when he referred to the US as ‘the only country in the world that twice used nuclear weapons, destroying the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.’ He then added, ‘Incidentally, they created a precedent.’ In the years since 1945 enormous international efforts, many involving the first the Soviet Union and then Russia, went into ensuring – successfully - that this precedent was not followed. But at least Putin did not follow this up with any overt nuclear threats. Conveying a sense of of nuclear menace is part of his strategy, but that is not the same as identifying ways of employing these weapons to help turn the tide of this war without making everything a whole lot worse. 
The nuclear issue does come into play with Zelensky’s response to Putin’s statement. He announced that he would seek to fast track the country’s accession to NATO. Holding back on that aspiration was the one big concession that Zelensky was keeping available as something that might be put on the table in a serious negotiation. But the Biden Administration quickly dismissed the idea that this could be addressed at speed. Once Ukraine joined NATO it would benefit from the alliance’s Article V and expect active engagement in Ukraine’s defence. This is exactly the development that Putin has been using his nuclear forces to seek to deter. But the application can stay on the table, a reminder to Russia that once nuclear weapons were used in any form they would no longer be serving a deterrent purpose. 
Biden’s main response, as he dismissed the legitimacy of Putin’s move, will affect the course of the war. He announced that he was pushing forward with the next $12 billion assistance package to Ukraine and imposing more sanctions on Russia and members of the elite responsible for the prosecution of this war.
The Implications of Lyman
Meanwhile as this elite gathered to listen to Putin’s speech news was coming in from eastern Ukraine of the effective encirclement of the town of Lyman, a key logistical hub for the eastern Donbas, as anticipated in my previous post. I pointed there to the tension between a political strategy that must have the Russian flag in as many places as possible and a military strategy that should conserve scarce resources, and so trading space for time, abandon vulerable positions to establish stronger defensive lines that might be held until the newly mobilised forces can fill out the front lines. The political strategy has won. Putin’s fixation with taking and holding pieces of territory at whatever cost has made a full defeat more likely. 
There were believed to be some 2,500 troops in Lyman along with a similar number already pushed out by Ukrainian forces from surrounding villages. Cut off from logistical support, the Russians do not appear to be settling down for a long drawn out defence of their position but instead are trying to get out in some shape or form. There are reports from Ukrainian sources that the Russian troops asked for permission to evacuate but this was denied. Now their position is even wose than shown in the above map. They are trapped, without supplies or reinforcements, and must either surrender or try to find their own way out in the face of heavy Ukrainian artillery fire. Ukrainian forces do not need to storm Russian positions. Instead they can use available forces to press on, making a point of crossing the border into Luhansk. The absence of the forces caught in Lyman, and growing logistical difficulties, means that Russian forces will continue to be pushed back. Ukrainian forces are reported to be pressing Kreminna and may soon threaten the Russian positions in Lysychansk and Severodonetsk, taken in June after a long and costly (for both sides) struggle.
All this mocks Putin’s announcement, demonstrating that he can’t hold what he has just annexed. The qustion now is how long the Russian people and, most importantly, the members of the power elite, put up with this recklessness. Polling suggests that support for the war has fallen sharply. The latest shows that from 48% of Russians wanting the war to continue in August now only 29% are detrmined about pressing on. Another 15% are lukewarm and 48% want peace. Putin offers no way to fight or negotiate a way to victory. More men may so far have fled the country than joined the army. The audience at St George’s Hall look more perplexed than inspired, watching a man who has lost his swagger, caught up in a deluded world of his own construction, but out of which he has inflicted a real-world catastrophe.”

Biden just promised to defend "every inch of Ukraine with our NATO allies". Pretty much the opposite of standing down. Given the stakes, Washington is very unlikely to blink. 

Wow.  This is so.... whiny.
 
Stalin or Hitler, hell even Mussolini, would have b**ch slapped this yutz.  'Razor' Tojo would simply have lopped off his head without comment.  As for Timurlane or Batu Khan.... bring me the boiling oil. But the cheap stuff.
(Too. Many. Memes. Must. Resist.)
Not with a bang, but with a whimper?

We should get back to socks, IFVs, and the encirclement of Lyman, if we can.
 

I don't know if it's bias so much as hindsight. We have over 75 years of history to show that the Marshall Plan and the MacArthur shogunate worked. If we were having this discussion eighty years ago, I'm sure most of the people calling for collective punishment of Russia would be taking a similar line towards Germany, Japan and Italy...

Well, at the start many Germans were, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about the Nazis and Hitler. In 1939 most did not want a war. After the victory against France Hitler was suddenly a superstar. You can of course blame the Germans general population for Hitler. They could have resisted or at least not cheer. All true and of course it was not only the system that somehow magically seduced the people.
But there are three simple facts of human nature: Most people are no heros, most people like to be on the winning side and most people are mostly concerned with their own well-being and so will adapt to the circumstances in a way that minimizes friction. That doesn't release them from responsiblity but it is something that will happen with almost all peoples and societies.
It also means that once the system changes, those same people will happily go along with the new system as long as the system leaves them alone and allows them to lead a decent live.
Now, my crystal ball had some serious malfunctions lately so I am cautious with my predictions. But I am convinced that those same Russians who now don't protest against Putin & cronies or even support them will happily support another system as long as it lets them live a decent live.
Hope that's not too rose tinted in your book.

GrigB, thanks for your work on annotating this map, so excellent.  This is putting a great big smile on my face.  I thought UKR would just stop at the Oskil line -- maybe UKR thought that also but when they saw weak forces they decided to keep pushing?  Someday we'll know I hope.  And thanks for getting the thread back on track.  I'm out of likes so this is a long winded like.

NATO vessels patrolling  all pipeline areas and actively  searching for Russian vessels . Time to  crack open Command:Modern Operations

For God's sake. His country is under attack. His people are dying. Use the ignore function or shut up. All of you.

We put our existence on the line. What could be more expensive?

Yes.

Nah. NATO’s Reanimation is seen as a major accomplishment here - even largely as bipartisan, and a reversal of at least some of USA failures. Not to mention that it is intrinsically a win for the post WWII stability that has enabled economic growth. Imperfect, challenges along the way. But proven by events to still be of great value.

Well thanks for this to start.  I firmly believe you are correct.  Ukraine has waged this war well within the law of armed conflict, frankly demonstrating admirable restraint with respect to POWs and especially targeting within Russia itself - a master class in precision strikes against legitimate military targets.  
Further, if any Russian picks up a weapon and deploys to Ukraine, he has earned the right to be engaged until he is dead or no longer a combatant - all stop.  Further those responsible for the egregious Russian war crimes must be prosecuted.  Finally, reparations must be made by Russia to pay for this war.
Russia needs to definitively  lose this war and frankly has already.  I personally do not like the idea of a collapsed and fractured Russia, too many unknowns and risks; however, if it the only way this goes, so be it.
Ukraine needs to definitively win, and will.  At least to pre-war borders and they are fully entitled to re-taking the pre-2014 lines, we have talked about the risks there too.
However, one thing I have learned over the last three decades is that winning means more than on the battlefield, it means whatever comes next.  I have zero doubts that there is a minority in Ukraine that share the same sentiments, and I really do get why.  But as a nation Ukraine needs to rise above it and become the regional counter-power it has already demonstrated it can be.
Kraze is entitled to his opinion and all; however, I will not leave his calls for more atrocity and crimes on the table unchallenged.  Anymore than if a Russian poster came here trying to justify the same.
 

It would be closer to the mark to say that NATO is going *back* to being an anti-Russia alliance. "Keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down" as Ismay had it.