dan/california

To restate the points I made earlier in this thread:
Bolton and others have said directly that Trump had planned to pull out of NATO in a second term and there is no evidence that he now intends the contrary. Trump has also quite publicly rejected the Pentagon’s top generals who restrained him from this direction in the first term and there is no constituency in Trump world that has a stake in European stability. Quite the opposite, in fact, as they can anticipate making enormous amounts of money off of the Russian oligarchy should the US swing into acquiescence to a Russian dominated Eastern Europe. Don’t kid yourself. If he wins, NATO is very likely to die.
It is also a canard that Putin was holding back on Ukraine before Trump left office. The reality is that Putin’s regime was involved in a full court press to pressure Ukraine into subservience with the willing assistance of political appointees in the White House. Russia hasn’t gone to war because Putin didn’t think he needed to and clearly the Russian government expected Trump to win a second term. War was decided when it became clear that Biden had won and the immediate focus of American power was going to be on containing Moscow. Putin’s clique imagined that the US was still too shaken politically from the previous four years and too involved in Afghanistan to reorient rapidly while the Ukrainian military wouldn’t be able to put up significant resistance. Virtually wrong on all counts. 

I think Ukraine has already done this.  There is an army's worth of scrap metal all over south-eastern Ukraine right now and at least 50k dead (likely more) and times 3-4 wounded.
You know what would demonstrate the futility of the Russian cause even better...another RA operational collapse.

Being one of those who has warned of long term conflict not being instantly favorable to Ukraine and the West, it's always important to remind myself that Russian perspective is focused on portraying futility in opposing Russia, aimed at western audiences and Ukraine itself. (At least that's what I think) Actions like these piecemeal attacks, mounting losses, a focus on offensive vs defensive, but in a way that is wasteful and at opposition to the conception of modern warfare, signals to me that Russia is hoping on diluting Ukrainian and Western will, trading its personnel and equipment on the hope that either Ukraine breaks or the West breaks. Is Russia that changed from 40 years ago in the Soviet-Afghan War that it can continue to blink with no emotion at its losses in Ukraine? Certainly it is entirely in Russian advantage that Russia is mindlessly sending its forces to death, that it's supply is endless, and its will concrete.
But is it true?
In my opinion, Ukraine needs to focus on stabilizing it's front, and conduct signalling to both the Russian public, and internationally, that Russian advances have halted and will not occur, and will be a high tally for every attempt.
Currently, despite these high losses Russia has convinced its public, and onlookers that advancing will be worth it. Ukraine must shatter that image, same as it shattered the images of Russia pre-invasion.

Actually, I’m not so sure about that. His threats to withdraw from NATO when he was President, were. Based on an actual desire of a population of Americans that “some” members of NATO weren’t fulfilling their commitments. That was actually true, and those members began fulfilling their commitments. Why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office to attack Ukraine? I think it was because he was unsure of how Trump would respond, and thought Trump’s successor wouldn’t do anything, exactly how he handled the invasion of Crimea and the succession of the Ukraine provinces.

The US Congress added an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act requiring consent from 2/3rds of the Senators or an Act of Congress in order to leave NATO ( Congress passes bill to prevent the president from leaving NATO without approval (msn.com) 
A President could sort of leave by not co-operating, I suppose.  

US leaving Nato is MEGFTFT, not MAGA 
(MEGFTFT = make europe great for the first time)

I am kinda skeptical on this point to be honest. I think we could definitely see a draw back and cold shouldering but NATO is the largest military markets on the planet.  If the US pulls out completely then NATO STANAGs die then and there.  This could see nations go elsewhere for military spending because they are no longer locked into a US driven NATO standard.
Of course given the levels of rhetoric over good sense we saw last time, I could also very well be totally wrong.

Worse than that, he could also immediately withdraw from NATO. Based on past statements, I think he'd have to be convinced to remain in NATO. I'm not sure who would be trying to do the convincing though. 
Dave

From the cheap (and safe) seats, I would go for it.  But, and it is a big “But”, they would need to create and sustain operational pre-conditions first.  The problem with defence only, except for largely symbolic high profile strategic strikes, is that Russia gets to say when it is time to “stop”.  There is analysis out there (and posted here) that points to 2026 as Russia’s out-of-gas moment.  But that is a long way out and conditions could change a lot. So pinning the war on attritional hopes is a strategy but it definitely comes with risks.  The same goes for internal dissent eventually toppling the Russian political power structure.  It can happen but hard to build a plan off of, and we have gone on at length on the risks of another Russian Revolution.
Offensive operations make headlines, signal resolve and play into “we love a winner” in the West.  If the UA sit back and dig in there will be huge and cry on “well we sent them all that stuff and they are doing nothing!”  The real trick is to find where the risk-v-gamble line is.  We do not want a final gamble but a forward leaning risk.  But how to do it?  This remains the outstanding question.  How to do it with what they have and can support?  My money is on light, fast and distributed.  Infiltration, isolation and exploitation.  But the UA will have to do this in multiple areas to increase RA lateral friction.  All the while hitting the backfield.
Tricky, tough and absolutely no guarantees.  Of course we can’t see the hi res picture.  If we had that maybe the choice is far more obvious.

If trump were to become president again, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we have a thread talking about how hot Europe is going to get - because the MAGA regime will shift to cold war against 'satanic woke europe', withdraw from NATO, and threaten to INVADE Ukraine and help our Russian allies in Christendom

To put it plainly, the U.S. election is another front in this war, and perhaps the most important one, certainly the second most important one.
 

The EU needs to have this little conversation about whether it is a country or a trade confederation. If it decides it is a country it is certainly the third player on the world stage, perhaps the second. If it decides it is a trade confederation, well your going have to worry about US elections forever, Choose wisely...

The EU needs to have this little conversation about whether it is a country or a trade confederation. If it decides it is a country it is certainly the third player on the world stage, perhaps the second. If it decides it is a trade confederation, well your going have to worry about US elections forever, Choose wisely...

To put it plainly, the U.S. election is another front in this war, and perhaps the most important one, certainly the second most important one.
 

I think defense is less risky, but you bring up a good point that even small but important offensive successive can help.
A Ukrainian offensive will get bogged down at the same defensive line as before, presumably, and then just get hammered with glide bombs unless there is a good story on stopping those.
Seems to me like Krynki is the best bet as it’s at the longest part of the Russian logistics tail. Personally, I would fortify the other areas and goad the Russians into attacking if they get shy, and focus all offensive effort on the bridgehead.

They should only threaten, not only the bridge but across the western part of russia so the russians pull aa systems off the front into the back yard. Similar how the russians is bombing the cities to force the Ukrainians to defend their cities with their scarce aa systems. Oil refineries are good target cause the russians have to defend them. But the main effort should be attacking the frontline supportive units. Weakening multiple spots, closely following where the gaps develop then faint one attack and develop another.
I don't get this whole USA thing. When the European NATO members tried to take control of the aid process they didn't like that. They wanted to be in charge.
Now if Trump get into office he will totally cut Ukraine? It really feels like soap opera. I don't get it why a 500 million population, economic powerhouse relying on an oversea circus to ensure its protection against the russians. We could be a contender to china and the USA yet we still act like some sort of a naive idiot that don't know what to do. Constant bickering about nothing, loud speeches than no actions taken, letting my country to stop the process of giving aid to Ukraine on the EU level. Germany should already work on obtaining nuclear weapons, Poland as well. We should already integrate the member states army into a EU army that has a common language. They should bring back conscription so every young fella can have a basic knowledge about warfare. Not watching the USA if they manage to vote in a senile guy for a second term against an old spoiled brat with narcissistic personality disorder.

It is worse than this re: Trump in White House.  If Trump somehow takes the presidency (from a prison cell...seriously best sitcom ever) he can also order all US military support to pull back.  This will include operational and strategic C4ISR.  This would have a potentially drastic effect on the battlefield as Russia would be on an equal or better C4ISR footing than Ukraine.  At that point the entire framework of this war shifts away from precision and back to mass.  More simply put, tanks may start to work again.
This makes the next moves for Ukraine very high stakes.  Go on defence and make the surge in support try to outlast Russian reserves.  Or bulk up and roll the dice one more time on an operational offensive.  If the offensive succeeds it may create enough momentum that even Trump could not stand in the way.  If it fails, further US Ukrainian support could very well be doomed even if Biden retains the White House.
So, definitely, this war needs an offset strategy.  And to my eyes that is the EU and NATO.

I really hope this package will bring some relief to the UAF. 
The manpower problem will remain, and obviously equipment can only do so much to alleviate it. 
Also, Europe should not lean back because of this. Good that some announcements were made by the UK, France and others as well.
It seems cruel but understandable that the West is connecting deliveries to certain conditions. Like telling the Russians to stop certain infrastructure bombing and when they do not, Sullivan & Co approved ATACMS to Biden. It is harsh, but it was worth a try. 
But what Ukraine really needs is reliability instead of big packages here and there. And of course, ramp up, ramp up, ramp up the war factories everywhere in the West. It's uncomfortable but too much is at stake, so I will always defend that before economic concerns.
Also, I hope the oil refinery strikes continue, as well as other strikes on military relevant factories in Russia.
And it looks like sanctions on North Korea and China are in the works for helping Russia. Late, but every bit of pressure helps to squeeze the noose slowly tighter.
If the old man can pull this off...
 

I am only slightly guilty of bridge lust, I am simply saying that it gets to stay standing because the U.S. NSC thinks knocking it down will cause more problems than it solves. If they ever change their mind a train full of the appropriate munitions will arrive to announce that decision, followed by some truly excellent video. 

And we are back to breaking the Russian war machine. Which of course will take more fighting men.  There is no magic technology solution here. They can dig in and hope to attrit the RA enough for the Russians to stall and then shoot for some BS empty peace.  Or they can go on the offensive and pay the blood price.
The West can supply a lot but they cannot supply fighting troops or the will to resist.  If Ukraine cannot muster this then no viable alternatives really exist beyond attempts to freeze this thing, which may very well fail due to Ukrainian “exhaustion”.  That is an 800 km frontage, longer than the Western Front in WW1.  They can reduce troop density requirements quite a bit but not to zero, not yet.  There are no free lunches in war.

I would very much like for the Ukrainian strategic strike campaigns to stop being “symbolic” and start shaping the battle space for re-engaging in offensive operations.  Symbolism is great but destroying Russian abilities to effectively defend an 800km frontage with a highly degraded military are much better.  Further, “symbolism” is not going to keep western support coming…operational gains that push the Russians back will.  The thumbnail sketch plan:
- Re-establish denial of air and ground. 

- Hit the RUAF hard and keep them well back.
- Hit The RA where it hurts…logistics, enablers and C2.  Prioritize artillery and EW.
- Hit the SLOCs.  Hard military targets that move all that hardware and people to the front and then up and down it.
- Solve for offence.  Stop using FPVs defensively now that artillery is showing up and use them offensively en masse.  Saturate bridgeheads and try bounce crossings at scale.
- Re-establish forward momentum and get the RA reacting to them, not the other way around.
- Bite, grab and hold….repeat.  Eventually, if we are lucky, corrosive warfare will work again and the RA will have to re-set like it did in Fall 22.
That is one helluva bill to pay but it is the one in front of the UA and the West to support.
Do not waste limited military high end hardware on “symbols”…use it to kill the Russian war machine.

It is necessary for Ukraine to attack Kerch Bridge once in a while, so Russia cannot stop wasting resources to protect it. Its high symbolic value forces Russia's hand, no matter what the actual military value is.

I agree with this, but whatever Russia is paying to take a square kilometer is about to at least triple. They haven't exactly been getting a bargain rate the last few weeks, so it is about to get TRULY Pricey. Hopefully Ukraine casualties will go down as well.

But, but, but I want to feel better :-<
I say use the new ammo and missiles to mess up as many attacks as possible and hit as many logistics and HQ targets as you can find. Rinse and repeat.