AlsatianFelix

The idea that Russia has to lose in some dramatically obvious way in order to lose decisively never ceases to amaze somebody like me who has seen the US lose in both Afghanistan and Vietnam without ever losing a single battle. 

The alternative scenario proposed by countries like UK, Lithuania and Poland assumes no cooperation from Russia, and just an international naval force created by "coalition of the willing" countries, that would escort grain convoys without asking for permission. There's some groundwork being laid  for it, including Polish president's unexpected visit in Cairo few days ago.
This would be a major military operation, and again would require a green light from Turkey. I really don't think though that BSF would contest such undertaking, but of course the risk is there.

I am very doubtful this comes to fruition. Russia never sticks to its agreements so Ukraine (and Turkey) are going to require stringent terms it won't want to make. Russia also has little global leverage at the moment. It's best lever after fossil fuels is the ability to squeeze global food stocks to create painful inflation in the coalition against it. The likeliest motivation for Putin to allow these talks to continue fruitlessly to provide a better pretext for the blockade. Russia will tell India, Mexico and others that would be happy to let their grain through but the warmongers in Brussels and Moscow won't allow it.
As always, it's all tactics all the time.
 

Here's a quite comprehensive article about Russia's naval blockade and food crisis stemming from it. Author argues that the only viable solution at hand is international naval mission to create a safe corridor to Odessa. Given that:
- we are on the clock, Ukraine's grain silos has to be empty to store next crop in August/September
- alternative ways to export the grain won't have the sufficient capacity in foreseeable future
- Ukrainians won't be able to lift the blockade by themselves
- and finally, expecting Russia to just act decent or listen to pledges by UN is a folly,
there really isn't any other way than some kind of limited intervention. Here's the article:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/russias-war-on-global-food-security/

Ukraine's Pravda claimed on Saturday that the commander of the assault battalion of the 104th AAR was killed. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/28/7349152/
Same source says attack shown in photo was executed by UAF 80th Separate Air Assault Brigade. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/30/7349413/
Of those units, UAWarData map only locates 104th's parent division (76th Guards Air Assault) but all the way over behind Popasna

Its really incredible what a common a$$hat enemy will do. My wifes Polish, her mum's Ukrainian from Lviv (now living in Przemysl) and ive heard very heavy stories of the border fighting during and after WW2.
Babca's dad saw, suffered and endured through things that were full-on Bucha-level atrocities - first the Ukrainians inflicting it on his Polish neighbors, then vice Versa. In the town over it was the other way, Polish attacking first. No good/bad side, just a horrible situation egged on and exacerbated by Russian meddling and influence ops.
When I met the wife's family in Poland, the dismissive and distrustful attitude to Ukrainians was extremely strong, esp in the older generations (naturally). Babca was clear the feeling was mutual (she herself is very even minded about the whole thing).
For Babca, this war's unification of the Polish and Ukrainian peoples is Putin's greatest failure. Reinvigorating NATO is just vomit-icing on the sh!t-sandwich cake that Herr Komrad Putler gets to gnaw on, like an incontinent beaver.
Poland will never be conquered ever again, and sure as **** not by the Ivan.
As long as Poland exists so will Ukraine - and vice versa.

After all that effort to drag a wounded buddy from under fire, he goes for hero level: "Ok. Let's get this tank."
Sure, why not.

Wagner mercenaries fighting Jewish-led Ukrainian Nazis to preempt the 'Great Replacement' get a helping hand from Tuvans, who have brought along their Shaman:
[Did I forget to take my medication today?]

The fruit of war in Ukraine 
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-deadly-fruit-shells-rockets/31871324.html
https://gdb.rferl.org/0a630000-0aff-0242-abe3-08da3fc2ea44_w866_r0_s_d2.jpeg

Pour the factory floor now.
One of the simplest conclusions that I understood from Tooze's Wages of Destruction is that the Soviets beat the Germans because Germany never structured their economy and arms production into a 5-year plan to win the war. All of Germany's plans were a cycle of:  Win-the-war-in-the-next-6 months. Recover/retool/refit. Win-the-war-in-the-next-6 months. Recover/retool/refit. Win-the-war-in-the-next-6 months, etc. 
It never quite worked.

Pour the factory floor now.
One of the simplest conclusions that I understood from Tooze's Wages of Destruction is that the Soviets beat the Germans because Germany never structured their economy and arms production into a 5-year plan to win the war. All of Germany's plans were a cycle of:  Win-the-war-in-the-next-6 months. Recover/retool/refit. Win-the-war-in-the-next-6 months. Recover/retool/refit. Win-the-war-in-the-next-6 months, etc. 
It never quite worked.

Yes, this is my take too.
Lukashenko is pursuing a Franco strategy, where sure, he'll join Hitler's crusade against Bolshevism but he simply needs the following materials first to modernize the Spanish army, e.g. an entire year's production of PZIVs and SfH150mm howitzers. Oh, and the entire tungsten supply.
...But in the meantime, if you want to recruit some annoying Spanish fascist wingnuts to spend the winter in the Volkhov swamps, sure, fill yer jackboots mate!

The Poles made a massive difference in World War 2. Their skill, attitude and commitment made a difference and set an example in the Battle of Britain, and their contribution towards breaking Enigma is often overlooked.
Poland frequently gets ****ed but I'd always want the Poles on my side.

The Poles are delighted not to be hosting a massive European land war just for once.
But yes, now that the Poles are rid of their apatrid feudal nobility, and with the Germans remaining good neighbours, Poland has a real chance to step up postwar as an Eastern European leader.
Poland + Ukraine + (in time) Belarus creates a potentially powerful economic zone of over 100 million people, well equipped with all resources (human and otherwise) save oil. The river basins also look like they will suffer less acutely from climate change than other areas of the planet. I am going out over my skis again here, but the basic 'carrying capacity' of the land seems very good.  And  that's going to matter over time.
And the peoples seem compatible: socially conservative, stubborn, hands-on and individualistic (forgive me for stereotyping).
Politically, a new 'Commonwealth' could form a potent counterweight, both to Moscow and to French-German 'hegemony' within the EU.

Isn't that what some eisenbahn engineers said back in, oh, about '42?  
Snarkiness aside, that means a tighter commercial tie to the rest of Europe and less of a tie to Russia. Long term thinking...

I've seen some publications give up reporting altogether because 'Washington beltway punditry' is of zero utility to this story and that's all they've got.

Ah, my sort of person. I thought a T72 was a T72 but no, you're all on about BVs and Op16 and M2 and AV and.. I just want to play tank games :(
 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/19/nato-finland-sweden-republicans-russia-00033749
Republicans are on side for Swede-Fin expansion, and the $40 billion for Ukraine just passed. U.S. support looking rock solid for the foreseeable future.
 

Big question is - is there really a force in Belgorod capable of counterattacking?  I find it hard to believe if such a force existed it wouldn't have already been committed to stop the Ukrainian advance.

On twitter, @mdmitri91 is a worthwhile follow. He's Estonian and translates Russian transcripts he finds. Intercepted calls, interrogations, telegram channels. That sort of stuff. His latest translation is a diary of a Russian conscript starting with when he signs his contract and his very limited "training" before he's inserted into the frontline as a rifleman. He describes how his arrival at his assigned Company brings the unit up to 13 soldiers.
If I were still playing CM:BB I would just give that unit a W order and focus on getting something out of my other units. Just don't run off the screen and mess up my universal morale.

The best part of watching that is watching the red between Kyiv and the the border to the NE--a huge area--recede. Recede because: the Russians are pulling out to reinforce the Donbas!! And then watching the Donbas frontline move a squat's worth of nowhere. How do you say "fizzle" in Russian?

I'd be very careful about that info, it was not yet corroborated by any official source, for a third day it was not mentioned by UA General Staff update etc. The video of alleged crossing is 100% from somewhere else. 

'Rescue mission' never came out of my mouth. A TF Baum type of deep raid (90km) would have *zero* chance of success, would get hammered by air power, and deliver the Russians a badly needed tactical victory, on camera.
I'm talking about a conventional attack by c.2 UA heavy brigades in the general direction Melitopol; to destroy or rout Russian forces opposite and force a full scale RA relief effort which has every chance of turning into yet another C-Fk and further sapping their strength.
The infantry-heavy UA actions to clear the Kharkiv environs and menace the Izyum LOCs can continue. They aren't using their heavy forces for those; the built up terrain is not favourable.
Russia is reeling now, mainly from its own manifest incompetence. A summer 'pause' lets them off the ropes to regroup and dig in on their early gains in the south and in the Izyum-Kreminna river line.  That's all basically stalemate, except for Kharkiv.
I just don't buy the 'collapse' theory. The Russian army must be beaten, on defence, to collapse it. Or they will keep fighting, with whatever they have.
While foreign pressure on Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and 'negotiate' will only rise over time. So with your 'pause' you have just voluntarily ceded the initiative and shifted back to a long game Putin can play and win.

A little skepticism about military spending is understandable after the last two wars. But it is worth remembering that Ukraine is fundamentally different from Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two wars had absolutely no influence on our security or our larger strategic interests. We lost Afghanistan just about as hard as it is possible to lose a war, and it ultimately meant nothing. Our position is not the slightest bit weaker for our defeat, which I think really drives home just how much wasted effort went into delaying it. Iraq we somehow managed to win, in the sense that the government we installed is still in place without our continued presence being needed to prop it up. But our position in the world is not the slightest bit stronger for that victory. The money, effort, and lives we poured into those wars really were completely wasted (and I really hope my words here are interpreted as more tragic than callous). So yeah, I get it. I understand feeling a bit jaded about any sort of military spending.
But, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine is absolutely central to our security and our interests. The outcome of this war really will make a big difference to our security and position in the world. Every dime we put into aiding the Ukrainians goes directly to improving the security of our European allies and weakening one of our greatest and oldest adversaries. And frankly Ukraine will be cheaper overall than Iraq and Afghanistan (probably). We spent north of 2 trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan (~2.5 trillion based on my crude google efforts, assuming the top results were correct). I think we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, but I doubt it will take anything on the order of trillions of dollars to decisively beat Russia in Ukraine (Russia would have to sustain the fight for years for it to breach the trillions for us, and I don't think that's on the table for them). Although, I would still be in favor of helping Ukraine even if it turned out to be more expensive overall than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Granting that it may take a few hundred billion more to rebuild Ukraine after the war, and that might top a trillion overall when added to the wartime aid. But it would be money well spent. Not only is there the ethical side, where that money would go towards improving the lives of 40+ million people. But it would also be a huge benefit for us strategically, as we would almost certainly gain a longtime ally in Ukraine in just the part of the world where another ally could really matter. And because I have heard a million and a half people say that we shouldn't be engaged in nation building let me preempt any complaints that you may have on that front. This would be completely different from Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of nation building. In Iraq and Afghanistan we were trying to build up countries with populations that viewed us as invaders (because, let's be honest, that's exactly what we were). In Ukraine we would be giving the Ukrainian government the money to rebuild their own country after helping them to repel their invaders. So the local resistance to nation building that we encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan simply wouldn't be present in Ukraine.

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan.