NamEndedAllen

Nothing at all political intended, and unclear why you took it that way. I didn’t recall Clinton saying that. But I did recall Bush - following 9/11. I called it by his name for that reason. And because I am not clear whether that was an Executive Order and thus carried the weight of new law. Also, whether each of the preceding similar acts were one-off orders, or always came under a single past Executive Order that authorizes all such acts. Bush’s statement came across as broadly applicable policy, any time, anywhere. If that was just stating an earlier President’s Executive Order, thanks for the correction. The continuity of specific anti-terrorism approaches by each Admin isn’t always clear to the public. You may be better informed on all the layers and histories of current and past anti terrorism directives, so thanks again.if the referenced policy started earlier. The policy itself was the point in the discussion.

Possibly so! But recognize that it is not at all clear why the Wash Post, not known for an inclination to boost the fortunes of overseas right wing politicians, would invite him to do so. I suggest stepping back from the messenger and simply observing the message, the audience (not us) and the context. The timing is just a couple days before the Speaker’s first meeting with the President the day after tomorrow. The topic, paying the nation’s bills instead of defaulting. Speaker demanding spending cuts. So messages have a strength and effect all their own. In any case, it is another data point in the ongoing debates and controversies in the West about what and how much to do about Ukraine and Russia.

Their pants were down and the light was on. PS Agree about your reasons for murk. And hardly anyone declares war any more. Anyone? So murk remains a fixture, perhaps out of the flexibility and uncertainty it offers? Re the USA, pretty sure most countries understand the Bush doctrine that harboring non-state terrorist actors that have harmed the USA makes you complicit, and vulnerable to…Operation Depantsification.

Yes, I think you have the point, to influence the single largest provider of war fighting kit and also iirc financial support for Ukraine. Not insignificant whatsoever. That’s why it is published in the USA, and at this moment in time. Politics here are not only a touchy topic online. They are incredibly volatile and changeable. What was once unthinkable changes over night, regardless of how irrational. So please, do not underestimate such matters. Also, one need not make predictions about what is often so inscrutable. HoweverI do personally agree with you about the present likelihood of any movement at all for NATO membership. But this war is turning out to be longer than most ever imagined. We simply don’t know that twists and turns ahead. And when such more dramatic ones may come into play. Perhaps after the spring offensives take place, the results could inspire one side to agree to rational negotiations. Depending on how well as, Ukraine does, NATO membership could conceivably be part of a larger settlement that could guarantee Ukraine’s future safety from further Russian invasions. Would Ukraine accept that as a condition for some in between status of Crimea? The Donbas? I sure don’t know. But we do know that a-leading Russia in past years turned out exceedingly poorly.

Yes, very likely so, although those countries are not at risk of massive continuing destruction. As @The_Capt has asserted, NATO may change its rules at any time. However, look deeper. This was published in the USA. Where a political party that has just assumed control of the House in Congress with a tiny shred of a majority. And refuses to simply pay the bills the USA already incurred. That slim majority is composed of those who held out for an historically long time to even elect their Speaker. They include several pro Putin, anti Ukraine, and sudden budget hawks. In the arcane jockeying of the enormously partisan, divided USA politics, a statement by a right wing ish Brit former PM whose policies were embraced by many right wing USA politicians including their former President can be part of the effort to shore up support for Ukraine as the clashes over spending cuts looms over the USA government. And the amount of support for Ukraine.

Which makes our similar opinions about the obvious much the same. More relevant to the general public is that for some understandable as well as some bizarre reasoning, the decision makers in the various capitols have struggled for months to reach such a conclusion. For example the recent painful lengthy public debates about Western tanks, despite the strong opinions *here* about whether they are actually the most pressing and effective need at present. Not to mention the NATO membership issue.

Opinion in the Wash Post, mirroring what many here have advocated for quite a while. (Emphasis mine) “Putin didn’t invade because he thought that Ukraine was going to join NATO. He always knew that was vanishingly unlikely. He attacked Ukraine because he believed — with abundant evidence — that we were not really serious about protecting Ukraine. He attacked because he wanted to rebuild the old Soviet imperium, and because he believed — foolishly — that he was going to win. If we had been brave and consistent enough to bring Ukraine into NATO — if we had actually meant what we said — then this utter catastrophe would have been averted. I know that, in some European capitals, this outcome will seem hard to digest. But the logic is inescapable. For the sake of stability and peace, Ukraine now needs clarity about its position in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. All our dodging and weaving has ended in slaughter. Ukrainians should be given everything they need to finish this war, as quickly as possible, and we should begin the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO, and begin it now. It would be no use if Moscow complains. They had a case once, and they were heard with respect. That case has been pulverized by the bombs and missiles of Putin.” Opinion by Boris Johnson January 30, 2023 at 11:16 a.m. PT

I, for one, welcome our new Slithering Steam Overlords! And thanks Steve. Sounds as if you have had your hands full. Too bad because you could have been a real help on the obscure but important little CMBS thread on some war over there. Oh, wait…

Steve, I should have mentioned the important distinction the USA makes between cyber *spying*/classic espionage, and cyber *attacks*. Current tacit policies among active nations do allow the former spying - stealing documents, the cyber equivalent of planting bugs, etc, That’s because we are all engaged in it, most every day. None of the major players are willing to give this up. But cyber *attacks* are considered in a different light. And the USA policy considers major attacks to be acts of war: “Cyber-attacks from foreign nations that threaten widespread US civilian casualties, like cutting off power supplies or shutting down emergency-responder networks, could be treated as an act of aggression under the new policy.” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13614125 China and Russia have not done this. They do know the USA policy.

Indeed it is. Attribution is less developed and understanably much more difficult in the cyber realm than traditional kinetic attacks. The USA and other countries have had decades of investment and technology to detect and determine the origin of kinetic attacks. For incoming missiles this included massive radar technology, building the DEW line up in the Arctic, tracking ballistic missile submarines SOSUS, and all the related advances. Understanding the challenges and the capabilities needed to achieve similar success in the cyber realm has been a much more recent effort. However, the USA other nations have become more sophisticated at this. Often we know the means, the methods, and even the individual identities of not just state actors like the GRU in Russia, but of criminal groups that often work in concert with their home country. But the attacks in the USA have not been at the Pentagon’s defined act of war level. The Obama Administration’s policy as clarified by the Pentagon is mostly classified, but there were about a dozen unclassified pages of it made public. My sense is that the responsible agencies do take longer to determine those responsible for attacks than kinetic or terrorist bombing attacks. But they do identify a lot of them. The key in this question originally about WMD and then Acts of War is the scale. The latter is restricted to those identified by the Pentagon. I’d be willing to bet a bottle of extra peaty Lagavulin that the perp of an attack on THAT scale would be uncovered pretty quickly as the highest priority. And on that scale, the designation that cyber attacks lie within the framework of the LOAC provides tor a proportional response. And the Pentagon declared such a response could be either cyber or kinetic. You may remember - I can’t recall at the moment - whether the Bush declaration after 9/11 is actual policy - that any nation that arbors non-state actors within its boundaries is considered complicit and its borders ignored for retribution.. The Obama Administration did that by the incursion in a rather flagrant Pakistan to after it finally found bin Laden there. More recently, the Biden Administration OK’d the pinpoint disintegration of al Qaeda leader al-Zawaihiri on his balcony in Kabul. No time limits. All that aside, I agree with you that the attribution can be at least controversial politically because the evidence is so obscure, even unintelligible to many people.

The USA military at least has already determined what cyber attacks constitute acts of war, and that the LOAC applies in cyber space. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718 WASHINGTON – The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force. The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military. In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a military official. The Pentagon's document runs about 30 pages in its classified version and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of Armed Conflict—derived from various treaties and customs that, over the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality of response—apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare, according to three defense officials who have read the document. And The Times reported that “[A]ny computer attack that threatens widespread civilian casualties — for example, by cutting off power supplies or bringing down hospitals and emergency-responder networks — could be considered an act of aggression.”

That would be fantastic. Although IF Israel decided now is the time to start a war with Iran, we have an entirely new crisis since the USA is committed to Israel’s defense. A better scenario is an internal attack, suggesting that Iraqis on the brink of a civil war. Kurds might also be the saboteurs. I guess we just have to wait and see. Personally, I don’t think it would be a positive development to have war breakout in the Middle East. Iran would certainly disrupt oil shipments, and the USA, Japan, and Europe would all be economically affected. Politically as well. So let’s hope this stays within Iran - and that it’s drone production and/or exports are curtailed!

This doesn’t sound verified as Israel. And Crowds shouting “Death to Khamenei”? On the surface, Israel being the attacker seems unlikely since that would clearly be an act of war. Possible domestic sabotage? Another nation with a special interest in Iran’s aid to Russia?? Recent report https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-reports-drone-attack-defense-facility-96744493 DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Drones attacked an Iranian defense factory in the central city of Isfahan overnight, the state-run IRNA news agency reported early Sunday. It carried a Defense Ministry statement saying the attack occurred late Saturday and caused minor damage to a rooftop. The report said three drones were shot down by Iranian air defenses. The ministry did not say who was suspected of carrying out the attack. Separately, Iran’s state TV said a fire broke out at an oil refinery in an industrial zone near the northwestern city of Tabriz. It said the cause was not yet known, as it showed footage of firefighters trying to extinguish the blaze.

Not quite. Instead, such things can be considered by the USA’s Pentagon to be an Act of War. I can’t find a more recent an official statement. It certainly is possible that the USA government has communicated more definitively to the likely suspects: In its first formal cyber strategy, the Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage by another country could constitute an act of war, administration and military sources told NBC News on Tuesday, confirming a report in the Wall Street Journal…The officials emphasize, however, that not every attack would lead to retaliation. Such a cyber attack would have to be so serious it would threaten American lives, commerce, infrastructure or worse, and there would have to be indisputable evidence leading to the nation state involved, NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said…Unclassified parts of the 30-page strategy are expected to become public in June, the Wall Street Journal reported, attributing the disclosure to three defense sources who had read the report.

No confirmation at all ftom USA spokespersons, but regardless: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-kyiv-improving-airfields-anticipating-modern-jets “Unlike the recent influx of promises for western tanks, Ukraine has yet to receive any solid offers of modern fighter jets from allies like the U.S., France, the Netherlands, Denmark and others. But it’s preparing airfields across the country in anticipation of deliveries of multi-role jets like U.S.-made F-16 Fighting Falcons or French Mirage or Rafale fighters. To integrate jets like those into the Ukrainian Air Force would not only require training for pilots and maintainers, but it would also require making sure more modern jets have safe places to operate from.’ AND FROM ISW, new summary: Key Takeaways Russian forces launched another massive series of missile and drone strikes across Ukraine on January 26. A recent altercation between Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin and former Russian officer Igor Girkin is exposing a new domain for competition among Russian nationalist groups for political influence in Russia against the backdrop of Russian military failures in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin continued his campaign against critical and opposition voices by cracking down on several major opposition media outlets. The United States Treasury Department announced new sanctions targeting the Wagner Group’s global support network, likely in response to the Wagner Group’s renewed efforts to reinvigorate its operations outside of Ukraine. Russian sources claimed that Ukrainian forces relaunched counteroffensive operations near Kreminna. Russian forces continued ground attacks around Bakhmut, on the western outskirts of Donetsk City, and in the Vuhledar area. Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces in Zaporizhia Oblast are not conducting offensive operations at the size or scale necessary for a full-scale offensive. Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces continued to conduct limited and localized ground attacks in Zaporizhia Oblast. The Wagner Group likely experienced significant losses in attritional offensive operations in eastern Ukraine over the past few months. Russian occupation officials are reportedly continuing to “nationalize” property and close places of worship belonging to the Ukrainian Evangelical Baptist Christian communities in occupied Zaporizhia Oblast in an effort to establish the Kremlin-affiliated Moscow Patriarchate Orthodox Church as the dominant faith in the region. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-26-2023

If not already mentioned, jets topic moves up a rung: “With the transfer of modern Western-made tanks now secured, Ukraine is turning its sights once again to advanced fighter jets, with France today stating that it had not ruled out providing Kyiv with combat aircraft from its own stocks. A French government official confirmed that unnamed Eastern European countries and Denmark were also possible candidates to provide fighter jets to Ukraine, while a Ukrainian Air Force spokesman says that a transfer of advanced Rafale multirole fighter jets is on the table. Speaking today, Thomas Gassilloud, chairman of the National Assembly’s National Defense and Armed Forces Committee, said that the French government could agree to supply Ukraine with the fighter jets that it so badly wants.” https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/france-is-considering-transferring-fighter-aircraft-to-ukraine

This. NATO itself has a lot invested in planning and coordinating for integrating militaries. I’d expect the various Allies to draw upon at least some of this and focusing on what you’ve said. At least by a few months ago, as winter was approaching. Instead of squabbling about which tanks etc.

Possibly of interest with regard to recent announcements by Ukrainian officials saying they had determined which plane Ukraine will acquire in the future during a recent trip to the USA: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/first-block-70-f-16-has-flown-from-lockheeds-new-south-carolina-plant ”Of those 128 Block 70/72 F-16s, 16 of them have been ordered by Bahrain, including the aircraft that flew today. Once completed, the Bahraini F-16 will first be handed over to the U.S. government sometime this quarter, then undergo flight testing at Edward’s Air Force Base, and then be delivered to the customer. The remaining Block 70/72 F-16s in Lockheed Martin’s backlog are set to fulfill orders for Slovakia, Bulgaria, Taiwan, and an additional unspecified customer, Lockheed Martin said. “

This entire “Tanks: Yes or No” debate here and in the public space has been enormously frustrating, not least because it usually clouds the larger question. It too often takes on just that kind of rigid un illuminating yes/no posture, even here. And too often, twisting what is said into an extreme positions. @The_Capt and Steve among others have been clear about what are more crucial needs for the AFU than tanks. OTOH, most people here have not insisted Western tanks will sweep into Moscow and crush Putin into messy blood pudding. But whether here or in the noisy public debates and finger pointing, There is a better discussion hidden by it all. Why haven’t the political and military leadership at the very least in the USA clearly and forcefully laid out their vision for the Big Picture of re-arming the AFU over time? Instead of engaging in micro tennis match type back and forth volleys about specific weapons? Explain to the public - and pointedly to Russia - that not only is the West committed to ensuring Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and that it will not permit Russia to succeed in its illegal invasions of sovereign nations. But that the West’s delivery of weapons is designed to create a new AFU equipped to withstand anything Russia can throw at it. That the vision that our tax dollars are funding is much much more than this month’s big shopping cart of weapons and munitions. Most people’s eyes glaze over as soon as they see those lengthy lists littered with arcane acronyms and obscure model numbers. Unlike our forum members, they just see dollar signs. Billions and billions of them. Tell them there is a mighty PLAN! Tell them that it takes time to build a modernized military, that the Ukrainians are bravely defending their homeland with today’s tranche, but that this will be a long war against the worst evil since Hitler’s SS raped its way across Europe etc etc. Therefore we will be building up Ukraine progressively while it is in the fights for its very survival. Over time, and as training and planning takes place, tanks, planes and ships will be delivered. These will not be thrown thoughtlessly into the inferno and lost! Remind the public of this each time more delivers are made. Emphasize that they are rolling out inexorably, as planned over time so as to be best employed in Ukraine’s, and arguably Europe’s survival and victory over this heinous attack that threatens all of us who stand for freedom. Or something like that! Because the public doesn’t get inspired by long lists of acronyms. Show them and Russia the big picture, emphasize that there is the plan is unfolding. Stop batting back and forth for months on end about this tank or that!

Will be interesting to see just WHICH M1s are sent, from which source and batch, and how long it takes to get them ready: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-tanks-in-u-s-inventory-have-armor-too-secret-to-send-to-ukraine “The armor issue will put limits on how fast the U.S. government can supply any Abrams to Ukraine, whatever the source for those tanks might be. Even if the M1s for Ukraine are pulled from storage and rebuilt, it's far more likely than not that they will have armor packages that will need changing. This is a complex process, as evidenced by recent publicly available contract documents related to the sale of Abrams tanks to Poland.”

Perhaps the fog of piecemealism for re-arming of Ukraine/AFU is lifting a bit, revealing that at least the USA’s contributions may be more systematic than indicated by the frequent bickering, politicking and often frustrating (tanks!) public debates in Europe and the USA. Bradleys and Strykers soon, Abrams within this year, likely F-16s following that, if the item blow is accurate. Plus there was a recent announcement that the Royal Navy is training Ukrainians on a Sandown type minesweeper, off Scotland. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-kyiv-claims-new-combat-aircraft-has-been-determined Ukrainian pilots have visited the U.S. and the specific type of aircraft to be provided to Ukraine has already been selected, the top spokesman for the Ukrainian Air Force claimed on Tuesday. “Our military pilots went to the United States, funds were allocated for the training of our pilots,” Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Yuri Ignat said, according to ArmyInform an information agency of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (MoD). “The type of aircraft, which is likely to be provided to Ukraine, and the corresponding terms of [personnel] training have already been determined.” Ignat did not say which aircraft had been selected or offer any timeline for delivery or training. But a Ukrainian defense and military expert in Kyiv told The War Zone on Tuesday that “based on the concept of the Ukrainian Air Force development, we are looking for a multi-role aircraft during the first phase. It could be some variant of the F-16 fighter jet.” That lines up with what Ignat previously told Air Force Magazine. He said that two 12-aircraft squadrons of F-16s, plus reserves, would be sufficient to help turn the tables against Russian airpower.

Those play quite well against Russian armor in Steel Beasts Pro.

Fear and hatred fuels so-called fundamentalism, revolt against modernity across the planet these days, not limited to Russia. So Russian continuing cyberwar using influencers and social media to spread this crapulence does find fertile ground in many nations.

Absolutely. This piecemeal, throw whatever you have at the war made perfect sense during or right after the defeat of the Russian attack on Kyiv, or thereabouts. No way at that time to have a desirable ultimate shape for a future AFU. But once most of the Western Allies recognized they were committed to supporting Ukraine with a LOT more than harsh words, I’d have expected a team of the uber planners known to one another via NATO structure, admin, coordination to have soon thereafter start sketching out flow charts leading to a fully modernized air, land, and sea AFU in line with NATO standards. And in the process, the bonus of what that should indeed look like for a large European nation facing the long imagined Russian (Soviet) invasion. Instead, from our peanut gallery observing perch, the arming of Ukraine still looks like a meandering tippy toe path. Instead of a rationalized transition away from the highly inefficient logistical patchwork that was initially unavoidable. Right now, it looks like arguing whether to gift an iPhone or an Android phone. Instead of looking at the house blueprints and designing a retrofit for making it a fully “smart home” capable dwelling. Wired, wireless, security, audio, video, bandwidth, tech support contract, etc. PS I realize I am somewhat overstating this at least with regard to the USA enormous aid packages that are indeed put together with a lot of thought for the immediate and cohesive set of needs. But it isn’t integrated with the other European Allies, nor appearing to be part of a long term plan culminating in near plug and play NATO integration. And I have to believe that eventually Ukraine will need NATO membership in peacetime - however cold or hot that “peace” ends up being. Ukraine cannot simply hope that events in Russia will sometime soon fall into place “just so” there isn’t an ongoing threat. And neither can we.

Yes, agreed. And all the bickering and fumbling about among the Allies wastes time now. Time for a more comprehensive systems and training plan and process to rebuild a more efficient and less piecemeal hodgepodge of kit. With nearly a year elapsed, the news instead suggests bizarre political arguments and obfuscation while each nation goes it alone in offering up what it may. Not saying all that hasn’t been essential and welcome. Rather, by now the rearming of Ukraine should be within a rational and shared framework. If that is hidden behind all the noise, terrific. And again, yes - I’ve wondered during this muddy season whether the AFU would pull a Muhammad Ali “Rope A Dope”. Waiting for Russians to exhaust themselves and then go for the knockdown.