NamEndedAllen

Steve, agreed… all your points make sense. I do need to know more about your last point though, due to being a lot less knowledgeable on the critical specifics. Earlier in the war, the advent of HIMARS and the other upgrades extended the range and lethality of Ukrainian fires. This forced the enemy to push back its HQs, supply dumps, GLOCS protected by distance, etc - specifics you are better informed of. The outcome was disrupting and degrading the efficiency and speed for support and control of their frontline forces, and for Ukraine, increased shaping of the battlefield. If this is more or less correct, isn’t there another similar layer beyond Ukraine’s current limit of reach, that the Allies’ existing weapons not yet provided could enable? Not deep strategic strikes far into Russia! Simply another extension to the distance Russia can safely organize - just as happened with the initial tranche of upgraded artillery etc? That’s what I have been hoping for, and frustrated not to see introduced. A logical, incremental next stage of boiling the wretched Russian frog, helping to choke Russia’s ability to supply their troops, freeze them, starve them…force them back farther towards Russian borders. Or…we’ve reached a natural limit with the current reach Ukraine has? They can’t target anything beyond that limit without grinding there way forward? Thanks for insights on this.

BadaBOOM!

Sounds like a personal problem!

This is enormously disappointing. And a reminder that the differences between what we think we know and what is actually the case can easily render our favorite predictions terribly wrong. I keep remembering those early predictions that Ukraine would collapse in three days. Followed by, the Russian army would collapse by May, and then by August, and then in autumn. Similarly, that Russia itself would collapse. Sure, those things still could happen. It looks as if the odds lean that way, for the reasons often discussed here. And in WWI, a collapse of Russia did take it out of the war. But in WWII, neither Germany nor Russia nor Japan collapsed. Despite the horrendous losses and destruction of their nations. They fought until they were defeated and surrendered, or were victorious. Earlier, Dan wrote that the longer the war goes on, the higher the cost of everything soars. That is simple truth. Regardless of whether or not more aid would defeat Russia sooner. The longer the war goes on, the more things can go sideways. Especially outside Ukraine and Russia. One thing is firmly established: if the Allies’ financial and military commitment wavers, all bets are off. In a multi-year grind, how solidly united is that commitment? The future is not written. And it is fickle.

Absolutely the most important post here. Your words should be quoted at the top of every page of the forum! We humans are so good at getting irked with one another. We can turn on each other and face off over the slightest matter - at a moment’s notice. Many a useful Internet forum has gone up in flames and turned to ashes. Fortunately, Steve and Elvis are crack moderators and keep the pot from boiling over. But really, we ought not to need Daddy and his threat of the strap.

Rock on, Dave!

? I was only saying those were his own opinions, not, as charged, the German government’s position! I thought that was a bit of an overreach.

It does look like a neat package, from afar. Possibly from very afar. And that’s about it, apart from also having had to agree to massive reparations - which would put a dent in oil dollars while the world moves from away dependency on Russian oil. Also somehow removing the Putin government and handing over high level war criminals. Replacing it with a neutral-ish Western friendly new government. And the humiliation in front of not just the world, but the oligarchs, military and the chattering classes. Plus, all this *before* leaving occupation of the four Oblasts? Because…they are in a stalemate, and maintaining the occupation? How likely to be accepted? Or because Ukraine is opening an even larger can of Whup-arse on them and driving Russians from the field, out of all Ukraine. In which case Ukraine would have to give up its already accomplished re-occupation of its national territories to “international supervision”for a *decade* or so (who dat? NATO? UN? EU? China?). That is the proposed scenario. In which case the resulting political strife in Ukraine would seem to be enormous. “Who lost Crimea, Donbas, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya after all the heroes’ blood was shed winning them back?” Then what? That whole future scenario seems to be connected to a vastly different past reality than ours. And especially than Ukraine’s or Russia’s. It resumes that both countries will surrender a great degree of sovereignty to an unnamed international authority. One that could enforce all sorts of complex terms over many years. Does this seem highly likely? The most likely outcome? To me it looks like the outcome outsiders would like to accept. And having shed no blood, makes sense as they all have other crises to deal with. Personally, I think Russia and Ukraine are likely to primarily set the terms of an end to the conflict. Depending and not until one has the made decisive impact on the battlefield, from which the other sees no recovery.

To be fair, it isn’t the German position. It is Butschi’s. Unless he speaks for the German government!

Nobody outside Ukraine has a legal obligation to militarily aid Ukraine, AFAIK. Yet most of Western Civilization is doing so, and in a massive way. Because we see Russia’s actions as critical threats against our own national best interests, and against the basis of Western democracies and the civilization built upon them. Nothing since WWII’s existential threat resembles this war. Realistically, the massive support for Ukraine isn’t due to universal love of Ukraine itself. Besides the sheer humanitarian outrage and morally required response, it is the recognition of a looming widespread existential threat. While not existentially threatening the USA, that nation’s foreign policy in Europe since WWII has always been at root, to ensure that no single nation again dominates the European continent, subjugating Europe to its will.

AND more recently: “Russia needs to leave, that we can agree upon, but I would hand them over to the international community to manage for a decade or so” Thanks for your in-depth reply. My comment was part of a response to your earlier thoughts and insights on your vision of the best end state for the war. I do recall your analysis from way back. The sticky part has always been in lining up events between now, “Russia needs to leave”, and your international (peace-keeping?) oversight of occupied oblasts freed of Russian troops who assumed to have all returned to Russia. And an accompanying vision of a new Russia. My questions: 1. Is your scenario built on Russians fully vacating the Oblasts *without* being militarily defeated in detail, each Oblast? If so what are the other assumptions about Russia that bringing this about? Ukraine is already fighting *within* several of them as we speak and will be pushing farther through the winter. 2. Do you foresee Ukraine deciding that after greater successes on the ground, freeing more territory, the USA and Allies will force Ukraine to stop and accept terms? And Russia will, as well? 3. AND after difficult negotiations, the Russians will agree to fully retreat, everywhere? And agree to the rest of your terms - reparations, war crimes trials? Why? What do they get out of this? 4. If the Russian concessions are predicated on Putin’s downfall and a new friendlier government, would this really happen *before* decisive defeat in Ukraine? Wouldn’t the government fall *after* utter defeat and humiliating concessions? Is the assumption that during the coming warfare phase, Putin’s government will fall first, and the friendlier government would emerge? This seems shaky. 5. But If Ukraine has militarily defeated the Russians on the ground in each Oblast, I think it is an open question whether Ukraine would accept giving over some sort of international jurisdiction of them. You state reasons *why* that would be wise from an international perspective. But Ukraine and likely some of its close allies may not agree. So - a good scenario but Devil in the details. 6. NATO membership - How? I asked earlier about the requirement for a nation to be fully in control of its borders in order to apply for membership. Your scenario would complicate or derail that. Or do you know ways around it? 7. But if everything fell into place and your post war vision took place, my pessimism about Russia and the current state of governments everywhere leads me to wonder how the imposition of meaningful - meaning massive -reparations, and coughing up national and military leadership for war crimes shown worldwide…how all that would or could be enforced. Isn’t it likely that any conceivable future Russia would renege on various parts of such an agreement? All the allied nations party to such an agreement would have to agree on how to handle various violations by Russia, and get international corporations to buy in on starting and likely stopping specific aspects of trade. And are we relying on Ukraine or NATO or the UN or ?? to enforce banned activities within the four liberated Oblasts?? Who polices them? To be clear, your vision has much to commend it! But it raises questions about the two warring parties perceptions and whether either or both would agree. And then of course, all the devils in the enormous amount of details. So it may be the Best Outcome. But is it the Best Likely Outcome.

Perhaps this ice is breaking: “British Defense Minister Ben Wallace, meanwhile, on Monday said his nation was not ruling out sending longer-range munitions to Ukraine than the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS and M270 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) provided by the U.S. and allies.” https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-russia-relying-on-degraded-ammo-says-pentagon

Yes. Precisely stated. l’ve been hoping the next increment of *longer* range weapons (not the longest, for God’s sakes alive!), ratcheting up will boiling that everloving frog a bit faster, peeling the next few layers from this rotting Russian onion. Or more like pulling the plug on a fair piece of their regional connectivity for communicate, control, and supply. While wonderfully gleaming outcome for Ukraine and the Allies, this is a bit difficult to imagine as a Russian driven outcome, their choice and decision. This is more easily imagined. But I think NATO requires a nation to be fully in control of its borders before membership. So a rather complete and total retreat by Russian forces out of Ukraine would be the prerequisite. A likely scenario of that aftermath is a country seething with anger and hate, honor impugned and still armed with nuclear weapons… more inclined towards blood vengeance than a make-nice-with-everyone and here’s all your war criminals and a pile of oil money kind of attitude. But maybe that’s just me.

Well said! This is the scale I’ve hope for. NOT the straw man of a full on NATO type assault across all Russia to destroy their entire military industrial complex! Just please continue the frog boiling, raise the heat another nice juicy notch!. A follow on to the first wave of HIMARS and the other Allied assets that were so important to Ukraine’s seizing the momentum. Another incremental increase to Ukraine’s reach, sufficient to push farther back the exclusion zones for the major Russian logistic centers, vital junctions, GLOCs. Shutting down remaining airbases in Crimea. Wrecking the next layer of their networks across the theater. Increased ability to choke supplies to Russian invaders. Increased air defense and offense capabilities. Ensure continued joy in the Black Sea. Aid in blunting Russian SLOC. Port facilities. I’m sure the Ukrainian high command could and has laid out the argument and plans for thus more than once. To what end? Strengthening the momentum to force Russians out of Ukraine. Guarding against their return. However, IIRC @The_Capthas hinted that this sort of turning the heat up on the frog may not be feasible. If so, knowing the specifics of why would help relieve the frustration. Excluding targeting issues - I believe Ukraine has or can solve that without major USA ISR escalation, what is militarily impractical about peeling the Russian onion another couple layers?

Of course! The perils of e-mail. To which forums do resemble. My apologies!

If that suggests that Putin held the war budget constant, the rest of the full national budget would have to be the variables to hold that much expense steady. Implying a reduction of 25% of expenditures elsewhere in the budget. And THAT would be a quite large hit for anyone’s budget! Not to mention an entire nation. Another explanation might be that the announcement is just propaganda. Of course that would imply that Putin was not telling the truth…

Agreed! To be clear, I was referring earlier strictly to the USA’s own statement apparently ending its prohibition on using weapons it provides to Ukraine, on targets within Russia. I have no special knowledge about the employment of ISR or other assistance from the USA. But I strongly doubt that the statement suggests any hint of escalating by actively targeting and directing strikes in Russia. The long and openly recognized ISR the USA has already been providing since early days has been plenty valuable. It hasn’t caused any widening of the war, let alone a nuclear holocaust. And Ukraine has shown it can identify and attack targets itself, within Russia - without massive collateral damages. Ukraine has consistently demonstrated its adherence to avoiding targeting civilians and massive accidents anywhere, throughout the war. Ukraine hasn’t shown any propensity for firing blindly, within or outside of its borders. I imagine that has been deeply recognized by the USA and the European Allies. I don’t believe we should read more into the apparent dropping of the ban - *if* accurate - on use of provided weapons. I agree that the basis was the generalized fear of broadening the war. However *this* specific prohibition, splitting hairs over the provenance of what weapon is used where, has been eclipsed by the events on the ground. The recent statement seems to simply recognize the dark absurdity of tying the victim’s hands any longer, in this way, in his own home. As has been asserted here by nearly everyone, Russia is coming apart at the seams just trying to survive its war against Ukraine. Absent Poland or another neighbor, out of the blue *massively* launching its military into Ukraine or Russia, Russia’s cost/benefit analysis for attacking a NATO nation is absurdly prohibitive. (We don’t need to spend time on red herrings like Ukraine somehow miraculously wiping out Russia’s entire widespread nuclear arsenal! Although if Ukraine could somehow have this impossible superpower ability, to defang the wobbly bear, just the threat of it would have already ended the war. The emperor would truly have no clothes.)

My recollection which may be faulty is that Defense publicly alluded to this months, when pressured during a live presser. May have been Blinken. Along the lines of, Ukraine has the right to defend itself including striking legitimate targets from which it has been attacked. What has been insisted is a ban on using weapons from the USA ( I am unclear about status of weapons provided by other nations). We certainly have seen a lot of bases and installations in Russia being hit for months now, all presumably with Ukraine’s own weapons. IF the USA is removing its ban now, that is a very good change in policy. And about damn time.

Continuing this chapter in “Russian Rust & Evil Never Sleeps” Russian disinformation is demonizing Ukrainian refugees As Russian forces shell Ukrainian cities, pro-Kremlin propagandists have homed in on a new topic: turning Europeans against Ukrainian refugees. By Loveday Morris and Will Oremu https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/08/russian-disinfo-ukrainian-refugees-germany/

Related, incoming Select Committee Chair, for China. A respected rather bipartisan and serious vet. Rep. Mike Gallagher is the GOP pick to lead a new Select Committee on China — https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/09/house-committee-china-gop-gallagher/ Download The Washington Post app.

Chapter 113:, “Why We Never Trust Words From Putin’s Mouth” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-09/putin-says-russia-may-add-nuclear-first-strike-to-strategy

Look at the top choices: Immigration for Red and Climate Change (global warming) for Blue. Most intriguing as they will be joined at the hip as drought and increasing water and food scarcity force increasingly large populations to move or perish. Conflict is inevitable.

Not the best news out of the USA public, but still an overall majority of Americans favor support even if that has declined. “WashingtonCNN — Americans still strongly back the US providing aid for Ukraine’s fight against Russia, but there has been a decline in support amongst Republicans as some prominent GOP politicians and media figures express opposition to the US providing additional support to Kyiv, a new poll has found. In the latest poll, 33% of Republicans agreed with that prolonged support, compared to 61% of Democrats and 46% of independents. The level of support among Republicans for the US giving military aid has also declined: 55% were found to be in favor compared to 68% in July and 80% in March. Similarly, 50% of Republicans backed the US giving economic assistance, down from 64% in July and 74% in March.” https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/06/politics/us-support-ukraine-aid-russia-poll/index.html

Got it! I was late to the party today.

Agreed. With the recommendation that you consider that you have inadvertently stretched the concept of war to explain *everything* of consequence and causality, for *every* species on earth. The term war used this way is tantamount to “air”. “They are all *breathing*”! It must be AIR that is causing all our troubles! “No, it is birth!” Everything is secondary to being born!” Yes, conflict is a feature of life. Yes large scale contact between populations of all species often results in competition over resources and one group prospering (but not always). But culture and evolution are far more complex than the simplistic explanation that all competition of any consequence is reduced simply to a vaguely defined label, “ war”. Honestly, when the discussion is about the analysis of doctrinal effects in war, and anything related to such, your knowledge trumps anything I might think, even before I think of it! But here, across far too many specialized fields…it’s a bridge too far. And agreed - way off topic! I yield the floor to everyone else.