billbindc

My read is that China doesn't want Russia to lose but won't do that much to help Russia win. Their trade with the EU and US is far more important and this debacle creates complications that Xi didn't need. What the PRC will do is be a very friendly neutral to Russia while looking to encourage the non-aligned tendencies of Brazil, India, Mexico, etc.

I'm in a self-driving adjacent business and follow it quite closely. We really aren't that close to true self driving. That said, a battlefield has much less demanding parameters for control and safety than an average American street so I'd expect their advent in the field much sooner than on the highway.

Sorry, meant working on that general.

Note: this isn't a story that illustrates bad morale. It it shows that even in the military, the propaganda put out by the Kremlin is working.

Worth noting that this move will have one pretty bad effect for Moscow: it will potentially annul gas/oil contracts with EU nations who will refuse to resign for similar sized contracts at the same rates. Classic example of short term gain for long term self sabotage.

Correct. It's a low raise by the poorest better on the pot.

Sweeney driving out to where the action was. Looks like confirmation that the thrust towards Brovary is done.

Shoigu and/or the Gerasimov would have to agree (they need 2 of 3 'suitcases') and then are there points at which the order could be refused. I'm wouldn't put too much stock in the ranters on Russia state tv. Putin may have premises we don't share but he's also not shown any inclination to die in a nuclear holocaust either.

What you've done just here is quite good. I suspect lots of us are spreading the word.

There are many things that can be resorted to before nukes. Cyber against the EU/US is coming next almost certainly. Chemical isn't at all unlikely, General frightfulness, civilian slaughter-by-MRLS have begun but there's far more to come. Conventional strikes at or near the border with Poland, Moldava and Romania. Putin has these options and more. He just mentions the nukes for the same reason he fires hypersonic missiles at chicken shacks...it makes the news and creates the simulacrum of potency. I don't think we are very close to nukes yet and not just because irradiating the new Russian empire would be an idiotic way to create it.

This. No response at the first attempt means you get rolled worse down the road. But a tactical nuke on a Ukrainian city isn’t an attack triggering Article 5 and responses don’t have to be an exact tit for tat response.

For starters, his already strained military is going to have to spool up for a conflict with the EU and US (who won't immediately go to war over it but will certainly rush every available force to eastern Europe). There will then be an absolutely ferocious reaction globally to it that will include an immediate and full trade/contact embargo with Russia. China, India, Israel and others will perforce separate completely or more clearly from Moscow. And that's just the immediate reaction. In a sense, Putin is already conducting this sort of campaign in Mariupol. The Ukraine and the world aren't blanching at it but rather increasing aid to the Ukrainian side. Every escalation just makes the moral and political stakes that much more obvious.

There are at least 6 publicly visible US/NATO SIGINT and ISR aircraft up on the western and northwestern Belarus borders at the moment. If Lukashenko decides to go for it, it's not going to be a surprise to anyone.

Delete

Does anyone know where I could find a good analysis of the effective (emphasis on effective) strength Belarus would have to send to Ukraine?

As I noted earlier in this thread, analyses of the long war possibilities tend to be woefully lacking in taking into account the economic dimensions Russia is facing. It's partly understandable because Putin has been quite adept at maintaining and using frozen conflicts to pursue his agenda and observers are still somewhat mesmerized by the experience. This time, the pressures are going to be quite extraordinarily different I and personally doubt that Ukraine's ability to fight the war runs out before Moscow's does.

"Culmination"

Russia was never promised dick about NATO expansion. And everyone in the Kremlin knows it.

I love this summation and at the same time I'm embarrassed at how often I've had to give a similar one to people who should know better.

Curious if anyone's looking at or knows something about the reports of a Russian buildup northwest of Kyiv? Pretty obviously NATO is interested this morning:

Exactly. This isn’t a real offer, as the French Foreign Minister has been at pains to point out. It’s merely propaganda designed to let Russia claim it’s open to a deal but in reality it’s only open to getting for free what’s become to costly for it to take. Read properly, it tells us that at least publicly Russia is still in denial.

"Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia." This isn't happening...or at least not in any way that actual disarmament occurs.

A more nuanced take: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-17

I will always find myself completely unmoved by claims of Russian victory that completely ignore the economic damage that's been done already and the economic catastrophe that coming and how that will affect both Ukraine's calculations of resistance and Russian ability to maintain...or return to...any sort of forward momentum that can achieve their strategic aims. And just a thought...if a quick fait accomplis was the winning scenario here, I really can't imagine calling a costly slog that can't get past it's own initial logistical tail a win.

MacGregor is the sort who bangs on about "cosmopolitan elites". Ignore.