FancyCat

You can't divorce the military from political-social tho and by far the biggest weak point for the West and Ukraine isnt tank production, not the cost to make a tank and it turning into melted rust, or the money, it's the cost of the dead Ukrainian soldier and the potential cost of a dead NATO soldier embroiled in Ukraine that weighs upon political-social and accordingly military policies.

Manpower is probably the most valuable resource among Western nations (cause I prefer not venturing into other countries beyond) and the most politically vulnerable to lose. Nothing cheap about that. I mean review Ukraine's own political and social concerns around their soldiers. Consider how that is a clear marker of difference between Russia and Ukraine, and how the ensuring pleading from Ukraine has been for what keeps their soldiers alive. Artillery, western tanks, IFVs, APCs, despite the amounts of Soviet hardware given, it has always been Ukrainian preference for Western hardware and vehicles. Also, ATVs, quad-bikes? I haven't seen one video of Ukrainians on a ATV or quad-bike. Are these armored popemobiles? I fail to see how anyone would willingly take a IFV or APC to the front instead of a ATV or quadbike.

The more the Black Sea fleet and Russian Air Force must move away from Crimea to the east, the better for defenses of the Black Sea ports, and better for the Black Sea shipping. If Ukraine opens up grain shipments, not only is it valuable money, it’s a potent tool of international relations, to influence states to recognize Ukraine’s commitment to the world, to illustrate Russia’s disregard and waning military capability.

For what should be one of the most fortified areas of Russian occupied Ukraine, to be enduring such lengthy bombardment, oof, just oof.

Videos of fire at the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet.

Also we have a solution for the agricultural export issue...open the Black Sea ports. More underwater ISVs to Ukraine, more AA and cruise missile defense, Western support for shipping stakeholders, why are we emphasizing ATACMS, more screaming at Germany for Taurus missiles, will at least pressure Scholz and co to start pressuring the U.S in response.

Meh, if one reviews the amount of infighting the allies had in WWII, end of the day these are normal, and it's in Russia's interest to emphasize the infighting. I've seen headlines saying stuff from "no more aid to Ukraine" to "no more reserves left of Soviet hardware for Ukraine" to etc, etc. Main considerations at hand, financial, and associated production, and those remain flowing and active from ex-Soviet states. More concerning is the U.S and even then I'm not too concerned, even tho I remain extremely annoyed by ATACMS, if we consider that strategy of escalation control I guess the U.S is waiting for Russia to do something, perhaps the energy infrastructure attacks which Ukraine just warned might be beginning with a set of strikes recently, the U.S is waiting to release upon Russia initiating this winter.

This sort of Crimea campaign is pretty impressive, I know asymmetry in land and air has been discussed, do we suppose the sea has some major rethinking to occur? Especially in locations like the straits of Taiwan or Singapore or Persian Gulf. Tho, I wonder how much of Russia's performance is due to shoddy Naval upkeep and training.

Tweet author is part of WSJ so operating under safe assumption that this is real, indeed it's insane.

Let's not go overboard, these things happen anywhere including the U.S, hit and runs and people ignoring it.

Maybe it's just me, but expecting Russia to surrender (Tormak) real estate that would bring Ukraine closer to forcing a retreat of Russian forces in Kherson due to a untenable defense, should we not be surprised if Ukraine does not throw stuff in willy-nilly and Russia throws in the kitchen sink to hold it? Why sure one would hope Ukraine would move faster, I am unsure how without sacrificing equipment and soldiers that can be done urgently.

I would argue that Russia's actions themselves have forced them into this situation, rather than this total defeat condition something the West can choose or not choose to seek, in launching a total invasion of Ukraine with the goal of at least puppeting the government to outright annexing it, by seeking the total defeat of Ukraine, Russia itself has made it a condition that it must fight in Ukraine no matter what to prevent Ukraine from falling into the arms of the EU and NATO. There isn't anymore pro-Russian parties or influence for Russia to pay and support. No matter what happens, it will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to convince Ukraine to peacefully remain neutral or in Russia's sphere. Either way Ukraine will rearm and continue to prepare for a new invasion. Why does it matter? If I'm Putin, and I want Ukraine, then at this point the only option is carve out the best scenario for a future Russian invasion of Ukraine. That means no EU or NATO membership. If I were a Russian nationalist or ultra nationalist, Ukraine must be controlled, it is basically the precondition for continued Russian imperial designs anywhere else. That this invasion has resulted in a dagger aimed at Russia's heart in the form of a openly placed at firing wall Ukraine only underscores how stupid the decision to fully invade was but it also underlines why the "total defeat of Ukraine" was something many analysts didn't think would occur, it was a extreme action, one that would portend the end point of Russian peaceful influence in Ukraine. Whether or not the West makes it a condition, Russia will be seeking to ensure it is a condition of their defeat. And to bring up LLF, it isn't hard for Russia and Russians to believe things aren't so bad, that there is a potential way forward for conquering Ukraine, with their perception of the facts they have. As for NATO, there are definite levers for Russia to pull in Europe to prevent Ukraine from entering (Hungary). The course of this war has been a reactive West, great for slowly boiling the frog, but a key part of it is the slow boil of course. And a key part of Russian fearmonging to attempt to convince the West to stop supporting Ukraine is the possibility of Russian collapse. It is in Russia's interest to propose that only total defeat will make Russia give up Ukraine. The worst thing Russia could do right now is offer concessions, or signal willingness to negotiate right now.

This is a war of attrition. It would be a strategic mistake for the West to cut and run or pursue negotiations without battlefield pressure on Russia. Putin and Co have wagered that the West is incapable of long term conflict, if we fail to demolish that motion, then we reinforce that notion, and we make it more likely for China to consider the same in regards to Taiwan, and it make it harder for the West to reassure vulnerable allies of our commitment. If the nature of warfare is shifting such that favors attrition, then we need to ask if it's so wise for the west to forgo long term commitment to Ukraine and not signal to potential anti-china states like Vietnam, India, South Korea, the Philippines, that Western power is not there to stay. Also I'm unsure if the burden on the West is such that it's actively causing issues at home. Oh sure billions thrown about make big headlines but let's put it in focus. A lot of this is military procurement, a lot of this does translate back home as jobs, investment, long term investment in military buildup of reserves. And finally we have no indications that Putin and co are willing to negotiate terms that don't result in a Ukraine that is 1. At risk of further Russian offensives, 2. Inspire a Ukraine that can operate under NATO or EU membership. I will express my opinion right now, there will never be EU or NATO membership for Ukraine as long as territorial issues remain unsettled by the force of Russian arms. Unless territory is traded in exchange for NATO and EU membership, and codified, the EU and NATO will be too chicken**** to allow Ukraine to join in fear of a conflict with Russia. The only option for the West is to match Putin and arm and reinforce Ukraine with the aim of reconquering occupied Ukraine with military force. The only way your gonna get Putin to the table is by offering him the option of battlefield defeat or "goodwill gesture Kherson 2.0". And I certainly don't see any reason why our military industrial complex cannot ramp up to meet the occasion. I honestly think it's essential for the West to prove itself here, lest we find ourselves with emboldened enemies and fights that aren't proxy wars.

What's the difference practically between sincere and false? None, in his position in the Russian military, he's effectively a PR speaker. If you want to change his mind, give Ukraine more missiles, tanks, APCs, artillery so he can choose to either die in Ukraine or retreat to Russia and continue spouting his views safely there.

https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-china-gas-idAFL1N3AK2CE

O.o

Lets not forget that North Korea is banned from exporting military items by UN Security Council resolutions, and most likely North Korea will be attaining something in return, which may well be also banned.

The author is part of the Valdai Club, a Russian thinktank to peddle their lies.

Thread on ATACMS.

O.o https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-send-long-range-atacms-missiles-ukraine-time/story?id=103031722

I suppose the North Korea deal was the shot across the bow.

Alperovitch pointed out that Putin rose to power on partially ensuring the chaos of the post-Soviet era would end, and that the war is causing some of these barriers and boundaries to start cracking. Would explain why the Russian government in many ways seems focused on ensuring it stays as far as away from normal people as possible, to avoid the comparison of the 90s. Wasn't Prig a powerful and wealthy man before the war? Sure, the war gave him more, but wasn't Wagner well under way in prior to the invasion? Maybe encountering the fighting in Ukraine made him more....i dont have a word for it. Or the taste of having thousands of men to command went to his head. Certainly not the first time in history.