How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

The guy breaks his friend's leg at his request, so that he would not be taken into the army.

[Taranis]

21 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

Some questions raised by the spectacular leaks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines

Quote

 

Who could have damaged Nord Stream?

All eyes are on Moscow, although the Kremlin has also condemned the incident. It could be a question of "creating additional stress on the gas market", says Simone Tagliapetra, researcher for the Bruegel think tank, to Agence France-Presse.

Russia will be able to "use sabotage as a pretext" for never resuming deliveries, told AFP Tor Ivar Strømmen, a researcher at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy. But making the pipes unusable also means depriving oneself of an instrument of pressure: “if it’s the Russians, why do it on the three pipes? asks Thierry Bros, energy expert and teacher at Science-Po Paris.

What are the consequences for the gas supply?

In the short term, this will not change anything. Moscow already stopped delivering gas to Europe via Nord Stream 1 in early September, citing a technical problem on the more than 1,000 kilometer pipelines that connect Russia to Germany Gas prices have also not showed a significant jump: in the morning, the cost of the Dutch TTF, which serves as a benchmark, took 10%, before starting to fall again. This weak reaction is explained by the fact that “most market players” no longer “believed in Russian deliveries” of gas, according to Lion Hirth, an expert at the Hertie School in Berlin.

In the longer term, these incidents seem to drive the final nail in the coffin of Russian gas flows to Europe. “Before, the resumption of deliveries via Nord Stream was unlikely. It has become impossible”, summarizes Johan Lilliestam to AFP. Considerable sums would be needed to rebuild the tubes which have filled with water in recent hours, underlines Thierry Bros. “It will be impossible to restore them (…) it is quite unimaginable to spend so much money trying to repair pipes that connect us to Russia”, estimates the expert.

What impact on infrastructure security?

“What happens in the Baltic Sea could very well happen in the North Sea and the Mediterranean,” Sebastian Herold, a researcher at the University of Darmstadt, told AFP. “Deliveries from Norway and Algeria are vulnerable,” he adds. Both countries have become crucial suppliers to Europe since invading Ukraine to reduce dependence on Russian gas.

“For Europe, whoever the author is, this is a warning. We must be prepared to carefully monitor our pipelines,” says Thierry Bros. "This is a stark reminder of the exposure of Europe's gas infrastructure", abounds Simone Tagliapetra. In a 2020 report, NATO already insisted on the need to "protect critical (energy) infrastructure in order to increase the resilience" of the countries of the alliance.

What risks for the environment?

The leaks will release "several million tons of CO2 equivalent" into the atmosphere, Sasha Müller-Kraenner, of the German environmental NGO DUH, told AFP. However, the gas released, methane, will generate “dramatic consequences” in terms of global warming, he added. As long as the leaks are not repaired, there is a risk of explosion on the surface of the water: the authorities have therefore issued bans on sailing and flying in the areas concerned.

For maritime fauna and flora, on the other hand, the consequences are limited. “Methane also does not dissolve in water, so fortunately there is nothing to worry about,” says the Ministry of the Environment.

 

 

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Germany is in no position to force Poland or anyone else to do it. The efficacy for Russia in Germany politics that they could quietly push German industry to make their case. That's at best, attenuated if not eliminated.

Well, there aren't even any sanctions on buying RU gas in EU now. As a basis of conflict (especially assuming that RU still thinks we won't manage without their gas) this is probably as good as pushing for NS re-opening. So not very good, but it's some angle to try at least.
 

On related news. In comment there's already some Biden quote (from before the war) about bringing down NS2.

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Huba

[Battlefront.com]

41 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Now that is harsh.

I just follow the facts to where they lead.  He said his motivation was to expose the illegal and immoral use of hacking and tapping, yet he said nothing about Russia did even though he had access to all of that information.  And then he had the balls to spout off about these topics while living in Russia!  No, sorry, what I've said about him isn't harsh enough.  He might have started off as a sanctimonious egotistical arse, but he wound up being a major asset for one of the worst violators of Human Rights on the planet.  As evidence by the genocidal war his new home country is fighting against Ukraine.

By running off to Russia he voluntarily agreed to be an asset even if it didn't start out that way.

41 minutes ago, Butschi said:

He was never going to get a fair trial in the US and who else was willing to shelter him?

Wrong.  He would have received a very fair trial.  The problem is his actions were so clearly criminal in nature and thoroughly documented that he would have gone to jail for sure.  "You do the crime, you do the time" is a very fair system.

Now, obviously he didn't want to be held accountable for his criminal and treasonous activity, so of course he sought refuge elsewhere.  And he gladly accepted sanctuary from a country that is the exact opposite of what he said was so important to him... freedom from surveillance and freedom of expression.  I find it both amusing and ironic that he would have had more freedom if he was in a US prison than in Russia.  In a way, I'm happier with him in Russia than in a US prison.  It's a worse punishment and I his life is not sustained by my tax money.

41 minutes ago, Butschi said:

He would happily have gone to Germany for instance. He asked for sanctuary here. But we told him that while we are totally interested in his information to investigate illegal NSA activity in Germany, we would rather question him in Russia because we'd have to hand him over to the US if he'd come to Germany.

Russia extended the offer of sanctuary because he was one of their assets.  This is what Russia does to continue poking an adversary in the eye.

Steve

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

Well, there aren't even any sanctions on buying RU gas in EU now. As a basis of conflict (especially assuming that RU still thinks we won't manage without their gas) this is probably as good as pushing for NS re-opening. So not very good, but it's some angle to try at least.
 

On related news. In comment there's already some Biden quote (from before the war) about bringing down NS2.

 

Price caps on Russia gas are coming, very soon.

[Haiduk]

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Interesting, if true.

 

 

Butusov is wrong, 35th CAA to the time of UKR offensive already was redeployed to south. I heard a version he got lost afer HIMARS strike not far from Melitopol. Izium direction was under cover of 20th CAA and 1st TA

[NamEndedAllen]

12 hours ago, JonS said:

No, but I do see the value in not letting either 'side' have unfettered sway.

Russia should probably be out since while it made sense to include them post-war, that justification has long since evaporated AND their behaviour this past decade takes them out of the adult pool.

But, if we start down that road, who does 'deserve' the veto? Do France and the UK keep theirs ... I mean ... really? What about India, or Pakistan, Japan or Germany? Nigeria? What's the basis - has nukes, big economy, large population, lots of territory, is space-faring, large merchant marine, big military, lots of spending on military, popular vote, geographic spread, number of invasions or interventions per year, years without conducting an invasion, etc.

It's tricky, yo

Actually, no. I do not see in today’s world two “sides” and Russia doesn’t really represent an equal and opposite group of anything. Russia isn’t “United”, it has utterly trashed the charter it was bound to. Lastly, China exercises the veto power - it only takes one - for the latter day “other side”, if there is one. The world is much different now than the era that you are using as a template. In any event, having Russia a part of a “Security” detachment for a group of nations trying to work together (and succeeding through a number of their other facets such as WHO - eradicating smallpox, UNESCO, UNICEF, and the CFC Montreal.Protocol etc)…

is like having a grad school seminar in a locked room with a serial killer inside.

[Zeleban]

Russian mobilized first aid kit.  Good items for a museum

[Kinophile]

42 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Then we get into what the UKR army should look like by end of 2024, 2025.  One key aspect will be that it needs to be strong enough that Putin, even w a rebuilt army, couldn't possibly threaten Ukraine.  

In that Time article on Zaluzhny, he mentions that UKR must win this war, this terrible, brutal, vicious, stupid and cruel war just so they can get a breathing space to prepare for the next one.

THAT'S the right attitude to dealing with the Kremlin, and Russian imperialist nazisim in general.

This is a man and a society with no illusions and zero ****s left to give.

[Calamine Waffles]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia extended the offer of sanctuary because he was one of their assets.  This is what Russia does to continue poking an adversary in the eye.

Steve

He should be careful around stairs, unlike Edward Lee Howard.

[Sojourner]

Hmmmm, two attacks on Denmark, well Danish waters, Article 5 anyone?

[Grigb]

1 hour ago, TheVulture said:

Are we on the verge of a local Russian collapse back to the Zherebets river or further now, or is that getting too far ahead of reality. Although with the push north from Bilohorivka already being on the other side of the Zherebets, maybe Russia will have trouble holding muchwest of Krasna river and be pushed back to e.g. Kremina and Svatove in short order.

The situation is very strange right now. Looking at what is happening we see an imminent RU pocket forming and/or RU collapse. RU on the other hand behaves like nothing is happening. 

Anyway, according to Mashkovets posts RU tried to build defenses along Krasna river. So, indeed RU most likely does not have much to the West of Krasna river. 

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

Hmmmm, two attacks on Denmark, well Danish waters, Article 5 anyone?

Putin attacking a pipeline belonging to someone else would bring some kind of response, I wonder what it would look like.  

[NamEndedAllen]

12 hours ago, dan/california said:

The U.N. is all but worthless, and yet necessary. It is useful to have a place where countries that really don't like each other can confer somewhat easily. And it has some capacity to make things better in parts of the that are so poor no one cares about the specifics, or the interests of all the big powers happen to align. We would probably have to reinvent it if we shut it down.  BUT...

NATO, Five Eyes plus a South Korea, Japan, and maybe on the down low Taiwan, need to start talking about a world wide club/alliance with standards. How to do this is sort of beyond the scope of this thread and the current war in Ukraine. But it is time to think about a world wide alliance of the decent. If the same drawing power the EU exerts could be crafted it might help a lot of countries climb the development ladder without detouring into unpleasant authoritarianism. It is hard to overstate how much the attraction of joining the EU has helped and shaped Ukraine.

Out of likes, but yes. Too many problems and challenges and opportunities that cross too many lines on a map to continue to act as if we just learned how to organize something more than big hostile city states when such matters arise. 
 

Apologies for what is veering further off track. Does stem from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an implication about another, wider step about the challenge policies toward a post war Russia. But beyond this thread’s scope?

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I agree all around (of course I do, you cited me!) but it should be noted how utterly obtuse this is in the longer run. Putin's whole strategy was to split support for Ukraine. That means getting Germany and France to start to oppose the war on the grounds that Europe needs the energy Russia provides. This may be a Pollyanna take from our perspective...but it's at least a strategy of sorts. By blowing up the pipeline, Putin has very effectively taken that issue out of Germany politics and EU politics in general. He's *further* unified his enemies. I can't say it makes me happier though. He's simply continuing to double down his bets with the nuclear option being the final set of chips.

This entire war, from the start, has been a huge miscalculation by Putin.  An obvious statement of the obvious, obviously

Clearly Putin expected he could leverage Germany and the pro-Russian states (Hungary in particular) to cause more discord within the European response than in fact happened.  I don't blame him for this thinking as I also didn't expect Germany to act so decisively on the sanctions front!

The primary flaw in a policy/position that relies upon fear and disunity amongst your adversaries is what happens when they show they are not fearful or disunited.  Bullies (and Putin/Russia is a bully) aren't equipped for alternatives, so they just double down with threats and violence as they know no other way.  Thinking takes a back seat, if it was ever in the front seat to start with.

Putin is not thinking about "how might my actions improve the position of my enemies", but rather "how can I force them to do what I want them to do".  All thoughts that Putin is some master strategist are over.

Steve

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, Grigb said:

The situation is very strange right now. Looking at what is happening we see an imminent RU pocket forming and/or RU collapse. RU on the other hand behaves like nothing is happening. 

Anyway, according to Mashkovets posts RU tried to build defenses along Krasna river. So, indeed RU most likely does not have much to the West of Krasna river. 

I'd say RU is behaving exactly like one would expect when a dictator is making military decisions.  He's desperately trying to hold on to everything, throwing in every warm body he can find.  Sound familiar?

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

I agree with much of what you said but you mildly ignored my main point a bit. No other western MBTs and IFVs. Why? Yes, of course Germany has mothballed stuff Ukraine could put to better use, I totally agree.

But, honest question, why don't the other countries supply western MBTs and IFVs? It looks to me that others are just as reluctant as we are about this topic and are happy that Germany makes such a good job of presenting a target for criticism.

Something to point out, the West/NATO must appear united, and we know pre-invasion, the U.S and Germany had reached a agreement on Nord Stream 2 being shut down in the event of invasion IF Germany and France were allowed to operate diplomatically to try and defuse the conflict. 

We have rumors that the main reason why no IFVs or MBTs is due to German reluctance, and therefore in order not pierce the alliance unity, all countries adopt the same stance. As already stated, its rumored that several European countries have indicated willingness to give the Leopard to Ukraine, but Germany is shooting down the export. 

We have rumors abounding from the German military industrial sector of a ability to fulfill contracts, but the government is slow walking or ignoring their offers. 

The way Scholz and the German Government has been acting, in completely contradicting circumstances, one week saying no armored cars, the next week saying yes after public pressure is too high to ignore, gives very little credibility to Germany's excuses. 

Something else to point, Germany exports military hardware to many countries with less than acceptable human rights policies, but for Ukraine, drags its feet like it is in quicksand. The fact that the Dingo, a MRAP caused so much anguish for Germany, even as Ukraine finds more and more war crimes and endures the loss of its personnel in offensives, is just unacceptable. 

Germany is also acting like smug ****s, when they haven't done anything worth talking about, nothing unique, and tried to assert they needed the Dingo to defend Poland and the Baltics, considering their stance on Ukraine, that must get Poland and the Baltics seething. 

Also, handing over Marders to Greece so it can give BMP-1s to Ukraine, is just insulting. Absolutely insulting. Does not matter if logistically hard for Ukraine, it looks really bad for Germany to hand over Marders that are better to a non-combatant so they can offload their junk to Ukraine. 

2 hours ago, panzermartin said:

I find it incredible that people are so hard on Germany on the war thing. "Common, sell more Leopards Fritz, can't you see the opportunity !" It's like those people haven't studied WW2 all their lives and the scariest wound that war left to this country. A country that was painstakingly rebuilt brick by brick by the people left behind. And chose instead of planning to avenge the former rival to build a new relation that seemed like the logical bond. 

Germany has no problem selling military hardware generally. I will bring up the fact that the Inspector General (Secretary of the navy?) had to resign in January of this year due to saying that Putin needed respect, Russia and Germany should be cooperating against China, and that Crimea was gone from Ukraine. Very little for any of the states between Germany and Russia to feel pleased about, considering the carving of Poland and the Baltics in WW2 and prior. 

Does not seem like a lot of studying was done by the German government towards how the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine might feel about deals between Germany and Russia now eh? Not a lot of consideration for how they feel and the wounds inflicted on them by Germany historically hmm? 

On one hand, saying the Soviet Union's successor is Russia, and therefore is a former rival to Germany is right, but Ukraine was also part of the Soviet Union, and enjoyed German tanks rolling over the same hills and plains Ukraine is attempting to liberate from Russia, yet instead of a pledge to do right for Ukraine, we get this bull**** of a Marder being exchanged to Greece. 

On that note, so much money into Germany by Russia, a lot of politicians, including a former Chancellor owned by that money. It really comes down to the fact that Germany has a lot of incentive to not supply Ukraine, and a lot of factors that influence it to not do so, which would be less of a issue had Germany been revving to support Ukraine like Poland or the UK, or even the quieter U.S. but alas, none to be seen, so yes, Germany is gonna get slammed for being useless. 

 I mean look at these quotes from a NYT article on a interview he did two days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world/europe/olaf-scholz-germany-ukraine-war.html

Quote

NEW YORK — Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany gets right to the point when asked why his country will not send battle tanks to Ukraine: It is “a very dangerous war,” he said.

Ukraine has made gains recently against Russia, which invaded the country in February, and has been asking the West for reinforcements. But Germany has declined to lead the way in sending that aid.

“We are supporting Ukraine,” Mr. Scholz said last week in an hourlong interview with The New York Times. “We are doing it in a way that is not escalating to where it is becoming a war between Russia and NATO because this would be a catastrophe.”

How the **** can Ukraine not scream at Germany rightly when it Scholz says this? How can the Baltics, Poland, Finland or any other country in the target lens of a Russia intent on genocide and destruction be fine with that statement?!? I think we can all agree by now that the risk of NATO vs Russia is very low, (again, air defense batteries defending Moscow and the St. Petersburg region have been moved to Ukraine, and the Western Military District, supposed to fight NATO has been similarly drained of resources and personnel as well) and the fact that Ukraine unable to make offensive moves without NATO support is just doomed to have its people genocided on occupied land is just astoundingly insulting. 

Quote

But Mr. Scholz has refused to provide Ukraine with Leopard battle tanks or Marder infantry fighting vehicles, which Ukrainian officials have repeatedly asked for. As they pivot from a defensive posture to an offensive one in the south, Ukrainian forces need tanks to break through defensive lines and recapture more territory before winter and, as Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, put it, “liberate people and save them from genocide.”

Mr. Scholz’s refusal — which goes against the will of many even inside his own governing coalition — has earned him noisy and near-unanimous criticism among Germany’s Eastern European neighbors, not least in Ukraine. Commanders along the front say the Germans’ reluctance to provide battle tanks points to a policy of seeking a negotiated settlement along existing lines, rather than a Ukrainian success in pushing out the Russians.

“Not a single rational argument on why these weapons can not be supplied, only abstract fears and excuses,” Mr. Kuleba said recently on Twitter. “What is Berlin afraid of that Kyiv is not?”

Pressed on that question in the interview with The Times, Mr. Scholz bristled.

“Leadership does not mean you do what people ask you,” he said. “Leadership is about taking the right decisions and to be very strong. And this is what I’m doing.”

“We are cooperating and we are doing it together with our allies, and we are never doing something by ourselves alone,” Mr. Scholz added. “And this is the way we react to a very dangerous war.”

“It is absolutely wise never to do something just by yourself,” he said.

In the interview, Mr. Scholz rejected any suggestion that the United States might in fact welcome Germany’s stepping up and taking the lead on sending battle tanks, which are cumbersome to transport, especially across an ocean.

But after Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive, the U.S. Embassy in Berlin posted on Twitter what many interpreted as a veiled invitation to Germany: “We call on all allies and partners to lend as much support as possible to Ukraine in its struggle for democratic sovereignty,” the embassy tweeted. “The decision on the type of aid ultimately lies with each country.”

This month’s battlefield gains by Ukrainian forces have only added to the pressure on Mr. Scholz, whose government has cited different reasons at different times for not sending tanks.

Mr. Scholz’s caution was also evident during the interview in his reluctance to detail his own vision for how the war might end, preferring instead to cite a guest essay by President Biden that The Times published in May.

In the essay, Mr. Biden quoted President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, who at the time had said that ultimately the war would “only definitively end through diplomacy.” Mr. Biden wrote that the West did not seek war between NATO and Russia, but that the military support it was sending to Ukraine was meant to prepare and strengthen Kyiv’s hand when the time for diplomacy came.

“I very much appreciated what President Biden wrote in The New York Times,” Mr. Scholz said. “If you want me to subscribe to this article, I will do that. I can go with any sentence.”

The announcement that Mr. Putin made last week that he was calling up roughly 300,000 reservists and was moving ahead with annexing part of eastern Ukraine showed that he was “desperate,” the chancellor said, adding that it also showed that Mr. Putin had underestimated Ukraine’s ability to fight back and the West’s unity in supporting Kyiv.

“It’s obvious that Putin does not know how to get out of this,” Mr. Scholz said. “It’s obvious that he will not win the war and Russia will not win the war."

But he would not utter the word “victory” at all, let alone define it.

Did he want Ukraine to win? “Russia can’t win,” was as far as he would go.

"Russia can't win"?!?! Makes Macron look like a ****ing Ukrainian nationalist in comparison. 

Germany does not get to hide behind WW2 and act like it is killing Russia by sending tanks to Ukraine. Actually, Germany is letting Ukrainians die so they don't hurt Russian feelings. Just complete erasure of Ukraine and Ukrainians in enduring Nazi crimes and marching to Berlin and achieving Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. 

Why Russia has attempted for so long and hard to gloss over Soviet contributions by Ukraine over WW2 victory, is to diminish Ukraine in the eyes of Germany, so long wedded to atoning for their sins. Except the German public wants tanks sent! It is clearly not a unpopular move, which just leads us to the more cynical explanations. 

[sburke]

Question with what looks to be impending fall of Lyman.  What are we looking at strategically?  With all the talk of Nordstream and the UN I am getting lost on what to expect from continued UA advances.  What will be the expected effect on LNR and Russian operational issues on this front?

Trying to get a picture on what to expect from UA.  Been a lot of talk previously of them opening another offensive towards the south but so far not much has materialized there.  Pressure continues to be exerted around Kherson, but it seems the UA is not in a hurry to collapse those defenses.  Could be they prefer Russia to keep loading up troops on the left bank while they continue to push the Kharkiv offensive.

Or UA could have something else in mind as soon as the ground starts to freeze up.  Not like Russia is reorganizing or increasing combat power.  Just the opposite, they seem hell bent on making their army even worse.

[Grigb]

46 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

Two things come to mind:

• Getting something tangible to back up his claims that the West is directly attacking RU 
• Taking away political heat from RU regarding not supplying gas to Europe

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Grigb said:

The situation is very strange right now. Looking at what is happening we see an imminent RU pocket forming and/or RU collapse. RU on the other hand behaves like nothing is happening. 

Anyway, according to Mashkovets posts RU tried to build defenses along Krasna river. So, indeed RU most likely does not have much to the West of Krasna river. 

A while ago I figured that Russia has written this area off after concluding that it couldn't defend it without weakening its forces to the south.  This was the major reason why Putin finally did mobilization... there simply wasn't anything left to throw into the fight. 

What Russia seems to be doing is putting in whatever scratch forces it can find to slow down Ukraine's advances until the weather largely stops them altogether.  From there Russia can reinforce the line with Mobiks and hope for the best.

It's not a good or realistic strategy, but there is logic to it.  Therefore, I do not thing Russia is doing nothing about the situation, it's just that their options are so poor that this is the best they can do.

Steve

[Butschi]

44 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

I wouldn't say what other here answered is wrong but the real reason night be banal by comparison. Germany (abd the EU in general) has made it clear that we expect contracts are honored and will do so ourselves. The thing is, those gas contracts are very long running and contain a minimum purchase clause wich means we have to pay wether we take the gas or not. Now, if Russia outright refuses to deliver gas, that would probably mean we can just refuse to payvor even cancel it (I'm no lawyer, though). I imagine that's why they claimed they can't deliver due to technical problems, maintenance, etc. Now, if the pipeline has "a defect" that can't we can't prove was caused by Russia (and far away from Russian waters) they can't be blamed for not delivering, right? I mean if we can't guard our end of the pipeline against terrorist we it's hardly Russia's fault.

Well, just guessing.

[Grigb]

31 minutes ago, keas66 said:

If I was going to be possibly concerned about the use of tactical nukes - it would seem like a major offensive push by Ukraine now around Lyman would be the place they would do it ? Stall the Offensive push  completely  in that Area .

So far unlikely - Nukes are controversial topic in RU due to Totsky training debacle and Chernobil. So, the most likely targets would be deep in UKR rear to minimize fallout on RU on troops.

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

Question with what looks to be impending fall of Lyman.  What are we looking at strategically?  With all the talk of Nordstream and the UN I am getting lost on what to expect from continued UA advances.  What will be the expected effect on LNR and Russian operational issues on this front?

Trying to get a picture on what to expect from UA.  Been a lot of talk previously of them opening another offensive towards the south but so far not much has materialized there.  Pressure continues to be exerted around Kherson, but it seems the UA is not in a hurry to collapse those defenses.  Could be they prefer Russia to keep loading up troops on the left bank while they continue to push the Kharkiv offensive.

Or UA could have something else in mind as soon as the ground starts to freeze up.  Not like Russia is reorganizing or increasing combat power.  Just the opposite, they seem hell bent on making their army even worse.

I think the big picture is taking back, at a minimum, the Luhansk territory lost since February.  This will likely make Luhansk ripe for peeling away from Russia or at lest highly vulnerable to total conquest.  Donetsk is easily threatened after that.

At the same time, Ukraine will keep all of Russia's forces bottled up in the south, with a good chunk of them in danger of being eliminated.  But there is no rush... they aren't getting stronger and they aren't going anywhere.

Steve

[Cederic]

3 hours ago, MSBoxer said:

Unfortunately our European partners have allowed their militaries to atrophy for 3 decades, confident that the US would support them in any conflict.

While my country's military has been under funded and has been damaged by what people call 'woke', I would point out that we're confident the US will support us in any conflict because that's a NATO obligation.

I'd also point out that for the last forty years it's been the US asking us to support them in every conflict.

I also think people are being unfair on Butschi.

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

Where are the cries of "Why doesn't Biden finally send M1s to Ukraine?"?

This is a perfectly reasonable retort to the constant snide attacks on Germany for not providing Leopard tanks it doesn't have to spare.

Scroll down to Germany on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War and then look at

Germany's contribution is poor in comparison with the US, the UK and especially Poland (given GPD differences) but Butschi really does have a valid point.

[acrashb]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

He was a Russian asset, perhaps unknowingly at the start.  He is, therefore, a traitor rather than a whistle blower.  Which is why he is in Russia.

Steve

As I said, he violated his oaths - which makes him a traitor by any definition.  He could have chosen instead to be a whistle blower, but didn't.  So yes, most neutral observers now agree that he was a Russian asset - he certainly is now.

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

To forum folks:  what was the thinking for Putin to order this?  I understand that it will cause shocks in energy & stock markets to some extent, but what else does it accomplish other than that short term pain?

I think he was communicating.  Today is also the day that Poland and Norway are connected by pipeline - so he's saying "look, I can blow up your new pipeline" without actually doing it.

Poland and Norway open 'milestone' trans-Baltic gas pipeline (msn.com)