How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FlemFire]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

changed the leopards spots is... well... head shakingly at odds with the history of our species (not just Russia).

Humans by definition want to live a good life with a good standard of living. You call me anti-global while making the painstaking argument that certain countries will never be able to sit at the table. This is a pretty strong contradiction, no?

I've seen strictly religious individuals come to the West and gradually open up to the liberties and, frankly, excesses of Western life. We've all watched countries rapidly change just this past century alone, almost entirely due to liberal ideals. Japan, for example, went from a brutish, closed-off almost medieval Empire hellbent on massacring China to making sweet cars and Nintendos with more life and vibrancy than you can shake a stick at. Your way of thinking is extremely fatalistic. Nobody has "spots." People are just people.

[Bulletpoint]

32 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

- Mass is not suddenly going to start working.  I have seen far too many examples of force concentrations failing gloriously.  I have no idea what a distributed offence looks like but I think it needs some thought.

I'm guessing the Russian answer is to spread out mass over time. So instead of attacking with 3 waves of 10,000 men, they attack with 300 waves of 100 men.

New waves are constantly being formed behind the lines and sent into the grinder, but never really amassing enough troops to make a really good target for artillery, but still keeping enemy artillery working overtime, wearing it out, spending munitions, and potentially getting spotted and engaged.

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

I'm interested to see how UKR uses those long range strike drones mentioned above.  Logistics, obviously.  But probably energy infrastructure.  Once hundreds of thousands urban Russians have gotten a taste of winter without power for a few days, or a week at a time, where will there anger be directed?  At UKR, of course.  But maybe at Putin also?

Go after either:
1) Scarce resources that have long lead times… Aircraft. Locomotives. Large transformers. Refineries.

2) Things that will shut down cities: Water treatment plants, power plants, bridges, airports.

[Zeleban]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

This is also why Western support for Ukraine is now being dialled down. We are in a process of Ukrainian leadership and public slowly getting more and more used to the idea of not being able to win a total victory.

One might think that this would have some significance for negotiations with Putin. In today's realities, it would be a real gift for Ukraine if Putin agreed to negotiate with Ukraine. This would give the state of Ukraine at least some illusion of being able to exist for another couple of years (which I highly doubt). But being a pragmatic politician, Putin will not enter into any negotiations with Ukraine.

- the flow of weapons parts has intensified.

- the Russians have built an entire plant for the production of FPV drones

 - repair and restoration plants for the restoration of equipment from storage bases are operating at full capacity.

- There is not even a hint of problems with the entry of manpower into the army. Income from the sale of mineral resources  allows you to recruit volunteers in any quantity, without the need for mobilization

 

What can Ukraine do to counter this?

- A severe decline in morality in the rear (now the first signs of a decline in morality are appearing at the front. The military themselves talk about this)

- Lack of finance in Ukraine's dilapidated economy.

- Lack of normal replacement of losses in equipment due to extremely limited supplies from the West

- the continuing decline in the popularity of support for Ukraine in the West. (I’m sure Western leaders will soon begin to disown Ukraine as if it were suffering from the plague. American politicians are setting a good example for the rest of the world)

What is the point for Putin to sit down at the negotiating table with Ukraine, if even an ordinary resident of Russia understands that Ukraine is going down? What can he say to the Russian’s question: “Why the hell did we endure all this for 2 years to retreat now when our victory is obvious?” 

 

I am sure that Putin will not conduct any negotiations with Ukraine. Yes, for the West, he will pretend that he is ready for dialogue with Ukraine. However, these will be obviously impossible conditions = complete surrender (for example, the disbandment of the Ukrainian army or the complete disarmament of Ukraine).

Why do the West believe that Putin is really waiting for Ukraine to sit down at the negotiating table with him? What do you think he should do with the hundreds of thousands of mobilized people embittered by the war? Return them to Russian cities so that they sharply worsen the crime situation inside Russia? Do you know how many illegal weapons and explosives are now in the hands of former criminal elements who are now in Ukraine? Russia today literally lives off the war, and if the “enemy” suddenly disappears, where should the rage and anger of all these people be directed? No, war is vital for Putin. No negotiations

[Battlefront.com]

51 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

My comment was based on a graph in this video from the official channel of the Austrian Army:

https://youtu.be/EWjMr3RZ8Ss?t=1549

It shows that since July, little aid has been pledged to Ukraine.

Of course, if the US manages to agree on sending 61 billion more, despite increasing political opposition, then that will make a big diference to that graph going forward.

Again, you made a statement that confuses outcome and causation.  We know that pledges have slowed.  That's factual and can be seen in a chart.  But concluding that is all, or mostly, due to conscious political decisions to not fund Ukraine because an acceptable status quo has been reached is "going out on a limb".  There's no evidence to support such a conclusion.

What there is plenty of evidence to support is that domestic circumstances in multiple countries, not just the US, is putting pressure on governments to not send as much aid to Ukraine this year as last year or the year before.  The reasons for that, again with plenty of evidence to show, is populist push back against the spending itself.

As I pointed out, the US' intention is to fund Ukraine at almost the same level as last year.  That is not "dialing it back".  Whether the US will send the money or not is an entirely different thing.

Steve

[Bulletpoint]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Again, you made a statement that confuses outcome and causation. 

It might be that I'm confusing outcome and causation in this case. But when you say "again", where else did I do that? Or did you confuse me with Khalerick/Flemfire?

[Battlefront.com]

48 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

Humans by definition want to live a good life with a good standard of living.

Sure, and often they pursue that by reducing the standard of living of someone else.  That's Russia's primary motivate for its relationships with former Soviet Republics.  "The spice must flow" and only in one direction.  And within Russia most of that is used to keep St. Petersburg and Moscow fat and happy while the rest of the nation struggles to survive.

48 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

ou call me anti-global while making the painstaking argument that certain countries will never be able to sit at the table. This is a pretty strong contradiction, no?

I said nothing of the sort.  I said certain countries will only sit at the table in order to eat someone else's meal.  That is Russia's way and at the start of this war I had *hoped* that enough Russians had changed their minds about this sort of behavior to make a difference.  As I have repeatedly stated, I have been sorely disappointed to learn this wasn't true.

48 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

I've seen strictly religious individuals come to the West and gradually open up to the liberties and, frankly, excesses of Western life.

And we've seen religious fanatics live in the West explicitly to destroy it despite being exposed to the excesses of Western life.

48 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

We've all watched countries rapidly change just this past century alone, almost entirely due to liberal ideals. Japan, for example, went from a brutish, closed-off almost medieval Empire hellbent on massacring China to making sweet cars and Nintendos with more life and vibrancy than you can shake a stick at. Your way of thinking is extremely fatalistic. Nobody has "spots." People are just people.

You are talking about the liberal/progressive theory that over time we, as a species, move towards being less violent and more benevolent.  History supports this belief and, since I have "credentials" that say I am a historian, I agree with this perspective.

However, it is extremely dangerous to act as though the path towards this greater good is universal or evenly followed.  History shows us it is exactly the opposite.

As I just stated, I had hoped that Russia was further along this path than it apparently is.  Could the West have done anything to speed up the process?  There is always the possibility it could have, but things like Chechnya and Russian policy towards Ukraine specifically, give me confidence that Russia still values its past more than its future.

Regardless, we are in this war today because of decisions that were purely of Russian origin.  Putin was given many months of pressure and incentives to not launch this war.  He chose war, not the West.  And therefore war is a fact despite the West not wanting it.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm guessing the Russian answer is to spread out mass over time. So instead of attacking with 3 waves of 10,000 men, they attack with 300 waves of 100 men.

New waves are constantly being formed behind the lines and sent into the grinder, but never really amassing enough troops to make a really good target for artillery, but still keeping enemy artillery working overtime, wearing it out, spending munitions, and potentially getting spotted and engaged.

That would be a Russian-sort of corrosive warfare.  It will only work if the RA can 1) project ISR in depth, and 2) have strike follow it effectively.  Then these little waves would expose the UA operational system to corrosion over time.

I suspect the RA has improved both ISR and strike in depth but we would need to see evidence it is working.  I mean why would it work for the RA but has not worked for the UA?  The UA has all the ISR and a lot of deep strike capability, it kept them in the game.

Right now both forces have about the same numbers of troops in the field, so it is not as though the RA outnumbers.  So I think what you describe would basically be a more reckless version of what the UA tried over the summer.   Could wind up being a quality vs quantity fight in the end.  So far quality has won that exchange.  But we will have to see.

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It might be that I'm confusing outcome and causation in this case. But when you say "again", where else did I do that? Or did you confuse me with Khalerick/Flemfire?

I was only referring to your comments that commitments have been "dialed back" because the West is satisfied with the status quo.  The facts indicate that the West is *not* satisfied with the status quo as policy, but internal pressures that have little to do with geopolitical concerns are definitely pushing us in that direction.

Steve

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

That would be a Russian-sort of corrosive warfare.  It will only work if the RA can 1) project ISR in depth, and 2) have strike follow it effectively.  Then these little waves would expose the UA operational system to corrosion over time.

I suspect the RA has improved both ISR and strike in depth but we would need to see evidence it is working.  I mean why would it work for the RA but has not worked for the UA?  The UA has all the ISR and a lot of deep strike capability, it kept them in the game.

Right now both forces have about the same numbers of troops in the field, so it is not as though the RA outnumbers.  So I think what you describe would basically be a more reckless version of what the UA tried over the summer.   Could wind up being a quality vs quantity fight in the end.  So far quality has won that exchange.  But we will have to see.

I should have added that I don't think the Russian way of doing things is "clever" or that it solves the problem of not being able to concentrate mass. I think it's just the best they can come up with given the circumstances.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You are talking about the liberal/progressive theory that over time we, as a species, move towards being less violent and more benevolent.  History supports this belief and, since I have "credentials" that say I am a historian, I agree with this perspective.

This is insane.  The far right nutjob wants to be right so badly that he is embracing liberals progressive theory?  One cannot cherry pick liberal theory...that is not how it works.  If we are going to somehow ascend it all and embrace brother Russia for the good of all mankind, then one has to do the rest as well.  Immigration, social programs (universal healthcare), social equity, liberal capitalism and of course, climate change.

Steve, you have the patience of Job. 

[Bulletpoint]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I was only referring to your comments that commitments have been "dialed back" because the West is satisfied with the status quo.  The facts indicate that the West is *not* satisfied with the status quo as policy, but internal pressures that have little to do with geopolitical concerns are definitely pushing us in that direction.

Steve

You're right, I was going into the realm of speculation there, and I should have made that more clear. I don't have access to what's being said behind closed doors at high level meetings in Nato/EU/US.

But I think there's much more being said in those meetings than publicly. And I think it would go a long way to explain the slow drip of weapons to Ukraine - the aim would be to prevent Ukraine from being overrun, but at the same time prevent a total Russian defeat.

Now that Russia has been pushed back into territories they consider their own, the western appetite for more aid to Ukraine is not what it used to be. But if Russians manage to start making meaningful progress towards Kyiv, I think we will suddenly see a substantial increase in the supply situation.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Bulletpoint

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I should have added that I don't think the Russian way of doing things is "clever" or that it solves the problem of not being able to concentrate mass. I think it's just the best they can come up with given the circumstances.

Actually it is not a bad way to go.  In this scenario the RA would play to its strengths and double down on a type of attritional warfare they could sustain.

The reality is that Putin has pinned his entire war on a single US election (wait for the fireworks in the run up to that one wrt Russian/Chinese interference).  If it does not go his way, he is utterly screwed.  Another 4 years of 100B per year spending on Ukraine will cripple Russia.  Sanctions and economic runway will likely have run out by then.  So right now it is classic Russian play - look strong, make a big deal out of ourself and attack!!  Buy for time and a Ave Maria.   

If the Russians can somehow pull off an operational gain via this approach...we are talking a new ballgame.  They only way they can do that is if Ukraine runs out of will.  Or we stop backstopping.

[Aragorn2002]

"No, to try and force Russia and its population in his mindset. He is turning everyone into a hardcore nationalist. This is probably one of his main goals with this war, to forever drive a wedge between the west and Russia in the Russians minds. So that the only future left is one that aligns with his vision. So that everyone who disagrees with this vision is seen as a traitor. Propaganda and hate speech work miracles. Those that disagree either leave or are afraid to speak out"

I found the above quote on Reddit very accurate and I see Putin and his war in the same light. The most important reason why Putin attacked Ukraine is that he wanted a war to unite his people and burn their bridges, to get rid of the people who oppose him and to make sure there's no way back for Russia, much like Germany in ww2. In that sense Putin has already reached his main goal. The only thing Putin is afraid of is peace.

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Aragorn2002

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

"No, to try and force Russia and its population in his mindset. He is turning everyone into a hardcore nationalist. This is probably one of his main goals with this war, to forever drive a wedge between the west and Russia in the Russians minds. So that the only future left is one that aligns with his vision. So that everyone who disagrees with this vision is seen as a traitor. Propaganda and hate speech work miracles. Those that disagree either leave or are afraid to speak out"

I found the above quote on Reddit very accurate and I see Putin and his war in the same light. The most important reason why Putin attacked Ukraine is that he needed a war to unite his people, to get rid of the people who oppose him and to make sure there's no way back for Russia, much like Germany in ww2. In that sense Putin has already reached his main goal. The only thing Putin is afraid of is peace.

 

That is an excellent point.  Putin did not want rapprochement with the West.  He used the entire spectre as a lever issue to unite Russia politically.  The last thing he wants is for us to suddenly become chummy…we are the oppressive monster at the door, coming to take away all their “freedoms”.  Why on earth would he ever accept true peace?  He will play us to show his people how clever he is, but we cannot even get back to “weird” with the Putin regime.

 I am not even sure how T would do it.  The second he gave Russia an inch they would screw us and make him look like an idiot - and one thing 45 did not like was looking like an idiot.  We would take some serious hits and be right back here again.  Russia needs an enemy and has picked one…and it ain’t China or India.  

Edited December 17, 2023 by The_Capt

[danfrodo]

10 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

"No, to try and force Russia and its population in his mindset. He is turning everyone into a hardcore nationalist. This is probably one of his main goals with this war, to forever drive a wedge between the west and Russia in the Russians minds. So that the only future left is one that aligns with his vision. So that everyone who disagrees with this vision is seen as a traitor. Propaganda and hate speech work miracles. Those that disagree either leave or are afraid to speak out"

I found the above quote on Reddit very accurate and I see Putin and his war in the same light. The most important reason why Putin attacked Ukraine is that he wanted a war to unite his people and burn their bridges, to get rid of the people who oppose him and to make sure there's no way back for Russia, much like Germany in ww2. In that sense Putin has already reached his main goal. The only thing Putin is afraid of is peace.

 

That is a very interesting way to look at this from Putin standpoint.  I had never thought of it this way.  Thanks much for sharing that, Bud!

[Aragorn2002]

32 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

That is a very interesting way to look at this from Putin standpoint.  I had never thought of it this way.  Thanks much for sharing that, Bud!

For me it's the only explanation that 'makes sense', Dan. And an indication of how important this war really is for the West. 

Putin's legacy.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Aragorn2002

[FlemFire]

I'm not going to respond, Steve, because you're now engaging in conversation for which you just threatened to ban me for participating.

 

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 

This is insane.  The far right nutjob wants to be right so badly

 

 

"Far right nutjob" -- your ability to freely throw around insults without a slap on the wrist is neutering your ability to converse, as you can now default to petty name-calling in place of actual conversation. I'm still very much curious how it is you thought the counter-offensive would cut through so easily. "Gulf War-esque" you said, yet it failed at the skirmish lines. This is, dare I say, a massive gulf of difference between projection and reality. I'm genuinely curious what data points gave you the idea.

[Vet 0369]

13 hours ago, dan/california said:

Never the less the worst case scenario is the Chinese taking the island the way Putin thought he was going to take Kyiv. That is the one we need to take off the table first. I mean i also advocate putting an entire division of Marines on Taiwan. It would take the ambiguity bit right out of the equation.

 

So, again you are advocating taking one-third of the entire USMC Infantry force and basically placing them in “garrison”? What would that do to the U.S. ability to respond to “other world hotspots? Think about it, who are referred to as “The President’s Own” due to the fact that the President can deploy a USMC rapid deployment force at a moment’s notice? While it is an honor that you consider  the USMC to be such an amazing force, we do have human frailties. The USMC this three active Infantry divisions ( MARDIV) and three active air wings (MAW) that support each MARDIV. In addition we have one active reserve MARDIV and one MAW. Marine infantry basically trust only Marine or Navy Air for Close Air Support, so they will have one of them everywhere they are deployed. The concept of deploying a MARDIV and MAW on Taiwan as a deterrent is totally unnecessary and a waste of a deterrent force. Marines are basically able to deploy to any location in the World within 72 hours. Case in point, when I was a Reservist in the 4th MARDIV in 1980, just after the abortive hostage rescue mission in Iran, I received  a phone call at home (just north of Boston) on Wednesday evening ordering me to report for duty in Chicopee, Ma (about 120 miles from home) by 1500 on the next Friday. I reported in and by 1900, we were on Air Force C-141s and on route to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. When we landed a few hours later, we landed with the rest of the ENTIRE Regiment, in clouding Armor, Artillery, and Transport. And that was an Active Reserve Regiment.Think about what an active MARDIV can do today.

Please stop that type of silly “wish” talk.

[dan/california]

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And within Russia most of that is used to keep St. Petersburg and Moscow fat and happy while the rest of the nation struggles to survive.

The single biggest reason this war is popular in large parts of Russia is that it has diverted a significant portion of the oil income that used to go straight to the Moscow/St Petersburg governing complex. Now rural villages that haven't seen a ruble in thirty years are suddenly getting truly large amounts of cash from military pay and death benefits. Second tier cities that were originally built as part of the Soviet military industrial complex, and have been dying on the vine for decades, are suddenly flush with factory orders to the extent they can't keep up. Retirees and teenagers are being recruited/drafted into the work force. The thing that will break this "beneficial" cycle is runaway inflation. The West has to buckle down and hold the line on sanctions. As well as keeping Ukraines army in the field.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

That is wild coordination.

I want to know what they said/did to convince the guys in this tape that things would end any differently from how it ended for the multiple platoons of dead AFVs they were driving right past? I fully expect in a week or so we will get more tape of more suicidal mobiks dying in the middle of what will then be a full company of wrecked AFVs. The Russian systems only strength is its ability to convince large quantities of people to commit suicide. That is the lock we have to pick.

Edit: There some strong parallels with Imperial Japan at some level.

30 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

So, again you are advocating taking one-third of the entire USMC Infantry force and basically placing them in “garrison”? What would that do to the U.S. ability to respond to “other world hotspots? Think about it, who are referred to as “The President’s Own” due to the fact that the President can deploy a USMC rapid deployment force at a moment’s notice? While it is an honor that you consider  the USMC to be such an amazing force, we do have human frailties. The USMC this three active Infantry divisions ( MARDIV) and three active air wings (MAW) that support each MARDIV. In addition we have one active reserve MARDIV and one MAW. Marine infantry basically trust only Marine or Navy Air for Close Air Support, so they will have one of them everywhere they are deployed. The concept of deploying a MARDIV and MAW on Taiwan as a deterrent is totally unnecessary and a waste of a deterrent force. Marines are basically able to deploy to any location in the World within 72 hours. Case in point, when I was a Reservist in the 4th MARDIV in 1980, just after the abortive hostage rescue mission in Iran, I received  a phone call at home (just north of Boston) on Wednesday evening ordering me to report for duty in Chicopee, Ma (about 120 miles from home) by 1500 on the next Friday. I reported in and by 1900, we were on Air Force C-141s and on route to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. When we landed a few hours later, we landed with the rest of the ENTIRE Regiment, in clouding Armor, Artillery, and Transport. And that was an Active Reserve Regiment.Think about what an active MARDIV can do today.

Please stop that type of silly “wish” talk.

It isn't wish talk, it is a rational strategic response to the stated intentions of our primary adversary. Taiwan is the linchpin of the the economic miracle in East Asia. The CCCP understands this, that is why they are frothing at the mouth to control it. For 70 plus years we have been able to deter them remotely, that time is passing very, very quickly. In addition to being a truly unmistakeable signal of U.S. commitment, the Marines could be used to drag the entire Taiwanese military up to speed. If we have to get that division there after the war starts, under a hail of Chinese anti shipping missiles starting AT LEAST  five hundred miles from the Chinese coast it will be beyond expensive in terms of casualties. China is actually getting ready for this fight, if we don't we will be very, very sorry.

Edited December 17, 2023 by dan/california

[sburke]

30 minutes ago, dan/california said:

It isn't wish talk, it is a rational strategic response to the stated intentions of our primary adversary. Taiwan is the linchpin of the the economic miracle in East Asia. The CCCP understands this, that is why they are frothing at the mouth to control it. For 70 plus years we have been able to deter them remotely, that time is passing very, very quickly. In addition to being a truly unmistakeable signal of U.S. commitment, the Marines could be used to drag the entire Taiwanese military up to speed. If we have to get that division there after the war starts, under a hail of Chinese anti shipping missiles starting AT LEAST  five hundred miles from the Chinese coast it will be beyond expensive in terms of casualties. China is actually getting ready for this fight, if we don't we will be very, very sorry.

I think @Vet 0369 s point was use a different resource for that.  Maybe task an Army Infantry unit for that as opposed to something that is more useful as a rapid deployment force.  I would argue that one needn't have an infantry heavy force.  The Taiwanese have their own army 130,000 strong.  What could be done is review where the Taiwanese need additional units that could act as a force multiplier.  Think about it.  You'd prefer the PLA not be able to land period.  What would facilitate the ROC army accomplishing that and bolster those capabilities.  Maybe help them expand a diesel sub fleet for example.  They have 4 with one under construction.

Edited December 17, 2023 by sburke

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

This night according to Russian reports, they shot down about 30 UKR UAVs, which attacked Rostov, Lipetsk and Volgograd oblast. 

Later became knowingly part of UKR frones have struck Morozovskoye airfield in Rostov oblast, where is deployed 559th bomber aviation regiment of 1st mixed aviation division of Air-Space Forces. This regment is aremed with Su-24M and Su-34 aircraft. 

On one of videos, filmed by locals it's seen at least two explosions on the horizon and he told about sound of 6 UAVs. 

Later theses photos from airfield appeared

Damaged Su-34...

 

And remainings of kamikadze drone (probably Mugin-5 or UKR analog)

 

 

Later Russian TG wrote that in result of strike one Su-34 and one S-300 launcher were damaged with unknown perspectives of their quick returning to service

I wonder why these drones aren't being programmed to fly at much lower altitudes.  It doesn't seem that difficult to do and it would cause Russian AD a lot of headaches.

Whatever the case is, I hope to see many, many, many more reports of Ukrainian drones striking military and justifable civilian infrastructure from now on.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

For me it's the only explanation that 'makes sense', Dan. And an indication of how important this war really is for the West. 

Putin's legacy.

We saw that this was what Putin was trying to do right from the very start of the war.  It was poo-pooed by many as "it won't work".  It seems that it has.  Whatever % of the Russian population that may have viewed this war correctly is either quiet or left the country.  The only voices heard, the only imagery seen, is a continuation of traditional Russian autocratic values.

The real danger for everybody is what this is doing to the youth of Russia.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, FlemFire said:

I'm not going to respond, Steve, because you're now engaging in conversation for which you just threatened to ban me for participating.

No, I threatened to ban you for continuing to push conspiracy theories which have already sucked too much air out of this thread when brought up by anti-globalist and/or pro-Russians in the past.  It's also been something I was sick of debating back in 2014 when I had to hear all about Nulland, her cookies, and how the Ukrainian Fascists were crucifying children because of it.

If you want to somehow hang the responsibility for this war on the West instead of Russia, that's up to you.  But you'll do it somewhere else, because that's up to me.

Steve