[dabigv13]

Germane to present discussion-

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20[/tweet]

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. Unanimous support would be very tough though.

[dabigv13]

Germane to present discussion-

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20[/tweet]

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. Unanimous support would be very tough though.

[Goose]

Germane to present discussion-

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

I don't think there is any way this can happen. I am pretty sure the US is on the phone right now making sure the UK isn't seriously considering it. It is a bad idea because the benefit to risk ratio is very unfavorable. A more beneficial action would be to deploy some NATO maintainers and instructors to Ukraine to help with problems fixing NATO equipment. That on-site presence could greatly increase availability. Moving training from UK to Ukraine just saves the time to move the trainees to and from the UK. Not an important benefit.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. 

Many factions do indeed support this idea. IMO it isn't a good idea. NATO already has too many centrifugal force components inhibiting it from being a "reliable" deterrent. We don't need Ukraine added as another one. Also, in reality NATO can't provide a real strong military response without the US. A bilateral treaty eliminates any worries about week-kneed responses that could arise with NATO. IMO Ukraine would be much better off that way.

Unanimous support would be very tough though.

I would say impossible. I would even be worried about getting it through the US congress. It will take an explanation and convincing argument to both the congress and the public to make it happen. I haven't seen any such thing from any recent administration, so it is not a skill set easily reproduced.

[Goose]

Germane to present discussion-

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

I don't think there is any way this can happen. I am pretty sure the US is on the phone right now making sure the UK isn't seriously considering it. It is a bad idea because the benefit to risk ratio is very unfavorable. A more beneficial action would be to deploy some NATO maintainers and instructors to Ukraine to help with problems fixing NATO equipment. That on-site presence could greatly increase availability. Moving training from UK to Ukraine just saves the time to move the trainees to and from the UK. Not an important benefit.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. 

Many factions do indeed support this idea. IMO it isn't a good idea. NATO already has too many centrifugal force components inhibiting it from being a "reliable" deterrent. We don't need Ukraine added as another one. Also, in reality NATO can't provide a real strong military response without the US. A bilateral treaty eliminates any worries about week-kneed responses that could arise with NATO. IMO Ukraine would be much better off that way.

Unanimous support would be very tough though.

I would say impossible. I would even be worried about getting it through the US congress. It will take an explanation and convincing argument to both the congress and the public to make it happen. I haven't seen any such thing from any recent administration, so it is not a skill set easily reproduced.

[GK3]

Germane to present discussion-

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20[/tweet]

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. Unanimous support would be very tough though.

I will be very interested in seeing what Goose thinks. To me, at the moment this is a bridge too far for the USA.  In the middle of a Presidential campaign where one group wants us out of Ukraine altogether is too much to ask of Biden.  Poland is already there for all practical purposes, Germany may harbor "get even, sort of" thoughts, but I am not sure it would work politically any more for them than for us.  I don't see the French taking such a leap.  
This leads to another questions.  Putin is not a very young man, what happens if he dies of natural causes or walks out a 50th floor window.  What will Russia do.  Their Foreign Minister talks big, but that may be more the fear of walking out that window.  Would it be possible for a more moderate group to take over and bring the mess to an end.  Lastly how is Putin's announced brobdingnagian increase in military spending going to affect the average Russian, or those looking to take advantage Putin's problems?

[GK3]

Germane to present discussion-

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20[/tweet]

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. Unanimous support would be very tough though.

I will be very interested in seeing what Goose thinks. To me, at the moment this is a bridge too far for the USA.  In the middle of a Presidential campaign where one group wants us out of Ukraine altogether is too much to ask of Biden.  Poland is already there for all practical purposes, Germany may harbor "get even, sort of" thoughts, but I am not sure it would work politically any more for them than for us.  I don't see the French taking such a leap.  
This leads to another questions.  Putin is not a very young man, what happens if he dies of natural causes or walks out a 50th floor window.  What will Russia do.  Their Foreign Minister talks big, but that may be more the fear of walking out that window.  Would it be possible for a more moderate group to take over and bring the mess to an end.  Lastly how is Putin's announced brobdingnagian increase in military spending going to affect the average Russian, or those looking to take advantage Putin's problems?

[Mick]

Germane to present discussion-

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20[/tweet]

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. Unanimous support would be very tough though.

I will be very interested in seeing what Goose thinks. To me, at the moment this is a bridge too far for the USA.  In the middle of a Presidential campaign where one group wants us out of Ukraine altogether is too much to ask of Biden.  Poland is already there for all practical purposes, Germany may harbor "get even, sort of" thoughts, but I am not sure it would work politically any more for them than for us.  I don't see the French taking such a leap.  
This leads to another questions.  Putin is not a very young man, what happens if he dies of natural causes or walks out a 50th floor window.  What will Russia do?  Their Foreign Minister talks big, but that may be more the fear of walking out that window.  Would it be possible for a more moderate group to take over and bring the mess to an end.  Lastly how is Putin's announced of immense proportions increase in military spending going to affect the average Russian, or those looking to take advantage Putin's problems?

Russia's/Putin's land grab -- for a country that is already 70% larger than second-largest Canada and nearly twice the size of China, the U. S. and Brazil -- just amazes me. The average Russian citizen lives badly. One would hope that a Russian leader would arise who would say "Let's become a great citizen of the world, let's integrate ourselves into the world economy, let's try to get the lives of the average Russian to be much better. Let's welcome back the multinationals, let's improve our own economy and do much better as world citizens."

I guess that's too much to ask.

[Mick]

Germane to present discussion-

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20[/tweet]

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. Unanimous support would be very tough though.

I will be very interested in seeing what Goose thinks. To me, at the moment this is a bridge too far for the USA.  In the middle of a Presidential campaign where one group wants us out of Ukraine altogether is too much to ask of Biden.  Poland is already there for all practical purposes, Germany may harbor "get even, sort of" thoughts, but I am not sure it would work politically any more for them than for us.  I don't see the French taking such a leap.  
This leads to another questions.  Putin is not a very young man, what happens if he dies of natural causes or walks out a 50th floor window.  What will Russia do?  Their Foreign Minister talks big, but that may be more the fear of walking out that window.  Would it be possible for a more moderate group to take over and bring the mess to an end.  Lastly how is Putin's announced of immense proportions increase in military spending going to affect the average Russian, or those looking to take advantage Putin's problems?

Russia's/Putin's land grab -- for a country that is already 70% larger than second-largest Canada and nearly twice the size of China, the U. S. and Brazil -- just amazes me. The average Russian citizen lives badly. One would hope that a Russian leader would arise who would say "Let's become a great citizen of the world, let's integrate ourselves into the world economy, let's try to get the lives of the average Russian to be much better. Let's welcome back the multinationals, let's improve our own economy and do much better as world citizens."

I guess that's too much to ask.

[M T]

The US budget-continuation bill excluded aid to Ukraine.

Keeping in mind the requirement to avoid politics on this board, how does this impact Ukraine (& help Russia) immediately?   I presume Congress could pass another bill to supplement today's bill with money for Ukraine, but I have no idea if that is politically possible.

[M T]

The US budget-continuation bill excluded aid to Ukraine.

Keeping in mind the requirement to avoid politics on this board, how does this impact Ukraine (& help Russia) immediately?   I presume Congress could pass another bill to supplement today's bill with money for Ukraine, but I have no idea if that is politically possible.

[dabigv13]

Frustrating that despite broad majorities in both the Senate and House in favor of Ukraine aid, the way the house works and the weak position of McCarthy as speaker means Ukraine gets nothing.

I understand that POTUS still has some drawdown authority and there was some budgetary "error in your favor" that means another 5.5 billion exists, and yes future aid is still possible, but I'm not sure why the calculus will be much different for future bills. Ominous.

[dabigv13]

Frustrating that despite broad majorities in both the Senate and House in favor of Ukraine aid, the way the house works and the weak position of McCarthy as speaker means Ukraine gets nothing.

I understand that POTUS still has some drawdown authority and there was some budgetary "error in your favor" that means another 5.5 billion exists, and yes future aid is still possible, but I'm not sure why the calculus will be much different for future bills. Ominous.

[Goose]

Frustrating that despite broad majorities in both the Senate and House in favor of Ukraine aid, the way the house works and the weak position of McCarthy as speaker means Ukraine gets nothing.

I understand that POTUS still has some drawdown authority and there was some budgetary "error in your favor" that means another 5.5 billion exists, and yes future aid is still possible, but I'm not sure why the calculus will be much different for future bills. Ominous.

IMO the twofold way ahead for Ukraine aid (assuming a sufficient number of House Republicans continue to oppose it) is to  have the House pass a bill without Ukraine aid, have the Senate pas one with it included, and send the result to a conference committee to resolve the differences. As I understand it, the conference committee can approve the resulting bill without a vote in either the House or the Senate. The trick is to get a conference committee that will do that, but the Speaker has more power in that regard to appoint "his people". I think there are plenty of House members who for political reasons feel they have to oppose Ukraine aid "on the record" but who are just fine with it if it happens anyway.

The second way is to appropriate money for the DOD to buy weapons that can subsequently be sent to Ukraine as "surplus to requirements". This is dirty pool and probably should be impeachable if our country were working like it should. However, since the Democrats have enough Senate votes to make sure that won't happen (and probably some Republican support as well), that remedy is off the table. This path is a "last resort" because of the precedent it sets, but it has been done before. In a way, it would be Iran Contra "in public".

I do agree that the situation is ominous for Ukraine aid going forward. I point out the above possibilities as possible ways to continue aid going forward, but I would strongly prefer a bi-partisan bill containing Ukraine aid to go forward. Let's hope that can and does happen.

[Goose]

Frustrating that despite broad majorities in both the Senate and House in favor of Ukraine aid, the way the house works and the weak position of McCarthy as speaker means Ukraine gets nothing.

I understand that POTUS still has some drawdown authority and there was some budgetary "error in your favor" that means another 5.5 billion exists, and yes future aid is still possible, but I'm not sure why the calculus will be much different for future bills. Ominous.

IMO the twofold way ahead for Ukraine aid (assuming a sufficient number of House Republicans continue to oppose it) is to  have the House pass a bill without Ukraine aid, have the Senate pas one with it included, and send the result to a conference committee to resolve the differences. As I understand it, the conference committee can approve the resulting bill without a vote in either the House or the Senate. The trick is to get a conference committee that will do that, but the Speaker has more power in that regard to appoint "his people". I think there are plenty of House members who for political reasons feel they have to oppose Ukraine aid "on the record" but who are just fine with it if it happens anyway.

The second way is to appropriate money for the DOD to buy weapons that can subsequently be sent to Ukraine as "surplus to requirements". This is dirty pool and probably should be impeachable if our country were working like it should. However, since the Democrats have enough Senate votes to make sure that won't happen (and probably some Republican support as well), that remedy is off the table. This path is a "last resort" because of the precedent it sets, but it has been done before. In a way, it would be Iran Contra "in public".

I do agree that the situation is ominous for Ukraine aid going forward. I point out the above possibilities as possible ways to continue aid going forward, but I would strongly prefer a bi-partisan bill containing Ukraine aid to go forward. Let's hope that can and does happen.

[TrumpCard]

I would not want to be Ukraine, having to rely on the internal politics of a bunch of foreign countries in order to get military aid that it needs for its own survival. That said, it’s easier to be someone without life or limb at stake and predict that the current balance of power in Washington is likely to keep Ukraine aid in the budget. IMHO, the bigger issue is what will happen in 2025 when the balance of power in Washington may be different.

[TrumpCard]

I would not want to be Ukraine, having to rely on the internal politics of a bunch of foreign countries in order to get military aid that it needs for its own survival. That said, it’s easier to be someone without life or limb at stake and predict that the current balance of power in Washington is likely to keep Ukraine aid in the budget. IMHO, the bigger issue is what will happen in 2025 when the balance of power in Washington may be different.

[Goose]

I would not want to be Ukraine, having to rely on the internal politics of a bunch of foreign countries in order to get military aid that it needs for its own survival. That said, it’s easier to be someone without life or limb at stake and predict that the current balance of power in Washington is likely to keep Ukraine aid in the budget. IMHO, the bigger issue is what will happen in 2025 when the balance of power in Washington may be different.

Agree to this, but there are plenty of other reasons to "not want to be Ukraine". One of them is that when this war started some military commanders in the south were outright traitors and arranged deployments to make it easy for the Russian's to invade. Even today we see periodic arrest reports of Russian sympathizers in Ukraine.

It simply amazes me that Zelenskyy has been able to hold together his country politically with all the problems of the war as well as the problems in his country. The recent replacement of his defense minister (Reznikov) is in many ways troubling because we really don't know what the reasons were. It was said to be because Reznikov didn't successfully eliminate corruption in his ministry, and that could be true. However, it is unclear that is so. This type of political problem is worrisome. Just add another problem for Ukraine.

[Goose]

I would not want to be Ukraine, having to rely on the internal politics of a bunch of foreign countries in order to get military aid that it needs for its own survival. That said, it’s easier to be someone without life or limb at stake and predict that the current balance of power in Washington is likely to keep Ukraine aid in the budget. IMHO, the bigger issue is what will happen in 2025 when the balance of power in Washington may be different.

Agree to this, but there are plenty of other reasons to "not want to be Ukraine". One of them is that when this war started some military commanders in the south were outright traitors and arranged deployments to make it easy for the Russian's to invade. Even today we see periodic arrest reports of Russian sympathizers in Ukraine.

It simply amazes me that Zelenskyy has been able to hold together his country politically with all the problems of the war as well as the problems in his country. The recent replacement of his defense minister (Reznikov) is in many ways troubling because we really don't know what the reasons were. It was said to be because Reznikov didn't successfully eliminate corruption in his ministry, and that could be true. However, it is unclear that is so. This type of political problem is worrisome. Just add another problem for Ukraine.

[thatboy]

Goose (or anyone else) are you familiar with Fred Kagan? I just listened to this discussion:

his latest assessment of the war.

I'd be curious if you have any disagreements or thoughts. In a nutshell, he conveys more optimism and success than I expected. To hear him tell it, Ukraine seems to be slowly, but surely, chipping away at Russia's defenses, which could result in some much bigger, quicker gains -- though he certainly isn't promising that.

There are a lot of tactical things discussed in this Cardboard thread. All of this is very interesting and helpful. But for anyone who wants a good overview of the war up to this point, it's a great discussion. I'd be curious what Goose and others think of it.

[thatboy]

Goose (or anyone else) are you familiar with Fred Kagan? I just listened to this discussion:

his latest assessment of the war.

I'd be curious if you have any disagreements or thoughts. In a nutshell, he conveys more optimism and success than I expected. To hear him tell it, Ukraine seems to be slowly, but surely, chipping away at Russia's defenses, which could result in some much bigger, quicker gains -- though he certainly isn't promising that.

There are a lot of tactical things discussed in this Cardboard thread. All of this is very interesting and helpful. But for anyone who wants a good overview of the war up to this point, it's a great discussion. I'd be curious what Goose and others think of it.

[TrumpCard]

Sweden’s application to join NATO may be on long term hold with the election results in Slovakia. If so, Erdogan overplayed his hand and may well miss out on the F-16s he wants because he no longer holds the decisive vote. Also, the results in Slovakia reinforce what folks have said here about bringing Ukraine into NATO. The organization is already chaotic and heavily burdened by dissent. Adding Ukraine might seem logical today, but doing so could well add to the internal dysfunction later (to say nothing of the risk that Ukraine’s membership could drag the alliance into war).

[TrumpCard]

Sweden’s application to join NATO may be on long term hold with the election results in Slovakia. If so, Erdogan overplayed his hand and may well miss out on the F-16s he wants because he no longer holds the decisive vote. Also, the results in Slovakia reinforce what folks have said here about bringing Ukraine into NATO. The organization is already chaotic and heavily burdened by dissent. Adding Ukraine might seem logical today, but doing so could well add to the internal dysfunction later (to say nothing of the risk that Ukraine’s membership could drag the alliance into war).

[Goose]

Goose (or anyone else) are you familiar with Fred Kagan? I just listened to this discussion:

I'd be curious if you have any disagreements or thoughts. In a nutshell, he conveys more optimism and success than I expected. To hear him tell it, Ukraine seems to be slowly, but surely, chipping away at Russia's defenses, which could result in some much bigger, quicker gains -- though he certainly isn't promising that.

There are a lot of tactical things discussed in this Cardboard thread. All of this is very interesting and helpful. But for anyone who wants a good overview of the war up to this point, it's a great discussion. I'd be curious what Goose and others think of it.

I am somewhat familiar with Fred Kagan and have read things by him about this war. I agree with the majority of his summary of the current "state of play". His point that the offensive is still in progress and that as long as that is true it hasn't "failed" is important. I think his statement that "War is non-linear" is a classic. Mr. Kagan certainly didn't invent this concept, but he should be commended for reminding us of this fact. I also found his analysis of the Russian defensive position to be very good. He did point out the fact that Russia does not have adequate reserves to garrison their whole line and that the Ukrainian breakthrough is forcing Russia to call upon reserves it really does not have. It is worthy of mention he did point out that Ukraine needs to exploit that breakthrough somewhat rapidly or the Russians will be able to seal it off. This classic WW I problem is indeed a problem for Ukraine and IMO deserves more attention than it is getting.

I was interested in his analysis of Ukrainian morale from his first-person visit. He seemed to have a pretty balanced view. I share his frustration with the lack of urgency in the US supply of weapons to Ukraine. However in this area IMO he is somewhat off base in his analysis of "why" that has happened. He correctly identifies the fact that the US has to think about supplying needed capabilities, not particular weapons systems. He then basically jumps to the point that in the event only the US has enough tanks and enough planes to provide meaningful numbers. Arguably it is true that if the US just supplied everything and left the Europeans out entirely it would be "simpler", but politically, both in the US and Europe, that would be a disaster.

His statement that the US "has lots of tanks stored in Europe" is misleading at best, and I can't imagine he doesn't know that. The US indeed has per-positioned stocks in Europe to be used in the event of war. This stockpile is minuscule compared to what was present in 1990. We had active divisions in Europe with all their gear then. That gear went to the Gulf War and didn't come back. The stuff that is there is to "marry up" with troops that would fly to Europe "light" in the event of war and you bet that the Army would very much oppose giving it away. Those "tanks" are not M1A1s either, but M1A2 SEPv2 or later. I totally agree with him that the US has failed to provide necessary capabilities to Ukraine, but IMO the problems aren't the weapons systems chosen but rather the the total failure of our military to anticipate the needs and make plans (including doing some moderate "speculative" preparations) that can be rapidly implemented when they get political approval. Instead, we do everything in serial, and IMO THAT is the main problem. FWIW it is also not true we have plenty of ATACMS. I have posted on this many times before, so I will leave it at that.

I really liked the fact he pointed out the fact that Crimea is really an island and that it's logistics are not that secure. I also agree with his analysis that the strategic significance of Crimea is significant to Russia and that losing that capability would be a severe blow. I think his discussion of Ukraine's attacks on Crimea and the desire to take it out before they could actually occupy it was interesting. The significant effect on the strategic capability of Crimea that would force removing the Black Sea Fleet functions would indeed be significant. He is not sure that Ukraine can force that, but the more havoc they create, the better.

The only bone I have to pick with the Crimea discussion is that he (and many others) made a big deal about destroying an S-400 battery being notionally impossible and a major accomplishment. Simply not true. A battery of an S-400 operating in isolation is nowhere near as formidable as an S-400 System, including associated radars and C3I assets. For reasons that are anybody's guess, Russia has been operating the batteries based in Ukraine/Crimea without the "I" part of IADS. Much easier targets.

[Goose]

Goose (or anyone else) are you familiar with Fred Kagan? I just listened to this discussion:

I'd be curious if you have any disagreements or thoughts. In a nutshell, he conveys more optimism and success than I expected. To hear him tell it, Ukraine seems to be slowly, but surely, chipping away at Russia's defenses, which could result in some much bigger, quicker gains -- though he certainly isn't promising that.

There are a lot of tactical things discussed in this Cardboard thread. All of this is very interesting and helpful. But for anyone who wants a good overview of the war up to this point, it's a great discussion. I'd be curious what Goose and others think of it.

I am somewhat familiar with Fred Kagan and have read things by him about this war. I agree with the majority of his summary of the current "state of play". His point that the offensive is still in progress and that as long as that is true it hasn't "failed" is important. I think his statement that "War is non-linear" is a classic. Mr. Kagan certainly didn't invent this concept, but he should be commended for reminding us of this fact. I also found his analysis of the Russian defensive position to be very good. He did point out the fact that Russia does not have adequate reserves to garrison their whole line and that the Ukrainian breakthrough is forcing Russia to call upon reserves it really does not have. It is worthy of mention he did point out that Ukraine needs to exploit that breakthrough somewhat rapidly or the Russians will be able to seal it off. This classic WW I problem is indeed a problem for Ukraine and IMO deserves more attention than it is getting.

I was interested in his analysis of Ukrainian morale from his first-person visit. He seemed to have a pretty balanced view. I share his frustration with the lack of urgency in the US supply of weapons to Ukraine. However in this area IMO he is somewhat off base in his analysis of "why" that has happened. He correctly identifies the fact that the US has to think about supplying needed capabilities, not particular weapons systems. He then basically jumps to the point that in the event only the US has enough tanks and enough planes to provide meaningful numbers. Arguably it is true that if the US just supplied everything and left the Europeans out entirely it would be "simpler", but politically, both in the US and Europe, that would be a disaster.

His statement that the US "has lots of tanks stored in Europe" is misleading at best, and I can't imagine he doesn't know that. The US indeed has per-positioned stocks in Europe to be used in the event of war. This stockpile is minuscule compared to what was present in 1990. We had active divisions in Europe with all their gear then. That gear went to the Gulf War and didn't come back. The stuff that is there is to "marry up" with troops that would fly to Europe "light" in the event of war and you bet that the Army would very much oppose giving it away. Those "tanks" are not M1A1s either, but M1A2 SEPv2 or later. I totally agree with him that the US has failed to provide necessary capabilities to Ukraine, but IMO the problems aren't the weapons systems chosen but rather the the total failure of our military to anticipate the needs and make plans (including doing some moderate "speculative" preparations) that can be rapidly implemented when they get political approval. Instead, we do everything in serial, and IMO THAT is the main problem. FWIW it is also not true we have plenty of ATACMS. I have posted on this many times before, so I will leave it at that.

I really liked the fact he pointed out the fact that Crimea is really an island and that it's logistics are not that secure. I also agree with his analysis that the strategic significance of Crimea is significant to Russia and that losing that capability would be a severe blow. I think his discussion of Ukraine's attacks on Crimea and the desire to take it out before they could actually occupy it was interesting. The significant effect on the strategic capability of Crimea that would force removing the Black Sea Fleet functions would indeed be significant. He is not sure that Ukraine can force that, but the more havoc they create, the better.

The only bone I have to pick with the Crimea discussion is that he (and many others) made a big deal about destroying an S-400 battery being notionally impossible and a major accomplishment. Simply not true. A battery of an S-400 operating in isolation is nowhere near as formidable as an S-400 System, including associated radars and C3I assets. For reasons that are anybody's guess, Russia has been operating the batteries based in Ukraine/Crimea without the "I" part of IADS. Much easier targets.

[dabigv13]

Very slick.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1709335823135526983?s=20[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Very slick.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1709335823135526983?s=20[/tweet]

[81alum]

Goose (or anyone else) are you familiar with Fred Kagan? I just listened to this discussion:

his latest assessment of the war.

I'd be curious if you have any disagreements or thoughts. In a nutshell, he conveys more optimism and success than I expected. To hear him tell it, Ukraine seems to be slowly, but surely, chipping away at Russia's defenses, which could result in some much bigger, quicker gains -- though he certainly isn't promising that.

There are a lot of tactical things discussed in this Cardboard thread. All of this is very interesting and helpful. But for anyone who wants a good overview of the war up to this point, it's a great discussion. I'd be curious what Goose and others think of it.

I was not familiar with Fred Kagan, though I am very familiar with his father's scholarship on Thucydides.  I watched the whole video and found it somewhat informative.  In reviewing his biography, I see he has been well respected in military and conservative political circles--apparently he was a major force in the concept for "the surge" in Iraq and also wound up advising Petraeus on Afghanistan.  Apparently his degree was in Soviet military history--which he jokes should have made him obsolete but which now seems to have relevance.

[81alum]

Goose (or anyone else) are you familiar with Fred Kagan? I just listened to this discussion:

his latest assessment of the war.

I'd be curious if you have any disagreements or thoughts. In a nutshell, he conveys more optimism and success than I expected. To hear him tell it, Ukraine seems to be slowly, but surely, chipping away at Russia's defenses, which could result in some much bigger, quicker gains -- though he certainly isn't promising that.

There are a lot of tactical things discussed in this Cardboard thread. All of this is very interesting and helpful. But for anyone who wants a good overview of the war up to this point, it's a great discussion. I'd be curious what Goose and others think of it.

I was not familiar with Fred Kagan, though I am very familiar with his father's scholarship on Thucydides.  I watched the whole video and found it somewhat informative.  In reviewing his biography, I see he has been well respected in military and conservative political circles--apparently he was a major force in the concept for "the surge" in Iraq and also wound up advising Petraeus on Afghanistan.  Apparently his degree was in Soviet military history--which he jokes should have made him obsolete but which now seems to have relevance.

[Mick]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

[Mick]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

[OutsiderFan]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

Mick, you've earned my undying respect as a poster on this board, but honestly, why should anyone care what Putin says? The guy lies about everything, kills his own citizens, terrorizes people, and has no regard for life or limb.

Just stop it with this hegemonic bullshit. Allowing people to be free and choose their own way is incompatible with autocratic rule. That's what threatens Russia and Putin, and Xi, and China. It works for 90% of the countries in the world, but Russia and China, Iran, and North Korea are threatened by freedom and democracy.

NATO and the EU are not imperialist threats. If Putin GAF about his people, he'd eagerly reform Russia and be willing to be replaced in the name of making lives better for Russians. The fact he won't proves the guy is nothing more than a glorified organized crime boss who doesn't want his power threatened, and has an ego that can't be contained.

No credible source of information would give Putin a platform to gaslight and spread his propaganda.

[OutsiderFan]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

Mick, you've earned my undying respect as a poster on this board, but honestly, why should anyone care what Putin says? The guy lies about everything, kills his own citizens, terrorizes people, and has no regard for life or limb.

Just stop it with this hegemonic bullshit. Allowing people to be free and choose their own way is incompatible with autocratic rule. That's what threatens Russia and Putin, and Xi, and China. It works for 90% of the countries in the world, but Russia and China, Iran, and North Korea are threatened by freedom and democracy.

NATO and the EU are not imperialist threats. If Putin GAF about his people, he'd eagerly reform Russia and be willing to be replaced in the name of making lives better for Russians. The fact he won't proves the guy is nothing more than a glorified organized crime boss who doesn't want his power threatened, and has an ego that can't be contained.

No credible source of information would give Putin a platform to gaslight and spread his propaganda.

[82 Card]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

Mick, you've earned my undying respect as a poster on this board, but honestly, why should anyone care what Putin says? The guy lies about everything, kills his own citizens, terrorizes people, and has no regard for life or limb.

Just stop it with this hegemonic bullshit. Allowing people to be free and choose their own way is incompatible with autocratic rule. That's what threatens Russia and Putin, and Xi, and China. It works for 90% of the countries in the world, but Russia and China, Iran, and North Korea are threatened by freedom and democracy.

NATO and the EU are not imperialist threats. If Putin GAF about his people, he'd eagerly reform Russia and be willing to be replaced in the name of making lives better for Russians. The fact he won't proves the guy is nothing more than a glorified organized crime boss who doesn't want his power threatened, and has an ego that can't be contained.

No credible source of information would give Putin a platform to gaslight and spread his propaganda.

While I agree with your assessment of Putin, I think staying current on the latest in Russian propaganda can be useful. Russian propaganda is so ham-handed that it functions as a practice exercise for Intro to Recognizing Gaslighting. It is also helpful to be able to recognize the source when someone else tries to peddle somewhat refined versions of the same BS.

[82 Card]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

Mick, you've earned my undying respect as a poster on this board, but honestly, why should anyone care what Putin says? The guy lies about everything, kills his own citizens, terrorizes people, and has no regard for life or limb.

Just stop it with this hegemonic bullshit. Allowing people to be free and choose their own way is incompatible with autocratic rule. That's what threatens Russia and Putin, and Xi, and China. It works for 90% of the countries in the world, but Russia and China, Iran, and North Korea are threatened by freedom and democracy.

NATO and the EU are not imperialist threats. If Putin GAF about his people, he'd eagerly reform Russia and be willing to be replaced in the name of making lives better for Russians. The fact he won't proves the guy is nothing more than a glorified organized crime boss who doesn't want his power threatened, and has an ego that can't be contained.

No credible source of information would give Putin a platform to gaslight and spread his propaganda.

While I agree with your assessment of Putin, I think staying current on the latest in Russian propaganda can be useful. Russian propaganda is so ham-handed that it functions as a practice exercise for Intro to Recognizing Gaslighting. It is also helpful to be able to recognize the source when someone else tries to peddle somewhat refined versions of the same BS.

[MV72018]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

That article has zero information value and is yet another heap of rubbish created for him by his propaganda lackeys. 
For Barron to publish that tripe shows how low its intellectual standards for publication really are.

[MV72018]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

That article has zero information value and is yet another heap of rubbish created for him by his propaganda lackeys. 
For Barron to publish that tripe shows how low its intellectual standards for publication really are.

[82 Card]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

That article has zero information value and is yet another heap of rubbish created for him by his propaganda lackeys. 
For Barron to publish that tripe shows how low its intellectual standards for publication really are.

Being owned by News Corp wasn't enough of a sign?

[82 Card]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

That article has zero information value and is yet another heap of rubbish created for him by his propaganda lackeys. 
For Barron to publish that tripe shows how low its intellectual standards for publication really are.

Being owned by News Corp wasn't enough of a sign?

[MV72018]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

That article has zero information value and is yet another heap of rubbish created for him by his propaganda lackeys. 
For Barron to publish that tripe shows how low its intellectual standards for publication really are.

Being owned by News Corp wasn't enough of a sign?

Touche.

[MV72018]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

That article has zero information value and is yet another heap of rubbish created for him by his propaganda lackeys. 
For Barron to publish that tripe shows how low its intellectual standards for publication really are.

Being owned by News Corp wasn't enough of a sign?

Touche.