[dabigv13]

Putin is going to do what Putin is going to do. Diplomatic courtesies really haven't done much to stop him yet.

[dabigv13]

Putin is going to do what Putin is going to do. Diplomatic courtesies really haven't done much to stop him yet.

[cardcrimson]

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

Out of curiosity, how would one respond to blatantly biased political commentary such as the above and not violate the board rules?

[cardcrimson]

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

Out of curiosity, how would one respond to blatantly biased political commentary such as the above and not violate the board rules?

[Phogge]

Posters on this board have had a long leash. Either let it flow or close it down entirely. I would prefer flow since I’ve learned a lot about new weapons since my experience with combat is 50 years old.

[Phogge]

Posters on this board have had a long leash. Either let it flow or close it down entirely. I would prefer flow since I’ve learned a lot about new weapons since my experience with combat is 50 years old.

[Softball Fan]

When dealing with Putin I think it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick.

[Softball Fan]

When dealing with Putin I think it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick.

[JohnR34231]

When dealing with Putin I think it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick.

I was thinking the same thing.  I really don't see anything positive coming out of throwing a bunch of verbal threats at him.

[JohnR34231]

When dealing with Putin I think it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick.

I was thinking the same thing.  I really don't see anything positive coming out of throwing a bunch of verbal threats at him.

[OutsiderFan]

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

Out of curiosity, how would one respond to blatantly biased political commentary such as the above and not violate the board rules?

FIFY: How can I respond with blatant political commentary to a post that accurately summarized a speech given about the most delicate and important issue of our time, by someone I don't like?

The answer is you can't.

[OutsiderFan]

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

Out of curiosity, how would one respond to blatantly biased political commentary such as the above and not violate the board rules?

FIFY: How can I respond with blatant political commentary to a post that accurately summarized a speech given about the most delicate and important issue of our time, by someone I don't like?

The answer is you can't.

[cardcrimson]

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

Out of curiosity, how would one respond to blatantly biased political commentary such as the above and not violate the board rules?

FIFY: How can I respond with blatant political commentary to a post that accurately summarized a speech given about the most delicate and important issue of our time, by someone I don't like?

The answer is you can't.

Huh?

[cardcrimson]

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

Out of curiosity, how would one respond to blatantly biased political commentary such as the above and not violate the board rules?

FIFY: How can I respond with blatant political commentary to a post that accurately summarized a speech given about the most delicate and important issue of our time, by someone I don't like?

The answer is you can't.

Huh?

[2006alum]

This entire war is the very definition of geopolitical conflict, so I don't know how we'd even try to whistle what is and is not permissibly political.  Just keep it from getting it personal and focus on the substance of folks' posts. And the less Fox News/MSNBC News type stuff, the better, as far as I am concerned.

And yes, I've learned a TON from this thread, so thanks to those of you sharing terrific twitter threads or sharing their own military knowledge. (I know where to go if I want Cable News Talking Head type commentary, but navigating the Twitter cesspool to find the gems is above my paygrade/time constraints.)

[2006alum]

This entire war is the very definition of geopolitical conflict, so I don't know how we'd even try to whistle what is and is not permissibly political.  Just keep it from getting it personal and focus on the substance of folks' posts. And the less Fox News/MSNBC News type stuff, the better, as far as I am concerned.

And yes, I've learned a TON from this thread, so thanks to those of you sharing terrific twitter threads or sharing their own military knowledge. (I know where to go if I want Cable News Talking Head type commentary, but navigating the Twitter cesspool to find the gems is above my paygrade/time constraints.)

[Goose]

I greatly fear things in Ukraine are going to enter a very bad period even compared to the horrors we have already seen. The Russians are evidently reducing their attacks against the capital. It is unclear what their intentions in the South towards Odessa will be. In the East, the Russians are still applying pressure to Mariupol. It is expected to be fully occupied by Russia "shortly", although as long as the Ukrainian forces there can hold out, it will tie down a disproportionate number of Russian troops. The ability to use the port of Mariupol will significantly benefit Russia's ability to supply its forces operating in East Ukraine, although considerable damage will reduce that capability.
Some are likening Mariupol to the Alamo. I would dearly hope that is true, but I don't see how Ukraine can produce a subsequent San Jacinto. The idea has also been suggested that Russia's new war aim is to create an "East Ukraine" in the Donbas and extending down to Crimea. I have no idea if that is true, but I do know that the current Ukrainian government will not accept such a settlement. That will create a situation where this war goes on and on.
Once Russia has the Eastern part of the country, the continuation of the war will compel them to attack the rest of the Ukraine. Maintaining forces in the East that are static, yet constantly subject to attack from Ukraine is not viable. Russia will just keep nibbling in places of their own choosing, and it is improbable Ukraine can mount an offensive that will worry them much. The only thing that can save the rest of the Ukraine at that point is Russia being stopped by economic problems or internal civil unrest. While neither are impossible, they are not probable in the very near term IMHO.
It is also a big question what the West will do in that case. If the Ukraine has any chance to preserve it's existence as a country, they will have to get Russia out of East Ukraine and have enough military capability to defend themselves. Where will that come from?

[Goose]

I greatly fear things in Ukraine are going to enter a very bad period even compared to the horrors we have already seen. The Russians are evidently reducing their attacks against the capital. It is unclear what their intentions in the South towards Odessa will be. In the East, the Russians are still applying pressure to Mariupol. It is expected to be fully occupied by Russia "shortly", although as long as the Ukrainian forces there can hold out, it will tie down a disproportionate number of Russian troops. The ability to use the port of Mariupol will significantly benefit Russia's ability to supply its forces operating in East Ukraine, although considerable damage will reduce that capability.
Some are likening Mariupol to the Alamo. I would dearly hope that is true, but I don't see how Ukraine can produce a subsequent San Jacinto. The idea has also been suggested that Russia's new war aim is to create an "East Ukraine" in the Donbas and extending down to Crimea. I have no idea if that is true, but I do know that the current Ukrainian government will not accept such a settlement. That will create a situation where this war goes on and on.
Once Russia has the Eastern part of the country, the continuation of the war will compel them to attack the rest of the Ukraine. Maintaining forces in the East that are static, yet constantly subject to attack from Ukraine is not viable. Russia will just keep nibbling in places of their own choosing, and it is improbable Ukraine can mount an offensive that will worry them much. The only thing that can save the rest of the Ukraine at that point is Russia being stopped by economic problems or internal civil unrest. While neither are impossible, they are not probable in the very near term IMHO.
It is also a big question what the West will do in that case. If the Ukraine has any chance to preserve it's existence as a country, they will have to get Russia out of East Ukraine and have enough military capability to defend themselves. Where will that come from?

[ca245]

Does anyone know the name of or link to the Ukrainian relief organization that TVD will be donating to for made 3-pt shots? I’d be interested in helping, too.

[ca245]

Does anyone know the name of or link to the Ukrainian relief organization that TVD will be donating to for made 3-pt shots? I’d be interested in helping, too.

[82lsju]

Does anyone know the name of or link to the Ukrainian relief organization that TVD will be donating to for made 3-pt shots? I’d be interested in helping, too.

VanDerveer isn’t collecting donations, she clarified. She’ll make her own at the end of the tournament. But on Saturday, per a spokesman, she chose three charities and their relief funds — Save The Children, Americares and Global Giving — that would benefit. She encouraged everyone participating in the challenge to give to one or more of the three, or others of their choice.

https://sports.yahoo.com/tara-vanderveer...%20benefit.

[82lsju]

Does anyone know the name of or link to the Ukrainian relief organization that TVD will be donating to for made 3-pt shots? I’d be interested in helping, too.

VanDerveer isn’t collecting donations, she clarified. She’ll make her own at the end of the tournament. But on Saturday, per a spokesman, she chose three charities and their relief funds — Save The Children, Americares and Global Giving — that would benefit. She encouraged everyone participating in the challenge to give to one or more of the three, or others of their choice.

https://sports.yahoo.com/tara-vanderveer...%20benefit.

[ca245]

Great, I’ll donate to one of them. Thanks.

[ca245]

Great, I’ll donate to one of them. Thanks.

[Canalejas]

I don't remember if this has been posted yet, but it's a video from YouTuber RealLifeLore on why Russia invaded. It left me with the impression that control over oil and gas resources is a very large part of the story. Which still makes sense with any refocused goal of controlling Ukraine's eastern regions.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE

---

Some are likening Mariupol to the Alamo. I would dearly hope that is true, but I don't see how Ukraine can produce a subsequent San Jacinto. 

Wait, in this analogy, is Ukraine supposed to be Texas?

[Canalejas]

I don't remember if this has been posted yet, but it's a video from YouTuber RealLifeLore on why Russia invaded. It left me with the impression that control over oil and gas resources is a very large part of the story. Which still makes sense with any refocused goal of controlling Ukraine's eastern regions.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE

---

Some are likening Mariupol to the Alamo. I would dearly hope that is true, but I don't see how Ukraine can produce a subsequent San Jacinto. 

Wait, in this analogy, is Ukraine supposed to be Texas?

[gailtate]

I greatly fear things in Ukraine are going to enter a very bad period even compared to the horrors we have already seen. The Russians are evidently reducing their attacks against the capital. It is unclear what their intentions in the South towards Odessa will be. In the East, the Russians are still applying pressure to Mariupol. It is expected to be fully occupied by Russia "shortly", although as long as the Ukrainian forces there can hold out, it will tie down a disproportionate number of Russian troops. The ability to use the port of Mariupol will significantly benefit Russia's ability to supply its forces operating in East Ukraine, although considerable damage will reduce that capability.
Some are likening Mariupol to the Alamo. I would dearly hope that is true, but I don't see how Ukraine can produce a subsequent San Jacinto. The idea has also been suggested that Russia's new war aim is to create an "East Ukraine" in the Donbas and extending down to Crimea. I have no idea if that is true, but I do know that the current Ukrainian government will not accept such a settlement. That will create a situation where this war goes on and on.
Once Russia has the Eastern part of the country, the continuation of the war will compel them to attack the rest of the Ukraine. Maintaining forces in the East that are static, yet constantly subject to attack from Ukraine is not viable. Russia will just keep nibbling in places of their own choosing, and it is improbable Ukraine can mount an offensive that will worry them much. The only thing that can save the rest of the Ukraine at that point is Russia being stopped by economic problems or internal civil unrest. While neither are impossible, they are not probable in the very near term IMHO.
It is also a big question what the West will do in that case. If the Ukraine has any chance to preserve it's existence as a country, they will have to get Russia out of East Ukraine and have enough military capability to defend themselves. Where will that come from?

The larger question is what becomes of a Russia in 2022-23 that is bogged down and imminently beholding a vintage '80s Afghanistan on its doorstep? Five, ten years from now can you see Putin thriving and flourishing at the top of a robust, world power the way he fancies himself? More likely, he blows his brains out in a bunker or gets them blown out, a la Ghaddafi, in the Kremlin. His resources are unsustainable to put it generously. What happens to his Potemkin empire and its mangy-mongrel military of starving conscripts? Yes, he has nukes but how long can he count on the loyalty of his enforcers, on endless months of rotten chow and contaminated water (think dysentery, to loyally lock and load?

[gailtate]

I greatly fear things in Ukraine are going to enter a very bad period even compared to the horrors we have already seen. The Russians are evidently reducing their attacks against the capital. It is unclear what their intentions in the South towards Odessa will be. In the East, the Russians are still applying pressure to Mariupol. It is expected to be fully occupied by Russia "shortly", although as long as the Ukrainian forces there can hold out, it will tie down a disproportionate number of Russian troops. The ability to use the port of Mariupol will significantly benefit Russia's ability to supply its forces operating in East Ukraine, although considerable damage will reduce that capability.
Some are likening Mariupol to the Alamo. I would dearly hope that is true, but I don't see how Ukraine can produce a subsequent San Jacinto. The idea has also been suggested that Russia's new war aim is to create an "East Ukraine" in the Donbas and extending down to Crimea. I have no idea if that is true, but I do know that the current Ukrainian government will not accept such a settlement. That will create a situation where this war goes on and on.
Once Russia has the Eastern part of the country, the continuation of the war will compel them to attack the rest of the Ukraine. Maintaining forces in the East that are static, yet constantly subject to attack from Ukraine is not viable. Russia will just keep nibbling in places of their own choosing, and it is improbable Ukraine can mount an offensive that will worry them much. The only thing that can save the rest of the Ukraine at that point is Russia being stopped by economic problems or internal civil unrest. While neither are impossible, they are not probable in the very near term IMHO.
It is also a big question what the West will do in that case. If the Ukraine has any chance to preserve it's existence as a country, they will have to get Russia out of East Ukraine and have enough military capability to defend themselves. Where will that come from?

The larger question is what becomes of a Russia in 2022-23 that is bogged down and imminently beholding a vintage '80s Afghanistan on its doorstep? Five, ten years from now can you see Putin thriving and flourishing at the top of a robust, world power the way he fancies himself? More likely, he blows his brains out in a bunker or gets them blown out, a la Ghaddafi, in the Kremlin. His resources are unsustainable to put it generously. What happens to his Potemkin empire and its mangy-mongrel military of starving conscripts? Yes, he has nukes but how long can he count on the loyalty of his enforcers, on endless months of rotten chow and contaminated water (think dysentery, to loyally lock and load?

[Goose]

The larger question is what becomes of a Russia in 2022-23 that is bogged down and imminently beholding a vintage '80s Afghanistan on its doorstep? Five, ten years from now can you see Putin thriving and flourishing at the top of a robust, world power the way he fancies himself? More likely, he blows his brains out in a bunker or gets them blown out, a la Ghaddafi, in the Kremlin. His resources are unsustainable to put it generously. What happens to his Potemkin empire and its mangy-mongrel military of starving conscripts? Yes, he has nukes but how long can he count on the loyalty of his enforcers, on endless months of rotten chow and contaminated water (think dysentery, to loyally lock and load?

All good questions, to which I don't have an answer. Five or ten years is too far out there IMHO. If Putin is still around then, Ukraine is part of Russia. Even if I knew how long Putin could remain in control,  is that longer than Ukraine can hold on? Also, will the EU hold on if Putin simply cuts off their gas? There are lots of moving parts in this situation, and I greatly fear that the US/EU are not making contingency plans for these eventualities.

[Goose]

The larger question is what becomes of a Russia in 2022-23 that is bogged down and imminently beholding a vintage '80s Afghanistan on its doorstep? Five, ten years from now can you see Putin thriving and flourishing at the top of a robust, world power the way he fancies himself? More likely, he blows his brains out in a bunker or gets them blown out, a la Ghaddafi, in the Kremlin. His resources are unsustainable to put it generously. What happens to his Potemkin empire and its mangy-mongrel military of starving conscripts? Yes, he has nukes but how long can he count on the loyalty of his enforcers, on endless months of rotten chow and contaminated water (think dysentery, to loyally lock and load?

All good questions, to which I don't have an answer. Five or ten years is too far out there IMHO. If Putin is still around then, Ukraine is part of Russia. Even if I knew how long Putin could remain in control,  is that longer than Ukraine can hold on? Also, will the EU hold on if Putin simply cuts off their gas? There are lots of moving parts in this situation, and I greatly fear that the US/EU are not making contingency plans for these eventualities.

[BostonCard]

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

Out of curiosity, how would one respond to blatantly biased political commentary such as the above and not violate the board rules?

Several people have made the opposing point without violating the board rules.

The irony here is that if there is a pro-Russian voice here, I haven’t heard it, so on this particular issue it seems we are all on the same side. It is only when it is related to domestic US politics and the interpretation of the President said that the unity falls apart. I’d say that the solution would be to keep this thread focused on Ukraine, but it is hard to do so when the President’s speech was about Ukraine.

At some point, it may be appropriate to lock this thread, as the COVID board was locked once the flow of new information started to slow down, and it started to be a rehash of old arguments.

BC

[BostonCard]

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

Out of curiosity, how would one respond to blatantly biased political commentary such as the above and not violate the board rules?

Several people have made the opposing point without violating the board rules.

The irony here is that if there is a pro-Russian voice here, I haven’t heard it, so on this particular issue it seems we are all on the same side. It is only when it is related to domestic US politics and the interpretation of the President said that the unity falls apart. I’d say that the solution would be to keep this thread focused on Ukraine, but it is hard to do so when the President’s speech was about Ukraine.

At some point, it may be appropriate to lock this thread, as the COVID board was locked once the flow of new information started to slow down, and it started to be a rehash of old arguments.

BC

[Goose]

My main concern right now is figuring out what can be done to keep the focus on Ukraine. It appears that Russia may be backing away (at least for now)  from taking over the entire country. Soon the question of paying for Russian gas to Europe will come to a head. It is critical that the EU not fold and give Russia what it wants.
Despite all the "NATO is stronger than ever" rhetoric, IMHO that strength is 1km wide and 1mm deep. While it is great that many of the EU countries have suddenly found a way to immediately increase their defense spending to 2% of GDP (which before was considered "impossible"), it is unclear that will be continued if hostilities cease in Ukraine. There is a lot of desire for peace to break out, even if that peace includes a destroyed Ukraine that is effectively a vassal state of Russia. Countries like Bulgaria and Romania are really considering how sure they are of article 5 support, and maybe it is a good idea to hedge their bets. Hungary is openly on the fence. Poland and the Baltics have no choice, but they too wonder if Germany will be willing to help defend them. There are historical issues in play here. Turkey was in an ambiguous position before the war and is certainly staying there.
NATO isn't nearly as "strong" as people wish it were. While there is a general feeling of solidarity, the willingness to actually do "hard" things is not demonstrably present. The possibility of Finland joining NATO is a mixed blessing. It will certainly set off Putin if he is still there. I am sure Finland would also fight very hard to defend themselves, but one must ask is NATO stronger with them inside it vs the danger Russia will overreact?
I expect in the next few weeks we are going to see the EU and NATO being called upon to make some hard decisions. IMHO sanctions need to remain in place until Russia is out of the Ukraine. It is going to be very tempting to say "Be reasonable, let Russia have the entire Donbas including what they took in this latest war. Ukraine will still be there, but it will be neutral". Ukraine can't survive as a nation IMHO if that happens. Russia will eventually take it all. This kind of outcome will be a wake-up call for lots of nations, but their conclusion may be "Be sure to be Russia's friend, because nobody is really willing to effectively oppose them".

[Goose]

My main concern right now is figuring out what can be done to keep the focus on Ukraine. It appears that Russia may be backing away (at least for now)  from taking over the entire country. Soon the question of paying for Russian gas to Europe will come to a head. It is critical that the EU not fold and give Russia what it wants.
Despite all the "NATO is stronger than ever" rhetoric, IMHO that strength is 1km wide and 1mm deep. While it is great that many of the EU countries have suddenly found a way to immediately increase their defense spending to 2% of GDP (which before was considered "impossible"), it is unclear that will be continued if hostilities cease in Ukraine. There is a lot of desire for peace to break out, even if that peace includes a destroyed Ukraine that is effectively a vassal state of Russia. Countries like Bulgaria and Romania are really considering how sure they are of article 5 support, and maybe it is a good idea to hedge their bets. Hungary is openly on the fence. Poland and the Baltics have no choice, but they too wonder if Germany will be willing to help defend them. There are historical issues in play here. Turkey was in an ambiguous position before the war and is certainly staying there.
NATO isn't nearly as "strong" as people wish it were. While there is a general feeling of solidarity, the willingness to actually do "hard" things is not demonstrably present. The possibility of Finland joining NATO is a mixed blessing. It will certainly set off Putin if he is still there. I am sure Finland would also fight very hard to defend themselves, but one must ask is NATO stronger with them inside it vs the danger Russia will overreact?
I expect in the next few weeks we are going to see the EU and NATO being called upon to make some hard decisions. IMHO sanctions need to remain in place until Russia is out of the Ukraine. It is going to be very tempting to say "Be reasonable, let Russia have the entire Donbas including what they took in this latest war. Ukraine will still be there, but it will be neutral". Ukraine can't survive as a nation IMHO if that happens. Russia will eventually take it all. This kind of outcome will be a wake-up call for lots of nations, but their conclusion may be "Be sure to be Russia's friend, because nobody is really willing to effectively oppose them".

[dabigv13]

Not sure there is much justification for your pessimism that Ukraine will lose the Donbas and eventually become a vassal state of Russia. Ukraine has taken the initiative and is counterattacking on all fronts. Russia has given up on taking Kiev, and this will free more Ukrainian troops to reinforce Donbas after they have mopped up any left over Russian troops from the north.

Most likely outcome of the war is Ukraine joining EU and probably receiving many millions to rebuild, probably losing little or no territory de facto, even if they disclaim Crimea and the portions of Donbas they haven't controlled since 2014.

I do agree that continuing sanctions in face of rising energy prices and domestic political concerns will be tough to continue in such unified fashion. But NATO is not who is stopping Russian advances, it's Ukraine, and they are the ones who will decide acceptable terms. If there were no sanctions at all, the on the ground situation would be no different.

For first time it seems Ukraine is at least willing to talk about status of Crimea and occupied Donbas regions from 2014, so that's where Putin gets his "win". The Russians who support the war have already seemed willing to swallow the lie that Russia's attacks towards Kiev were a feint and not a total f*ck up, so if Putin can say he secured those regions, maybe domestically he will be ok even after thousands of deaths, crushed economy, etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/29/...om-ukraine

[dabigv13]

Not sure there is much justification for your pessimism that Ukraine will lose the Donbas and eventually become a vassal state of Russia. Ukraine has taken the initiative and is counterattacking on all fronts. Russia has given up on taking Kiev, and this will free more Ukrainian troops to reinforce Donbas after they have mopped up any left over Russian troops from the north.

Most likely outcome of the war is Ukraine joining EU and probably receiving many millions to rebuild, probably losing little or no territory de facto, even if they disclaim Crimea and the portions of Donbas they haven't controlled since 2014.

I do agree that continuing sanctions in face of rising energy prices and domestic political concerns will be tough to continue in such unified fashion. But NATO is not who is stopping Russian advances, it's Ukraine, and they are the ones who will decide acceptable terms. If there were no sanctions at all, the on the ground situation would be no different.

For first time it seems Ukraine is at least willing to talk about status of Crimea and occupied Donbas regions from 2014, so that's where Putin gets his "win". The Russians who support the war have already seemed willing to swallow the lie that Russia's attacks towards Kiev were a feint and not a total f*ck up, so if Putin can say he secured those regions, maybe domestically he will be ok even after thousands of deaths, crushed economy, etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/29/...om-ukraine

[Phogge]

James Bond and Blackford Oaks are dead. Who's left to pull our nuts out of the fire?

[Phogge]

James Bond and Blackford Oaks are dead. Who's left to pull our nuts out of the fire?

[Goose]

Not sure there is much justification for your pessimism that Ukraine will lose the Donbas and eventually become a vassal state of Russia. Ukraine has taken the initiative and is counterattacking on all fronts. Russia has given up on taking Kiev, and this will free more Ukrainian troops to reinforce Donbas after they have mopped up any left over Russian troops from the north.

IMHO Ukraine will not be reinforcing their forces in the Donbas. The Donbas is gone when Mariupol falls completely and Russia has complete control of the Sea of Azov coastline. While the Ukraine has done a great job of defending Kiev, remember this is being done largely by a relatively immobile infantry force. The ability to move large numbers of troops around is not something the Ukraine has demonstrated. If Ukraine can either relieve Mariupol or make a major offensive South of there it would indeed be a big deal, but so far that appears unlikely. The Ukrainians have been attacking around Kherson in the South. If they could actually cut communications with Crimea, that would make a big difference, but it is a big ask.
While Russia is consolidating in the North, they are still there. Ukraine can't just pull out all their forces, because Putin can come back pretty easily. I will agree with your optimism when I see these counterattacks actually cut off some Russian units. So far, it appears to me Russia is still mostly dictating where the fighting is going on and at what intensity. Retreating to fight another day is a Russian option, but not a Ukrainian one.

Most likely outcome of the war is Ukraine joining EU and probably receiving many millions to rebuild, probably losing little or no territory de facto, even if they disclaim Crimea and the portions of Donbas they haven't controlled since 2014.

Change millions to billions. Hopefully it is frozen Russian assets. I hope such a peace is possible, but there are big problems with this. Russia right now or soon will have cut Ukraine off from the Sea of Azov. Getting them to give that up isn't going to be easy. It makes a land bridge to Crimea, which they didn't have before. Ukraine has also said they won't surrender territory. While that may not inhibit a cease fire, it will be a non-starter for a peace treaty. Ukraine would need to formally give up the territories the Russians had previously controlled. Before the war, that might have been possible. Right now, it looks very difficult. Too many Ukrainians have died.

I do agree that continuing sanctions in face of rising energy prices and domestic political concerns will be tough to continue in such unified fashion. But NATO is not who is stopping Russian advances, it's Ukraine, and they are the ones who will decide acceptable terms. If there were no sanctions at all, the on the ground situation would be no different.

IMHO Ukraine has stopped the Russian because of their great courage AND because NATO has given them an inexhaustible supply of defensive weapons. Without that supply, they would be defeated long ago. I would also say that I hope it will be Ukraine that will decide acceptable terms, but it won't totally be the case. They need continued financial and logistical support from NATO. Without that, they won't last long.
Without sanctions, Russia could just wait Ukraine out. The economy of Ukraine is wrecked. If the Russian economy was in good shape, they could take as long as they want to finish the job. Russia can shoot missiles into Ukraine forever without sanctions. With sanctions, at some point they no longer can because they can't get the parts and can't pay for them anyway. I think sanctions matter a whole lot.
An even more vexing issue is going to be meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine. No NATO membership is acceptable, but paper guarantees of future security will not be. What will?

[Goose]

Not sure there is much justification for your pessimism that Ukraine will lose the Donbas and eventually become a vassal state of Russia. Ukraine has taken the initiative and is counterattacking on all fronts. Russia has given up on taking Kiev, and this will free more Ukrainian troops to reinforce Donbas after they have mopped up any left over Russian troops from the north.

IMHO Ukraine will not be reinforcing their forces in the Donbas. The Donbas is gone when Mariupol falls completely and Russia has complete control of the Sea of Azov coastline. While the Ukraine has done a great job of defending Kiev, remember this is being done largely by a relatively immobile infantry force. The ability to move large numbers of troops around is not something the Ukraine has demonstrated. If Ukraine can either relieve Mariupol or make a major offensive South of there it would indeed be a big deal, but so far that appears unlikely. The Ukrainians have been attacking around Kherson in the South. If they could actually cut communications with Crimea, that would make a big difference, but it is a big ask.
While Russia is consolidating in the North, they are still there. Ukraine can't just pull out all their forces, because Putin can come back pretty easily. I will agree with your optimism when I see these counterattacks actually cut off some Russian units. So far, it appears to me Russia is still mostly dictating where the fighting is going on and at what intensity. Retreating to fight another day is a Russian option, but not a Ukrainian one.

Most likely outcome of the war is Ukraine joining EU and probably receiving many millions to rebuild, probably losing little or no territory de facto, even if they disclaim Crimea and the portions of Donbas they haven't controlled since 2014.

Change millions to billions. Hopefully it is frozen Russian assets. I hope such a peace is possible, but there are big problems with this. Russia right now or soon will have cut Ukraine off from the Sea of Azov. Getting them to give that up isn't going to be easy. It makes a land bridge to Crimea, which they didn't have before. Ukraine has also said they won't surrender territory. While that may not inhibit a cease fire, it will be a non-starter for a peace treaty. Ukraine would need to formally give up the territories the Russians had previously controlled. Before the war, that might have been possible. Right now, it looks very difficult. Too many Ukrainians have died.

I do agree that continuing sanctions in face of rising energy prices and domestic political concerns will be tough to continue in such unified fashion. But NATO is not who is stopping Russian advances, it's Ukraine, and they are the ones who will decide acceptable terms. If there were no sanctions at all, the on the ground situation would be no different.

IMHO Ukraine has stopped the Russian because of their great courage AND because NATO has given them an inexhaustible supply of defensive weapons. Without that supply, they would be defeated long ago. I would also say that I hope it will be Ukraine that will decide acceptable terms, but it won't totally be the case. They need continued financial and logistical support from NATO. Without that, they won't last long.
Without sanctions, Russia could just wait Ukraine out. The economy of Ukraine is wrecked. If the Russian economy was in good shape, they could take as long as they want to finish the job. Russia can shoot missiles into Ukraine forever without sanctions. With sanctions, at some point they no longer can because they can't get the parts and can't pay for them anyway. I think sanctions matter a whole lot.
An even more vexing issue is going to be meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine. No NATO membership is acceptable, but paper guarantees of future security will not be. What will?