[Goose]

This is a truth bomb if I've ever seen one:

I agree there is a lot of truth there. There are also some things that are off the rails. In particular, the idea that NATO or the West can enforce an embargo on the South coast is absurd. Turkey is required by treaty to prevent warships not returning to home ports from entering the Black Sea. Not doing so puts Turkey in a war against Russia. That isn't happening. NATO has essentially no warships in the Black Sea. Romania/Bulgaria have nothing to contribute. Turkey could commit it's entire navy to the effort but wouldn't last a week, and would for sure start a full on war with NATO. This effort is even less likely than a no-fly zone. Suggesting it is absurd IMHO.

I also do not agree that military defeat of Russia by Ukraine is the only way Russia gives up. While I would dearly love that to happen, I think economic necessity is actually a better bet. I agree that a Ukraine without Donbas and with a Russian land corridor cutting them off from the Sea of Azov is not a viable state. The West needs to make sure that does not happen. Keeping Ukraine in the war and viable is necessary. I have been a fan of delivering MLRS systems to Ukraine for quite some time. They do require training, but not as much as flying an F-16 or operating a tank. They also can hold essentially any Russian attack at risk and are inherently quite mobile. The "bang for the buck is large". Romania actually already has a HIMARS system, which is even more modern than the MLRS. The US National Guard also has quite a few. They are available.

Making Russia unable/unwilling to continue fighting and to withdraw from at least their post 2014 gains has to be the goal. That won't be easy.

[Goose]

This is a truth bomb if I've ever seen one:

I agree there is a lot of truth there. There are also some things that are off the rails. In particular, the idea that NATO or the West can enforce an embargo on the South coast is absurd. Turkey is required by treaty to prevent warships not returning to home ports from entering the Black Sea. Not doing so puts Turkey in a war against Russia. That isn't happening. NATO has essentially no warships in the Black Sea. Romania/Bulgaria have nothing to contribute. Turkey could commit it's entire navy to the effort but wouldn't last a week, and would for sure start a full on war with NATO. This effort is even less likely than a no-fly zone. Suggesting it is absurd IMHO.

I also do not agree that military defeat of Russia by Ukraine is the only way Russia gives up. While I would dearly love that to happen, I think economic necessity is actually a better bet. I agree that a Ukraine without Donbas and with a Russian land corridor cutting them off from the Sea of Azov is not a viable state. The West needs to make sure that does not happen. Keeping Ukraine in the war and viable is necessary. I have been a fan of delivering MLRS systems to Ukraine for quite some time. They do require training, but not as much as flying an F-16 or operating a tank. They also can hold essentially any Russian attack at risk and are inherently quite mobile. The "bang for the buck is large". Romania actually already has a HIMARS system, which is even more modern than the MLRS. The US National Guard also has quite a few. They are available.

Making Russia unable/unwilling to continue fighting and to withdraw from at least their post 2014 gains has to be the goal. That won't be easy.