[lex24]

Question:  Was it wise to allow Ukraine to fire US made rockets into Russia?

IMO the problem is that Ukraine is at a very significant geographic disadvantage in the Kharkiv area. It is just too close to Russia. Ukraine has no strategic depth. They have to defend Kharkiv and its surrounding territory. They can't walk away from such a city. Allowing Russia unmolested GLOC would put Ukraine in an even more catastrophic tactical situation. FWIW Kyiv is in an even worse geographical situation. The saving grace there is that Belarus is the border, not Russia. Ukraine could have lost the war on the first night if Russia had been able to mass more troops in Belarus.

Ukraine can still easily lose the war in the north of the country. This is true even if they can fire US made rockets into Russia. I assume permission was given because Ukraine made a compelling case it was absolutely necessary to avoid imminent defeat. So, was it "wise"? That question needed answering two+ years ago. When the US made the decision to support Ukraine (which FWIW I agreed with) it was incumbent on us to answer the question "How does this end?". In the past we have answered that question by assuming the other side will eventually see sweet reason and quit. That is never a good idea. Wars are fought to compel the opponent to act as we wish. It can't rely on the opponent just quitting. You need a reasonable plan to make him quit.

Make no mistake, the US chose to involve itself in a war, even if only a proxy war. IMO we needed a plan for Ukraine to win basically no matter what Russia did. This included the possibility Russia may use tactical nuclear weapons, even though we may believe that is a low probability event. It was entirely likely Russia would utilize their geographic advantages. The fact they failed to do so effectively early on is a serendipity not a feature. This should have been war-gamed and if it was necessary to allow Ukraine to fire rockets into Russia to defend Kharkiv we should have know that going in and have granted that permission to Ukraine when we sent them the missiles. It could have been conditional on certain threats materializing, but the decision should have already been made long ago. It is unwise to increase the fog of war by not telling your ally what your intentions are. It may result in them making sub-optimal decisions.

In point of fact, it has become necessary. If this was a surprise to our NCA that indicates severe prior planning problems. Evolving escalation in proxy wars has a very poor track record. This creeping escalation denies the combined kinetic effect of our involvement by stretching it out on a case-by-case basis. It also often leaves us in a position we would never have accepted at the beginning of our involvement. I hope that isn't what we are doing, but I fear it is.

Thanks. Not a hopeful response.  But appreciated.

[lex24]

Question:  Was it wise to allow Ukraine to fire US made rockets into Russia?

IMO the problem is that Ukraine is at a very significant geographic disadvantage in the Kharkiv area. It is just too close to Russia. Ukraine has no strategic depth. They have to defend Kharkiv and its surrounding territory. They can't walk away from such a city. Allowing Russia unmolested GLOC would put Ukraine in an even more catastrophic tactical situation. FWIW Kyiv is in an even worse geographical situation. The saving grace there is that Belarus is the border, not Russia. Ukraine could have lost the war on the first night if Russia had been able to mass more troops in Belarus.

Ukraine can still easily lose the war in the north of the country. This is true even if they can fire US made rockets into Russia. I assume permission was given because Ukraine made a compelling case it was absolutely necessary to avoid imminent defeat. So, was it "wise"? That question needed answering two+ years ago. When the US made the decision to support Ukraine (which FWIW I agreed with) it was incumbent on us to answer the question "How does this end?". In the past we have answered that question by assuming the other side will eventually see sweet reason and quit. That is never a good idea. Wars are fought to compel the opponent to act as we wish. It can't rely on the opponent just quitting. You need a reasonable plan to make him quit.

Make no mistake, the US chose to involve itself in a war, even if only a proxy war. IMO we needed a plan for Ukraine to win basically no matter what Russia did. This included the possibility Russia may use tactical nuclear weapons, even though we may believe that is a low probability event. It was entirely likely Russia would utilize their geographic advantages. The fact they failed to do so effectively early on is a serendipity not a feature. This should have been war-gamed and if it was necessary to allow Ukraine to fire rockets into Russia to defend Kharkiv we should have know that going in and have granted that permission to Ukraine when we sent them the missiles. It could have been conditional on certain threats materializing, but the decision should have already been made long ago. It is unwise to increase the fog of war by not telling your ally what your intentions are. It may result in them making sub-optimal decisions.

In point of fact, it has become necessary. If this was a surprise to our NCA that indicates severe prior planning problems. Evolving escalation in proxy wars has a very poor track record. This creeping escalation denies the combined kinetic effect of our involvement by stretching it out on a case-by-case basis. It also often leaves us in a position we would never have accepted at the beginning of our involvement. I hope that isn't what we are doing, but I fear it is.

Thanks. Not a hopeful response.  But appreciated.