[BostonCard]

It would be a tough but probably necessary pill for Ukraine to swallow to give up hope of recovering territory lost to Russia.  I agree that it is unlikely, barring some sort of unanticipated political or economic collapse in Russia for Ukraine to be able to recapture territory it lost to Russia.  As is oft quoted, hope is not a strategy.

Given the slow but steady advances that Russia has been making in the battlefield, Ukraine might even have to cede the 20% or so of Donetsk that it doesn’t already control.  This would be a very tough pill to swallow.  More than just the principle, this is a very heavily fortified area that is the gateway to a much less defensible Dnipro river valley that would give an attacker coming from the East (AKA, Russia) a straight shot to Kyiv.

Now, all of that might be hard to stomach, but doable, if Ukraine was confident that it had a peaceful neighbor to the East who respected its territorial integrity and previous signed commitments (going back to the 1994 Budapest memorandum).  Unfortunately, prior experience points to the fact that having pocketed the territorial concessions of any cease fire will rebuild its troops, Russia will not hesitate to come up with a thinly veiled excuse to attack again.  This is why there has been such a strong emphasis on security guarantees.  But, as you have pointed out in the past, whether Europeans and, especially, Americans, would be willing to suffer casualties to protect Ukraine is a highly debatable assumption, no matter how you structure the guarantee.  Alas, hope is also not a strategy when it comes to peace treaties (perhaps we need an update to Reagan’s “trust but verify”).

So, Ukraine is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the question is honestly which option, a drawn out war of attrition where Russia slowly but methodically takes over Ukranian territory or a highly disadvantageous peace treaty which probably only allows Ukraine to bide for time before a likely resumption of hostilities.

BC

[BostonCard]

It would be a tough but probably necessary pill for Ukraine to swallow to give up hope of recovering territory lost to Russia.  I agree that it is unlikely, barring some sort of unanticipated political or economic collapse in Russia for Ukraine to be able to recapture territory it lost to Russia.  As is oft quoted, hope is not a strategy.

Given the slow but steady advances that Russia has been making in the battlefield, Ukraine might even have to cede the 20% or so of Donetsk that it doesn’t already control.  This would be a very tough pill to swallow.  More than just the principle, this is a very heavily fortified area that is the gateway to a much less defensible Dnipro river valley that would give an attacker coming from the East (AKA, Russia) a straight shot to Kyiv.

Now, all of that might be hard to stomach, but doable, if Ukraine was confident that it had a peaceful neighbor to the East who respected its territorial integrity and previous signed commitments (going back to the 1994 Budapest memorandum).  Unfortunately, prior experience points to the fact that having pocketed the territorial concessions of any cease fire will rebuild its troops, Russia will not hesitate to come up with a thinly veiled excuse to attack again.  This is why there has been such a strong emphasis on security guarantees.  But, as you have pointed out in the past, whether Europeans and, especially, Americans, would be willing to suffer casualties to protect Ukraine is a highly debatable assumption, no matter how you structure the guarantee.  Alas, hope is also not a strategy when it comes to peace treaties (perhaps we need an update to Reagan’s “trust but verify”).

So, Ukraine is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the question is honestly which option, a drawn out war of attrition where Russia slowly but methodically takes over Ukranian territory or a highly disadvantageous peace treaty which probably only allows Ukraine to bide for time before a likely resumption of hostilities.

BC

[Goose]

It would be a tough but probably necessary pill for Ukraine to swallow to give up hope of recovering territory lost to Russia.  I agree that it is unlikely, barring some sort of unanticipated political or economic collapse in Russia for Ukraine to be able to recapture territory it lost to Russia.  As is oft quoted, hope is not a strategy.

Given the slow but steady advances that Russia has been making in the battlefield, Ukraine might even have to cede the 20% or so of Donetsk that it doesn’t already control.  This would be a very tough pill to swallow.  More than just the principle, this is a very heavily fortified area that is the gateway to a much less defensible Dnipro river valley that would give an attacker coming from the East (AKA, Russia) a straight shot to Kyiv.

Now, all of that might be hard to stomach, but doable, if Ukraine was confident that it had a peaceful neighbor to the East who respected its territorial integrity and previous signed commitments (going back to the 1994 Budapest memorandum).  Unfortunately, prior experience points to the fact that having pocketed the territorial concessions of any cease fire will rebuild its troops, Russia will not hesitate to come up with a thinly veiled excuse to attack again.  This is why there has been such a strong emphasis on security guarantees.  But, as you have pointed out in the past, whether Europeans and, especially, Americans, would be willing to suffer casualties to protect Ukraine is a highly debatable assumption, no matter how you structure the guarantee.  Alas, hope is also not a strategy when it comes to peace treaties (perhaps we need an update to Reagan’s “trust but verify”).

So, Ukraine is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the question is honestly which option, a drawn out war of attrition where Russia slowly but methodically takes over Ukranian territory or a highly disadvantageous peace treaty which probably only allows Ukraine to bide for time before a likely resumption of hostilities.

BC

Unfortunately the above is IMO quite correct. Ukraine has never had a "good" strategy to force Russia to leave Ukraine alone. When the previous US administration began helping Ukraine it was assumed (by both Ukraine and the US public) that there was an at least somewhat reasonable plan to give Ukraine the ability (at a minimum) to drive Russia out of sovereign Ukrainian territory. It quickly became clear that was not the case, but everyone proceeded as if it were, or "soon" would be.
 
In 2023 Ukraine attempted an offensive that, if successful, probably would have forced the Russians out of at least Southern Ukraine. It was not successful because Russia had been allowed a year to fortify their positions, promised minefield breaching equipment was not supplied, Ukraine had inadequate ability to repel Russian tactical helicopters, and the fact it is very difficult to build a combined arms army from scratch in the middle of a war. As it turned out, even if the offensive had been a success Ukraine lacked the mobile troops to exploit the breakthrough. That was their best shot. After that, it was fight a defensive war and hope Russia would quit. The reasons to hope Russia would quit were economic collapse due to sanctions, inability to sustain heavy casualties or political instability due to the effects of the war. None of these things show any signs of being imminent.
 
Ukraine's ability to continue fighting is decreasing, partly due to Russian missile/drone attacks and partly due to infantry attrition. Zelenskyy wouldn't even be considering the compromises he has been asked to make if that were not the case. Indeed Ukraine has no "good" choices. In the end, I don't think it much matters what Ukraine "chooses" to do. Putin is determined to take over the whole country and will keep fighting until he does. The "make me" message is clear. Ukraine can't, and neither the US or the Europeans are going to try. Of course, Ukraine can fight on hoping Putin dies. It worked for Frederick the Great.

---

And Russia builds up its manufacturing military industrial base beyond what slacker Europe has. 
Last summer Merz admitted that for decades, Europe was a free rider on US security blanket. 

You do of course realize Merz doesn't believe that for a second, and his population doesn't believe it either. Merz is saying what he has to say to placate the current administration, nothing more. When German reunification occurred, the US motto for Germany was "Don't scare the bear." It was assumed by all concerned (including the US) that the threat of a major European war was over forever. Never again could that happen. The US downsized its forces in Europe massively, basically by a factor of 4. We were just fine with Germany reducing their defense spending. Not until 2014 (at the earliest) did this start to turn around, and even then nobody thought Russia was actually going to invade Ukraine. Indeed, it was foolish for all concerned to ignore the fact Russia existed and had territorial ambitions in former Soviet territories. But that is exactly what we and the Europeans mutually did. We all liked the "peace dividend".

[Goose]

It would be a tough but probably necessary pill for Ukraine to swallow to give up hope of recovering territory lost to Russia.  I agree that it is unlikely, barring some sort of unanticipated political or economic collapse in Russia for Ukraine to be able to recapture territory it lost to Russia.  As is oft quoted, hope is not a strategy.

Given the slow but steady advances that Russia has been making in the battlefield, Ukraine might even have to cede the 20% or so of Donetsk that it doesn’t already control.  This would be a very tough pill to swallow.  More than just the principle, this is a very heavily fortified area that is the gateway to a much less defensible Dnipro river valley that would give an attacker coming from the East (AKA, Russia) a straight shot to Kyiv.

Now, all of that might be hard to stomach, but doable, if Ukraine was confident that it had a peaceful neighbor to the East who respected its territorial integrity and previous signed commitments (going back to the 1994 Budapest memorandum).  Unfortunately, prior experience points to the fact that having pocketed the territorial concessions of any cease fire will rebuild its troops, Russia will not hesitate to come up with a thinly veiled excuse to attack again.  This is why there has been such a strong emphasis on security guarantees.  But, as you have pointed out in the past, whether Europeans and, especially, Americans, would be willing to suffer casualties to protect Ukraine is a highly debatable assumption, no matter how you structure the guarantee.  Alas, hope is also not a strategy when it comes to peace treaties (perhaps we need an update to Reagan’s “trust but verify”).

So, Ukraine is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the question is honestly which option, a drawn out war of attrition where Russia slowly but methodically takes over Ukranian territory or a highly disadvantageous peace treaty which probably only allows Ukraine to bide for time before a likely resumption of hostilities.

BC

Unfortunately the above is IMO quite correct. Ukraine has never had a "good" strategy to force Russia to leave Ukraine alone. When the previous US administration began helping Ukraine it was assumed (by both Ukraine and the US public) that there was an at least somewhat reasonable plan to give Ukraine the ability (at a minimum) to drive Russia out of sovereign Ukrainian territory. It quickly became clear that was not the case, but everyone proceeded as if it were, or "soon" would be.
 
In 2023 Ukraine attempted an offensive that, if successful, probably would have forced the Russians out of at least Southern Ukraine. It was not successful because Russia had been allowed a year to fortify their positions, promised minefield breaching equipment was not supplied, Ukraine had inadequate ability to repel Russian tactical helicopters, and the fact it is very difficult to build a combined arms army from scratch in the middle of a war. As it turned out, even if the offensive had been a success Ukraine lacked the mobile troops to exploit the breakthrough. That was their best shot. After that, it was fight a defensive war and hope Russia would quit. The reasons to hope Russia would quit were economic collapse due to sanctions, inability to sustain heavy casualties or political instability due to the effects of the war. None of these things show any signs of being imminent.
 
Ukraine's ability to continue fighting is decreasing, partly due to Russian missile/drone attacks and partly due to infantry attrition. Zelenskyy wouldn't even be considering the compromises he has been asked to make if that were not the case. Indeed Ukraine has no "good" choices. In the end, I don't think it much matters what Ukraine "chooses" to do. Putin is determined to take over the whole country and will keep fighting until he does. The "make me" message is clear. Ukraine can't, and neither the US or the Europeans are going to try. Of course, Ukraine can fight on hoping Putin dies. It worked for Frederick the Great.

---

And Russia builds up its manufacturing military industrial base beyond what slacker Europe has. 
Last summer Merz admitted that for decades, Europe was a free rider on US security blanket. 

You do of course realize Merz doesn't believe that for a second, and his population doesn't believe it either. Merz is saying what he has to say to placate the current administration, nothing more. When German reunification occurred, the US motto for Germany was "Don't scare the bear." It was assumed by all concerned (including the US) that the threat of a major European war was over forever. Never again could that happen. The US downsized its forces in Europe massively, basically by a factor of 4. We were just fine with Germany reducing their defense spending. Not until 2014 (at the earliest) did this start to turn around, and even then nobody thought Russia was actually going to invade Ukraine. Indeed, it was foolish for all concerned to ignore the fact Russia existed and had territorial ambitions in former Soviet territories. But that is exactly what we and the Europeans mutually did. We all liked the "peace dividend".

[M T]

Imagine a world in which the West captured and seized the oil tankers of the Russian shadow fleet.  

Yes, Russia has an air force that is far more dangerous than Venezuela’s.

[M T]

Imagine a world in which the West captured and seized the oil tankers of the Russian shadow fleet.  

Yes, Russia has an air force that is far more dangerous than Venezuela’s.

[Goose]

Imagine a world in which the West captured and seized the oil tankers of the Russian shadow fleet.  

Yes, Russia has an air force that is far more dangerous than Venezuela’s.

True, Russia has an air force. However, in the IO neither of them are present. Neither are their Navies.

[Goose]

Imagine a world in which the West captured and seized the oil tankers of the Russian shadow fleet.  

Yes, Russia has an air force that is far more dangerous than Venezuela’s.

True, Russia has an air force. However, in the IO neither of them are present. Neither are their Navies.

[Mick]

Ukraine used sub-sea drones to attack a sub in the Russian port of Novorossiysk to much damage. It's the largest port in the VBlack Sea basin, and longest in Russia, 8.3 km and 90 berths. It is ice-free and open for navigation year round and facilitates oil, container and grain handling. Plays a crucial role in maritime trade and logistics. 

Port of Novorossiysk

There's damage to the docks and boom cranes. End of Russian Black Sea fleet per the speaker.

Sub-Sea Drone Strike on Russian Sub

[Mick]

Ukraine used sub-sea drones to attack a sub in the Russian port of Novorossiysk to much damage. It's the largest port in the VBlack Sea basin, and longest in Russia, 8.3 km and 90 berths. It is ice-free and open for navigation year round and facilitates oil, container and grain handling. Plays a crucial role in maritime trade and logistics. 

Port of Novorossiysk

There's damage to the docks and boom cranes. End of Russian Black Sea fleet per the speaker.

Sub-Sea Drone Strike on Russian Sub

[ADPinWDC]

My daughter Lt Claire in Army Logistics served in theater near Grafenwoehr, Germany 2015-2017 after Russia took Crimea.  
She was impressed with the Polish soldiers, but the Germans were wholly inadequate -- except in repairing vehicles.  
"They can't shoot a lick.  Poorly trained with armaments".  
The Wehrmacht is a shadow of its former self, more than decimated by losing two world wars, and by German Millennials who look down on even serving. 
 
Three months ago Britain and France were each talking about sending "25,000 Peacekeeping troops to Ukraine (boots on the ground)" -- until the press asked them about the Rules of Engagement: "What if the troops are fired upon by Russians; can they shoot back?  What if they kill Russians; are we at war?"
Britain and France had NO ANSWER. 
It's all bluster from EU -- and Putin knows that.

Nobody is going to send 200,000 troops to push Russia out of Eastern Ukraine. 
And that wouldn't do the job against 200,000 mines and artillery.  #StopTheKilling. 
Europe and Obama didn't do much about Crimea either in 2014.

Not much has improved in Europe... 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12...ven-worse/

[ADPinWDC]

My daughter Lt Claire in Army Logistics served in theater near Grafenwoehr, Germany 2015-2017 after Russia took Crimea.  
She was impressed with the Polish soldiers, but the Germans were wholly inadequate -- except in repairing vehicles.  
"They can't shoot a lick.  Poorly trained with armaments".  
The Wehrmacht is a shadow of its former self, more than decimated by losing two world wars, and by German Millennials who look down on even serving. 
 
Three months ago Britain and France were each talking about sending "25,000 Peacekeeping troops to Ukraine (boots on the ground)" -- until the press asked them about the Rules of Engagement: "What if the troops are fired upon by Russians; can they shoot back?  What if they kill Russians; are we at war?"
Britain and France had NO ANSWER. 
It's all bluster from EU -- and Putin knows that.

Nobody is going to send 200,000 troops to push Russia out of Eastern Ukraine. 
And that wouldn't do the job against 200,000 mines and artillery.  #StopTheKilling. 
Europe and Obama didn't do much about Crimea either in 2014.

Not much has improved in Europe... 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12...ven-worse/

[dabigv13]

The problem is if Ukraine stops fighting, that doesn't #StopTheKilling.

It just means Russian soldiers will be killing and raping civilians. Here is one such story.

The woman recounts that on the night of December 22–23, 2025, three drunk Russian soldiers from the 30th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade of the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army, with call signs "Smile," "Build," and "Scramble," burst into her home, where she, her husband, and her mother-in-law were present.

First, they tormented her husband for a long time and beat him, then shot him in the leg and killed him. The woman herself was raped in turn. They also wanted to kill her mother-in-law, but she managed to escape while the Russians were gang-raping the homeowner.

https://x.com/den_kazansky/status/200462...61925?s=20

[dabigv13]

The problem is if Ukraine stops fighting, that doesn't #StopTheKilling.

It just means Russian soldiers will be killing and raping civilians. Here is one such story.

The woman recounts that on the night of December 22–23, 2025, three drunk Russian soldiers from the 30th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade of the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army, with call signs "Smile," "Build," and "Scramble," burst into her home, where she, her husband, and her mother-in-law were present.

First, they tormented her husband for a long time and beat him, then shot him in the leg and killed him. The woman herself was raped in turn. They also wanted to kill her mother-in-law, but she managed to escape while the Russians were gang-raping the homeowner.

https://x.com/den_kazansky/status/200462...61925?s=20

[Goose]

My daughter Lt Claire in Army Logistics served in theater near Grafenwoehr, Germany 2015-2017 after Russia took Crimea.  
She was impressed with the Polish soldiers, but the Germans were wholly inadequate -- except in repairing vehicles.  
"They can't shoot a lick.  Poorly trained with armaments".  
The Wehrmacht is a shadow of its former self, more than decimated by losing two world wars, and by German Millennials who look down on even serving.

I don't know if your daughter was referring to infantry small arms shooting or armored vehicles. It is really, really sad if it was armored vehicles. The Germans regularly won the Canadian Army Trophy for armored vehicle marksmanship from 1973 on. The US only won it once.
 
There hasn't been a Wehrmacht  since 1945. The Bundeswehr was founded in 1955. It was therefore not "decimated" by the losses of the world wars. By 1975 the Bundeswehr was far better, man for man and tank for tank than the US Army deployed in Europe. It was not close. A lot of that can be traced to the post-Vietnam "situation" but arguably the German  superiority persisted until the end of the cold war. The Bundeswehr fielded 12 divisions, all inside Germany. These forces were all combat ready and highly motivated. The troops understood why they were there and what the tasks were. The Bundeswehr was blessed with a professional officer corps that looked both backwards into history and forward towards what they would be asked to do in a war. It was a very eclectic group. Some were from "old military families" and others were lower middle class guys that had discovered they liked being soldiers and could lead troops. A few of these guys were crazy in a good way :-). Probably more importantly the Bundeswehr was also blessed with a very professional long-serving NCO cadre. They knew how to take draftees that were only going to serve 18 months and make competent soldiers out of them. Some of those draftees would actually apply to extend their service. The NCOs could make things happen. One did need to realize that if asked to do something, they would literally do as asked. That might not be exactly what you expected :-).
 
The US Army in 1990 had 18 active divisions and 10 National Guard divisions. Few of the National Guard forces were ready to deploy into a European armored war on short notice. The US Army was all "professional", no draftees. That had its good points. It also had its disadvantages. In general, the US Army enlisted men were less adequately educated for mechanized warfare than the German army draftees. That had an effect on how the forces would fight. The US therefore fielded 18 divisions from a population of 249 million (1990), while Germany fielded 12 from a population of 62 million. That speaks for itself.
 
Today, Germany notionally fields 3 divisions. However, a cursory examination of the Table of Organization of these divisions shows that Germany has one "legitimate" Panzer division, 1st Panzer. It might be a bit light on tanks, but it is at least "close". The next division, 10th Panzer, is actually more of a Panzergrenadier division. Recently attempts have been made to increase its tank strength by the addition of the  Panzerbrigade 45, but that unit is not yet up to strength (and may never be). The third division is the Rapid Forces Division, which is a sweep-together of airborne forces, mountain troops, and anything else that isn't a proper part of an armored division. To all this, one can only say Ouch! Germany was encouraged to take the end of the Cold War seriously. The Russians were understandably concerned about a re-united Germany. Don't scare the bear was a real thing, not just a slogan. Obviously, the German politicians and public were quite happy with their "peace dividend". They eagerly cashed the whole thing. Thus the current generations see no reason they should have to defend their country.
 
The US OTOH only cashed most of our peace dividend. We still had responsibilities in other parts of the world. Today the US has 10 active army divisions. It has exactly ONE armored division. While the switch to Brigade Combat Teams arguably allows the armored component of infantry divisions to provide armor capabilities that isn't at all comparable. The 3rd ACR and the 11th ACR augment the US armored capability, but for sure "they aren't what they were". In 1990 the US had 4 Armored (Panzer) divisions and 8 Mechanized Divisions (Panzergrenadier +/-) divisions. So 12 of our 18 divisions were capable of fighting what a war in Europe was expected to look like.

Three months ago Britain and France were each talking about sending "25,000 Peacekeeping troops to Ukraine (boots on the ground)" -- until the press asked them about the Rules of Engagement: "What if the troops are fired upon by Russians; can they shoot back?  What if they kill Russians; are we at war?"
Britain and France had NO ANSWER. 
It's all bluster from EU -- and Putin knows that.

Maybe. But what if its not totally bluster? What if the UK and France send 25,000 peacekeeping troops without clear rules of engagement? What if they do shoot back? It is IMO a recipe for an accidental war. A poorly resourced and poorly thought out intervention can easily be worse than nothing.

Nobody is going to send 200,000 troops to push Russia out of Eastern Ukraine. 
And that wouldn't do the job against 200,000 mines and artillery.  #StopTheKilling.

Probably not, but coupled with 500 aircraft IMO they easily could force the Russian troops in Ukraine to abandon their position due to logistical collapse. Minefields that can't be defended are pretty easy to lift. Artillery with no ammunition is scrap metal. Of course, the only nation that can provide the 500 aircraft (and probably the 200,000 troops) is the United States. We aren't going to do that, so you are quite correct.

Europe and Obama didn't do much about Crimea either in 2014.

Not much has improved in Europe... 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12...ven-worse/

Quite a bit of truth in this article. Europe isn't "ready" for the current situation, and no new leaders are coming forth that gives one confidence that the way ahead will be any better than the present.

[Goose]

My daughter Lt Claire in Army Logistics served in theater near Grafenwoehr, Germany 2015-2017 after Russia took Crimea.  
She was impressed with the Polish soldiers, but the Germans were wholly inadequate -- except in repairing vehicles.  
"They can't shoot a lick.  Poorly trained with armaments".  
The Wehrmacht is a shadow of its former self, more than decimated by losing two world wars, and by German Millennials who look down on even serving.

I don't know if your daughter was referring to infantry small arms shooting or armored vehicles. It is really, really sad if it was armored vehicles. The Germans regularly won the Canadian Army Trophy for armored vehicle marksmanship from 1973 on. The US only won it once.
 
There hasn't been a Wehrmacht  since 1945. The Bundeswehr was founded in 1955. It was therefore not "decimated" by the losses of the world wars. By 1975 the Bundeswehr was far better, man for man and tank for tank than the US Army deployed in Europe. It was not close. A lot of that can be traced to the post-Vietnam "situation" but arguably the German  superiority persisted until the end of the cold war. The Bundeswehr fielded 12 divisions, all inside Germany. These forces were all combat ready and highly motivated. The troops understood why they were there and what the tasks were. The Bundeswehr was blessed with a professional officer corps that looked both backwards into history and forward towards what they would be asked to do in a war. It was a very eclectic group. Some were from "old military families" and others were lower middle class guys that had discovered they liked being soldiers and could lead troops. A few of these guys were crazy in a good way :-). Probably more importantly the Bundeswehr was also blessed with a very professional long-serving NCO cadre. They knew how to take draftees that were only going to serve 18 months and make competent soldiers out of them. Some of those draftees would actually apply to extend their service. The NCOs could make things happen. One did need to realize that if asked to do something, they would literally do as asked. That might not be exactly what you expected :-).
 
The US Army in 1990 had 18 active divisions and 10 National Guard divisions. Few of the National Guard forces were ready to deploy into a European armored war on short notice. The US Army was all "professional", no draftees. That had its good points. It also had its disadvantages. In general, the US Army enlisted men were less adequately educated for mechanized warfare than the German army draftees. That had an effect on how the forces would fight. The US therefore fielded 18 divisions from a population of 249 million (1990), while Germany fielded 12 from a population of 62 million. That speaks for itself.
 
Today, Germany notionally fields 3 divisions. However, a cursory examination of the Table of Organization of these divisions shows that Germany has one "legitimate" Panzer division, 1st Panzer. It might be a bit light on tanks, but it is at least "close". The next division, 10th Panzer, is actually more of a Panzergrenadier division. Recently attempts have been made to increase its tank strength by the addition of the  Panzerbrigade 45, but that unit is not yet up to strength (and may never be). The third division is the Rapid Forces Division, which is a sweep-together of airborne forces, mountain troops, and anything else that isn't a proper part of an armored division. To all this, one can only say Ouch! Germany was encouraged to take the end of the Cold War seriously. The Russians were understandably concerned about a re-united Germany. Don't scare the bear was a real thing, not just a slogan. Obviously, the German politicians and public were quite happy with their "peace dividend". They eagerly cashed the whole thing. Thus the current generations see no reason they should have to defend their country.
 
The US OTOH only cashed most of our peace dividend. We still had responsibilities in other parts of the world. Today the US has 10 active army divisions. It has exactly ONE armored division. While the switch to Brigade Combat Teams arguably allows the armored component of infantry divisions to provide armor capabilities that isn't at all comparable. The 3rd ACR and the 11th ACR augment the US armored capability, but for sure "they aren't what they were". In 1990 the US had 4 Armored (Panzer) divisions and 8 Mechanized Divisions (Panzergrenadier +/-) divisions. So 12 of our 18 divisions were capable of fighting what a war in Europe was expected to look like.

Three months ago Britain and France were each talking about sending "25,000 Peacekeeping troops to Ukraine (boots on the ground)" -- until the press asked them about the Rules of Engagement: "What if the troops are fired upon by Russians; can they shoot back?  What if they kill Russians; are we at war?"
Britain and France had NO ANSWER. 
It's all bluster from EU -- and Putin knows that.

Maybe. But what if its not totally bluster? What if the UK and France send 25,000 peacekeeping troops without clear rules of engagement? What if they do shoot back? It is IMO a recipe for an accidental war. A poorly resourced and poorly thought out intervention can easily be worse than nothing.

Nobody is going to send 200,000 troops to push Russia out of Eastern Ukraine. 
And that wouldn't do the job against 200,000 mines and artillery.  #StopTheKilling.

Probably not, but coupled with 500 aircraft IMO they easily could force the Russian troops in Ukraine to abandon their position due to logistical collapse. Minefields that can't be defended are pretty easy to lift. Artillery with no ammunition is scrap metal. Of course, the only nation that can provide the 500 aircraft (and probably the 200,000 troops) is the United States. We aren't going to do that, so you are quite correct.

Europe and Obama didn't do much about Crimea either in 2014.

Not much has improved in Europe... 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12...ven-worse/

Quite a bit of truth in this article. Europe isn't "ready" for the current situation, and no new leaders are coming forth that gives one confidence that the way ahead will be any better than the present.

[fullmetal]

Extending dabigv's point, the Ukrainians get a vote here.  They've seen what Russia is doing to the Ukrainian population (the ethnic Ukrainians).  The kidnapping of children, forced relocation and forced adoption of Ukrainian children by Russian adopters far from Ukraine, the indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure...yeah something tells me Russia isn't going to be a fair-minded occupier if Ukraine capitulates.

[fullmetal]

Extending dabigv's point, the Ukrainians get a vote here.  They've seen what Russia is doing to the Ukrainian population (the ethnic Ukrainians).  The kidnapping of children, forced relocation and forced adoption of Ukrainian children by Russian adopters far from Ukraine, the indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure...yeah something tells me Russia isn't going to be a fair-minded occupier if Ukraine capitulates.

[Goose]

Extending dabigv's point, the Ukrainians get a vote here.  They've seen what Russia is doing to the Ukrainian population (the ethnic Ukrainians).  The kidnapping of children, forced relocation and forced adoption of Ukrainian children by Russian adopters far from Ukraine, the indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure...yeah something tells me Russia isn't going to be a fair-minded occupier if Ukraine capitulates.

True. IMO Russia, should they finally "win", will discover occupying Ukraine is even more difficult than capturing it will be. Ukraine will keep fighting at some level indefinitely. Even if Russia occupies the whole country that will be true. Ukraine is a big country. Even Russia doesn't have the manpower to occupy every little hamlet. A "peoples war" will undoubtedly start bleeding Russia dry on day 1. Yes, it will be a nightmare for Ukraine. If it happens, the number of refugees will be immense, making the number so far seem like a trickle.

[Goose]

Extending dabigv's point, the Ukrainians get a vote here.  They've seen what Russia is doing to the Ukrainian population (the ethnic Ukrainians).  The kidnapping of children, forced relocation and forced adoption of Ukrainian children by Russian adopters far from Ukraine, the indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure...yeah something tells me Russia isn't going to be a fair-minded occupier if Ukraine capitulates.

True. IMO Russia, should they finally "win", will discover occupying Ukraine is even more difficult than capturing it will be. Ukraine will keep fighting at some level indefinitely. Even if Russia occupies the whole country that will be true. Ukraine is a big country. Even Russia doesn't have the manpower to occupy every little hamlet. A "peoples war" will undoubtedly start bleeding Russia dry on day 1. Yes, it will be a nightmare for Ukraine. If it happens, the number of refugees will be immense, making the number so far seem like a trickle.

[ADPinWDC]

More likely, Russia keeps their Eastern portion where their kinsmen are (back to the map of 1619) -- and leaves the Western part of Ukraine to the West to rebuild. 
Russia believes the Eastern portion are now four "Oblasts" of Russia, no matter what the West thinks.  
For Putin, might does make right. 
"He's a dick".  Doesn't care what EU pleads. 
Screw diplomacy. 
 
I am not in the camp that believes Russia from here will seek all of Ukraine.

[ADPinWDC]

More likely, Russia keeps their Eastern portion where their kinsmen are (back to the map of 1619) -- and leaves the Western part of Ukraine to the West to rebuild. 
Russia believes the Eastern portion are now four "Oblasts" of Russia, no matter what the West thinks.  
For Putin, might does make right. 
"He's a dick".  Doesn't care what EU pleads. 
Screw diplomacy. 
 
I am not in the camp that believes Russia from here will seek all of Ukraine.

[Papa John]

I am not in the camp that believes Russia from here will seek all of Ukraine.

On what evidence do you base your opinion?

[Papa John]

I am not in the camp that believes Russia from here will seek all of Ukraine.

On what evidence do you base your opinion?

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/_wild_billkelso/status/200...15309?s=20

Apparently Ukraine has at least one two seater F16. I figure these were intended mostly for training, but I wonder if it could be a potent counter drone/cruise missile platform if you have a RIO/WSO type in the cockpit to help with target acquisition and designation.

An apt topic for Goose to weigh in on.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/_wild_billkelso/status/200...15309?s=20

Apparently Ukraine has at least one two seater F16. I figure these were intended mostly for training, but I wonder if it could be a potent counter drone/cruise missile platform if you have a RIO/WSO type in the cockpit to help with target acquisition and designation.

An apt topic for Goose to weigh in on.

[Goose]

https://x.com/_wild_billkelso/status/200...15309?s=20

Apparently Ukraine has at least one two seater F16. I figure these were intended mostly for training, but I wonder if it could be a potent counter drone/cruise missile platform if you have a RIO/WSO type in the cockpit to help with target acquisition and designation.

An apt topic for Goose to weigh in on.

Having two sets of eyes can be a useful thing in some cases, like seeing off-axis threats. However, it must be kept in mind that the F-16B is designed to train pilots. The "guy in back" (GIB) does not have the "extra" sensors that are normally present in a two-seat purpose-designed fighter e.g. the F-15E Strike Eagle. The F-16B GIB is not and cannot be a Weapons Systems Officer (WSO) in that sense. Normally one would expect F-16s attacking cruise missiles to be vectored close enough to the target via others sensors to allow acquiring the target with the F-16s onboard radar. If Ukraine is relying on visual acquisition they are in a world of hurt. Finding a small target moving relatively fast at night visually is obviously a challenge. To do so at all you have to be close enough to see the target with your eyes. If your radar doesn't already see it, in fact seen it many miles earlier, something is really wrong. If OTOH Ukraine is conducting BVR target acquisition (the "normal" case) the GIB would be almost entirely a passenger.

[Goose]

https://x.com/_wild_billkelso/status/200...15309?s=20

Apparently Ukraine has at least one two seater F16. I figure these were intended mostly for training, but I wonder if it could be a potent counter drone/cruise missile platform if you have a RIO/WSO type in the cockpit to help with target acquisition and designation.

An apt topic for Goose to weigh in on.

Having two sets of eyes can be a useful thing in some cases, like seeing off-axis threats. However, it must be kept in mind that the F-16B is designed to train pilots. The "guy in back" (GIB) does not have the "extra" sensors that are normally present in a two-seat purpose-designed fighter e.g. the F-15E Strike Eagle. The F-16B GIB is not and cannot be a Weapons Systems Officer (WSO) in that sense. Normally one would expect F-16s attacking cruise missiles to be vectored close enough to the target via others sensors to allow acquiring the target with the F-16s onboard radar. If Ukraine is relying on visual acquisition they are in a world of hurt. Finding a small target moving relatively fast at night visually is obviously a challenge. To do so at all you have to be close enough to see the target with your eyes. If your radar doesn't already see it, in fact seen it many miles earlier, something is really wrong. If OTOH Ukraine is conducting BVR target acquisition (the "normal" case) the GIB would be almost entirely a passenger.

[M T]

Putin continues his assault on Ukraine with another get-there-first call to the US President hours before another public meeting between the US President and the Ukrainian leader.  Gee, where'd he get that tactic from?   It worked so well for Russia last time.   The US president has shown previously that he is manipulated by this tactic.  Send all ordinance with the intent to rain terror upon your victim and then call to manipulate anyone who might help.

[M T]

Putin continues his assault on Ukraine with another get-there-first call to the US President hours before another public meeting between the US President and the Ukrainian leader.  Gee, where'd he get that tactic from?   It worked so well for Russia last time.   The US president has shown previously that he is manipulated by this tactic.  Send all ordinance with the intent to rain terror upon your victim and then call to manipulate anyone who might help.

[ADPinWDC]

I am not in the camp that believes Russia from here will seek all of Ukraine.

On what evidence do you base your opinion?

SOURCES
Talking often with relatives in Eastern Europe, and my view that Putin does not want more acreage to manage -- he seeks ethnic Russians (in Crimea and the Donbas) instead to offset a demographic implosion... which is the other primary reason I believe he will move to consolidate the Eastern provinces (formerly Russia in the 16thC), Russia lacks soldiers for a full on invasion of Ukraine and Europe. 
The Baltics will be harassed, as they have been historically.  Putin is a dick. He doesn't do "nice".

And Europe still needs to amp up Defense spending after three decades of "free riding", so said Chancellor Merz on BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg6v0pk964o

[ADPinWDC]

I am not in the camp that believes Russia from here will seek all of Ukraine.

On what evidence do you base your opinion?

SOURCES
Talking often with relatives in Eastern Europe, and my view that Putin does not want more acreage to manage -- he seeks ethnic Russians (in Crimea and the Donbas) instead to offset a demographic implosion... which is the other primary reason I believe he will move to consolidate the Eastern provinces (formerly Russia in the 16thC), Russia lacks soldiers for a full on invasion of Ukraine and Europe. 
The Baltics will be harassed, as they have been historically.  Putin is a dick. He doesn't do "nice".

And Europe still needs to amp up Defense spending after three decades of "free riding", so said Chancellor Merz on BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg6v0pk964o

[Goose]

SOURCES
Talking often with relatives in Eastern Europe, and my view that Putin does not want more acreage to manage -- he seeks ethnic Russians (in Crimea and the Donbas) instead to offset a demographic implosion... 

The obvious problem with that interpretation is that the ethnic Russians in Donbas could have (and still can) simply move to Russia. There isn't a lack of land or places to put them. If the ethnic Russians didn't "spontaneously" emigrate, Putin could have offered financial incentives to do so. That would have been much cheaper than his war has been. Even better, Putin could choose who could emigrate. People under 40 who could still have children yes, older people, no. Much better for demographics. It is equally obvious that starting a war that will kill hundreds of thousands of your potential fathers is demographically disadvantageous. Even if one accepts the idea that "most" of the casualties are inflicted on ethnic minority groups, there are still plenty of Russians getting killed. The junior officer casualties alone ensure that. For these reasons the demographic argument really doesn't fit the available facts.
 
The Donbas was at one time an industrial powerhouse. Well before this war, it had become a rust-belt area where all the manufacturing plants were obsolete and the mines in general so mined-out they were not economically competitive. It is a money sink. After the massive destruction it is even less able to support itself. It is not an economic win for Russia. However, Putin wants it because it was part of "Russia". Putin, who often lives in the past, sees it as a "pearl". He sees the rest of Ukraine the same way. If he didn't, he could stop where he is. He has no reason to continue unless he DOES want more acreage. All the Russian or Ukrainian (that are not actively fighting for Ukraine) young people (that would help with demographic issues) have left the remaining part of the Donbas (16%) that Ukraine still holds. All that are left are old people with no place to go. Putin could also give up Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast because they don't have all that many ethic Russians (percentage wise about half that of the Donbas). He could perhaps trade that for the 16% of the Donbas he wants. He isn't doing that. Clearly, Putin DOES want acreage.

 which is the other primary reason I believe he will move to consolidate the Eastern provinces (formerly Russia in the 16thC), Russia lacks soldiers for a full on invasion of Ukraine and Europe.

I would agree that Russia lacks the soldiers for a full invasion of Europe. I would agree that Russia probably lacks the soldiers to effectively occupy all of Ukraine. OTOH I think it is apparent that Russia DOES have enough soldiers to successfully invade Ukraine, especially given the lack of effective support from the US and Europe. As the US proved in both Afghanistan and Iraq it is quite possible to have enough troops to successfully invade another country but not have enough troops to "pacify" it.

The Baltics will be harassed, as they have been historically.  Putin is a dick.  He doesn't do "nice".

And Europe still needs to amp up Defense spending after three decades of "free riding", so said Chancellor Merz on BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg6v0pk964o

I think everyone agrees that Europe needs to increase its defense spending. However the "free riding" comments are directed at pleasing the US President. Whenever I hear that expression, I ask "Enumerate exactly what expenses the US incurred because European defense spending was in our view inadequate". Feel free to cite some and we can talk about it :-). For the first of those decades the US was actively encouraging restraint upon German military size and spending.

[Goose]

SOURCES
Talking often with relatives in Eastern Europe, and my view that Putin does not want more acreage to manage -- he seeks ethnic Russians (in Crimea and the Donbas) instead to offset a demographic implosion... 

The obvious problem with that interpretation is that the ethnic Russians in Donbas could have (and still can) simply move to Russia. There isn't a lack of land or places to put them. If the ethnic Russians didn't "spontaneously" emigrate, Putin could have offered financial incentives to do so. That would have been much cheaper than his war has been. Even better, Putin could choose who could emigrate. People under 40 who could still have children yes, older people, no. Much better for demographics. It is equally obvious that starting a war that will kill hundreds of thousands of your potential fathers is demographically disadvantageous. Even if one accepts the idea that "most" of the casualties are inflicted on ethnic minority groups, there are still plenty of Russians getting killed. The junior officer casualties alone ensure that. For these reasons the demographic argument really doesn't fit the available facts.
 
The Donbas was at one time an industrial powerhouse. Well before this war, it had become a rust-belt area where all the manufacturing plants were obsolete and the mines in general so mined-out they were not economically competitive. It is a money sink. After the massive destruction it is even less able to support itself. It is not an economic win for Russia. However, Putin wants it because it was part of "Russia". Putin, who often lives in the past, sees it as a "pearl". He sees the rest of Ukraine the same way. If he didn't, he could stop where he is. He has no reason to continue unless he DOES want more acreage. All the Russian or Ukrainian (that are not actively fighting for Ukraine) young people (that would help with demographic issues) have left the remaining part of the Donbas (16%) that Ukraine still holds. All that are left are old people with no place to go. Putin could also give up Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast because they don't have all that many ethic Russians (percentage wise about half that of the Donbas). He could perhaps trade that for the 16% of the Donbas he wants. He isn't doing that. Clearly, Putin DOES want acreage.

 which is the other primary reason I believe he will move to consolidate the Eastern provinces (formerly Russia in the 16thC), Russia lacks soldiers for a full on invasion of Ukraine and Europe.

I would agree that Russia lacks the soldiers for a full invasion of Europe. I would agree that Russia probably lacks the soldiers to effectively occupy all of Ukraine. OTOH I think it is apparent that Russia DOES have enough soldiers to successfully invade Ukraine, especially given the lack of effective support from the US and Europe. As the US proved in both Afghanistan and Iraq it is quite possible to have enough troops to successfully invade another country but not have enough troops to "pacify" it.

The Baltics will be harassed, as they have been historically.  Putin is a dick.  He doesn't do "nice".

And Europe still needs to amp up Defense spending after three decades of "free riding", so said Chancellor Merz on BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg6v0pk964o

I think everyone agrees that Europe needs to increase its defense spending. However the "free riding" comments are directed at pleasing the US President. Whenever I hear that expression, I ask "Enumerate exactly what expenses the US incurred because European defense spending was in our view inadequate". Feel free to cite some and we can talk about it :-). For the first of those decades the US was actively encouraging restraint upon German military size and spending.

[BostonCard]

Also, Putin is on record as writing extensively that he doesn’t consider Ukrainians to be a legitimate separate ethic group from Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_His...Ukrainians

In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation.[5] To support the claim, he describes in length his views on the history of Russia and Ukraine,[6] concluding that Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage and destiny.[7]

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, Putin is on record as writing extensively that he doesn’t consider Ukrainians to be a legitimate separate ethic group from Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_His...Ukrainians

In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation.[5] To support the claim, he describes in length his views on the history of Russia and Ukraine,[6] concluding that Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage and destiny.[7]

BC

[dabigv13]

I am not in the camp that believes Russia from here will seek all of Ukraine.

On what evidence do you base your opinion?

SOURCES
Talking often with relatives in Eastern Europe, and my view that Putin does not want more acreage to manage -- he seeks ethnic Russians (in Crimea and the Donbas) instead to offset a demographic implosion... which is the other primary reason I believe he will move to consolidate the Eastern provinces (formerly Russia in the 16thC), Russia lacks soldiers for a full on invasion of Ukraine and Europe. 
The Baltics will be harassed, as they have been historically.  Putin is a dick.  He doesn't do "nice".

And Europe still needs to amp up Defense spending after three decades of "free riding", so said Chancellor Merz on BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg6v0pk964o

Russian president Putin tells military generals that it is necessary to continue operations to take the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia, according to TASS

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/2005639303943376978?s=20

He doesn't just want Crimea and Donbas, he wants as much of Ukraine as he can get.

[dabigv13]

I am not in the camp that believes Russia from here will seek all of Ukraine.

On what evidence do you base your opinion?

SOURCES
Talking often with relatives in Eastern Europe, and my view that Putin does not want more acreage to manage -- he seeks ethnic Russians (in Crimea and the Donbas) instead to offset a demographic implosion... which is the other primary reason I believe he will move to consolidate the Eastern provinces (formerly Russia in the 16thC), Russia lacks soldiers for a full on invasion of Ukraine and Europe. 
The Baltics will be harassed, as they have been historically.  Putin is a dick.  He doesn't do "nice".

And Europe still needs to amp up Defense spending after three decades of "free riding", so said Chancellor Merz on BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg6v0pk964o

Russian president Putin tells military generals that it is necessary to continue operations to take the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia, according to TASS

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/2005639303943376978?s=20

He doesn't just want Crimea and Donbas, he wants as much of Ukraine as he can get.

[Goose]

He doesn't just want Crimea and Donbas, he wants as much of Ukraine as he can get.

I don't quite agree. He wants all of Ukraine, period. He will keep trying to achieve that goal until it is met or he is removed from power (by death or other means). IMO he is also in a position that a pause (of any "significant" length) in the effort isn't acceptable. This is true for two reasons. First, he believes he has the advantage and that Ukraine is near collapse. "Just one more big push" will settle matters. Second, his "war economy" can't stand a pause. The pause will also give the opportunity for the Russian public to see the economic realities of their position and question why so many died and so much of the national treasure was expended to gain a wasteland. While that may not topple Putin, he isn't willing to risk it. Being actually able to declare victory covers a lot of sins, or so he believes.

[Goose]

He doesn't just want Crimea and Donbas, he wants as much of Ukraine as he can get.

I don't quite agree. He wants all of Ukraine, period. He will keep trying to achieve that goal until it is met or he is removed from power (by death or other means). IMO he is also in a position that a pause (of any "significant" length) in the effort isn't acceptable. This is true for two reasons. First, he believes he has the advantage and that Ukraine is near collapse. "Just one more big push" will settle matters. Second, his "war economy" can't stand a pause. The pause will also give the opportunity for the Russian public to see the economic realities of their position and question why so many died and so much of the national treasure was expended to gain a wasteland. While that may not topple Putin, he isn't willing to risk it. Being actually able to declare victory covers a lot of sins, or so he believes.