[BostonCard]

Relevant quote from The NY Times article:

American officials say the warning shows that the weapons being sent are making a big difference on the battlefield. So, for Washington at least, concerns about supplying arms that Russia might consider “escalatory” have ebbed — as has the initial worry that Ukraine will use longer-range weapons, like jet fighters, to attack Moscow itself and set off a bigger war.

The most likely scenario is that Russia is bluffing and that they are powerless to do anything no matter what we give Ukraine. However, there has always been concern about tail risk, a low probability but high impact event. I think that threat recedes as the reality that we are fully arming Ukraine is a “fair accompli”, but it cannot be entirely ignored.

BC

Russia certainly isn't "powerless" to do anything. However, they too are concerned about widening the war. IMHO in so far as our arming Ukraine becomes effective enough that Russia (Putin) has to deal with the fact they might "lose" (where we aren't sure what losing actually is), the more probable he will do something drastic to scare us (or the EU) into stopping. Your take on the subject is rational. Unfortunately, Putin's probably is not.

Russia cannot stop us from giving weapons to the Ukrainians. The best they can try to do is disrupt the transfers, for example, by lobbing missiles at the staging area in Poland where the weapons are being delivered, but that is a high risk strategy, and they can try to dissuade NATO from giving the tech, including by threatening a nuclear retaliation. But ultimately, any such attempts are as effective as people trying to dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine. We always knew he was going to do what he was going to do.

BC

[BostonCard]

Relevant quote from The NY Times article:

American officials say the warning shows that the weapons being sent are making a big difference on the battlefield. So, for Washington at least, concerns about supplying arms that Russia might consider “escalatory” have ebbed — as has the initial worry that Ukraine will use longer-range weapons, like jet fighters, to attack Moscow itself and set off a bigger war.

The most likely scenario is that Russia is bluffing and that they are powerless to do anything no matter what we give Ukraine. However, there has always been concern about tail risk, a low probability but high impact event. I think that threat recedes as the reality that we are fully arming Ukraine is a “fair accompli”, but it cannot be entirely ignored.

BC

Russia certainly isn't "powerless" to do anything. However, they too are concerned about widening the war. IMHO in so far as our arming Ukraine becomes effective enough that Russia (Putin) has to deal with the fact they might "lose" (where we aren't sure what losing actually is), the more probable he will do something drastic to scare us (or the EU) into stopping. Your take on the subject is rational. Unfortunately, Putin's probably is not.

Russia cannot stop us from giving weapons to the Ukrainians. The best they can try to do is disrupt the transfers, for example, by lobbing missiles at the staging area in Poland where the weapons are being delivered, but that is a high risk strategy, and they can try to dissuade NATO from giving the tech, including by threatening a nuclear retaliation. But ultimately, any such attempts are as effective as people trying to dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine. We always knew he was going to do what he was going to do.

BC

[Goose]

Russia cannot stop us from giving weapons to the Ukrainians. The best they can try to do is disrupt the transfers, for example, by lobbing missiles at the staging area in Poland where the weapons are being delivered, but that is a high risk strategy, and they can try to dissuade NATO from giving the tech, including by threatening a nuclear retaliation. But ultimately, any such attempts are as effective as people trying to dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine. We always knew he was going to do what he was going to do.


BC

OK, a couple of hypothetical situations. First, Russia says they will shoot down any US aircraft that enter Polish airspace. They can credibly do that. What does the US do in response to the threat and what does the US do in response to the action?
Second scenario, Russia tells the Poles that any US aid flowing through Poland will result in an unspecified attack on a Polish city. What does the US do, and more importantly, what does Poland do in response to the threat?

The difference is that Putin will do what Putin does because he doesn't have to worry about keeping the Poles (and other NATO allies) happy and he doesn't think the US will start a war over Ukraine. He may be wrong, but he is willing to take risks that no sane man would take (as this entire war illustrates). The US and NATO are much more risk averse. Therein lies the danger. It is quite possible that the US and/or Poland can be dissuaded, so Putin may try it.

[Goose]

Russia cannot stop us from giving weapons to the Ukrainians. The best they can try to do is disrupt the transfers, for example, by lobbing missiles at the staging area in Poland where the weapons are being delivered, but that is a high risk strategy, and they can try to dissuade NATO from giving the tech, including by threatening a nuclear retaliation. But ultimately, any such attempts are as effective as people trying to dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine. We always knew he was going to do what he was going to do.


BC

OK, a couple of hypothetical situations. First, Russia says they will shoot down any US aircraft that enter Polish airspace. They can credibly do that. What does the US do in response to the threat and what does the US do in response to the action?
Second scenario, Russia tells the Poles that any US aid flowing through Poland will result in an unspecified attack on a Polish city. What does the US do, and more importantly, what does Poland do in response to the threat?

The difference is that Putin will do what Putin does because he doesn't have to worry about keeping the Poles (and other NATO allies) happy and he doesn't think the US will start a war over Ukraine. He may be wrong, but he is willing to take risks that no sane man would take (as this entire war illustrates). The US and NATO are much more risk averse. Therein lies the danger. It is quite possible that the US and/or Poland can be dissuaded, so Putin may try it.

[dabigv13]

I think in those scenarios, NATO would probably destroy whatever site or plane launched the missiles, if any make it through NATO missile defenses that is. I don't think NATO would heed any threat like that.

Putin's big card to play is a tactical nuke in Ukraine. I think it's pretty darn unlikely because the downsides for him are too great. Russia would become a true pariah state in that scenario.

[dabigv13]

I think in those scenarios, NATO would probably destroy whatever site or plane launched the missiles, if any make it through NATO missile defenses that is. I don't think NATO would heed any threat like that.

Putin's big card to play is a tactical nuke in Ukraine. I think it's pretty darn unlikely because the downsides for him are too great. Russia would become a true pariah state in that scenario.

[ca245]

Wouldn't shooting down a plane -- US or not -- inside Poland or bombing a target in Poland constitute an act of war against Poland, triggering NATO's "an attack on one is an attack on all" clause requiring all NATO countries to come to Poland's defense? So either action would amount to an "all in" bet by Putin daring NATO to respond as its treaty obligations say it will or be shown to be a paper tiger.

[ca245]

Wouldn't shooting down a plane -- US or not -- inside Poland or bombing a target in Poland constitute an act of war against Poland, triggering NATO's "an attack on one is an attack on all" clause requiring all NATO countries to come to Poland's defense? So either action would amount to an "all in" bet by Putin daring NATO to respond as its treaty obligations say it will or be shown to be a paper tiger.

[Treefence]

I believe there have been cases similar to this in the past, however it's typically not a NATO country aircraft being shot down over NATO territory.  I do think this would lead to the backchannel lines being called, and if Russia does not admit it was an accident or something of that sort, then we'd have a good chance of article 5.  Now one thing about article 5, is that I believe it would require an unanimous vote from all members, in which case I think Hungary would be an issue.  Even still, at that point I think we'd see action from NATO, and because of that I don't think it would happen.

[Treefence]

I believe there have been cases similar to this in the past, however it's typically not a NATO country aircraft being shot down over NATO territory.  I do think this would lead to the backchannel lines being called, and if Russia does not admit it was an accident or something of that sort, then we'd have a good chance of article 5.  Now one thing about article 5, is that I believe it would require an unanimous vote from all members, in which case I think Hungary would be an issue.  Even still, at that point I think we'd see action from NATO, and because of that I don't think it would happen.

[Goose]

I think in those scenarios, NATO would probably destroy whatever site or plane launched the missiles, if any make it through NATO missile defenses that is.

As far as I am aware, nobody in NATO has anything that can shoot down any of the missiles used by the S-400 system.

I don't think NATO would heed any threat like that.

It wouldn't be "NATO". It would be the individual countries that would need to act. Russia has in fact shot down US aircraft that were not in Russian airspace before. Nobody said "boo", including the US. I can pretty much guarantee you that if Russia shot down a C-17 over Poland that was carrying arms destined for Ukraine (after stating that they would do exactly that), several NATO countries would basically say we asked for it and they don't much care. Shooting down an airplane carrying arms to your enemy doesn't rise to the definition of "attack" in many peoples view. The US wouldn't dare try to invoke Article 5 because they know they wouldn't get enough support, which indeed would make NATO look ineffective. The US could then strike the Russian missile site that launched the missiles. That is US attacking Russia, which we have gone out of our way to avoid in the Ukraine war. We have tolerated such actions by Russia in the past. I don't know what happens here, but it is pretty clear there are no good choices.

Similarly, threatening to strike a Polish city if any more aid comes through Poland creates an interesting political problem. If you are the Polish government, what do you tell your people? Do you say "We have to risk this for our brothers in Ukraine.", and if you do say that, can you sell it? If Russia then does strike a Polish city, does Poland invoke article 5 and request a general war against Russia? Again, the "you asked for it" votes will be a problem. On top of that, if Poland just stops allowing the US to help Ukraine through their territory, there won't be any more attacks on their cities. If there is a general war, there will be. What does the Polish government do?

The problem is that article 5 was designed to deter (and if necessary defeat) a general attack by the USSR on any NATO state. It was always assumed that was the only scenario. The idea that a NATO state might actually do something aggressive to provoke retaliation by the USSR was never contemplated. NATO also has no real plan to fight a limited war, where the object isn't to crush Russia. It was always assumed that if a war started, it was to the death.

While all of us undoubtedly feel Russia's aggression against Ukraine is immoral and must be stopped, we haven't yet had to risk a war to do so. Invoking article 5 will start a general war. Ukraine is not part of NATO. There are many Europeans who realize that the war will be fought in Europe (unless it goes full on nuclear), so their homes will be at risk, not ours. If they chose not to fight, Russia isn't going to blow up their cities (right now anyway). If they do chose to fight, Russia will certainly attempt to do so. NATO was designed to combat an immediate existential threat. That isn't the case at the moment, so probably several (most?) NATO states will not fight. Arguably, Biden agrees with this choice since he has refused to involve the US directly. It isn't as simple as it appears IMHO.

[Goose]

I think in those scenarios, NATO would probably destroy whatever site or plane launched the missiles, if any make it through NATO missile defenses that is.

As far as I am aware, nobody in NATO has anything that can shoot down any of the missiles used by the S-400 system.

I don't think NATO would heed any threat like that.

It wouldn't be "NATO". It would be the individual countries that would need to act. Russia has in fact shot down US aircraft that were not in Russian airspace before. Nobody said "boo", including the US. I can pretty much guarantee you that if Russia shot down a C-17 over Poland that was carrying arms destined for Ukraine (after stating that they would do exactly that), several NATO countries would basically say we asked for it and they don't much care. Shooting down an airplane carrying arms to your enemy doesn't rise to the definition of "attack" in many peoples view. The US wouldn't dare try to invoke Article 5 because they know they wouldn't get enough support, which indeed would make NATO look ineffective. The US could then strike the Russian missile site that launched the missiles. That is US attacking Russia, which we have gone out of our way to avoid in the Ukraine war. We have tolerated such actions by Russia in the past. I don't know what happens here, but it is pretty clear there are no good choices.

Similarly, threatening to strike a Polish city if any more aid comes through Poland creates an interesting political problem. If you are the Polish government, what do you tell your people? Do you say "We have to risk this for our brothers in Ukraine.", and if you do say that, can you sell it? If Russia then does strike a Polish city, does Poland invoke article 5 and request a general war against Russia? Again, the "you asked for it" votes will be a problem. On top of that, if Poland just stops allowing the US to help Ukraine through their territory, there won't be any more attacks on their cities. If there is a general war, there will be. What does the Polish government do?

The problem is that article 5 was designed to deter (and if necessary defeat) a general attack by the USSR on any NATO state. It was always assumed that was the only scenario. The idea that a NATO state might actually do something aggressive to provoke retaliation by the USSR was never contemplated. NATO also has no real plan to fight a limited war, where the object isn't to crush Russia. It was always assumed that if a war started, it was to the death.

While all of us undoubtedly feel Russia's aggression against Ukraine is immoral and must be stopped, we haven't yet had to risk a war to do so. Invoking article 5 will start a general war. Ukraine is not part of NATO. There are many Europeans who realize that the war will be fought in Europe (unless it goes full on nuclear), so their homes will be at risk, not ours. If they chose not to fight, Russia isn't going to blow up their cities (right now anyway). If they do chose to fight, Russia will certainly attempt to do so. NATO was designed to combat an immediate existential threat. That isn't the case at the moment, so probably several (most?) NATO states will not fight. Arguably, Biden agrees with this choice since he has refused to involve the US directly. It isn't as simple as it appears IMHO.

[BostonCard]

Context matters, and “aggression” by a NATO member is relative when we are talking about a Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Had this war started because of a Ukrainian push to recapture Crimea or the areas of Donbas they don’t control, we might be treating it more like Azerbaijan’s bid to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh, which is to say evenif we had sympathies, we would have stayed out of it.

An attack on a NATO member would be viewed as an escalation. NATO members, excepting Hungary and maybe Turkey are sympathetic enough to Ukraine to believe that arming the Ukrainians is justified. The balance of opinion as a result of Russian war crimes in Bucha, Mariupol, and elsewhere (as well as the Ukrainian success early in the war) has slowly been shifting towards more, rather than less, intervention. As The NY Times article has noted, we are doing things that we were previously reluctant to do, and this is broadly supported by the population of most NATO countries (indeed, the debate is whether we should be doing “more”). An attack on NATO would probably move the needle into further intervention.

So, while I don’t think we would directly attack Russia, I could see a retaliatory strike or providing more material support for Ukraine (maybe not quite a no fly zone, but at least air support).

BC

[BostonCard]

Context matters, and “aggression” by a NATO member is relative when we are talking about a Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Had this war started because of a Ukrainian push to recapture Crimea or the areas of Donbas they don’t control, we might be treating it more like Azerbaijan’s bid to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh, which is to say evenif we had sympathies, we would have stayed out of it.

An attack on a NATO member would be viewed as an escalation. NATO members, excepting Hungary and maybe Turkey are sympathetic enough to Ukraine to believe that arming the Ukrainians is justified. The balance of opinion as a result of Russian war crimes in Bucha, Mariupol, and elsewhere (as well as the Ukrainian success early in the war) has slowly been shifting towards more, rather than less, intervention. As The NY Times article has noted, we are doing things that we were previously reluctant to do, and this is broadly supported by the population of most NATO countries (indeed, the debate is whether we should be doing “more”). An attack on NATO would probably move the needle into further intervention.

So, while I don’t think we would directly attack Russia, I could see a retaliatory strike or providing more material support for Ukraine (maybe not quite a no fly zone, but at least air support).

BC

[TrumpCard]

This has turned to wild speculation. But since we’re speculating…

Why would the US or Polish counterattack have to target Russian territory. There are tens of thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine right now. We could send a couple of cruise missiles to attack the Russian troops fighting an illegal, aggressive near in foreign territory.

[TrumpCard]

This has turned to wild speculation. But since we’re speculating…

Why would the US or Polish counterattack have to target Russian territory. There are tens of thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine right now. We could send a couple of cruise missiles to attack the Russian troops fighting an illegal, aggressive near in foreign territory.

[dabigv13]

NATO members, excepting Hungary and maybe Turkey are sympathetic enough to Ukraine to believe that arming the Ukrainians is justified.

Turkey has been supplying new Bayraktars and plausibly missiles for the Bayraktars throughout the war.

Russia can't stop the arms deliveries or they already would have tried. If they had the ability they would already be striking the supplies as they enter Ukraine. They likely lack the precision guided munitions necessary for this in the absence of air superiority.

If they did shoot down a C17 over Warsaw (do we really trust that capability, after seeing how much of their kit has underperformed thus far?), it wouldn't stop arms deliveries. Plenty of places western countries could deliver arms to out of the nominal range of Russian SAMs and go overland the rest of the way. Russia doesn't have the missiles to waste on some sort of punitive strike on a Polish city, and they don't have the conventional capabilities to fight anywhere but a limited offensive in the Donbas. Not exactly a scenario to be escalating unless you plan to do it with nukes.

Putin is stuck because he can't really back up those types of threats, and even if he were to follow through on them he is left in an even worse situation militarily.

[dabigv13]

NATO members, excepting Hungary and maybe Turkey are sympathetic enough to Ukraine to believe that arming the Ukrainians is justified.

Turkey has been supplying new Bayraktars and plausibly missiles for the Bayraktars throughout the war.

Russia can't stop the arms deliveries or they already would have tried. If they had the ability they would already be striking the supplies as they enter Ukraine. They likely lack the precision guided munitions necessary for this in the absence of air superiority.

If they did shoot down a C17 over Warsaw (do we really trust that capability, after seeing how much of their kit has underperformed thus far?), it wouldn't stop arms deliveries. Plenty of places western countries could deliver arms to out of the nominal range of Russian SAMs and go overland the rest of the way. Russia doesn't have the missiles to waste on some sort of punitive strike on a Polish city, and they don't have the conventional capabilities to fight anywhere but a limited offensive in the Donbas. Not exactly a scenario to be escalating unless you plan to do it with nukes.

Putin is stuck because he can't really back up those types of threats, and even if he were to follow through on them he is left in an even worse situation militarily.

[dabigv13]

This is a charity providing bulletproof vests to Ukrainian soldiers. Seems legit and may even be tax deductible?

https://protectmisha.me/

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/dmeyerlind/status/1517131149679726592?s=20&t=B9MNzR7iFpFteicCbFZRRw[/tweet]

I have donated to the above through the BofA account transfer method.

If you have very deep pockets, there is also this-

https://buymeafighterjet.com/


.....

Putin calls off the assault on the Azovstal plant.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/nolanwpeterson/status/1517051001383104512?s=20&t=GZU5k5p6ndRp6IQzyTCeYw[/tweet]

Must be running low on Chechens...

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1517077824330510343?s=20&t=dSzfvVOfE0OFxnvyLGX9gw[/tweet]

War coming home to Russia.

[dabigv13]

This is a charity providing bulletproof vests to Ukrainian soldiers. Seems legit and may even be tax deductible?

https://protectmisha.me/

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/dmeyerlind/status/1517131149679726592?s=20&t=B9MNzR7iFpFteicCbFZRRw[/tweet]

I have donated to the above through the BofA account transfer method.

If you have very deep pockets, there is also this-

https://buymeafighterjet.com/


.....

Putin calls off the assault on the Azovstal plant.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/nolanwpeterson/status/1517051001383104512?s=20&t=GZU5k5p6ndRp6IQzyTCeYw[/tweet]

Must be running low on Chechens...

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1517077824330510343?s=20&t=dSzfvVOfE0OFxnvyLGX9gw[/tweet]

War coming home to Russia.

[Goose]

Context matters, and “aggression” by a NATO member is relative when we are talking about a Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Had this war started because of a Ukrainian push to recapture Crimea or the areas of Donbas they don’t control, we might be treating it more like Azerbaijan’s bid to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh, which is to say evenif we had sympathies, we would have stayed out of it.

I think you are correct. It is unfortunate that you are, because ignoring the Russian actions in Crimea is part of what got us here.

An attack on a NATO member would be viewed as an escalation.  NATO members, excepting Hungary and maybe Turkey are sympathetic enough to Ukraine to believe that arming the Ukrainians is justified. The balance of opinion as a result of Russian war crimes in Bucha, Mariupol, and elsewhere (as well as the Ukrainian success early in the war) has slowly been shifting towards more, rather than less, intervention.  As The NY Times article has noted, we are doing things that we were previously reluctant to do, and this is broadly supported by the population of most NATO countries (indeed, the debate is whether we should be doing “more”).

I agree here. Turkey is already fulfilling it's contractual obligations to Ukraine. They are "inside the tent" as much as they can be given their situation.

 An attack on NATO would probably move the needle into further intervention.

Here is where I think you are wrong. I wish you weren't. So far, the actions taken by the NATO states are "free". It may cost us money, but our people aren't at risk and our cities are safe. The minute that is no longer true for the European nations, there will be a big "whoa" moment. They are going to have to decide if they are willing to accept casualties to help Ukraine. I very strongly believe many of these countries will not.

The political leaders in the West have slowly increased what we are willing to provide. When Putin does nothing, we ratchet it up. When Putin finally does something, the calculus changes. The European leaders aren't preparing their people to go to war. They are not in most cases politically strong enough to even suggest such a thing. The Mike Tyson effect will come as a shock. I have no expectation that these countries will hang tough at that point. If the German government can't muster the political will to turn off the Russian gas because it might cause a recession, can we expect that same government to risk missile strikes on it's cities to support Ukraine? I think not.

So, while I don’t think we would directly attack Russia, I could see a retaliatory strike or providing more material support for Ukraine (maybe not quite a no fly zone, but at least air support).

BC

Could be, but this does create a scenario where the US kills Russians, something Biden has so far carefully avoided. Frankly, I have no idea if he would do this, and I am not sanguine that either the US military or the US Congress would agree this is a good idea.

[Goose]

Context matters, and “aggression” by a NATO member is relative when we are talking about a Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Had this war started because of a Ukrainian push to recapture Crimea or the areas of Donbas they don’t control, we might be treating it more like Azerbaijan’s bid to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh, which is to say evenif we had sympathies, we would have stayed out of it.

I think you are correct. It is unfortunate that you are, because ignoring the Russian actions in Crimea is part of what got us here.

An attack on a NATO member would be viewed as an escalation.  NATO members, excepting Hungary and maybe Turkey are sympathetic enough to Ukraine to believe that arming the Ukrainians is justified. The balance of opinion as a result of Russian war crimes in Bucha, Mariupol, and elsewhere (as well as the Ukrainian success early in the war) has slowly been shifting towards more, rather than less, intervention.  As The NY Times article has noted, we are doing things that we were previously reluctant to do, and this is broadly supported by the population of most NATO countries (indeed, the debate is whether we should be doing “more”).

I agree here. Turkey is already fulfilling it's contractual obligations to Ukraine. They are "inside the tent" as much as they can be given their situation.

 An attack on NATO would probably move the needle into further intervention.

Here is where I think you are wrong. I wish you weren't. So far, the actions taken by the NATO states are "free". It may cost us money, but our people aren't at risk and our cities are safe. The minute that is no longer true for the European nations, there will be a big "whoa" moment. They are going to have to decide if they are willing to accept casualties to help Ukraine. I very strongly believe many of these countries will not.

The political leaders in the West have slowly increased what we are willing to provide. When Putin does nothing, we ratchet it up. When Putin finally does something, the calculus changes. The European leaders aren't preparing their people to go to war. They are not in most cases politically strong enough to even suggest such a thing. The Mike Tyson effect will come as a shock. I have no expectation that these countries will hang tough at that point. If the German government can't muster the political will to turn off the Russian gas because it might cause a recession, can we expect that same government to risk missile strikes on it's cities to support Ukraine? I think not.

So, while I don’t think we would directly attack Russia, I could see a retaliatory strike or providing more material support for Ukraine (maybe not quite a no fly zone, but at least air support).

BC

Could be, but this does create a scenario where the US kills Russians, something Biden has so far carefully avoided. Frankly, I have no idea if he would do this, and I am not sanguine that either the US military or the US Congress would agree this is a good idea.

[Goose]

This has turned to wild speculation. But since we’re speculating…

Why would the US or Polish counterattack have to target Russian territory. There are tens of thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine right now. We could send a couple of cruise missiles to attack the Russian troops fighting an illegal, aggressive near in foreign territory.

If I had suggested in December that Russia would invade Ukraine, I think it would have been considered wild speculation. The US could indeed fire missiles against Russians operating in Ukraine. I agree that would be more probable than a strike against Russian soil. However, such a strike involves the US killing Russians, which we have been carefully avoiding so far. It certainly crosses a threshold.

Russia can't stop the arms deliveries or they already would have tried. If they had the ability they would already be striking the supplies as they enter Ukraine. They likely lack the precision guided munitions necessary for this in the absence of air superiority.

It is actually very unclear why Russia hasn't expended more effort to do this. One distinct possibility is that Russia doesn't believe that the benefit is worth the cost. Destroying railroad lines from the air takes a lot of bombs and you have to do it over and over, because they can usually be fixed pretty fast, particularly in flat country. Takes lots of planes and does require air supremacy.

If they did shoot down a C17 over Warsaw (do we really trust that capability, after seeing how much of their kit has underperformed thus far?), it wouldn't stop arms deliveries. Plenty of places western countries could deliver arms to out of the nominal range of Russian SAMs and go overland the rest of the way.

Which is much slower.

Russia doesn't have the missiles to waste on some sort of punitive strike on a Polish city,

Absolutely they do, many times over! Just about any surface to surface missile in their inventory could be used. You don't need a precision weapon to hit a city. They have PLENTY of such weapons. Heck, Iraq created a bit of angst with Scuds.

and they don't have the conventional capabilities to fight anywhere but a limited offensive in the Donbas. Not exactly a scenario to be escalating unless you plan to do it with nukes.

Obviously Russia is in no condition to fight a conventional war in Europe at the moment. However, if Putin believes that stopping aid to the Ukraine is essential to victory there, threatening to conventionally attack European cities is a very "reasonable" action. Obviously, he wouldn't carry out the threat unless he has to do so, and he would only carry it out if he was confident it would not provoke a general war.

Right now, Russia apparently thinks the aid that is being provided to Ukraine isn't important enough to risk escalating the conflict. That can change. Hopefully, Ukraine will succeed in wining before it does. If it does reach that point, these questions become relevant.

Putin is stuck because he can't really back up those types of threats, and even if he were to follow through on them he is left in an even worse situation militarily.

Well, he absolutely can back up these threats. The problem for him would be 1)is it worth the risk? and 2)how much would it help? At the end of the day, Russia's military situation requires them to "win" something significant in Ukraine. If they can't do this, Ukraine keeps fighting until they are expelled from the country. The military situation doesn't get much worse than that. Putin has to ensure the latter case can't happen. Cutting off external aid to Ukraine may be required to do it.

[Goose]

This has turned to wild speculation. But since we’re speculating…

Why would the US or Polish counterattack have to target Russian territory. There are tens of thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine right now. We could send a couple of cruise missiles to attack the Russian troops fighting an illegal, aggressive near in foreign territory.

If I had suggested in December that Russia would invade Ukraine, I think it would have been considered wild speculation. The US could indeed fire missiles against Russians operating in Ukraine. I agree that would be more probable than a strike against Russian soil. However, such a strike involves the US killing Russians, which we have been carefully avoiding so far. It certainly crosses a threshold.

Russia can't stop the arms deliveries or they already would have tried. If they had the ability they would already be striking the supplies as they enter Ukraine. They likely lack the precision guided munitions necessary for this in the absence of air superiority.

It is actually very unclear why Russia hasn't expended more effort to do this. One distinct possibility is that Russia doesn't believe that the benefit is worth the cost. Destroying railroad lines from the air takes a lot of bombs and you have to do it over and over, because they can usually be fixed pretty fast, particularly in flat country. Takes lots of planes and does require air supremacy.

If they did shoot down a C17 over Warsaw (do we really trust that capability, after seeing how much of their kit has underperformed thus far?), it wouldn't stop arms deliveries. Plenty of places western countries could deliver arms to out of the nominal range of Russian SAMs and go overland the rest of the way.

Which is much slower.

Russia doesn't have the missiles to waste on some sort of punitive strike on a Polish city,

Absolutely they do, many times over! Just about any surface to surface missile in their inventory could be used. You don't need a precision weapon to hit a city. They have PLENTY of such weapons. Heck, Iraq created a bit of angst with Scuds.

and they don't have the conventional capabilities to fight anywhere but a limited offensive in the Donbas. Not exactly a scenario to be escalating unless you plan to do it with nukes.

Obviously Russia is in no condition to fight a conventional war in Europe at the moment. However, if Putin believes that stopping aid to the Ukraine is essential to victory there, threatening to conventionally attack European cities is a very "reasonable" action. Obviously, he wouldn't carry out the threat unless he has to do so, and he would only carry it out if he was confident it would not provoke a general war.

Right now, Russia apparently thinks the aid that is being provided to Ukraine isn't important enough to risk escalating the conflict. That can change. Hopefully, Ukraine will succeed in wining before it does. If it does reach that point, these questions become relevant.

Putin is stuck because he can't really back up those types of threats, and even if he were to follow through on them he is left in an even worse situation militarily.

Well, he absolutely can back up these threats. The problem for him would be 1)is it worth the risk? and 2)how much would it help? At the end of the day, Russia's military situation requires them to "win" something significant in Ukraine. If they can't do this, Ukraine keeps fighting until they are expelled from the country. The military situation doesn't get much worse than that. Putin has to ensure the latter case can't happen. Cutting off external aid to Ukraine may be required to do it.

[TrumpCard]

The speculation may soon be moot. Ukraine already has more tanks than Russia has on the battlefield. Will it be long before Ukraine also has more artillery?  Unless Russia gains air superiority, and quick, Ukraine seems to be in a solid position. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...Pvi44qAAAA

[TrumpCard]

The speculation may soon be moot. Ukraine already has more tanks than Russia has on the battlefield. Will it be long before Ukraine also has more artillery?  Unless Russia gains air superiority, and quick, Ukraine seems to be in a solid position. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...Pvi44qAAAA

[dabigv13]

Overselling Russian military capabilities is a form of defeatism. If Russia could attack Western supplies, they would. Ukraine needs those supploes to continue fighting. In Ukraine they are a legitimate target, and would be far less likely to provoke a dangerous widening of the war that Russia can ill afford. They have more capability to attack convoys in Ukraine than they do in Poland or Slovakia....so if they aren't doing it, it isn't very unclear why. It's because they don't have the capability to do it effectively, and would have less capability to do it outside of Ukraine. 

Shooting some missiles at Poland that Patriots can take out is a pretty dumb and bad use of your limited missile stock, and I think very unlikely to scare Poland off, much more likely that Poland would want retribution than be deterred.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1517165874372825092?s=20&t=VuJL9LPUWt6PsK1QXr576Q[/tweet]

Russia can't stop this sort of arms supply either by shooting down a US C17. Too bad Russia made so many decent cheap tanks.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1517155794873053185?s=20&t=XpceBGZE48Yy_q0XdGZ5wQ[/tweet]

US sending newly developed drones apparently to Ukraine. Interesting mix of the bleeding edge and 50 year old Soviet technology on the battlefield

.....


[Tweet]https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1517172233629626368?s=20&t=CmCB3wZdqva2oR0IAFmnVQ[/tweet]

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Perhaps an accident. Perhaps they just wanted to destroy this plant very quickly so they could build a newer, better one.

[dabigv13]

Overselling Russian military capabilities is a form of defeatism. If Russia could attack Western supplies, they would. Ukraine needs those supploes to continue fighting. In Ukraine they are a legitimate target, and would be far less likely to provoke a dangerous widening of the war that Russia can ill afford. They have more capability to attack convoys in Ukraine than they do in Poland or Slovakia....so if they aren't doing it, it isn't very unclear why. It's because they don't have the capability to do it effectively, and would have less capability to do it outside of Ukraine. 

Shooting some missiles at Poland that Patriots can take out is a pretty dumb and bad use of your limited missile stock, and I think very unlikely to scare Poland off, much more likely that Poland would want retribution than be deterred.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1517165874372825092?s=20&t=VuJL9LPUWt6PsK1QXr576Q[/tweet]

Russia can't stop this sort of arms supply either by shooting down a US C17. Too bad Russia made so many decent cheap tanks.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1517155794873053185?s=20&t=XpceBGZE48Yy_q0XdGZ5wQ[/tweet]

US sending newly developed drones apparently to Ukraine. Interesting mix of the bleeding edge and 50 year old Soviet technology on the battlefield

.....


[Tweet]https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1517172233629626368?s=20&t=CmCB3wZdqva2oR0IAFmnVQ[/tweet]

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Perhaps an accident. Perhaps they just wanted to destroy this plant very quickly so they could build a newer, better one.

[Goose]

Overselling Russian military capabilities is a form of defeatism.

No, doing that would just be making an error. I an certainly trying to not do that.

If Russia could attack Western supplies, they would. Ukraine needs those supplies to continue fighting. In Ukraine they are a legitimate target, and would be far less likely to provoke a dangerous widening of the war that Russia can ill afford. They have more capability to attack convoys in Ukraine than they do in Poland or Slovakia....so if they aren't doing it, it isn't very unclear why. It's because they don't have the capability to do it effectively, 

No, it is because there are few convoys and they are hard to find if you don't have air supremacy. There are few because almost all the supplies inside the Ukraine are moved by rail, just as they are in Russia. It is hard to hit a train because you don't know when the train will be where. As I previously said, destroying rail lines basically requires air supremacy because you have to do it repeatedly. In WWII the US gained such supremacy and pretty much destroyed the rail system. In Korea, we shot up a lot of trains but the supplies still moved.  Weather was a problem we just couldn't overcome. Russia does not have air supremacy, so what they can accomplish in Ukraine against railroads is limited. They cannot do so effectively, as you say. The only thing they can do is attack marshalling points, which they have done. If you aren't lucky enough to arrive when the train does, the results are limited.

and would have less capability to do it outside of Ukraine.

No, taking down the C-17s or C-5s is militarily easier. They are visible on radar. They are slow (compared to a fighter). They are (at the moment at least) still squawking. Lots and lots of military equipment is concentrated in one very vulnerable platform. You can hit it with a missile. Much easier than trying to find and blow up a train. Politically is another story.

Shooting some missiles at Poland that Patriots can take out is a pretty dumb and bad use of your limited missile stock,

Why do you keep asserting Russia has a "limited missile stock"? If you are talking modern precision guided missiles, you are arguably correct. If you are talking basic surface to surface weapons, I think you are mistaken. Russia has scads of Iskander missiles of various age. They have even more older SS-21 missiles. These missiles aren't new, and are not precise, but they can hit a city block pretty reliably. Russia isn't hurting for this class of weapon. As far as a Patriot taking out these missiles, the record is very mixed at best. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the engagement geometry sucks so bad the Patriot has a very narrow engagement window. From Kaliningrad to most Polish cities, that is the case.

and I think very unlikely to scare Poland off, much more likely that Poland would want retribution.

I think this is 50/50 at best. First of all, Poland by itself can't get retribution, it doesn't have the weapons and doesn't want to fight Russia alone. Some other countries would have to do it with them. Does that will exist? Certainly there would be a lot of anger in Poland. The question would then be "Do we sit here and keep getting hit by missiles to help Ukraine?" There are many Poles in Western Ukraine, so maybe that helps. However, I would be a lot more optimistic that the Poles would hang in there if this eventuality had been discussed and a policy arrived at in advance. What the people "want" and what the politicians are willing to make/lead them do are often two different things, especially on short notice

US sending newly developed drones apparently to Ukraine. Interesting mix of the bleeding edge and 50 year old Soviet technology on the battlefield.

While I am excited about this, I am even more excited about the quantity of 155 mm howitzers, tow vehicles, and ammunition being sent to Ukraine. The original 18 howitzers isn't enough to matter much, but this 72 full sets is. I haven't seen it disclosed exactly what we are sending as howitzers, so if anybody has, please post a link.

[Goose]

Overselling Russian military capabilities is a form of defeatism.

No, doing that would just be making an error. I an certainly trying to not do that.

If Russia could attack Western supplies, they would. Ukraine needs those supplies to continue fighting. In Ukraine they are a legitimate target, and would be far less likely to provoke a dangerous widening of the war that Russia can ill afford. They have more capability to attack convoys in Ukraine than they do in Poland or Slovakia....so if they aren't doing it, it isn't very unclear why. It's because they don't have the capability to do it effectively, 

No, it is because there are few convoys and they are hard to find if you don't have air supremacy. There are few because almost all the supplies inside the Ukraine are moved by rail, just as they are in Russia. It is hard to hit a train because you don't know when the train will be where. As I previously said, destroying rail lines basically requires air supremacy because you have to do it repeatedly. In WWII the US gained such supremacy and pretty much destroyed the rail system. In Korea, we shot up a lot of trains but the supplies still moved.  Weather was a problem we just couldn't overcome. Russia does not have air supremacy, so what they can accomplish in Ukraine against railroads is limited. They cannot do so effectively, as you say. The only thing they can do is attack marshalling points, which they have done. If you aren't lucky enough to arrive when the train does, the results are limited.

and would have less capability to do it outside of Ukraine.

No, taking down the C-17s or C-5s is militarily easier. They are visible on radar. They are slow (compared to a fighter). They are (at the moment at least) still squawking. Lots and lots of military equipment is concentrated in one very vulnerable platform. You can hit it with a missile. Much easier than trying to find and blow up a train. Politically is another story.

Shooting some missiles at Poland that Patriots can take out is a pretty dumb and bad use of your limited missile stock,

Why do you keep asserting Russia has a "limited missile stock"? If you are talking modern precision guided missiles, you are arguably correct. If you are talking basic surface to surface weapons, I think you are mistaken. Russia has scads of Iskander missiles of various age. They have even more older SS-21 missiles. These missiles aren't new, and are not precise, but they can hit a city block pretty reliably. Russia isn't hurting for this class of weapon. As far as a Patriot taking out these missiles, the record is very mixed at best. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the engagement geometry sucks so bad the Patriot has a very narrow engagement window. From Kaliningrad to most Polish cities, that is the case.

and I think very unlikely to scare Poland off, much more likely that Poland would want retribution.

I think this is 50/50 at best. First of all, Poland by itself can't get retribution, it doesn't have the weapons and doesn't want to fight Russia alone. Some other countries would have to do it with them. Does that will exist? Certainly there would be a lot of anger in Poland. The question would then be "Do we sit here and keep getting hit by missiles to help Ukraine?" There are many Poles in Western Ukraine, so maybe that helps. However, I would be a lot more optimistic that the Poles would hang in there if this eventuality had been discussed and a policy arrived at in advance. What the people "want" and what the politicians are willing to make/lead them do are often two different things, especially on short notice

US sending newly developed drones apparently to Ukraine. Interesting mix of the bleeding edge and 50 year old Soviet technology on the battlefield.

While I am excited about this, I am even more excited about the quantity of 155 mm howitzers, tow vehicles, and ammunition being sent to Ukraine. The original 18 howitzers isn't enough to matter much, but this 72 full sets is. I haven't seen it disclosed exactly what we are sending as howitzers, so if anybody has, please post a link.

[Treefence]

I believe the first set of artillery forms a battalion, but I think the smaller initial number was specifically because they wanted to train them on the units.  I believe they are currently in Poland training, but they said it would only take a matter of days, likely learning the nuances between their current towed artillery.  With this recent amount, they now have 5 battalions worth of American artillery, which will be combined with many other countries who are also providing such.  The east of Ukraine is pretty flat and open, most of Ukraine is, but even more than Kyiv regions.  

I'm extremely curious about the new drones coming, which were specifically designed for the Ukrainians. Hopefully that means they will be effective at a long range, like the Switchblade 600's reportedly have, and hopefully they also can target heavy armor.

[Treefence]

I believe the first set of artillery forms a battalion, but I think the smaller initial number was specifically because they wanted to train them on the units.  I believe they are currently in Poland training, but they said it would only take a matter of days, likely learning the nuances between their current towed artillery.  With this recent amount, they now have 5 battalions worth of American artillery, which will be combined with many other countries who are also providing such.  The east of Ukraine is pretty flat and open, most of Ukraine is, but even more than Kyiv regions.  

I'm extremely curious about the new drones coming, which were specifically designed for the Ukrainians. Hopefully that means they will be effective at a long range, like the Switchblade 600's reportedly have, and hopefully they also can target heavy armor.

[dabigv13]

Regarding the newly announced drones. Details slim.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/meet...th-russia/

A downed Russian Su35 has been analyzed by UK and US. Now the west has their hands on China and Russia's most advanced air superiority fighter. Putin keeps on winning.

https://eurasiantimes.com/big-blow-to-ch...uk-us/?amp

Re: Russian missiles running low-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1517237893986721793?s=20&t=T4IE68WNZhDC5CtLN6lDjw[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Regarding the newly announced drones. Details slim.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/meet...th-russia/

A downed Russian Su35 has been analyzed by UK and US. Now the west has their hands on China and Russia's most advanced air superiority fighter. Putin keeps on winning.

https://eurasiantimes.com/big-blow-to-ch...uk-us/?amp

Re: Russian missiles running low-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1517237893986721793?s=20&t=T4IE68WNZhDC5CtLN6lDjw[/tweet]

[Goose]

I have found a source that references the type of howitzer. The bad news is they don't tell us and it probably will not be made public.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/...47428.html
The operative info: "The official declined to say whether the U.S. is sending its M777 or M198 155mm howitzers. Both American cannons are a different caliber than Ukraine’s 152mm Msta-B howitzers, but they share the same “basic outlines,” a defense official said Monday."

I hope they are M777s, as they are much easier to move. The Ukraine is also getting some PzH 2000 howitzers from the Dutch. How many I don't know. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_...ition.html

These weapons will take significantly more training. However, they are extremely effective. The have a very high rate of fire compared to the M777 and similar, at least in bursts. They can also move by themselves and do not have to be "emplaced" to fire. If the Ukraine could actually get 100 or so of these in the near term, it would potentially be a war-winner. Troops and armor of a BTG in the open won't last long if even one of these is available and in range. Bad news is they can eat up ammunition at a very high rate.

UPDATE:
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Storie...y-meeting/
This confirms they are M777 howitzers. These howitzers are much more mobile than older models, even though they are towed cannons. They can be set up quickly and moved quickly. Ukraine hasn't commented on Russian counter-battery fire, but being able to move quickly is a big plus.

[Goose]

I have found a source that references the type of howitzer. The bad news is they don't tell us and it probably will not be made public.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/...47428.html
The operative info: "The official declined to say whether the U.S. is sending its M777 or M198 155mm howitzers. Both American cannons are a different caliber than Ukraine’s 152mm Msta-B howitzers, but they share the same “basic outlines,” a defense official said Monday."

I hope they are M777s, as they are much easier to move. The Ukraine is also getting some PzH 2000 howitzers from the Dutch. How many I don't know. https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_...ition.html

These weapons will take significantly more training. However, they are extremely effective. The have a very high rate of fire compared to the M777 and similar, at least in bursts. They can also move by themselves and do not have to be "emplaced" to fire. If the Ukraine could actually get 100 or so of these in the near term, it would potentially be a war-winner. Troops and armor of a BTG in the open won't last long if even one of these is available and in range. Bad news is they can eat up ammunition at a very high rate.

UPDATE:
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Storie...y-meeting/
This confirms they are M777 howitzers. These howitzers are much more mobile than older models, even though they are towed cannons. They can be set up quickly and moved quickly. Ukraine hasn't commented on Russian counter-battery fire, but being able to move quickly is a big plus.

[thatboy]

Goose, You know a lot more about the military details than me, but I believe you misjudge Poland and what they would do in response to an attack on them by Russia. An attack on a supply line: you might be right. An attack on a Polish city? A different story. Remember the response to 9/11? We spent 20 years and trillions responding to that. You think Poland is just going to sit back and accept an attack on one of their cities? The hatred of Russia there is palpable and I believe they would like nothing more than a good excuse to get more involved. You suggest Poland can't take on Russia alone, but it wouldn't be alone. Russia already has its hands full against Ukraine and the West is already ramping up supplies against Russia. And whether or not Article 5 is invoked, I suspect an attack on a Polish city would result in an escalation of aid and involvement by NATO members.

Maybe I'm wrong. My intuition is that it would be a brobdingnagian mistake for Putin and he is not dumb enough to do that.

Edit: oddly, my post displays different text than what I wrote. I wrote, "it would be a h.uge [without the period] mistake" and it shows up as "it would be a brobdingnagian mistake". I guess you can't write h.uge on this site? "h.uge" gets converted to "of immense proportions"... Weird.

[thatboy]

Goose, You know a lot more about the military details than me, but I believe you misjudge Poland and what they would do in response to an attack on them by Russia. An attack on a supply line: you might be right. An attack on a Polish city? A different story. Remember the response to 9/11? We spent 20 years and trillions responding to that. You think Poland is just going to sit back and accept an attack on one of their cities? The hatred of Russia there is palpable and I believe they would like nothing more than a good excuse to get more involved. You suggest Poland can't take on Russia alone, but it wouldn't be alone. Russia already has its hands full against Ukraine and the West is already ramping up supplies against Russia. And whether or not Article 5 is invoked, I suspect an attack on a Polish city would result in an escalation of aid and involvement by NATO members.

Maybe I'm wrong. My intuition is that it would be a brobdingnagian mistake for Putin and he is not dumb enough to do that.

Edit: oddly, my post displays different text than what I wrote. I wrote, "it would be a h.uge [without the period] mistake" and it shows up as "it would be a brobdingnagian mistake". I guess you can't write h.uge on this site? "h.uge" gets converted to "of immense proportions"... Weird.

[DaBears17]

From the FAQ:

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list? Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “h.uge.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

Edit: oddly, my post displays different text than what I wrote. I wrote, "it would be a h.uge [without the period] mistake" and it shows up as "it would be a of immense proportions mistake". I guess you can't write h.uge on this site? "h.uge" gets converted to "of immense proportions"... Weird.

[DaBears17]

From the FAQ:

Why is “h.uge” on the banned word list? Before the 1999 football season, one of our frequent posters trumpeted to opening game against Texas as one that would set the tone for the season. He posted frequently that the game would be “h.uge.” Stanford lost 69-17. The word was banished forever from the CardBoard lexicon. (By the way, the team turned it around, won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl.)

Edit: oddly, my post displays different text than what I wrote. I wrote, "it would be a h.uge [without the period] mistake" and it shows up as "it would be a of immense proportions mistake". I guess you can't write h.uge on this site? "h.uge" gets converted to "of immense proportions"... Weird.