(12-07-2022, 09:35 AM)gocard14 Wrote: This all sounds reasonable to me, but one variable it doesn't really address is the potential for increased US support. If stalemate continues and the situation above comes to pass, I wouldn't be surprised (and would hope to see) Biden double down on long term support. We are just now seeing more articles about the (very partial) mobilization of US industry to ramp up artillery shell production. We could and should start the major process training Ukranians and their logistics corp/engineers on Abrams and F16s, so they can be brought to the front in volume. Seized Russian assets could be used to prop up the Ukrainian economy, and we could consider even more drastic measures like you've described in terms of an effective oil embargo or seizure of oil tankers.
Indeed it is important to consider what the US can and should do to create a favorable outcome. These actions fall into two broad categories, those that help Ukraine fight Russia and take back their territory and those that impose direct costs on Russia if this war continues. I think you are correct that the US needs to ensure that we will be able to supply Ukraine's needs for things like 155 mm shells. Our country has IMO been remiss in considering and gaming out what our own military might need in fighting a "real" war against a near-peer competitor. For our own benefit, as well as Ukraine's, we need to be sure we can ramp up production quickly in a crisis. The operative word is quickly.
It is also absolutely obvious that Ukraine is going to run out of S-300 missiles eventually. The more "junk" Russia lobs at them, the more missiles they have to use. Two NASAMS aren't going to come anywhere close to solving this problem. This has to be addressed NOW, because when Ukraine is out of missiles it will be too late. The Hawk systems and the like will help, but they too aren't manufactured anymore. We need to ensure a supply of these obsolete weapons as well. Lots there to be done.
Ukraine is going to deplete their limited supply of Soviet era fighters and attack aircraft relatively soon. There are losses due to enemy action, losses due to operations, and losses due to unavailability of parts. It adds up. Like it or not the US is going to have to help solve his problem. Without at lease some air power, Ukraine can't dislodge Russia from their land.
Ukraine has for some time wanted to get NATO tanks into their inventory. It is not abundantly clear this desire is proportional to the actual need. Ukraine has so far been able to keep their Soviet era tanks going and even increase the inventory through captures. They are also not presently capable (it seems) of combined arms mobile tactics using armor as a primary element. That said, the day will come when they will have to replace their worn out tanks. Abrams tanks are not the best solution. Their more complicated engines are more unfamiliar to the Ukrainian's than the Leopard's diesel engines (T-80s nonwithstanding). Besides, according to the Germans, the Russians already suffer from Panzerangst :-). What the US needs to do is make that happen. We may need to give Abrams to NATO countries to get them to give Leopards to Ukraine. Prepare now for what must be done later.
All these efforts help Ukraine "win" and drive Russia out. However, even if these efforts succeed fully, Russia can still sit there and attack Ukraine with cruise missiles that will reduce Ukraine's infrastructure to rubble if it continues. No amount of money, whatever it's source, can allow Ukraine to be a functional society if this missile barrage continues. There will be no electricity, few trains, no computers, no cell phones, etc. Unfortunately it appears Russia has the means to do this for the foreseeable future. The sanctions are inflicting damage on the Russian economy and the Russian ability to make war. However, it appears Russia is still manufacturing Kalibr and KH-101 missiles. The have the means and it isn't going away anytime soon it seems.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-cruis...55680.html
The US IMO needs to find a way to attack Russia's vital interests in a manner that will deny them the means to continue this aggression via missiles. We have applied economic sanctions that are designed to inflict pain and cause Russia to lose the will to continue. That hasn't yet worked. Any rational actor would have quit already, but then again any rational actor wouldn't have started. It is folly to assume that Putin will allow Russia to lose the will to continue. While Putin may be removed, an equally (or worse) irrational replacement may chose to continue the war. We need to recognize and deal with these possibilities.
Attacking/impounding the tankers was my attempt to deny Russia the finances it needs to continue this war. They simply wouldn't have the money to keep going. There may be other ways. If we are going the tanker route we need to do it soon, because Russia is aware of this vulnerability and are trying madly to build pipelines to reduce/eliminate it. The longer we wait, the more probable it is that such an embargo won't work. If we can't figure out a way to force Russia to stop this war, we are faced with the probability that Ukraine will be only the first step. Wars are fought to compel the enemy to do what you demand. We don't want to go there, but to avoid it we need to find another way.
![[Image: New-mural-by-Banksy-in-Ukraine-depicts-a...00x794.jpg]](https://streetartutopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/New-mural-by-Banksy-in-Ukraine-depicts-a-boy-throwing-Putin-to-the-ground-1-1200x794.jpg)