[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/easier-ukrain...00292.html

Unsurprisingly, I agree with this guy. Crimea is indeed easier than Donbas. His take on enveloping operations in Donbas is exactly right. The problem is that Russia has the same access to any area in Donbas as Ukraine. The flanks of the envelopment will always be vulnerable. A Kesselschlacht is great if your flanks are secure. Getting that in Donbas will be the trick.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/easier-ukrain...00292.html

Unsurprisingly, I agree with this guy. Crimea is indeed easier than Donbas. His take on enveloping operations in Donbas is exactly right. The problem is that Russia has the same access to any area in Donbas as Ukraine. The flanks of the envelopment will always be vulnerable. A Kesselschlacht is great if your flanks are secure. Getting that in Donbas will be the trick.

[Goose]

For those of us that wonder why Teixeira is being charged in a civilian Federal court and not a UCMJ court martial (I wish) , it is because National Guard troops do not operate under the UCMJ unless they are "federalized". It could be argued that the unit he was part of was doing direct work for the "active" USAF and therefore was effectively "federalized", but that is a reach and probably wouldn't succeed.

UPDATE: The good news is that Teixeira WAS on "active duty" with the Air Force, full time. That means he technically is subject to the UCMJ. The bad news (IMO) is that the Justice Department is apparently retaining jurisdiction and will try him as a civilian. I don't think that makes sense, as his access was directly connected to the fact he was on active duty. However, the military seems to be perfectly happy with the current situation and isn't going to assert their jurisdiction. In one sense it doesn't matter, he obviously will be convicted. In another sense, it does. The Air force is responsible for this fiasco, at least in large measure. It should be on them to clean up the mess and put in place safeguards to make sure it doesn't happen again. Not having to deal with it invites continued complacency. They should have both the responsibility and authority to manage their security system. It can be argued that they currently lack the authority, although they don't seem to be jumping up and down to get it back.

[Goose]

For those of us that wonder why Teixeira is being charged in a civilian Federal court and not a UCMJ court martial (I wish) , it is because National Guard troops do not operate under the UCMJ unless they are "federalized". It could be argued that the unit he was part of was doing direct work for the "active" USAF and therefore was effectively "federalized", but that is a reach and probably wouldn't succeed.

UPDATE: The good news is that Teixeira WAS on "active duty" with the Air Force, full time. That means he technically is subject to the UCMJ. The bad news (IMO) is that the Justice Department is apparently retaining jurisdiction and will try him as a civilian. I don't think that makes sense, as his access was directly connected to the fact he was on active duty. However, the military seems to be perfectly happy with the current situation and isn't going to assert their jurisdiction. In one sense it doesn't matter, he obviously will be convicted. In another sense, it does. The Air force is responsible for this fiasco, at least in large measure. It should be on them to clean up the mess and put in place safeguards to make sure it doesn't happen again. Not having to deal with it invites continued complacency. They should have both the responsibility and authority to manage their security system. It can be argued that they currently lack the authority, although they don't seem to be jumping up and down to get it back.

[BostonCard]

I’ve been asked to request that classified information, even info that has been made public due to leaks elsewhere, not be shared here, as it can be problematic for people with a security clearance.  Speculation about the alleged leaker is fine, as is discussion of the consequence of the leaks.

Posting for a friend.

BC

[BostonCard]

I’ve been asked to request that classified information, even info that has been made public due to leaks elsewhere, not be shared here, as it can be problematic for people with a security clearance.  Speculation about the alleged leaker is fine, as is discussion of the consequence of the leaks.

Posting for a friend.

BC

[Leftcoast]

I’ve been asked to request that classified information, even info that has been made public due to leaks elsewhere, not be shared here, as it can be problematic for people with a security clearance.  Speculation about the alleged leaker is fine, as is discussion of the consequence of the leaks.

Noted and that is a fair request.  Would this include no links to Twitter threads that might discuss leaked info?  I can see this being hard to comply with totally unless "best effort" is enough here.

[Leftcoast]

I’ve been asked to request that classified information, even info that has been made public due to leaks elsewhere, not be shared here, as it can be problematic for people with a security clearance.  Speculation about the alleged leaker is fine, as is discussion of the consequence of the leaks.

Noted and that is a fair request.  Would this include no links to Twitter threads that might discuss leaked info?  I can see this being hard to comply with totally unless "best effort" is enough here.

[GK3]

I’ve been asked to request that classified information, even info that has been made public due to leaks elsewhere, not be shared here, as it can be problematic for people with a security clearance.  Speculation about the alleged leaker is fine, as is discussion of the consequence of the leaks.

Noted and that is a fair request.  Would this include no links to Twitter threads that might discuss leaked info?  I can see this being hard to comply with totally unless "best effort" is enough here.

DoD rules are that information remains classified until it is officially declassified.  Doesn't make any difference if it is printed on the front page of the NY Times.  Anyone taking bets when they might declassify the compromised material?

[GK3]

I’ve been asked to request that classified information, even info that has been made public due to leaks elsewhere, not be shared here, as it can be problematic for people with a security clearance.  Speculation about the alleged leaker is fine, as is discussion of the consequence of the leaks.

Noted and that is a fair request.  Would this include no links to Twitter threads that might discuss leaked info?  I can see this being hard to comply with totally unless "best effort" is enough here.

DoD rules are that information remains classified until it is officially declassified.  Doesn't make any difference if it is printed on the front page of the NY Times.  Anyone taking bets when they might declassify the compromised material?

[dabigv13]

On the coming Ukrainian spring offensive

https://www.ft.com/content/01a819c0-82f5...c97d93cde6

Egypt: hey let's send some rockets to Russia but keep it quiet
USA: oh hey Egypt, heard you were gonna send some weapons to Ukraine right?
Egypt: yes, definitely going to do that and definitely not send anything to Russia!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...documents/

In an apparent diplomatic win for the Biden administration, a new leaked document stated that Egypt shelved the Moscow deal and approved selling 152mm and 155mm artillery rounds to the United States for transfer to Ukraine.

[dabigv13]

On the coming Ukrainian spring offensive

https://www.ft.com/content/01a819c0-82f5...c97d93cde6

Egypt: hey let's send some rockets to Russia but keep it quiet
USA: oh hey Egypt, heard you were gonna send some weapons to Ukraine right?
Egypt: yes, definitely going to do that and definitely not send anything to Russia!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...documents/

In an apparent diplomatic win for the Biden administration, a new leaked document stated that Egypt shelved the Moscow deal and approved selling 152mm and 155mm artillery rounds to the United States for transfer to Ukraine.

[fullmetal]

jfc, Egypt was one of the most directly affected by loss of Ukrainian grain...were they really just banking on Russia winning and resuming exports?  Or were they looking to make a lot of money selling to Russia and funding, oh I dunno, grain purchases or luxuries for powerful politicians?

[fullmetal]

jfc, Egypt was one of the most directly affected by loss of Ukrainian grain...were they really just banking on Russia winning and resuming exports?  Or were they looking to make a lot of money selling to Russia and funding, oh I dunno, grain purchases or luxuries for powerful politicians?

[OutsiderFan]

One thing about the leaked material to keep in mind. It’s possible intel operatives found some documents first and altered them before sending them out on their own. Who knows how much of the leaked information online is disinformation. Some of it is certainly going to be accurate or directionally true, but the odds are some of the stuff purported to be part of the leak will more than likely have been altered to mislead some intended audience. That’s why I’m personally not interested to see any of the supposedly leaked materials. If the Pentagon uses Discord for recruiting, it certainly is not out of question that it could have put out competing assessments of things to muddy the waters in an effort to mitigate the damage even while admitting there were classified materials leaked.

I have a hard time believing the Pentagon was only tipped off about it by journalists.

[OutsiderFan]

One thing about the leaked material to keep in mind. It’s possible intel operatives found some documents first and altered them before sending them out on their own. Who knows how much of the leaked information online is disinformation. Some of it is certainly going to be accurate or directionally true, but the odds are some of the stuff purported to be part of the leak will more than likely have been altered to mislead some intended audience. That’s why I’m personally not interested to see any of the supposedly leaked materials. If the Pentagon uses Discord for recruiting, it certainly is not out of question that it could have put out competing assessments of things to muddy the waters in an effort to mitigate the damage even while admitting there were classified materials leaked.

I have a hard time believing the Pentagon was only tipped off about it by journalists.

[Mick]

One thing about the leaked material to keep in mind. It’s possible intel operatives found some documents first and altered them before sending them out on their own. Who knows how much of the leaked information online is disinformation. Some of it is certainly going to be accurate or directionally true, but the odds are some of the stuff purported to be part of the leak will more than likely have been altered to mislead some intended audience. That’s why I’m personally not interested to see any of the supposedly leaked materials. If the Pentagon uses Discord for recruiting, it certainly is not out of question that it could have put out competing assessments of things to muddy the waters in an effort to mitigate the damage even while admitting there were classified materials leaked.

I have a hard time believing the Pentagon was only tipped off about it by journalists.

I suspect that there was a fair amount of disinformation spread before the culprit was apprehended.

Separately...I wonder if we shared Putin's whereabouts with Ukraine? Putin has visited Ukraine twice...I'm surprised the Ukraine military didn't make an attempt on his life while he was on their soil.

Putin Makes Rare Trip to Russian-Occupied Areas of Ukraine - WSJ

[Mick]

One thing about the leaked material to keep in mind. It’s possible intel operatives found some documents first and altered them before sending them out on their own. Who knows how much of the leaked information online is disinformation. Some of it is certainly going to be accurate or directionally true, but the odds are some of the stuff purported to be part of the leak will more than likely have been altered to mislead some intended audience. That’s why I’m personally not interested to see any of the supposedly leaked materials. If the Pentagon uses Discord for recruiting, it certainly is not out of question that it could have put out competing assessments of things to muddy the waters in an effort to mitigate the damage even while admitting there were classified materials leaked.

I have a hard time believing the Pentagon was only tipped off about it by journalists.

I suspect that there was a fair amount of disinformation spread before the culprit was apprehended.

Separately...I wonder if we shared Putin's whereabouts with Ukraine? Putin has visited Ukraine twice...I'm surprised the Ukraine military didn't make an attempt on his life while he was on their soil.

Putin Makes Rare Trip to Russian-Occupied Areas of Ukraine - WSJ

[GK3]

One thing about the leaked material to keep in mind. It’s possible intel operatives found some documents first and altered them before sending them out on their own. Who knows how much of the leaked information online is disinformation. Some of it is certainly going to be accurate or directionally true, but the odds are some of the stuff purported to be part of the leak will more than likely have been altered to mislead some intended audience. That’s why I’m personally not interested to see any of the supposedly leaked materials. If the Pentagon uses Discord for recruiting, it certainly is not out of question that it could have put out competing assessments of things to muddy the waters in an effort to mitigate the damage even while admitting there were classified materials leaked.

I have a hard time believing the Pentagon was only tipped off about it by journalists.

It would be wonderful if that in fact happened.  But I am a doubter.  Would require an awful lot of people to sign off, and many meetings to decide what to alter and what to say, but then if this has been going on for a long time, then maybe yes.  The other side of this coin is the people out there who read this (nation actors) are going to figure there is no way we are so screwed up as to allow this to happen, so they assume exactly what you suggest.

[GK3]

One thing about the leaked material to keep in mind. It’s possible intel operatives found some documents first and altered them before sending them out on their own. Who knows how much of the leaked information online is disinformation. Some of it is certainly going to be accurate or directionally true, but the odds are some of the stuff purported to be part of the leak will more than likely have been altered to mislead some intended audience. That’s why I’m personally not interested to see any of the supposedly leaked materials. If the Pentagon uses Discord for recruiting, it certainly is not out of question that it could have put out competing assessments of things to muddy the waters in an effort to mitigate the damage even while admitting there were classified materials leaked.

I have a hard time believing the Pentagon was only tipped off about it by journalists.

It would be wonderful if that in fact happened.  But I am a doubter.  Would require an awful lot of people to sign off, and many meetings to decide what to alter and what to say, but then if this has been going on for a long time, then maybe yes.  The other side of this coin is the people out there who read this (nation actors) are going to figure there is no way we are so screwed up as to allow this to happen, so they assume exactly what you suggest.

[Goose]

I suspect that there was a fair amount of disinformation spread before the culprit was apprehended.


Separately...I wonder if we shared Putin's whereabouts with Ukraine? Putin has visited Ukraine twice...I'm surprised the Ukraine military didn't make an attempt on his life while he was on their soil.

I am pretty sure the US does not know exactly where Putin is most of the time. Russia undoubtedly makes a significant effort to obscure his actual location for many very good reasons. If the US has figured out a "reliable" way to track him, I am sure they aren't going to reveal that by updating anybody continuously as to his location. The US also has an "anti-assassination" policy in place with respect to world leaders. Given that our president is easily tracked it is in our interest that there be an (real) "unofficial" agreement with our adversaries that we won't assassinate your leaders if you don't attempt to assassinate ours. The vast majority of nation-states go along with this tacit agreement. The US is not going to do anything that puts this situation at risk.

[Goose]

I suspect that there was a fair amount of disinformation spread before the culprit was apprehended.


Separately...I wonder if we shared Putin's whereabouts with Ukraine? Putin has visited Ukraine twice...I'm surprised the Ukraine military didn't make an attempt on his life while he was on their soil.

I am pretty sure the US does not know exactly where Putin is most of the time. Russia undoubtedly makes a significant effort to obscure his actual location for many very good reasons. If the US has figured out a "reliable" way to track him, I am sure they aren't going to reveal that by updating anybody continuously as to his location. The US also has an "anti-assassination" policy in place with respect to world leaders. Given that our president is easily tracked it is in our interest that there be an (real) "unofficial" agreement with our adversaries that we won't assassinate your leaders if you don't attempt to assassinate ours. The vast majority of nation-states go along with this tacit agreement. The US is not going to do anything that puts this situation at risk.

[TrumpCard]

Hussein, Qaddafi

[TrumpCard]

Hussein, Qaddafi

[GK3]

Hussein, Qaddafi

And how did it work out for them?  One found hiding in a hole in the ground and later executed and the other chased by NATO aircraft into arms of the people looking for him and then brutally killed.

[GK3]

Hussein, Qaddafi

And how did it work out for them?  One found hiding in a hole in the ground and later executed and the other chased by NATO aircraft into arms of the people looking for him and then brutally killed.

[Goose]

Hussein, Qaddafi

In both cases we were bombing/invading their country. This isn't an "assassination". It is an outright act of war. All tacit "agreements" are pretty much off the table at that point :-).

FWIW, Hussein had already attempted to assassinate George H. W. Bush, so that "agreement" was obviously void. He was also no longer "head of state" at the time, as we had occupied the country and dissolved his government. In point of fact, we captured Hussein, but did not kill him. The Iraqis did that.

Technically, Qaddafi was no longer "head of state" when he was captured and killed. He had been overthrown already by that point. Mahmoud Jibril was the nominal "prime minister" and had been for some time. The actual killing was not done by the US. It was done by Libyans not under the control of NATO. NATO also claimed (FWIW) that they were unaware Qaddafi was in the convoy of vehicles that was attacked by French jets and led to his capture.

The bombing raid under Reagan in 1986 was an undoubtedly an "assassination" attempt, among other things. It was justified on the basis that Qaddafi had plotted the assassination of "high US officials" and for certain the heads of other Arab states. However, when two countries are shooting at each other "tacit" agreements are probably not reliable in any case :-).

[Goose]

Hussein, Qaddafi

In both cases we were bombing/invading their country. This isn't an "assassination". It is an outright act of war. All tacit "agreements" are pretty much off the table at that point :-).

FWIW, Hussein had already attempted to assassinate George H. W. Bush, so that "agreement" was obviously void. He was also no longer "head of state" at the time, as we had occupied the country and dissolved his government. In point of fact, we captured Hussein, but did not kill him. The Iraqis did that.

Technically, Qaddafi was no longer "head of state" when he was captured and killed. He had been overthrown already by that point. Mahmoud Jibril was the nominal "prime minister" and had been for some time. The actual killing was not done by the US. It was done by Libyans not under the control of NATO. NATO also claimed (FWIW) that they were unaware Qaddafi was in the convoy of vehicles that was attacked by French jets and led to his capture.

The bombing raid under Reagan in 1986 was an undoubtedly an "assassination" attempt, among other things. It was justified on the basis that Qaddafi had plotted the assassination of "high US officials" and for certain the heads of other Arab states. However, when two countries are shooting at each other "tacit" agreements are probably not reliable in any case :-).

[Mick]

Hussein, Qaddafi

In both cases we were bombing/invading their country. This isn't an "assassination". It is an outright act of war. All tacit "agreements" are pretty much off the table at that point :-).

FWIW, Hussein had already attempted to assassinate George H. W. Bush, so that "agreement" was obviously void. He was also no longer "head of state" at the time, as we had occupied the country and dissolved his government. In point of fact, we captured Hussein, but did not kill him. The Iraqis did that.

Technically, Qaddafi was no longer "head of state" when he was captured and killed. He had been overthrown already by that point. Mahmoud Jibril was the nominal "prime minister" and had been for some time. The actual killing was not done by the US. It was done by Libyans not under the control of NATO. NATO also claimed (FWIW) that they were unaware Qaddafi was in the convoy of vehicles that was attacked by French jets and led to his capture.

The bombing raid under Reagan in 1986 was an undoubtedly an "assassination" attempt, among other things. It was justified on the basis that Qaddafi had plotted the assassination of "high US officials" and for certain the heads of other Arab states. However, when two countries are shooting at each other "tacit" agreements are probably not reliable in any case :-).

Sorry, I was unclear. As near as I can tell -- and as the Russians frequently state -- the USA is in a proxy war in which we're supplying Ukraine with information and weapons (though not soldiers). The whereabouts of Putin would be valuable information to share with Ukraine, if in fact we had it. And it would be Ukraine's act of war, not ours...and not an assassination to take out the other side's leader who has declared war on Ukraine.

[Mick]

Hussein, Qaddafi

In both cases we were bombing/invading their country. This isn't an "assassination". It is an outright act of war. All tacit "agreements" are pretty much off the table at that point :-).

FWIW, Hussein had already attempted to assassinate George H. W. Bush, so that "agreement" was obviously void. He was also no longer "head of state" at the time, as we had occupied the country and dissolved his government. In point of fact, we captured Hussein, but did not kill him. The Iraqis did that.

Technically, Qaddafi was no longer "head of state" when he was captured and killed. He had been overthrown already by that point. Mahmoud Jibril was the nominal "prime minister" and had been for some time. The actual killing was not done by the US. It was done by Libyans not under the control of NATO. NATO also claimed (FWIW) that they were unaware Qaddafi was in the convoy of vehicles that was attacked by French jets and led to his capture.

The bombing raid under Reagan in 1986 was an undoubtedly an "assassination" attempt, among other things. It was justified on the basis that Qaddafi had plotted the assassination of "high US officials" and for certain the heads of other Arab states. However, when two countries are shooting at each other "tacit" agreements are probably not reliable in any case :-).

Sorry, I was unclear. As near as I can tell -- and as the Russians frequently state -- the USA is in a proxy war in which we're supplying Ukraine with information and weapons (though not soldiers). The whereabouts of Putin would be valuable information to share with Ukraine, if in fact we had it. And it would be Ukraine's act of war, not ours...and not an assassination to take out the other side's leader who has declared war on Ukraine.

[Goose]

Sorry, I was unclear. As near as I can tell -- and as the Russians frequently state -- the USA is in a proxy war in which we're supplying Ukraine with information and weapons (though not soldiers). The whereabouts of Putin would be valuable information to share with Ukraine, if in fact we had it. And it would be Ukraine's act of war, not ours...and not an assassination to take out the other side's leader who has declared war on Ukraine.

I think you were clear enough. While Russia correctly believes we are in a proxy war with them, it is still a "proxy" war, not a direct confrontation. The US is going to great lengths keep the war in "proxy" space. If the US supplied Ukraine with frequent updates on Putin's location, that would pretty much confirm that we could track him. Letting Ukraine (or anybody) know this increases the probability Russia will find out about the capability and "fix" whatever lets us do it. That wouldn't be "good" and by itself this is a deterrent to providing such information.

Further, when Russia finds out about the US supplying this information, especially via a failed Ukrainian attempt, that would remove a piece of the "proxy" status. It would be entirely reasonable for Russia to believe that since we facilitated an attempt on their head of state, they could do likewise. Russia would then be perfectly justified in attempting to kill Biden, as long as it was done by a "proxy". Tit for tat. We REALLY don't want that.

Obviously, one of the dangers of "proxy" war is that the "rules" about what acts are permissible without converting the war into a direct confrontation are unclear.  Russia may decide this action is so serious it converts the war from proxy to "direct". Consider the US response if we discovered Russia was helping e.g. Iran, Isis  target Biden. I don't think anybody wants to do that kind of experiment, thank goodness.

[Goose]

Sorry, I was unclear. As near as I can tell -- and as the Russians frequently state -- the USA is in a proxy war in which we're supplying Ukraine with information and weapons (though not soldiers). The whereabouts of Putin would be valuable information to share with Ukraine, if in fact we had it. And it would be Ukraine's act of war, not ours...and not an assassination to take out the other side's leader who has declared war on Ukraine.

I think you were clear enough. While Russia correctly believes we are in a proxy war with them, it is still a "proxy" war, not a direct confrontation. The US is going to great lengths keep the war in "proxy" space. If the US supplied Ukraine with frequent updates on Putin's location, that would pretty much confirm that we could track him. Letting Ukraine (or anybody) know this increases the probability Russia will find out about the capability and "fix" whatever lets us do it. That wouldn't be "good" and by itself this is a deterrent to providing such information.

Further, when Russia finds out about the US supplying this information, especially via a failed Ukrainian attempt, that would remove a piece of the "proxy" status. It would be entirely reasonable for Russia to believe that since we facilitated an attempt on their head of state, they could do likewise. Russia would then be perfectly justified in attempting to kill Biden, as long as it was done by a "proxy". Tit for tat. We REALLY don't want that.

Obviously, one of the dangers of "proxy" war is that the "rules" about what acts are permissible without converting the war into a direct confrontation are unclear.  Russia may decide this action is so serious it converts the war from proxy to "direct". Consider the US response if we discovered Russia was helping e.g. Iran, Isis  target Biden. I don't think anybody wants to do that kind of experiment, thank goodness.

[GK3]

Sorry, I was unclear. As near as I can tell -- and as the Russians frequently state -- the USA is in a proxy war in which we're supplying Ukraine with information and weapons (though not soldiers). The whereabouts of Putin would be valuable information to share with Ukraine, if in fact we had it. And it would be Ukraine's act of war, not ours...and not an assassination to take out the other side's leader who has declared war on Ukraine.

I think you were clear enough. While Russia correctly believes we are in a proxy war with them, it is still a "proxy" war, not a direct confrontation. The US is going to great lengths keep the war in "proxy" space. If the US supplied Ukraine with frequent updates on Putin's location, that would pretty much confirm that we could track him. Letting Ukraine (or anybody) know this increases the probability Russia will find out about the capability and "fix" whatever lets us do it. That wouldn't be "good" and by itself this is a deterrent to providing such information.

Further, when Russia finds out about the US supplying this information, especially via a failed Ukrainian attempt, that would remove a piece of the "proxy" status. It would be entirely reasonable for Russia to believe that since we facilitated an attempt on their head of state, they could do likewise. Russia would then be perfectly justified in attempting to kill Biden, as long as it was done by a "proxy". Tit for tat. We REALLY don't want that.

Obviously, one of the dangers of "proxy" war is that the "rules" about what acts are permissible without converting the war into a direct confrontation are unclear.  Russia may decide this action is so serious it converts the war from proxy to "direct". Consider the US response if we discovered Russia was helping e.g. Iran, Isis  target Biden. I don't think anybody wants to do that kind of experiment, thank goodness.

A big unknown is what happens the day Putin doesn't wake up?  Should that happen is there another hardliner capable of taking over and continuing Putin's policy?  What would the army do?  They generally stay out of politics, but I don't think you could be certain of it.  Plus, who knows what a country like Poland might do if the war starts to really turn against Ukraine.  I don't think Poland wants anything to do with a Russia on its border. Would someone like Wagner have the clout to replace Putin?

[GK3]

Sorry, I was unclear. As near as I can tell -- and as the Russians frequently state -- the USA is in a proxy war in which we're supplying Ukraine with information and weapons (though not soldiers). The whereabouts of Putin would be valuable information to share with Ukraine, if in fact we had it. And it would be Ukraine's act of war, not ours...and not an assassination to take out the other side's leader who has declared war on Ukraine.

I think you were clear enough. While Russia correctly believes we are in a proxy war with them, it is still a "proxy" war, not a direct confrontation. The US is going to great lengths keep the war in "proxy" space. If the US supplied Ukraine with frequent updates on Putin's location, that would pretty much confirm that we could track him. Letting Ukraine (or anybody) know this increases the probability Russia will find out about the capability and "fix" whatever lets us do it. That wouldn't be "good" and by itself this is a deterrent to providing such information.

Further, when Russia finds out about the US supplying this information, especially via a failed Ukrainian attempt, that would remove a piece of the "proxy" status. It would be entirely reasonable for Russia to believe that since we facilitated an attempt on their head of state, they could do likewise. Russia would then be perfectly justified in attempting to kill Biden, as long as it was done by a "proxy". Tit for tat. We REALLY don't want that.

Obviously, one of the dangers of "proxy" war is that the "rules" about what acts are permissible without converting the war into a direct confrontation are unclear.  Russia may decide this action is so serious it converts the war from proxy to "direct". Consider the US response if we discovered Russia was helping e.g. Iran, Isis  target Biden. I don't think anybody wants to do that kind of experiment, thank goodness.

A big unknown is what happens the day Putin doesn't wake up?  Should that happen is there another hardliner capable of taking over and continuing Putin's policy?  What would the army do?  They generally stay out of politics, but I don't think you could be certain of it.  Plus, who knows what a country like Poland might do if the war starts to really turn against Ukraine.  I don't think Poland wants anything to do with a Russia on its border. Would someone like Wagner have the clout to replace Putin?

[Goose]

A big unknown is what happens the day Putin doesn't wake up?  Should that happen is there another hardliner capable of taking over and continuing Putin's policy?  What would the army do?  They generally stay out of politics, but I don't think you could be certain of it.  Plus, who knows what a country like Poland might do if the war starts to really turn against Ukraine.  I don't think Poland wants anything to do with a Russia on its border. Would someone like Wagner have the clout to replace Putin?

All very good questions. FWIW, Poland is going to get Russia on it's borders no matter what happens in Ukraine. When Lukashenko dies, if not before, Russia fully intends to complete the "re-assimilation" of Belarus. How that is going to happen, peaceful or otherwise, is TBD.

[Goose]

A big unknown is what happens the day Putin doesn't wake up?  Should that happen is there another hardliner capable of taking over and continuing Putin's policy?  What would the army do?  They generally stay out of politics, but I don't think you could be certain of it.  Plus, who knows what a country like Poland might do if the war starts to really turn against Ukraine.  I don't think Poland wants anything to do with a Russia on its border. Would someone like Wagner have the clout to replace Putin?

All very good questions. FWIW, Poland is going to get Russia on it's borders no matter what happens in Ukraine. When Lukashenko dies, if not before, Russia fully intends to complete the "re-assimilation" of Belarus. How that is going to happen, peaceful or otherwise, is TBD.

[TrumpCard]

Do the events in Ukraine make this more likely or less likely?

Russia has no bandwidth to pick another fight, but maybe Belarus does not want to screw around and find out.

[TrumpCard]

Do the events in Ukraine make this more likely or less likely?

Russia has no bandwidth to pick another fight, but maybe Belarus does not want to screw around and find out.

[Goose]

Do the events in Ukraine make this more likely or less likely?

Russia has no bandwidth to pick another fight, but maybe Belarus does not want to screw around and find out.

Also great questions. I obviously don't know, but there are some generalizations that might apply. If Ukraine fails to retain independence, Belarus certainly won't either. Belarus is both smaller and weaker than Ukraine and would therefore fare less well in a military conflict. The current political leadership in Belarus can not maintain power without Russian support, military, political and economic.  They actually lost the last election and are pro-Russian by necessity. Otherwise they would probably had their own version of the "Maidan Revolution".

As I understand it, the population in general would prefer to remain independent, but many of them believe absorption by Russia is inevitable because Belarus is so economically dependent there is no alternative. There are however a significant number of people in the country that don't want Russia back in control and would resist a takeover both passively and actively. The problem for that group of people is that they have no obviously viable economic plan without Russia playing a major role. Unclear where this situation will lead.

[Goose]

Do the events in Ukraine make this more likely or less likely?

Russia has no bandwidth to pick another fight, but maybe Belarus does not want to screw around and find out.

Also great questions. I obviously don't know, but there are some generalizations that might apply. If Ukraine fails to retain independence, Belarus certainly won't either. Belarus is both smaller and weaker than Ukraine and would therefore fare less well in a military conflict. The current political leadership in Belarus can not maintain power without Russian support, military, political and economic.  They actually lost the last election and are pro-Russian by necessity. Otherwise they would probably had their own version of the "Maidan Revolution".

As I understand it, the population in general would prefer to remain independent, but many of them believe absorption by Russia is inevitable because Belarus is so economically dependent there is no alternative. There are however a significant number of people in the country that don't want Russia back in control and would resist a takeover both passively and actively. The problem for that group of people is that they have no obviously viable economic plan without Russia playing a major role. Unclear where this situation will lead.