20300

I don’t know why people are that surprised. Russia have actually been pretty competent at advancing backwards throughout this war. Doesn’t mean they don’t take grievous losses or lose equipment, but in each of the multiple situations by now where they could have gotten BTGs encircled, they have managed to slip the noose. It helps that the UA generally does not seem interested in risking taking heavy losses just to inflict losses on Russia, but credit where credit is due.

20301

While Ukraine definitely has no love for the Russian invaders, they have deep ties to Russia and Russians in many ways. And while the horrible things the Russian troops have done has undermined much of that connection perhaps, I would not find it hard to believe that there is little enthusiasm for slaughtering Russians per se. That, and it’s also entirely possible that Kyiv has its eyes on an eventual settlement, and pushing the Russians out rather than eliminating hordes of them might well make that easier if the situation gets to that point. Especially as by this point the soldiers we’re talking about are in all probability poor schmucks who have zero enthusiasm for the war and no real animosity towards the Ukraine.

20302

Taking the moral high ground and keeping it like that is a way to win the battle over the history books.

20303

This is great clarity of message:

20304

It’s good to have this lady on your side!

20305

(Tweeter is the chief foreign affairs correspondent for the WSJ and knows whereof he speaks.)

20306

That rings true to me.

BAI (traditionally something done with fighter planes) is being done with HIMARS and despite looking pretty offensive on a tactical level, is a huge boon defensively. Blowing up things like depots, fuel dumps, rally points and HQ’s saps the enemies’ strength and will to fight. Unlike three squadrons of vipers, these HIMARS launchers hardly take losses, and they seem pretty dang near impossible to stop. Their downside is range and not being able to spot and take out targets of opportunity, something a viper driver might do (but not realistically, hurtling along at 500 knots and treetop level under rainy skies).

So yeah, go HIMARS! w00t w00t!

20307

Right? And as great as the videos as a whole are there are just little details in each one that really do it. In that second video there’s a middle aged guy in a grey hoodie in the frame for most of the video joining in with the celebration. Then at the end he turns away towards the camera and wipes the tears from his eyes. That pushed that one over the top for me.

But in each of those videos I can’t help but feel dread for all of those people in large crowds out in the open. Russian artillery is just on the other side of the river guys!

20308

Certainly the Russians have been entirely unprepared for countering properly used HIMARS. A bit ironic from a country so invested in rocket artillery.

20309

I’m really glad to see that, thanks for posting.

The thing I don’t understand about “Ukraine should negotiate” is the partner they’re negotiating with. They already had a treaty guaranteeing their territorial integrity. This is Russia’s third invasion of Ukraine in the past 8 years (or rather, third phase of the same invasion).

Until Russia is defeated and pushed out, what is the value in negotiating? It sounds nice, sure. End the war. But Russia is the aggressor and they’re not interested in ending the war, what is Ukraine supposed to negotiate? And temporary peace is just that, and nothing but an opportunity for Russia to re-arm.

It is spot on that the war can end tomorrow if Russia just… leaves. There’s not really anything to negotiate until then. Ukraine isn’t occupying Russian territory that they claim as their own (ignoring the absurdity of the “annexation”). There’s really nothing to negotiate except for Russia to withdraw.

Milley surely has to understand this, so I’m nonplussed as to why he made that statement earlier, particularly to the press.

20310

It’s not about Ukraine or Russia per-se, it’s about the reluctant partners - see: Germany. So more about what they would stand to gain from a peace than what is ‘right’ or ‘best.’

20311

I’m more thinking about what negotiating a peace with Russia even means. What are they going to agree to, respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine? They already have a treaty guaranteeing that and look where we are. What is Ukraine supposed to negotiate for?

The only peace Russia is interesting in i involves the eradication of Ukraine as a sovereign nation. As Ukraine, I have no idea how or why the negotiate with that. What German or other allies might want is kind of separate from that, at least in the way I’m looking at it.

20312

That’s certainly fair. If I’m Ukraine, the only peace I agree to outside of a complete recovery of all territory (including Crimea) is the one I’m forced into by the guys giving me the bullets I’m recovering my territory with.

20313

True from a certain perspective, sure. In the long run though Germany et al would stand to lose a lot if Russia is able to inch by inch gobble up what they want to. That’s a long-term view though and no nation, really, does long-term very well.

Don’t mess with grandma. Seriously, just don’t.

20314

Totally agree (although from Russia’s performance thus far, I’m not entirely sure this is a realistic risk for the foreseeable future). That said, these are the same guys who already went all-in on Russian gas over the last 20 years knowing where it could lead.

20315

Germany seemed to have a pretty strong reaction to Russia’s drone bombing of Ukraine’s critical civilian infrastructure. Russia is going to really keep that support up once they started using bunches of Iranian ballistic missiles for their terror bombing campaign this winter.

20316

Well, we spent a lot of years viewing the USSR as a serious threat, and IMO they probably were. Russia could well learn over time from this debacle, and probably will. Whether that Russia is one that chooses to align itself more peacefully towards Europe or one that tries to reproduce the Cold War remains to be seen. But the track record so far hasn’t been great!

The most dangerous thing may well be a wounded, humiliated Russia that nurses a grudge for a few years until it can rebuild and take advantage of the hard lessons it learned…

That whole scenario has the potential for a real shit-storm of epic proportions. Depending on how it plays out, everything from Ukrainian attacks inside Russia on launch sites to Israeli special ops in a variety of places becomes possible, along with the expected civilian calamities.

And that’s assuming (as is probably I hope safe to assume) Russia doesn’t slap WMDs on top of those missiles, which in reality is about all that type of weapon can effectively deliver in a meaningful sense.

20317

I assume they’ve kept a supply of their own domestic weapons for that eventuality.

20318

It terrifies me too, especially since it takes us further into completely unpredictable series of reactions.

I’m less worried about Russian using WMDs as time goes on and they keep refraining from going that far, even as things look really bad for them. I’d guess they are scared of a strong reaction from NATO if they do that and I’m good with us keeping them scared of crossing the line.

As far as what happens to a defeated Russia long term, that’s very much up to Russia, but I sure hope the west is able to come together to extend a real hand of friendship/help to them. Post-Putin of course.

20319

The 20th century lessons should be clear enough. And still close enough to be real for both the policy makers in Germany, and the voting public. There’s both the lesson of 1918 and what happens if we leave 'em poor, angry and vengeful. 1945-1950 tells us what happens if we keep on pouring the billions in for a couple years after the war ends.