How many days is it usually?
you know, before he “changes” his mind and does what he said he wasn’t going to do.
guy has a track record. Wonder if they lay odds in Vegas.
ALERT RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE - Consolidated Thread
- Thread starter danielboon
- Start date
you know, before he “changes” his mind and does what he said he wasn’t going to do.
guy has a track record. Wonder if they lay odds in Vegas.
The Associated Press on Saturday as saying that "fast-track" talks are taking place for jets, and which also focus on long-range missiles "to drastically curtail the key tool of the Russian army" by providing the ability to attack weapons warehouses far behind front lines.Ukraine Says Expedited Talks For F-16 Jets Underway As Germany Counters 'Not An Option'
The Ukrainian presidency's office is saying that it is already engaged in expedited negotiations with the US regarding the possibility of supplying Kiev forces with long-range missiles and military jets. This despite German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who was key in the decision of Berlin and Washington to approve tanks, earlier saying that sending jets is not an option.
Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelesnky, was cited in The Associated Press on Saturday as saying that "fast-track" talks are taking place for jets, and which also focus on long-range missiles "to drastically curtail the key tool of the Russian army" by providing the ability to attack weapons warehouses far behind front lines.
F-16 file image, US Air Force
Simultaneously, reports emerged in US media over the weekend signaling that a movement within the Pentagon is now gaining steam to press the Biden administration into signing off on jets for Ukraine.
"A contingent of military officials is quietly pushing the Pentagon to approve sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions," Politico wrote.
"As Ukraine prepares to launch a new offensive to retake territory in the spring, the campaign inside the Defense Department for fighter jets is gaining momentum, according to a DoD official and two other people involved in the discussions," the report described, and quoted a defense official as follows:
The White House meanwhile, has given the typical 'nothing off the table' response when asked about the possibility of transferring jets to Kiev:
But standing in the way will be Germany - though we should note that the Germans caved rather quickly when pressure from half a dozen or more influential NATO allies came to bear on the tank issue earlier this month.
There's also the question of US public opinion, which remains very much divided on just how far America's role in this mess needs to be pushed. The unhinged ravings of politicians like Mitt Romney are certainly not going to help the hawks' cause in the eyes of average Americans (but it's not as if beltway warmongers ever actually listened to the public will)...
Scholz said in a fresh interview as the jet debate emerges: "I can only advise against entering into a constant competition to outbid each other when it comes to weapons systems."
He insisted that Berlin will not be equipping Ukraine's military with warplanes. "The question of combat aircraft does not arise at all," Scholz stressed according to Politico. The only question that remains as a new round of pressure builds (similar to the way the tank issue played out), is whether Germany will hold out and stick to its (purported) principles this time.
Biden Says "No" To US Providing F-16 Jets For Ukraine (..For Now) | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
Don't miss the part of long range missiles (isn't that one of the things Russia told the west they were worried about) part to hit deep inside Russia. Up tick?
F-16 file image, US Air ForceGiven that Ukraine is - without question - a totally US controlled government - once again the strings are being pulled.
The Pro War Neocons in DC NEED to expand this war - but the "OPTICS" look bad if they are doing the pushing for the expansion. So we get the heroic Ukraine's to do the pushing for more advanced weapons! The US (EU) is then put into a political box (which is what the Neocons want/need) - Generating public opinion - to give them whatever they need - its the RIGHT THING TO do.
So YES - F-16's will be next - dozens of reasons such as Tanks need air support ..... But when that fails then the classic NO FLY ZONE - NOT NATO at war - but only Humanitarian Assistance - to protect the children (pups and kittens).
And so it goes - as noted in the Excellent Post: #45,594
The LAST thing the US needed was for Turkey (or anyone else) "testing" how stealthy the F-35 is to Russian S-400 systems - which is exactly what Turkey would want to do - is it realty invisible???
Looks like we will need to wait a few more months (after the new Ukrainian F-16 don't do the trick) and the US jumps in with their best WONDER WEAPONS (F-35, F-22) vs Russia's (S-400/500) - which ever way this contest ends - the next ratchet (and last) will be - US nukes vs Russian nukes - 110% the way this is going.
Roger Thornhill
Some irascible old curmudgeon
Those who claim the combined nations of NATO would always win a conventional conflict with Russia haven't studied history. In order to conclusively win a war, you must occupy and police conquered territory. You don't just blow things up and kill people, and then sit back in your easy chair with your pipe and slippers.
Russia covers SEVEN TIME ZONES from its western to eastern borders. It's almost twice the size of the United States. How many hundreds of thousands of armed and continually-supplied troops would it take to successfully occupy and control Russia? There simply aren't even a fraction of the number required in the entire Western world.
NATO and the US can't even begin to do so. Only one country possibly could - China.
The sheer size of Russia has defeated attempts to crush it, from Napoleon to the Third Reich. Explain to me how it's different this time.
This map is accurately scaled, showing just how great the size difference is.
Russia covers SEVEN TIME ZONES from its western to eastern borders. It's almost twice the size of the United States. How many hundreds of thousands of armed and continually-supplied troops would it take to successfully occupy and control Russia? There simply aren't even a fraction of the number required in the entire Western world.
NATO and the US can't even begin to do so. Only one country possibly could - China.
The sheer size of Russia has defeated attempts to crush it, from Napoleon to the Third Reich. Explain to me how it's different this time.
This map is accurately scaled, showing just how great the size difference is.
Reports out of NATO - France, 3 days of ammo, UK, maybe a week of ammo, no effective production of arms or ammo. The only NATO nation that can jump in the US. Yes the other NATO nation will have a few hundreds or a few thousands but the bulk will - once again US. While Russia would have extreme difficulty moving troops into EU nations and likely would not attempt that - they will throw EVERYTHING they have into a defense (likely Eastern Ukraine) where they have been building extensive fortifications / tank traps well behind the current lines of conflict? - they 100% expect that NATO might just take that step and they are getting ready!
Given the historic metric that attacker need a 3 to 1 advantage and with Russia likely having 300K+ troops in place the US / NATO would effectively need to field ONE MILLION combat troops to attack Russia across Ukraine - where are they going to come from?? I don't see thousands flooding US Army Recruiting Centers! Currently the US Army is around 1M, but that is total - likely only around 25% are front line combat troops. Yes we could pull in reserves in (~550k) but bottom line without a draft and total declaration of war it is unlikely NATO has the troops - PLUS Russia is yet to activate a general mobilization - even the average Russian knows the West is currently out to destroy them - triggering a National PTSD reaction from the 26 million dead the last time the West moved against them!
If / when NATO takes this step - it will make what has happened this last year looks like a Sunday picnic.
A conventional war would only be the first act to the final nuclear act of this play. Anyway you look at it this is a lose/lose for all sides.
bw
Fringe Ranger
Not only size, Russia has the Ural Mountains. Nothing goes through the Urals unless whoever is on the other side wants it to. In WWII Russia shipped all its factories east of the Urals, and Germany didn't have a chance. Any invading army, if strong enough, could reach the Urals, but it can go no farther.
northern watch
TB Fanatic
jward
passin' thru
Global: Military-Info
@Global_Mil_Info
45m
Per photos provided by U.S. Transportation Command, it looks like Ukraine is receiving M2A2 ODS-SA Bradley Fighting Vehicles. This upgraded version has upgraded armor protection, greater combat capabilities and easier to operate and maintain than former variants.
View: https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1620217671496392706?s=20
@Global_Mil_Info
45m
Per photos provided by U.S. Transportation Command, it looks like Ukraine is receiving M2A2 ODS-SA Bradley Fighting Vehicles. This upgraded version has upgraded armor protection, greater combat capabilities and easier to operate and maintain than former variants.
View: https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1620217671496392706?s=20
jward
passin' thru
German Chancellor Schulz: Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine is one of the most important conditions for negotiations with Moscow.
The Russian Duma reveals an American proposal to declare a demilitarized zone in Ukraine.
Moscow: America's proposal to declare a demilitarized zone in Ukraine is a trick that will not deceive us again.
The Russian Duma reveals an American proposal to declare a demilitarized zone in Ukraine.
Moscow: America's proposal to declare a demilitarized zone in Ukraine is a trick that will not deceive us again.
jward
passin' thru
Moscow's ‘big revenge’ has begun, Zelenskyy says, as Russia claims Ukraine gains
Al Arabiya English
Russia has begun its “big revenge” for Ukraine's resistance to its invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Monday, as Russian forces claimed a series of incremental gains in his country's east.
Zelenskyy has been warning for weeks that Moscow aims to step up its assault on Ukraine after about two months of virtual stalemate along the front line that stretches across the south and east.
While there was no sign of a broader new offensive, the administrator of Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine's eastern Donetsk province, Denis Pushilin, said Russian troops had secured a foothold in Vuhledar, a coal mining town whose ruins have been a Ukrainian bastion since the outset of the war.
Pushilin's adviser, Yan Gagin, said fighters from Russian mercenary force Wagner had taken partial control of a supply road leading to Bakhmut, a city that has been Moscow's main focus for months.
A day earlier, the head of Wagner said his fighters had secured Blahodatne, a village just north of Bakhmut.
Kyiv said it had repelled assaults on Blahodatne and Vuhledar, and Reuters could not independently verify the situations there. But the locations of the reported fighting indicated clear, though gradual, Russian gains.
Zelenskyy said Russian attacks in the east were relentless despite heavy casualties on the Russian side, casting them as payback for Ukraine's success in pushing Russian forces back from the capital, northeast and south earlier in the conflict.
“I think that Russia really wants its big revenge. I think they have (already) started it,” Zelenskyy said.
“Every day they either bring in more of their regular troops, or we see an increase in the number of Wagnerites,” he told reporters in the southern port city of Odesa.
Vuhledar sits south of Bakhmut, near where the eastern front line protects Russian-controlled rail lines supplying Moscow's forces in southern Ukraine. Mykola Salamakha, a Ukrainian colonel and military analyst, told Ukrainian Radio NV that Moscow's assault there was coming at huge cost.
“The town is on an upland and an extremely strong defensive hub has been created there,” he said. “This is a repetition of the situation in Bakhmut - one wave of Russian troops after another crushed by the Ukrainian armed forces.”
Western delays
In recent weeks Western countries have pledged hundreds of modern tanks and armoured vehicles to equip Ukrainian forces for a counter-offensive to recapture territory later in 2023.But delivery of those weapons is months away, leaving Kyiv to fight on through the winter in what both sides have described as a meat grinder of relentless attritional warfare.
Moscow's Wagner mercenary force has sent thousands of convicts recruited from Russian prisons into battle around Bakhmut, buying time for Russia's regular military to reconstitute units with hundreds of thousands of reservists.
Zelenskyy is urging the West to hasten delivery of its promised weapons so Ukraine can go on the offensive.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Western countries supplying arms leads “to NATO countries more and more becoming directly involved in the conflict - but it doesn't have the potential to change the course of events and will not do so”.
The Institute for the Study of War think-tank said “the West's failure to provide the necessary materiel” last year was the main reason Kyiv's advances had halted since November.
That had allowed Russia to apply pressure at Bakhmut and fortify the front against a future Ukrainian counter-attack, its researchers said in a report, though they said Ukraine could still recapture territory once the promised weapons arrive.
Zelenskyy met Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on Monday in Mykolaiv, a rare visit by a foreign leader close to the front. The city, where Russia's advance in the south was halted, had been under relentless bombardment until Ukraine pushed the front line back in November.
Zelenskyy's office released footage of the president greeting Frederiksen with a handshake on a snowy street before entering a hospital where they met wounded soldiers.
Iran strike
While Kyiv has won weapons from the West, Moscow has turned to allies including Iran, which Kyiv and the West say has provided Russia with hundreds of long-range “suicide drones” used to attack Ukrainian cities.Over the weekend, an Iranian military factory was hit by a drone attack that a US official said appeared to have been carried out by Israel. Israel has not commented.
Kyiv implied that the attack on Iran was payback for Tehran's military support for Russia: “Explosive night in Iran,” senior Zelenskyy aide Mykhailo Podolyak tweeted. “Did warn you.”
Iran summoned the charge d'affaires at Ukraine's embassy over Podolyak's remarks. Russia said the strike on Iran “could have unpredictable consequences for peace and stability in the Middle East.”
Unlike many Western countries, Israel has stopped short of openly arming Kyiv, but it is seen as alarmed by Russia's reliance on Iranian drone technology it views as a regional security threat.
Ukraine, which has received large supplies of UAVs from its partners, said it planned to spend nearly $550 million on drones this year, with 16 supply deals signed with Ukrainian manufacturers.
France, meanwhile, said it had agreed with Australia to cooperate to manufacture “several thousand” shells for Ukraine.
Russia's invasion, which it launched on Feb. 24 last year claiming it was necessary to protect itself from its neighbor’s ties with the West, has killed tens of thousands of people and driven millions from their homes.
Moscow's ‘big revenge’ has begun, Zelenskyy says, as Russia claims Ukraine gains
Russia has begun its “big revenge” for Ukraine's resistance to its invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Monday, as Russian forces
jward
passin' thru
Ukraine Claims Poland In Talks To Transfer Its F-16s
Poland Unlikely To Give Its F-16s to Ukraine Despite Ukrainian Claims
Poland Unlikely To Give Its F-16s to Ukraine Despite Ukrainian Claims
Poland Unlikely To Give Its F-16s to Ukraine Despite Ukrainian Claims
Jacek Siminski
]]
Poland F-16
Two Polish Air Force F-16s. (Image credit: Author)
Poland would not get rid of the backbone of its air force.
Although integrating F-16s in the Ukrainian Air Force would not be easy, Ukraine is still working to obtain two squadrons of Fighting Falcon jets. On Jan. 30, 2023, Andrii Yernak, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, stated on Telegram that “Work on obtaining F-16 fighters continues. We have positive signals from Poland, which is ready to pass them on to us in coordination with NATO.”
Contrary to the claims of the Ukrainian media and officials, Polish officials did not mention the F-16 specifically in any way, and responding to questions asked by the journalists on that matter, Mateusz Morawiecki, the Polish PM, said: “Similarly as it was a few months back, within the context of MiGs, here it’s gonna be the same, [transfer of] any other air assets would be coordinated with NATO states, implemented with them, and eventually transferred. We will work in complete coordination.”
Polish Air Force F-16 Block 52+.
Ukrainian Minister of Defense Oleksii Reznikov claimed that last year he made up a Christmas wish list, including “fighter aircraft, air assets, ATACMS-like missiles, or similar assets offering a stand-off capability to attack Russian fuel and munitions storage, and command posts”.
It remains highly unlikely, however, that Poland would be transferring any of its F-16s to Ukraine. First, the Polish fleet of 48 F-16 Block 52+ Vipers forms the very backbone of the Polish Air Force now. That branch of the military also operates the MiG-29 and the Su-22 as its prime combat assets. As we can remember from last year, the MiG-29 Fulcrums were not transferred to Ukraine in the end, and they were moved to the Malbork AB in northern Poland instead. It would really be less than logical to keep the Fulcrums in their nest and get rid of the most modern, and the most critically needed air asset – and send it to Ukraine. Especially, as no direct replacement would be directly available.
As Thomas Newdick of The Drive wrote in his piece “transferring a portion of the Polish F-16 fleet would appear to be less likely than securing secondhand jets from NATO operators actively drawing down their Viper fleets.” There are numerous European users of the F-16 that are withdrawing their Vipers as they are gradually being replaced by the F-35 – such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium. The legacy F-16AM/BM aircraft would be far more likely to be the candidate for a potential transfer.
Standing contributor for TheAviationist. Aviation photojournalist. Co-Founder of DefensePhoto.com. Expert in linguistics, Cold War discourse, Cold War history and policy and media communications.
Poland Unlikely To Give Its F-16s to Ukraine Despite Ukrainian Claims
Poland would not get rid of the backbone of its air force. Although integrating F-16s in the Ukrainian Air Force would not be easy, Ukraine is stilltheaviationist.com
jward
passin' thru
I know, right? Was my thought as well
:: looks at watch :: I give him no more than 27 hrs till this one gets walked back :: shakes head ::
vector7
Dot Collector
BREAKING: CCP announces, “The United States is the instigator and the biggest pusher of the Ukraine crisis. It continues to send heavy weapons and offensive weapons to Ukraine, and continues to increase the "length" and "intensity" of the conflict”
View: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1620221929356689410?s=20&t=FefTDDFf0afQOKcsxHE9Jw
Boomer Sooner
Contributing Member
Russian troops making successful progress into Soledar, Ukraine, are coming upon hideous scenes. Former ACTIVE-DUTY NATO TROOPS, with their HEADS and HANDS CUT-OFF to prevent/Delay their identification. Ukraine is desperate to conceal NATO active troops fighting Russians.
Making it all the more horrible, the Russian forensic examiners reveal these troops WERE ALIVE when their heads and hands were cut off. Pooling of blood from the wounds makes clear the hearts of these men were still pumping when their heads and hands were cut off. This seems to indicate the Ukrainians MURDERED the active-duty NATO troops so they could not be captured alive, which would prove their active duty status!
Whether or not the men were alive when they were beheaded and behanded, the hideous reality is that Ukraine did this to prevent identification of these men as ACTIVE NATO TROOPS . . . active duty NATO troops being in direct war, fighting against Russia.
Making it all the more horrible, the Russian forensic examiners reveal these troops WERE ALIVE when their heads and hands were cut off. Pooling of blood from the wounds makes clear the hearts of these men were still pumping when their heads and hands were cut off. This seems to indicate the Ukrainians MURDERED the active-duty NATO troops so they could not be captured alive, which would prove their active duty status!
Whether or not the men were alive when they were beheaded and behanded, the hideous reality is that Ukraine did this to prevent identification of these men as ACTIVE NATO TROOPS . . . active duty NATO troops being in direct war, fighting against Russia.
bw
Fringe Ranger
Why would Ukraine be desperate? Seems more likely NATO or the US is desperate.
Suspect these men were wounded and unable to be evacuated. There's a precedent for this.
von Koehler
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Russia is experiencing a worsening financial situation. Their exports of crude oil is crashing. They cannot obtain transit insurance for their tankers. Captains are refusing to enter a war zone without insurance. Many of the Russian ports aren't deep enough for ultra large tankers meaning the crude oil must go out on smaller tankers. When they make it out to sea they transfer the crude oil to an ocean going tanker.
These sea routes go by NATO countries.
Russia has shut down about a million barrels per day originating from their warmer regions. This is so the crude from the colder, permafrost regions can be kept flowing. If this oil flow stops, the pipes will crack causing damage which would take years to repair. Trouble is, the Russians lack the expertise for these kinds of repairs. In the past, they depended on American firms, but because of sanctions this isn't an option.
Russia lacks pipelines to service China so it depends on railroads, but these are already maxed out.
These sea routes go by NATO countries.
Russia has shut down about a million barrels per day originating from their warmer regions. This is so the crude from the colder, permafrost regions can be kept flowing. If this oil flow stops, the pipes will crack causing damage which would take years to repair. Trouble is, the Russians lack the expertise for these kinds of repairs. In the past, they depended on American firms, but because of sanctions this isn't an option.
Russia lacks pipelines to service China so it depends on railroads, but these are already maxed out.
von Koehler
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Fewer than 10,000 Russian troops currently present in Belarus — border service Fewer than 10,000 Russian troops currently present in Belarus — border service via @Yahoo
Fewer than 10,000 Russian troops currently present in Belarus — border service
Today, there are only about 9,000 Russian servicemen on the territory of Belarus, the spokesperson of the State Border Service of Ukraine, Andriy Demchenko, said on Ukrainian national television on Jan. 30.www.yahoo.com
Belarus is one of the main suppliers of potassium used in agriculture. It is crucial.
If Belarus joins the war, sanctions will cut off supplies to the world. This will result in vastly reduced crop yields.
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
@@@
Gotta keep the cannon fodder coming for the glorification of Zippy and his cronies!!
@@@
@@@
2 very interesting interviews from people in Donbass.
@@@
Gotta keep the cannon fodder coming for the glorification of Zippy and his cronies!!
@@@
@@@
2 very interesting interviews from people in Donbass.
@@@
Last edited:
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
With or without Abrams and Leopard tanks, the West is sending Ukraine straight into the Russian trap
30th January 2023
Valentin Vasilescu
by Valentin Vasilescu
The Russian military has taken two important steps to alter the balance of power in Ukraine. The first was the withdrawal from the Kherson region, south of the Dnieper (on a line that cannot be crossed by the Ukrainians) and the stabilization of the line of defense on the Kupyansk-Kreminna axis.
Secondly, the PMC Wagner took the initiative to launch a medium-scale offensive in the Bakhmout region. Shortly thereafter, smaller offensives by Russian Task Forces “South” and “East” took place south of Bakhmut in 5 directions between Donetsk and Uglidar1.
This second step resulted in the transfer to the front of all available reserves from kyiv and their engagement in combat. Therefore, the opening of a new offensive direction by Russia would be catastrophic for the Ukrainian army.
Thanks to Russia's pre-emptive two-step strategy, the new tranche of arms deliveries offered by NATO, if it reaches its destination, will not be able to constitute a powerful strike force, as Washington had hoped. The armor, artillery pieces, MLRS, anti-tank systems and related ammunition agreed at Ramstein are barely enough to fill the “holes” gouged in the Ukrainian machine by the Russian military over the past two months.
If Ukraine is forced, over the next two months, to launch a counter-offensive to demonstrate to its NATO sponsors the formidable effects of the weapons it has received, it will fall for the trap. Because the Russian army learned the lesson of autumn and prepared for it all winter. The Russians expect the Ukrainians to attack. Namely, that at least one Ukrainian army corps will enter at high speed through the breaches specially created by the Russians, as far as possible from the front line. By the time they realize they have fallen into the trap, the Ukrainians will be surrounded and eliminated or taken prisoner.
30th January 2023
Valentin Vasilescu
by Valentin Vasilescu
The Russian military has taken two important steps to alter the balance of power in Ukraine. The first was the withdrawal from the Kherson region, south of the Dnieper (on a line that cannot be crossed by the Ukrainians) and the stabilization of the line of defense on the Kupyansk-Kreminna axis.
Secondly, the PMC Wagner took the initiative to launch a medium-scale offensive in the Bakhmout region. Shortly thereafter, smaller offensives by Russian Task Forces “South” and “East” took place south of Bakhmut in 5 directions between Donetsk and Uglidar1.
This second step resulted in the transfer to the front of all available reserves from kyiv and their engagement in combat. Therefore, the opening of a new offensive direction by Russia would be catastrophic for the Ukrainian army.
Thanks to Russia's pre-emptive two-step strategy, the new tranche of arms deliveries offered by NATO, if it reaches its destination, will not be able to constitute a powerful strike force, as Washington had hoped. The armor, artillery pieces, MLRS, anti-tank systems and related ammunition agreed at Ramstein are barely enough to fill the “holes” gouged in the Ukrainian machine by the Russian military over the past two months.
If Ukraine is forced, over the next two months, to launch a counter-offensive to demonstrate to its NATO sponsors the formidable effects of the weapons it has received, it will fall for the trap. Because the Russian army learned the lesson of autumn and prepared for it all winter. The Russians expect the Ukrainians to attack. Namely, that at least one Ukrainian army corps will enter at high speed through the breaches specially created by the Russians, as far as possible from the front line. By the time they realize they have fallen into the trap, the Ukrainians will be surrounded and eliminated or taken prisoner.
now, i know all about the CFR. its origins and who is behind it now. but the gist of this article is the last paragraph:
As long as Russian soldiers occupy their country, Ukrainians will fight. They will fight with or without new advanced weapons, with or without harsher sanctions, with or without money to help them run their country. Understanding this key insight about the Ukrainian mentality today leads to an obvious policy recommendation for the West: help Ukraine win as fast as possible.
[so that this cluster**** doesn't end up destroying civilization itself.]
How to Get a Breakthrough in Ukraine
The Case Against Incrementalism
By Michael McFaul
January 30, 2023
Nearly a year after he invaded Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has failed to achieve any of his major objectives. He has not unified the alleged single Slavic nation, he has not “denazified” or “demilitarized” Ukraine, and he has not stopped NATO expansion.
Instead, the Ukrainian military kept Russian troops out of Kyiv, defended Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, and launched successful counteroffensives in the fall so that by the end of 2022, it had liberated over 50 percent of the territory previously captured by Russian soldiers that year. In January, Putin removed the general in charge of the war in Ukraine, Sergei Surovikin, whom he had appointed just a few months earlier. Wartime leaders change their top generals only when they know they are losing.
Ukraine is doing so well in part thanks to the unified Western response. Unlike reactions to Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014, the Western pushback against Putin’s latest war has been strong along multiple fronts. NATO enhanced its eastern defenses and invited Sweden and Finland to join the alliance. Europe has provided shelter to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees. Led by the Biden administration, the West has provided massive amounts of military and economic support at amazing speed, levied punishing sanctions, and begun a difficult shift away from Russian energy. Even Chinese leader Xi Jinping has offered Putin only faint rhetorical support for his war. He has not provided Russia with weapons and has cautiously avoided violating the global sanctions regime.
These are the reasons for optimism. The bad news, however, is that the war continues, and Putin has shown no signs of wanting to end it. Instead, he is planning a major counteroffensive this year. “The Russians are preparing some 200,000 fresh troops,” General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned in December. “I have no doubt they will have another go at Kyiv.” Even though Putin must understand by now that Ukrainians are willing to fight for as long as it takes to liberate their country, he still believes that time is on his side. That is because Putin expects Western governments and societies to lose their will and interest to keep helping Ukraine. If Putin or his aides watch the television personality Tucker Carlson on Fox News or saw the protests last fall in Prague, their hunch about waning Western support would be confirmed.
If Russia starts winning on the battlefield, or even fights to a stalemate, few will remember U.S. President Joe Biden’s remarkable leadership in galvanizing the world to assist Ukraine in 2022. This is why Western leaders need to shift how they approach the conflict. At this stage, incrementally expanding military and economic assistance is likely to only prolong the war indefinitely. Instead, in 2023, the United States, NATO, and the democratic world more broadly should aim to support a breakthrough. This means more advanced weapons, more sanctions against Russia, and more economic aid to Ukraine. None of this should be doled out incrementally. It needs to be provided swiftly, so that Ukraine can win decisively on the battlefield this year. Without greater and immediate support, the war will settle into a stalemate, which is only to Putin’s advantage. In the end, the West will be judged by what happened during the last year of the war, not by what happened in the first.
THE BIG BANG THEORY
The most important step the United States and NATO allies can take this year is to provide Ukraine with weapons that will allow its armed forces to go on the offensive sooner and more successfully in eastern Ukraine. This year started with much encouraging news. The United States, France, and Germany announced plans to provide Ukraine with infantry fighting vehicles, including M2 Bradleys and Strykers, AMX-10 RCs, and Marders, respectively. The United Kingdom decided to provide a dozen Challenger II tanks and 30 AS-90 155mm self-propelled howitzers. The United States and Germany announced plans to give Ukraine one battery each of the Patriot air defense system, and the Netherlands pledged to contribute Patriot missiles and launchers. And finally, the United States made the decision last week to provide Ukraine a few dozen M1 Abrams tanks, which paved the way for Germany and other European countries to send the coveted German-made Leopard 2 tanks.
This is a strong way to start the year, but our support should not stop there. Ukraine needs more of everything that has already been supplied. It especially needs more High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and more Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLR) munitions, which have proved so effective on the battlefield. If more HIMARS are not available, then the United States should send M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. The more loitering munitions that can be supplied to Ukraine, the better. The number of tanks announced so far is substantial but still falls multiples short of what the Ukrainian military needs to push Russian occupiers out of their country, especially because the Abrams tanks will take many months to be built, trained on, and deployed. Ukraine could also use several hundred infantry fighting vehicles, which number far surpasses those pledged by the United States and other NATO allies in January. Ukraine could also use more Patriot batteries, National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, and other air defense systems.
In addition to greater quantities of weapons, the United States and its allies should upgrade the quality of weapons being supplied. At the top of this list should be the long-range missile system called ATACMS. It fires missiles that can travel nearly 200 miles and would thus allow Ukrainian forces to attack Russian airfields and ammunition sites in Crimea and elsewhere that are now out of range and offer sanctuary for Russian soldiers using long-range weapons to attack Ukrainian towns. The provision of long-range strike weapons, including the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb, could be a game-changer in a Ukrainian offensive this spring. The Ukrainian military also needs much stronger offensive air capabilities, including Soviet-made MiG-29 fighter jets and advanced drones such as the U.S. Gray Eagle and Reaper models.
Ukrainian pilots also should begin training to fly F-16 fighter jets. Eventually, either in later stages of this war or for enhanced deterrence after the war, Ukraine’s air force will need to switch from Soviet- or Russian-made planes to U.S. fighter aircraft. In return for receiving these weapons, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could sign a legally binding agreement to not use these weapons to strike targets inside Russia.
The way this new military assistance is announced also matters. Rather than providing ATACMs in March, Reapers in June, and jets in September, NATO should go for a Big Bang. Plans to provide all these systems should be announced on February 24, 2023, the first anniversary of Putin’s invasion. An announcement of this size will produce an important psychological effect inside the Kremlin and Russian society, signaling that the West is committed to Ukraine’s ambition to liberate all occupied territories. Already Kremlin propagandists on television lament that they are fighting a well-armed and rich NATO, which has greater resources than Russia. On February 24, Biden and NATO allies could fuel this perception that it would be futile for Russia to continue its fight.
RISK CALCULUS
Soon after the war began, many observers, including me, worried that Putin would view the provision of these kinds of offensive weapons as escalatory. And yet, after deployment of these major weapons systems, Putin so far still has not escalated. The reason is simple: Putin has no good way of doing so. He is already using very expensive cruise missiles to attack apartment buildings. He cannot attack NATO, lest he risk a broader war that Russia would lose quickly. That leaves him with only the nuclear option, but even that would not serve him well. Everyone agrees that a nuclear attack against the United States or other NATO countries is off the table because mutual assured destruction is still in place. The probabilities of Putin using a tactical nuclear weapon inside Ukraine is also very unlikely as it would serve no obvious battlefield objective. It would not stop Ukrainians from fighting. Just the opposite: they would recommit to defeating Russia, and even unleash more attacks, including covert operations against targets inside Russia.
Using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine also would rally greater opposition to the war around the world, including in Beijing, within Russian society, and maybe even among Russia’s generals. Obviously, Ukrainians would suffer most from such an attack, and yet they are the ones urging the West not to be deterred by Putin’s nuclear blackmail.
There are risks to providing more and better weapons to Ukraine, but there are also risks to not doing so. If the war in Ukraine drags on for years, so many more people—Ukrainians first and foremost, but also Russians—will die. “Stalemate” on the battlefield is a euphemism for continued death and destruction. This is the cost of incrementalism.
Protracted war also risks losing public support in the United States and Europe. At the end of 2022, Biden signed into law a new $45 billion aid package for Ukraine. This should fund U.S. military assistance until the end of this year, including new weapons systems such as ATACMs and fighter jets, should they be given the green light. But now that the House of Representatives is under Republican control, future appropriations could be less forthcoming. If the war drags through the end of the year without major Ukrainian victories, the Biden administration will struggle to obtain congressional renewal for a new military and economic assistance package, especially as the presidential election heats up with at least one major candidate, Donald Trump, who is not a fan of aid to Ukraine. Debate over aid will become fiercer in European capitals, too, if 2023 results in only minor changes on the battlefield. The dangers of incrementalism grow over time.
[continued]
As long as Russian soldiers occupy their country, Ukrainians will fight. They will fight with or without new advanced weapons, with or without harsher sanctions, with or without money to help them run their country. Understanding this key insight about the Ukrainian mentality today leads to an obvious policy recommendation for the West: help Ukraine win as fast as possible.
[so that this cluster**** doesn't end up destroying civilization itself.]
How to Get a Breakthrough in Ukraine
The Case Against Incrementalism
By Michael McFaul
January 30, 2023
Nearly a year after he invaded Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has failed to achieve any of his major objectives. He has not unified the alleged single Slavic nation, he has not “denazified” or “demilitarized” Ukraine, and he has not stopped NATO expansion.
Instead, the Ukrainian military kept Russian troops out of Kyiv, defended Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, and launched successful counteroffensives in the fall so that by the end of 2022, it had liberated over 50 percent of the territory previously captured by Russian soldiers that year. In January, Putin removed the general in charge of the war in Ukraine, Sergei Surovikin, whom he had appointed just a few months earlier. Wartime leaders change their top generals only when they know they are losing.
Ukraine is doing so well in part thanks to the unified Western response. Unlike reactions to Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014, the Western pushback against Putin’s latest war has been strong along multiple fronts. NATO enhanced its eastern defenses and invited Sweden and Finland to join the alliance. Europe has provided shelter to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees. Led by the Biden administration, the West has provided massive amounts of military and economic support at amazing speed, levied punishing sanctions, and begun a difficult shift away from Russian energy. Even Chinese leader Xi Jinping has offered Putin only faint rhetorical support for his war. He has not provided Russia with weapons and has cautiously avoided violating the global sanctions regime.
These are the reasons for optimism. The bad news, however, is that the war continues, and Putin has shown no signs of wanting to end it. Instead, he is planning a major counteroffensive this year. “The Russians are preparing some 200,000 fresh troops,” General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned in December. “I have no doubt they will have another go at Kyiv.” Even though Putin must understand by now that Ukrainians are willing to fight for as long as it takes to liberate their country, he still believes that time is on his side. That is because Putin expects Western governments and societies to lose their will and interest to keep helping Ukraine. If Putin or his aides watch the television personality Tucker Carlson on Fox News or saw the protests last fall in Prague, their hunch about waning Western support would be confirmed.
If Russia starts winning on the battlefield, or even fights to a stalemate, few will remember U.S. President Joe Biden’s remarkable leadership in galvanizing the world to assist Ukraine in 2022. This is why Western leaders need to shift how they approach the conflict. At this stage, incrementally expanding military and economic assistance is likely to only prolong the war indefinitely. Instead, in 2023, the United States, NATO, and the democratic world more broadly should aim to support a breakthrough. This means more advanced weapons, more sanctions against Russia, and more economic aid to Ukraine. None of this should be doled out incrementally. It needs to be provided swiftly, so that Ukraine can win decisively on the battlefield this year. Without greater and immediate support, the war will settle into a stalemate, which is only to Putin’s advantage. In the end, the West will be judged by what happened during the last year of the war, not by what happened in the first.
THE BIG BANG THEORY
The most important step the United States and NATO allies can take this year is to provide Ukraine with weapons that will allow its armed forces to go on the offensive sooner and more successfully in eastern Ukraine. This year started with much encouraging news. The United States, France, and Germany announced plans to provide Ukraine with infantry fighting vehicles, including M2 Bradleys and Strykers, AMX-10 RCs, and Marders, respectively. The United Kingdom decided to provide a dozen Challenger II tanks and 30 AS-90 155mm self-propelled howitzers. The United States and Germany announced plans to give Ukraine one battery each of the Patriot air defense system, and the Netherlands pledged to contribute Patriot missiles and launchers. And finally, the United States made the decision last week to provide Ukraine a few dozen M1 Abrams tanks, which paved the way for Germany and other European countries to send the coveted German-made Leopard 2 tanks.
This is a strong way to start the year, but our support should not stop there. Ukraine needs more of everything that has already been supplied. It especially needs more High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and more Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLR) munitions, which have proved so effective on the battlefield. If more HIMARS are not available, then the United States should send M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. The more loitering munitions that can be supplied to Ukraine, the better. The number of tanks announced so far is substantial but still falls multiples short of what the Ukrainian military needs to push Russian occupiers out of their country, especially because the Abrams tanks will take many months to be built, trained on, and deployed. Ukraine could also use several hundred infantry fighting vehicles, which number far surpasses those pledged by the United States and other NATO allies in January. Ukraine could also use more Patriot batteries, National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, and other air defense systems.
In addition to greater quantities of weapons, the United States and its allies should upgrade the quality of weapons being supplied. At the top of this list should be the long-range missile system called ATACMS. It fires missiles that can travel nearly 200 miles and would thus allow Ukrainian forces to attack Russian airfields and ammunition sites in Crimea and elsewhere that are now out of range and offer sanctuary for Russian soldiers using long-range weapons to attack Ukrainian towns. The provision of long-range strike weapons, including the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb, could be a game-changer in a Ukrainian offensive this spring. The Ukrainian military also needs much stronger offensive air capabilities, including Soviet-made MiG-29 fighter jets and advanced drones such as the U.S. Gray Eagle and Reaper models.
Putin still believes that time is on his side.
Ukrainian pilots also should begin training to fly F-16 fighter jets. Eventually, either in later stages of this war or for enhanced deterrence after the war, Ukraine’s air force will need to switch from Soviet- or Russian-made planes to U.S. fighter aircraft. In return for receiving these weapons, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could sign a legally binding agreement to not use these weapons to strike targets inside Russia.
The way this new military assistance is announced also matters. Rather than providing ATACMs in March, Reapers in June, and jets in September, NATO should go for a Big Bang. Plans to provide all these systems should be announced on February 24, 2023, the first anniversary of Putin’s invasion. An announcement of this size will produce an important psychological effect inside the Kremlin and Russian society, signaling that the West is committed to Ukraine’s ambition to liberate all occupied territories. Already Kremlin propagandists on television lament that they are fighting a well-armed and rich NATO, which has greater resources than Russia. On February 24, Biden and NATO allies could fuel this perception that it would be futile for Russia to continue its fight.
RISK CALCULUS
Soon after the war began, many observers, including me, worried that Putin would view the provision of these kinds of offensive weapons as escalatory. And yet, after deployment of these major weapons systems, Putin so far still has not escalated. The reason is simple: Putin has no good way of doing so. He is already using very expensive cruise missiles to attack apartment buildings. He cannot attack NATO, lest he risk a broader war that Russia would lose quickly. That leaves him with only the nuclear option, but even that would not serve him well. Everyone agrees that a nuclear attack against the United States or other NATO countries is off the table because mutual assured destruction is still in place. The probabilities of Putin using a tactical nuclear weapon inside Ukraine is also very unlikely as it would serve no obvious battlefield objective. It would not stop Ukrainians from fighting. Just the opposite: they would recommit to defeating Russia, and even unleash more attacks, including covert operations against targets inside Russia.
Using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine also would rally greater opposition to the war around the world, including in Beijing, within Russian society, and maybe even among Russia’s generals. Obviously, Ukrainians would suffer most from such an attack, and yet they are the ones urging the West not to be deterred by Putin’s nuclear blackmail.
There are risks to providing more and better weapons to Ukraine, but there are also risks to not doing so. If the war in Ukraine drags on for years, so many more people—Ukrainians first and foremost, but also Russians—will die. “Stalemate” on the battlefield is a euphemism for continued death and destruction. This is the cost of incrementalism.
Protracted war also risks losing public support in the United States and Europe. At the end of 2022, Biden signed into law a new $45 billion aid package for Ukraine. This should fund U.S. military assistance until the end of this year, including new weapons systems such as ATACMs and fighter jets, should they be given the green light. But now that the House of Representatives is under Republican control, future appropriations could be less forthcoming. If the war drags through the end of the year without major Ukrainian victories, the Biden administration will struggle to obtain congressional renewal for a new military and economic assistance package, especially as the presidential election heats up with at least one major candidate, Donald Trump, who is not a fan of aid to Ukraine. Debate over aid will become fiercer in European capitals, too, if 2023 results in only minor changes on the battlefield. The dangers of incrementalism grow over time.
[continued]
TIGHTENING THE VISE
Governments supporting Ukraine also need to dramatically ratchet up sanctions. The United States should lead the way by designating the Russian Federation a state sponsor of terrorism. Doing so would first amplify American condemnation of Russian terrorist acts in Ukraine and other countries. But there are also practical effects: U.S. citizens and companies would no longer be able to engage in financial transactions with the Russian government. Higher scrutiny would be given to transactions with Russian state-owned banks, state-owned enterprises, and government-related individuals. Controls over exports, re-export, and transfer of dual-use items would be strengthened.
But a terrorist designation would not close all loopholes. The United States, together with other countries in the sanctions coalition, should enact full-blocking sanctions on all major Russian banks, such as Gazprombank, as well as all state-owned enterprises—all of them—including Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy company. Of course, exemptions for the financing of Russian exports of food and fertilizer should remain, but the West must make it more difficult, and therefore more expensive, for Russian companies to transact with the outside world.
New sanctions must be imposed to cut off all critical technologies helping Putin’s war machine, from microprocessors needed to build smart weapons to all forms of imported information technology on which the Russian government and economy relies. The G-7 should reduce the price cap on Russian oil exports further, from today’s $60 limit to $30 a barrel, and introduce greater penalties for shipping companies, insurance agencies, and banks that violate the price cap. And they must apply more pressure on U.S. and European companies still doing business in or with Russia. These companies cannot continue to pay taxes to a terrorist state. They must leave.
Individual sanctions must be expanded dramatically to include all Russian oligarchs still not sanctioned but supporting Putin, all government officials, all top managers and board members of the state-owned enterprises, all propagandists advocating for the war, all Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine, and the family members of everyone in these categories. Sanctioning categories of people—United Russia party members, government officials, soldiers, and so on—and not specific individuals has the added advantage of giving Russians the option of resigning as a way to get off the sanctions list.
At a minimum, countries involved in the sanctions regime could start expanding their lists to include everyone already identified by Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention as deserving of sanctions. Countries imposing sanctions also must coordinate their activities so that if a Russian is sanctioned in one country, that person immediately appears on the sanction list of all countries participating in the sanctions regime.
New travel restrictions should also be imposed on all Russian citizens. A complete travel ban to all democratic countries is one option, although it risks alienating Russians opposed to the war. Another is to make all Russians wanting to travel to democratic countries pay an additional “Ukrainian reconstruction fee” on top of the cost of their visas. If they do not want to pay such a fee for fear that it signals support for Ukraine, then they can vacation in Minsk instead of Barcelona. The way these new sanctions are announced also matters. It is best done all at once by participating countries on February 24.
At the same time, democracies should make it easier for Russians opposed to the war to defect. The tens of thousands of Russia’s best and brightest who have already fled should be given work visas to stay in Europe and the United States. Men who fled Russia to avoid the draft should be given incentives to not return until the war is over. Russian opposition leaders and independent journalists living in exile should be able to obtain visas and work permits, open bank accounts, use credit cards, and monetize their YouTube channels with much greater ease than can be done today.
MONEY AND MESSAGES
Ukraine needs more money, and the West needs to find new ways to provide it. The obvious place to start is to transfer the over $300 billion in Russian central bank reserves currently held by the West to the government of Ukraine. Treasury and finance officials in the United States and Europe are nervous about such moves. But state assets have been seized legally in the past, in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and it should be done now. (Moreover, doing so now has the added advantage of sending a deterrent message to China about invading Taiwan, as Beijing has many more financial reserves invested in the West.) In addition, following the lead of the Canadian government, frozen assets of Russian oligarchs should also be considered for confiscation and transfer to Ukraine. Western countries should impose an import tax on all Russian goods and an export tax on all goods and services provided to Russia, the proceeds of which would be transferred to a Ukrainian reconstruction fund. And comprehensive planning for the hundreds of billion dollars postwar reconstruction of Ukraine should begin today—an effort that should include an international pledging conference.
Harsher sanctions work to cut off Russia from the world, but the West should simultaneously do more to reach the hearts and minds within Russia. The U.S.-government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty nearly tripled its audience, most of it in Russia and Ukraine, after the war began. Russian independent media now operating outside of Russia also expanded their audiences. Viewership of YouTube channels operated by colleagues of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny also jumped dramatically in 2022. The two channels Navalny originally created have at least 9.5 million subscribers. But every one of these outlets would benefit from more resources, new methods of financing, easier access to work visas, and technologies to help them penetrate Putin’s informational Iron Curtain. New modalities for reaching Russians—be it through text messaging, greater use of TikTok, and Telegram channels, or more subtle cultural messaging rather than direct news—should be attempted.
As long as Russian soldiers occupy their country, Ukrainians will fight. They will fight with or without new advanced weapons, with or without harsher sanctions, with or without money to help them run their country. Understanding this key insight about the Ukrainian mentality today leads to an obvious policy recommendation for the West: help Ukraine win as fast as possible.
The best way to commemorate February 24, the anniversary of Putin’s invasion, is to make clear that this is the West’s strategy. This requires a rollout—coordinated by dozens of countries on the same day—of more and better weapons, tougher sanctions, new economic assistance, greater public diplomacy efforts, and a credible commitment to postwar reconstruction. This is also the best way to avoid being in the same place when February 24, 2024, rolls around.
MICHAEL McFAUL is Professor of Political Science, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He served for five years in the Obama administration, including from 2012 to 2014 as U.S. Ambassador to Russia. He is the author of From Cold War to Hot Peace: A U.S. Ambassador in Putin’s Russia.
Governments supporting Ukraine also need to dramatically ratchet up sanctions. The United States should lead the way by designating the Russian Federation a state sponsor of terrorism. Doing so would first amplify American condemnation of Russian terrorist acts in Ukraine and other countries. But there are also practical effects: U.S. citizens and companies would no longer be able to engage in financial transactions with the Russian government. Higher scrutiny would be given to transactions with Russian state-owned banks, state-owned enterprises, and government-related individuals. Controls over exports, re-export, and transfer of dual-use items would be strengthened.
But a terrorist designation would not close all loopholes. The United States, together with other countries in the sanctions coalition, should enact full-blocking sanctions on all major Russian banks, such as Gazprombank, as well as all state-owned enterprises—all of them—including Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy company. Of course, exemptions for the financing of Russian exports of food and fertilizer should remain, but the West must make it more difficult, and therefore more expensive, for Russian companies to transact with the outside world.
New sanctions must be imposed to cut off all critical technologies helping Putin’s war machine, from microprocessors needed to build smart weapons to all forms of imported information technology on which the Russian government and economy relies. The G-7 should reduce the price cap on Russian oil exports further, from today’s $60 limit to $30 a barrel, and introduce greater penalties for shipping companies, insurance agencies, and banks that violate the price cap. And they must apply more pressure on U.S. and European companies still doing business in or with Russia. These companies cannot continue to pay taxes to a terrorist state. They must leave.
The dangers of incrementalism grow over time.
Individual sanctions must be expanded dramatically to include all Russian oligarchs still not sanctioned but supporting Putin, all government officials, all top managers and board members of the state-owned enterprises, all propagandists advocating for the war, all Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine, and the family members of everyone in these categories. Sanctioning categories of people—United Russia party members, government officials, soldiers, and so on—and not specific individuals has the added advantage of giving Russians the option of resigning as a way to get off the sanctions list.
At a minimum, countries involved in the sanctions regime could start expanding their lists to include everyone already identified by Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention as deserving of sanctions. Countries imposing sanctions also must coordinate their activities so that if a Russian is sanctioned in one country, that person immediately appears on the sanction list of all countries participating in the sanctions regime.
New travel restrictions should also be imposed on all Russian citizens. A complete travel ban to all democratic countries is one option, although it risks alienating Russians opposed to the war. Another is to make all Russians wanting to travel to democratic countries pay an additional “Ukrainian reconstruction fee” on top of the cost of their visas. If they do not want to pay such a fee for fear that it signals support for Ukraine, then they can vacation in Minsk instead of Barcelona. The way these new sanctions are announced also matters. It is best done all at once by participating countries on February 24.
At the same time, democracies should make it easier for Russians opposed to the war to defect. The tens of thousands of Russia’s best and brightest who have already fled should be given work visas to stay in Europe and the United States. Men who fled Russia to avoid the draft should be given incentives to not return until the war is over. Russian opposition leaders and independent journalists living in exile should be able to obtain visas and work permits, open bank accounts, use credit cards, and monetize their YouTube channels with much greater ease than can be done today.
MONEY AND MESSAGES
Ukraine needs more money, and the West needs to find new ways to provide it. The obvious place to start is to transfer the over $300 billion in Russian central bank reserves currently held by the West to the government of Ukraine. Treasury and finance officials in the United States and Europe are nervous about such moves. But state assets have been seized legally in the past, in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and it should be done now. (Moreover, doing so now has the added advantage of sending a deterrent message to China about invading Taiwan, as Beijing has many more financial reserves invested in the West.) In addition, following the lead of the Canadian government, frozen assets of Russian oligarchs should also be considered for confiscation and transfer to Ukraine. Western countries should impose an import tax on all Russian goods and an export tax on all goods and services provided to Russia, the proceeds of which would be transferred to a Ukrainian reconstruction fund. And comprehensive planning for the hundreds of billion dollars postwar reconstruction of Ukraine should begin today—an effort that should include an international pledging conference.
Harsher sanctions work to cut off Russia from the world, but the West should simultaneously do more to reach the hearts and minds within Russia. The U.S.-government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty nearly tripled its audience, most of it in Russia and Ukraine, after the war began. Russian independent media now operating outside of Russia also expanded their audiences. Viewership of YouTube channels operated by colleagues of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny also jumped dramatically in 2022. The two channels Navalny originally created have at least 9.5 million subscribers. But every one of these outlets would benefit from more resources, new methods of financing, easier access to work visas, and technologies to help them penetrate Putin’s informational Iron Curtain. New modalities for reaching Russians—be it through text messaging, greater use of TikTok, and Telegram channels, or more subtle cultural messaging rather than direct news—should be attempted.
As long as Russian soldiers occupy their country, Ukrainians will fight. They will fight with or without new advanced weapons, with or without harsher sanctions, with or without money to help them run their country. Understanding this key insight about the Ukrainian mentality today leads to an obvious policy recommendation for the West: help Ukraine win as fast as possible.
The best way to commemorate February 24, the anniversary of Putin’s invasion, is to make clear that this is the West’s strategy. This requires a rollout—coordinated by dozens of countries on the same day—of more and better weapons, tougher sanctions, new economic assistance, greater public diplomacy efforts, and a credible commitment to postwar reconstruction. This is also the best way to avoid being in the same place when February 24, 2024, rolls around.
MICHAEL McFAUL is Professor of Political Science, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He served for five years in the Obama administration, including from 2012 to 2014 as U.S. Ambassador to Russia. He is the author of From Cold War to Hot Peace: A U.S. Ambassador in Putin’s Russia.
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
''If Belarus joins the war, sanctions will cut off potassium supplies to the world. This will result in vastly reduced crop yields for the world.
So, more irrational thinking by a regional alliance of nations will result in more irrational and deadly consequences for the world.
I think that the other 80% of the world has seen and understands that the 10 rounds of sanctions applied so far do not work as intended.
And never will.
Last edited:
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
The people speak freely.
bw
Fringe Ranger
Russia could put up a giant sign that says "No Ukrainian Attacks Here". That approach works for guns, I hear.
This guy lives in a dream world on several counts.
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
Thanks for posting this and the link, it's a well written article and informative.With or without Abrams and Leopard tanks, the West is sending Ukraine straight into the Russian trap
30th January 2023
Valentin Vasilescu
by Valentin Vasilescu
The Russian military has taken two important steps to alter the balance of power in Ukraine. The first was the withdrawal from the Kherson region, south of the Dnieper (on a line that cannot be crossed by the Ukrainians) and the stabilization of the line of defense on the Kupyansk-Kreminna axis.
Secondly, the PMC Wagner took the initiative to launch a medium-scale offensive in the Bakhmout region. Shortly thereafter, smaller offensives by Russian Task Forces “South” and “East” took place south of Bakhmut in 5 directions between Donetsk and Uglidar1.
This second step resulted in the transfer to the front of all available reserves from kyiv and their engagement in combat. Therefore, the opening of a new offensive direction by Russia would be catastrophic for the Ukrainian army.
Thanks to Russia's pre-emptive two-step strategy, the new tranche of arms deliveries offered by NATO, if it reaches its destination, will not be able to constitute a powerful strike force, as Washington had hoped. The armor, artillery pieces, MLRS, anti-tank systems and related ammunition agreed at Ramstein are barely enough to fill the “holes” gouged in the Ukrainian machine by the Russian military over the past two months.
If Ukraine is forced, over the next two months, to launch a counter-offensive to demonstrate to its NATO sponsors the formidable effects of the weapons it has received, it will fall for the trap. Because the Russian army learned the lesson of autumn and prepared for it all winter. The Russians expect the Ukrainians to attack. Namely, that at least one Ukrainian army corps will enter at high speed through the breaches specially created by the Russians, as far as possible from the front line. By the time they realize they have fallen into the trap, the Ukrainians will be surrounded and eliminated or taken prisoner.
''This second step resulted in the transfer to the front of all available reserves from kyiv and their engagement in combat''.
Massive losses of line soldiers which explains the massive ''conscription'' of civilians going down in the Western Ukraine oblasts.
Going right to the ''Eastern Front'' meatgrinder.
And we all know how that turned out the first time.
Therefore, the opening of a new offensive direction by Russia would be catastrophic for the Ukrainian army.
Russian forces have 2 reserve armies standing by waiting.
Hmmmm.....
Last edited:
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
The attached link is graphic.
On the other hand, the "Barbarossa" 2.0 does not spare barbarism with regard to Russian-speaking civilians... Even between them, barbarism is in order, as evidenced by this information relayed by Erwan:
“Wagner soldiers discover bodies of foreign mercenaries without heads or hands. Mutilated bodies without heads and hands were discovered by paramilitaries of the Wagner group in one of the districts of Bakhmout (Artyomovsk). According to the leader of the group Yevgueni Prigojine, "the enemy could not withdraw them due to the intensity of the fighting and therefore tried to conceal their identities". However, cell phones found on the bodies contain several images which indicate that the victims are probably mercenaries who arrived from Poland and Israel. Evgueni Prigojine specifies that “the bodies and other evidence in conviction will soon be handed over to the authorities in charge of the investigation so that they can make a decision”. » Erwan Castel (visuals in the link…)
It is possible that after the conflict, when all the behind-the-scenes tricks of Zelinsky's theater of macabre are exposed, the Nazis will come to seem almost "civilized" to their Atlantico-Banderist disciples, despite the mass crimes ferocious acts that the first committed in the USSR...
Doomer Doug
TB Fanatic
Where there is no vision the people perish. The ukies picked Zippy and he turned into a monster like I said. It will take 50 years for the male demographics to recover.
And Zippy wants the $300 Billion in Russian assets for his ownsies.
All that is left now is the final grind down of the ukies, combined with the Battle of the Bulge style salient beat down. Belarus from north and behind, Wagner et al from the East and the hordes pouring up from the south.
The line will stop on the river, along the coast and rump ukraine is born. Zippy has destroyed his people. And biden et al are even bigger monstets. We may still get nukes being lobbed around.
Sitting in trenches being carpetbombed by missiles and 155mm artillery shells, led mostly by ukie fools as officers' mass corruption along with obscene logistic failures
The poor ukies stabbed in the back by their own "leaders" just thugs and crooks.
And Zippy wants the $300 Billion in Russian assets for his ownsies.
All that is left now is the final grind down of the ukies, combined with the Battle of the Bulge style salient beat down. Belarus from north and behind, Wagner et al from the East and the hordes pouring up from the south.
The line will stop on the river, along the coast and rump ukraine is born. Zippy has destroyed his people. And biden et al are even bigger monstets. We may still get nukes being lobbed around.
Sitting in trenches being carpetbombed by missiles and 155mm artillery shells, led mostly by ukie fools as officers' mass corruption along with obscene logistic failures
The poor ukies stabbed in the back by their own "leaders" just thugs and crooks.
and putin and his people aren't?
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
Here's a Ukrainian 46th Brigade post, they are in Bakhmut.
Ukrainian officer's view on Jan 30 2023,
Live from the line. Actual 1st hand information,
Not from 1206.2 km away.
SITREP - Rybar and Others in English
We hope that this is understood not only in the trenches of the city.
Not understood in Lviv or Kiev.
They say the place has zero strategic significance in the big picture.
i expect that it will be evacuated in the next week or two and then the defenders will withdraw to the next def line, a few k back.
The situation will turn from critical to catastrophic and resemble the very recent situation in Soledar. Note: Professional Ukrainian Officer Assessment
Turned into a slaughterhouse,
10,000-25,000. Killed, wounded, missing, and surrendered
From other sources.
The Ukrainians might stop and consider the impact, on their combat efficiency, of calling Russians ‘Orcs’ or ''Mobiks''. Belittling and underestimating your opponent is never a smart move, as it can lead to fatal miscalculations in all aspects of warfare.
danielboon
TB Fanatic
Track US Vessel With 60 Bradley Tanks Bound For Ukraine
BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, JAN 31, 2023 - 05:45 AM
Ukrainian Armed Forces are preparing battle plans along the frontline as a Russian spring offensive could be ahead. Western countries are sending main battle tanks and other vehicles to thwart the coming escalation in fighting.
Last week, President Biden announced 31 M1 Abrams main battle tanks (without secret armor) would be sent to Ukraine. Germany, Norway, Poland, and other NATO countries will send other tanks, including the Leopard 2. Even Morocco will send older T-72 series tanks, currently in use in the war-torn country.
All of these 'donated' tanks sound great, but if they don't make it to Europe and race across the battlefield by spring, then the Ukranians might have trouble repelling the Russians.
A press release via the US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), a segment of the US military responsible for transporting equipment worldwide, detailed last week that a large roll-on/roll-off vessel named "ARC Integrity" loaded 60 Bradley Fighting Vehicles destined for Ukraine.
OSINTtechnical
@Osinttechnical
60 US-donated M2A2 ODS Bradleys are loaded onto ARC Integrity in North Charleston, South Carolina, bound for Ukrainian service.
As of Monday, and according to USTRANSCOM's press release noting the vessel's name, data via MarineTraffic shows ARC Integrity is full steam ahead in the Atlantic Ocean and will arrive at the Port in Southampton, England, on 
Track US Vessel With 60 Bradley Tanks Bound For Ukraine | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
danielboon
TB Fanatic
now where is that russian cruiser?
and the russian casualties... as the attacking force, has to be much much greater...
naegling62
Veteran Member
I would not want to be on the ARC Integrity, we are using it as:
1). Propaganda
2). Bait
This will be an interesting tell tale sign of how Russia will mange this. Russia must act under the oppressive umbrella of the global superpower. Like I've said in the past, we are witnessing some Roman Empire stuff here.
1). Propaganda
2). Bait
This will be an interesting tell tale sign of how Russia will mange this. Russia must act under the oppressive umbrella of the global superpower. Like I've said in the past, we are witnessing some Roman Empire stuff here.
Last edited:
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
Nope, never been a historical fact.
It was the attacking force needs to be 3 times larger, but modern warfare has proven that wrong as well, as well as wars in the past.
Examples: Germany lost more in Normandy that the allies, US lost less than the Vietnamese military in Nam, US lost less that the opposing forces in the ME and Stan, and Russia is losing a lot less than Ukraine.
This covers the concept very well.
Ukraine War Report: How Many Losses?
Runtime - 25:07
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
now where is that russian cruiser?
Not worth sinking it on the high seas as that will cause in incident. Better to let the IFVs get to Ukraine where they can be taken care of by the weapons which can easily handle the Bradley in the combat area of action.
As the US vets, and even the manufacture of the Bradley will say, the Bradley is not a tank. Ukraine will lose them as easily as they lost all their other IFVs.
LightEcho
Has No Life - Lives on TB
But Biden does not work time in terms of hours. He goes by pudding treats, ice creams and opportunities to sniff little girls. So, that would be 3 pudding treats, 4 ice creams and 2 sniffing opportunities.
LightEcho
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Yes, this is a hazard. The intent, obviously, is to dehumanize the enemy and make them out to be a primitive life form that needs to be extinguished. And the leadership thinks this might also beef up morale.
The reality is that when the ukes are losing as much as a battalion per week in Bakhmut, they have to begin reflecting on who is more primitive. It does a complete reversal on morale when most of the people you go into combat with come out in body bags, or worse... left behind on the battlefield because your side cannot even collect them up.