The idea that Putin is a master strategist seems to have a lot of appeal to the Realists. I don’t entirely buy it either. But it does look like she’s right about the direction things are moving, even if the players and their intentions aren’t so Machiavellian. Thing is, a lot of people will be claiming they were right at the end of this phase of the war. That might come soon.
Well, damn. Hard to tell what’s really going on. Hopefully it’s not a collapse of the defense. Maybe they don’t want the city bombed completely to rubble. Hopefully the Russians paid a high price. Hopefully they won’t be able to hold it. Hopefully Ukraine will be able to counter attack at some point. That’s a big pile of hopes with not many hard facts to base them on, unfortunately.
Germany makes tanks deal with Greece for Ukraine
Damien McGuinness
Reporting from Berlin
[image]
REUTERS/Christian CharisiusCopyright: REUTERS/Christian Charisius
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has announced his country will allow modern German-made tanks to backfill Soviet-era tanks sent from Greece to Ukraine.
Berlin already has similar deals with a number of countries that have Soviet-era tanks, which can be used by Ukrainian soldiers straight away without training.
So far, Germany has struck such deals with Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland.
Germany is also training Ukrainian soldiers in Germany on modern heavy weapons, which will then be delivered to Ukraine.
German ministers say Berlin is delivering a lot of weapons to Ukraine and dispute the impression abroad that Germany is not doing enough.
But some ministers and leading politicians within the government accept deliveries are slower and more complicated than originally hoped.
There is growing pressure in Germany for deliveries to be sped up, to be more transparent and better organised.
China closes its air space to Russian Boeing and Airbus planes because Russia was unable to prove that those weren‘t expropriated from non-Russian leasing companies.
Standard rockets, no ATACMS.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1531680183895326720?t=Xoqkcm2uozpPm-9yUfhAIg&s=19
…
https://twitter.com/noclearidea/status/1531783307301736456?t=9m8z7JuuVAAjbXOB9QEWFQ&s=19
I like how I’m supposed to know what the fuck that means.
1 Like
Details are in the … I didn’t want to post all the links.
HiMARS is high mobility artillery rocket system. It’s on wheels not tracks so it’s quick to get in place shoot and move out.
GMLRS is guided multiple launch rocket system, 70 km range. Highly accurate.
News is this is what they’re getting. Unless the story changes again.
1 Like
the strategies for both sides have become longer-term. RU forces know that they have to destroy the whole city in order to take it, and UA forces know that they can inflict losses onto RU while retreating and planning on retaking it later. Severodonetsk is like Mariupol, 90% damaged. there’s little reason to try to hold a destroyed urban landscape like that. it is what it is.
The relative positions of forces also play into this. donbass is easily russia’s biggest accumulation of forces, so UA clearly needs to deploy additional soldiers there, but they would be fools to try to counter there right now. so they are countering where RU forces are not enough to advance, like kherson. makes sense, RU is playing for territory, UA is playing to maximize enemy damage and minimize their own losses.
the talk on the UA side, Ukraine has won the special operation, really a couple of battles, while ceding mariupol, and they are now strapping in for the long war. Russia is waging its offensive with artillery and rockets (clearly coming out of navy reserves now), and they may yet prevail if ukraine never gains the offensive weapons to retake. although i gotta hope that they do not wait too long either (probably years).
anyways, in the long war, trading territory 5-10 km in either direction can be significant, but it isn’t determinative. we are yet to see how much ukraine can retaliate, which they are going to choose very carefully. being able to retake severodonetsk may not be as important as taking out the kerch bridge.
how should you feel about this? i dunno. be glad that the orcs are dying by the hundreds. a tall order for RF women to re-birth down the line, even as most of them are not russian, but buryat and dagestani.
1 Like
This is an oped presenting the leftist case against US support for Ukraine. Even cites Chomsky.
This is how I found it:
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1531847819686031360?t=VzktCpfsbBwb70y8pQlpNQ&s=19
2 Likes
On Nov. 10, 2021, the United States and Ukraine signed a “charter on strategic partnership” that called for Ukraine to join NATO, condemned “ongoing Russian aggression” and affirmed an “unwavering commitment” to the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.
That charter “convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked,” Mr. Guaino wrote.
So a charter signed in November, when Russia had already massed 100k troops on the border by the end of March '21, forced Russia to invade. Sorry, that’s as far as I could get.
1 Like
A little hype-y, but interesting:
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1531012132975910912?s=21&t=T0ImEyZRrhTa8c6FKiVURg
2 Likes
Claremont Institute too!
2 Likes
And married to…wait for it…Bob Novak’s daughter.
1 Like
Not important but rusty rockets are a thing because paint is heavy.
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1531012282075029506?t=5_WXPrv3c5MuVktaG1DP9w&s=19
STS’ external tank was unpainted to save 600 lbs. It’s rust-colored because it’s rusty.
3 Likes
It’s only surprising because some people suggest any discussion of causes other than Putin’s desire to recreate imperial Russia or suggestion that negotiated settlement should be pursued or wariness of where this could lead is equivalent to saying Ukraine should just roll over and accept the invasion and no one should do anything about it.
1 Like
Because most of those arguments don’t hold up under scrutiny.
The whole idea that Russia invaded Ukraine because they’re scared of NATO is nonsense. Russia’s soft underbelly couldn’t be more exposed and vulnerable to NATO, directly because of their actions in Ukraine, and they absolutely do not care. Because they have nukes.
It’s absolute nonsense to say Russia has “legitimate fears” about NATO. It’s one of those argle bargle arguments people say until you press them on it for 30 seconds, and then they retreat to “legitimate concerns”.
Does Russia have legitimate concerns? Sure - in that a free Ukraine hampers their sphere of influence in the region. So you can call that whatever you want - but it seems pretty adjacent to Russian imperialism to me.
Also instead of keeping this in the abstract, we can look at what Russia is actually doing. Life in the Donbas is a stasi-state by all accounts. They’re conscripting any able-bodied men to use as human meat shields. The rest they’re shipping all over Russia, including 10s of 1000s of orphans to places in Russia where the declining birthrate is a huge problem. Then they move Russians in to the vacated areas. That’s following the Russian imperial playbook from the last thousand years.
What settlement exactly other than surrendering the whole country do you propose? Even if Russia agrees to stop fighting, can anyone say they’ll honor it for any longer than it takes them to regroup and build more strength? You’re asking the US/NATO to nudge a country into negotiating with an enemy that clearly just wants to wipe them off the map. It’s like negotiating with crocodile.
The other arguments amount to denying Ukraine agency in trying to determine their own fate. Clearly almost to a person the country is willing to fight for what they have and do not want to become a Russian vassal state dictatorship like Belarus.
When the US pulled out of Afghanistan, the Afghan army instantly surrendered to the Taliban. Despite nearly infinite US support for 20 years, the Afghans had no interest in laying down their lives for democracy or a Western way of life. So it’s nonsense imo to imply that Ukraine is only defending themselves because of US support.
Ukrainians have made it pretty obvious they are willing to die to defend their democracy and Western way of life. I get that if you don’t believe in democracy and a western way of life, that doesn’t mean much. But for someone who does (despite all it’s massive flaws), turning our back on Ukraine seems tantamount to telling them to just lie back and take whatever Russia wants to do with them - no matter how you word it.
As far as where this might lead, yeah that’s spooky. But just rolling over every time Russia invades a country is also risky imo. If Russia gets strength and “invades” Estonia through some kind of proxy internal rebellion or other subterfuge (clearly they’re not going to go straight in the front door), there is a 100% chance the same people arguing not to help Ukraine will argue not to help Estonia. Can’t risk nuclear war. It’s not 100% clear Russia is doing this, etc.
11 Likes