Ukraine 12: When is this an existential threat?

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Russia is also probably gambling that they can outlast western fickleness and western desire for cheap shit and lack of a single bit of pain in their lives. Russia can't sustain this level of fighting forever, true, but will the west keep sending arms and tech to Ukraine when gas costs slightly more in a month?

Republicans right now have the best of both worlds.  They get to fund the military industrial complex and they can blame Biden for high gas prices.  So I do not expect any softening in US support for Ukraine this year. 

Likewise the more anti-Russian European countries like the Baltic states and Poland aren't going to change thier tune.  Ukraine is barely getting anything from France and Germany already, so that won't make a difference. 

[Kalbear]

It's less about the equipment and more about sanctions being dropped, which would allow more Russian equipment to enter and cause a longer war. 

Or the US putting heavy pressure on Ukraine to end the war "or else".

[Werthead]

5 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

It's less about the equipment and more about sanctions being dropped, which would allow more Russian equipment to enter and cause a longer war. 

Or the US putting heavy pressure on Ukraine to end the war "or else".

I don't see either being very likely. If the war is still going on in maybe 2-3 years and everyone is exhausted and even Ukraine and Russia want to find an exit strategy, maybe other countries will try to push them to reach an accommodation, but right now that is not the case.

I think there's a massive difference in the way the conflict is being reported in some quarters - as just "Big Crimea" which will blow over after the conflict ends - and the reality which I think NATO now sees very coldly, that this is a profound game-changing moment which shows a much bigger risk to European freedom and security then previously thought but also an opportunity for them to stymie and defeat Russia in a third country and use that country as a buffer against Russian encroachment which may require a direct and much more dangerous confrontation further down the line. On that basis, NATO will pour everything they have and then the kitchen sink on top if it means stopping Putin in the far east of Ukraine rather than having to stop him on the borders of Lithuania or Poland and risk blowing up the world in the process.

[Toth]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I don't see either being very likely. If the war is still going on in maybe 2-3 years and everyone is exhausted and even Ukraine and Russia want to find an exit strategy, maybe other countries will try to push them to reach an accommodation, but right now that is not the case.

I'd have the hope that if the war was still going on in 2-3 years, we would have managed to completely disentangle our economies from Russia and wouldn't have to care too much about its North Koreaisation and the push to peace would come solely out of humanitarian concerns.

[Kalbear]

That all might be true in Europe, but in the US Ukraine news has taken a major back seat to inflation and price gouging. I'm not confident that US courage lasts a couple months, much less a couple years.

[Toth]

Also of fucking course pictures like these are already going around: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQTQOBAXsAMO5GZ?format=jpg&name=large

[a free shadow]

10 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Or the US putting heavy pressure on Ukraine to end the war "or else".

That would be too misguided. Even the Americans must have learned in large and small ways that this situation is not a theoretical problem or a problem that can be solved by avoidance. At least I see some change since, let's say, their own bewilderingly misguided attempt to get Zelensky to evacuate. It was small but truthful moment to shock many people back to their senses, on a human level.

[Werthead]

Just now, Kalibuster said:

That all might be true in Europe, but in the US Ukraine news has taken a major back seat to inflation and price gouging. I'm not confident that US courage lasts a couple months, much less a couple years.

I think it's clear Biden and his administration do share their concerns of their NATO allies, and I think will keep the pressure up. As said upthread, if it means pouring money into American armament companies, why not? A major shift will occur if the Republicans win in 2024 and a Putin-friendly President takes (or retakes) office, though of course that will be a major headache regardless of if the war is still going on or not.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, a free shadow said:

That would be too misguided. Even the Americans must have learned in large and small ways that this situation is not a theoretical problem or a problem that can be solved by avoidance. 

The US learned things? Pfft. That implies a coherent foreign policy. The US can barely do anything about climate change. The US did the barest and often stupidest things in the face of covid. 50% of the US currently wants an autocrat back in power after they failed to overturn an election. 

And while Biden is backing this now, he is not immune to political pressure if it gets too painful. When Russia defaults and that causes a cascade of other financial failures do you care to bet that the US will do anything other than self preservation?

 

[Toth]

1 minute ago, Kalibuster said:

That all might be true in Europe, but in the US Ukraine news has taken a major back seat to inflation and price gouging. I'm not confident that US courage lasts a couple months, much less a couple years.

To be fair, for the US to involve itself in a war abroad, it doesn't exactly need too much support at home. The military budget is astronomical enough that shipping a couple million buck in the form of tanks to an ally doesn't make anyone wince.

Heck, I read yesterday somewhere that the US has pretty much shipped a third and a fourth of their Stingers and Javelins to Ukraine already, so they already did their due. From a German perspective, I'm sitting here more pounding with my fist on the table of how the SPD and our great new chancellor seems to be pulling the breaks on heavy weapons deliveries while avoiding giving believable reasons, while the Greens beg him to do so and the FDP seem okay with it as well.

[a free shadow]

I cannot find accurate information if the new postal stamps with Moskva in them went into circulation in Ukraine yesterday or the day before that. If it was yesterday, it would be a small poetic coincidence.

[Werthead]

Russia claiming that two Ukrainian helicopters entered Russian airspace and fixed six rockets at Klimovo, just across the border in Bryansk Oblast (not Bryansk city itself, which is 150 km away). Seven civilians were injured. Puzzlement because Ukraine wasting weapons and ammo needed elsewhere on an attack on civilians seems pointless. Lots of suspicion of a false flag. However, the area is near a Russian airfield, which may have been a legitimate military target (some claims that it wasn't in use, however).

Ukrainian forces near Mariupol destroyed a Ural supply truck and 120mm mortar. It looks like some forces may have broken out from Mariupol, or these were relieving forces that couldn't get into the city itself.

US DoD briefing: there are 65 Russian BTGs now focused on the south and east (Russia had 130 BTGs arrayed for the invasion). The fire on the Moskva is believed to be "extensive" but the ship is still afloat and limping home to Sevastopol. It's moving very slowly. Half a dozen other Russian ships have moved further away from the cost but the rest are holding station.

[LongRider]

Ukrainian farmers are there to help!

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

That all might be true in Europe, but in the US Ukraine news has taken a major back seat to inflation and price gouging. I'm not confident that US courage lasts a couple months, much less a couple years.

Depends on where one is.  It hasn't here.  It hasn't in North Dakota.  There are quite a few significant locations in the US with significant populations with Ukrainian background -- very recent even -- and family ties.

Judging by the major US legacy news sites, when compared to what I'm seeing on UK sites, it even seems as though the US has less optimism that Putin will do anything such as declare victory, negotiate, whatever and end the war.  Rather he will escalate, and, already is doing so. 

 

[kiko]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Ukraine is barely getting anything from France and Germany already, so that won't make a difference.

You might want to check this Wikipedia link

[DMC]

The idea that the US will abandon Ukraine in a matter of months is absurd.  First, Biden authorized $800 million more in military aid just yesterday.  Second, the vast majority of the $13.6 billion the US allocated to Ukraine aid last month hasn't even been spent yet.  Third, the notion Biden would receive political pressure to rollback sanctions is entirely ass-backwards.  If Biden tried to do this the hawks within the GOP Congress - who were the strongest advocates of passing sanctions as legislation - would attack him for abandoning Ukraine just like he abandoned Afghanistan.  And frankly no matter what the GOP did, abandoning Ukraine is not going to save Biden and the Dems in the midterms.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

The US learned things? Pfft. That implies a coherent foreign policy. The US can barely do anything about climate change. The US did the barest and often stupidest things in the face of covid. 50% of the US currently wants an autocrat back in power after they failed to overturn an election. 

And while Biden is backing this now, he is not immune to political pressure if it gets too painful. When Russia defaults and that causes a cascade of other financial failures do you care to bet that the US will do anything other than self preservation?

Political pressure to do what? Stop sending major orders to the military-industrial complex? Who exactly is going to do the pressuring, and can you name a single instance in US history when this happened?

[Werthead]

More intelligence briefings coming in:

Torrential rain in parts of eastern Ukraine is apparently slowing the pace of reinforcement and operations for all sides.

Russian aircraft sorties over Ukrainian territory have apparently slowed and in some areas stopped. Russian aircraft seem to be preferring to stay over Russian and Belarusian territory or, at most, over Russian-held Ukrainian territory, to launch stand-off munitions. The heavy use of dumb-fire munitions seems to have dropped significantly. This is apparently down to Ukrainian air defences still working at a surprisingly high level. This has kept Russian aircraft losses low (compared to the early weeks of the conflict) but it's also preventing the Russians from exploiting their aircraft advantage to actually achieve battlefield successes. There are a few exceptions, such as Kharkiv which remains in comfortable range of Russian territory.

The loss, however temporary, of the Moskva and its formidable air defence array makes operations for the other Black Sea Fleet ships more hazardous. The Ukrainians may try to exploit that advantage to sink more ships. A cruise missile-carrying ship going down would be a significant victory, although Russia has been keeping those further back towards Crimea.

Russian forces have been targeting Ukrainian supply depots, but due to the aforementioned air defence issues, only forward-based ones in temporary areas. The bulk of Ukrainian supplies do seem to be getting through at this juncture.

A substantial amount of the new aid promised by the US and other allies just in the last 2-3 days is already deployed in Ukraine. Ukraine also received a large contingent of new TB2 Bayraktars today.

Children in occupied Melitopol have been taught to sing Russian Victory Day songs, and been told they will stand outside and sing these songs on 9 May for the cameras.

[ThinkerX]

People here keep talking about the Russia/Ukraine war dragging on for years. More and more, given the videos, pics, and accounts from the front, though, I am starting to wonder about something else:

Assume the Ukraine somehow scores a major across the board battlefield victory or several such - to the point where 90%+ of the Russian force is decimated and they are basically forced to abandon all Ukrainian territory within say, the next three weeks or so. Might be a stretch, but plausible. 

Where does that leave Putin? Keep in mind that Putin is faced with total, undeniable failure of HIS pet project. Way I see it, that will make him look weak in front of all of his subordinates. At that point he either -

1 - goes the 'weapons of mass destruction route' (and we'd best hope somebody sane countermands those orders)

2 - Initiates a truly massive internal purge 

3 - tries to ride it out with some sort of diplomatic solution

Options 1 & 2 have a high possibility of a fatal backlash for Putin. 3 means a long rough ride that would keep him putting out brushfires on the home front, because otherwise there is a damn good chance the whole country breaks apart.

 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

2 - Initiates a truly massive internal purge 

I know it hasn't been discussed much in this thread, but while not "massive," Putin is already starting this with the FSB.