I'm not keeping up too much with specifics of this horrible attack, and it seems inevitable that - if we just think of manpower and resources - Ukraine will be bludgeoned into submission....
unless they fight on a different playing field. 

I've believed for a very long time that simply bombing/killing/invading a country is anachronistic, although I'm certain that the war machine makes so much money off it that it's inevitable. But, in the 21st century, I would think the real battlefield is electronic: jamming signals, hacking databases, generally screwing with the electronic backbone of a nation. So I wonder how much of that the Ukraine team is doing. Like some bad heist movie, distract the guards and use the laptop to rob the safe.

Avoiding a Long War
U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington is increasingly dominated by the question of how it might end. To inform this discussion, this Perspective identifies ways in which the war could evolve and how alternative trajectories would affect U.S. interests. The authors argue that, in addition to minimizing the risks of major escalation, U.S. interests would be best served by avoiding a protracted conflict. The costs and risks of a long war in Ukraine are significant and outweigh the possible benefits of such a trajectory for the United States. Although Washington cannot by itself determine the war's duration, it can take steps that make an eventual negotiated end to the conflict more likely. Drawing on the literature on war termination, the authors identify key impediments to Russia-Ukraine talks, such as mutual optimism about the future of the war and mutual pessimism about the implications of peace. The Perspective highlights four policy instruments the United States could use to mitigate these impediments: clarifying plans for future support to Ukraine, making commitments to Ukraine's security, issuing assurances regarding the country's neutrality, and setting conditions for sanctions relief for Russia.

 black321 wrote:
We were involved in a similar situation decades ago. American involvement in Vietnam was small but real during WWII. IIRC members of our OSS nursed Ho Chi Minh back to health from serious illness. We basically propped up the French postwar occupation of Vietnam before we set up South Vietnam.

Our decades-lomg project in SE Asia focused on fighting Communism and preventing the realization of the Domino Theory. That project was quite public and depicted as a noble and generous and principled act. 

And the public believed it. My guess is that if the US had been able to continue the war without drafting kids into the military, domestic opposition would have been fragmented and limited. But the draft brought the war home as did the TV footage of vicious combat, guerilla warfare in Vietnamese cities and our military's inability to define or predict victory.

Russia is beginning to wake up from the same sort of lies—war against a godless enemy threatening peace at home, occupied people welcoming the invaders as liberators. Still, it stuns me that the Russians, famous for sniffing out the truth behind official Soviet propaganda, are even today mostly supportive of the war and Putin's bulls—t claims.

What it will take for Russians to actively turn against the war, I don't know. But Putin has such a stranglehold on Russian media that domestic opposition isn't going to really flare up in the near future.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
It's called CNN.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Moscow Mable

 miamizsun wrote:

We need to launch an intense "Operation Tokyo Rose" and make sure the military knows they're killing civilians and also dying a lot. Maybe we are. 

 black321 wrote:

i agree and hope that it doesn't come to that
putin's state tv news service is constantly threating to use nukes on berlin, washington, london, etc.
really stupid agitprop, which probably means he won't use them
he has stated he will not, but he has zero credibility
veiled nuclear blackmail is his security blanket
caving to that would set a horrible example

 miamizsun wrote:
and that's when things can get real scary. 
but, personally don't see that happening. 

 black321 wrote:

just an observation
putin/russia are on the offensive, they are the aggressors/invaders
they know for now that ukraine won't deliberately target infrastructure and innocent civilians in russia
in other words ukraine is fighting from a limited defensive position
putin can sit back and bomb when he has the weapons and not have to worry about the fight coming to his turf
so he has little to no interest in negotiations or peace talks and he squelches any anti-war protests/talks by force and intimidation
there is no parity...yet
but there may come a time/point when the powers that be may be willing to stop his murderous assault by lending ukraine weapons to defend herself by going on a limited offensive
we'll see

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Seeing headlines today about this very fact; Russia dig in for Long War. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


"Corrupt people believe that they can bribe everyone else because everyone else is the same as they. When they meet honest people they consider them crazy or losers. When they get arrested and prosecuted, they are surprised and attribute it to some conspiracies or political"

Gee, that doesn't sound at all familiar. 

great twitter thread from Mylovanov (ex-Ukrainian minister) on corruption. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Yes, it's pretty certain at this point that Russia cannot win, but they can make things awful for some time.

 Red_Dragon wrote:

They have already, as I understand it.. but the Soviet era machines are running out of ammo and it is time to transition to sustainable stocks. I'm pretty confident the war will shift in Ukraine's favour soon. Russia wants to prolong it as long as possible. Europe is now coming to understand, the sooner it is over, the better for all concerned.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Again; two completely different machines - logistics nightmare.

I have always thought that the former Warsaw Pact nations in Eastern Europe; who still have stocks of Soviet-Era weapons, should push those to Ukraine who is already familiar with them. To be replaced by Western equipment.

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Leopards should be up and running much faster than that.  The logistics should be in place quite quickly. 

Here's a twitter feed on the current numbers promised.

42 confirmed leopards with Spain and Norway highly likely to contribute up to another 71 and there are another 41 unconfirmed from other countries.


plus the 14 Challenger from the UK

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Leopards or M1s, it will likely be a year before they are operational in Ukraine. Crews and support personnel must be trained and the logistic infrastructure created.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Ukraine was saying it needs 800 to finish the war and as I understand it they will soon get about 100 from various European countries (Germany, Poland, Spain) with probably more coming soon from other countries and older versions taken out of stock. 

Watching the German SPD which is leading the coalition government finally lurch into making the right decision has been painful to watch. But there has been a slow consensus building that assisting Ukraine with what it needs is the only sound policy. 

It has still been amazing to see how various cultural factions have battled it out before the decision was finally made. Scholz looked like an absolute idiot but now some are saying it was a masterstroke on his part to force Biden's hand to send Abrams tanks as well (I am pretty certain it wasn't, but you know, politics). 

 kcar wrote:

Multiple different tanks present immense logistic problems as well. Sure, ship the Leopards - but in enough quantity to matter. That's my point; a dozen or two isn't going to matter.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Abrams tanks are massively heavy, extremely advanced technologically and literally run on jet fuel. They also require a lot of support systems for maintenance and repair.

Some of the more advanced versions use highly classified armor made of depleted uranium. Not the kind of thing you want to fall into Russian hands.

Apparently the Egyptian army has over 1,000 of 'em. Maybe they could "loan" some to Ukraine with our encouragement.

Overall from what I've read, Germany's Leopard tanks are a much better fit. Apparently Germany would not give or allow other countries to give Leopards to Ukraine without the US sending some Abrams tanks. The US military did not want to do that but the Biden admin overruled  it to break the Leopard logjam.