U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

[TopHatter]

"I know that we're on the fast-track to boots on the ground in Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Poland if Ukraine doesn't win"

Guys,

The point from this comment is simply we'll be AT WAR if its Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia/Poland. American blood on the ground-not boots. Those countries are next on Putin's grand tour. Further, treaty mandated (unless we decide to ignore that lil' article 5).

I don't doubt that the Baltics are on Putin's menu, but I wonder even he is willing to tangle with those multinational NATO battlegroups, knowing full well what is right behind them.

If there was only a token NATO force (i.e. advisors), or no force at all, in the Baltics I could certainly see them as ripe targets for a Russian fait accompli

[S2]

"I know that we're on the fast-track to boots on the ground in Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Poland if Ukraine doesn't win"

Guys,

The point from this comment is simply we'll be AT WAR if its Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia/Poland. American blood on the ground-not boots. Those countries are next on Putin's grand tour. Further, treaty mandated (unless we decide to ignore that lil' article 5).

[Albany Rifles]

True, but I really don't see any overall proactive strategy* but rather just reactive measures, usually months after they would've been useful.

Still, given the alternative, I'll take the reactive measures.





*Granted, I only see what's in the public domain

Yeah, I lost my insider information contacts last week...but I still have a decent selection of OSINT. And maybe having been in the belly of the beast I could usually see some wheat amongst the chaff. But budget delays did greatly hamper some tasks. Hirings didn't happen which needed to take place. I take all of that into account.

[TopHatter]

I am not 100% in line with this conclusion but I see some validity. We have to also see events in Eastern Europe are not in a a vacuum for the Administration.

True, but I really don't see any overall proactive strategy* but rather just reactive measures, usually months after they would've been useful.

Still, given the alternative, I'll take the reactive measures.





*Granted, I only see what's in the public domain

[Albany Rifles]

FWIW, I wholeheartedly endorse this conclusion.

I am not 100% in line with this conclusion but I see some validity. We have to also see events in Eastern Europe are not in a a vacuum for the Administration.

And Sullivan's statement about 155s shows me he is either exaggerating or he is micromanaging. Turn the task over to DLA/AMC/JMC and let them run with it. That is their day to day bread & butter.

[Officer of Engineers]

I dunno if Vietnam is the right example to use here. North Vietnam was reliant on the PRC and USSR to include tens of thousands of personnel running air defense, logistics, pilots, etc.

we're not giving Kyiv anything like the check the Chinese and the Russians gave the North Vietnamese.

That blank cheque stopped when those two started getting ready to fight each other.

[Albany Rifles]

We've had troops in those NATO countries for a few years now

And the Poles are building facilities to rival what we gad back in West Germany so we can permanently station US troops...with their families...in Poland.

We currently have 3 brigade combat teams, an aviation brigade, a fires brigade and support units on offset 9 month rotations in Poland & Romania and regular exercise units in the Baltics...now including Sweden & Finland.

[TopHatter]

from my POV, all this makes me think that there is no strategy for Ukraine, there is only crisis management.

FWIW, I wholeheartedly endorse this conclusion.

[astralis]

Vietnam didn't beg. Either against France, the US, or China. They've got what they got and were thankful. Afghanistan didn't begged against the USSR nor the US/NATO. Khe Sanh was an entirely a NVA Campaign and you're telling me that the Kiev could not manage the same?

At some point, Kiev got no one to rely on other than herself. When is that going to be the case?

I dunno if Vietnam is the right example to use here. North Vietnam was reliant on the PRC and USSR to include tens of thousands of personnel running air defense, logistics, pilots, etc.

we're not giving Kyiv anything like the check the Chinese and the Russians gave the North Vietnamese.

[astralis]

I can't put my finger on it. Is it a control thingy for Biden? A knee-jerk response embedded over time that substitutes for "thoughtful consideration"? Because, if thoughtfully considered as a guiding principle, then that bridge should long have been crossed. Instead, Biden re-visits these decisions as though they've been conjured out of thin air and could not have been predicted.

"Still, Zelensky ultimately succeeded this week, thanks to a coalition of lawmakers and senior officials in Washington and Kyiv who used the desperate situation in Kharkiv to get Biden to lift his restrictions...

This story is based on interviews with 18 senior U.S., Ukrainian and European officials and lawmakers — most of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely about sensitive diplomatic conversations.

It shows how the group of officials gamed out how to get both national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Biden to agree to what could be the biggest yes of the war."

How Biden Got To A 'Yes' On Letting Ukraine Hit Inside Russia-Politico 5/31/24

And this approval remains decidedly limited and needlessly restrictive.

from my POV, all this makes me think that there is no strategy for Ukraine, there is only crisis management.

Biden has been very clear about his priorities, 1.) Don't get the US into a war with Russia, 2.) Russia should not throw around nukes, 3.) Russia will not be allowed to win.

in that order.

this drives the US national security apparatus into micromanagement and tactical issues. there was a revealing quote, I believe it was from last year (?), where NSA Sullivan said his life was consumed by the search for 155mm shells for Ukraine.

when I saw the article in the WaPo several days ago with an administration official patting the admin on the back for its "lightning speed" decision (17 days) to partially allow for Ukrainian use of US equipment in the Kharkiv direction, that sort of confirmed it for me.

the idea that 1.) this is "lightning speed", 2.) this wasn't considered beforehand, 3.) everything is dependent on the "Ukrainians asking for it" (which is pure BS, because the Ukrainians have been asking informally for a long time).

[TopHatter]

We've had troops in those NATO countries for a few years now

To amplify on this^^, a battalion-sized NATO battle group in each of the Baltics and Poland since 2017, to be reinforced to brigade size within a few years.

[TopHatter]

",,,It's entirely likely that there are agreements being made in secret, and operations conducted thereof.,,"

Not certain I understand-agreements among whom? To what operational purpose? If "entirely likely", by what consensus? I ask because, increasingly, other nations closer to the consequences of escalation have lifted any nationally-imposed restrictions with a clear trend in the correct position of ACTIVELY and OPENLY supporting the use of these weapons for Ukrainian defense wherever employed to best purpose.

That's a huge statement of intent inexplicably unmatched by our government, the most important supplier of Ukraine's defense.

Agreements between Kyiv and the White House. Say one thing in public ("Don't use US weapons on Russian soil!") but quietly ignore it when it does occur. Pure speculation on my part.

[B]"...It could very well be that there's a lack of iron will to go all out balls-to-the-wall with whatever can be supplied to Ukraine without having to ask for Republican cooperation."

I don't believe the Republican party house leader posed a problem here-

"United States needs to 'allow Ukraine to prosecute the war in the way they see fit,' when it comes to how Ukraine uses U.S.-provided weapons in its war against Russia.

In recent weeks, Ukraine has intensified its appeals to the Biden administration to lift the ban on using U.S.-provided weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

When asked about the issue by VOA Wednesday, Johnson replied, 'They [Ukraine] need[s] to be able to fight back. And I think us trying to micromanage the effort there is not a good policy for us'.” (VOA May 22, 2024 https://www.voanews.com/a/us-house-s...-/7622780.html

Nor have I heard of other key Republican leaders voicing a need for constraints on these weapons. Otherwise, I'd have to presume you suggest a political decision in the White House driven by the forthcoming election. Sorta like the insinuation that Republicans didn't wish to deliver Biden a victory on Ukraine at the expense of Trump.

I was thinking more along the lines of supplying weapons that can be used in Ukraine. It's all well and good to advocate for the use of US-supplied weapons in Russia....but when you're withholding those weapons and giving Russia a 9-month respite, it's rather meaningless.

And no, I don't presume a political decision in the White House driven by the election.

[B]"I frankly don't know. And even worse, I don't know what I don't know."

Here's what I know- look to NATO's east. There you'll find true canaries in a coal mine...and those canaries are squawking like the wolf is in the hen house.

That's ground truth from those who know.

Unquestionably.

[Gun Grape]

I know that we're on the fast-track to boots on the ground in Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Poland if Ukraine doesn't win.

We've had troops in those NATO countries for a few years now

[S2]

You can but I won't question the need for these weapons. I'm not seeing the targets and I don't know what's available or the best choice. Bet the Ukrainians know, though.

I know that we're on the fast-track to boots on the ground in Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Poland if Ukraine doesn't win.

[Gun Grape]

But the question is, Why was use of ATACMs in Russia such a pressing subject?

They have demonstrated repeatedly that they can fire into Russia with their own weapon systems, BM-30s, OTR-21 and Neptune to name a few.
And there is no risk of escalaition. They don't need US permission

Same as Why do they demand F-16s? MIG-29s are more current. The MISIP/MLU packages that F-16s went through brought the fleet up to 1996 standards. The UAF updated their MIG-29s in 2014. Nad they know how to fly and fight with them

Seems like the whole point of this is to get the US/NATO to put boots on the ground. And that should never happen