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

[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

[S2]

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.

[Officer of Engineers]

And they're denied the independence of movement because of that aide just like the last nine months.

[S2]

"Why is Kiev begging NATO for help?"

Aren't those ungrateful fcuks worthy of Canadian aid, Colonel?

[Officer of Engineers]

I have to ask. Why is Kiev begging NATO for help?

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?

[S2]

"Its the MTG, Buck, Gosar,Biggs and Florida favorite Gaetz that throws a wrench in everything just for some likes on Facebook and X"

Gunny,

MAGA clique had their run but that's giving this administration a free pass for the nineteen months preceding the end of funding in October, 2023. I don't believe they can do more damage before the election. Much, however, could have been done by a more aggressive administration to accelerate decisions ultimately made in any case slowly, tentatively and hesitantly. MAGA had no impact there.

Further, given the goodwill existing on both sides of the aisle during this same period, much could have been done politically to obviate a funding shutdown by a minority clique. The MAGA clique wasn't isolated politically when its isolationist rhetoric was BEGGING for a slapdown. Note Gates' comments in the posted interview about the need to educate...and re-educate all concerned parties-voters, legislators and within depts. of state/defense/commerce. Instead, recall the smackdown of Blinken and Austin by Biden-

Biden Told Blinken, Austin To Tone Down Remarks Supporting Ukraine-The Hill June 16, 2022

Our three key foreign policy leaders not on the same page four months into this war regarding American objectives. Not sure they've gotten there yet, either. So we've lacked coherent messaging from on high regarding fundamental policy objectives.

"As long as it takes" isn't good enough.

[Gun Grape]

[

"...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.

The problem isn't Johnson. Well part of it is, in that he doesn't know how to get everyone on the same page.

The Republican majority is so slim that the idiot brigade has power and they know it. Its the MTG, Buck, Gosar,Biggs and Florida favorite Gaetz that throws a wrench in everything just for some likes on Facebook and X

[Officer of Engineers]

It should be noted that the UKR and NATO was not always in agreement. Last year's Ukrainian offensive is a prime example. Gen Milley argued the Ukrainians should have launched their attack sooner rather than later. Gen Zaluzny argued for the delay. Was Gen Milley right? I don't know but I do know that Gen Zaluzny was wrong. The point is that NATO, militarily, did everything the politicals allowed us to do, including guiding the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians did their own judgement. Does not mean our judgement was right but Kiev has to accept responsibility of what went wrong.

[S2]

",,,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.

"Maybe they've determined that boiling the Russian frog is the best and safest way to proceed."

Certainly, something is boiling. Question might be "Who?". Ukraine, on its best day, was never going to bring to this war the manpower amassed by Russia. It's always been understood in the west, even on NATO's best days (1985-90) we'd have to fight outnumbered and win. So we know that our failure to leverage our advantages to optimal effect is a bill paid in somebody's blood.

We're not practicing what we preach.

"...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 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.

[TopHatter]

Joe,

“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,”

Doesn't this seem a grudging acknowledgement of their indefensible position? Yet also incremental? Sorta like mom letting you stay up "just this once" to watch a movie on T.V. What separates bombardment by weapons in the Belgorod region from bombers lifting off runways in Rostov-on-Don/Krasnodar with the intent of executing deep strikes on Odessa/Dniepro/Kiev, etc? Strikes that, too often, have by intent targeted civilians? Or factories in Voronezh assembling glide bombs?

What message, again, is sent to friends and foes w/ this incremental half-measure? Certainly a step in the right direction. If the right direction, however, why only a modest single step?

Frustrating. I found this recent interview with Robert Gates sad for its examples of thoughtful, restrained eloquence amidst the incoherence and noise-

Steve,
IMHO, yes, and yes.

I've always been on Team "Escalate Now And Let Putin Cry About It Later", but I also don't know what kind of intel the White House is looking at, what their sources inside the Kremlin are telling them.

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

Maybe they've determined that boiling the Russian frog is the best and safest way to proceed.

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 frankly don't know. And even worse, I don't know what I don't know.

[S2]

"...We, NATO, are unwilling to match resources against Russia and her allies. Kiev is unwilling to outspend Moscow in blood..."

Colonel,

If correct, then the only path to self-improvement must come from the consequences of defeat. Nothing else will irrevocably drive home the necessary lessons. If Ukraine is lost, however, the lessons are for the rest of us. Let's hope you're either incorrect or it's not too late to reverse the trend.