Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    IMV, wrong thread to bitch about Ukraine's mobilization policies. Further, it smacks of equivocation. Personally, though, I'm very impressed by their willingness to bleed for the rest of us.
    Within context, the Russians are willing to outspend money, resources, and most of all blood than the Ukrainians. We, NATO, are unwilling to match resources against Russia and her allies. Kiev is unwilling to outspend Moscow in blood. Within context of an industrial war, the Russians are winning.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 31 May 24,, 01:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    "...if we're apportioning blame, then the lion's share still goes to Ukrainian political leadership which dragged its feet on mobilization, and as a result is now -cutting training time- for the newly mobilized..."

    IMV, wrong thread to bitch about Ukraine's mobilization policies. Further, it smacks of equivocation. Personally, though, I'm very impressed by their willingness to bleed for the rest of us.



    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    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-



    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Biden secretly gave Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia with US arms, Politico reports

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden has secretly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia - solely near the area of Kharkiv - with American weapons, Politico reported on Thursday, citing a U.S. official and two other people familiar with the plan.

    “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,” Politico reported, citing a U.S. official who added that the policy of allowing long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.”

    Politico's story did not say when Biden gave the permission.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of the threat of a global conflict if Kyiv's Western allies allow it to use weapons they have supplied to strike inside Russia, something Ukraine's government is urging its partners to permit.

    The United States has said it does not encourage or enable the use of U.S. weapons for direct attacks on Russia, but Secretary of State Antony Blinken, when asked about Washington's current position on the matter, said on Wednesday it would "adjust and adapt."
    _________

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    Gosh, seems like you just did. My math tells me the Biden administration led from behind from 2/24/22 until 10/23, when the MAGA clique took the baton. Depending upon YOUR math that's nineteen months plus where there was uniform consensus to do whatever the President wanted without concerted interference. Nineteen months.

    He didn't want victory. If so, then we really do need to make America great again because we haven't been very great.
    I know I just criticized the administration just a post ago, but to put it in context, I am not sure if ZELENSKY prioritizes victory, either. if we're apportioning blame, then the lion's share still goes to Ukrainian political leadership which dragged its feet on mobilization, and as a result is now -cutting training time- for the newly mobilized.

    but this thread is about the US response, so, there it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    "...I am just not ready to roundly condemn anyone yet...especially since the 9 month gap in funding impacted a lot of work and sidelined some efforts..."

    Gosh, seems like you just did. My math tells me the Biden administration led from behind from 2/24/22 until 10/23, when the MAGA clique took the baton. Depending upon YOUR math that's nineteen months plus where there was uniform consensus to do whatever the President wanted without concerted interference. Nineteen months.

    He didn't want victory. If so, then we really do need to make America great again because we haven't been very great.

    I've said it before last October- trepidation, hesitancy and an absolute absence of vigor to pursue this war. It continues.

    This November's election will be a referendum of somebody. If the democrats can make this a referendum on Trump, they'll win. If Trump wins, it'll be an absolute referendum of this administration's failure to lead with determination and vision.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Folks, we all have to depend on open source and second hand info. We don't know what is happening behind the scenes. I share your frustrations...Hell, I want to see B-1s/52s & F-15Es leading strikes but I don't think we will see it.

    I am just not ready to roundly condemn anyone yet...especially since the 9 month gap in funding impacted a lot of work and sidelined some efforts. For me the jury is still out.
    That's Goddamn right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Folks, we all have to depend on open source and second hand info. We don't know what is happening behind the scenes. I share your frustrations...Hell, I want to see B-1s/52s & F-15Es leading strikes but I don't think we will see it.

    I am just not ready to roundly condemn anyone yet...especially since the 9 month gap in funding impacted a lot of work and sidelined some efforts. For me the jury is still out.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    "...Like did the Biden Administration have to cut a deal with Speaker Johnson to not allow targeting targets in Russia to get the aid package passed."


    Johnson's not your problem there. He's expressed his own frustration with this administration's nonsense.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    of course, I agree with the idea that we can dictate constraints on how the weapons we give them are used.

    however, these constraints need to be able to flex with the situation. and the way we consider the level of constraints should be orderly, fast, and quiet -- and meant to send a message.

    the way we do it right now is terrible. it sends the wrong strategic signal AND it reduces effects operationally. moreover, it leads to our partner attempting to negotiate via public begging.



    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post

    frankly, were it not for one person, the GOP would be falling over itself to demonstrate how much more hawkish it would be than Biden.

    and I don't see any public demand for strict rules on how Ukraine employs those weapons. the only constraint is fear of Russian escalation.
    In the back of my head I wonder if there is backroom pressure on Russia to backoff from any covert action in Georgia and/or Moldova? The BS the Russian border guards pulled removing channel markers on the Narva River was backed down almost immediately. I want to see the targeting caps rolled back some...but I am wondering if there has been some backroom maneuvering. Like did the Biden Administration have to cut a deal with Speaker Johnson to not allow targeting targets in Russia to get the aid package passed.

    I know I am just spitballing but I agree with Gunny that anytime we gave weapons to Allies in the last 40-50+ years have come with strings attached. The last time we didn't was WW 2. And in the aftermath we placed some restrictions on Allies who were fighting their colonial wars.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    I think you read the room wrong. The US has been engaged for over 20 years. The people are tired of it. Older people remember the USSR and classify Russia as the enemy. The younger generations dont see it that way. They also don't see China as a big threat either.

    What they see is that their Grandfathers, Fathers and Brothers have all been involved it the neverending conflicts. And here some are more than ready to get us in another
    frankly, were it not for one person, the GOP would be falling over itself to demonstrate how much more hawkish it would be than Biden.

    and I don't see any public demand for strict rules on how Ukraine employs those weapons. the only constraint is fear of Russian escalation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    We have always done this. There are strings attached whenever the US sells military equipment or munitions.

    We also do it to ourselves through Rules of Engagment. Rules from the State Dept like armed aricraft will not fly within XXX miles of the border of Country Orange. Radars/Jammers/long range artillery systems will not be aimed at XX direction. This isn't something new.

    As far as "We need to make the Russians Fear this"

    I think you read the room wrong. The US has been engaged for over 20 years. The people are tired of it. Older people remember the USSR and classify Russia as the enemy. The younger generations dont see it that way. They also don't see China as a big threat either.

    What they see is that their Grandfathers, Fathers and Brothers have all been involved it the neverending conflicts. And here some are more than ready to get us in another

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    I agree with the sentiment that it is in our interests to avoid an escalation to a general war with Russia.

    but the administration's stance should be to make the RUSSIANS fear this. it is ridiculous there's so much hand-wringing, and even worse, that it's so damn public.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    "I rad that article, and it sounded like a BS excuse..."

    What article? Further, who cares? The point is "restricting", always, something, some way. This use of U.S. weaponry on Russian soil has been a thing since the get-go. This isn't new. It's policy.

    Until it's not. You know, HIMARs, ATACMS, M-1s, M 777s, F-16s, etc. Behind the curve isn't where I want my nat'l leadership to be. They like to "calibrate", "manage", "control" how our allies fight their wars of survival.

    That's fcuked up.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X