[Goose]

This has turned to wild speculation. But since we’re speculating…

Why would the US or Polish counterattack have to target Russian territory. There are tens of thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine right now. We could send a couple of cruise missiles to attack the Russian troops fighting an illegal, aggressive near in foreign territory.

If I had suggested in December that Russia would invade Ukraine, I think it would have been considered wild speculation. The US could indeed fire missiles against Russians operating in Ukraine. I agree that would be more probable than a strike against Russian soil. However, such a strike involves the US killing Russians, which we have been carefully avoiding so far. It certainly crosses a threshold.

Russia can't stop the arms deliveries or they already would have tried. If they had the ability they would already be striking the supplies as they enter Ukraine. They likely lack the precision guided munitions necessary for this in the absence of air superiority.

It is actually very unclear why Russia hasn't expended more effort to do this. One distinct possibility is that Russia doesn't believe that the benefit is worth the cost. Destroying railroad lines from the air takes a lot of bombs and you have to do it over and over, because they can usually be fixed pretty fast, particularly in flat country. Takes lots of planes and does require air supremacy.

If they did shoot down a C17 over Warsaw (do we really trust that capability, after seeing how much of their kit has underperformed thus far?), it wouldn't stop arms deliveries. Plenty of places western countries could deliver arms to out of the nominal range of Russian SAMs and go overland the rest of the way.

Which is much slower.

Russia doesn't have the missiles to waste on some sort of punitive strike on a Polish city,

Absolutely they do, many times over! Just about any surface to surface missile in their inventory could be used. You don't need a precision weapon to hit a city. They have PLENTY of such weapons. Heck, Iraq created a bit of angst with Scuds.

and they don't have the conventional capabilities to fight anywhere but a limited offensive in the Donbas. Not exactly a scenario to be escalating unless you plan to do it with nukes.

Obviously Russia is in no condition to fight a conventional war in Europe at the moment. However, if Putin believes that stopping aid to the Ukraine is essential to victory there, threatening to conventionally attack European cities is a very "reasonable" action. Obviously, he wouldn't carry out the threat unless he has to do so, and he would only carry it out if he was confident it would not provoke a general war.

Right now, Russia apparently thinks the aid that is being provided to Ukraine isn't important enough to risk escalating the conflict. That can change. Hopefully, Ukraine will succeed in wining before it does. If it does reach that point, these questions become relevant.

Putin is stuck because he can't really back up those types of threats, and even if he were to follow through on them he is left in an even worse situation militarily.

Well, he absolutely can back up these threats. The problem for him would be 1)is it worth the risk? and 2)how much would it help? At the end of the day, Russia's military situation requires them to "win" something significant in Ukraine. If they can't do this, Ukraine keeps fighting until they are expelled from the country. The military situation doesn't get much worse than that. Putin has to ensure the latter case can't happen. Cutting off external aid to Ukraine may be required to do it.

[Goose]

This has turned to wild speculation. But since we’re speculating…

Why would the US or Polish counterattack have to target Russian territory. There are tens of thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine right now. We could send a couple of cruise missiles to attack the Russian troops fighting an illegal, aggressive near in foreign territory.

If I had suggested in December that Russia would invade Ukraine, I think it would have been considered wild speculation. The US could indeed fire missiles against Russians operating in Ukraine. I agree that would be more probable than a strike against Russian soil. However, such a strike involves the US killing Russians, which we have been carefully avoiding so far. It certainly crosses a threshold.

Russia can't stop the arms deliveries or they already would have tried. If they had the ability they would already be striking the supplies as they enter Ukraine. They likely lack the precision guided munitions necessary for this in the absence of air superiority.

It is actually very unclear why Russia hasn't expended more effort to do this. One distinct possibility is that Russia doesn't believe that the benefit is worth the cost. Destroying railroad lines from the air takes a lot of bombs and you have to do it over and over, because they can usually be fixed pretty fast, particularly in flat country. Takes lots of planes and does require air supremacy.

If they did shoot down a C17 over Warsaw (do we really trust that capability, after seeing how much of their kit has underperformed thus far?), it wouldn't stop arms deliveries. Plenty of places western countries could deliver arms to out of the nominal range of Russian SAMs and go overland the rest of the way.

Which is much slower.

Russia doesn't have the missiles to waste on some sort of punitive strike on a Polish city,

Absolutely they do, many times over! Just about any surface to surface missile in their inventory could be used. You don't need a precision weapon to hit a city. They have PLENTY of such weapons. Heck, Iraq created a bit of angst with Scuds.

and they don't have the conventional capabilities to fight anywhere but a limited offensive in the Donbas. Not exactly a scenario to be escalating unless you plan to do it with nukes.

Obviously Russia is in no condition to fight a conventional war in Europe at the moment. However, if Putin believes that stopping aid to the Ukraine is essential to victory there, threatening to conventionally attack European cities is a very "reasonable" action. Obviously, he wouldn't carry out the threat unless he has to do so, and he would only carry it out if he was confident it would not provoke a general war.

Right now, Russia apparently thinks the aid that is being provided to Ukraine isn't important enough to risk escalating the conflict. That can change. Hopefully, Ukraine will succeed in wining before it does. If it does reach that point, these questions become relevant.

Putin is stuck because he can't really back up those types of threats, and even if he were to follow through on them he is left in an even worse situation militarily.

Well, he absolutely can back up these threats. The problem for him would be 1)is it worth the risk? and 2)how much would it help? At the end of the day, Russia's military situation requires them to "win" something significant in Ukraine. If they can't do this, Ukraine keeps fighting until they are expelled from the country. The military situation doesn't get much worse than that. Putin has to ensure the latter case can't happen. Cutting off external aid to Ukraine may be required to do it.