[Goose]

We made noises about the risk of a wider conflagration every time we give Ukraine a weapon that could theoretically be used to attack Russia proper.  It was true about jets, which now Ukraine is starting to get, it was true about HIMARS, until we got assurances that the Ukrainians would not use it to target Russian territory, and hopefully, it will be true about ATACAMS.  My guess is that we are waiting to see how Ukraine does with the HIMARS, and if they are responsible and effective, there will be discussions about ATACAMS under the same circumstances.

Which jets BC? AFAIK not yet any F-16 or the like. I do agree with you that we have dithered about supplying items that could be used to attack Russia. In a way it is silly, because almost any weapon COULD be used to attack Russia (there are adjacent boundaries). I am pretty sure Ukraine gave us assurances that they would be bound by whatever ROE we set for each and every weapon we have ever given them. Whether we believed them was another matter.

My belief is that the concern is trying to figure out how Russia will respond to the action and how necessary the action is. We gave Ukraine HIMARS only when it became absolutely obvious that if we didn't Russia was going to grind them up. It wasn't that we did or didn't trust Ukraine more, it was that the alternative was so bad we took the risk. The fact that the situation in Donbas is better lends support to the idea HIMARS was a good idea and that Ukraine can use them effectively. Unfortunately it will be difficult for Ukraine to demonstrate absolute, desperate need for ATACMS, so they may never get it.

As I have previously stated, the west and Ukraine have to make a plan for a Ukrainian victory and how that can happen. Right now, Ukraine says they need 100 HIMARS to drive Russia out and we say that isn't happening. OK, what's the alternative? The powers that be don't have to tell us what the plan is, but if they don't have one, Ukraine is probably doomed. Just waiting to see what happens is not a good idea.

As for the blockade, Russia attacked Odessa yesterday, within 24 hours of the agreement, and the day before the Russian foreign minister went to try to rally support in Africa. Russia is like honey badger.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/15/ef/...41553e.jpg

I think the grain agreement is doomed.  It’s time we act accordingly.

BC

I think some form of the grain agreement will be executed and grain will be shipped. The question is what Russia will do around the edges. The attack on Odessa was a message saying "This isn't forbidden by the agreement explicitly. Therefore, we can do it". Obviously it was against the spirit of the agreement, but I certainly didn't imagine this agreement would end hostilities. The question is whether any two countries that are at war can actually execute such an agreement. It is kind of an oxymoron IMHO. BC, could you expand on what you think we should do to act accordingly?

[Goose]

We made noises about the risk of a wider conflagration every time we give Ukraine a weapon that could theoretically be used to attack Russia proper.  It was true about jets, which now Ukraine is starting to get, it was true about HIMARS, until we got assurances that the Ukrainians would not use it to target Russian territory, and hopefully, it will be true about ATACAMS.  My guess is that we are waiting to see how Ukraine does with the HIMARS, and if they are responsible and effective, there will be discussions about ATACAMS under the same circumstances.

Which jets BC? AFAIK not yet any F-16 or the like. I do agree with you that we have dithered about supplying items that could be used to attack Russia. In a way it is silly, because almost any weapon COULD be used to attack Russia (there are adjacent boundaries). I am pretty sure Ukraine gave us assurances that they would be bound by whatever ROE we set for each and every weapon we have ever given them. Whether we believed them was another matter.

My belief is that the concern is trying to figure out how Russia will respond to the action and how necessary the action is. We gave Ukraine HIMARS only when it became absolutely obvious that if we didn't Russia was going to grind them up. It wasn't that we did or didn't trust Ukraine more, it was that the alternative was so bad we took the risk. The fact that the situation in Donbas is better lends support to the idea HIMARS was a good idea and that Ukraine can use them effectively. Unfortunately it will be difficult for Ukraine to demonstrate absolute, desperate need for ATACMS, so they may never get it.

As I have previously stated, the west and Ukraine have to make a plan for a Ukrainian victory and how that can happen. Right now, Ukraine says they need 100 HIMARS to drive Russia out and we say that isn't happening. OK, what's the alternative? The powers that be don't have to tell us what the plan is, but if they don't have one, Ukraine is probably doomed. Just waiting to see what happens is not a good idea.

As for the blockade, Russia attacked Odessa yesterday, within 24 hours of the agreement, and the day before the Russian foreign minister went to try to rally support in Africa. Russia is like honey badger.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/15/ef/...41553e.jpg

I think the grain agreement is doomed.  It’s time we act accordingly.

BC

I think some form of the grain agreement will be executed and grain will be shipped. The question is what Russia will do around the edges. The attack on Odessa was a message saying "This isn't forbidden by the agreement explicitly. Therefore, we can do it". Obviously it was against the spirit of the agreement, but I certainly didn't imagine this agreement would end hostilities. The question is whether any two countries that are at war can actually execute such an agreement. It is kind of an oxymoron IMHO. BC, could you expand on what you think we should do to act accordingly?