[Treefence]

I think this was briefly mentioned before, but it's amazing to see decrease in ambition from Russian forces, initially trying to capture Kyiv, cut off the country at the Dnipro river, and also take the entire south coast, including Odessa.  Then they shifted their focus to Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, trying to encircle JFO troops south from Izium and North from Velyka Novosilka.  Now they are just going to try and encircle troops at Lysychanks, trying to draw a line from Yampill to Popasna.  It's just amazing how little they are attempting now, almost definitely due to the brobdingnagian attraction they've faced.  Even if they do encircle those troops, they are likely well more supplied than those at Mariupol, who are still holding out in Azovstal, despite being surrounded for months.  

Ukraine has a long way to go to get back to the pre Feb 24th lines, let alone the pre 2014 lines, but it's hard to imagine any real success for the Russians after all of this, and it's hard to imagine NATO not wanting Ukraine as a member, once they are able to conclude this war.

[Treefence]

I think this was briefly mentioned before, but it's amazing to see decrease in ambition from Russian forces, initially trying to capture Kyiv, cut off the country at the Dnipro river, and also take the entire south coast, including Odessa.  Then they shifted their focus to Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, trying to encircle JFO troops south from Izium and North from Velyka Novosilka.  Now they are just going to try and encircle troops at Lysychanks, trying to draw a line from Yampill to Popasna.  It's just amazing how little they are attempting now, almost definitely due to the brobdingnagian attraction they've faced.  Even if they do encircle those troops, they are likely well more supplied than those at Mariupol, who are still holding out in Azovstal, despite being surrounded for months.  

Ukraine has a long way to go to get back to the pre Feb 24th lines, let alone the pre 2014 lines, but it's hard to imagine any real success for the Russians after all of this, and it's hard to imagine NATO not wanting Ukraine as a member, once they are able to conclude this war.

[dabigv13]

Shot (watch both vids)

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1525123427220312067?s=20&t=sSGLAdDSwGGnnrv6UgTZ1g[/tweet]

Chaser

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1525153947870167040?s=20&t=sSGLAdDSwGGnnrv6UgTZ1g[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Shot (watch both vids)

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1525123427220312067?s=20&t=sSGLAdDSwGGnnrv6UgTZ1g[/tweet]

Chaser

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1525153947870167040?s=20&t=sSGLAdDSwGGnnrv6UgTZ1g[/tweet]

[cardcrimson]

I think this was briefly mentioned before, but it's amazing to see decrease in ambition from Russian forces, initially trying to capture Kyiv, cut off the country at the Dnipro river, and also take the entire south coast, including Odessa.  Then they shifted their focus to Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, trying to encircle JFO troops south from Izium and North from Velyka Novosilka.  Now they are just going to try and encircle troops at Lysychanks, trying to draw a line from Yampill to Popasna.  It's just amazing how little they are attempting now, almost definitely due to the of immense proportions attraction they've faced.  Even if they do encircle those troops, they are likely well more supplied than those at Mariupol, who are still holding out in Azovstal, despite being surrounded for months.  

Ukraine has a long way to go to get back to the pre Feb 24th lines, let alone the pre 2014 lines, but it's hard to imagine any real success for the Russians after all of this, and it's hard to imagine NATO not wanting Ukraine as a member, once they are able to conclude this war.

Sweden, Finland, and probably Ukraine all future members of NATO. What's left for Putin after the humiliation thus far in Ukraine and on the world's stage? Humiliated dictators can get very angry. Russia is now rattling their sabres at Finland. I seriously doubt Putin will attack Finland, especially after the UK has promised direct support. Then again, not many truly expected Putin to attack Ukraine, either.

[cardcrimson]

I think this was briefly mentioned before, but it's amazing to see decrease in ambition from Russian forces, initially trying to capture Kyiv, cut off the country at the Dnipro river, and also take the entire south coast, including Odessa.  Then they shifted their focus to Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, trying to encircle JFO troops south from Izium and North from Velyka Novosilka.  Now they are just going to try and encircle troops at Lysychanks, trying to draw a line from Yampill to Popasna.  It's just amazing how little they are attempting now, almost definitely due to the of immense proportions attraction they've faced.  Even if they do encircle those troops, they are likely well more supplied than those at Mariupol, who are still holding out in Azovstal, despite being surrounded for months.  

Ukraine has a long way to go to get back to the pre Feb 24th lines, let alone the pre 2014 lines, but it's hard to imagine any real success for the Russians after all of this, and it's hard to imagine NATO not wanting Ukraine as a member, once they are able to conclude this war.

Sweden, Finland, and probably Ukraine all future members of NATO. What's left for Putin after the humiliation thus far in Ukraine and on the world's stage? Humiliated dictators can get very angry. Russia is now rattling their sabres at Finland. I seriously doubt Putin will attack Finland, especially after the UK has promised direct support. Then again, not many truly expected Putin to attack Ukraine, either.

[GK3]

True, but the Javelin and one shot cheap drone weapons are of immense proportions improvement over 1960 weapons, to say nothing of the M 777.  The Ukrainian army may consist predominately of so-called leg infantry but thanks to NATO Countries they are gaining an increasingly more powerful supporting cast.  I have wondered how the A 10 C would survive in this environment.

It wouldn't, just like SU-25s don't. There are too many low altitude (MANPADS, SA-15, also "older" SA-8s) threats under 20k feet and also too many long-range high altitude threats (S-300, for Russia S-400) systems. A-10s did very well in Iraq when they stayed above (about) 20k feet and fired Mavericks onto tanks because the US DEAD had eliminated the (relatively few) high altitude threats. When they went lower lots of them got hit. Most of them made it back to base, but the airplanes were OOC for a while. Having two engines on opposite sides of the airplane helped a lot. The Iraqis didn't have nearly as many MANPADS as the Russians have, and they also didn't have as much low level air defense in general.

Thank you, that was my assumption.  The cheap one shot drones may well become the A 10 replacement in this type of battlefield.  It appears the RA has yet to find a way to combat them, not that they won't, however.

[GK3]

True, but the Javelin and one shot cheap drone weapons are of immense proportions improvement over 1960 weapons, to say nothing of the M 777.  The Ukrainian army may consist predominately of so-called leg infantry but thanks to NATO Countries they are gaining an increasingly more powerful supporting cast.  I have wondered how the A 10 C would survive in this environment.

It wouldn't, just like SU-25s don't. There are too many low altitude (MANPADS, SA-15, also "older" SA-8s) threats under 20k feet and also too many long-range high altitude threats (S-300, for Russia S-400) systems. A-10s did very well in Iraq when they stayed above (about) 20k feet and fired Mavericks onto tanks because the US DEAD had eliminated the (relatively few) high altitude threats. When they went lower lots of them got hit. Most of them made it back to base, but the airplanes were OOC for a while. Having two engines on opposite sides of the airplane helped a lot. The Iraqis didn't have nearly as many MANPADS as the Russians have, and they also didn't have as much low level air defense in general.

Thank you, that was my assumption.  The cheap one shot drones may well become the A 10 replacement in this type of battlefield.  It appears the RA has yet to find a way to combat them, not that they won't, however.

[BostonCard]

I think this was briefly mentioned before, but it's amazing to see decrease in ambition from Russian forces, initially trying to capture Kyiv, cut off the country at the Dnipro river, and also take the entire south coast, including Odessa.  Then they shifted their focus to Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, trying to encircle JFO troops south from Izium and North from Velyka Novosilka.  Now they are just going to try and encircle troops at Lysychanks, trying to draw a line from Yampill to Popasna.  It's just amazing how little they are attempting now, almost definitely due to the of immense proportions attraction they've faced.  Even if they do encircle those troops, they are likely well more supplied than those at Mariupol, who are still holding out in Azovstal, despite being surrounded for months.  

Ukraine has a long way to go to get back to the pre Feb 24th lines, let alone the pre 2014 lines, but it's hard to imagine any real success for the Russians after all of this, and it's hard to imagine NATO not wanting Ukraine as a member, once they are able to conclude this war.

I think it was Avril Haines who said that they are seeing Russias ambitions starting to match their capabilities.  That’s what you are describing.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think this was briefly mentioned before, but it's amazing to see decrease in ambition from Russian forces, initially trying to capture Kyiv, cut off the country at the Dnipro river, and also take the entire south coast, including Odessa.  Then they shifted their focus to Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, trying to encircle JFO troops south from Izium and North from Velyka Novosilka.  Now they are just going to try and encircle troops at Lysychanks, trying to draw a line from Yampill to Popasna.  It's just amazing how little they are attempting now, almost definitely due to the of immense proportions attraction they've faced.  Even if they do encircle those troops, they are likely well more supplied than those at Mariupol, who are still holding out in Azovstal, despite being surrounded for months.  

Ukraine has a long way to go to get back to the pre Feb 24th lines, let alone the pre 2014 lines, but it's hard to imagine any real success for the Russians after all of this, and it's hard to imagine NATO not wanting Ukraine as a member, once they are able to conclude this war.

I think it was Avril Haines who said that they are seeing Russias ambitions starting to match their capabilities.  That’s what you are describing.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1525080327122722816?s=21&t=edHUkBTeXkJVRdVKQKTgxA[/tweet]

Debate between Stanford’s own Mike McFaul (decades ago, I took his Russian politics class) and IR heavyweight Mearsheimer.  I have to say that I’m not persuaded by Mearsheimer’s arguments and feel that it minimizes the agency of Ukraine (and Russia, for that matter).

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1525080327122722816?s=21&t=edHUkBTeXkJVRdVKQKTgxA[/tweet]

Debate between Stanford’s own Mike McFaul (decades ago, I took his Russian politics class) and IR heavyweight Mearsheimer.  I have to say that I’m not persuaded by Mearsheimer’s arguments and feel that it minimizes the agency of Ukraine (and Russia, for that matter).

BC

[newguy]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1525086292106690560?s=20&t=oHmiSfFSPl0atLP10WR9SQ[/tweet]

Could be horse trading from Erdogan, who has played footsie with Putin before, though did close the straits to Russian warships and is selling Ukraine Bayraktars, even after start of hostilities. 

More here from Bloomberg-

Erdogan cited concerns over the presence of “terrorists” in both countries. Turkey wants Sweden and Finland to take a clear stance against supporters of separatist Kurdish militants fighting for autonomy in Turkey’s southeast, a senior Turkish official said. Ankara will hold negotiations over their membership in the alliance, he added.

Any enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization requires unanimous approval of the alliance’s members. Turkey’s been a NATO member since 1952.

Could be messy. If Turkey gets their pound of flesh, I imagine Orban will be wanting something as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...dogan-says

i heard about this as well.
i would be truly unhappy if Erdogan vetoes Finnish and Swedish entry into NATO.
but he probably won't.

[newguy]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1525086292106690560?s=20&t=oHmiSfFSPl0atLP10WR9SQ[/tweet]

Could be horse trading from Erdogan, who has played footsie with Putin before, though did close the straits to Russian warships and is selling Ukraine Bayraktars, even after start of hostilities. 

More here from Bloomberg-

Erdogan cited concerns over the presence of “terrorists” in both countries. Turkey wants Sweden and Finland to take a clear stance against supporters of separatist Kurdish militants fighting for autonomy in Turkey’s southeast, a senior Turkish official said. Ankara will hold negotiations over their membership in the alliance, he added.

Any enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization requires unanimous approval of the alliance’s members. Turkey’s been a NATO member since 1952.

Could be messy. If Turkey gets their pound of flesh, I imagine Orban will be wanting something as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...dogan-says

i heard about this as well.
i would be truly unhappy if Erdogan vetoes Finnish and Swedish entry into NATO.
but he probably won't.

[Goose]

i heard about this as well.
i would be truly unhappy if Erdogan vetoes Finnish and Swedish entry into NATO.

but he probably won't.

He will be under intense pressure to go along with it from the US among others. OTOH, he will probably be under quite a bit of Russian pressure too. It may come down totally to local politics, which stance will make him stronger at home. One would like to think he will allow himself to be "bribed" with something, but unfortunately I don't think we can count on it 100%.

[Goose]

i heard about this as well.
i would be truly unhappy if Erdogan vetoes Finnish and Swedish entry into NATO.

but he probably won't.

He will be under intense pressure to go along with it from the US among others. OTOH, he will probably be under quite a bit of Russian pressure too. It may come down totally to local politics, which stance will make him stronger at home. One would like to think he will allow himself to be "bribed" with something, but unfortunately I don't think we can count on it 100%.

[dabigv13]

I think this thread lays thing out nicely.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/MaxHoffmanDC/status/...cCNMt4JMUg[/tweet]

I suspect Erdogan (and Orban) would have voiced their opposition earlier in this process if they truly were 100% set against it, given how long it has been percolating. I think both can be bought off but they know they can get something for nothing basically and so will press for what they can get.

[dabigv13]

I think this thread lays thing out nicely.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/MaxHoffmanDC/status/...cCNMt4JMUg[/tweet]

I suspect Erdogan (and Orban) would have voiced their opposition earlier in this process if they truly were 100% set against it, given how long it has been percolating. I think both can be bought off but they know they can get something for nothing basically and so will press for what they can get.

[TrumpCard]

I don't have enough information to know just how far Ukraine has come in terms of restoring services to "de-occupied" areas, but Zelenskyy's apparent decision to make this a priority is smart.  Juxtapose the Russians -- who pillage the ruins of towns they first bombard -- with the Ukrainians -- who spend important resources in the midst of a war to restore utilities, transportation, and social services.  Zelenskyy isn't seeking territory or power for its own sake; he's seeking it to improve the lives of the people who hired him.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1525230910580445185?cxt=HHwWgsC-mdTb2qoqAAAA[/tweet]

[TrumpCard]

I don't have enough information to know just how far Ukraine has come in terms of restoring services to "de-occupied" areas, but Zelenskyy's apparent decision to make this a priority is smart.  Juxtapose the Russians -- who pillage the ruins of towns they first bombard -- with the Ukrainians -- who spend important resources in the midst of a war to restore utilities, transportation, and social services.  Zelenskyy isn't seeking territory or power for its own sake; he's seeking it to improve the lives of the people who hired him.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1525230910580445185?cxt=HHwWgsC-mdTb2qoqAAAA[/tweet]

[Goose]

I think this thread lays thing out nicely.



https://twitter.com/MaxHoffmanDC/status/...cCNMt4JMUg



I suspect Erdogan (and Orban) would have voiced their opposition earlier in this process if they truly were 100% set against it, given how long it has been percolating. I think both can be bought off but they know they can get something for nothing basically and so will press for what they can get.

I think that both can be bought off, Orban for sure. Erdogan made a strong statement that probably resonates with his "base". Backing away from that may be harder than it seems. Hopefully we are handling the diplomacy well here, as pissing him off may create a situation that neither side actually wants but can't see a way out of. Just treating it as an "OK, what is your price?" is probably a bad idea.

[Goose]

I think this thread lays thing out nicely.



https://twitter.com/MaxHoffmanDC/status/...cCNMt4JMUg



I suspect Erdogan (and Orban) would have voiced their opposition earlier in this process if they truly were 100% set against it, given how long it has been percolating. I think both can be bought off but they know they can get something for nothing basically and so will press for what they can get.

I think that both can be bought off, Orban for sure. Erdogan made a strong statement that probably resonates with his "base". Backing away from that may be harder than it seems. Hopefully we are handling the diplomacy well here, as pissing him off may create a situation that neither side actually wants but can't see a way out of. Just treating it as an "OK, what is your price?" is probably a bad idea.

[dabigv13]

I don't have enough information to know just how far Ukraine has come in terms of restoring services to "de-occupied" areas, but Zelenskyy's apparent decision to make this a priority is smart.  Juxtapose the Russians -- who pillage the ruins of towns they first bombard -- with the Ukrainians -- who spend important resources in the midst of a war to restore utilities, transportation, and social services.  Zelenskyy isn't seeking territory or power for its own sake; he's seeking it to improve the lives of the people who hired him.

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/15...Tb2qoqAAAA

FYI to embed a tweet, just use the [*tweet] tag before the tweet URL and then the end tag [/*tweet] after the URL (subtracting the * which I placed there to demonstrate).

[dabigv13]

I don't have enough information to know just how far Ukraine has come in terms of restoring services to "de-occupied" areas, but Zelenskyy's apparent decision to make this a priority is smart.  Juxtapose the Russians -- who pillage the ruins of towns they first bombard -- with the Ukrainians -- who spend important resources in the midst of a war to restore utilities, transportation, and social services.  Zelenskyy isn't seeking territory or power for its own sake; he's seeking it to improve the lives of the people who hired him.

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/15...Tb2qoqAAAA

FYI to embed a tweet, just use the [*tweet] tag before the tweet URL and then the end tag [/*tweet] after the URL (subtracting the * which I placed there to demonstrate).

[BigJohn043]

Not sure how many have been following the RA attempts to bridge the Donets.  They put up a floating bridge and had it up for enough time for the RA to get about a battalion across.  The UA then blew the bridge and shelled the battalion destroying essentially every vehicle.  brobdingnagian loss of material and troops.

They tried two more bridges but both have been blown up.

I continue to believe this is a significant line of defense that the RA will not break through.....

[BigJohn043]

Not sure how many have been following the RA attempts to bridge the Donets.  They put up a floating bridge and had it up for enough time for the RA to get about a battalion across.  The UA then blew the bridge and shelled the battalion destroying essentially every vehicle.  brobdingnagian loss of material and troops.

They tried two more bridges but both have been blown up.

I continue to believe this is a significant line of defense that the RA will not break through.....

[dabigv13]

Yes they lost some very valuable bridging equipment and combat engineers in that attempt. Likely two brigades were involved and destroyed, one as first over and the second getting wrecked in the forests while waiting. They clearly have settled on this as a major axis of their next offensive and the ability of Ukraine to repulse it time and again is indicative of both their skill and determination and morale, and equally the stubborn Russian attitude and callousness to their immense losses.

That Ukraine is flying more and more ground support missions with their SU-25s in the last month in the Donbas is an interesting development. That Russia could be struck by the UAF (as claimed by their combat engineer and others) at this point in the war, at this crossing that was such a critical point for their offensive, is incredible and an indictment of the RuAF. They couldn't secure this airspace with their air superiority fighters? Did they not have adequate short range air defenses? Too scared to lose their fighters to Ukrainian air defense?

If Russia can't solve this problem, with the morale advantage Ukraine has, while suffering severe losses while Ukraine is only getting better and more Western equipment....the tide will be turning soon. Ukraine has won the battle for Kiev and the battle for Kharkiv, I think Donbas and Kherson will go their way soon. Can Russia hold the land bridge is what I wonder.

[dabigv13]

Yes they lost some very valuable bridging equipment and combat engineers in that attempt. Likely two brigades were involved and destroyed, one as first over and the second getting wrecked in the forests while waiting. They clearly have settled on this as a major axis of their next offensive and the ability of Ukraine to repulse it time and again is indicative of both their skill and determination and morale, and equally the stubborn Russian attitude and callousness to their immense losses.

That Ukraine is flying more and more ground support missions with their SU-25s in the last month in the Donbas is an interesting development. That Russia could be struck by the UAF (as claimed by their combat engineer and others) at this point in the war, at this crossing that was such a critical point for their offensive, is incredible and an indictment of the RuAF. They couldn't secure this airspace with their air superiority fighters? Did they not have adequate short range air defenses? Too scared to lose their fighters to Ukrainian air defense?

If Russia can't solve this problem, with the morale advantage Ukraine has, while suffering severe losses while Ukraine is only getting better and more Western equipment....the tide will be turning soon. Ukraine has won the battle for Kiev and the battle for Kharkiv, I think Donbas and Kherson will go their way soon. Can Russia hold the land bridge is what I wonder.

[TreesAndBirds]

Question…why is it so important to us to admit Sweden and Finland to Nato? I understand why they want it (US military umbrella) but will it really strengthen Nato in some significant way? I admit Im affected because I think they likely had plenty of opportunities in the past to join Nato and seems like they want to buy health/life insurance now that there is a pandemic raging around them (probably a poor analogy). Im not against it but Im also not looking for less important reasons to goad Putin right now. Im ok goading him to supply/support Ukraine, but not sure where I come out on this one. Seems like it might be better as a bargaining chip (although maybe we’ve tried and failed on that).

[TreesAndBirds]

Question…why is it so important to us to admit Sweden and Finland to Nato? I understand why they want it (US military umbrella) but will it really strengthen Nato in some significant way? I admit Im affected because I think they likely had plenty of opportunities in the past to join Nato and seems like they want to buy health/life insurance now that there is a pandemic raging around them (probably a poor analogy). Im not against it but Im also not looking for less important reasons to goad Putin right now. Im ok goading him to supply/support Ukraine, but not sure where I come out on this one. Seems like it might be better as a bargaining chip (although maybe we’ve tried and failed on that).

[TrumpCard]

I don't have enough information to know just how far Ukraine has come in terms of restoring services to "de-occupied" areas, but Zelenskyy's apparent decision to make this a priority is smart.  Juxtapose the Russians -- who pillage the ruins of towns they first bombard -- with the Ukrainians -- who spend important resources in the midst of a war to restore utilities, transportation, and social services.  Zelenskyy isn't seeking territory or power for its own sake; he's seeking it to improve the lives of the people who hired him.

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/15...Tb2qoqAAAA

FYI to embed a tweet, just use the [*tweet] tag before the tweet URL and then the end tag [/*tweet] after the URL (subtracting the * which I placed there to demonstrate).

Look at that, it worked!  Thank you.

---

Question…why is it so important to us to admit Sweden and Finland to Nato? I understand why they want it (US military umbrella) but will it really strengthen Nato in some significant way? I admit Im affected because I think they likely had plenty of opportunities in the past to join Nato and seems like they want to buy health/life insurance now that there is a pandemic raging around them (probably a poor analogy). Im not against it but Im also not looking for less important reasons to goad Putin right now. Im ok goading him to supply/support Ukraine, but not sure where I come out on this one. Seems like it might be better as a bargaining chip (although maybe we’ve tried and failed on that).

My gut says the US would go to the mat for Finland and Sweden if they were attacked by Russia anyway, so may as well admit them to NATO, which gives the US the guaranteed support of some other countries who otherwise wouldn't lift a finger and which gives all of NATO a great spot for a miliary base that might deter further Russian aggression.

[TrumpCard]

I don't have enough information to know just how far Ukraine has come in terms of restoring services to "de-occupied" areas, but Zelenskyy's apparent decision to make this a priority is smart.  Juxtapose the Russians -- who pillage the ruins of towns they first bombard -- with the Ukrainians -- who spend important resources in the midst of a war to restore utilities, transportation, and social services.  Zelenskyy isn't seeking territory or power for its own sake; he's seeking it to improve the lives of the people who hired him.

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/15...Tb2qoqAAAA

FYI to embed a tweet, just use the [*tweet] tag before the tweet URL and then the end tag [/*tweet] after the URL (subtracting the * which I placed there to demonstrate).

Look at that, it worked!  Thank you.

---

Question…why is it so important to us to admit Sweden and Finland to Nato? I understand why they want it (US military umbrella) but will it really strengthen Nato in some significant way? I admit Im affected because I think they likely had plenty of opportunities in the past to join Nato and seems like they want to buy health/life insurance now that there is a pandemic raging around them (probably a poor analogy). Im not against it but Im also not looking for less important reasons to goad Putin right now. Im ok goading him to supply/support Ukraine, but not sure where I come out on this one. Seems like it might be better as a bargaining chip (although maybe we’ve tried and failed on that).

My gut says the US would go to the mat for Finland and Sweden if they were attacked by Russia anyway, so may as well admit them to NATO, which gives the US the guaranteed support of some other countries who otherwise wouldn't lift a finger and which gives all of NATO a great spot for a miliary base that might deter further Russian aggression.

[Goose]

Question…why is it so important to us to admit Sweden and Finland to Nato? I understand why they want it (US military umbrella) but will it really strengthen Nato in some significant way? I admit Im affected because I think they likely had plenty of opportunities in the past to join Nato and seems like they want to buy health/life insurance now that there is a pandemic raging around them (probably a poor analogy). Im not against it but Im also not looking for less important reasons to goad Putin right now. Im ok goading him to supply/support Ukraine, but not sure where I come out on this one. Seems like it might be better as a bargaining chip (although maybe we’ve tried and failed on that).

My gut says the US would go to the mat for Finland and Sweden if they were attacked by Russia anyway, so may as well admit them to NATO, which gives the US the guaranteed support of some other countries who otherwise wouldn't lift a finger and which gives all of NATO a great spot for a miliary base that might deter further Russian aggression.

I frankly don't know if the US would go to the mat for Finland or Sweden. We are not going to the mat for Ukraine. We are very much in their corner, but we won't send troops. Sweden and Finland see this, and they want the Article 5 guarantees, such as they are. They want to be part of the NATO territory that our president says we will protect every inch of. Pretty understandable I think.

Whether it makes NATO stronger or weaker is for better or worse beside the point. We and lots of other nations have been trying to get Finland and Sweden to sign up for quite a while. If NATO accepted North Macedonia, how can it not accept Sweden and Finland? Politically, going back on our offer(s) would be a disaster.

As far as a US military permanent presence in either Finland or Sweden, I give it zero probability. Many NATO countries will not allow this, and I am pretty sure Sweden would be one such country. Finland probably as well, but I am not as sure. This is not to say that there won't be US aircraft, ships, and troops in these countries on exercises, as they are in Norway. The US has some equipment prepositioned in Norway, but no bases. That is actually a good thing. The Norwegians fight well and are so effectively integrated with NATO there is no difference between their forces and our forces. These Nordic countries are/will be a force multiplier. Some other NATO countries are not.

[Goose]

Question…why is it so important to us to admit Sweden and Finland to Nato? I understand why they want it (US military umbrella) but will it really strengthen Nato in some significant way? I admit Im affected because I think they likely had plenty of opportunities in the past to join Nato and seems like they want to buy health/life insurance now that there is a pandemic raging around them (probably a poor analogy). Im not against it but Im also not looking for less important reasons to goad Putin right now. Im ok goading him to supply/support Ukraine, but not sure where I come out on this one. Seems like it might be better as a bargaining chip (although maybe we’ve tried and failed on that).

My gut says the US would go to the mat for Finland and Sweden if they were attacked by Russia anyway, so may as well admit them to NATO, which gives the US the guaranteed support of some other countries who otherwise wouldn't lift a finger and which gives all of NATO a great spot for a miliary base that might deter further Russian aggression.

I frankly don't know if the US would go to the mat for Finland or Sweden. We are not going to the mat for Ukraine. We are very much in their corner, but we won't send troops. Sweden and Finland see this, and they want the Article 5 guarantees, such as they are. They want to be part of the NATO territory that our president says we will protect every inch of. Pretty understandable I think.

Whether it makes NATO stronger or weaker is for better or worse beside the point. We and lots of other nations have been trying to get Finland and Sweden to sign up for quite a while. If NATO accepted North Macedonia, how can it not accept Sweden and Finland? Politically, going back on our offer(s) would be a disaster.

As far as a US military permanent presence in either Finland or Sweden, I give it zero probability. Many NATO countries will not allow this, and I am pretty sure Sweden would be one such country. Finland probably as well, but I am not as sure. This is not to say that there won't be US aircraft, ships, and troops in these countries on exercises, as they are in Norway. The US has some equipment prepositioned in Norway, but no bases. That is actually a good thing. The Norwegians fight well and are so effectively integrated with NATO there is no difference between their forces and our forces. These Nordic countries are/will be a force multiplier. Some other NATO countries are not.

[BostonCard]

Having Sweden and Finland means that NATO members control access to both the Black and Baltic seas.  There is no question that they bring more to the table than the average NATO member.  If you were picking a team, Sweden might be picked fourth after the US, UK, and France, and before Germany. Finland is a slightly less straightforward case, because of the long border with Russia, but they are less vulnerable than the Baltics, and having a noose 60 miles wide between Tallinn and Helsinki is a big deal.

Also, Sweden and Finland are going to be less troublemaking than, say, Hungary or Turkey.

BC

[BostonCard]

Having Sweden and Finland means that NATO members control access to both the Black and Baltic seas.  There is no question that they bring more to the table than the average NATO member.  If you were picking a team, Sweden might be picked fourth after the US, UK, and France, and before Germany. Finland is a slightly less straightforward case, because of the long border with Russia, but they are less vulnerable than the Baltics, and having a noose 60 miles wide between Tallinn and Helsinki is a big deal.

Also, Sweden and Finland are going to be less troublemaking than, say, Hungary or Turkey.

BC

[BostonCard]

Congratulations to Russia, on losing its 100th T-72 tank

[tweet]https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1525051081398571011?s=21&t=NqHEnVV7bnBcZY6ZU4zpgQ[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Congratulations to Russia, on losing its 100th T-72 tank

[tweet]https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1525051081398571011?s=21&t=NqHEnVV7bnBcZY6ZU4zpgQ[/tweet]

BC

[Goose]

Having Sweden and Finland means that NATO members control access to both the Black and Baltic seas.

Denmark has controlled access to the Baltic Sea for about 300 years, so I think NATO has had that capability for a while. During the cold war, Denmark could completely shut down access to the Baltic Sea (in or out) with mines in under 20 minutes. They practiced it regularly. This is above and beyond the fixed fortifications and the Danish Navy forces afloat.

There is no question that they bring more to the table than the average NATO member.  If you were picking a team, Sweden might be picked fourth after the US, UK, and France, and before Germany.

Certainly true today. Germany has no business being where it is on this list. Really sad state of affairs. One should also give a shout out to Italy for the efforts the Italian Navy has made in the Mediterranean Sea after the 6th fleet basically ceased to exist. (Full disclosure. They are a customer).

Finland is a slightly less straightforward case, because of the long border with Russia, but they are less vulnerable than the Baltics, and having a noose 60 miles wide between Tallinn and Helsinki is a big deal.

It is, because it plugs the "other end" of the Baltic. However, due to the influence of air power that area would be a "no go" for everything but submarines anyway. Aircraft/missiles from Poland and the Baltics from NATO and Russia proper/Kaliningrad on the other side make a crowded sky. This area makes the Black Sea look like the Pacific. However, having Gotland plus the Finnish mainland helps a lot.

Also, Sweden and Finland are going to be less troublemaking than, say, Hungary or Turkey.

BC

For sure, although Sweden will bring some challenges. They have a fairly large military industrial complex that receives lots of direct state support. This will almost certainly continue and be a source of some strife. They also currently operate under a different set of "ITARS" that will require some jawboning to work out.

[Goose]

Having Sweden and Finland means that NATO members control access to both the Black and Baltic seas.

Denmark has controlled access to the Baltic Sea for about 300 years, so I think NATO has had that capability for a while. During the cold war, Denmark could completely shut down access to the Baltic Sea (in or out) with mines in under 20 minutes. They practiced it regularly. This is above and beyond the fixed fortifications and the Danish Navy forces afloat.

There is no question that they bring more to the table than the average NATO member.  If you were picking a team, Sweden might be picked fourth after the US, UK, and France, and before Germany.

Certainly true today. Germany has no business being where it is on this list. Really sad state of affairs. One should also give a shout out to Italy for the efforts the Italian Navy has made in the Mediterranean Sea after the 6th fleet basically ceased to exist. (Full disclosure. They are a customer).

Finland is a slightly less straightforward case, because of the long border with Russia, but they are less vulnerable than the Baltics, and having a noose 60 miles wide between Tallinn and Helsinki is a big deal.

It is, because it plugs the "other end" of the Baltic. However, due to the influence of air power that area would be a "no go" for everything but submarines anyway. Aircraft/missiles from Poland and the Baltics from NATO and Russia proper/Kaliningrad on the other side make a crowded sky. This area makes the Black Sea look like the Pacific. However, having Gotland plus the Finnish mainland helps a lot.

Also, Sweden and Finland are going to be less troublemaking than, say, Hungary or Turkey.

BC

For sure, although Sweden will bring some challenges. They have a fairly large military industrial complex that receives lots of direct state support. This will almost certainly continue and be a source of some strife. They also currently operate under a different set of "ITARS" that will require some jawboning to work out.