[gocard14]

A lot of twitter activity about Ukraine trying to seize the Kinburn peninsula on the left bank of the river. 
https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/uk...eper-river

If successful that would give UAF a foothold on the other side of the river. It doesn't sound like great terrain for an armored thrust (mostly salt marsh, few roads), but if they can break out of the peninsula, I wonder if they could secure a riverhead from the south which would allow a greater part of the force to cross in the Kherson area.

[gocard14]

A lot of twitter activity about Ukraine trying to seize the Kinburn peninsula on the left bank of the river. 
https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/uk...eper-river

If successful that would give UAF a foothold on the other side of the river. It doesn't sound like great terrain for an armored thrust (mostly salt marsh, few roads), but if they can break out of the peninsula, I wonder if they could secure a riverhead from the south which would allow a greater part of the force to cross in the Kherson area.

[Goose]

A lot of twitter activity about Ukraine trying to seize the Kinburn peninsula on the left bank of the river. 
https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/uk...eper-river

If successful that would give UAF a foothold on the other side of the river. It doesn't sound like great terrain for an armored thrust (mostly salt marsh, few roads), but if they can break out of the peninsula, I wonder if they could secure a riverhead from the south which would allow a greater part of the force to cross in the Kherson area.

This is probably not their intention. There are no good roads from the peninsula and it is too far away to support a crossing near Kherson. The big value of this territory to Russia is that it allows them to engage ships that are going to/from Mykolaiv and thereby close the port. Clearing that peninsula make it at least possible to use the port of Mykolaiv without getting shot at. This will help relieve congestion in the port of Odessa. There probably aren't many Russians there and it will be a hard place to hold for them. Ukraine will probably get it pretty cheap.

UPDATE: https://www.yahoo.com/news/kinburn-spit-...00173.html talks about this issue. I think this article covers all the bases. Being outside the Russian artillery envelope will indeed make taking this area much cheaper. Unfortunately advancing out of it would put the Ukrainians back under that envelope.


As most of you undoubtedly are aware, Russia has started shelling Kherson city from the left bank of the river. Ukraine needs to destroy the batteries involved in this activity. Lots of people were encouraged that Ukraine had recovered Kherson without it being destroyed. That may not be the case if Ukraine can't clear the artillery on the left bank. With their HIMARS they can do this without crossing the river.

[Goose]

A lot of twitter activity about Ukraine trying to seize the Kinburn peninsula on the left bank of the river. 
https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/uk...eper-river

If successful that would give UAF a foothold on the other side of the river. It doesn't sound like great terrain for an armored thrust (mostly salt marsh, few roads), but if they can break out of the peninsula, I wonder if they could secure a riverhead from the south which would allow a greater part of the force to cross in the Kherson area.

This is probably not their intention. There are no good roads from the peninsula and it is too far away to support a crossing near Kherson. The big value of this territory to Russia is that it allows them to engage ships that are going to/from Mykolaiv and thereby close the port. Clearing that peninsula make it at least possible to use the port of Mykolaiv without getting shot at. This will help relieve congestion in the port of Odessa. There probably aren't many Russians there and it will be a hard place to hold for them. Ukraine will probably get it pretty cheap.

UPDATE: https://www.yahoo.com/news/kinburn-spit-...00173.html talks about this issue. I think this article covers all the bases. Being outside the Russian artillery envelope will indeed make taking this area much cheaper. Unfortunately advancing out of it would put the Ukrainians back under that envelope.


As most of you undoubtedly are aware, Russia has started shelling Kherson city from the left bank of the river. Ukraine needs to destroy the batteries involved in this activity. Lots of people were encouraged that Ukraine had recovered Kherson without it being destroyed. That may not be the case if Ukraine can't clear the artillery on the left bank. With their HIMARS they can do this without crossing the river.

[81alum]

A lot of twitter activity about Ukraine trying to seize the Kinburn peninsula on the left bank of the river. 
https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/uk...eper-river

If successful that would give UAF a foothold on the other side of the river. It doesn't sound like great terrain for an armored thrust (mostly salt marsh, few roads), but if they can break out of the peninsula, I wonder if they could secure a riverhead from the south which would allow a greater part of the force to cross in the Kherson area.

This is probably not their intention. There are no good roads from the peninsula and it is too far away to support a crossing near Kherson. The big value of this territory to Russia is that it allows them to engage ships that are going to/from Mykolaiv and thereby close the port. Clearing that peninsula make it at least possible to use the port of Mykolaiv without getting shot at. This will help relieve congestion in the port of Odessa. There probably aren't many Russians there and it will be a hard place to hold for them. Ukraine will probably get it pretty cheap.

As most of you undoubtedly are aware, Russia has started shelling Kherson city from the left bank of the river. Ukraine needs to destroy the batteries involved in this activity. Lots of people were encouraged that Ukraine had recovered Kherson without it being destroyed. That may not be the case if Ukraine can't clear the artillery on the left bank. With their HIMARS they can do this without crossing the river.

I've just been waiting for Russia to turn Kherson into Mariupol now that they are "out" but within artillery range.  Pure evil.

[81alum]

A lot of twitter activity about Ukraine trying to seize the Kinburn peninsula on the left bank of the river. 
https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/uk...eper-river

If successful that would give UAF a foothold on the other side of the river. It doesn't sound like great terrain for an armored thrust (mostly salt marsh, few roads), but if they can break out of the peninsula, I wonder if they could secure a riverhead from the south which would allow a greater part of the force to cross in the Kherson area.

This is probably not their intention. There are no good roads from the peninsula and it is too far away to support a crossing near Kherson. The big value of this territory to Russia is that it allows them to engage ships that are going to/from Mykolaiv and thereby close the port. Clearing that peninsula make it at least possible to use the port of Mykolaiv without getting shot at. This will help relieve congestion in the port of Odessa. There probably aren't many Russians there and it will be a hard place to hold for them. Ukraine will probably get it pretty cheap.

As most of you undoubtedly are aware, Russia has started shelling Kherson city from the left bank of the river. Ukraine needs to destroy the batteries involved in this activity. Lots of people were encouraged that Ukraine had recovered Kherson without it being destroyed. That may not be the case if Ukraine can't clear the artillery on the left bank. With their HIMARS they can do this without crossing the river.

I've just been waiting for Russia to turn Kherson into Mariupol now that they are "out" but within artillery range.  Pure evil.

[Goose]

I've just been waiting for Russia to turn Kherson into Mariupol now that they are "out" but within artillery range.  Pure evil.

Indeed they are. In this case, Ukraine is claiming they have basically all of Kherson Oblast in HIMARS range. It would be much, much better if the Ukrainians were on the left bank in force, but they are not. Time for Ukraine to demonstrate they can defeat Russian artillery with their HIMARS. If they can't, it is going to be a very long winter.

[Goose]

I've just been waiting for Russia to turn Kherson into Mariupol now that they are "out" but within artillery range.  Pure evil.

Indeed they are. In this case, Ukraine is claiming they have basically all of Kherson Oblast in HIMARS range. It would be much, much better if the Ukrainians were on the left bank in force, but they are not. Time for Ukraine to demonstrate they can defeat Russian artillery with their HIMARS. If they can't, it is going to be a very long winter.

[dabigv13]

Ukraine’s top security official has confirmed that Iranian military advisers have been killed in Crimea, and warned that any other Iranians on occupied Ukrainian territory in support of Moscow’s invasion would also be targeted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/n...rimea-kyiv

[dabigv13]

Ukraine’s top security official has confirmed that Iranian military advisers have been killed in Crimea, and warned that any other Iranians on occupied Ukrainian territory in support of Moscow’s invasion would also be targeted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/n...rimea-kyiv

[BostonCard]

and then there was one.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1595909688931254272?s=46&t=ZJdk0xjM8Ag1ytNakHGoWg[/tweet]

I’m sure NATO will basically let Turkey do what the hell it wants in Syria.  I feel for the Kurds; they always get crapped on, and they are sacrificed when convenient. It sucks, but I also don’t see an alternative.

BC

[BostonCard]

and then there was one.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1595909688931254272?s=46&t=ZJdk0xjM8Ag1ytNakHGoWg[/tweet]

I’m sure NATO will basically let Turkey do what the hell it wants in Syria.  I feel for the Kurds; they always get crapped on, and they are sacrificed when convenient. It sucks, but I also don’t see an alternative.

BC

[TrumpCard]

NATO already gave up on Syria long ago. Large swaths of the country look like Armageddon happened.

[TrumpCard]

NATO already gave up on Syria long ago. Large swaths of the country look like Armageddon happened.

[OutsiderFan]

The civilized world needs to get much more aggressive with Russia on Ukraine than it has to this point.  Though it is true Ukraine has received a lot of military aid and the economic sanctions have been some of the toughest ever, it's still not enough.

The whole world is impacted by the economic drag of the war, so it is hurting everyone in the world to some degree. More importantly, there is a brewing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine due to Russia's relentless attack of civilian infrastructure, and civilians period. Russia is "bombing Ukraine back to the Stone Age" by eliminating power, internet, water, and ability to heat from Ukrainians. We could be seeing anything from famine and death to mass migrations into NATO countries as a result of these war crimes that are being allowed to be perpetrated. 

All the military analysts seem to agree that Ukraine will ultimately push Russia out of its territory and "win," but it will be a pyrrhic victory if things go as on the current trajectory. This is the stupidity of this war. Russia can't win on the battlefield, so it thinks the more pain and suffering it makes the civilians go through, the more it increases its leverage in negotiations. But we have seen absolutely zero indication Ukraine is going to let this approach work, because it knows if it does, Russia will prevail with its extortion tactics.

This is the worst thing I've seen in my lifetime in terms of the number of people impacted, the need for the world to stop this shit from happening again, and frankly, the imperative to take Russia's ability to wage war from it.  The only way this happens is if the international community comes together with everything it has to stop it, militarily and financially. I'm so tired of people saying "we can't risk having World War 3." Why, because then, YOUR butt and what you hold dear in YOUR life will be at risk?  What about those not just at risk, but already suffering so much or already dead? We just throw our hands in the air and let the Ukrainian people experience unimaginable hardship and loss so we can protect our own butts and make sure Russia doesn't get attacked within its borders so Russia doesn't get provoked? Hello, they attacked and continue to attack inside Ukraine, not the other way around.

There are signs the people of Russia are themselves starting to feel pain from this war and it seems it will get worse when the oil price cap starts in a couple weeks, so maybe we are closer to a Putin regime collapse than we think, but I don't know how it makes sense for the rest of the world to do anything other than ratchet up the support for Ukraine at this point and deliver more pain to Russia militarily. Bring UN peacekeeping forces to the border with Belarus.  Have NATO enforce a no-fly zone in western Ukraine. Give the Ukrainian Army M1-Abrams tanks and ATACMS rockets, and don't be concerned with whether Ukraine uses them to hit targets inside Russia to not!, as POTUS is. 

The only reason the allies won WW 2 is because the people of Germany and Japan were made to suffer. Russia can use this effective tactic on Ukraine but Ukraine can't on Russia? It's like having one arm tied behind Ukraine's back. There is no such thing as a "clean" war.  They only stop when one side has suffered too much to continue, and given they are usually driven by megalomaniacs who aren't very rational and already subjugate their own people, regime change with force from within and without is the only way they stop. The rest of the world is not making Russia and its people suffer enough. It should be open season on Russia right now and the rest of the world should be hunting and killing Russians until Putin or after being deposed, his successor is forced to the negotiating table with a menu of terrible options to accept. That's the quickest way to end this stupid war, the way that will save the most lives and stop the most suffering in the end.

If you don't feel as I do, what is the number of lives that must be lost and ruined until you say, yes, we really need to do more to stop this war, even if if means direct attacks on Russians, and even if it putting your own life at risk?

[OutsiderFan]

The civilized world needs to get much more aggressive with Russia on Ukraine than it has to this point.  Though it is true Ukraine has received a lot of military aid and the economic sanctions have been some of the toughest ever, it's still not enough.

The whole world is impacted by the economic drag of the war, so it is hurting everyone in the world to some degree. More importantly, there is a brewing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine due to Russia's relentless attack of civilian infrastructure, and civilians period. Russia is "bombing Ukraine back to the Stone Age" by eliminating power, internet, water, and ability to heat from Ukrainians. We could be seeing anything from famine and death to mass migrations into NATO countries as a result of these war crimes that are being allowed to be perpetrated. 

All the military analysts seem to agree that Ukraine will ultimately push Russia out of its territory and "win," but it will be a pyrrhic victory if things go as on the current trajectory. This is the stupidity of this war. Russia can't win on the battlefield, so it thinks the more pain and suffering it makes the civilians go through, the more it increases its leverage in negotiations. But we have seen absolutely zero indication Ukraine is going to let this approach work, because it knows if it does, Russia will prevail with its extortion tactics.

This is the worst thing I've seen in my lifetime in terms of the number of people impacted, the need for the world to stop this shit from happening again, and frankly, the imperative to take Russia's ability to wage war from it.  The only way this happens is if the international community comes together with everything it has to stop it, militarily and financially. I'm so tired of people saying "we can't risk having World War 3." Why, because then, YOUR butt and what you hold dear in YOUR life will be at risk?  What about those not just at risk, but already suffering so much or already dead? We just throw our hands in the air and let the Ukrainian people experience unimaginable hardship and loss so we can protect our own butts and make sure Russia doesn't get attacked within its borders so Russia doesn't get provoked? Hello, they attacked and continue to attack inside Ukraine, not the other way around.

There are signs the people of Russia are themselves starting to feel pain from this war and it seems it will get worse when the oil price cap starts in a couple weeks, so maybe we are closer to a Putin regime collapse than we think, but I don't know how it makes sense for the rest of the world to do anything other than ratchet up the support for Ukraine at this point and deliver more pain to Russia militarily. Bring UN peacekeeping forces to the border with Belarus.  Have NATO enforce a no-fly zone in western Ukraine. Give the Ukrainian Army M1-Abrams tanks and ATACMS rockets, and don't be concerned with whether Ukraine uses them to hit targets inside Russia to not!, as POTUS is. 

The only reason the allies won WW 2 is because the people of Germany and Japan were made to suffer. Russia can use this effective tactic on Ukraine but Ukraine can't on Russia? It's like having one arm tied behind Ukraine's back. There is no such thing as a "clean" war.  They only stop when one side has suffered too much to continue, and given they are usually driven by megalomaniacs who aren't very rational and already subjugate their own people, regime change with force from within and without is the only way they stop. The rest of the world is not making Russia and its people suffer enough. It should be open season on Russia right now and the rest of the world should be hunting and killing Russians until Putin or after being deposed, his successor is forced to the negotiating table with a menu of terrible options to accept. That's the quickest way to end this stupid war, the way that will save the most lives and stop the most suffering in the end.

If you don't feel as I do, what is the number of lives that must be lost and ruined until you say, yes, we really need to do more to stop this war, even if if means direct attacks on Russians, and even if it putting your own life at risk?

[BigJohn043]

The civilized world needs to get much more aggressive with Russia on Ukraine than it has to this point.  Though it is true Ukraine has received a lot of military aid and the economic sanctions have been some of the toughest ever, it's still not enough.

The whole world is impacted by the economic drag of the war, so it is hurting everyone in the world to some degree. More importantly, there is a brewing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine due to Russia's relentless attack of civilian infrastructure, and civilians period. Russia is "bombing Ukraine back to the Stone Age" by eliminating power, internet, water, and ability to heat from Ukrainians. We could be seeing anything from famine and death to mass migrations into NATO countries as a result of these war crimes that are being allowed to be perpetrated. 

All the military analysts seem to agree that Ukraine will ultimately push Russia out of its territory and "win," but it will be a pyrrhic victory if things go as on the current trajectory. This is the stupidity of this war. Russia can't win on the battlefield, so it thinks the more pain and suffering it makes the civilians go through, the more it increases its leverage in negotiations. But we have seen absolutely zero indication Ukraine is going to let this approach work, because it knows if it does, Russia will prevail with its extortion tactics.

This is the worst thing I've seen in my lifetime in terms of the number of people impacted, the need for the world to stop this shit from happening again, and frankly, the imperative to take Russia's ability to wage war from it.  The only way this happens is if the international community comes together with everything it has to stop it, militarily and financially. I'm so tired of people saying "we can't risk having World War 3." Why, because then, YOUR butt and what you hold dear in YOUR life will be at risk?  What about those not just at risk, but already suffering so much or already dead? We just throw our hands in the air and let the Ukrainian people experience unimaginable hardship and loss so we can protect our own butts and make sure Russia doesn't get attacked within its borders so Russia doesn't get provoked? Hello, they attacked and continue to attack inside Ukraine, not the other way around.

There are signs the people of Russia are themselves starting to feel pain from this war and it seems it will get worse when the oil price cap starts in a couple weeks, so maybe we are closer to a Putin regime collapse than we think, but I don't know how it makes sense for the rest of the world to do anything other than ratchet up the support for Ukraine at this point and deliver more pain to Russia militarily. Bring UN peacekeeping forces to the border with Belarus.  Have NATO enforce a no-fly zone in western Ukraine. Give the Ukrainian Army M1-Abrams tanks and ATACMS rockets, and don't be concerned with whether Ukraine uses them to hit targets inside Russia to not!, as POTUS is. 

The only reason the allies won WW 2 is because the people of Germany and Japan were made to suffer. Russia can use this effective tactic on Ukraine but Ukraine can't on Russia? It's like having one arm tied behind Ukraine's back. There is no such thing as a "clean" war.  They only stop when one side has suffered too much to continue, and given they are usually driven by megalomaniacs who aren't very rational and already subjugate their own people, regime change with force from within and without is the only way they stop. The rest of the world is not making Russia and its people suffer enough. It should be open season on Russia right now and the rest of the world should be hunting and killing Russians until Putin or after being deposed, his successor is forced to the negotiating table with a menu of terrible options to accept. That's the quickest way to end this stupid war, the way that will save the most lives and stop the most suffering in the end.

If you don't feel as I do, what is the number of lives that must be lost and ruined until you say, yes, we really need to do more to stop this war, even if if means direct attacks on Russians, and even if it putting your own life at risk?

FWIW, I don't think this will be a pyrrhic victory for the Ukraine.  They will exit this war fully aligned with the West.  Over the next 20 years you will see significant investment in the Ukraine as Western companies invest in the relatively low cost and high quality labor force.

Since breaking away from the influence of Russia, countries like Hungary and Poland have seen significant economic growth while countries like Ukraine have stagnated.  This will change.

And Russia is in real trouble IMO.  Their economy is a mess.  And no western company will be able to invest in Russia for decades even if Putin goes away....

[BigJohn043]

The civilized world needs to get much more aggressive with Russia on Ukraine than it has to this point.  Though it is true Ukraine has received a lot of military aid and the economic sanctions have been some of the toughest ever, it's still not enough.

The whole world is impacted by the economic drag of the war, so it is hurting everyone in the world to some degree. More importantly, there is a brewing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine due to Russia's relentless attack of civilian infrastructure, and civilians period. Russia is "bombing Ukraine back to the Stone Age" by eliminating power, internet, water, and ability to heat from Ukrainians. We could be seeing anything from famine and death to mass migrations into NATO countries as a result of these war crimes that are being allowed to be perpetrated. 

All the military analysts seem to agree that Ukraine will ultimately push Russia out of its territory and "win," but it will be a pyrrhic victory if things go as on the current trajectory. This is the stupidity of this war. Russia can't win on the battlefield, so it thinks the more pain and suffering it makes the civilians go through, the more it increases its leverage in negotiations. But we have seen absolutely zero indication Ukraine is going to let this approach work, because it knows if it does, Russia will prevail with its extortion tactics.

This is the worst thing I've seen in my lifetime in terms of the number of people impacted, the need for the world to stop this shit from happening again, and frankly, the imperative to take Russia's ability to wage war from it.  The only way this happens is if the international community comes together with everything it has to stop it, militarily and financially. I'm so tired of people saying "we can't risk having World War 3." Why, because then, YOUR butt and what you hold dear in YOUR life will be at risk?  What about those not just at risk, but already suffering so much or already dead? We just throw our hands in the air and let the Ukrainian people experience unimaginable hardship and loss so we can protect our own butts and make sure Russia doesn't get attacked within its borders so Russia doesn't get provoked? Hello, they attacked and continue to attack inside Ukraine, not the other way around.

There are signs the people of Russia are themselves starting to feel pain from this war and it seems it will get worse when the oil price cap starts in a couple weeks, so maybe we are closer to a Putin regime collapse than we think, but I don't know how it makes sense for the rest of the world to do anything other than ratchet up the support for Ukraine at this point and deliver more pain to Russia militarily. Bring UN peacekeeping forces to the border with Belarus.  Have NATO enforce a no-fly zone in western Ukraine. Give the Ukrainian Army M1-Abrams tanks and ATACMS rockets, and don't be concerned with whether Ukraine uses them to hit targets inside Russia to not!, as POTUS is. 

The only reason the allies won WW 2 is because the people of Germany and Japan were made to suffer. Russia can use this effective tactic on Ukraine but Ukraine can't on Russia? It's like having one arm tied behind Ukraine's back. There is no such thing as a "clean" war.  They only stop when one side has suffered too much to continue, and given they are usually driven by megalomaniacs who aren't very rational and already subjugate their own people, regime change with force from within and without is the only way they stop. The rest of the world is not making Russia and its people suffer enough. It should be open season on Russia right now and the rest of the world should be hunting and killing Russians until Putin or after being deposed, his successor is forced to the negotiating table with a menu of terrible options to accept. That's the quickest way to end this stupid war, the way that will save the most lives and stop the most suffering in the end.

If you don't feel as I do, what is the number of lives that must be lost and ruined until you say, yes, we really need to do more to stop this war, even if if means direct attacks on Russians, and even if it putting your own life at risk?

FWIW, I don't think this will be a pyrrhic victory for the Ukraine.  They will exit this war fully aligned with the West.  Over the next 20 years you will see significant investment in the Ukraine as Western companies invest in the relatively low cost and high quality labor force.

Since breaking away from the influence of Russia, countries like Hungary and Poland have seen significant economic growth while countries like Ukraine have stagnated.  This will change.

And Russia is in real trouble IMO.  Their economy is a mess.  And no western company will be able to invest in Russia for decades even if Putin goes away....

[gailtate]

The civilized world needs to get much more aggressive with Russia on Ukraine than it has to this point.  Though it is true Ukraine has received a lot of military aid and the economic sanctions have been some of the toughest ever, it's still not enough.

The whole world is impacted by the economic drag of the war, so it is hurting everyone in the world to some degree. More importantly, there is a brewing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine due to Russia's relentless attack of civilian infrastructure, and civilians period. Russia is "bombing Ukraine back to the Stone Age" by eliminating power, internet, water, and ability to heat from Ukrainians. We could be seeing anything from famine and death to mass migrations into NATO countries as a result of these war crimes that are being allowed to be perpetrated. 

All the military analysts seem to agree that Ukraine will ultimately push Russia out of its territory and "win," but it will be a pyrrhic victory if things go as on the current trajectory. This is the stupidity of this war. Russia can't win on the battlefield, so it thinks the more pain and suffering it makes the civilians go through, the more it increases its leverage in negotiations. But we have seen absolutely zero indication Ukraine is going to let this approach work, because it knows if it does, Russia will prevail with its extortion tactics.

This is the worst thing I've seen in my lifetime in terms of the number of people impacted, the need for the world to stop this shit from happening again, and frankly, the imperative to take Russia's ability to wage war from it.  The only way this happens is if the international community comes together with everything it has to stop it, militarily and financially. I'm so tired of people saying "we can't risk having World War 3." Why, because then, YOUR butt and what you hold dear in YOUR life will be at risk?  What about those not just at risk, but already suffering so much or already dead? We just throw our hands in the air and let the Ukrainian people experience unimaginable hardship and loss so we can protect our own butts and make sure Russia doesn't get attacked within its borders so Russia doesn't get provoked? Hello, they attacked and continue to attack inside Ukraine, not the other way around.

There are signs the people of Russia are themselves starting to feel pain from this war and it seems it will get worse when the oil price cap starts in a couple weeks, so maybe we are closer to a Putin regime collapse than we think, but I don't know how it makes sense for the rest of the world to do anything other than ratchet up the support for Ukraine at this point and deliver more pain to Russia militarily. Bring UN peacekeeping forces to the border with Belarus.  Have NATO enforce a no-fly zone in western Ukraine. Give the Ukrainian Army M1-Abrams tanks and ATACMS rockets, and don't be concerned with whether Ukraine uses them to hit targets inside Russia to not!, as POTUS is. 

The only reason the allies won WW 2 is because the people of Germany and Japan were made to suffer. Russia can use this effective tactic on Ukraine but Ukraine can't on Russia? It's like having one arm tied behind Ukraine's back. There is no such thing as a "clean" war.  They only stop when one side has suffered too much to continue, and given they are usually driven by megalomaniacs who aren't very rational and already subjugate their own people, regime change with force from within and without is the only way they stop. The rest of the world is not making Russia and its people suffer enough. It should be open season on Russia right now and the rest of the world should be hunting and killing Russians until Putin or after being deposed, his successor is forced to the negotiating table with a menu of terrible options to accept. That's the quickest way to end this stupid war, the way that will save the most lives and stop the most suffering in the end.

If you don't feel as I do, what is the number of lives that must be lost and ruined until you say, yes, we really need to do more to stop this war, even if if means direct attacks on Russians, and even if it putting your own life at risk?

FWIW, I don't think this will be a pyrrhic victory for the Ukraine.  They will exit this war fully aligned with the West.  Over the next 20 years you will see significant investment in the Ukraine as Western companies invest in the relatively low cost and high quality labor force.

Since breaking away from the influence of Russia, countries like Hungary and Poland have seen significant economic growth while countries like Ukraine have stagnated.  This will change.

And Russia is in real trouble IMO.  Their economy is a mess.  And no western company will be able to invest in Russia for decades even if Putin goes away....

IMHO, the X-factor factor here is something we've not heard/read/seen nearly often enough, or thoroughly enough.  It is the flat-out masochistic DNA of the Russian culture/people themselves that has historically enabled and paved the way for the parade of the sadistic strongmen they favor. Look at their sorry history. The latest specimen, Vladimir Putin, is hands-down evil personified. Unchained. Makes the cartoon villains in Bond movies look like Mike Myers. Where the **** is the outrage?  Not only is this bona-fide mutant demon idolized by his toadies in Moscow, but he is essentially ignored and even quietly tolerated (dare I say "admired?) by a world-wide cohort. I keep waiting for the alleged ex-pat resistance purportedly gathering steam in Poland to come to the fore. But like the introductory narrator in "Casablanca", I wait...and wait...and wait. All I hear is the silence of lambs.

[gailtate]

The civilized world needs to get much more aggressive with Russia on Ukraine than it has to this point.  Though it is true Ukraine has received a lot of military aid and the economic sanctions have been some of the toughest ever, it's still not enough.

The whole world is impacted by the economic drag of the war, so it is hurting everyone in the world to some degree. More importantly, there is a brewing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine due to Russia's relentless attack of civilian infrastructure, and civilians period. Russia is "bombing Ukraine back to the Stone Age" by eliminating power, internet, water, and ability to heat from Ukrainians. We could be seeing anything from famine and death to mass migrations into NATO countries as a result of these war crimes that are being allowed to be perpetrated. 

All the military analysts seem to agree that Ukraine will ultimately push Russia out of its territory and "win," but it will be a pyrrhic victory if things go as on the current trajectory. This is the stupidity of this war. Russia can't win on the battlefield, so it thinks the more pain and suffering it makes the civilians go through, the more it increases its leverage in negotiations. But we have seen absolutely zero indication Ukraine is going to let this approach work, because it knows if it does, Russia will prevail with its extortion tactics.

This is the worst thing I've seen in my lifetime in terms of the number of people impacted, the need for the world to stop this shit from happening again, and frankly, the imperative to take Russia's ability to wage war from it.  The only way this happens is if the international community comes together with everything it has to stop it, militarily and financially. I'm so tired of people saying "we can't risk having World War 3." Why, because then, YOUR butt and what you hold dear in YOUR life will be at risk?  What about those not just at risk, but already suffering so much or already dead? We just throw our hands in the air and let the Ukrainian people experience unimaginable hardship and loss so we can protect our own butts and make sure Russia doesn't get attacked within its borders so Russia doesn't get provoked? Hello, they attacked and continue to attack inside Ukraine, not the other way around.

There are signs the people of Russia are themselves starting to feel pain from this war and it seems it will get worse when the oil price cap starts in a couple weeks, so maybe we are closer to a Putin regime collapse than we think, but I don't know how it makes sense for the rest of the world to do anything other than ratchet up the support for Ukraine at this point and deliver more pain to Russia militarily. Bring UN peacekeeping forces to the border with Belarus.  Have NATO enforce a no-fly zone in western Ukraine. Give the Ukrainian Army M1-Abrams tanks and ATACMS rockets, and don't be concerned with whether Ukraine uses them to hit targets inside Russia to not!, as POTUS is. 

The only reason the allies won WW 2 is because the people of Germany and Japan were made to suffer. Russia can use this effective tactic on Ukraine but Ukraine can't on Russia? It's like having one arm tied behind Ukraine's back. There is no such thing as a "clean" war.  They only stop when one side has suffered too much to continue, and given they are usually driven by megalomaniacs who aren't very rational and already subjugate their own people, regime change with force from within and without is the only way they stop. The rest of the world is not making Russia and its people suffer enough. It should be open season on Russia right now and the rest of the world should be hunting and killing Russians until Putin or after being deposed, his successor is forced to the negotiating table with a menu of terrible options to accept. That's the quickest way to end this stupid war, the way that will save the most lives and stop the most suffering in the end.

If you don't feel as I do, what is the number of lives that must be lost and ruined until you say, yes, we really need to do more to stop this war, even if if means direct attacks on Russians, and even if it putting your own life at risk?

FWIW, I don't think this will be a pyrrhic victory for the Ukraine.  They will exit this war fully aligned with the West.  Over the next 20 years you will see significant investment in the Ukraine as Western companies invest in the relatively low cost and high quality labor force.

Since breaking away from the influence of Russia, countries like Hungary and Poland have seen significant economic growth while countries like Ukraine have stagnated.  This will change.

And Russia is in real trouble IMO.  Their economy is a mess.  And no western company will be able to invest in Russia for decades even if Putin goes away....

IMHO, the X-factor factor here is something we've not heard/read/seen nearly often enough, or thoroughly enough.  It is the flat-out masochistic DNA of the Russian culture/people themselves that has historically enabled and paved the way for the parade of the sadistic strongmen they favor. Look at their sorry history. The latest specimen, Vladimir Putin, is hands-down evil personified. Unchained. Makes the cartoon villains in Bond movies look like Mike Myers. Where the **** is the outrage?  Not only is this bona-fide mutant demon idolized by his toadies in Moscow, but he is essentially ignored and even quietly tolerated (dare I say "admired?) by a world-wide cohort. I keep waiting for the alleged ex-pat resistance purportedly gathering steam in Poland to come to the fore. But like the introductory narrator in "Casablanca", I wait...and wait...and wait. All I hear is the silence of lambs.

[Goose]

The reality of war is there is lots of uncertainty about most things. That is one of the things that makes it so dangerous. IMO it is far from certain that Russia cannot win this war militarily. They may have finally found a military commander who can make their horrible organization work, and they now have a centralized military command in Ukraine (which they previously did not). It may also be that Putin is now more or less staying out of the strategic decisions, at least for now. Russia conducted a retreat from contact from Kherson masterfully. Granted, Ukraine made it easy for them, but the Russian army of Feb 24th couldn't have done that. Keep in mind this retreat also involved many of the despised untrained conscripts that Russia rushed across the river. That should give everyone pause. Russia has also begun a major shakeup in the leadership and "middle management" of their logistics operations. While such changes often introduce as much chaos as they do improvement, the problem is being addressed, and if history is any guide, given enough tries, Russia will get it more or less "right".

Russia has absorbed horrific casualties that would have pretty much knocked an equivalent NATO formation out of the war. Yet they are still there and still defending. Most "experts" agree that Russia has established a line in Ukraine that is defensible with the level of forces they have. It is not impenetrable and there is no guarantee they can hold it through the winter, but is at least possible. Russia is also madly building fixed fortifications along the line of contact and to the rear of that line. Undoubtedly many of the strong points in the rear are designed to be HIMARS proof. This would allow Russia to one again supply it's artillery in a manner Ukraine definitely will not like.

OTOH, the west and Ukraine at least appear to believe they are better prepared for winter warfare than the Russians are. A fixed line of defense based on engineered fortifications should be an anachronism in the 21st century. In WW I, the vast, vast majority of shells fired didn't hit anything important. In theory, Ukraine now possesses precision fire capability and drones to locate the targets. While Russian forward magazines may be HIMARS proof, the truck plying the roads to supply them are not. The tank was invented to defeat field fortifications. Even without all these advantages, the German infiltration tactics showed how fixed field fortifications could be defeated. Of course, the entire theory behind NATO's offensive structure is to avoid banging away all along the line. NATO intends to find a way around the stronger points, focus on the critical centers of gravity in the Russian position, concentrate overwhelming force rapidly at those points, cut through these points and wreck havoc in the enemies rear areas. Ukraine has yet to show they can do that, although they keep making noises that that is their intent. They had a golden opportunity in Kherson and didn't execute. There probably are good reasons for that, but it does raise questions about what their capabilities are now and will be in three or four months.

What happens during the next few months is IMO critical for the course of the war. The war probably won't end in this time (though it could, war is uncertain), but if Russia holds their defensive line pretty much intact it will be very bad news for Ukraine. It will at least give the illusion that Russia can hold the areas they have taken indefinitely, which will make lots of "the world" simply accept that as a given. Obviously, Ukraine can't do that as their country really needs lots of that 20% back, even assuming Russia could be trusted to leave the rest of Ukraine alone. It wouldn't mean Ukraine is defeated. They could deliver a powerful blow when spring comes and push the Russians out. However, it would not look probable if there is a three month stalemate. Obviously, any pause in the tempo of operations gives Russia a chance to fix some of their glaring problems. This is yet another reason Ukraine needs to end the winter net positive. They need to prove to themselves and the world that Russia isn't going to win by waiting them out.

Obviously there are many unanswered questions that will really make a difference in both the short and long term. Is Russia almost out of PGMs? We keep hearing they are, but the missiles keep coming. How much infrastructure damage can Ukraine absorb and still continue to fight? Is Russia almost out of modern, reasonably accurate artillery ammunition? How much are they able to make? How much 155mm can/will NATO supply to Ukraine? Will Ukraine get more HIMARS? Does Ukraine really have two tank brigades that are presently uncommitted? What can/will Iran supply to Russia that will help enough to matter? Can Russia mobilize more troops in the short term? Is the training in NATO countries of Ukrainian troops going to deliver a striking force that can execute NATO tactics? What is the actual fighting ability of Russian troops in Ukraine right now, considering the losses and leadership issues? These are some of the "military" questions that will control what happens on the ground.

Politically, there are even more questions, and these factors can win or lose the war for either side very quickly. Obviously, Putin's ability to remain in power is one question. At what point does the Russian political structure (whatever that is) decide this war was a mistake and remove him? OF did touch on a critical point. What actually defeated the Germans in WW I wasn't military but economic. They were starving to death because the blockade of Germany made it impossible for them to import what they needed to survive and export what they needed to sustain their economy. They simply couldn't fight any more. While there are lots of sanctions in place that make it difficult for Russia to trade internationally, they are still doing it and bringing in lots of cash in the process. What, if anything, will be done to stop this? There is no sign Russia is going to be driven out of this war by economic forces. Ukraine OTOH may be, depending on how much aid they can get from the west. Will that happen?

IMO the "west", particularly the US, has not done themselves any favors here. It should have been made clear to Russia when they started attacking Ukrainian infrastructure that for every missile they fired into a power plant, one of their oil tankers would be seized. There has to be a cost to Russia or they can just pound Ukraine into the dust and walk in afterwards. This is IMO obvious. It may take years, but they can do it if 1) they are foolish enough to think it is worth it and 2) there are no economic costs they can't control. While nobody wants a wider war, we can't allow Russia to define the parameters in a way Ukraine simply can't win. We needed to make it clear to Putin et al that there was no way we were going to let them set the ROE to their overwhelming advantage. There is also the question of how long "the west" will support Ukraine militarily if the way ahead appears to be the eventual destruction of Ukraine. Hard to argue it is a good idea if it can't succeed.

[Goose]

The reality of war is there is lots of uncertainty about most things. That is one of the things that makes it so dangerous. IMO it is far from certain that Russia cannot win this war militarily. They may have finally found a military commander who can make their horrible organization work, and they now have a centralized military command in Ukraine (which they previously did not). It may also be that Putin is now more or less staying out of the strategic decisions, at least for now. Russia conducted a retreat from contact from Kherson masterfully. Granted, Ukraine made it easy for them, but the Russian army of Feb 24th couldn't have done that. Keep in mind this retreat also involved many of the despised untrained conscripts that Russia rushed across the river. That should give everyone pause. Russia has also begun a major shakeup in the leadership and "middle management" of their logistics operations. While such changes often introduce as much chaos as they do improvement, the problem is being addressed, and if history is any guide, given enough tries, Russia will get it more or less "right".

Russia has absorbed horrific casualties that would have pretty much knocked an equivalent NATO formation out of the war. Yet they are still there and still defending. Most "experts" agree that Russia has established a line in Ukraine that is defensible with the level of forces they have. It is not impenetrable and there is no guarantee they can hold it through the winter, but is at least possible. Russia is also madly building fixed fortifications along the line of contact and to the rear of that line. Undoubtedly many of the strong points in the rear are designed to be HIMARS proof. This would allow Russia to one again supply it's artillery in a manner Ukraine definitely will not like.

OTOH, the west and Ukraine at least appear to believe they are better prepared for winter warfare than the Russians are. A fixed line of defense based on engineered fortifications should be an anachronism in the 21st century. In WW I, the vast, vast majority of shells fired didn't hit anything important. In theory, Ukraine now possesses precision fire capability and drones to locate the targets. While Russian forward magazines may be HIMARS proof, the truck plying the roads to supply them are not. The tank was invented to defeat field fortifications. Even without all these advantages, the German infiltration tactics showed how fixed field fortifications could be defeated. Of course, the entire theory behind NATO's offensive structure is to avoid banging away all along the line. NATO intends to find a way around the stronger points, focus on the critical centers of gravity in the Russian position, concentrate overwhelming force rapidly at those points, cut through these points and wreck havoc in the enemies rear areas. Ukraine has yet to show they can do that, although they keep making noises that that is their intent. They had a golden opportunity in Kherson and didn't execute. There probably are good reasons for that, but it does raise questions about what their capabilities are now and will be in three or four months.

What happens during the next few months is IMO critical for the course of the war. The war probably won't end in this time (though it could, war is uncertain), but if Russia holds their defensive line pretty much intact it will be very bad news for Ukraine. It will at least give the illusion that Russia can hold the areas they have taken indefinitely, which will make lots of "the world" simply accept that as a given. Obviously, Ukraine can't do that as their country really needs lots of that 20% back, even assuming Russia could be trusted to leave the rest of Ukraine alone. It wouldn't mean Ukraine is defeated. They could deliver a powerful blow when spring comes and push the Russians out. However, it would not look probable if there is a three month stalemate. Obviously, any pause in the tempo of operations gives Russia a chance to fix some of their glaring problems. This is yet another reason Ukraine needs to end the winter net positive. They need to prove to themselves and the world that Russia isn't going to win by waiting them out.

Obviously there are many unanswered questions that will really make a difference in both the short and long term. Is Russia almost out of PGMs? We keep hearing they are, but the missiles keep coming. How much infrastructure damage can Ukraine absorb and still continue to fight? Is Russia almost out of modern, reasonably accurate artillery ammunition? How much are they able to make? How much 155mm can/will NATO supply to Ukraine? Will Ukraine get more HIMARS? Does Ukraine really have two tank brigades that are presently uncommitted? What can/will Iran supply to Russia that will help enough to matter? Can Russia mobilize more troops in the short term? Is the training in NATO countries of Ukrainian troops going to deliver a striking force that can execute NATO tactics? What is the actual fighting ability of Russian troops in Ukraine right now, considering the losses and leadership issues? These are some of the "military" questions that will control what happens on the ground.

Politically, there are even more questions, and these factors can win or lose the war for either side very quickly. Obviously, Putin's ability to remain in power is one question. At what point does the Russian political structure (whatever that is) decide this war was a mistake and remove him? OF did touch on a critical point. What actually defeated the Germans in WW I wasn't military but economic. They were starving to death because the blockade of Germany made it impossible for them to import what they needed to survive and export what they needed to sustain their economy. They simply couldn't fight any more. While there are lots of sanctions in place that make it difficult for Russia to trade internationally, they are still doing it and bringing in lots of cash in the process. What, if anything, will be done to stop this? There is no sign Russia is going to be driven out of this war by economic forces. Ukraine OTOH may be, depending on how much aid they can get from the west. Will that happen?

IMO the "west", particularly the US, has not done themselves any favors here. It should have been made clear to Russia when they started attacking Ukrainian infrastructure that for every missile they fired into a power plant, one of their oil tankers would be seized. There has to be a cost to Russia or they can just pound Ukraine into the dust and walk in afterwards. This is IMO obvious. It may take years, but they can do it if 1) they are foolish enough to think it is worth it and 2) there are no economic costs they can't control. While nobody wants a wider war, we can't allow Russia to define the parameters in a way Ukraine simply can't win. We needed to make it clear to Putin et al that there was no way we were going to let them set the ROE to their overwhelming advantage. There is also the question of how long "the west" will support Ukraine militarily if the way ahead appears to be the eventual destruction of Ukraine. Hard to argue it is a good idea if it can't succeed.

[TrumpCard]

IMO the "west", particularly the US, has not done themselves any favors here. It should have been made clear to Russia when they started attacking Ukrainian infrastructure that for every missile they fired into a power plant, one of their oil tankers would be seized. There has to be a cost to Russia or they can just pound Ukraine into the dust and walk in afterwards. This is IMO obvious. It may take years, but they can do it if 1) they are foolish enough to think it is worth it and 2) there are no economic costs they can't control. While nobody wants a wider war, we can't allow Russia to define the parameters in a way Ukraine simply can't win. We needed to make it clear to Putin et al that there was no way we were going to let them set the ROE to their overwhelming advantage. There is also the question of how long "the west" will support Ukraine militarily if the way ahead appears to be the eventual destruction of Ukraine. Hard to argue it is a good idea if it can't succeed.

So much to unpack here.  
Why is seizing oil tankers the right approach?  Is that even feasible without starting a wider war?
Do we have reason to think the West is saying nothing about attacks on infrastructure?  For example, do we think that the West has not threatened ATACMS if Russia does X, Y, or Z?  
What economic costs would Russia be unable to control/handle, and can those costs be imposed without a wider war?
Is there benefit to the current approach even if Russia appears likely to win in the end?
Is it feasible for NATO to do more right now, or are there members who could/would cause problems if NATO became more actively involved on Ukraine's side of the conflict?
I'm sure there are many more appropriate questions.  I am not saying that you're preferred approach of being more aggressive would be the wrong one.  I'm just saying that the one short paragraph seems to gloss over a number of big issues.

[TrumpCard]

IMO the "west", particularly the US, has not done themselves any favors here. It should have been made clear to Russia when they started attacking Ukrainian infrastructure that for every missile they fired into a power plant, one of their oil tankers would be seized. There has to be a cost to Russia or they can just pound Ukraine into the dust and walk in afterwards. This is IMO obvious. It may take years, but they can do it if 1) they are foolish enough to think it is worth it and 2) there are no economic costs they can't control. While nobody wants a wider war, we can't allow Russia to define the parameters in a way Ukraine simply can't win. We needed to make it clear to Putin et al that there was no way we were going to let them set the ROE to their overwhelming advantage. There is also the question of how long "the west" will support Ukraine militarily if the way ahead appears to be the eventual destruction of Ukraine. Hard to argue it is a good idea if it can't succeed.

So much to unpack here.  
Why is seizing oil tankers the right approach?  Is that even feasible without starting a wider war?
Do we have reason to think the West is saying nothing about attacks on infrastructure?  For example, do we think that the West has not threatened ATACMS if Russia does X, Y, or Z?  
What economic costs would Russia be unable to control/handle, and can those costs be imposed without a wider war?
Is there benefit to the current approach even if Russia appears likely to win in the end?
Is it feasible for NATO to do more right now, or are there members who could/would cause problems if NATO became more actively involved on Ukraine's side of the conflict?
I'm sure there are many more appropriate questions.  I am not saying that you're preferred approach of being more aggressive would be the wrong one.  I'm just saying that the one short paragraph seems to gloss over a number of big issues.

[Goose]

IMO the "west", particularly the US, has not done themselves any favors here. It should have been made clear to Russia when they started attacking Ukrainian infrastructure that for every missile they fired into a power plant, one of their oil tankers would be seized. There has to be a cost to Russia or they can just pound Ukraine into the dust and walk in afterwards. This is IMO obvious. It may take years, but they can do it if 1) they are foolish enough to think it is worth it and 2) there are no economic costs they can't control. While nobody wants a wider war, we can't allow Russia to define the parameters in a way Ukraine simply can't win. We needed to make it clear to Putin et al that there was no way we were going to let them set the ROE to their overwhelming advantage. There is also the question of how long "the west" will support Ukraine militarily if the way ahead appears to be the eventual destruction of Ukraine. Hard to argue it is a good idea if it can't succeed.

So much to unpack here.  
Why is seizing oil tankers the right approach?  Is that even feasible without starting a wider war?

There may be other approaches that are better. The good things about the oil tankers is 1) it is possible to do. Russia can't protect them well enough, if at all, 2) it is somewhat proportional, in that one tanker for one missile is tit for tat, 3) it is a force multiplier, in that getting insurance if your cargo is on a tanker that could get impounded is going to be even harder than it is now, 4) it is reversible, we can release the tankers if there is a reason, and possibly most importantly 5) nobody has to get killed doing it. The wider war question is a very valid one, but impounding the tankers is preferable to anything that is a direct attack on Russian soil. If we are in a position that nothing we can do to stop Russia from destroying the Ukrainian power grid is feasible because it will result in a "wider war", we either have to risk it or give up (IMO). The status quo isn't sustainable, and it wouldn't be even if Russia is completely driven out of Ukraine. As long as they can fire missiles into Ukraine without any worse consequences than they currently suffer, there is no reason to believe they will not continue to do it.

Do we have reason to think the West is saying nothing about attacks on infrastructure?  For example, do we think that the West has not threatened ATACMS if Russia does X, Y, or Z?

Obviously I don't know, but it appears that hitting the power grid isn't X,Y, or Z, since Ukraine doesn't have ATACMS :-).

 
What economic costs would Russia be unable to control/handle, and can those costs be imposed without a wider war?

The force multiplier of seizing one or more tankers would be that insurance would become impossible to come by and that the remaining (far fewer) tankers operating (Russian bottoms) would be pretty easy to embargo. Russia absolutely needs to export oil to prevent a collapse of their economy. Sanctions have greatly cut into those exports, but the increased price of oil has worked in the opposite direction and allowed Russia to get by. Close that loophole and they are in real serious trouble very quickly. The main problems (besides a wider war) would be the reaction of Russia's customers and OPEC. OPEC might just raise the price again and places like India might be quite angry. The only way to deal with the customers would be to pull a Putin. Tell them that if Russia quits hitting Ukraine's infrastructure, we will quit stopping their oil exports. Totally Russia's fault :-). The wider war issue is a difficult call. Since we are reacting to what Russia is doing, it may be Russia is unsure what they can do in response. It is a risk, for sure. However, Russia can unilaterally decide to widen the war anytime they want to do so. It is unclear what the risk actually is.

Is there benefit to the current approach even if Russia appears likely to win in the end?

Valid question. One approach is to say as long as Ukraine keeps fighting it isn't defeated, so we should continue and maybe Putin will die or something. Worked for Prussia back in the day. However, the west really has to decide at what point to we need to/will risk a "wider war"? Our actions to date have framed this conflict as NATO vs Russia. We could have avoided that characterization if we wished, but instead we went full ahead. I supported that decision, but we really needed to let Russia know that while they had red lines, so did we. If we did that, we certainly kept it close held. We are now in a situation that if Russia "wins", NATO's credibility will be severely damaged, if not destroyed. The former Warsaw pact nations are fully aware what that means to them, and it won't be pretty for NATO (IMO at least). That is why just "staying the course" isn't wise.

Is it feasible for NATO to do more right now, or are there members who could/would cause problems if NATO became more actively involved on Ukraine's side of the conflict?

Another valid question. Since the US and the UK would probably be doing most of the work it would be pretty easy for the rest of NATO to play dumb. If we could diplomatically get Italy to help in the Med by seizing a tanker or two, that would be really big. It would send a message. No idea if it can be done. Outside of NATO, getting Japan and Australia on board would greatly help. I think (based on the little I know) that would be possible.

I'm sure there are many more appropriate questions.  I am not saying that you're preferred approach of being more aggressive would be the wrong one.  I'm just saying that the one short paragraph seems to gloss over a number of big issues.

Totally agree. I really wanted to raise this issue for everybody's consideration. The US often gets into "situations" because doing nothing is unacceptable, but it is unclear what will happen if we "do something". It is often impossible to reliably predict all the consequences of our actions. I am however seeing a scenario unfolding where the ROE are such that we are unable to meet our goals. Whatever we do, or do not do, needs to be framed in full awareness of that "fact", if indeed it is a fact. Other thoughts/solutions welcome! IMO we need to make sure Russia can't define the "game" in a way we can't win.

[Goose]

IMO the "west", particularly the US, has not done themselves any favors here. It should have been made clear to Russia when they started attacking Ukrainian infrastructure that for every missile they fired into a power plant, one of their oil tankers would be seized. There has to be a cost to Russia or they can just pound Ukraine into the dust and walk in afterwards. This is IMO obvious. It may take years, but they can do it if 1) they are foolish enough to think it is worth it and 2) there are no economic costs they can't control. While nobody wants a wider war, we can't allow Russia to define the parameters in a way Ukraine simply can't win. We needed to make it clear to Putin et al that there was no way we were going to let them set the ROE to their overwhelming advantage. There is also the question of how long "the west" will support Ukraine militarily if the way ahead appears to be the eventual destruction of Ukraine. Hard to argue it is a good idea if it can't succeed.

So much to unpack here.  
Why is seizing oil tankers the right approach?  Is that even feasible without starting a wider war?

There may be other approaches that are better. The good things about the oil tankers is 1) it is possible to do. Russia can't protect them well enough, if at all, 2) it is somewhat proportional, in that one tanker for one missile is tit for tat, 3) it is a force multiplier, in that getting insurance if your cargo is on a tanker that could get impounded is going to be even harder than it is now, 4) it is reversible, we can release the tankers if there is a reason, and possibly most importantly 5) nobody has to get killed doing it. The wider war question is a very valid one, but impounding the tankers is preferable to anything that is a direct attack on Russian soil. If we are in a position that nothing we can do to stop Russia from destroying the Ukrainian power grid is feasible because it will result in a "wider war", we either have to risk it or give up (IMO). The status quo isn't sustainable, and it wouldn't be even if Russia is completely driven out of Ukraine. As long as they can fire missiles into Ukraine without any worse consequences than they currently suffer, there is no reason to believe they will not continue to do it.

Do we have reason to think the West is saying nothing about attacks on infrastructure?  For example, do we think that the West has not threatened ATACMS if Russia does X, Y, or Z?

Obviously I don't know, but it appears that hitting the power grid isn't X,Y, or Z, since Ukraine doesn't have ATACMS :-).

 
What economic costs would Russia be unable to control/handle, and can those costs be imposed without a wider war?

The force multiplier of seizing one or more tankers would be that insurance would become impossible to come by and that the remaining (far fewer) tankers operating (Russian bottoms) would be pretty easy to embargo. Russia absolutely needs to export oil to prevent a collapse of their economy. Sanctions have greatly cut into those exports, but the increased price of oil has worked in the opposite direction and allowed Russia to get by. Close that loophole and they are in real serious trouble very quickly. The main problems (besides a wider war) would be the reaction of Russia's customers and OPEC. OPEC might just raise the price again and places like India might be quite angry. The only way to deal with the customers would be to pull a Putin. Tell them that if Russia quits hitting Ukraine's infrastructure, we will quit stopping their oil exports. Totally Russia's fault :-). The wider war issue is a difficult call. Since we are reacting to what Russia is doing, it may be Russia is unsure what they can do in response. It is a risk, for sure. However, Russia can unilaterally decide to widen the war anytime they want to do so. It is unclear what the risk actually is.

Is there benefit to the current approach even if Russia appears likely to win in the end?

Valid question. One approach is to say as long as Ukraine keeps fighting it isn't defeated, so we should continue and maybe Putin will die or something. Worked for Prussia back in the day. However, the west really has to decide at what point to we need to/will risk a "wider war"? Our actions to date have framed this conflict as NATO vs Russia. We could have avoided that characterization if we wished, but instead we went full ahead. I supported that decision, but we really needed to let Russia know that while they had red lines, so did we. If we did that, we certainly kept it close held. We are now in a situation that if Russia "wins", NATO's credibility will be severely damaged, if not destroyed. The former Warsaw pact nations are fully aware what that means to them, and it won't be pretty for NATO (IMO at least). That is why just "staying the course" isn't wise.

Is it feasible for NATO to do more right now, or are there members who could/would cause problems if NATO became more actively involved on Ukraine's side of the conflict?

Another valid question. Since the US and the UK would probably be doing most of the work it would be pretty easy for the rest of NATO to play dumb. If we could diplomatically get Italy to help in the Med by seizing a tanker or two, that would be really big. It would send a message. No idea if it can be done. Outside of NATO, getting Japan and Australia on board would greatly help. I think (based on the little I know) that would be possible.

I'm sure there are many more appropriate questions.  I am not saying that you're preferred approach of being more aggressive would be the wrong one.  I'm just saying that the one short paragraph seems to gloss over a number of big issues.

Totally agree. I really wanted to raise this issue for everybody's consideration. The US often gets into "situations" because doing nothing is unacceptable, but it is unclear what will happen if we "do something". It is often impossible to reliably predict all the consequences of our actions. I am however seeing a scenario unfolding where the ROE are such that we are unable to meet our goals. Whatever we do, or do not do, needs to be framed in full awareness of that "fact", if indeed it is a fact. Other thoughts/solutions welcome! IMO we need to make sure Russia can't define the "game" in a way we can't win.

[TrumpCard]

On the issue of NATO politics, the accession of Finland and Sweden may be a big issue.  I think the US badly wants that done and needs Turkey on board.  I am not sure whether an escalation of the conflict would pose a problem for accession talks.  I also don't know how long Turkey will keep the US in suspense.  There's talk that accession won't happen until after Turkish "elections."  I'm not convinced one way or the other that is correct.  I could easily see Turkey approving shortly after Hungary.  Once that irrevocable act happens, I could imagine that the US will have the freedom to become more aggressive.  This is all speculation.  I'm just saying there's a lot we don't know about motives/timing/etc.

[TrumpCard]

On the issue of NATO politics, the accession of Finland and Sweden may be a big issue.  I think the US badly wants that done and needs Turkey on board.  I am not sure whether an escalation of the conflict would pose a problem for accession talks.  I also don't know how long Turkey will keep the US in suspense.  There's talk that accession won't happen until after Turkish "elections."  I'm not convinced one way or the other that is correct.  I could easily see Turkey approving shortly after Hungary.  Once that irrevocable act happens, I could imagine that the US will have the freedom to become more aggressive.  This is all speculation.  I'm just saying there's a lot we don't know about motives/timing/etc.

[GK3]

On the issue of NATO politics, the accession of Finland and Sweden may be a big issue.  I think the US badly wants that done and needs Turkey on board.  I am not sure whether an escalation of the conflict would pose a problem for accession talks.  I also don't know how long Turkey will keep the US in suspense.  There's talk that accession won't happen until after Turkish "elections."  I'm not convinced one way or the other that is correct.  I could easily see Turkey approving shortly after Hungary.  Once that irrevocable act happens, I could imagine that the US will have the freedom to become more aggressive.  This is all speculation.  I'm just saying there's a lot we don't know about motives/timing/etc.

Hungary has apparently given its ok to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.  Another issue that has not been mentioned is that the artillery we have been providing, the M777 and similar are wearing out and the barrels need replacing.  To get more range they are using more powder and that significantly impairs the life of the barrels.  I don't think this problem extends to HIMARS and we really need to get more of them to the Ukraine ASAP.

[GK3]

On the issue of NATO politics, the accession of Finland and Sweden may be a big issue.  I think the US badly wants that done and needs Turkey on board.  I am not sure whether an escalation of the conflict would pose a problem for accession talks.  I also don't know how long Turkey will keep the US in suspense.  There's talk that accession won't happen until after Turkish "elections."  I'm not convinced one way or the other that is correct.  I could easily see Turkey approving shortly after Hungary.  Once that irrevocable act happens, I could imagine that the US will have the freedom to become more aggressive.  This is all speculation.  I'm just saying there's a lot we don't know about motives/timing/etc.

Hungary has apparently given its ok to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.  Another issue that has not been mentioned is that the artillery we have been providing, the M777 and similar are wearing out and the barrels need replacing.  To get more range they are using more powder and that significantly impairs the life of the barrels.  I don't think this problem extends to HIMARS and we really need to get more of them to the Ukraine ASAP.

[BostonCard]

I posted a tweet above. Orban has said that Hungary will approve (so it will), but it’s Parliament hasn’t given the go ahead yet.

https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-o...postponed/

BC

[BostonCard]

I posted a tweet above. Orban has said that Hungary will approve (so it will), but it’s Parliament hasn’t given the go ahead yet.

https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-o...postponed/

BC

[TrumpCard]

Lots of ways to portray the losses that Ukraine has suffered and the gains it has achieved.  You all may have seen WaPo's maps, data, and charts that were published this week showing the gains and losses over time:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...raine-war/.  Again, you can read this in a number of different ways to confirm a number of different hypotheses.  But it's notable to me that Ukraine is in essentially the same spot now as it was in early April in terms of square miles of territory lost to Russia.  I know Ukraine has a bit of momentum, but I would need some convincing if you think that Ukraine has the upper hand and is likely to retake most of the remaining territory Russia currently controls.  Things may well change if NATO gets more aggressive, or even just supplies Ukraine with more weapons systems.  But right now, it looks like a stale mate with Russia already controlling 20% of Ukrainian territory.  Defmon's thread today on the Svatov area confirms that Ukraine will have a lot of trouble breaking through the current line of contact:  https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1596507771519741952.

Edit: 30 years ago, the US put the AC-130 gunship and Apache helicopters to good use in Iraq. Would those aircraft still be useful in the current fighting environment, or are they too vulnerable to drones and other upgraded anti-aircraft tech? Other than longer range munitions, like ATACMS, what other weapons system would be a difference maker for Ukraine? More MiGs or NATO-style fighters like the F-16?

[TrumpCard]

Lots of ways to portray the losses that Ukraine has suffered and the gains it has achieved.  You all may have seen WaPo's maps, data, and charts that were published this week showing the gains and losses over time:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...raine-war/.  Again, you can read this in a number of different ways to confirm a number of different hypotheses.  But it's notable to me that Ukraine is in essentially the same spot now as it was in early April in terms of square miles of territory lost to Russia.  I know Ukraine has a bit of momentum, but I would need some convincing if you think that Ukraine has the upper hand and is likely to retake most of the remaining territory Russia currently controls.  Things may well change if NATO gets more aggressive, or even just supplies Ukraine with more weapons systems.  But right now, it looks like a stale mate with Russia already controlling 20% of Ukrainian territory.  Defmon's thread today on the Svatov area confirms that Ukraine will have a lot of trouble breaking through the current line of contact:  https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1596507771519741952.

Edit: 30 years ago, the US put the AC-130 gunship and Apache helicopters to good use in Iraq. Would those aircraft still be useful in the current fighting environment, or are they too vulnerable to drones and other upgraded anti-aircraft tech? Other than longer range munitions, like ATACMS, what other weapons system would be a difference maker for Ukraine? More MiGs or NATO-style fighters like the F-16?

[Goose]

Another issue that has not been mentioned is that the artillery we have been providing, the M777 and similar are wearing out and the barrels need replacing.  To get more range they are using more powder and that significantly impairs the life of the barrels.  I don't think this problem extends to HIMARS and we really need to get more of them to the Ukraine ASAP.

The M777 barrel issue has been addressed previously. Apparently there are spare barrels provided with the guns. It also is supposedly an easy task to change them. I do not know for sure that there are people in Ukraine that can do this. However, I suspect this problem is under control, as it is a fully expected maintenance item. However, since Ukraine is using the guns at a higher rate than NATO does, the number of spares available may not be adequate in the long term. I hope somebody is on that one.

HIMARS do require maintenance but as you say there is no barrel wear equivalent. Ukraine certainly wants more HIMARS. I would support supplying them, but I think there may be concern about the missile supply. Why we haven't supplied more isn't public knowledge, so we can't say whether what we are doing is reasonable or not.

[Goose]

Another issue that has not been mentioned is that the artillery we have been providing, the M777 and similar are wearing out and the barrels need replacing.  To get more range they are using more powder and that significantly impairs the life of the barrels.  I don't think this problem extends to HIMARS and we really need to get more of them to the Ukraine ASAP.

The M777 barrel issue has been addressed previously. Apparently there are spare barrels provided with the guns. It also is supposedly an easy task to change them. I do not know for sure that there are people in Ukraine that can do this. However, I suspect this problem is under control, as it is a fully expected maintenance item. However, since Ukraine is using the guns at a higher rate than NATO does, the number of spares available may not be adequate in the long term. I hope somebody is on that one.

HIMARS do require maintenance but as you say there is no barrel wear equivalent. Ukraine certainly wants more HIMARS. I would support supplying them, but I think there may be concern about the missile supply. Why we haven't supplied more isn't public knowledge, so we can't say whether what we are doing is reasonable or not.

[Mick]

And Russia is in real trouble IMO.  Their economy is a mess.  And no western company will be able to invest in Russia for decades even if Putin goes away....

The war has been a dismal failure for Russia and for Putin but particularly for Russian people. The Russian people had a taste of the success of the West after the USSR fell.

I wonder if there's a candidate in Russia who would proactively embrace the West, reject Satan/Putin, consider China to be the common enemy, and lobby for Western companies to establish (re-establish) in Russia?

[Mick]

And Russia is in real trouble IMO.  Their economy is a mess.  And no western company will be able to invest in Russia for decades even if Putin goes away....

The war has been a dismal failure for Russia and for Putin but particularly for Russian people. The Russian people had a taste of the success of the West after the USSR fell.

I wonder if there's a candidate in Russia who would proactively embrace the West, reject Satan/Putin, consider China to be the common enemy, and lobby for Western companies to establish (re-establish) in Russia?

[GK3]

And Russia is in real trouble IMO.  Their economy is a mess.  And no western company will be able to invest in Russia for decades even if Putin goes away....

The war has been a dismal failure for Russia and for Putin but particularly for Russian people. The Russian people had a taste of the success of the West after the USSR fell.

I wonder if there's a candidate in Russia who would proactively embrace the West, reject Satan/Putin, consider China to be the common enemy, and lobby for Western companies to establish (re-establish) in Russia?

Unfortunately below Putin you have the gaggle of Billionaires he created by allowing them to steal from the Russian budget.  The last thing any of those guys wants is a government that is actually accountable to the people of Russia. If a real government took over in Russia there will be a lot of dead billionaires.

[GK3]

And Russia is in real trouble IMO.  Their economy is a mess.  And no western company will be able to invest in Russia for decades even if Putin goes away....

The war has been a dismal failure for Russia and for Putin but particularly for Russian people. The Russian people had a taste of the success of the West after the USSR fell.

I wonder if there's a candidate in Russia who would proactively embrace the West, reject Satan/Putin, consider China to be the common enemy, and lobby for Western companies to establish (re-establish) in Russia?

Unfortunately below Putin you have the gaggle of Billionaires he created by allowing them to steal from the Russian budget.  The last thing any of those guys wants is a government that is actually accountable to the people of Russia. If a real government took over in Russia there will be a lot of dead billionaires.