[dabigv13]

Have heard nothing new regarding the US aid package held up in Congress. This article from WSJ covers the latest funding news. Interesting tease that longer range ATACMS may soon be on the table, though apparently not yet.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-se...e-07402244

The Biden administration said it was sending $300 million more in ammunition and other weapons to Kyiv in a stopgap move to boost Ukraine’s forces while Congress debates a new aid package.

The Pentagon plans to transfer artillery rounds, rockets for Ukraine’s Himars launchers, antiaircraft missile and antitank weapons, using funds in the Army budget left over from weapons contracts for replacing arms sent to Kyiv, officials said.

The new assistance package also includes additional shorter-range ATACMS missiles, an administration official said. That version of the weapon has a range of about 100 miles and is armed with cluster munitions.

.......


Ukraine has also been pushing the Pentagon to provide long-range ATACMS missiles, which have a range of more than 180 miles and could add to Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian forces in Crimea, U.S. officials said.

Pentagon officials had previously insisted the U.S. military needed to retain all of its longer-range ATACMS to meet its own military requirements. But the Pentagon is now open to providing the longer-range ATACMS because of progress in acquiring a follow-on system dubbed the Precision Strike Missile, U.S. officials say. 

That removes a major impediment to providing the long-range variant of the missile, though officials declined to say whether Biden will send the system. 

.....

A new $95.3 billion aid package focused on Ukraine and Israel passed the Democratic-run Senate last month, but hasn’t moved in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) has said he wouldn’t bring the funding bill to the floor in its current form. 

With a date for a vote on the package still uncertain, the Pentagon was able to find additional funds for Ukraine after contracts to replace U.S. military stockpiles with equipment and weapons already provided to Kyiv came in under budget, defense officials said.

The cheaper-than-expected contracts allowed the Pentagon to move replenishment funds back to those dedicated to supporting Ukraine, the officials said, stressing that it wasn’t clear such savings would be available again. 

......


In Brussels, European Union member states are poised to reach a deal on providing an additional €5 billion (equivalent to $5.4 billion) in funding to bolster military aid for Ukraine, EU diplomats said.

......

Member state ambassadors will meet on Wednesday to make a final decision. However EU diplomats said a deal seems to be in place after France compromised on its insistence that money be used to compensate member states only for weapons purchased within the EU for Ukraine.

[dabigv13]

Have heard nothing new regarding the US aid package held up in Congress. This article from WSJ covers the latest funding news. Interesting tease that longer range ATACMS may soon be on the table, though apparently not yet.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-se...e-07402244

The Biden administration said it was sending $300 million more in ammunition and other weapons to Kyiv in a stopgap move to boost Ukraine’s forces while Congress debates a new aid package.

The Pentagon plans to transfer artillery rounds, rockets for Ukraine’s Himars launchers, antiaircraft missile and antitank weapons, using funds in the Army budget left over from weapons contracts for replacing arms sent to Kyiv, officials said.

The new assistance package also includes additional shorter-range ATACMS missiles, an administration official said. That version of the weapon has a range of about 100 miles and is armed with cluster munitions.

.......


Ukraine has also been pushing the Pentagon to provide long-range ATACMS missiles, which have a range of more than 180 miles and could add to Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian forces in Crimea, U.S. officials said.

Pentagon officials had previously insisted the U.S. military needed to retain all of its longer-range ATACMS to meet its own military requirements. But the Pentagon is now open to providing the longer-range ATACMS because of progress in acquiring a follow-on system dubbed the Precision Strike Missile, U.S. officials say. 

That removes a major impediment to providing the long-range variant of the missile, though officials declined to say whether Biden will send the system. 

.....

A new $95.3 billion aid package focused on Ukraine and Israel passed the Democratic-run Senate last month, but hasn’t moved in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) has said he wouldn’t bring the funding bill to the floor in its current form. 

With a date for a vote on the package still uncertain, the Pentagon was able to find additional funds for Ukraine after contracts to replace U.S. military stockpiles with equipment and weapons already provided to Kyiv came in under budget, defense officials said.

The cheaper-than-expected contracts allowed the Pentagon to move replenishment funds back to those dedicated to supporting Ukraine, the officials said, stressing that it wasn’t clear such savings would be available again. 

......


In Brussels, European Union member states are poised to reach a deal on providing an additional €5 billion (equivalent to $5.4 billion) in funding to bolster military aid for Ukraine, EU diplomats said.

......

Member state ambassadors will meet on Wednesday to make a final decision. However EU diplomats said a deal seems to be in place after France compromised on its insistence that money be used to compensate member states only for weapons purchased within the EU for Ukraine.

[Goose]

Have heard nothing new regarding the US aid package held up in Congress. This article from WSJ covers the latest funding news. Interesting tease that longer range ATACMS may soon be on the table, though apparently not yet.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-se...e-07402244

The Biden administration said it was sending $300 million more in ammunition and other weapons to Kyiv in a stopgap move to boost Ukraine’s forces while Congress debates a new aid package.

The Pentagon plans to transfer artillery rounds, rockets for Ukraine’s Himars launchers, antiaircraft missile and antitank weapons, using funds in the Army budget left over from weapons contracts for replacing arms sent to Kyiv, officials said.

The new assistance package also includes additional shorter-range ATACMS missiles, an administration official said. That version of the weapon has a range of about 100 miles and is armed with cluster munitions.

These are ATACMS missiles that the US was (in theory at least)  required by Congress to pay a contractor to destroy because the cluster munitions have "too high" a dud rate. Sending them to Ukraine to destroy actually saves us money (and kills Russians :-). This should actually free up MORE funds for Ukraine aid. These cluster munitions are ideal for obliterating massed infantry/motor rifle units. This is what they were originally designed to do. The "finger of God" should be applied repeatedly in Ukraine. We should save even more money and send all we have remaining in inventory :-). 

Ukraine has also been pushing the Pentagon to provide long-range ATACMS missiles, which have a range of more than 180 miles and could add to Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian forces in Crimea, U.S. officials said.

Pentagon officials had previously insisted the U.S. military needed to retain all of its longer-range ATACMS to meet its own military requirements. But the Pentagon is now open to providing the longer-range ATACMS because of progress in acquiring a follow-on system dubbed the Precision Strike Missile, U.S. officials say.

The "progress" in PrSM deliveries is not at all as described in the above. As https://executivegov.com/2023/12/army-re...-missiles/ points out the initial delivery of "PrSM, Increment 1 Early Operational Capability missiles" occurred on Dec 11, 2023. The Army is in no position to take this weapon to war anytime soon. The Army will do as ordered, but the idea they are suddenly fine with it is simply false. It may be that giving the missiles to Ukraine is now considered important enough that the Army's objections should be overridden. IMO this is the case, but let it be told like it is, not some fake narrative to make the public feel good.
https://defence-industry.eu/lockheed-sec...-missiles/ indicates that a contract for such missiles was let on 6 March 2024. The number of missiles to be delivered in the next 12 months will be 30-40. The number of M-48 missiles in US inventory is at most 118. The number of M57 missiles in US inventory is at most 513. While not reassuringly high numbers, the addition of < 50 PrSM this year doesn't move the meter.

That removes a major impediment to providing the long-range variant of the missile, though officials declined to say whether Biden will send the system. 

.....

A new $95.3 billion aid package focused on Ukraine and Israel passed the Democratic-run Senate last month, but hasn’t moved in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) has said he wouldn’t bring the funding bill to the floor in its current form.

Sucks. IMO simply insane.

[Goose]

Have heard nothing new regarding the US aid package held up in Congress. This article from WSJ covers the latest funding news. Interesting tease that longer range ATACMS may soon be on the table, though apparently not yet.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-se...e-07402244

The Biden administration said it was sending $300 million more in ammunition and other weapons to Kyiv in a stopgap move to boost Ukraine’s forces while Congress debates a new aid package.

The Pentagon plans to transfer artillery rounds, rockets for Ukraine’s Himars launchers, antiaircraft missile and antitank weapons, using funds in the Army budget left over from weapons contracts for replacing arms sent to Kyiv, officials said.

The new assistance package also includes additional shorter-range ATACMS missiles, an administration official said. That version of the weapon has a range of about 100 miles and is armed with cluster munitions.

These are ATACMS missiles that the US was (in theory at least)  required by Congress to pay a contractor to destroy because the cluster munitions have "too high" a dud rate. Sending them to Ukraine to destroy actually saves us money (and kills Russians :-). This should actually free up MORE funds for Ukraine aid. These cluster munitions are ideal for obliterating massed infantry/motor rifle units. This is what they were originally designed to do. The "finger of God" should be applied repeatedly in Ukraine. We should save even more money and send all we have remaining in inventory :-). 

Ukraine has also been pushing the Pentagon to provide long-range ATACMS missiles, which have a range of more than 180 miles and could add to Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian forces in Crimea, U.S. officials said.

Pentagon officials had previously insisted the U.S. military needed to retain all of its longer-range ATACMS to meet its own military requirements. But the Pentagon is now open to providing the longer-range ATACMS because of progress in acquiring a follow-on system dubbed the Precision Strike Missile, U.S. officials say.

The "progress" in PrSM deliveries is not at all as described in the above. As https://executivegov.com/2023/12/army-re...-missiles/ points out the initial delivery of "PrSM, Increment 1 Early Operational Capability missiles" occurred on Dec 11, 2023. The Army is in no position to take this weapon to war anytime soon. The Army will do as ordered, but the idea they are suddenly fine with it is simply false. It may be that giving the missiles to Ukraine is now considered important enough that the Army's objections should be overridden. IMO this is the case, but let it be told like it is, not some fake narrative to make the public feel good.
https://defence-industry.eu/lockheed-sec...-missiles/ indicates that a contract for such missiles was let on 6 March 2024. The number of missiles to be delivered in the next 12 months will be 30-40. The number of M-48 missiles in US inventory is at most 118. The number of M57 missiles in US inventory is at most 513. While not reassuringly high numbers, the addition of < 50 PrSM this year doesn't move the meter.

That removes a major impediment to providing the long-range variant of the missile, though officials declined to say whether Biden will send the system. 

.....

A new $95.3 billion aid package focused on Ukraine and Israel passed the Democratic-run Senate last month, but hasn’t moved in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) has said he wouldn’t bring the funding bill to the floor in its current form.

Sucks. IMO simply insane.

[TrumpCard]

For now, I’m hoping that Johnson is being appropriately tight lipped about plans to bring the aid supplemental to a floor vote after the budget passes. No use bringing the US to a shutdown or jeopardizing the speakership by “prematurely” pushing a bill that will anger Johnson’s right flank. The delay sucks for Ukraine and all NATO countries, but I’m keeping hope alive that the aid will work out in the end and that the delay won’t be exceedingly prejudicial.

[TrumpCard]

For now, I’m hoping that Johnson is being appropriately tight lipped about plans to bring the aid supplemental to a floor vote after the budget passes. No use bringing the US to a shutdown or jeopardizing the speakership by “prematurely” pushing a bill that will anger Johnson’s right flank. The delay sucks for Ukraine and all NATO countries, but I’m keeping hope alive that the aid will work out in the end and that the delay won’t be exceedingly prejudicial.

[TrumpCard]

There it is: 
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/14...l-00147108

[TrumpCard]

There it is: 
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/14...l-00147108

[dabigv13]

Would require 2/3 majority to pass if brought up this way, so probably Ukraine and Israel aid would need to be unlinked. And then whatever does pass the House needs to be reconciled with the Senate bill.

Very encouraging though that it seems something is going to move.

[dabigv13]

Would require 2/3 majority to pass if brought up this way, so probably Ukraine and Israel aid would need to be unlinked. And then whatever does pass the House needs to be reconciled with the Senate bill.

Very encouraging though that it seems something is going to move.

[Goose]

Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

The U. S. Army has figured out a way to combat the massive recruiting shortfall. Not by paying soldiers more...but by cutting positions and reducing their mission:
24,000 US Army positions cut amid recruitment woes

U. S. Army structural transformation white paper here: army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf

Yes, this is an example of trying to spin having fewer troops as a "good thing". They claim it allows them to bring in "new capabilities". Why does fewer troops do that? It saves on paying them. Did it never occur to them that having both is the right answer, not either-or. Yes, you can make the best of a bad situation but claiming "all is well" is a) false, and b) almost ensures nobody will see a need to fix the problem (because there is no problem). It is an abdication of leadership. The military is responsible to civilian control, but the military leaders are expected to also be professional. They should never defend a policy they think is misguided, no matter what their civilian bosses say. Make them fire you if they don't like your opinion. You have a professional obligation both to the nation and to the troops. Honor it.

Amen, very well said. I could probably comment on this subject at great length, but I could not define the problem any better than your have.
Thank you

As an update to this sorry situation, others have figured out that the current meager troop rotation "plan" is not working.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/army-permanen...35687.html

We are again pretending that our three brigades are "enough" while at the same time pretending we can continue this "shell game" of what troops are actually "committed". It isn't working. Big surprise.

[Goose]

Our military leaders keep saying "Yes Sir, Yes Sir, 3 Bags Full Sir." as they reorganize yet again to "do more with less" as they lower standards and still can't meet their recruiting requirements. At least the leaders of the Luftwaffe had the courage to resign in response to irresponsible leadership by the politicians. Not that it helped.

The U. S. Army has figured out a way to combat the massive recruiting shortfall. Not by paying soldiers more...but by cutting positions and reducing their mission:
24,000 US Army positions cut amid recruitment woes

U. S. Army structural transformation white paper here: army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf

Yes, this is an example of trying to spin having fewer troops as a "good thing". They claim it allows them to bring in "new capabilities". Why does fewer troops do that? It saves on paying them. Did it never occur to them that having both is the right answer, not either-or. Yes, you can make the best of a bad situation but claiming "all is well" is a) false, and b) almost ensures nobody will see a need to fix the problem (because there is no problem). It is an abdication of leadership. The military is responsible to civilian control, but the military leaders are expected to also be professional. They should never defend a policy they think is misguided, no matter what their civilian bosses say. Make them fire you if they don't like your opinion. You have a professional obligation both to the nation and to the troops. Honor it.

Amen, very well said. I could probably comment on this subject at great length, but I could not define the problem any better than your have.
Thank you

As an update to this sorry situation, others have figured out that the current meager troop rotation "plan" is not working.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/army-permanen...35687.html

We are again pretending that our three brigades are "enough" while at the same time pretending we can continue this "shell game" of what troops are actually "committed". It isn't working. Big surprise.

[dabigv13]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/politics/...index.html

This leaves me less sanguine than earlier reports. This sounds like more delaying bullshit. Mitch has this right.

“The only way to get relief to the Ukrainians and the Israelis quickly is for the House to figure out how to pass the Senate bill,” the Kentucky Republican told reporters, a reference to how the Senate bill also includes aid to Israel. “Anything that’s changed and sent back here, as you all know, even the simplest thing can take a week in the Senate. We don’t have time for all of this.”

McConnell continued, “We’ve got a bill that got 70 votes in the Senate. Give members of the House of Representatives an opportunity to vote on it. That’s the solution.”

Democrats are also not committed to passing a House version of aid, warning that some of the ideas being floated could further complicate aid that is necessary now.

“You know, it feels like Speaker Johnson makes up his strategy one or two days at a time. So it’s really hard to know what the next step is,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. “Speaker Johnson doesn’t need to make up a new plan. He has a bill that’s already passed the Senate that the president says he will sign that he knows has the votes right now in the House. Just call that bill up for a vote.”

[dabigv13]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/politics/...index.html

This leaves me less sanguine than earlier reports. This sounds like more delaying bullshit. Mitch has this right.

“The only way to get relief to the Ukrainians and the Israelis quickly is for the House to figure out how to pass the Senate bill,” the Kentucky Republican told reporters, a reference to how the Senate bill also includes aid to Israel. “Anything that’s changed and sent back here, as you all know, even the simplest thing can take a week in the Senate. We don’t have time for all of this.”

McConnell continued, “We’ve got a bill that got 70 votes in the Senate. Give members of the House of Representatives an opportunity to vote on it. That’s the solution.”

Democrats are also not committed to passing a House version of aid, warning that some of the ideas being floated could further complicate aid that is necessary now.

“You know, it feels like Speaker Johnson makes up his strategy one or two days at a time. So it’s really hard to know what the next step is,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. “Speaker Johnson doesn’t need to make up a new plan. He has a bill that’s already passed the Senate that the president says he will sign that he knows has the votes right now in the House. Just call that bill up for a vote.”

[Goose]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/politics/...index.html

This leaves me less sanguine than earlier reports. This sounds like more delaying bullshit. Mitch has this right.

“You know, it feels like Speaker Johnson makes up his strategy one or two days at a time. So it’s really hard to know what the next step is,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. “Speaker Johnson doesn’t need to make up a new plan. He has a bill that’s already passed the Senate that the president says he will sign that he knows has the votes right now in the House. Just call that bill up for a vote.”

So true! This is just insane, although in truth many such things happen in the congress these days. There is a limit to how much of this nonsense the country and the world can tolerate/survive. We seem to be seeking that limit.

[Goose]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/politics/...index.html

This leaves me less sanguine than earlier reports. This sounds like more delaying bullshit. Mitch has this right.

“You know, it feels like Speaker Johnson makes up his strategy one or two days at a time. So it’s really hard to know what the next step is,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. “Speaker Johnson doesn’t need to make up a new plan. He has a bill that’s already passed the Senate that the president says he will sign that he knows has the votes right now in the House. Just call that bill up for a vote.”

So true! This is just insane, although in truth many such things happen in the congress these days. There is a limit to how much of this nonsense the country and the world can tolerate/survive. We seem to be seeking that limit.

[TrumpCard]

MM pushed it through the senate. Of course he’ll fight for it. The house bill will provide less funding. Of course he’ll argue against that. But if it ends up being 50 instead of 65, it’s still okay.

[TrumpCard]

MM pushed it through the senate. Of course he’ll fight for it. The house bill will provide less funding. Of course he’ll argue against that. But if it ends up being 50 instead of 65, it’s still okay.

[Goose]

MM pushed it through the senate. Of course he’ll fight for it. The house bill will provide less funding. Of course he’ll argue against that. But if it ends up being 50 instead of 65, it’s still okay.

For sure 50 now is better than 65 after the election. The real problem going forward is that both Ukraine and the United States have to make a feasible plan to end this conflict with a Ukrainian victory. This victory can't be too far in the future either, as Ukraine can only endure the endless cost in blood and treasure. I am not sure that 50 "soon" is enough because I don't know what the plan is. However, I do know that if there is no plan there will be no victory.

[Goose]

MM pushed it through the senate. Of course he’ll fight for it. The house bill will provide less funding. Of course he’ll argue against that. But if it ends up being 50 instead of 65, it’s still okay.

For sure 50 now is better than 65 after the election. The real problem going forward is that both Ukraine and the United States have to make a feasible plan to end this conflict with a Ukrainian victory. This victory can't be too far in the future either, as Ukraine can only endure the endless cost in blood and treasure. I am not sure that 50 "soon" is enough because I don't know what the plan is. However, I do know that if there is no plan there will be no victory.

[TrumpCard]

At this point, we may have to redefine “victory” as “stalemate.”

[TrumpCard]

At this point, we may have to redefine “victory” as “stalemate.”

[dabigv13]

I think stalemate is only really an acceptable end state for Ukraine if there are NATO boots on the ground or some sort of path into NATO. Before Bucha, Zelensky was open to negotiations, but now I think the consensus in the Ukrainian populace is a ceasefire is only time for Russia to re-arm and prepare for further offensives and their attendant atrocities.

Macron today talked about deploying French troops to Ukraine, possibly in near future. Perhaps something like that will be necessary for any negotiated settlement to be something Ukraine can live with.

[dabigv13]

I think stalemate is only really an acceptable end state for Ukraine if there are NATO boots on the ground or some sort of path into NATO. Before Bucha, Zelensky was open to negotiations, but now I think the consensus in the Ukrainian populace is a ceasefire is only time for Russia to re-arm and prepare for further offensives and their attendant atrocities.

Macron today talked about deploying French troops to Ukraine, possibly in near future. Perhaps something like that will be necessary for any negotiated settlement to be something Ukraine can live with.

[TrumpCard]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

[TrumpCard]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

[GK3]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

I am concerned that the populations of the NATO countries will get tired of seeing billions of dollars ground up in the war in Ukraine with nothing to show for it. I think NATO has to get very serious about giving the Ukraine what it needs to at least force a stalemate and some sort of negotiated peace and do that soon.  Actual recapture of all occupied territories, including Crimea, may well be a bridge too far. Ukraine's ability to field enough manpower is going to start to decline soon if it hasn't already.  I could see a situation where the Ukraine starts to lose territory to the Russians simply due to lack of manpower and sufficient armaments.  At that point a few NATO countries might start sending troops. I think there is starting to be the belief in Europe that as long as Putin is in charge, Western European Countries are in danger.  This could easily escalate to combat troops being sent to Ukraine.  Better to fight in someone else's country than wait until they get to yours.

[GK3]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

I am concerned that the populations of the NATO countries will get tired of seeing billions of dollars ground up in the war in Ukraine with nothing to show for it. I think NATO has to get very serious about giving the Ukraine what it needs to at least force a stalemate and some sort of negotiated peace and do that soon.  Actual recapture of all occupied territories, including Crimea, may well be a bridge too far. Ukraine's ability to field enough manpower is going to start to decline soon if it hasn't already.  I could see a situation where the Ukraine starts to lose territory to the Russians simply due to lack of manpower and sufficient armaments.  At that point a few NATO countries might start sending troops. I think there is starting to be the belief in Europe that as long as Putin is in charge, Western European Countries are in danger.  This could easily escalate to combat troops being sent to Ukraine.  Better to fight in someone else's country than wait until they get to yours.

[Goose]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

I am concerned that the populations of the NATO countries will get tired of seeing billions of dollars ground up in the war in Ukraine with nothing to show for it. I think NATO has to get very serious about giving the Ukraine what it needs to at least force a stalemate and some sort of negotiated peace and do that soon.  Actual recapture of all occupied territories, including Crimea, may well be a bridge too far. Ukraine's ability to field enough manpower is going to start to decline soon if it hasn't already.  I could see a situation where the Ukraine starts to lose territory to the Russians simply due to lack of manpower and sufficient armaments.  At that point a few NATO countries might start sending troops. I think there is starting to be the belief in Europe that as long as Putin is in charge, Western European Countries are in danger.  This could easily escalate to combat troops being sent to Ukraine.  Better to fight in someone else's country than wait until they get to yours.

I totally agree that the populations of NATO countries are getting tired of spending money that seems to have no good result. It must be remembered that there were skeptics from the beginning. There are also some nations (Hungary, Slovakia) that oppose any aid to Ukraine at all. Unfortunately, the only document Putin is ever going to sign, absent a Ukrainian victory in the south, is a de-facto or de-jure Ukrainian surrender.  Period. Full stop.

If Ukraine is running out of troops and if Western aid is drying up, Russia has no reason to stop what they are doing. Russia has survived the economic effects of sanctions. They have not run out of ammunition and they aren't going to do so. They have bought time to mobilize their economy for a long war. They are hollowing out a generation with casualties in Ukraine, but there is no indication they cannot continue doing this. As long as Putin believes that Ukraine is going to fold (because it has no choice), he will keep pounding away. No person doing a sane benefit-cost evaluation of this war for Russia would have started it. Putin isn't going to suddenly decide it isn't worth it. Putin is fully committed to the end of Ukraine as an independent nation. The only way that won't happen is if Putin is physically stopped. Otherwise, the war continues.

Ukraine has no way to bring the war to Russia. They can't threaten to bomb Moscow. They are doing all they can, which is more than anybody would have guessed they could. However, it isn't nearly enough to force Russia out of the war. The only loss that Ukraine has any chance to execute that would discomfit  Russia is recapture/threatened recapture of Crimea. Ukraine know this. They also know they have to "fight like NATO" to do this. They have said that time after time. They also have stated that technology is their only way to victory. In an continuing battle of attrition, Ukraine runs out of bodies first. Unfortunately, Ukraine is still reliant on infantry for most of their combat power. If it is true that Ukraine cannot, even after they get their F-16s in place, break through the Russian defenses and threaten Crimea, they lose. There is no option of a "negotiated settlement" without this success, because Russia has no incentive to accept one. Ukraine needs to give them a reason to quit. Can Ukraine execute a successful offensive in the South? IMO it is possible, but they only get one more shot at it. The West has to step up and help make that happen.
Any other plan is intellectually bankrupt IMO.

It makes no sense to send NATO troops to Ukraine unless NATO is "all in" on a Ukrainian victory. What are these troops going to do if not fight Russians? If they fight, some will die. Does any European country think the rest of NATO will step up and honor an invocation of article 5 due to losses incurred in Ukraine? Does anybody believe the US will? IMO the answers are No and Hell NO. I don't believe that Macron has enough support among the French people to do anything like sending troops to Ukraine. It grabs headlines, but it isn't politically feasible. While it is true that many Europeans are becoming worried about the implications of Ukraine being defeated, it is totally unclear that the majority response is to fight back right now. At this point, trying to reach an accommodation is a much more probable response IMO. This becomes a virtual certainty if the US appears to be wavering in our commitments in Europe.

If NATO wanted to actually do something "aggressive" to help, it would provide AWACS services to Ukraine. That would actually help and wouldn't involve troops on the ground in Ukraine. That isn't happening. When I see it happen, then I might believe NATO is willing to risk conflict with Russia in Ukraine. IMO the only mechanism that will "widen the war" is the equivalent of a Tonkin Gulf event, either because of a miscalculation by Russia or a "false flag" operation by Ukraine. If Ukraine loses it will be interesting to se what the Hungarian government has to say about the treatment of minorities by Russia in the former Ukraine. Of course, if Ukraine loses the vast majority of Ukrainians will probably become refugees in Europe.

[Goose]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

I am concerned that the populations of the NATO countries will get tired of seeing billions of dollars ground up in the war in Ukraine with nothing to show for it. I think NATO has to get very serious about giving the Ukraine what it needs to at least force a stalemate and some sort of negotiated peace and do that soon.  Actual recapture of all occupied territories, including Crimea, may well be a bridge too far. Ukraine's ability to field enough manpower is going to start to decline soon if it hasn't already.  I could see a situation where the Ukraine starts to lose territory to the Russians simply due to lack of manpower and sufficient armaments.  At that point a few NATO countries might start sending troops. I think there is starting to be the belief in Europe that as long as Putin is in charge, Western European Countries are in danger.  This could easily escalate to combat troops being sent to Ukraine.  Better to fight in someone else's country than wait until they get to yours.

I totally agree that the populations of NATO countries are getting tired of spending money that seems to have no good result. It must be remembered that there were skeptics from the beginning. There are also some nations (Hungary, Slovakia) that oppose any aid to Ukraine at all. Unfortunately, the only document Putin is ever going to sign, absent a Ukrainian victory in the south, is a de-facto or de-jure Ukrainian surrender.  Period. Full stop.

If Ukraine is running out of troops and if Western aid is drying up, Russia has no reason to stop what they are doing. Russia has survived the economic effects of sanctions. They have not run out of ammunition and they aren't going to do so. They have bought time to mobilize their economy for a long war. They are hollowing out a generation with casualties in Ukraine, but there is no indication they cannot continue doing this. As long as Putin believes that Ukraine is going to fold (because it has no choice), he will keep pounding away. No person doing a sane benefit-cost evaluation of this war for Russia would have started it. Putin isn't going to suddenly decide it isn't worth it. Putin is fully committed to the end of Ukraine as an independent nation. The only way that won't happen is if Putin is physically stopped. Otherwise, the war continues.

Ukraine has no way to bring the war to Russia. They can't threaten to bomb Moscow. They are doing all they can, which is more than anybody would have guessed they could. However, it isn't nearly enough to force Russia out of the war. The only loss that Ukraine has any chance to execute that would discomfit  Russia is recapture/threatened recapture of Crimea. Ukraine know this. They also know they have to "fight like NATO" to do this. They have said that time after time. They also have stated that technology is their only way to victory. In an continuing battle of attrition, Ukraine runs out of bodies first. Unfortunately, Ukraine is still reliant on infantry for most of their combat power. If it is true that Ukraine cannot, even after they get their F-16s in place, break through the Russian defenses and threaten Crimea, they lose. There is no option of a "negotiated settlement" without this success, because Russia has no incentive to accept one. Ukraine needs to give them a reason to quit. Can Ukraine execute a successful offensive in the South? IMO it is possible, but they only get one more shot at it. The West has to step up and help make that happen.
Any other plan is intellectually bankrupt IMO.

It makes no sense to send NATO troops to Ukraine unless NATO is "all in" on a Ukrainian victory. What are these troops going to do if not fight Russians? If they fight, some will die. Does any European country think the rest of NATO will step up and honor an invocation of article 5 due to losses incurred in Ukraine? Does anybody believe the US will? IMO the answers are No and Hell NO. I don't believe that Macron has enough support among the French people to do anything like sending troops to Ukraine. It grabs headlines, but it isn't politically feasible. While it is true that many Europeans are becoming worried about the implications of Ukraine being defeated, it is totally unclear that the majority response is to fight back right now. At this point, trying to reach an accommodation is a much more probable response IMO. This becomes a virtual certainty if the US appears to be wavering in our commitments in Europe.

If NATO wanted to actually do something "aggressive" to help, it would provide AWACS services to Ukraine. That would actually help and wouldn't involve troops on the ground in Ukraine. That isn't happening. When I see it happen, then I might believe NATO is willing to risk conflict with Russia in Ukraine. IMO the only mechanism that will "widen the war" is the equivalent of a Tonkin Gulf event, either because of a miscalculation by Russia or a "false flag" operation by Ukraine. If Ukraine loses it will be interesting to se what the Hungarian government has to say about the treatment of minorities by Russia in the former Ukraine. Of course, if Ukraine loses the vast majority of Ukrainians will probably become refugees in Europe.

[GK3]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

I am concerned that the populations of the NATO countries will get tired of seeing billions of dollars ground up in the war in Ukraine with nothing to show for it. I think NATO has to get very serious about giving the Ukraine what it needs to at least force a stalemate and some sort of negotiated peace and do that soon.  Actual recapture of all occupied territories, including Crimea, may well be a bridge too far. Ukraine's ability to field enough manpower is going to start to decline soon if it hasn't already.  I could see a situation where the Ukraine starts to lose territory to the Russians simply due to lack of manpower and sufficient armaments.  At that point a few NATO countries might start sending troops. I think there is starting to be the belief in Europe that as long as Putin is in charge, Western European Countries are in danger.  This could easily escalate to combat troops being sent to Ukraine.  Better to fight in someone else's country than wait until they get to yours.

I totally agree that the populations of NATO countries are getting tired of spending money that seems to have no good result. It must be remembered that there were skeptics from the beginning. There are also some nations (Hungary, Slovakia) that oppose any aid to Ukraine at all. Unfortunately, the only document Putin is ever going to sign, absent a Ukrainian victory in the south, is a de-facto or de-jure Ukrainian surrender.  Period. Full stop.

If Ukraine is running out of troops and if Western aid is drying up, Russia has no reason to stop what they are doing. Russia has survived the economic effects of sanctions. They have not run out of ammunition and they aren't going to do so. They have bought time to mobilize their economy for a long war. They are hollowing out a generation with casualties in Ukraine, but there is no indication they cannot continue doing this. As long as Putin believes that Ukraine is going to fold (because it has no choice), he will keep pounding away. No person doing a sane benefit-cost evaluation of this war for Russia would have started it. Putin isn't going to suddenly decide it isn't worth it. Putin is fully committed to the end of Ukraine as an independent nation. The only way that won't happen is if Putin is physically stopped. Otherwise, the war continues.

Ukraine has no way to bring the war to Russia. They can't threaten to bomb Moscow. They are doing all they can, which is more than anybody would have guessed they could. However, it isn't nearly enough to force Russia out of the war. The only loss that Ukraine has any chance to execute that would discomfit  Russia is recapture/threatened recapture of Crimea. Ukraine know this. They also know they have to "fight like NATO" to do this. They have said that time after time. They also have stated that technology is their only way to victory. In an continuing battle of attrition, Ukraine runs out of bodies first. Unfortunately, Ukraine is still reliant on infantry for most of their combat power. If it is true that Ukraine cannot, even after they get their F-16s in place, break through the Russian defenses and threaten Crimea, they lose. There is no option of a "negotiated settlement" without this success, because Russia has no incentive to accept one. Ukraine needs to give them a reason to quit. Can Ukraine execute a successful offensive in the South? IMO it is possible, but they only get one more shot at it. The West has to step up and help make that happen.
Any other plan is intellectually bankrupt IMO.

It makes no sense to send NATO troops to Ukraine unless NATO is "all in" on a Ukrainian victory. What are these troops going to do if not fight Russians? If they fight, some will die. Does any European country think the rest of NATO will step up and honor an invocation of article 5 due to losses incurred in Ukraine? Does anybody believe the US will? IMO the answers are No and Hell NO. I don't believe that Macron has enough support among the French people to do anything like sending troops to Ukraine. It grabs headlines, but it isn't politically feasible. While it is true that many Europeans are becoming worried about the implications of Ukraine being defeated, it is totally unclear that the majority response is to fight back right now. At this point, trying to reach an accommodation is a much more probable response IMO. This becomes a virtual certainty if the US appears to be wavering in our commitments in Europe.

If NATO wanted to actually do something "aggressive" to help, it would provide AWACS services to Ukraine. That would actually help and wouldn't involve troops on the ground in Ukraine. That isn't happening. When I see it happen, then I might believe NATO is willing to risk conflict with Russia in Ukraine. IMO the only mechanism that will "widen the war" is the equivalent of a Tonkin Gulf event, either because of a miscalculation by Russia or a "false flag" operation by Ukraine. If Ukraine loses it will be interesting to se what the Hungarian government has to say about the treatment of minorities by Russia in the former Ukraine. Of course, if Ukraine loses the vast majority of Ukrainians will probably become refugees in Europe.

Your points are well taken.  I wonder if the new Ukrainian offense against Russia's Oil and Gas Industry will pay off. It certainly seems to be impacting a portion of the civilian sector, and could impact the Military's ability to fuel its planes, tanks and trucks. I doubt Russia has the ability to defend all those oil and gas installations and Ukraine is showing a rather amazing ability to design and produce cheap one way drones which do not need a big payload to turn a refinery or tank farm into an inferno. Plus I think Russia has only 5 ports within its own territory for shipping oil and gas products.  Ukraine is already hitting at least two of those.

[GK3]

If the negotiated settlement included the return of abducted/filtrated Ukrainians, it might be more palatable.

I am concerned that the populations of the NATO countries will get tired of seeing billions of dollars ground up in the war in Ukraine with nothing to show for it. I think NATO has to get very serious about giving the Ukraine what it needs to at least force a stalemate and some sort of negotiated peace and do that soon.  Actual recapture of all occupied territories, including Crimea, may well be a bridge too far. Ukraine's ability to field enough manpower is going to start to decline soon if it hasn't already.  I could see a situation where the Ukraine starts to lose territory to the Russians simply due to lack of manpower and sufficient armaments.  At that point a few NATO countries might start sending troops. I think there is starting to be the belief in Europe that as long as Putin is in charge, Western European Countries are in danger.  This could easily escalate to combat troops being sent to Ukraine.  Better to fight in someone else's country than wait until they get to yours.

I totally agree that the populations of NATO countries are getting tired of spending money that seems to have no good result. It must be remembered that there were skeptics from the beginning. There are also some nations (Hungary, Slovakia) that oppose any aid to Ukraine at all. Unfortunately, the only document Putin is ever going to sign, absent a Ukrainian victory in the south, is a de-facto or de-jure Ukrainian surrender.  Period. Full stop.

If Ukraine is running out of troops and if Western aid is drying up, Russia has no reason to stop what they are doing. Russia has survived the economic effects of sanctions. They have not run out of ammunition and they aren't going to do so. They have bought time to mobilize their economy for a long war. They are hollowing out a generation with casualties in Ukraine, but there is no indication they cannot continue doing this. As long as Putin believes that Ukraine is going to fold (because it has no choice), he will keep pounding away. No person doing a sane benefit-cost evaluation of this war for Russia would have started it. Putin isn't going to suddenly decide it isn't worth it. Putin is fully committed to the end of Ukraine as an independent nation. The only way that won't happen is if Putin is physically stopped. Otherwise, the war continues.

Ukraine has no way to bring the war to Russia. They can't threaten to bomb Moscow. They are doing all they can, which is more than anybody would have guessed they could. However, it isn't nearly enough to force Russia out of the war. The only loss that Ukraine has any chance to execute that would discomfit  Russia is recapture/threatened recapture of Crimea. Ukraine know this. They also know they have to "fight like NATO" to do this. They have said that time after time. They also have stated that technology is their only way to victory. In an continuing battle of attrition, Ukraine runs out of bodies first. Unfortunately, Ukraine is still reliant on infantry for most of their combat power. If it is true that Ukraine cannot, even after they get their F-16s in place, break through the Russian defenses and threaten Crimea, they lose. There is no option of a "negotiated settlement" without this success, because Russia has no incentive to accept one. Ukraine needs to give them a reason to quit. Can Ukraine execute a successful offensive in the South? IMO it is possible, but they only get one more shot at it. The West has to step up and help make that happen.
Any other plan is intellectually bankrupt IMO.

It makes no sense to send NATO troops to Ukraine unless NATO is "all in" on a Ukrainian victory. What are these troops going to do if not fight Russians? If they fight, some will die. Does any European country think the rest of NATO will step up and honor an invocation of article 5 due to losses incurred in Ukraine? Does anybody believe the US will? IMO the answers are No and Hell NO. I don't believe that Macron has enough support among the French people to do anything like sending troops to Ukraine. It grabs headlines, but it isn't politically feasible. While it is true that many Europeans are becoming worried about the implications of Ukraine being defeated, it is totally unclear that the majority response is to fight back right now. At this point, trying to reach an accommodation is a much more probable response IMO. This becomes a virtual certainty if the US appears to be wavering in our commitments in Europe.

If NATO wanted to actually do something "aggressive" to help, it would provide AWACS services to Ukraine. That would actually help and wouldn't involve troops on the ground in Ukraine. That isn't happening. When I see it happen, then I might believe NATO is willing to risk conflict with Russia in Ukraine. IMO the only mechanism that will "widen the war" is the equivalent of a Tonkin Gulf event, either because of a miscalculation by Russia or a "false flag" operation by Ukraine. If Ukraine loses it will be interesting to se what the Hungarian government has to say about the treatment of minorities by Russia in the former Ukraine. Of course, if Ukraine loses the vast majority of Ukrainians will probably become refugees in Europe.

Your points are well taken.  I wonder if the new Ukrainian offense against Russia's Oil and Gas Industry will pay off. It certainly seems to be impacting a portion of the civilian sector, and could impact the Military's ability to fuel its planes, tanks and trucks. I doubt Russia has the ability to defend all those oil and gas installations and Ukraine is showing a rather amazing ability to design and produce cheap one way drones which do not need a big payload to turn a refinery or tank farm into an inferno. Plus I think Russia has only 5 ports within its own territory for shipping oil and gas products.  Ukraine is already hitting at least two of those.

[dabigv13]

I think an end state with Russia in control of Crimea and Ukraine in control of the majority of their present held territory is still the likeliest outcome, with fighting probably for at least a few more years.

Ukraine won't have the manpower or material for another offensive for a while, maybe a year. They need to expand their draft but that will take time. Russia similarly does not have any near term capacity for a decisive offensive.

The Ukrainian drone attacks against Russian refineries have definitely been increasing in their frequency and effect. It won't end the war anytime soon but if Ukraine can maintain this sort of tempo in their long range operations, in a year or two the Black Sea Fleet may be completely sunk and Russian refining capacity severely hamstrung. If Russia is still unable to sustain an offensive at that point Putin may finally decide the juice is not worth the squeeze.

[dabigv13]

I think an end state with Russia in control of Crimea and Ukraine in control of the majority of their present held territory is still the likeliest outcome, with fighting probably for at least a few more years.

Ukraine won't have the manpower or material for another offensive for a while, maybe a year. They need to expand their draft but that will take time. Russia similarly does not have any near term capacity for a decisive offensive.

The Ukrainian drone attacks against Russian refineries have definitely been increasing in their frequency and effect. It won't end the war anytime soon but if Ukraine can maintain this sort of tempo in their long range operations, in a year or two the Black Sea Fleet may be completely sunk and Russian refining capacity severely hamstrung. If Russia is still unable to sustain an offensive at that point Putin may finally decide the juice is not worth the squeeze.

[Goose]

I wonder if the new Ukrainian offense against Russia's Oil and Gas Industry will pay off. It certainly seems to be impacting a portion of the civilian sector, and could impact the Military's ability to fuel its planes, tanks and trucks. I doubt Russia has the ability to defend all those oil and gas installations and Ukraine is showing a rather amazing ability to design and produce cheap one way drones which do not need a big payload to turn a refinery or tank farm into an inferno. Plus I think Russia has only 5 ports within its own territory for shipping oil and gas products.  Ukraine is already hitting at least two of those.

Ukraine is indeed doing a great job disrupting some Russian infrastructure. They are also creating/supporting internal Russian military groups that are causing some havoc in the border areas. Ukraine may be able to do enough damage to actually "matter", but it isn't probable. As previous wars have demonstrated, oil storage and refineries are actually pretty resilient. One thing I would really like to see Ukraine do is develop some "navy" capability outside the Black Sea. Much like Germany in WW I and even more like the South during the Civil War a few ships that operate outside of the country (and in some cases never touched "home waters" in their history) can really cause serious problems. Russia has lots of oil tankers that are "illegally" shipping Russian oil. What if somebody started sinking them? Unlike the UK in WW I and the US in the Civil War, Russia does not have the naval power (sheer numbers of ships) to seek out and destroy commerce raiders. I suspect nobody else is going to "help out" such an effort either. It would make the Houthi's look like amateurs. Literally, lots of "bang for the buck".

I think an end state with Russia in control of Crimea and Ukraine in control of the majority of their present held territory is still the likeliest outcome, with fighting probably for at least a few more years.

That could indeed happen. However IMO it is not a stable end state. Ukraine was the poorest nation (per capita) in Europe before the war. By holding the east cost of Ukraine, Russia has captured the best North-South road and rail routes Ukraine has. They have also captured the industrial exporting (read foreign exchange) manufacturing areas and associated ports in Ukraine. These ports also exported lots of grain. Ukraine's only remaining "decent" port is Odessa, and it isn't all that great as a port (ask the Germans about that). It is also a long way from much of the agricultural areas that used to export through the Sea of Azov. Ukraine has also suffered serious war damage in the rest of the country. It is very questionable whether such a truncated Ukraine would be economically viable. Joining Russia will very quickly become imperative for Ukraine.

Ukraine won't have the manpower or material for another offensive for a while, maybe a year. They need to expand their draft but that will take time. Russia similarly does not have any near term capacity for a decisive offensive.

Basically true, but if Ukraine doesn't get "adequate" artillery ammunition, Russia doesn't need much capacity to just pound the Ukrainian defenses into submission. This puts aside the very real question of what effect this disparity will have on Ukrainian morale. Realizing that you will just be ground up doesn't inspire the desire to fight on to the end.

The expansion of the Ukrainian draft has been politically problematic and is continuing to be so. It is unclear that this expansion will simply "take time". It may be largely impossible. One legitimate reason for this is that the Ukrainian economy needs workers in order to function. There are such things as "critical" occupations. There are also "critical" industries that may not need specialized skills but that do need enough bodies. The other less laudable reason is that there are lots of Ukrainians who don't want to fight. This is understandably true in any war, but it seems Ukraine has a lot of people, particularly younger people, who don't want to be infantry. One reason the average age in the Ukrainian army is so high is that the "older generation" got universal military training, so they kind of have some basic skills. They also had the notion that they "owed" service to the state drilled into them. The younger generations have little of this. Getting drafted was not part of their outlook. While UMT was re-introduced in 2014, it was very, very far from "universal". The Ukrainian state was also far from popular in may circles, for good reason (corruption). It may get sorted out, but it very well may not, at least to the degree required for an indefinite necessity to man the border of what remains of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian drone attacks against Russian refineries have definitely been increasing in their frequency and effect. It won't end the war anytime soon but if Ukraine can maintain this sort of tempo in their long range operations, in a year or two the Black Sea Fleet may be completely sunk and Russian refining capacity severely hamstrung. If Russia is still unable to sustain an offensive at that point Putin may finally decide the juice is not worth the squeeze.

If the above happens, Putin will be gone. If Ukraine can hamstring the Russian oil and gas industry, that might be enough for the powers that be to get rid of Putin. As I said above, IMO it is very improbable Ukraine can accomplish this. It is hard enough if you are bombing the crap out of it every other day. Despite the hype about how small drones can destroy a refinery (because they can target vital parts of it), that is yet to be demonstrated in "real life". Even if it does happen,  Putin isn't going to make the rational decision to stop the war. If he were that rational, he wouldn't have started it. If he stops it short of victory (or is compelled to stop by strategic "defeat"), it calls into question "why" it was started and "why" it failed, and politically that would be the end of him.

[Goose]

I wonder if the new Ukrainian offense against Russia's Oil and Gas Industry will pay off. It certainly seems to be impacting a portion of the civilian sector, and could impact the Military's ability to fuel its planes, tanks and trucks. I doubt Russia has the ability to defend all those oil and gas installations and Ukraine is showing a rather amazing ability to design and produce cheap one way drones which do not need a big payload to turn a refinery or tank farm into an inferno. Plus I think Russia has only 5 ports within its own territory for shipping oil and gas products.  Ukraine is already hitting at least two of those.

Ukraine is indeed doing a great job disrupting some Russian infrastructure. They are also creating/supporting internal Russian military groups that are causing some havoc in the border areas. Ukraine may be able to do enough damage to actually "matter", but it isn't probable. As previous wars have demonstrated, oil storage and refineries are actually pretty resilient. One thing I would really like to see Ukraine do is develop some "navy" capability outside the Black Sea. Much like Germany in WW I and even more like the South during the Civil War a few ships that operate outside of the country (and in some cases never touched "home waters" in their history) can really cause serious problems. Russia has lots of oil tankers that are "illegally" shipping Russian oil. What if somebody started sinking them? Unlike the UK in WW I and the US in the Civil War, Russia does not have the naval power (sheer numbers of ships) to seek out and destroy commerce raiders. I suspect nobody else is going to "help out" such an effort either. It would make the Houthi's look like amateurs. Literally, lots of "bang for the buck".

I think an end state with Russia in control of Crimea and Ukraine in control of the majority of their present held territory is still the likeliest outcome, with fighting probably for at least a few more years.

That could indeed happen. However IMO it is not a stable end state. Ukraine was the poorest nation (per capita) in Europe before the war. By holding the east cost of Ukraine, Russia has captured the best North-South road and rail routes Ukraine has. They have also captured the industrial exporting (read foreign exchange) manufacturing areas and associated ports in Ukraine. These ports also exported lots of grain. Ukraine's only remaining "decent" port is Odessa, and it isn't all that great as a port (ask the Germans about that). It is also a long way from much of the agricultural areas that used to export through the Sea of Azov. Ukraine has also suffered serious war damage in the rest of the country. It is very questionable whether such a truncated Ukraine would be economically viable. Joining Russia will very quickly become imperative for Ukraine.

Ukraine won't have the manpower or material for another offensive for a while, maybe a year. They need to expand their draft but that will take time. Russia similarly does not have any near term capacity for a decisive offensive.

Basically true, but if Ukraine doesn't get "adequate" artillery ammunition, Russia doesn't need much capacity to just pound the Ukrainian defenses into submission. This puts aside the very real question of what effect this disparity will have on Ukrainian morale. Realizing that you will just be ground up doesn't inspire the desire to fight on to the end.

The expansion of the Ukrainian draft has been politically problematic and is continuing to be so. It is unclear that this expansion will simply "take time". It may be largely impossible. One legitimate reason for this is that the Ukrainian economy needs workers in order to function. There are such things as "critical" occupations. There are also "critical" industries that may not need specialized skills but that do need enough bodies. The other less laudable reason is that there are lots of Ukrainians who don't want to fight. This is understandably true in any war, but it seems Ukraine has a lot of people, particularly younger people, who don't want to be infantry. One reason the average age in the Ukrainian army is so high is that the "older generation" got universal military training, so they kind of have some basic skills. They also had the notion that they "owed" service to the state drilled into them. The younger generations have little of this. Getting drafted was not part of their outlook. While UMT was re-introduced in 2014, it was very, very far from "universal". The Ukrainian state was also far from popular in may circles, for good reason (corruption). It may get sorted out, but it very well may not, at least to the degree required for an indefinite necessity to man the border of what remains of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian drone attacks against Russian refineries have definitely been increasing in their frequency and effect. It won't end the war anytime soon but if Ukraine can maintain this sort of tempo in their long range operations, in a year or two the Black Sea Fleet may be completely sunk and Russian refining capacity severely hamstrung. If Russia is still unable to sustain an offensive at that point Putin may finally decide the juice is not worth the squeeze.

If the above happens, Putin will be gone. If Ukraine can hamstring the Russian oil and gas industry, that might be enough for the powers that be to get rid of Putin. As I said above, IMO it is very improbable Ukraine can accomplish this. It is hard enough if you are bombing the crap out of it every other day. Despite the hype about how small drones can destroy a refinery (because they can target vital parts of it), that is yet to be demonstrated in "real life". Even if it does happen,  Putin isn't going to make the rational decision to stop the war. If he were that rational, he wouldn't have started it. If he stops it short of victory (or is compelled to stop by strategic "defeat"), it calls into question "why" it was started and "why" it failed, and politically that would be the end of him.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/europe-contin...35278.html

The Telegraph often publishes pieces that are "questionable" at best. However, I think many of the points made in this piece have some validity, particularly the political realities in many European countries. The 3.5% vs 2% comparison is obviously flawed, as most European nations have no desire or need to project power in the Pacific, while the US clearly does. To meet the 2+ war standard, the US actually needed almost 5% of GDP. OTOH, the comments regarding NIH and parochialism in the EU are spot on. The US is bad in that area too, but we are paragons of virtue compared to say France, Spain, or Italy. Germany is "different", but still has a "Don't buy American" as it's standard policy. This is partly in response to the fact that before the fall of the Warsaw Pact, they were often forced to buy American. They want to make up for that.

Sweden will add "spice" to that mix because they have a long history of not buying anything military from outside the country if at all possible. In the past this could be justified by the need to remain "neutral". What will be the reason now?

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/europe-contin...35278.html

The Telegraph often publishes pieces that are "questionable" at best. However, I think many of the points made in this piece have some validity, particularly the political realities in many European countries. The 3.5% vs 2% comparison is obviously flawed, as most European nations have no desire or need to project power in the Pacific, while the US clearly does. To meet the 2+ war standard, the US actually needed almost 5% of GDP. OTOH, the comments regarding NIH and parochialism in the EU are spot on. The US is bad in that area too, but we are paragons of virtue compared to say France, Spain, or Italy. Germany is "different", but still has a "Don't buy American" as it's standard policy. This is partly in response to the fact that before the fall of the Warsaw Pact, they were often forced to buy American. They want to make up for that.

Sweden will add "spice" to that mix because they have a long history of not buying anything military from outside the country if at all possible. In the past this could be justified by the need to remain "neutral". What will be the reason now?

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/europe-contin...35278.html

The Telegraph often publishes pieces that are "questionable" at best. However, I think many of the points made in this piece have some validity, particularly the political realities in many European countries. The 3.5% vs 2% comparison is obviously flawed, as most European nations have no desire or need to project power in the Pacific, while the US clearly does. To meet the 2+ war standard, the US actually needed almost 5% of GDP. OTOH, the comments regarding NIH and parochialism in the EU are spot on. The US is bad in that area too, but we are paragons of virtue compared to say France, Spain, or Italy. Germany is "different", but still has a "Don't buy American" as it's standard policy. This is partly in response to the fact that before the fall of the Warsaw Pact, they were often forced to buy American. They want to make up for that.

Sweden will add "spice" to that mix because they have a long history of not buying anything military from outside the country if at all possible. In the past this could be justified by the need to remain "neutral". What will be the reason now?

It is very hard to figure out which news "fact" regarding Russian Petroleum problems is at least fairly accurate.  I believe Russia exports the largest amount of oil from facilities in the Black Sea which would put those facilities in range of Ukrainian drone attacks, but are also probably very well defended. One report I saw claimed that when Russia started modernizing its oil business, they switched from home grown technology that that purchased from the West.  This now makes some fairly minor damage more significant due to difficulty in getting parts.  No idea if that theory has any basis in fact. Another report I saw contends that we are buying billions of dollars of refined products from India, made from Russian Oil.  Why would we provide support for their oil when we have all these sanctions in place?  Break enough small parts and you can probably cause much bigger problems.
Sweden does bring a fairly modern and capable Military Industrial Complex to NATO.  I would hope the NATO nations would be willing to adopt common weapons, calibers, aircraft and armored vehicles.  Seems sort of silly for each country to insist on their own types.  It would certainly complicate resupply if war actually comes to NATO.
One big benefit that Ukraine accrues from its expanding drone operations is that they can generate significant attacks across a wide geographic area and targets without putting boots on the ground and incurring more manpower losses. If they can do enough damage to inhibit Russian offensive operations they benefit greatly. It should also start to spread out the Russian defenses possibly making it easier to penetrate.  Time will tell.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/europe-contin...35278.html

The Telegraph often publishes pieces that are "questionable" at best. However, I think many of the points made in this piece have some validity, particularly the political realities in many European countries. The 3.5% vs 2% comparison is obviously flawed, as most European nations have no desire or need to project power in the Pacific, while the US clearly does. To meet the 2+ war standard, the US actually needed almost 5% of GDP. OTOH, the comments regarding NIH and parochialism in the EU are spot on. The US is bad in that area too, but we are paragons of virtue compared to say France, Spain, or Italy. Germany is "different", but still has a "Don't buy American" as it's standard policy. This is partly in response to the fact that before the fall of the Warsaw Pact, they were often forced to buy American. They want to make up for that.

Sweden will add "spice" to that mix because they have a long history of not buying anything military from outside the country if at all possible. In the past this could be justified by the need to remain "neutral". What will be the reason now?

It is very hard to figure out which news "fact" regarding Russian Petroleum problems is at least fairly accurate.  I believe Russia exports the largest amount of oil from facilities in the Black Sea which would put those facilities in range of Ukrainian drone attacks, but are also probably very well defended. One report I saw claimed that when Russia started modernizing its oil business, they switched from home grown technology that that purchased from the West.  This now makes some fairly minor damage more significant due to difficulty in getting parts.  No idea if that theory has any basis in fact. Another report I saw contends that we are buying billions of dollars of refined products from India, made from Russian Oil.  Why would we provide support for their oil when we have all these sanctions in place?  Break enough small parts and you can probably cause much bigger problems.
Sweden does bring a fairly modern and capable Military Industrial Complex to NATO.  I would hope the NATO nations would be willing to adopt common weapons, calibers, aircraft and armored vehicles.  Seems sort of silly for each country to insist on their own types.  It would certainly complicate resupply if war actually comes to NATO.
One big benefit that Ukraine accrues from its expanding drone operations is that they can generate significant attacks across a wide geographic area and targets without putting boots on the ground and incurring more manpower losses. If they can do enough damage to inhibit Russian offensive operations they benefit greatly. It should also start to spread out the Russian defenses possibly making it easier to penetrate.  Time will tell.