Yeah, it is hard to evaluate the NATO politics side of things. I don't think three or six months out in the US, or the UK, is very predictable.
I feel I should expand on that, but I'm also not sure that I should. It relates to impressions I have about emotional state, and I am not sure I can connect those to any facts, or to any reliable forecast.
I'm not wanting to get my hopes up, but am I'm not seeing the signs of Russian success that I was warned to watch for. (I quite dislike Putin. Either he is an evil man, very like Hillary Clinton, or he has been very effectively framed. I'm not sure the framing scenario is physically impossible, but it does seem beyond the competence that I expect from the sorts of organizations which would be needed. Also, he has been murderously expansive with no practical limit to his apparent mindset, and the sphere of influence argument likewise implies that the US can intervene in Russia to protect the US sphere of influence.)
I do not believe that the Ukraine can compel a peace negotiation with Russia.
(Likewise, I doubt that Bibi can make himself do, or could accomplish if he was willing, the things that would instill a lasting wariness in his neighbors. He reflexively avoids collateral damage.)
In both cases, I think the only road to peace is if Ukraine or Israel is successful in imposing it, and in achieving their war goals, by force of arms.
Note, I am not a fan of the current US regime, and I do not think it can be trusted to implement policy that serves US interests. I think the fundamental undermining of the basis for trust has crippled US foreign policy in the short term.
" I think the fundamental undermining of the basis for trust has crippled US foreign policy in the short term. "
Yes. This.
Also I totally agree that Ukraine and Israel need to impose peace not negotiate it. One of the longer term goals of the Kursk invasion could well be to cause the Putin regime to collapse. This will of course scare the bejeesus out of a lot of foreign policy experts but it seems to be necessary. The question is to what extent the PRC dominates the resulting mess
Back at the start of the conflict I was neutral but often tried to suggest that there, as in most cases, are two sides to the story. Hence that, of course, makes me a Putinbot in the minds of many, oh well...
Yes the fogs of war and the 24/7 propaganda on both sides keeps all murky.
The greatest danger, as I see it, is this, are we at 1939 all over again? With Nukes?
As an American, this who Ukraine war is infuriating and frustrating. We are here in no small part due to Obama promising Ukraine that we would protect them against Russia if they gave up their nukes. It is a promise we had no business making but make it we did. Note to all friendly nations who have nukes, if my country, the US, offers you protection in exchange for your nukes, keep your nukes. Further, if even just a fraction of what I have read that the US was up to in Ukraine is true, if Russia was doffing the same in Mexico, we would invade Mexico. That does not mean I support Russia, I do not, only that I understand their motivations, at least in part. I feel terrible for the people of Ukraine. I feel sorry for the Russians who were enjoying life buy have been drafted and sent to the meat grinder for a leaders who do not care for their lives at all. But this war is simply is not in the interests of the US. It is none of our business.
It is, however, very much the business of the current occupant of the Oval Office, provided he can find his way to it, and his family. But not just he and his, but too that of many throughout the US government on both sides of the isle. IMHO, the only reason we keep sending aid is that if Ukraine losses, Putin will have the goods on the corrupt in Washington DC and those scoundrels would prefer nuclear war to spending the rest of their lives in prison.
This leads to your on ground analysis. Anything Ukraine can do to cause Russia to divert resources from its offensive in Ukraine is a positive for Ukraine. The testing aspect is additional benefits. The one thing that is left out is they is has long been reported that Russia’s protocol for using nukes is as deescalatory. Kind of like saying, “We just used a tac nuke and are prepared to use more and even strategic nukes unless you knock this nonsense off.” If the incursion into Russia becomes too much of a problem, including too embarrassing for Putin, they very well may use a tac nuke against either the supply route for the Ukrainian forces in Russia cutting them off from their supply line or command and control of the entire military or nation. Dark days ahead.
"We are here in no small part due to Obama promising Ukraine that we would protect them against Russia if they gave up their nukes. It is a promise we had no business making but make it we did. "
It wasn't Obama. It was either Bush I or Clinton, I forget which back in the 1990s
"If the incursion into Russia becomes too much of a problem, including too embarrassing for Putin, they very well may use a tac nuke against either the supply route for the Ukrainian forces in Russia cutting them off from their supply line or command and control of the entire military or nation."
The problem Russia faces is that the tac nuke has to work. If it doesn't then it puts Russia in the situation where it has just tried to nuke someone and failed and that makes it fair game for nukes from others. It will also mean that the EU will get more serious about sanctions (such as cracking down on goods shipped to the various *stans) and stop being a wuss about engagement rules so that Ukraine can use the missiles it's been given to attack places in Russia. Now if the nuke works that might be acceptable. If it doesn't then you've escalated for no result.
Given what we have seen of Russian maintenance on other equipment the chances of the nuke working are probably way under 50%, I guess more like 20%. And that assumes Ukraine doesn't shoot them down before they get to the target area. And so yeah the Russians could send 10 to be sure one gets through and goes bang properly. But a launch of 10 tac nukes looks pretty darn strategic and definitely invites retaliation. Plus at least some of the failure paths involve premature detonation and/or the rocket/missile not working so now you've just irradiated or worse your own country.
I should have added that “The problem Russia faces is that the tac nuke has to work.”, reminded me of what I learned 30 + years ago about soviet weapon’s reliability and that little has improved since then.
Are you sure? My memory was that it was Obama, or that at least it was he who finalized it.
Excellent point on the nuke. Back in the navy, my cruiser had a short life span rating if engaged in a naval conflict with the soviets. Best case scenario, we were taught, a ruskie sub fires a spread of 4 torpedoes at us. One fails to leave the tube. The guidance of another malfunctions, one hits NIXIE ( a towed torpedo decoy) and the last hits the ship and we go blup blup blup. Sending that many tac nukes would not be good.
Yeah, it is hard to evaluate the NATO politics side of things. I don't think three or six months out in the US, or the UK, is very predictable.
I feel I should expand on that, but I'm also not sure that I should. It relates to impressions I have about emotional state, and I am not sure I can connect those to any facts, or to any reliable forecast.
I'm not wanting to get my hopes up, but am I'm not seeing the signs of Russian success that I was warned to watch for. (I quite dislike Putin. Either he is an evil man, very like Hillary Clinton, or he has been very effectively framed. I'm not sure the framing scenario is physically impossible, but it does seem beyond the competence that I expect from the sorts of organizations which would be needed. Also, he has been murderously expansive with no practical limit to his apparent mindset, and the sphere of influence argument likewise implies that the US can intervene in Russia to protect the US sphere of influence.)
I do not believe that the Ukraine can compel a peace negotiation with Russia.
(Likewise, I doubt that Bibi can make himself do, or could accomplish if he was willing, the things that would instill a lasting wariness in his neighbors. He reflexively avoids collateral damage.)
In both cases, I think the only road to peace is if Ukraine or Israel is successful in imposing it, and in achieving their war goals, by force of arms.
Note, I am not a fan of the current US regime, and I do not think it can be trusted to implement policy that serves US interests. I think the fundamental undermining of the basis for trust has crippled US foreign policy in the short term.
" I think the fundamental undermining of the basis for trust has crippled US foreign policy in the short term. "
Yes. This.
Also I totally agree that Ukraine and Israel need to impose peace not negotiate it. One of the longer term goals of the Kursk invasion could well be to cause the Putin regime to collapse. This will of course scare the bejeesus out of a lot of foreign policy experts but it seems to be necessary. The question is to what extent the PRC dominates the resulting mess
Back at the start of the conflict I was neutral but often tried to suggest that there, as in most cases, are two sides to the story. Hence that, of course, makes me a Putinbot in the minds of many, oh well...
Yes the fogs of war and the 24/7 propaganda on both sides keeps all murky.
The greatest danger, as I see it, is this, are we at 1939 all over again? With Nukes?
I would say 1914 rather than 1939. A slippery slope to a larger war rather than a plan for world conquest
As an American, this who Ukraine war is infuriating and frustrating. We are here in no small part due to Obama promising Ukraine that we would protect them against Russia if they gave up their nukes. It is a promise we had no business making but make it we did. Note to all friendly nations who have nukes, if my country, the US, offers you protection in exchange for your nukes, keep your nukes. Further, if even just a fraction of what I have read that the US was up to in Ukraine is true, if Russia was doffing the same in Mexico, we would invade Mexico. That does not mean I support Russia, I do not, only that I understand their motivations, at least in part. I feel terrible for the people of Ukraine. I feel sorry for the Russians who were enjoying life buy have been drafted and sent to the meat grinder for a leaders who do not care for their lives at all. But this war is simply is not in the interests of the US. It is none of our business.
It is, however, very much the business of the current occupant of the Oval Office, provided he can find his way to it, and his family. But not just he and his, but too that of many throughout the US government on both sides of the isle. IMHO, the only reason we keep sending aid is that if Ukraine losses, Putin will have the goods on the corrupt in Washington DC and those scoundrels would prefer nuclear war to spending the rest of their lives in prison.
This leads to your on ground analysis. Anything Ukraine can do to cause Russia to divert resources from its offensive in Ukraine is a positive for Ukraine. The testing aspect is additional benefits. The one thing that is left out is they is has long been reported that Russia’s protocol for using nukes is as deescalatory. Kind of like saying, “We just used a tac nuke and are prepared to use more and even strategic nukes unless you knock this nonsense off.” If the incursion into Russia becomes too much of a problem, including too embarrassing for Putin, they very well may use a tac nuke against either the supply route for the Ukrainian forces in Russia cutting them off from their supply line or command and control of the entire military or nation. Dark days ahead.
"We are here in no small part due to Obama promising Ukraine that we would protect them against Russia if they gave up their nukes. It is a promise we had no business making but make it we did. "
It wasn't Obama. It was either Bush I or Clinton, I forget which back in the 1990s
"If the incursion into Russia becomes too much of a problem, including too embarrassing for Putin, they very well may use a tac nuke against either the supply route for the Ukrainian forces in Russia cutting them off from their supply line or command and control of the entire military or nation."
The problem Russia faces is that the tac nuke has to work. If it doesn't then it puts Russia in the situation where it has just tried to nuke someone and failed and that makes it fair game for nukes from others. It will also mean that the EU will get more serious about sanctions (such as cracking down on goods shipped to the various *stans) and stop being a wuss about engagement rules so that Ukraine can use the missiles it's been given to attack places in Russia. Now if the nuke works that might be acceptable. If it doesn't then you've escalated for no result.
Given what we have seen of Russian maintenance on other equipment the chances of the nuke working are probably way under 50%, I guess more like 20%. And that assumes Ukraine doesn't shoot them down before they get to the target area. And so yeah the Russians could send 10 to be sure one gets through and goes bang properly. But a launch of 10 tac nukes looks pretty darn strategic and definitely invites retaliation. Plus at least some of the failure paths involve premature detonation and/or the rocket/missile not working so now you've just irradiated or worse your own country.
I should have added that “The problem Russia faces is that the tac nuke has to work.”, reminded me of what I learned 30 + years ago about soviet weapon’s reliability and that little has improved since then.
Are you sure? My memory was that it was Obama, or that at least it was he who finalized it.
Excellent point on the nuke. Back in the navy, my cruiser had a short life span rating if engaged in a naval conflict with the soviets. Best case scenario, we were taught, a ruskie sub fires a spread of 4 torpedoes at us. One fails to leave the tube. The guidance of another malfunctions, one hits NIXIE ( a towed torpedo decoy) and the last hits the ship and we go blup blup blup. Sending that many tac nukes would not be good.