Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Russia continues to mass assets within range of Ukraine - though the official explanations are that they are for various exercises. United States intelligence has noted that Russian operatives in Ukraine could launch 'false flag' operations as a predicate to invasion. The West has pressed for negotiations and on Friday in Geneva, the US Sec. State Blinken will meet with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Certainly the Russian movements evidence some plan - but what is it? Some analysts believe that Putin's grand scheme involves securing Western commitments that NATO would never expand beyond its current composition. Whether that means action in Ukraine or merely the movement of pieces on the chess board remains to be seen.

VIENNA — No one expected much progress from this past week’s diplomatic marathon to defuse the security crisis Russia has ignited in Eastern Europe by surrounding Ukraine on three sides with 100,000 troops and then, by the White House’s accounting, sending in saboteurs to create a pretext for invasion.

But as the Biden administration and NATO conduct tabletop simulations about how the next few months could unfold, they are increasingly wary of another set of options for President Vladimir V. Putin, steps that are more far-reaching than simply rolling his troops and armor over Ukraine’s border.

Mr. Putin wants to extend Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and secure written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge. If he is frustrated in reaching that goal, some of his aides suggested on the sidelines of the negotiations last week, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States.

There were hints, never quite spelled out, that nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia Issues Subtle Threats More Far-Reaching Than a Ukraine Invasion

If the West fails to meet its security demands, Moscow could take measures like placing nuclear missiles close to the U.S. coastline, Russian officials have hinted.

www.nytimes.com

Blinken Will Meet With Russia as U.S. Pushes for More Diplomacy

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will meet with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia in Geneva on Friday as the United States warns that Russia could soon attack Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com

How to think about war in Ukraine

Start with the Ukrainians

snyder.substack.com

 

[efil4]

Links please regarding Applebaum, Rothkopf and “many people”.

prepare yourself for a really deep rabbit hole of Twitter links to some lady from Australia who blogs about US Geopolitics and others.

You may get lucky and get some easy-to-follow Greenwald tweets, but the vast majority will be opinion pieces from "freelance" ( and i use that term LOOSELY) writers.

 

[efil4]

Yes you ignored it. The posts showed that your sources are biased, they advocate for Russia. The rest of your post is just an unwarranted personal attack.

He "kinda" addresed 1 with his 3 Tweet post about Wikipidea - but absolutely skipped the rest because he has no good answer for their ties to Russia/Putin.

So he figures to ignore and it will just go away soon as he moves on to the next topic.

SOP

 

[MT15]

prepare yourself for a really deep rabbit hole of Twitter links to some lady from Australia who blogs about US Geopolitics and others.

You may get lucky and get some easy-to-follow Greenwald tweets, but the vast majority will be opinion pieces from "freelance" ( and i use that term LOOSELY) writers.

Yes and everything he will post will be considered unvarnished truth from people who have figured out all the deep state lies, while anybody and everybody you post will be considered to be either working for the CIA or a “foreign agent” because their agency hosts podcasts promoting travel to UAE. Even though the guy’s opinions about the Israeli Hamas war come from his own opinions.

He "kinda" addresed 1 with his 3 Tweet post about Wikipidea - but absolutely skipped the rest because he has no good answer for their ties to Russia/Putin.

So he figures to ignore and it will just go away soon as he moves on to the next topic.

SOP

The Wikipedia thing is pretty stupid. No one person’s edit will go unchallenged if it departs from facts. At least not for long. There is a diverse set of folks who edit, from what I understand.

 

[UriUT]

Rudy’s Ukraine caper looks even worse now

By Liz Dye This free edition of Public Notice is made possible by paid subscribers. If you aren’t one already, please consider signing up. Just click the button below. Click for Public Notice free trial There’s something so utterly predictable about Rudy Giuliani setting out to refu

post.news

Dubinsky and Derkach met with Rudy in 2019 when he and a film crew from One America News were trawling Ukraine for dirt on Biden. In the resulting “documentary,” Giuliani and OAN reporter Chanel Rion made a series of nonsensical claims, including that they were pursued around the country by hundreds of armed soldiers and even octogenarian philanthropist George Soros himself.

From his official position, Kulyk drafted a memo suggesting that Biden should be investigated for threats to withhold US aid in 2016 if Ukraine didn’t fire its chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin. And Derkach famously handed Giuliani “proof” that then-Vice President Biden had forced out Shokin to protect Hunter Biden’s business interests. (These claims are still in fashion with House and Senate Republicans today.)

In fact, it was the consensus of the IMF, the EU, and the entire US intelligence apparatus that Shokin, aka “the diamond prosecutor,” had to go. But Republicans had a lot of practice at this game, since they spent a decade pretending that Hillary Clinton was solely responsible for the 2007 sale of a uranium mine to a Russian company, never mind that the deal was approved by the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Treasury, Commerce, and Defense, as well as the OMB, NSC, and Council of Economic Advisers.

And recently:

Derkach, Dubinsky, and Kulyk were part of a cell run by General Vladimir Alekseyev of Russia’s GRU, which spent $10 million “to destabilize the socio-political situation in Ukraine and discredit our state in the international arena,” according to an English translation of an SBU announcement.

In fact, Derkach’s role as a Kremlin agent was confirmed by Trump’s own Treasury Department.
[..]

In September 2020, the Treasury Department sanctioned Derkach, describing him as “an active Russian agent for over a decade” and charged him with participating in “a covert influence campaign centered on cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning US officials in the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election, spurring corruption investigations in both Ukraine and the United States designed to culminate prior to election day.”

 

[LA - L.A.]

I agree, but they already do have air support with their existing air assets...

Every report I've read, after the first couple of months that Russia invaded, has said that Ukraine cannot provide effective offensive air support to its ground troops. Have you read reports that say otherwise?

Ukraine needs to get about 48 to 60 F-16's to tilt the battlegrounds heavily in their favor. Denmark is sending 6 by the end of the year and another 8 in 2024 and 5 more in 2025. That will give them one full squadron plus 2 reserves in 2024 with 5 more reinforcements in 2025. That's just from one country.

Dutch F-16s for Ukraine to arrive in Romania within two weeks-Rutte

The first U.S.-made F-16 combat aircraft the Netherlands is donating Ukraine will arrive in Romania's training centre within two weeks, outgoing Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said on Monday.

www.reuters.com

U.S. ambassador says Ukraine pilots training on F16s

The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukrainian pilots were undergoing training in the United States on F-16 fighter aircraft, a key element on Kyiv's wish list to secure the weaponry it needs in its war against Russia.

www.reuters.com

How many F-16 jets will Ukraine get and how will they change war?

The Netherlands and Denmark have led a push to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s and deliver the fighter jets to Ukraine to help counter Russia's air superiority.

www.reuters.com

Mostly an opinion piece here https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...-fleet-just-got-a-lot-bigger/?sh=1299de495f0c

A few more countries will also be sending them F-16's in 2024. The expectation is that they will get around 60 combat ready F-16's and several others that need repairs are can be scrapped for parts. That would give them the 4 to 5 squadrons they need to tilt their ground offensive in their favor.

Had these countries had moved quicker to supply them with F-16's and training, they may have already completely pushed Russia out of Ukraine already. I think Ukraine is being patient with their ground offensive to minimize their causalities and to win a war of attrition against Russia. Russia is losing a larger percentage of it's troops and firepower than Ukraine has. If NATO and other countries continue to provide aid to Ukraine, Russia troops and firepower will get exhausted and depleted faster than Ukraine.

Putin knows that. He knew within the first weeks of his invasion that he miscalculated the response of Ukraine and other countries. That's why he started waging a war of terror on civilians after the first few weeks. The only way Russia wins is if Ukraine gives in to Russia and other countries stop supplying Ukraine. Putin has been trying to break the will of the people of Ukraine with his terror campaign, but it backfired. He made the Ukrainian people and most of the world doggedly defiant against Russia's aggression in the world.

I think, out of desperation, Russia and Putin have gone all in on their disinformation efforts hoping to sway public opinion in democratic countries to undermine the flow of aid to Ukraine. We've already seen their disinformation campaign affect discussions in this thread. Putin and Russia are also trying to create as much global conflict as they can in an effort to reduce the aid going to Ukraine. I'm expecting to see more surprise and unprecedented terrorist attacks across the globe in the coming months.

 

[MT15]

I think, out of desperation, Russia and Putin have gone all in on their disinformation efforts hoping to sway public opinion in democratic countries to undermine the flow of aid to Ukraine. We've already seen their disinformation campaign affect discussions in this thread.

Exactly this. I even saw one foreign policy pundit speculate that they wouldn’t be surprised if Russia hadn’t engineered the Hamas massacre to take US attention away from Ukraine and give them another front on the disinformation war.

 

[bdb13]

I think, out of desperation, Russia and Putin have gone all in on their disinformation efforts hoping to sway public opinion in democratic countries to undermine the flow of aid to Ukraine. We've already seen their disinformation campaign affect discussions in this thread. Putin and Russia are also trying to create as much global conflict as they can in an effort to reduce the aid going to Ukraine. I'm expecting to see more surprise and unprecedented terrorist attacks across the globe in the coming months.

So I just want to speak for myself on this and say that I don't believe the opinions I've expressed here came from Russian disinformation but instead from this Economist article where Ukrainian Commander in Chief Valery Zaluzhny discussed the challenges and the current state of the war (this is the article in its totality):

FIVE MONTHS into its counter-offensive, Ukraine has managed to advance by just 17 kilometres. Russia fought for ten months around Bakhmut in the east “to take a town six by six kilometres”. Sharing his first comprehensive assessment of the campaign with The Economist in an interview this week, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, General Valery Zaluzhny, says the battlefield reminds him of the great conflict of a century ago. “Just like in the first world war we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate,” he says. The general concludes that it would take a massive technological leap to break the deadlock. “There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough.”

The course of the counter-offensive has undermined Western hopes that Ukraine could use it to demonstrate that the war is unwinnable, forcing Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, to negotiate. It has also undercut General Zaluzhny’s assumption that he could stop Russia by bleeding its troops. “That was my mistake. Russia has lost at least 150,000 dead. In any other country such casualties would have stopped the war.” But not in Russia, where life is cheap and where Mr Putin’s reference points are the first and second world wars, in which Russia lost tens of millions.

An army of Ukraine’s standard ought to have been able to move at a speed of 30km a day as it breached Russian lines. “If you look at NATO’s text books and at the maths which we did, four months should have been enough time for us to have reached Crimea, to have fought in Crimea, to return from Crimea and to have gone back in and out again,” General Zaluzhny says sardonically. Instead he watched his troops get stuck in minefields on the approaches to Bakhmut in the east, his Western-supplied equipment getting pummelled by Russian artillery and drones. The same story unfolded on the offensive’s main thrust in the south, where inexperienced brigades immediately ran into trouble.

“First I thought there was something wrong with our commanders, so I changed some of them. Then I thought maybe our soldiers are not fit for purpose, so I moved soldiers in some brigades,” says General Zaluzhny. When those changes failed to make a difference, the general told his staff to dig out a book he once saw as a student. Its title was “Breaching Fortified Defence Lines”. It was published in 1941 by a Soviet major-general, P.S. Smirnov, who analysed the battles of the first world war. “And before I got even halfway through it, I realised that is exactly where we are because just like then, the level of our technological development today has put both us and our enemies in a stupor.”

That thesis, he says, was borne out as he went to the front line in Avdiivka, also in the east, where Russia has recently advanced by a few hundred metres over several weeks by throwing in two of its armies. “On our monitor screens the day I was there we saw 140 Russian machines ablaze—destroyed within four hours of coming within firing range of our artillery.” Those fleeing were chased by “first-person-view” drones, remote-controlled and carrying explosive charges that their operators simply crash into the enemy. The same picture unfolds when Ukrainian troops try to advance. General Zaluzhny describes a battlefield in which modern sensors can identify any concentration of forces, and modern precision weapons can destroy it. “The simple fact is that we see everything the enemy is doing and they see everything we are doing. In order for us to break this deadlock we need something new, like the gunpowder which the Chinese invented and which we are still using to kill each other,” he says.

This time, however, the decisive factor will be not a single new invention, but will come from combining all the technical solutions that already exist, he says. In a By Invitation article written for The Economist by General Zaluzhny, as well as in an essay shared with the newspaper, he urges innovation in drones, electronic warfare, anti-artillery capabilities and demining equipment, as well as in the use of robotics.

Western allies have been overly cautious in supplying Ukraine with their latest technology and more powerful weapons. Joe Biden, America’s president, set objectives at the start of Russia’s invasion: to ensure that Ukraine was not defeated and that America was not dragged into confrontation with Russia. This means that arms supplied by the West have been sufficient in sustaining Ukraine in the war, but not enough to allow it to win. General Zaluzhny is not complaining: “They are not obliged to give us anything, and we are grateful for what we have got, but I am simply stating the facts.”

Yet by holding back the supply of long-range missile systems and tanks, the West allowed Russia to regroup and build up its defences in the aftermath of a sudden breakthrough in Kharkiv region in the north and in Kherson in the south late in 2022. “These systems were most relevant to us last year, but they only arrived this year,” he says. Similarly, F-16 jets, due next year, are now less helpful, suggests the general, in part because Russia has improved its air defences: an experimental version of the S-400 missile system can reach beyond the city of Dnipro, he warns.

The delay in arms deliveries, though frustrating, is not the main cause of Ukraine’s predicament, according to General Zaluzhny. “It is important to understand that this war cannot be won with the weapons of the past generation and outdated methods,” he insists. “They will inevitably lead to delay and, as a consequence, defeat.” It is, instead, technology that will be decisive, he argues. The general is enthused by recent conversations with Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google, and stresses the decisive role of drones, and of electronic warfare which can prevent them from flying.

General Zaluzhny’s assessment is sobering: there is no sign that a technological breakthrough, whether in drones or in electronic warfare, is around the corner. And technology has its limits. Even in the first world war, the arrival of tanks in 1917 was not sufficient to break the deadlock on the battlefield. It took a suite of technologies, and more than a decade of tactical innovation, to produce the German blitzkrieg in May 1940. The implication is that Ukraine is stuck in a long war—one in which he acknowledges Russia has the advantage. Nevertheless, he insists that Ukraine has no choice but to keep the initiative by remaining on the offensive, even if it only moves by a few metres a day.

Crimea, the general believes, remains Mr Putin’s greatest vulnerability. His legitimacy rests on having brought it back to Russia in 2014. Over the past few months, Ukraine has taken the war into the peninsula, which remains critical to the logistics of the conflict. “It must know that it is part of Ukraine and that this war is happening there.” On October 30th Ukraine struck Crimea with American-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles for the first time.

General Zaluzhny is desperately trying to prevent the war from settling into the trenches. “The biggest risk of an attritional trench war is that it can drag on for years and wear down the Ukrainian state,” he says. In the first world war, politics interfered before technology could make a difference. Four empires collapsed and a revolution broke out in Russia.

Mr Putin is counting on a collapse in Ukrainian morale and Western support. There is no question in General Zaluzhny’s mind that a long war favours Russia, which has a population three times and an economy ten times the size of Ukraine. “Let’s be honest, it’s a feudal state where the cheapest resource is human life. And for us…the most expensive thing we have is our people,” he says. For now he has enough soldiers. But the longer the war goes on, the harder it will be to sustain. “We need to look for this solution, we need to find this gunpowder, quickly master it and use it for a speedy victory. Because sooner or later we are going to find that we simply don’t have enough people to fight.”

Ukraine’s commander-in-chief on the breakthrough he needs to beat Russia

General Valery Zaluzhny admits the war is at a stalemate

www.economist.com

 

[DaveXA]

Every report I've read, after the first couple of months that Russia invaded, has said that Ukraine cannot provide effective offensive air support to its ground troops. Have you read reports that say otherwise?

Ukraine needs to get about 48 to 60 F-16's to tilt the battlegrounds heavily in their favor. Denmark is sending 6 by the end of the year and another 8 in 2024 and 5 more in 2025. That will give them one full squadron plus 2 reserves in 2024 with 5 more reinforcements in 2025. That's just from one country.

Dutch F-16s for Ukraine to arrive in Romania within two weeks-Rutte

The first U.S.-made F-16 combat aircraft the Netherlands is donating Ukraine will arrive in Romania's training centre within two weeks, outgoing Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said on Monday.

www.reuters.com

U.S. ambassador says Ukraine pilots training on F16s

The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukrainian pilots were undergoing training in the United States on F-16 fighter aircraft, a key element on Kyiv's wish list to secure the weaponry it needs in its war against Russia.

www.reuters.com

How many F-16 jets will Ukraine get and how will they change war?

The Netherlands and Denmark have led a push to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s and deliver the fighter jets to Ukraine to help counter Russia's air superiority.

www.reuters.com

Mostly an opinion piece here https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...-fleet-just-got-a-lot-bigger/?sh=1299de495f0c

A few more countries will also be sending them F-16's in 2024. The expectation is that they will get around 60 combat ready F-16's and several others that need repairs are can be scrapped for parts. That would give them the 4 to 5 squadrons they need to tilt their ground offensive in their favor.

Had these countries had moved quicker to supply them with F-16's and training, they may have already completely pushed Russia out of Ukraine already. I think Ukraine is being patient with their ground offensive to minimize their causalities and to win a war of attrition against Russia. Russia is losing a larger percentage of it's troops and firepower than Ukraine has. If NATO and other countries continue to provide aid to Ukraine, Russia troops and firepower will get exhausted and depleted faster than Ukraine.

Putin knows that. He knew within the first weeks of his invasion that he miscalculated the response of Ukraine and other countries. That's why he started waging a war of terror on civilians after the first few weeks. The only way Russia wins is if Ukraine gives in to Russia and other countries stop supplying Ukraine. Putin has been trying to break the will of the people of Ukraine with his terror campaign, but it backfired. He made the Ukrainian people and most of the world doggedly defiant against Russia's aggression in the world.

I think, out of desperation, Russia and Putin have gone all in on their disinformation efforts hoping to sway public opinion in democratic countries to undermine the flow of aid to Ukraine. We've already seen their disinformation campaign affect discussions in this thread. Putin and Russia are also trying to create as much global conflict as they can in an effort to reduce the aid going to Ukraine. I'm expecting to see more surprise and unprecedented terrorist attacks across the globe in the coming months.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I was thinking they'd need at least 50 along with adequate numbers of personnel to be able to gain a sufficient enough advantage to retake the territories that belong to them. I knew about the Dutch, but considering the timeline, it's gonna be well into 2025 before Ukraine gets close to the number they need. By then, it might be too late.

 

[bdb13]

Yeah, that sounds about right. I was thinking they'd need at least 50 along with adequate numbers of personnel to be able to gain a sufficient enough advantage to retake the territories that belong to them. I knew about the Dutch, but considering the timeline, it's gonna be well into 2025 before Ukraine gets close to the number they need. By then, it might be too late.

It seems fairly indisputable to me at this point that the slow rolling of weapons and all to Ukraine at the beginning was a very big mistake.

 

[MT15]

It seems fairly indisputable to me at this point that the slow rolling of weapons and all to Ukraine at the beginning was a very big mistake.

I wouldn’t call it a very big mistake - at the time Biden had to firm up relations among NATO and there were a couple, Turkey comes to mind, who were a bit resistant IIRC. He had to forge the alliance and get everyone on the same page. Plus he had to also deal with the people who were agonizing about provoking Putin and calling him (Biden) a warmonger. Some on the left, but mostly on the right. I do wish he had been a bit more aggressive with some of the weapons systems. But I wouldn’t call his handling of this “a big mistake”.

 

[bdb13]

I wouldn’t call it a very big mistake - at the time Biden had to firm up relations among NATO and there were a couple, Turkey comes to mind, who were a bit resistant IIRC. He had to forge the alliance and get everyone on the same page. Plus he had to also deal with the people who were agonizing about provoking Putin and calling him a warmonger. Some on the left, but mostly on the right. I do wish he had been a bit more aggressive with some of the weapons systems. But I wouldn’t call his handling of this “a big mistake”.

I understand that.. but I mean that in the sense that it seems like that delay may end up being the difference between Ukraine having been able to prevail here or not. It kept Ukraine in the fight but didn't give them the advantage that they needed at the time to go ahead and bring the fight to Russia in a way that would have been more difficult for Russia to deal with.

 

[J-DONK]

I understand that.. but I mean that in the sense that it seems like that delay may end up being the difference between Ukraine having been able to prevail here or not. It kept Ukraine in the fight but didn't give them the advantage that they needed at the time to go ahead and bring the fight to Russia in a way that would have been more difficult for Russia to deal with.

I have/had a very cynical take from the very beginning. If America's only real goal was the destruction of Russia as a military power. This was perfectly planned.

 

[CoolBrees]

Imo it is revisionist to think we should have been faster.

Nobody expected the thing to happen and then when the invasion occurred nobody, and I mean nobody, thought the campaign would fail.

That and the fact that every other time Russia invaded, hardly a shot was fired. They just do what they wanted and Georgia or Ukraine etc didn't really oppose them.

Once it became evident that Ukraine was going to resist, the flow started pretty fast.

Oh and for anyone reading this who keeps bringing up the Coup in 2014-

Why don't we ever bring up the security accord Russia and the US signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty and security from invasion if they gave up their nukes? Russia broke the promise not to invade and we broke our promise by not protecting them.

And sending them our drawn down equipment from the 1980's is "support" not real support. Like a no fly zone over Ukraine which we could have installed via air superiority by Monday.

I bet Putin wouldn't have invaded if they still had those nukes

 

[bdb13]

I have/had a very cynical take from the very beginning. If America's only real goal was the destruction of Russia as a military power. This was perfectly planned.

I am not that cynical but I can definitely see that.

 

[bdb13]

Imo it is revisionist to think we should have been faster.

Nobody expected the thing to happen and then when the invasion occurred nobody, and I mean nobody, thought the campaign would fail.

That and the fact that every other time Russia invaded, hardly a shot was fired. They just do what they wanted and Georgia or Ukraine etc didn't really oppose them.

Once it became evident that Ukraine was going to resist, the flow started pretty fast.

Oh and for anyone reading this who keeps bringing up the Coup in 2014-

Why don't we ever bring up the security accord Russia and the US signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty and security from invasion if they gave up their nukes? Russia broke the promise not to invade and we broke our promise by not protecting them.

And sending them our drawn down equipment from the 1980's is "support" not real support. Like a no fly zone over Ukraine which we could have installed via air superiority by Monday.

I bet Putin wouldn't have invaded if they still had those nukes

I think that's all pretty fair I'll just say that I know that there were contemporary calls to get a higher level of arms to Ukraine faster at the beginning of all this.

What probably is revisionist on my part is that my understanding of Putin has come to be that he's a bully who punches down and that all of the threats and everything towards the United States and the West - along with his intended projections of strength - are now what I believe to have been mostly empty and actually signs of his weakness as he's a guy that if you actually punch him in the face, he probably just stands there with a shocked look on his face and the tears well up and he turns around to mommy. Like Trump in that way, really.

 

[DaveXA]

Imo it is revisionist to think we should have been faster.

Nobody expected the thing to happen and then when the invasion occurred nobody, and I mean nobody, thought the campaign would fail.

That and the fact that every other time Russia invaded, hardly a shot was fired. They just do what they wanted and Georgia or Ukraine etc didn't really oppose them.

Once it became evident that Ukraine was going to resist, the flow started pretty fast.

Oh and for anyone reading this who keeps bringing up the Coup in 2014-

Why don't we ever bring up the security accord Russia and the US signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty and security from invasion if they gave up their nukes? Russia broke the promise not to invade and we broke our promise by not protecting them.

And sending them our drawn down equipment from the 1980's is "support" not real support. Like a no fly zone over Ukraine which we could have installed via air superiority by Monday.

I bet Putin wouldn't have invaded if they still had those nukes

I've been calling for more and better weapons from barely months into it. And more than a few people have. There have been people asking for F-16s, A-10s, M-1s, and other advanced weaponry such as ACTMS (both cluster and larger munitions) and other longer ranged missiles that can match or better what Russia has. Much of that either hasn't appeared or only very recently appeared on the battlefield. As it is, AFU won't really be up to speed in terms of air support for at least another year, if not 2.

I'm not necessarily blaming Biden or anyone else, because I get all of that takes time, but it certainly could have, and arguably should have been deployed sooner.

It is what it is tho. Better getting the support there late than never.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Imo it is revisionist to think we should have been faster.

Nobody expected the thing to happen and then when the invasion occurred nobody, and I mean nobody, thought the campaign would fail.

That and the fact that every other time Russia invaded, hardly a shot was fired. They just do what they wanted and Georgia or Ukraine etc didn't really oppose them.

Once it became evident that Ukraine was going to resist, the flow started pretty fast.

Oh and for anyone reading this who keeps bringing up the Coup in 2014-

Why don't we ever bring up the security accord Russia and the US signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty and security from invasion if they gave up their nukes? Russia broke the promise not to invade and we broke our promise by not protecting them.

And sending them our drawn down equipment from the 1980's is "support" not real support. Like a no fly zone over Ukraine which we could have installed via air superiority by Monday.

I bet Putin wouldn't have invaded if they still had those nukes

yea, i remember all of the media reports were saying Ukraine was gonna fall within a week or two after the initial attack. Ukraine was the only country in the world who knew Russia wasn't as tough as they boasted and the rest of the world thought. Everyone expected a blitzkrieg type attack and it be over before anyone could do anything about it. but once the world saw what was unfolding, that's when everyone started sending weapons and supplies.
Russia had no intent on fighting a full scale war for this amount of time, they truly believed Ukraine was gonna just throw their hands up..

 

[bdb13]

yea, i remember all of the media reports were saying Ukraine was gonna fall within a week or two after the initial attack. Ukraine was the only country in the world who knew Russia wasn't as tough as they boasted and the rest of the world thought. Everyone expected a blitzkrieg type attack and it be over before anyone could do anything about it. but once the world saw what was unfolding, that's when everyone started sending weapons and supplies.
Russia had no intent on fighting a full scale war for this amount of time, they truly believed Ukraine was gonna just throw their hands up..

Yeah I definitely thought Russia was just going to roll them and that Zelensky would end up dead.

Shows what I know and very happy to have been wrong.