How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Stop the killing? That requires two nations in Asia stopping the purchase of Russia gas and oil.

 

[Copernicus]

Playing nuclear chicken with Putin and then guessing which side feels that it has to back down. That seems like a game well worth playing, doesn't it? Which side has a bigger ego? NATO or the guy who staked his entire life on conquering Ukraine?

We are not playing "nuclear chicken" with Russia. We've have been incredibly restrained in keeping back offensive weapons from Ukraine. All of our efforts are to deter Russian advances and encourage them to return home. We're not exercising our ego when trying to stop these deaths. It is Russia who constantly threatens nuclear war.

I disagree. We have always played nuclear chicken with Russia and other nuclear powers. That started when the secret of how to build nuclear weapons got out, and that is what MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is. Every adversary and ally of the US suddenly acquired nuclear envy at the end of WWII, thanks to our horrendous demonstration of how it could work to one's benefit in a war where one side did not have nuclear weapons for deterrence. Ukraine does not have nuclear deterrence, and Russia does. So we cannot bully or attack Russia, but Russia can bully and attack Ukraine. NATO has nuclear weapons, so all of those eastern European nations rushed to get into NATO after the Soviet Union fell, realizing that someone like Putin could come back into power in Russia. Ukraine tried, but failed to get in. Too late!

The problem we face now is that the game of chicken had seemed to recede when the Soviet Union and US started losing interest in threatening each other's and everyone else's existence by playing that game. But it's back in full force--maybe even worse than it ever was. Putin wanted the Cold War back, and then along came Trump. So our agreements to ramp down the chicken game, weak as they were, got quickly thrown in the trash by both sides. And now we have jingoists in both nuclear powers egging each other on. Russia, the weaker of the two nuclear powers, is the side making the louder shouts of encouragement not to swerve away as we start rattling our nuclear sabers louder and louder. So far, Russia has not started a nuclear war, and that seems to be making people on our side think that they will lose their nerve and swerve out of our path as we just ignore their threats and keep on driving straight at them. Many brave young spectators here seem to think that we can bully them into losing the game. All it takes is to go for it--not to lose our nerve to the weak-willed pussies who fear a collision. After all, what does Putin have to lose that would make him try to start a nuclear war? And, chances are that the Russians are so incompetent that their warheads won't actually explode. How embarrassing for them to fire duds at us.

 

[Patooka]

Russia's take on their invasion of Ukraine (the "Gesture of goodwill" is Snake Island);

 

[Harry Bosch]

Playing nuclear chicken with Putin and then guessing which side feels that it has to back down. That seems like a game well worth playing, doesn't it? Which side has a bigger ego? NATO or the guy who staked his entire life on conquering Ukraine?

We are not playing "nuclear chicken" with Russia. We've have been incredibly restrained in keeping back offensive weapons from Ukraine. All of our efforts are to deter Russian advances and encourage them to return home. We're not exercising our ego when trying to stop these deaths. It is Russia who constantly threatens nuclear war.

I disagree. We have always played nuclear chicken with Russia and other nuclear powers. That started when the secret of how to build nuclear weapons got out, and that is what MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is. Every adversary and ally of the US suddenly acquired nuclear envy at the end of WWII, thanks to our horrendous demonstration of how it could work to one's benefit in a war where one side did not have nuclear weapons for deterrence. Ukraine does not have nuclear deterrence, and Russia does. So we cannot bully or attack Russia, but Russia can bully and attack Ukraine. NATO has nuclear weapons, so all of those eastern European nations rushed to get into NATO after the Soviet Union fell, realizing that someone like Putin could come back into power in Russia. Ukraine tried, but failed to get in. Too late!

The problem we face now is that the game of chicken had seemed to recede when the Soviet Union and US started losing interest in threatening each other's and everyone else's existence by playing that game. But it's back in full force--maybe even worse than it ever was. Putin wanted the Cold War back, and then along came Trump. So our agreements to ramp down the chicken game, weak as they were, got quickly thrown in the trash by both sides. And now we have jingoists in both nuclear powers egging each other on. Russia, the weaker of the two nuclear powers, is the side making the louder shouts of encouragement not to swerve away as we start rattling our nuclear sabers louder and louder. So far, Russia has not started a nuclear war, and that seems to be making people on our side think that they will lose their nerve and swerve out of our path as we just ignore their threats and keep on driving straight at them. Many brave young spectators here seem to think that we can bully them into losing the game. All it takes is to go for it--not to lose our nerve to the weak-willed pussies who fear a collision. After all, what does Putin have to lose that would make him try to start a nuclear war? And, chances are that the Russians are so incompetent that their warheads won't actually explode. How embarrassing for them to fire duds at us.

How are we bullying Russia? I'd agree that we've been very mean to Russia in the past. But I sure do not think that our attempts to encourage Russia to stop killing Ukrainians equals bullying.

 

[Rhea]

I was very surprised by this piece at UnderstandingWar.com Jan 18th update. It sounds very significant to me. Uncensored talk about replacing Putin?

Prigozhin and other notable voices in Russia are carving out a new space to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin without fear of retribution. Prigozhin and other prominent Russian nationalists such as Igor Girkin, a former Russian militant commander and prominent critical voice in the Russian milblogger information space, have been opening a new sector in the Russian information space where certain figures can criticize Putin and the highest echelons of the Russian government without any apparent retribution. Igor Girkin heavily implied that he would support the removal of Russian President Vladimir Putin from office in his most direct criticism of Putin to date on January 10, for example.[27] Putin has decided to not censor these voices for far.

 

[SLD]

I was very surprised by this piece at UnderstandingWar.com Jan 18th update. It sounds very significant to me. Uncensored talk about replacing Putin?

Prigozhin and other notable voices in Russia are carving out a new space to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin without fear of retribution. Prigozhin and other prominent Russian nationalists such as Igor Girkin, a former Russian militant commander and prominent critical voice in the Russian milblogger information space, have been opening a new sector in the Russian information space where certain figures can criticize Putin and the highest echelons of the Russian government without any apparent retribution. Igor Girkin heavily implied that he would support the removal of Russian President Vladimir Putin from office in his most direct criticism of Putin to date on January 10, for example.[27] Putin has decided to not censor these voices for far.

Maybe they already have effectively. Just keeping him on as a figurehead?

 

[Copernicus]

Playing nuclear chicken with Putin and then guessing which side feels that it has to back down. That seems like a game well worth playing, doesn't it? Which side has a bigger ego? NATO or the guy who staked his entire life on conquering Ukraine?

We are not playing "nuclear chicken" with Russia. We've have been incredibly restrained in keeping back offensive weapons from Ukraine. All of our efforts are to deter Russian advances and encourage them to return home. We're not exercising our ego when trying to stop these deaths. It is Russia who constantly threatens nuclear war.

I disagree. We have always played nuclear chicken with Russia and other nuclear powers. That started when the secret of how to build nuclear weapons got out, and that is what MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is. Every adversary and ally of the US suddenly acquired nuclear envy at the end of WWII, thanks to our horrendous demonstration of how it could work to one's benefit in a war where one side did not have nuclear weapons for deterrence. Ukraine does not have nuclear deterrence, and Russia does. So we cannot bully or attack Russia, but Russia can bully and attack Ukraine. NATO has nuclear weapons, so all of those eastern European nations rushed to get into NATO after the Soviet Union fell, realizing that someone like Putin could come back into power in Russia. Ukraine tried, but failed to get in. Too late!

The problem we face now is that the game of chicken had seemed to recede when the Soviet Union and US started losing interest in threatening each other's and everyone else's existence by playing that game. But it's back in full force--maybe even worse than it ever was. Putin wanted the Cold War back, and then along came Trump. So our agreements to ramp down the chicken game, weak as they were, got quickly thrown in the trash by both sides. And now we have jingoists in both nuclear powers egging each other on. Russia, the weaker of the two nuclear powers, is the side making the louder shouts of encouragement not to swerve away as we start rattling our nuclear sabers louder and louder. So far, Russia has not started a nuclear war, and that seems to be making people on our side think that they will lose their nerve and swerve out of our path as we just ignore their threats and keep on driving straight at them. Many brave young spectators here seem to think that we can bully them into losing the game. All it takes is to go for it--not to lose our nerve to the weak-willed pussies who fear a collision. After all, what does Putin have to lose that would make him try to start a nuclear war? And, chances are that the Russians are so incompetent that their warheads won't actually explode. How embarrassing for them to fire duds at us.

How are we bullying Russia? I'd agree that we've been very mean to Russia in the past. But I sure do not think that our attempts to encourage Russia to stop killing Ukrainians equals bullying.

I never said that we were bullying them. I was speaking hypothetically, and any threat that involves acts of war from NATO would be perceived as bullying, even if Putin and his cronies deserve a taste of their own medicine. Sorry, but I don't see any winners in a war between NATO and Russia. I also don't see them backing down without using nuclear weapons. That is a dangerous fantasy.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I was very surprised by this piece at UnderstandingWar.com Jan 18th update. It sounds very significant to me. Uncensored talk about replacing Putin?

Prigozhin and other notable voices in Russia are carving out a new space to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin without fear of retribution. Prigozhin and other prominent Russian nationalists such as Igor Girkin, a former Russian militant commander and prominent critical voice in the Russian milblogger information space, have been opening a new sector in the Russian information space where certain figures can criticize Putin and the highest echelons of the Russian government without any apparent retribution. Igor Girkin heavily implied that he would support the removal of Russian President Vladimir Putin from office in his most direct criticism of Putin to date on January 10, for example.[27] Putin has decided to not censor these voices for far.

Maybe they already have effectively. Just keeping him on as a figurehead?

Putin replaced Gen. Sergei Surovikin (a Prigozhin favorite) as the overall battlefield commander for Russian troops in Ukraine with Gen. Valery Gerasimov (a Putin loyalist) just a week back after only three months on the job for Surovikin, so I don't think we are quite there yet.

Putin just needs to keep the ultranationalist crap in the information space because he is struggling to shape the narrative on his own.

The question is, does Putin still has the ability to make Prigozhin or Girkin fall out a window?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The question is, does Putin still has the ability to make Prigozhin or Girkin fall out a window?

Bingo! And Zelensky is hinting that Putin is moot or possibly even dead.

 

[Politesse]

Playing nuclear chicken with Putin and then guessing which side feels that it has to back down. That seems like a game well worth playing, doesn't it? Which side has a bigger ego? NATO or the guy who staked his entire life on conquering Ukraine?

We are not playing "nuclear chicken" with Russia. We've have been incredibly restrained in keeping back offensive weapons from Ukraine. All of our efforts are to deter Russian advances and encourage them to return home. We're not exercising our ego when trying to stop these deaths. It is Russia who constantly threatens nuclear war.

I disagree. We have always played nuclear chicken with Russia and other nuclear powers. That started when the secret of how to build nuclear weapons got out, and that is what MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is. Every adversary and ally of the US suddenly acquired nuclear envy at the end of WWII, thanks to our horrendous demonstration of how it could work to one's benefit in a war where one side did not have nuclear weapons for deterrence. Ukraine does not have nuclear deterrence, and Russia does. So we cannot bully or attack Russia, but Russia can bully and attack Ukraine. NATO has nuclear weapons, so all of those eastern European nations rushed to get into NATO after the Soviet Union fell, realizing that someone like Putin could come back into power in Russia. Ukraine tried, but failed to get in. Too late!

The problem we face now is that the game of chicken had seemed to recede when the Soviet Union and US started losing interest in threatening each other's and everyone else's existence by playing that game. But it's back in full force--maybe even worse than it ever was. Putin wanted the Cold War back, and then along came Trump. So our agreements to ramp down the chicken game, weak as they were, got quickly thrown in the trash by both sides. And now we have jingoists in both nuclear powers egging each other on. Russia, the weaker of the two nuclear powers, is the side making the louder shouts of encouragement not to swerve away as we start rattling our nuclear sabers louder and louder. So far, Russia has not started a nuclear war, and that seems to be making people on our side think that they will lose their nerve and swerve out of our path as we just ignore their threats and keep on driving straight at them. Many brave young spectators here seem to think that we can bully them into losing the game. All it takes is to go for it--not to lose our nerve to the weak-willed pussies who fear a collision. After all, what does Putin have to lose that would make him try to start a nuclear war? And, chances are that the Russians are so incompetent that their warheads won't actually explode. How embarrassing for them to fire duds at us.

How are we bullying Russia? I'd agree that we've been very mean to Russia in the past. But I sure do not think that our attempts to encourage Russia to stop killing Ukrainians equals bullying.

I never said that we were bullying them. I was speaking hypothetically, and any threat that involves acts of war from NATO would be perceived as bullying, even if Putin and his cronies deserve a taste of their own medicine. Sorry, but I don't see any winners in a war between NATO and Russia. I also don't see them backing down without using nuclear weapons. That is a dangerous fantasy.

No one wins any war these days. The last war with a clear winner, who enjoyed the fruits of their spoils, ended in 1945. Soon, no one will be left alive to remember it. I wish humanity would realize this, and try something different.

 

[Jayjay]

I was very surprised by this piece at UnderstandingWar.com Jan 18th update. It sounds very significant to me. Uncensored talk about replacing Putin?

Prigozhin and other notable voices in Russia are carving out a new space to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin without fear of retribution. Prigozhin and other prominent Russian nationalists such as Igor Girkin, a former Russian militant commander and prominent critical voice in the Russian milblogger information space, have been opening a new sector in the Russian information space where certain figures can criticize Putin and the highest echelons of the Russian government without any apparent retribution. Igor Girkin heavily implied that he would support the removal of Russian President Vladimir Putin from office in his most direct criticism of Putin to date on January 10, for example.[27] Putin has decided to not censor these voices for far.

Maybe they already have effectively. Just keeping him on as a figurehead?

Putin replaced Gen. Sergei Surovikin (a Prigozhin favorite) as the overall battlefield commander for Russian troops in Ukraine with Gen. Valery Gerasimov (a Putin loyalist) just a week back after only three months on the job for Surovikin, so I don't think we are quite there yet.

Putin just needs to keep the ultranationalist crap in the information space because he is struggling to shape the narrative on his own.

The question is, does Putin still has the ability to make Prigozhin or Girkin fall out a window?

Nah, I think Putin is still in charge. It's just the the way he stays in charge is by playing his subordinates against each other, so that nobody can get too much power to threaten Putin himself.

That's what's going on in the game of musical chairs, where Surovikin is promoted one day and demoted the next. It's not that Gerasimov was put in charge because he's a "Putin loyalist", because Prigozhin is also a loyalist. It's to keep the two sides balanced and fighting for good graces of the Tsar.

Putin himself didn't come to power by stabbing his superiors in the back. He got his job with loyalty and patience. If Prigozhin or someone else eventually gains power, I think it'll happen much the same way: when Putin gets terminally ill or too old, he'll pick his successor among the most loyal servants, so that he knows he and his legacy are secure.

As for "milbloggers" and guys like Girkin, I'm also baffled why Putin keeps them around. But clearly, Girkin being a "former" FSB officer means that he's doing exactly what the regime wants him to do. He's not the opposition, he just has a different role to play. Maybe Putin figures that allowing the guys who have boots on the ground, but support the war, is a good way to get feedback and to keep (in his view) the most important troops motivated. They will also stoke the fires of war among general population. This way Putin doesn't have to do it himself... he can just respond to the demands of the people when he escalates the conflict.

Appearances are very important to Putin. When he abolished presidential term limits, he didn't just order it himself, he had his stooges in the parliament asking for him to do so, and then being such a softie that he is, Vladimir Putin couldn't say no to the puppy dog eyes of his loyal subjects. Same with annexation of territories: Russia isn't taking the land, it's responding to cries of the people who voted in the fake referendums. And most recently, when he declared an unilater Christmas truce, it wasn't presented as his idea, but rather, he was just doing what Patriarch Kirill had asked a few days prior. Even though obviously Kirill works for him. It's all theatrics. Same with keeping hardliners around and giving them an outlet. It's to make himself look like he's above the day to day slaughter and incompetence in Ukraine, and to keep his options open.

 

[Copernicus]

No one wins any war these days. The last war with a clear winner, who enjoyed the fruits of their spoils, ended in 1945. Soon, no one will be left alive to remember it. I wish humanity would realize this, and try something different.

There is some truth in what you say, but I think there are other ways to calculate winners and losers. For that matter, I'm not even sure that it is entirely accurate to call the Allies a "winner" in WWII. Stalin won, too, and he was as bad, if not worse, than Adolf Hitler when it came to mass murder of millions of civilians and prisoners. It could be said that the Taliban won the war in Afghanistan and that North Vietnam won the war in Vietnam. They certainly believe they did. The Khmer Rouge won in Cambodia, and Mao won in China. WWI ended in an armistice, but only on the western front. The terms were imposed on Germany and the new Soviet Union by the Allies, who were the real winners. Germany actually won the war on their eastern front, because the Russian offensive collapsed and Germany also managed to subvert the tsarist monarchy to the point where their entire empire collapsed and got replaced by a Soviet regime that allied with Germany to divide eastern Europe at the beginning of WWII. However, the Germans and the Russians really lost WWI. Poland was a result that neither wanted to happen, and Poland was again obliterated by collaboration of both of those countries at the start of WWII.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Playing nuclear chicken with Putin and then guessing which side feels that it has to back down. That seems like a game well worth playing, doesn't it? Which side has a bigger ego? NATO or the guy who staked his entire life on conquering Ukraine?

We are not playing "nuclear chicken" with Russia. We've have been incredibly restrained in keeping back offensive weapons from Ukraine. All of our efforts are to deter Russian advances and encourage them to return home. We're not exercising our ego when trying to stop these deaths. It is Russia who constantly threatens nuclear war.

I disagree. We have always played nuclear chicken with Russia and other nuclear powers. That started when the secret of how to build nuclear weapons got out, and that is what MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is. Every adversary and ally of the US suddenly acquired nuclear envy at the end of WWII, thanks to our horrendous demonstration of how it could work to one's benefit in a war where one side did not have nuclear weapons for deterrence. Ukraine does not have nuclear deterrence, and Russia does. So we cannot bully or attack Russia, but Russia can bully and attack Ukraine. NATO has nuclear weapons, so all of those eastern European nations rushed to get into NATO after the Soviet Union fell, realizing that someone like Putin could come back into power in Russia. Ukraine tried, but failed to get in. Too late!

The problem we face now is that the game of chicken had seemed to recede when the Soviet Union and US started losing interest in threatening each other's and everyone else's existence by playing that game. But it's back in full force--maybe even worse than it ever was. Putin wanted the Cold War back, and then along came Trump. So our agreements to ramp down the chicken game, weak as they were, got quickly thrown in the trash by both sides. And now we have jingoists in both nuclear powers egging each other on. Russia, the weaker of the two nuclear powers, is the side making the louder shouts of encouragement not to swerve away as we start rattling our nuclear sabers louder and louder. So far, Russia has not started a nuclear war, and that seems to be making people on our side think that they will lose their nerve and swerve out of our path as we just ignore their threats and keep on driving straight at them. Many brave young spectators here seem to think that we can bully them into losing the game. All it takes is to go for it--not to lose our nerve to the weak-willed pussies who fear a collision. After all, what does Putin have to lose that would make him try to start a nuclear war? And, chances are that the Russians are so incompetent that their warheads won't actually explode. How embarrassing for them to fire duds at us.

How are we bullying Russia? I'd agree that we've been very mean to Russia in the past. But I sure do not think that our attempts to encourage Russia to stop killing Ukrainians equals bullying.

I never said that we were bullying them. I was speaking hypothetically, and any threat that involves acts of war from NATO would be perceived as bullying, even if Putin and his cronies deserve a taste of their own medicine. Sorry, but I don't see any winners in a war between NATO and Russia. I also don't see them backing down without using nuclear weapons. That is a dangerous fantasy.

No one wins any war these days. The last war with a clear winner, who enjoyed the fruits of their spoils, ended in 1945. Soon, no one will be left alive to remember it. I wish humanity would realize this, and try something different.

It's Russia that needs to learn this. Most of the world is already on board. The US invaded Vietnam and Afghanistan. We didn't achieve our objectives. We pulled out. We didn't nuke the world. What makes Russia unique is that it attacks a country; and then threatens to destroy the world if it doesn't achieve its goals in Ukraine.

 

[Jarhyn]

So 1000 Wagner cannon fodder must die to take some stinking Ukrainian village? And if any of said cannon fodder tries to retreat they will be summarily executed? Or shot by their Russian commanders if they attempt to surrender to the Ukranians? How long can this strategy work? Who in their right mind is going to sign up to die in the mud of Ukraine?

Honestly, it's not a great position to be in, but if someone gives unwilling fighters weapons, unwilling fighters have weapons. It only takes one clever distraction or coordination in mutiny to turn those weapons around.

The only vaccine to such a turnabout is selecting conscripts that are just happy with a chance to be violent and awful.

 

[Politesse]

It could be said that the Taliban won the war in Afghanistan and that North Vietnam won the war in Vietnam

Perhaps what I should have said is that all victories are Pyrrhic victories now. The places where we war are destroyed for generations, no matter who "wins", and generally the economic cost to both sides far exceeds any reasonable hope of spoils. As happened in the two examples mentioned here, Ukraine will eventually secure its continued independence from Russia. The war is too expensive for even Putin to continue forever. But the country will be in shambles, and likely even lese politically stable than it already was.

If Putin detonates a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, that bomb alone would make his war unprofitable, especially if he then wins the war and is thus responsible for cleanup. I'm not saying the crazy fucker won't do it. Old, wealthy people are dangerous, because they can afford to pretend they still live in whatever decade they liked best. But I am saying that Russia would derive no benefit from such barbarism.

 

[Jayjay]

No one wins any war these days. The last war with a clear winner, who enjoyed the fruits of their spoils, ended in 1945. Soon, no one will be left alive to remember it. I wish humanity would realize this, and try something different.

It's Russia that needs to learn this. Most of the world is already on board. The US invaded Vietnam and Afghanistan. We didn't achieve our objectives. We pulled out. We didn't nuke the world. What makes Russia unique is that it attacks a country; and then threatens to destroy the world if it doesn't achieve its goals in Ukraine.

Exactly right. In this conflict, it's been Russia from the start that has been threatening with nuclear escalation. The US and NATO have done the opposite and are making sure that they aren't going to use nukes even if it looks like they are losing. They're not being very specific about it (for obvious reasons) but even the threatened response to Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon has been implied to be conventional, not nuclear.

Part of this is that Russia is trying to frame their dumbass war as some sort of existential question for Russia, when it's nothing of the kind. There's 0% chance that if Russia were to be driven out of Ukraine, that Ukraine and the West wouldn't stop at the 2013 borders. Or possibly even 2022 February borders, if Russia agreed to withdraw voluntarily. The drunken blowhard former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev had this to say in twitter:



Of course, this is bullshit. One could frame any war to be "crucial for one's destiny" to justify them. Russia is the largest country on Earth, its destiny and existence are in no way predicated on them owning slightly more land in Ukraine or one more military base or port in Crimea. If Russia's existence wasn't under imminent threat a year ago or in 2013, it isn't now either.

Who this war is an existential question to is Ukraine. A country that USA, Europe, and Russia convinced to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

 

[ZiprHead]

The west should give Ukraine longer range artillery with the caveat they don't use it on Russian land. If some happens to fall there, "oops".

 

[Jayjay]

The west should give Ukraine longer range artillery with the caveat they don't use it on Russian land. If some happens to fall there, "oops".

I think that such mishaps would be bad for both US and Ukraine. If there are restrictions, then they should be applied strictly, because doing otherwise means one or both sides can't be trusted to do what they say.

So far, there are zero instances of Himars being used to hit targets in Russia. And that's good, because it means Ukraine is a trusted ally to US, and also, it signals Russia that US (and by extension, Ukraine) can be trusted to keep the peace even if the peace treaty does not completely cripple Ukrainian defenses or prevent it from working with NATO. Also Russia is less able to use the pretext that its citizens are facing an existential threat from NATO, if NATO weapons are explicitly banned from being used against Russia.

The benefits of this strategic trust far outweigh the temporary tactical gains Ukraine might achieve from hitting bases or ammunition depots inside Russian borders.

When talking about longer range weapons, I think the same logic applies. US should give them on condition that they won't be used to hit Russia. Ukraine will adhere, because if they don't, they risk losing future arms shipments. Ukraine can still hit Russia with their own weapons as they have done already, and the American weapons have plenty of valid targets inside the occupied territory that are currently out of reach of Ukrainian artillery.

 

[Jayjay]

Russia seems to have started an offensive in Zaporizhzhia. Igor Girkin says so, and in his typical doomer fashion predicts it will fail... but if he says it's happening, then it probably is. Unless it's a feint...

ISW and others predicted that the big Russian offensive would be in northern Luhansk direction, which would make more sense. So it's a bit surprising to hear about it happening in Zaporizhzhia. That's why I think it might be a ruse to make Ukraine redeploy their forces, and then Russia will start the real push.

 

[Patooka]

That's why I think it might be a ruse to make Ukraine redeploy their forces, and then Russia will start the real push.

With what? And even if they did, I'm pretty sure the US would pick up on it and let Ukraine know. I'm trying not to be a fangirl over the US military industrial complex but I find it very difficult to believe Russia can pull a fast one any more.