Thank you for this. It occurs to me that Ukraine is really turning into a showcase for weapons, a testing ground, and even an exhibition, convention of sorts. This may be appealing to some and push innovation as well. That is not to take away from the godawful seriousness, senselessness, and suffering and destructiveness, the deaths, of this war Russia /Putin is visiting upon Ukraine and the rest of us. This could stop tomorrow. Putin could conceivably withdraw. But I hear (listening to Mark Galeotti) that Russia has turned that whole country onto a war footing. It's pure evil. They are in this "for the long haul". Countering this, to be similarly in it "as long as it takes" by allies may be the only way to come to an end. It's been said again and again. The war rests on Putin and the war structure he has built around him. We have been too weak in response... fearful.
I am unable to understand why the West is so concerned that Ukraine should not attack mainland Russia. Russia is sending missiles from deep inside its own territory to destroy Ukrainian targets, many of them non-military. But Ukraine cannot respond? The abject fear of western leaders from the very start of this invasion that Putin might escalate if his country was directly attacked should by now be seen to be ridiculous. Putin has shown that he needs no excuse or reason to escalate his attacks.
I suspect it's partially because it'd be really bad for optics when American weapons are killing Russian civilians as collateral damage. We'd end up moving the theories of this war into much greyer territory.
The right side of history is obvious when the cause is Ukraine defending its territorial integrity. Ukraine attacking Russia back may not be the same thing as being the aggressor nation, but it still looks like aggression and muddies the moral picture in a way that could cause problems later on for any country supporting the war effort.
Optics? Moral Picture? You cannot say "the right side of history is when....." Ukraine does..... Yes we know what the ultimate outcome should be. Ukraine's sovereignty and security. When a long restrained response finally happens by taking this war to Russia itself, if it must go there to defend, this is STiLL UKraine defending its territory. That is regardless of what it may look like. Russia/ Putin has been trying to make this look like the West is the aggressor, and they are the victims. The moral picture is clear however regardless if the war must be taken to its head. What is defensive and when does defensive have to become offensive? We are a long way from the danger of how history will read this or some moral picture changing from Russia/Putin being the criminal here. He's taking down Russia- which has an effect all of us.
Let‘s imagine. Russia is „defeated“ and withdraws from all or part of the occupied territory. Russia continues to use long range artillery and missiles to damage Ukrainian infrastructure and kill Ukrainian civilians. This is not wild fantasy, and could well be what happens. Your response would be what? I also have problems with your contention that the „moral picture“ would be less sharp, and wonder what the Ukrainians themselves would think about that expression.
Sorry if I was unreasonably robust in my answer, but I do feel very strongly about the behaviour of the western powers. I don’t think that „appeasement“ would be too strong a word. Each escalation of the western response to the Russian invasion has been inevitable, just always too late. If a robust (there I go again!) response had been immediate, the invasion would have been long over. The same thing is happening with the supply of advanced fighter jets, all the reasons now being advanced for not supplying them (training pilots and maintenance engineers, replacement parts etc) would be non-existent if the decision had been taken early. I would put money on exactly the same „escalation“ of accepting Ukrainian direct strikes on the Russian homeland.
I think my post above made it sound like I'm one of the "end the war... diplomacy now" useful idiots who doesn't want to hurt Russia's feelings. I'm not. It feels obvious that the thing the West would want to do the most is to pull no conventional punches and get this war over with decisively, but we keep coming up with excuses.
But sometimes all this public posturing for caution gets shown to be at least partially fake. I think back to the video of Macron talking to his advisers on the first day of the invasion. Publicly, he played the part of the Putin appeasing "peacemaker", but in private, he was on a line with Kyiv pledging to send arms.
All of this theatre of statescraft is way beyond me. Like you, I'm trying to imagine what I'm not able to see or understand that would cause Western leaders to continue to prosecute a war at half throttle even as one excuse after another begins to fall away.
Being American, I'm very aware of how battered of an image the USA has in recent history. We could use a few years of good PR to rehab our image on the world stage and maybe that has something to do with the unwillingness to allow for US weapons to be used to attack inside Russia.
Endless videos of inevitable civilian casualties would flood Telegram and spread to every corner that hates us while they chant "Death to America" in unison. That's what I meant by the right side of history comment. I didn't mean it was morally wrong to provide arms that could end up killing non-combatants. If anything, it's more morally wrong to not provide the weapons needed to end the war sooner than later. More people will suffer and die in a drawn out conflict than an intense one.
Ultimately though, I have no idea. I'm just trying to make sense myself.
Yes, the West has been slow. I doubt the invasion would be over by now even all that had been done, however. I think the Ukraine war will end over Putin’s dead body (literally).
Noting some of the comments below and in the light of the announcements yesterday by President Biden and also the NATO Secretary General of support in principle for the supply of advanced jets to Ukraine (BBC News website), just in time, perhaps, to miss the start of the anticipated Ukrainian offensive, it would be interesting to read more about strategy from the NATO/Western perspective in responding to the Russian invasion. How has the strategy been developed amongst the allies, what have been the constraints on that strategy, and why have the allies always (or so it seems to some outsiders) been behind the game in terms of supplying Ukraine,, when it seems obvious what is needed on the ground (or in the air).
Was that ammunition explosion a serious Russian victory? Is it possible for the counteroffensive to be stopped in its tracks by a few of these onslaughts? Worry and fear
If you're referring to that giant explosion that Russian trolls were claiming to be a stockpile of depleted Uranium, that was shown to be one of two storage sites for old decomissioned Soviet rocket boosters that Ukraine didn't have the money to dispose of properly. Of course, it's possible there were some other things recently stored there too.
From the first days of the HIMARS strikes taking out huge Russian ammo dumps, we saw what it looks like when an ammo dump is hit. There's a big explosion and then lots of smaller ones, sometimes continuing for a long time.
The videos of those two "ammo dump" hits looked nothing like the videos of large piles of Russian ammo going up after a HIMARS strike.
If Ukraine has made sound plans for building materiel stockpiles for the counter-offensive (and throughout the war, their planning has appeared to be good) then those stockpiles should be well dispersed. Loss of one facility would be inconvenient but probably not a major setback to plans. However, it is not clear what the explosion was.
Thank you for this. It occurs to me that Ukraine is really turning into a showcase for weapons, a testing ground, and even an exhibition, convention of sorts. This may be appealing to some and push innovation as well. That is not to take away from the godawful seriousness, senselessness, and suffering and destructiveness, the deaths, of this war Russia /Putin is visiting upon Ukraine and the rest of us. This could stop tomorrow. Putin could conceivably withdraw. But I hear (listening to Mark Galeotti) that Russia has turned that whole country onto a war footing. It's pure evil. They are in this "for the long haul". Countering this, to be similarly in it "as long as it takes" by allies may be the only way to come to an end. It's been said again and again. The war rests on Putin and the war structure he has built around him. We have been too weak in response... fearful.
I am unable to understand why the West is so concerned that Ukraine should not attack mainland Russia. Russia is sending missiles from deep inside its own territory to destroy Ukrainian targets, many of them non-military. But Ukraine cannot respond? The abject fear of western leaders from the very start of this invasion that Putin might escalate if his country was directly attacked should by now be seen to be ridiculous. Putin has shown that he needs no excuse or reason to escalate his attacks.
I suspect it's partially because it'd be really bad for optics when American weapons are killing Russian civilians as collateral damage. We'd end up moving the theories of this war into much greyer territory.
The right side of history is obvious when the cause is Ukraine defending its territorial integrity. Ukraine attacking Russia back may not be the same thing as being the aggressor nation, but it still looks like aggression and muddies the moral picture in a way that could cause problems later on for any country supporting the war effort.
Optics? Moral Picture? You cannot say "the right side of history is when....." Ukraine does..... Yes we know what the ultimate outcome should be. Ukraine's sovereignty and security. When a long restrained response finally happens by taking this war to Russia itself, if it must go there to defend, this is STiLL UKraine defending its territory. That is regardless of what it may look like. Russia/ Putin has been trying to make this look like the West is the aggressor, and they are the victims. The moral picture is clear however regardless if the war must be taken to its head. What is defensive and when does defensive have to become offensive? We are a long way from the danger of how history will read this or some moral picture changing from Russia/Putin being the criminal here. He's taking down Russia- which has an effect all of us.
Let‘s imagine. Russia is „defeated“ and withdraws from all or part of the occupied territory. Russia continues to use long range artillery and missiles to damage Ukrainian infrastructure and kill Ukrainian civilians. This is not wild fantasy, and could well be what happens. Your response would be what? I also have problems with your contention that the „moral picture“ would be less sharp, and wonder what the Ukrainians themselves would think about that expression.
What is my response? Take a deep breath. I thought we were having a conversation. I didn't realize it was a debate. Sorry.
Sorry if I was unreasonably robust in my answer, but I do feel very strongly about the behaviour of the western powers. I don’t think that „appeasement“ would be too strong a word. Each escalation of the western response to the Russian invasion has been inevitable, just always too late. If a robust (there I go again!) response had been immediate, the invasion would have been long over. The same thing is happening with the supply of advanced fighter jets, all the reasons now being advanced for not supplying them (training pilots and maintenance engineers, replacement parts etc) would be non-existent if the decision had been taken early. I would put money on exactly the same „escalation“ of accepting Ukrainian direct strikes on the Russian homeland.
I think my post above made it sound like I'm one of the "end the war... diplomacy now" useful idiots who doesn't want to hurt Russia's feelings. I'm not. It feels obvious that the thing the West would want to do the most is to pull no conventional punches and get this war over with decisively, but we keep coming up with excuses.
But sometimes all this public posturing for caution gets shown to be at least partially fake. I think back to the video of Macron talking to his advisers on the first day of the invasion. Publicly, he played the part of the Putin appeasing "peacemaker", but in private, he was on a line with Kyiv pledging to send arms.
All of this theatre of statescraft is way beyond me. Like you, I'm trying to imagine what I'm not able to see or understand that would cause Western leaders to continue to prosecute a war at half throttle even as one excuse after another begins to fall away.
Being American, I'm very aware of how battered of an image the USA has in recent history. We could use a few years of good PR to rehab our image on the world stage and maybe that has something to do with the unwillingness to allow for US weapons to be used to attack inside Russia.
Endless videos of inevitable civilian casualties would flood Telegram and spread to every corner that hates us while they chant "Death to America" in unison. That's what I meant by the right side of history comment. I didn't mean it was morally wrong to provide arms that could end up killing non-combatants. If anything, it's more morally wrong to not provide the weapons needed to end the war sooner than later. More people will suffer and die in a drawn out conflict than an intense one.
Ultimately though, I have no idea. I'm just trying to make sense myself.
Yes, the West has been slow. I doubt the invasion would be over by now even all that had been done, however. I think the Ukraine war will end over Putin’s dead body (literally).
The linked RUSI paper (www.cna.org/reports/2023/04/Russian-Combat-Air-Strengths-and-Limitations.pdf) is an American report on the Russian air force dealing with warfare in Ukraine and Syria, threats against NATO countries, strategic differences, etc. There is a list of abbreviations at the end.
Noting some of the comments below and in the light of the announcements yesterday by President Biden and also the NATO Secretary General of support in principle for the supply of advanced jets to Ukraine (BBC News website), just in time, perhaps, to miss the start of the anticipated Ukrainian offensive, it would be interesting to read more about strategy from the NATO/Western perspective in responding to the Russian invasion. How has the strategy been developed amongst the allies, what have been the constraints on that strategy, and why have the allies always (or so it seems to some outsiders) been behind the game in terms of supplying Ukraine,, when it seems obvious what is needed on the ground (or in the air).
What number of F16s would allow Ukraine to achieve air superiority?
Was that ammunition explosion a serious Russian victory? Is it possible for the counteroffensive to be stopped in its tracks by a few of these onslaughts? Worry and fear
If you're referring to that giant explosion that Russian trolls were claiming to be a stockpile of depleted Uranium, that was shown to be one of two storage sites for old decomissioned Soviet rocket boosters that Ukraine didn't have the money to dispose of properly. Of course, it's possible there were some other things recently stored there too.
From the first days of the HIMARS strikes taking out huge Russian ammo dumps, we saw what it looks like when an ammo dump is hit. There's a big explosion and then lots of smaller ones, sometimes continuing for a long time.
The videos of those two "ammo dump" hits looked nothing like the videos of large piles of Russian ammo going up after a HIMARS strike.
If Ukraine has made sound plans for building materiel stockpiles for the counter-offensive (and throughout the war, their planning has appeared to be good) then those stockpiles should be well dispersed. Loss of one facility would be inconvenient but probably not a major setback to plans. However, it is not clear what the explosion was.