DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ukraine and Russia Cont.

Seems to me that we have 3 options:

1, donate money and supplies

2, donate troops, either now or after Putin overruns Ukraine and moves on to his next conquest

3, We can sit back and let Putin overrun Eastern Europe, then let China sweep in and take Taiwan.

Right now the Russians gains are due to Ukraine not having what they need to fight the war. All you're doing is showing how cutting off their supplies creates a self fulfilling prophesy.

"We cut off their funding so now they're losing. We can't keep supplying a losing cause."

You are correct in that Russia gains a huge advantage in a battle of attrition.

Where this conversation gets frustrating is when you go a layer deeper. Ukraine has become a battle of attrition largely because of support (equipment and ammo, not $$) being delayed. That delay allowed Russia to seriously beef up its lines of defense, and once support did finally arrive and was deployed much the equipment advantage was mitigated by this slower plodding pace. If equipment wasn't needlessly delayed giving Russia time to prepare, we could be having a very different convo right now.

Politicians arguing that they shouldn't send equipment because of what happened when they didn't send equipment in a timely manner.

I'm not debating that. That is absolutely correct.

But the narrative that I think many - including Vance - have furthered is that we are lobbing money over at Ukraine and they are just doing whatever they want with it, and that is not the case.

FYI - "Materiel" is different than "Materials." I wasn't misspelling. It's a catch-all for weapons, equipment, etc. needed for war.

Yeah, exactly. Back when things were asymmetrical because Ukraine was being supplied with the same or better equipment than what the Russians were using, the numbers disparity didn't matter. Now that that has vanished, Ukraine has to play Russia at their own game and Russia was able to regroup.

Which we build and sell to them and pump money back into our economy. Unfortunately war is good for the economy.

Ukraine’s troops are rationing ammunition. Yet House Republicans plan to take weeks to mull more aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ukrainian drones fly without ammunition. Russian artillery unleash deadly volleys from safe positions beyond the range of Kyiv’s troops. Shortages of ammo and supplies are resulting in lost ground to Moscow, U.S. congressional leaders warn, yet the Republican-controlled House has shown little hurry to resupply Ukraine with military aid.

Across Washington, officials are viewing the drop-off in ammunition shipments with increasing alarm. It’s now been over two months since the U.S. — which since World War II has fashioned itself as the “Arsenal of Democracy” — last sent military supplies to Ukraine.

But House Speaker Mike Johnson appears determined to chart his own course away from a $95 billion foreign aid package passed by the Senate — a decision that could stall the package for weeks to come after an already arduous months-long wait in Congress.

With U.S. military shipments cut off, Ukrainian troops withdrew from the eastern city of Avdiivka last month, where outnumbered defenders had withheld a Russian assault for four months. Delays in military support from the West are complicating the task for Kyiv’s military tacticians, forcing troops to ration ammunition and ultimately costing the lives of Ukrainian soldiers.

“If Ukraine gets the aid they will win. If they don’t get the aid they will lose — with dire consequences to the United States,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who visited Ukraine last week.

Defense officials are discussing options, which include possibly tapping existing stockpiles even before Congress approves funding to replenish them, according to Sen. Jack Reed, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And at a White House meeting this week, President Joe Biden, the two top Democrats in Congress and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell all took turns intensely urging Johnson to take up a Senate-passed package that would provide $60 billion worth of assistance for Kyiv.

So far, the Republican speaker has refused.

The Louisiana Republican — just four months into the powerful job as speaker, second in the line to the presidency — is under intense pressure from all sides. The leaders of 23 European parliaments have signed an open letter urging him to pass the aid. And within his own House ranks, senior Republicans are growing restive at the inaction, even as other far-right members have threatened to try to remove him from leadership if he advances the aid for Kyiv.

“The House is actively considering options on a path forward, but our first responsibility is to fund the government and our primary, overriding responsibility — and it has been for the last three years — has been to secure the border,” Johnson said at a news conference.

Johnson responded to the pressure on Ukraine by saying the House had only received the funding legislation in mid-February after the Senate took four months to negotiate, including enforcement policies at the U.S.-Mexico border. The deal on border security swiftly collapsed after Republicans, including Johnson, criticized the proposal as insufficient. Yet Johnson and other House Republicans are once again hoping to secure some policy wins on border security.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Congress late last year, he told Johnson that the military aid would last into February. But as Congress entered March, Johnson so far has allowed House members to craft their own proposals and revealed little on his plans for the package.

“We’re beyond the time frame that this should have taken, this analysis and careful consideration by the House should have been completed before the end of the year or very shortly after the new year,” said Rep. French Hill, an Arkansas Republican.

Hill and several other senior Republicans are pressing Johnson to act by crafting a new national security package in the House. That bill, which is being drafted by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and key appropriators, is expected to come in less than the $95 billion Senate package but include many similar provisions — including money that Ukraine, Israel and Indo-Pacific allies could use to purchase U.S. military equipment, as well as some humanitarian assistance.

It may also include a version of the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians, or REPO Act, which would allow the U.S. to tap frozen Russian central bank assets to compensate Ukraine for damages from the invasion, Hill said. He said it would save taxpayer dollars in the long run and help gain Republican votes in the House.

“This is more a matter of finding out the way to move forward,” said seasoned Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the chairman of the Rules committee. “But a substantial majority of both houses of Congress wants to help Ukraine. You had 70 over there,” he said about the robust Senate support, “and the vote here will be well north of 300.”

Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire, who leads a caucus of centrist Democrats called New Dems, said many in her party are ready to help Johnson pass a military aid package if he brings it to the floor. But she said the bill already passed by the Senate would have the broadest support.

“We’re at a critical moment right now, and I encourage Speaker Johnson to work with us,” Kuster said. “He has such a slim majority.”

Meanwhile, any decision by the Pentagon to send Ukraine weapons before Congress approves funding is fraught with risk. Since there is no money to replenish the equipment and weapons sent, the military would be depleting its stockpiles and potentially risking harm to unit readiness for war.

In addition, there are worries that action from the Pentagon could dissuade Congress from moving quickly on the funding bill.

Reed said it would make more sense for Congress to pass the supplemental package, because then the Pentagon “could immediately order the equipment they’re drawing down. We run the risk without that of drawing down the equipment and not being able to replace it or being confident of replacement.”

But he added, “There might be circumstances where the president would decide to ship equipment like ATACMS, even though it would be a difficult judgment.”

The U.S. has sent medium-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems) as well as HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems). But there has been pressure for the U.S. to send longer-range ATACMS. The U.S. has resisted out of concerns Moscow would consider them escalatory, since they could reach deeper into Russia and Russian-held territory.

Ukrainian leaders, however, could use the longer-range missiles to disrupt Russian supply lines — a capability that is seen as essential as Russian President Vladimir Putin looks to surge more troops this spring.

Ukraine also has made it clear that its forces also need additional artillery, including 155 mm howitzer rounds, as well as air defense ammunition.

Ukrainian officials have expressed confidence they can withstand a Russian offensive for several more months, said Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, which advocates for American cooperation with Europe. Yet she added that the Pentagon’s consideration of using drawdown authority sent a somber message that officials view the conflict as having direct implications for U.S. national security.

Some are warning that if Congress fails to provide the aid, U.S. troops will next be called on to help defend NATO allies.

Schumer said that during his trip to Ukraine, “One leading American said to me if we don’t get the aid, Russian tanks could be at the Polish border by December.”

https://apnews.com/article/congress...blicans-53db93c5db8ab249503e93b558da5bd8

The House extremists goal of gifting the nation of Ukraine to Russia is well under way. Well done Comrades.

Unfreakingbelievable.

Sweden officially joins NATO!!

Sweden formally joins Nato military alliance
1 day ago
By Laura Gozzi,
BBC News
link

Bull, here's what I posted in the economy thread.

I'm beginning to think I don't understand your argument. I honestly want to know your (you yourself, in your own words) hold-up when it comes to sending equipment to Ukraine.

I mean this sincerely. Read below and tell me where you think I'm wrong.

1. You don't want to send equipment to Ukraine because you think it's a waste/lost cause.

Maybe the situation has shifted lately with Russia being more dug in after the latest Ukrainian counterattack that stalled, but Ukraine has showed before that that, when properly equipped, they absolutely have the ability to boatrace the Russians.

2. You think Ukraine is corrupt and will mis-appropriate the stuff given to them.

We have been mostly sending them equipment. While this equipment has a real value to it, I don't believe I've read any indication that this is going on. Ukraine has had issues with corruption in the past and has put effort into stamping it out.

3. You think just sending equipment is a half-measure.

Having just gotten the American military out (for the most part) out of Afghanistan, I (and many others I imagine) are reluctant to turn around and send our troops to trench warfare in Europe. Especially when the military that we would be supporting has already shown the ability to be effective on their own when adequately equipped. I also find this reason to be weird given it's often used interchangeable with the spending argument... sending soldiers would be far more expensive (both in dollars and otherwise). Additionally, Ukraine is not in NATO, so sending troops would be diplomatically tough especially since other NATO countries have yet to send their own troops despite their ever-increasing proximity to Russian troops.

3. We should be pushing peace negotiations vs fighting.

IMO, this amounts to appeasement, and we have more than enough evidence (with Russia specifically as well as other similarly-led countries) to know that it won't work in the long run. Russia started this with Crimea, and we didn't smack them upside the head then and here we are. To borrow a football phrase, there's more than enough tape out there on Putin to know what he's about and what we should expect if we cave to him again. The way I see it, in order to avoid being right back in this same situation a couple years down the line, Russia has to take a clear L and be dis-incentivized to keep messing around in Europe.

I’m pretty sure Bull is saying it is a waste of money to just send arms and equipment. We must also send boots to win. And an alternative is to send in a Seal team to take out Putin. I could be wrong.

It's mostly door number 3 (the half measure one). I'm also hesitant to send troops. It's not something I want to do. Unfortunately, Putin needs to be stopped. Yes, Ukraine was effective at the start. Unfortunately, appearances can be deceiving. I think too many people are buying into the Ukrainian Kool-aid. Think of it like Thermopylae. Yes, 300 Spartans put a hurting on the Persians early on, but in the end they died. Plus, they actually weren't alone and had Greek allies in the field. The scale is different, in time and numbers, but the result looks to be headed towards somewhere similar to me.

Putin seems an awful lot to think like he's also a sort of (Persian) god-king.

If by "at the start" you mean when they were given the proper equipment with which to defend themselves I would say you are correct. The fact that they aren't doing well now that they are not being given that equipment is what is happening. Claims to the contrary is the Kool-Aid people aren't buying into.

So saying they were doing well when they had the military equipment to fight Russia but now they aren't because they don't have that equipment is quite accurate. But what that supports is that they should continue to get that equipment to fight Russia. Not the opposite.

People wear down. Russia has more fresh bodies to send. Yes, Ukraine can draft 500,000 more soldiers. Russia will then draft/conscript/hire 1,000,000 more soldiers. Ukraine will run out of people before Russia does without outside personnel. Russia may have to go back to tactics like having officers mowing down their own troops that refuse to advance, but I don't see that stopping Putin. Russia has ~100,000,000 more people and is bringing in cannon fodder from outside its borders.

You can spout all of that you like but it still doesn't change the fact that Ukraine was doing an admirable job of defending itself when they had the weaponry to do so. There are also many mercenary troops fighting for Ukraine that come from outside their own border.

You're trying to project what will happen rather than being objective and factual about what has been happening. And you still refuse to address the fact that Ukraine did an admirable job of defending itself when they were given the weaponry to do so and it is only now when we are withholding that weaponry that they are struggling. You projections of the future won't change any of that.

The Spartans did an admirable job, too. How is that not addressing it? Open your eyes. Stop squeezing them shut and chanting your forcefed talking points until you believe them.

As of last month there were 20,000 foreigners in the Ukrainian foreign legion.(link) That's a drop in the bucket.

Your sending material and hoping for the best won't change anything. It'll just delay the moment when Ukraine is overrun.

Yet they were doing a fine job until they stopped getting the weaponry to defend themselves. Predicting the worst results won't change any of that either. Once again you're using your projection while ignoring the results to date when they have had the ability to defend themselves.

Go to Ukraine and then tell me how fine they are doing.

You think you know so much that you actually have no idea about.

You overrate your ability to interpret the results. You have no idea what you are looking at. You think like a civilian. You don't know what you don't know.

Things "starting well" aren't really a result. The attacker in this type of conflict generally suffers higher casualties as the defender has entrenched positions. Killing more people doesn't mean they are winning. It just shows Russia is willing to pay a high cost to get what they want. Ukraine lost the siege of Mariupol in 2022. It's still in Russian hands. Lots of Russians died, but Putin got what he wanted.

What part of this are you missing? Of course with no equipment and having to ration ammunition they're not doing fine. That's what I've been telling you all along. I know you're superiority complex precedes you but when you manufacture a situation that dictates the results and then say "Look at the results" you're not actually making a point.

But since you can't actually show that as being wrong you try and make it sound like you're the only one who could possibly understand anything. Shooting the messenger is not know as an effective debating style.

In 2022, we were supplying material. They still lost. Russia occupied Mariupol. That's what I've been telling you all along.

You don't know what losing looks like. You're looking at spreadsheets and propaganda and think that more Russians dying means Ukraine is winning. It doesn't. Ukraine can kill 100,000,000 more Russian troops than it has casualties and still lose.

So only your truth isn't propaganda. I see. We both know that Ukraine held a line in the sand for a long time. Actually made progress in 2023. But you have "an example". Well here's an example for you of what they accomplished while they still had the weaponry to do so.....

Ukraine has recaptured 50% of the territory that Russia seized, Blinken says

https://www.reuters.com/world/blink...territory-that-russia-seized-2023-07-23/

Since this goes against everything you've been trying to say are you just going to label this as propaganda too?

Yeah, apparently I can't count. That last one (appeasement) was supposed to be #4.

I know as much as you do about the current situation on the ground (not a whole lot). Troops do wear down, but for a while Ukraine was doing an admirable job of cycling out troops (ex. they had to send troops from the front line to get trained on the new western tanks before they could be reintegrated with the newly-equipped groups). Long-term, I think you are correct, though. Putin can (and obviously will) throw anyone and everyone at Ukraine. That's why I think it's even more crucial that Ukraine can maintain any sort of tactical or equipment advantage they can. They were effectively negating the numbers advantage and retaking land until equipment aid slowed.

If we are not prepared to do that, then what's the point? Prolonging conflict in Ukraine will take its toll on Russia (troop and equipment losses, maintaining a war economy amidst sanctions) but they will eventually take Ukraine. Then Putin will chill for long enough to recharge and start this all over again somewhere else and continue pushing into Europe. Then we get to have this same conversation all over again but with escalating costs (especially if he's so bold as to attach a NATO country... we are running out of buffer space, after all).

You don't understand how war works. There are critical areas and there are non-critical. Ukraine regained areas of little to no strategic importance. Small villages and empty land, it says so in your linked article. They weren't worth the effort for Russia to defend in any way other than an opportunity to bleed some Ukrainian numbers.

Mariupol is a critical port.

So these areas were worth the effort for Russia to attack and the territory was worth them taking but when Ukraine took them back Russia defending them wasn't worth the effort? I'm not sure what inventive math you use to deduce that.

What you said in bold is pretty much what I've been saying. I don't think the tactical and equipment advantage was negating the numbers as much as many think it was. I think the "success" of the counteroffensive was much overblown. They just extended the front so they'll have to stretch their numbers thinner and allow Russia's numerical advantage to play a bigger factor. To defend the regained area, they'll have to pull troops from areas that are actually strategically important.

Russia took it because it was easy, not because they needed it to achieve their goals. Russia is happy to let Ukraine expend its limited soldiers taking back essentially worthless land.

So you're sticking with the theory that Russia felt in was important enough to take but not important enough to defend even though Russia, according to you, has Ukraine so outnumbered and overpowered. That their intended goal was to use their overwhelming military advantage to crush Ukraine but given the opportunity to confront them face to face during the offensive they simply chose not to. Got it!

No, my thinking is that Russia's high command understands military strategy while Ukraine's high command understands working the media much better than it does military strategy.

If you can lure the enemy into a minefield and they charge right into it, you let them. Particularly when the only thing on the other side of the minefield are sacked villages. Rain artillery down on them the whole way. If Ukraine is willing to expend a significant enough force, pull back the troops to areas you can't afford to lose while demolishing the Ukrainian military's combat effectiveness on the cheap where they are the ones running into the teeth of entrenched opposition.

It's a question of "the juice being worth the squeeze." Enduring heavy losses to capture a vital foothold makes tactical sense. Enduring heavy losses to retake a shelled out wasteland might not be the best use of resources.

Your thinking is what's led to your conclusion we should either abandon Ukraine or start WW3.

So according to your thinking Russia taking these small villages with no tactical advantages were worth it but defending them wasn't worth it? Alrighty then.

What were Russia's losses while taking the villages? What were Ukraine's? If you can find a legitimate source showing numbers that show Russia lost more there, you'd have a point. Russia's losses have mostly come at places of strategic importance like Mariupol. Ukraine is spending troops it can't afford to lose to retake crater-filled parking lots in the hinterlands.

My conclusion is that WW3 already started. NATO's already supporting Ukraine. Most of the world is already involved. Unfortunately, starts are easiest to see in hindsight. So we'd best find a way to end it quickly before China decides to join in on Russia's side because we don't have the stones to stop them.

You are the one to make the initial accusation and assertions. So why is it now left up to me to show the numbers? So you don't think the U.S. and NATO sending troops in would be the actual strongest catalyst to get China involved right away? It seems you support adding the fuel to the fire which would cause China to get involved, not the opposite.

It's up to you because you are the numbers guy. You were the one trying to tote casualty ratios as evidence.

Anyone can see that Russia is taking major ports while Ukraine is taking back... a whole lot of mostly conflict-irrelevant space. No numbers are really required with my point. It stands on its own merit. For your point to have merit, it needs the numbers to support it.

Bad choices all around. I don't deny it. I thought you were all about choosing the lesser evil. All that's required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. You've commented how the Ukraine aid bill cost is an insignificant amount. Another way to say insignificant amount is practically nothing.

Doing just enough to make yourself feel better might as well be nothing.

First, a seal team would never be sent to kill Putin wthout us being at war with Russia. Even then, regime replacement and assassinations, are not things we are historically good at.

Second, American boots on the ground would put Putin in a position to fire nukes. And I think he would nuke Ukraine and one or more of our NATO allies. Boots on the ground would be a stupid move on our part IMHO. And Zelensky has punched Putin in the mouth almost from the jump with our war toys.

I think we should load them up and train them up somewhere in the EU. Then let them lose on Putin. Worst case bad scenario, Ukraine falls and Putin gets a Pyrrhic Victory. I would not be apposed to sending in paid mercenaries, but not US active duty soldiers.

Additionally, we should send or have an entire fleet with multiple carriers parked off the coast of Iran and southern Ukraine where the Donbas region could be bombed like hell within minutes. And Russia would be in range of our sub nukes there. That will keep Putin from using nukes and Iran from shipping missiles to Russia. And it tells Iran that sending their missiles will cost them… If we bomb anyone, it should be Iran. Let them declare war… who cares. The only weapons they can hurt us with are terrorist and nukes. I don’t think their nukes can reach us, and they are at minimum partially responsible for Putins recent attacks.

I don't think anyone wants to allow Putin to take over.

Viet Nam isn't a great comparison. The terrain is completely different. We knew next to nothing about jungle warfare. The stakes are higher here. We've got a sociopath with nukes invading countries.

No one wants to fight someone else's war, but some times the world has to band together to take out a Hitler. To me, it feels like Putin has entered that awful "stratosphere."

I don't think you have any idea about Russia's expectations. I think you're repeating fabrications that have been presented as facts. Who is it exactly that had access to Russia's invasion plans? After the time it took for Russia to take over Chechnya, I'm pretty sure they were aware that invasions can take time. Unfortunately, time is on Russia's side in this conflict as it is. Time is in some ways a weapon in Russia's arsenal. Already we've got support wavering here and inside Ukraine. Russia isn't reliant on blitzkrieg tactics. They're more about implacability. Just keep coming until they grind you down. They are fine with playing the long game. Putin's former KGB. They plant sleepers for lifetimes.

The lives of American soldiers line gets trotted out a lot. To me, I think it's dismissive of their sacrifice to assume that they want to sit around watching this travesty unfold.

While I think only sending aid is dumb, I do think doing absolutely nothing is even dumber.

We'd declare Putin a war criminal, terrorist, and his election illegitimate first in that scenario. I probably wouldn't actually send a SEAL team. I'd probably try to get a more international team of volunteers together and go the black ops/disavowed route. Russian insurrectionists would be even better, but they'd probably be less reliable. "Assassination" isn't really something I'd want us to get good at or in the habit of. Unfortunately, sometimes the world just needs to be rid of certain singular individuals. I'm not saying this is a good option. It's more a case of I'm not seeing good options.

"Zelensky has punched Putin in the mouth... with our war toys" sounds like you've consumed a bit too much war fiction or have gotten too used to sports/war metaphors. It's more Ukraine has pricked the bear while having one (or more, depending on your thoughts of the LPR and DPR) of it's own limbs torn off. Russia lost a decent bit of blood, but not really much long-term efficacy. You used "Pyrrhic Victory," too.

"Load them up and train them up somewhere in the EU"- any idea how long this will take, who's going to continue fighting while it happens, or just how the logistics would work?

Worst case bad scenario is always gonna be nukes. It could happen if Putin grows impatient even without putting (US/NATO) boots on the ground.

Unfortunately, nukes don't have to reach us. Enough of them anywhere and the fallout would be catastrophic.

I'm also pretty sure Putin would consider putting fleets where you want them an act of war.

There really don't seem to be any great answers. Nuclear deterrence was supposed to stop countries from fighting. Unfortunately, Putin is using it to stop people from stopping him fighting.

Rather naive...ask yourself, why would anyone (such as RW politicians) hold up military aid to a country that has used it's own soldiers to fight Putin to a standoff for the last 2 yrs?


Bull...so allowing Putin to exterminate Ukrainians and take their land is a good way appease Putin and stop his nuclear threats..?


Ukraine wants to fight their own war but now a handful of American RRWers wants to deny Ukraine the military support to stop Putin from achieving his goal in Ukraine.


Why would any American support such a hair-brained idea...withhold military support to Ukraine and allow Putin take over their country?

In your case, I KNOW WHY...Bull, you have allowed yourself to react OUT OF THE FEAR..!

You are afraid of Putin threats and are more than willing to give up on the Ukrainian people and give their country to Putin. That is exactly what Putin's nuclear threats are designed to do and his strategy worked on you.

Fortunately, America's intelligence agencies remove the personal, emotional reactions from the equation and rely on realistic assumptions, based on factual assumptions.


bull...you don't know much about me or just what information I have had access to during my time in the military.

I will say this much, America stands at a moment in time where Putin's failed plan to take back the Ukraine is in serious doubt if our RRWers will just allow Ukrainian troops fight Putin with the help and support of American training and equipment.

Stop Putin in Ukraine and he will be weakened at home without sending American soldiers into harms way. America's hope is to damage Putin so badly that Russia takes care of their Putin Problem on their own and without risking the lives of American soldiers in the process.

Definitely didn’t have an ISIS attack in Moscow on my 2024 bingo card

Islamic State group claims responsibility for Moscow mass shooting that left dozens dead. Here's what we know.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dozens-k...ssian-state-media-reports-193438660.html

1. They'd hold it up for political reasons, not because they want Putin to win. I was referring more to people posting in the thread, though. Whether or not their political shenanigans are putting the world at risk is a different question. Stupidity and greed are definitely making things bleaker in Ukraine, but I don't think the intention is to let Putin win. Could be the result.

2. No one here has said that it is. Maybe that straw man was thrown out as if somebody else had made it. It's hard to keep track of all of the completely fabricated opposing views people can try to say someone else was making.

3. Yep, wanting to take out Putin somehow shows fear and that I want him to take over Ukraine. Someone gonna raise him from the dead? You expecting the zombie apocalypse?

..."factual assumptions"....

4. You don't know what I did in the military. It doesn't particularly matter what information you had access to back then. I don't think anyone is slipping you classified information snuck out of Russia now. If so, expect some visitors soon to ask you all about it. I'm sure they'd find you a nice comfy interrogation room.

5. That all sounds great and very patriotic. (Patriotic?) Unfortunately, I'm not sure why you are so optimistic about how well Ukraine was doing. It's a little early to call the plan failed. No "plan" survives contact with the enemy, yet Russia seems to be adapting better than Ukraine. Ukraine appears to be making some poor decisions. If by some miracle Ukraine does push Russia out, I wouldn't put it past Putin to decide that if he can't have it, no one can.

6. It'd be great if that happened. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely to happen that way if something doesn't change. And I'm talking before the aid slowed down. Now, just turning the aid back on isn't going to cut it. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, he's unlikely to stop there. He's already consolidating his control and eliminating dissenters. He threatened nukes, and we blinked. Why would he stop?

If Ukraine breaks, it feels like it's going to break bad. The thought of Ukraine adding a bunch of green troops to the mix doesn't encourage me as much as it does others. It kind of does the opposite. I'm going to predict we'll have lots of people here claiming they knew we should have done more sooner, if so.