"The 1980's are calling to ask for their foreign policy back."

The Swiss are getting nervous.

https://bsky.app/profile/meanwhileua.bsky.social/post/3l32gdfw4y72l

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/09...and-joins-it-and-maritime-support-coalitions/

Romania says Russian drones have been violating its airspace.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-drone-romania-e793c35a0df1679cfe89ac6612706c87

Ukrainian defence intelligence officers destroy Russian fighter jet over Black Sea – video

Hard to tell what's going on (which is a big problem in itself) but if reports are to be believed Keir Starmer was pushing for NATO missiles to be used against targets deep within Russia. And Biden stopped him.

But this appears to be an attempt to up the stakes and change the calculus for possible peace talks, with Russia making progress in Ukraine and a Ukrainian collapse looking possible. Putin has said that it would be crossing a major red line. Very dangerous moment.

Putin says everything is a red line.

And then does nothing when it crossed.

Fuck this slow walking everything until it only has 20% of the effect it would have delivered in time and in quantity.

The US should only agree not to allow Ukraine to launch our missiles into Russia if Russia agrees to not launch their missiles into Ukraine.

It should be obvious how causing massive destruction to Russian territory is qualitatively different to what has happened to date.
And it's fallacious to suggest that since past escalations didn't lead to disaster that that will continue to be the case indefinitely.

All of this is an effort to create facts on the ground that provide an advantage at the inevitable peace talks, so everyone should just cut to the chase.

I'm not sure how this is qualitatively different?
Are you saying we should capitulate to Putin because he saber-rattles? Are you pointing out that Ukraine ought to just accept losing a quarter of their country and the chance of ever forming a defensive alliance?
Putin is a bully. And you stop a bully by standing up to him.
If he isn't launching nukes over Ukraine invading Kursk, went would anyone think he'll launch them at all?

Edit: Part of my issue is, from the beginning we in the West have been trying to tell Ukraine what to do. We tried to convince Zelenskyy to flee at the outset. We've continually tried to constrain him and tell him how to fight.
But we're always fucking wrong. And Ukraine keeps demonstrating that they have the fortitude and wherewithal to fight for their HOME. We don't have the right to tell them to stop fighting for their home.
So I dint care if Putin is making noise about war with the West. If we let him intimidate us, then he'll have carte blanche to go full Hitler.

We're talking about major Russian cities being hit by NATO missiles. Of course it's different than a few drones or any activity near the Ukranian border.
Don't you think that the United States wouldn't react very aggressively if its mainland territory was being hit hard by its adversaries in one of the conflicts that it regularly engages in?

Unfortunately realpolitik dictates that Ukraine is going to lose that territory anyway. The war is going terribly for them. If the alternatives are to recognise that or to continue escalating, then I choose the former. This is not western civilisation packing it in, so no, "we" are not "capitulating" in that scenario.

Because Kursk is a strategic error that just accelerates Ukranian defeat by wasting manpower. Its military antecedent is the Ardennes campaign.

I'm not sure how realpolitik is more applicable here than in Gaza. Ostensibly, Israel could make the same argument that you purport Russia would make.
And no, I am not saying Israel has a right to reduce Gaza to rubble. I'm opposed to how they've conducted much of their warfare.
But even IF we negotiated a peace where Russia keeps the territory it invaded, we still have to contend with the other demand that Ukraine never joins NATO. Which is ridiculous. A foreign power, especially a hostile one, can't be allowed to dictate tens like that.
Besides that, what escalation are you afraid of? Do you think Russia will actually try to nuke major European cities? Because that would be suicidal on Russia's part. No matter who they hit, the next move would be everyone else turning Russia into a smoking crater.
Russia tries to scare us with nukes, but Putin is one guy with a gun pointing at a room full of other guys with the same guns.

Oh, I should also add that, from a "realpolitik" position we should do everything we can to equip the Ukrainians without committing our own troops
The longer this goes on, the weaker Russia gets. A few more years of this, and their population growth will be in free fall.
We've already brought two more countries on his border into NATO. We've decimated his army. We've demolished his economy and weakened his political power base. All without losing a single American soldier.
We ought to be doing everything we can to keep Putin in the meat grinder.
From a realpolitik perspective, at least.

It would be a fairly specious argument since the situations bear little resemblence.
Nevertheless I will say this. Realpolitik is always applicable. Firstly, there is what is just. In Gaza, that involves an end to the occupation, a comprehensive peace, reparations and international trials. In Ukraine that is the return of all Ukranian territory and the arrest of Putin.
But what is just is often not realistic, and what may be settled for falls short. That is the case in both places.

On NATO, your portrayal of it as a "defensive military alliance" is false, and the idea that Russia has no legitimate interest in keeping it away from its border is also false. NATO is not a gym membership. It's an invite-only body and its expansion is one of the causes underlying this war. NATO can very easily decide not to have Ukraine as a member.
On nukes, I think that one possibility is that he'd use tactical nukes in Ukraine. And things could further snowball from there. Your reasoning appears to be that there's nothing to worry about when playing chicken with nuclear war. That's insane.

Perhaps, then, we should change the definition of what we consider realistic in both of these situations.

In what way is the portrayal of NATO as defensive false? Have they ever invaded a sovereign nation? Have they ever threatened nuclear warfare if their interests weren't appeased? Were Norway and Finland wrong to join out of a fear of Russian aggression?

And if he uses nukes in Ukraine, a non-nuclear power? How long do you think Putin stays in power then? Do you honestly think China would turn a blind eye to something that dangerous to their own ambitions?
Of course there are things to worry about. But if you permit that fear to dictate all of your policy, you've given up everything.

Fuck Putin. You can’t invade a country and then bark restrictions as to how that country can retaliate

Total piss baby, such a Russian

This is just so stupid. Top to bottom.

Starting with the first sentence.

Your guys are the ones targeting school, hospitals, apartment buildings and shopping malls.

The Ukrainians have been hitting fuel depots, airbases, command centers, ammo stockpiles and maintenance facilities.

Why would that change with longer ranges?

Next, so far Ukraine has captured more territory from Russia than vice versa thus the idea that Ukraine is losing and about to collapse is nonsense.

With a couple of (admittedly still dangerous) exceptions Russia’s summer offensive looks to have culminated and the lines stabilized.

They are still advancing in Pokrovsk but slower than they were a few weeks ago giving Ukraine more time to send reinforcements and prepare more lines of defense.

The loss of Pokrovsk would still be a sizable blow logistically but the big worry was that there wasn’t much behind it and Russia might have an actual breakthrough similar to Ukraine’s Kharkiv offensive.

While there is still a decent chance Russia could take Pokrovsk which would be a blow to other parts of the front (it is a logistical hub) the odds of a breakthrough are much diminished.

Only other major (known) risk right now is it looks like the Russians are gearing up to try and take Vuhledar. Again. They really REALLY want it and been willing to destroy some pretty strong units in the earlier two attempts to take it. Last year’s was particularly bloody for Russia. Lots of men and vehicles lost. Who knows, maybe third time is the charm but Ukraine does have pretty well prepared defenses down there.

And aside from that… that’s it.

Again, so far they have managed to take less territory from Ukraine this year than Ukraine has from them.

At a much higher cost.

And this year was supposed to be the Russians’ year.

After Ukraine used up a lot of their ammo and troop reserves in last year’s counter offensive, the Republicans holding up Ukraine aid for six months, Ukraine waiting too long to mobilize young people and Europe dragging its ass getting munitions production up this was Russia’s best chance for a decisive blow for a while.

And so far they have little to show for it.

Now US aid is flowing, the first new Ukraine units are coming on line, as is Europe’s new production, Ukraine’s own production is rapidly increasing and on the flip side Russia is now facing its own manpower issue and will likely have to conduct a new round of mobilization this winter.

Basically as things stand what should have been their year could very well end up a wash/slight Ukrainian advantage.

Battlefield wise.

Y’all could still win in Nov.

For instance what is left of the Black Sea Fleet is on the run.

Again.

After being chased out of Crimea and back to their old base in Novorossiysk they are now moving even further away.





Same thing is happening with the VKS:

https://x.com/kromark/status/1834510832043970753?s=46&t=t4SjKAdDfFIcJ6SvqCRv6A

These are the main platforms Russia uses to launch the cruise missiles terrorizing Ukrainian cities. Yes the further away from the front lines the better. The longer the range and/or increased flight times means the easier they can get shot down or just fall out of the sky. But even better would be to destroy these platforms in port/on the ground.

Yeah, my guys.

West funding Putin’s soldiers with growing Russian fuel purchases, report warns

Seems like another argument for why we should be throwing everything we have at getting off the oil teat.

The depot at Toropets was detonated by Ukrainian drones, exploding thousands of tons of missiles, bombs, and ammunition in the single largest anti-logistic strike of the war.

The resulting explosion and ash cloud made the surrounding countryside look like something out of Mordor.

This is the largest Russian ammunition dump in the region, and a critical piece of the Russian Army's logistical infrastructure.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1836263948322050321

Huh. Seems like, maybe, they aren't clearly losing like some people have posited.

Reminds me of ff whacking off over the prospect of that recession that's just around the corner.

Russian population growth is already in freefall. They're bleeding themselves white.

All strongmen, like Putin, want one thing; to be in power. Putin knows that if he uses nukes of any variety, it will trigger an overwhelming response. He won't do that. He probably thinks he has an endless supply of legacy Soviet equipment in Siberia, which he doesn't. I'm more worried about when they finally realize that they've run out of useable equipment. They'll run out of that, well before they run out of bodies.

Volunteers dying as Russia’s war dead tops 70,000

The US lost 50K in Vietnam, and that took us a decade.

Which in and of itself is proof that Russia is no longer a democracy.
In any real democracy, a loss of that percentage would end the career of any politician who initiated the war. If my math is right, the equivalent loss of life in America would be over a million.
Who in the hell is looking at those numbers in Russia and thinking "Four more years!"?

How are you getting to a million? The US population isn't fourteen times larger.

Russia obviously isn't a democracy and control of the media manipulates public opinion in Putin's favour but Russian attitudes on the war are fairly complex. Not much of it is outright oppositional. This is old now but gives some detail.

It is not possible to conclude absolutely that he will or that he won't. The point is that taking escalatory actions increases the risk. And my risk tolerance for nuclear war is pretty fucking low.

Times are weird now. Over a million Americans died of covid, but the media doesn't focus on those deaths like they did 9/11 or Benghazi or Biden having a lousy debate or how annoying it is to wear a face mask with glasses, so people don't get too worked up about it. It's... unfortunate.

Well, I may have misplaced a decimal, lol.
I teach literature, not math.
At any rate, even if it's only in the six digits, that's still a lot.
I just wonder how bad it has to get before the general population has finally had enough.