On Sunday Ukraine delivered not one but at least three reminders that its armed forces are far from toothless and it has the capacity to strike targets within Russia.
"a fresh assault towards Kyiv after the spring thaw in 2023."
So their armor is again restricted to narrow columns on highways lest it get stuck in the mud? Seems to me if they really wanted to do that, it would best be accomplished while the ground is frozen solid?
Unless the armor column is supported by infantry, the best time to mount a fresh drive towards Kyiv is "never".
Without infantry support, plus adequate supplies of fuel and food, tanks are sitting ducks on any highway. Montgomery proved that in 1944 during Operation Market Garden.
So Zalensky is off to DC today to beg / demand more money for this conflict that he, NATO and US leaders could’ve prevented with some assurances and diplomacy while Russia methodically built up forces for its SMO.
And while there were many steps that the west might have taken to avoid war, the unalterable reality is that Putin invaded Ukraine without any actual provocation or justification. He had no casus belli, and he still has no casus belli.
This war has always been Putin's choice. He could end it tomorrow just by pulling his troops out of Ukraine's sovereign territory. That's an option Ukraine does not have.
No it's not aggression against Russia. No shots were fired at Russia.
As for the biolabs, Putin received considerably more funding for Russia's biolabs than Ukraine has from the Nunn-Lugar "threat reduction" programs. It was Russia's VECTOR biolab--previously the Soviet Union's premier bioweapons facility--that teamed up with USAMRIID to map the monkeypox genome 20 years ago.
As for the Donbass, neither side has ever respected the Minsk Accords. Moreover, the Donbass is Ukrainian sovereign territory, and the residents of the Donbass are Ukrainian citizens. For that to be a reason for Russia to invade Ukraine, we should be invading China over their campaigns of genocide against the Tibetan and Uyghur peoples.
The geopolitical reality here is a few centuries old. Russia's defensive doctrone is for them to expand to naturally defensible borders, which means Putin needs ALL of Ukraine. He also needs half of Poland and the Baltic States.
The challenge has always been that Russia's territorial needs and ambitions put them in direct conflict with the other great powers of Europe.
The flaw in Putin's logic was his failure to realize that, where Russia is concerned, NATO is a defensive alliance; the politics within NATO make military aggression against Russia improbable. The argument that NATO expansion represents an imminent threat to Russia simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Which means Putin could have and should have used diplomacy to address his grievances and security concerns, instead of justifying his invasion with an absurd claim of "denazifying" Ukraine (especially since Putin is far more explicitly ethnonationalist than Zelensky).
He had the leverage, he just never used it.
Putin chose the worst possible option to address Russia's security concerns. Instead of fracturing NATO he renewed its lease on life.
Thanks for this detailed response. I don’t recall any speeches from Putin threatening to expand into Poland or the Baltic states. Whet you write is contrary to what I’ve read from countless writers and I appreciate an alternative perspective.
A lot of folks get confused about these anti-air missiles, and especially about weapons such as the HARM anti-radar missiles intended to hit enemy radar installations, both mobile and fixed.
But the facts are, there is nothing to prevent you from using them on any ground installation whether radar site or medical center. Including the so-called "anti-air" missiles.
For many years in not only America's military, but essentially every military in the world, the anti-air missiles, while lacking in warhead capacity (except of course in the case of nuclear), were the most accurate surface to surface weapons possessed.
"a fresh assault towards Kyiv after the spring thaw in 2023."
So their armor is again restricted to narrow columns on highways lest it get stuck in the mud? Seems to me if they really wanted to do that, it would best be accomplished while the ground is frozen solid?
Unless the armor column is supported by infantry, the best time to mount a fresh drive towards Kyiv is "never".
Without infantry support, plus adequate supplies of fuel and food, tanks are sitting ducks on any highway. Montgomery proved that in 1944 during Operation Market Garden.
So Zalensky is off to DC today to beg / demand more money for this conflict that he, NATO and US leaders could’ve prevented with some assurances and diplomacy while Russia methodically built up forces for its SMO.
Wish somebody would tell him to PACK SAND.
It's a war, not a special military operation.
And while there were many steps that the west might have taken to avoid war, the unalterable reality is that Putin invaded Ukraine without any actual provocation or justification. He had no casus belli, and he still has no casus belli.
This war has always been Putin's choice. He could end it tomorrow just by pulling his troops out of Ukraine's sovereign territory. That's an option Ukraine does not have.
Well might have to disagree with you there Peter.
NATO expansion from 15 to 30 countries since 1991. Two on the Russian border.
NATO exercises in the Black Sea. That’s not aggression against Russia?
Azov atrocities in the Donbas.
Biolabs in Ukraine.
I would argue that Zalensky could end it immediately by promising to leave Crimea alone and never to join NATO.
No it's not aggression against Russia. No shots were fired at Russia.
As for the biolabs, Putin received considerably more funding for Russia's biolabs than Ukraine has from the Nunn-Lugar "threat reduction" programs. It was Russia's VECTOR biolab--previously the Soviet Union's premier bioweapons facility--that teamed up with USAMRIID to map the monkeypox genome 20 years ago.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/when-is-bioweapons-research-not-bioweapons
As for the Donbass, neither side has ever respected the Minsk Accords. Moreover, the Donbass is Ukrainian sovereign territory, and the residents of the Donbass are Ukrainian citizens. For that to be a reason for Russia to invade Ukraine, we should be invading China over their campaigns of genocide against the Tibetan and Uyghur peoples.
The geopolitical reality here is a few centuries old. Russia's defensive doctrone is for them to expand to naturally defensible borders, which means Putin needs ALL of Ukraine. He also needs half of Poland and the Baltic States.
The challenge has always been that Russia's territorial needs and ambitions put them in direct conflict with the other great powers of Europe.
The flaw in Putin's logic was his failure to realize that, where Russia is concerned, NATO is a defensive alliance; the politics within NATO make military aggression against Russia improbable. The argument that NATO expansion represents an imminent threat to Russia simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Which means Putin could have and should have used diplomacy to address his grievances and security concerns, instead of justifying his invasion with an absurd claim of "denazifying" Ukraine (especially since Putin is far more explicitly ethnonationalist than Zelensky).
He had the leverage, he just never used it.
Putin chose the worst possible option to address Russia's security concerns. Instead of fracturing NATO he renewed its lease on life.
I would like to see your reaction to these posts.
Like many US citizens, I was disgusted by the appalling Zelensky speech to congress last night and the kowtowing reaction of mainstream media.
https://dpyne.substack.com/p/putin-announces-russia-will-permanently?publication_id=824904&utm_medium=email&action=share&isFreemail=true
https://dossier.substack.com/p/congress-declares-itself-the-enemy?utm_medium=email&isFreemail=false
Thanks for this detailed response. I don’t recall any speeches from Putin threatening to expand into Poland or the Baltic states. Whet you write is contrary to what I’ve read from countless writers and I appreciate an alternative perspective.
I’ll dig in deeper.
A lot of folks get confused about these anti-air missiles, and especially about weapons such as the HARM anti-radar missiles intended to hit enemy radar installations, both mobile and fixed.
But the facts are, there is nothing to prevent you from using them on any ground installation whether radar site or medical center. Including the so-called "anti-air" missiles.
For many years in not only America's military, but essentially every military in the world, the anti-air missiles, while lacking in warhead capacity (except of course in the case of nuclear), were the most accurate surface to surface weapons possessed.