The War in Europe

I don't think the possibility of Russian incursions into NATO territory are a new threat, and I don't think the article implied that. What it actually said was that "the chances that Russia targets NATO supplies on NATO territory go up considerably." So not a new threat, just a more likely one now.And at the level of detail that the public is kept informed, there are no changes I could suggest. Hopefully the US and NATO are prepared for such contingencies in ways that keep them contained and do not escalate.The article does bear on one point I've been stressing, and that's where a Russia analyst and a Pentagon spokesperson speak of the possibility of Russian incursions into NATO territory in non-apocalyptic terms. They don't seem to believe that it would mean WW3 or suicide for Russia.--Percy

Before you wrote your message US officials here had already announced that two Ukrainian missiles had taken out the Muskva. This is from Moskva, Russia’s Prized Ship, Was Hit by Missiles, U.S. Officials Say - The New York Times:

quote:

---

Despite claims by Russia that an accidental fire broke out on the ship, U.S. officials confirmed on Friday that two Ukrainian Neptune missiles had struck the vessel, killing an unknown number of sailors and sending it and its arsenal to the bottom of the Black Sea.

---

The Russian navy has played only a minor role in the conflict so far, but the Muskva would likely have played a support role in any future amphibious assaults such as against Odessa. Russia seems to miss the irony of its army running roughshod over Ukraine when they complain about attacks in their own territory. They also miss the irony of complaining about the US and NATO sending arms into Ukraine while Russia sends in an entire army and all the associated armaments. It's as if they feel the rest of the world should stand down while they complete their conquest of Ukraine.--Percy

Now you're changing your phrasing, but assuming "We are taking absolutley no notice of what Putin demands" means the exact same thing as when you earlier said "Nobody cares what Russia wants/needs/demands anymore," then this remains self-evidently untrue. Perhaps what you mean to say is that we don't cave to Putin demands, but we certainly notice them, and these "wants/needs/demands" by no means have to be explicit. Our reluctance to provide certain types of armaments to Ukraine is because of concern that it might escalate the conflict, not because Russia told us we better not. (Although now that Russia has sent that diplomatic note warning us that sending certain weapons could escalate the conflict, someone could argue that we *are* caving to Russian demands.)Zelenskyy complains daily that the west is not providing enough or heavy enough armaments. Why aren't we? The answer is obvious. We're concerned about the Russian response. We care very much about "what Russia wants/needs/demands." If we didn't we would be providing at least some of these weapons Zelenskyy wants so much. Yes, of course we are, and trying to account for Russian reactions is part of those calculations. I don't know why you felt the need to quote this. The wording looks very familiar, probably the exact same article I read yesterday. The State Department isn't going to respond publicly, but if Russia did truly send this démarche to the US then it was undoubtedly "noticed," your word. If by "noticed" you instead meant "acquiesced" or something like that, then of course we wouldn't acquiesce. it was never implied that we would. Yes, I know. Everyone knows. It's all over the news. But what we're sending is insufficient. It's enough to prolong the conflict, but not enough to make a Ukraine victory likely. Why aren't we sending more and heavier weapons? Why an additional $800 million instead $10 billion? Why aren't we putting US and NATO men and materiel on the ground and in the air? Why isn't Ukraine a no-fly zone?The answer is because of concerns that Russia might find such moves provocative, and because NATO is not the infinitely powerful force you seem to believe. Also, that it's an alliance of 30 nations instead of just a single nation probably complicates decision making.--Percy

It's been a week since I last posted about sanctions, so I'm checking in again to see how they're doing. First, here's the price of the ruble right up through yesterday. It has recovered most of its value: I didn't note this in my last post, so I'll note it now, that I don't think seizing oligarch's yachts has any impact on Russian war capabilities. I'm not sure of the impact of making oligarch's unhappy on Putin's hold on power.Russian President Vladimir Putin asserts that sanctions have failed : NPR. Is Putin telling the truth? That link is to a transcript of a report by NPR's Charles Maynes in Moscow yesterday.Maynes says "money [is] pouring in from Russian energy exports, which are huge. But all this has created this kind of weird sense of normalcy here." He describes Putin's belief that he can pivot from western trading partners to other trading partners, such as China or India.But he goes on to say some experts, such as Natalya Zubarevich, a specialist on Russia's regional development with Moscow State University aren't as optimistic, believing that the "sanctions will be devastating," though that's not apparent yet. She believes the sanctions require more time and the "real impact" will only be felt "starting in May or June when production lines will break down" because of lack of "imported parts."But Fox News' Russian economy poised to crash as sanctions take their toll | Fox Business reports that "Russian manufacturing activity plunged in March." They don't provide numbers so it's not possible to know what they mean by "plunged," but given that the sanctions only started in March it's hard to believe they could have a severe and nearly instantaneous effect in March.Fox goes on to report that the Institute of International Finance predicts Russian GDP will drop 15% this year. A 15% drop is big, but "devastating" isn't the word I'd use if the hope is to affect the Russian war effort. If the goal is instead just to punish the Russian public for letting an evil dictator take control then I suppose the sanctions might eventually be deemed "successful," but Russia still probably takes Ukraine.Other estimates of how much the Russian economy will shrink due to the sanctions are lower. Goldman Sachs predicts a drop of 10%, Capital Economics forecasts 12%, and Barclays said it could be as much as 12.4%.My big complaint is that each week brings reports of new sanctions being considered, and I wonder why we haven't already imposed these sanctions? What are we waiting for? We know sanctions are slow acting, and we also know the longer they go on the more the targeted country figures out ways around them or to compensate, as the recent example of Iran tells us (and there are tons more historical examples).Russia may eventually default on its foreign debt, but the default process takes time. Russia paid off debt on April 4 in rubles when the agreed upon currency was dollars, so they're technically already in default. But there's a one month grace period, and then the Kremlin will probably take legal action. It could be next year before there is any formal declaration of Russia being in default on its debt.I still believe sanctions are slow-acting to no-acting when it comes to influencing a countries behavior, and this recent Russian example of sanctions at work seems no different.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix formatting of image.

But below you say "nobody is listening" to Putin. Why would we do anything Putin wants, even know what he wants, if we're not listening to him? I would think we'd be listening to everything he says and assessing what it means, such as whether it's true, false, bluster, propaganda, a mix, whatever. Over here we have a government division called the State Department, part of whose job it is to assess the statements of foreign leaders.Concerning what we should do, we'd better do everything Ukraine needs to mount an effective defense. Zelenskyy's desires should carry a great deal of weight because as president of the Ukraine he probably has a good idea of their defense needs. What Putin says must be interpreted in the context of him being a murderous dictator with dreams of resurrecting the Soviet empire. That's pretty much the definition of taking Russia's "wants/needs/demands" into account. It was you that shifted from Russia's "wants/needs/demands" to "Putin's demands." I've only responded to the former, and now you're trying to make this about something different, about things Putin himself is "saying/wanting/demanding." It's fine with me if that's what you'd rather to talk about, but you have to tell me first, not change horses in midstream. I completely agree that Putin can't be trusted, and I've never said anything about Putin's postures, demands or threats. Again, if that's what you want to discuss, fine, but that's not what we were talking about.Hopefully we're making plans for how to save Moldova, one plan for if Ukraine survives, another for if it doesn't.--Percy

True. But why should uninvited Russian jets be permitted to fly over Ukraine and attack targets with impunity, while welcome NATO jets that could provide defense are excluded? I don't get this one. I grant that it would make turning Ukraine into a no-fly zone easier if we took out airbases and other airborne support resources in Russia, but why is that necessary? Then call it a peace mission.--Percy

Oh, I see, for you many of the concerns come back to avoiding war with Russia, where war is loosely defined as anything where nations' militaries release their weaponry upon each other. Why does NATO need to avoid a war with Russia?Of course, we shouldn't be asking about NATO. NATO can't get involved in Ukraine, either in the air or on the ground, because it has no justification. Ukraine is not a NATO member, so Article 5 does not come into play. It would have to be the US and its NATO allies, most likely Britain and France. And we probably can't count on France right now given that French election campaigning is currently underway and Macron can't be too hawkish without negatively impacting his election chances.The problem with the US position on a no-fly zone, namely that it would lead to direct combat between nuclear nations, is that we're the ones backing away.Look at it from the reverse position. Because we knew Russia was going to invade, before that happened we could have set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Then it would have been Russian planes coming into airspace occupied by American planes. I don't think Russian planes would shy away because they don't want war with America. They might shy away because their planes are inferior, but not because they don't want war with America.We are again taking the appeaser's position, which we know doesn't work. It can postpone confrontation but not prevent it. The list of countries that have fallen to Russian aggression lengthens: Chechnya, Georgia, the Crimea, the Donbas region of Ukraine, and now possibly some larger portion of Ukraine, and in the future the rest of Ukraine, then Moldova, then the Baltics, and so on. At some point US forces will have to engage Russian forces, and as history tells us, the longer you put it off the worse it will be. The US has invested heavily in stealth technology. I was glib. Sorry.--Percy

You're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat myself. Backing down whenever war is threatened is the appeaser's answer, which doesn't work. You eventually find there's nowhere left to back down to and are forced to fight anyway. Better to fight sooner rather than later, because putting it off only makes things worse. No one said it did. Nothing in any military is invincible, I can't even guess why you would say that. The only one pushing something approaching invincibility is Tangle concerning NATO.--Percy

You're not addressing the appeasement problem. Maybe you think Kennedy shouldn't have stood up to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Did you know that Soviet pilots flew against American pilots in the Korean war? Why would you think that?--Percy

Soviet and American pilots engaging each other in the skies over Vietnam is exactly the same thing as Russian and American pilots engaging each other in the skies over Ukraine. Yes, you're making my point for me. The situation is not black and white, but you're engaged in black and white thinking. Your logic runs, "We can't do anything that involves nuclear risk." That's as black and white as it gets. You're also arguing that a Russia/America military engagement of any sort within Ukraine introduces too much nuclear risk, and that position is also black and white.I'm arguing for something much more nuanced where all risks are assessed, weighted and balanced. We become appeasers when the level of risk we're willing to accept drops so low that we won't do anything effective enough to influence outcomes. You used the word "invincible," and I said, "Nothing in any military is invincible." In other words, it's never possible to reduce risk to zero. Even a lucky stray bullet can bring down the most sophisticated fighter jet. Your view is again black and white. You have to instead assess, weigh and balance risks, which are rarely zero. Stealth bombers and fighters are very effective against SAMs, and our fighters are very effective at avoiding missiles even without stealth technology. Out strategists would have to assess the risks of leaving SAM sites on Russian soil alone. The decision isn't cut and dried in the way you argued.If we believe our stealth technology is sufficiently effective against Russian SAMs then we'd leave them in place, and if we don't believe it's sufficiently effective then we'd have to decide between a number of alternatives, among them avoiding airspace too close to the Russian border, whether to just accept the estimated losses when we did get too close, taking out the SAM sites, etc.If we did decide we couldn't operate with the SAM sites in place then the decision about whether or not to take them out would be a complicated one involving a number of military and geopolitical factors.--Percy

Took me a while to find the story: Riots in Sweden by protesters angry about anti-Islam rallies : NPR. A known right-wing agitator in southern Sweden was able to start riots by burning Qurans. A tie-in to the Ukraine conflict doesn't appear clear.--Percy

I'm not looking at any particular stories, just recounting what I recall of what I've read over the past few days.The Russian assault in eastern Ukraine has begun and they've already taken a number of towns. There have been Ukrainian counterattacks, but it's unclear now effective they've been.A Russian general gave away the plan, saying that Russia's goal was to take the Ukrainian south, cutting it off from the Black Sea and creating a land corridor for Russia from the Crimea to Transnistria in Moldova, a breakaway state turned into a Russian enclave whose biggest city is Tiraspol, about 60 miles inland from Odessa on the Black Sea.Military materiel from the $800 billion American aid package has begun to be delivered. It includes some heavier weaponry than previously, such as large howitzers. Still no modern jets.I don't understand US, EU and NATO reticence in helping Ukraine. Should Ukraine fall it will make the European situation far more complex and fraught. We need to take some major risks and suffer some significant pain now if we're to prevent a return to an east/west cold war. We should be doing the utmost to achieve a free Ukraine, and Moldova, too. And we have to recognize that NATO is not some invincible shield protecting the Baltics - certainly the Baltic states recognize this fact.What we're doing now appears to be a lukewarm "let's make this as difficult for Russia as we can without taking any significant risks ourselves but eventually losing." What is the point of any aid at all if we know Ukraine is going to lose? If this is forgone then the compassionate thing to do is to provide no aid at all so that Ukraine can fall as quickly and tidily as possible to minimize the loss of life.--Percy

Anatoly Antonov, Russia's ambassador to the United States, said yesterday:

quote:

---

We stressed the unacceptability of this situation when the United States of America pours weapons into Ukraine, and we demanded an end to this practice.

---

I hope we reply that when Russia stops pouring weapons into Ukraine, so will we.Source: Russia warns United States against sending more arms to Ukraine | Reuters--Percy

According to Sweden and Finland agree to submit Nato applications, say reports | Nato | The Guardian and Finland, Sweden to begin NATO application in May, say local media reports | Reuters, Nordic media reports that Finnish and Swedish leaders will meet the week of May 16 to coordinate announcement of their plans to apply for NATO membership.--Percy

There were news reports over the weekend that Belarusians sabotaged trains to hinder the resupply of the Soviet forces headed for Kyiv (The Belarusian railway workers who helped thwart Russia’s attack on Kyiv).--Percy