Thread: Russia launches Ukraine invasion

Originally Posted by Iceman123

Well it would seriously limit their options, and make a negotiated settlement happen faster. This will inevitably be the end result.

Like in Afghanistan? Or Vietnam?

What did Kissinger say about the negotiated settlement in Vietnam?

“We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions.”

The list of American security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s “unprovoked and brutal invasion” is impressive. What is more impressive is that $21.9 billion in U.S. military aid has been dominated by largely second-string gear, comprised of unpopular or lower-tech systems that were, in many cases, on the way to the scrapyard.

As Congress gears up to constrain the Biden Administration’s relative largesse, it is worth emphasizing that the aid, to date, is neither excessive nor threatening to U.S. national security.

In fact, U.S. military support to Ukraine has cost less than what Congress is paying to procure two Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. In total, taxpayers will put some $26 billion into the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). In comparison to these troubled flattops, the $21.9 billion for Ukraine appears to be a far more effective return on investment.

Aid to Ukraine has, in effect, shattered the Russian military, exposing it as little more than a paper tiger. The war has helped destroy Russia’s once-burgeoning arms bazaar, ruining Russian efforts to destabilize strategic regions. Enabling the fight has bolstered Ukraine’s commitment to their nation, critical for advancing society-building and anti-corruption efforts there. Facilitating Ukraine’s resistance may even end the kleptocratic reign of Vladimir Putin, paving the way for a more just—if not more democratic—society in Russia itself.

The war served a good proving ground for modern conflict, forcing the U.S. to recognize old “big war” conflict models it had eschewed for decades. The war has also reinforced the value of basic, boring old consumables, items the U.S. often ignores in the constant pursuit of the newest and shiniest technology—like the pricey FordClass carrier.
In all, the $21.9 billion has been very well spent. Had America held back the support, and just let Russia roll over Ukraine, America would have spent far more in keeping Russia from suborning the rest of Europe.

Helping Ukraine stand against overt aggression has already offered a great return on investment. America has frittered away far more for far less strategic benefit. The second Iraq War of 2003 cost the United States over a trillion dollars. Afghanistan cost another trillion in 2022 dollars. Those two conflicts—which offered little strategic advantage the U.S.— make the $21 billion in Ukraine security aid look like chump change.

Second-String U.S. Gear Has Rarely Been Used So Effectively

While the numbers and lists of gear are impressive, America hasn’t given very much that might impact America’s security in any substantial way. We’ve handed over a lot of former Russian or otherwise obsolete equipment, including 45 Russian-built T-72B main battle tanks and 20 Mi-17 helicopters. Much of the gear sent to Ukraine was headed for either the scrapheap or to other allies.

To a general audience, armored personnel carriers sound impressive. The fact that America gave Ukraine some 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers sounds like a big deal. But military experts know that America stopped building these tracked utility vehicles about 25 years ago and is busy stripping them from the U.S. force.

Other surplus gear has gone to Ukraine. During America’s counterinsurgency conflicts, the Army procured lots of M1117 Armored Security Vehicles—a wheeled armored car—between 1999 and 2014. More appropriate for military constabulary duties than full-scale conflict, the U.S. has already been drawing down the vehicle inventory, so the 250 sent to Ukraine won’t be missed. To give an idea of where Ukraine sits in terms of donations, the U.S. gave 200 of these vehicles to Columbia in 2020. Over 700 were produced for the Afghanistan Army and 400 went to the Iraqi armed forces. At least, in Ukraine, these vehicles are directly supporting U.S. goals.

Some fancy militarized-sounding gifts have centered around mobility. A grant of almost 300-400 “Tactical Vehicles” may impress a general audience, but they’re all just military trucks built to carry between 2.5 or 5 tons.

American taxpayers gave Ukraine 477 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs). Built for a grinding counterinsurgency, the U.S. military has been so eager to shed the heavy, hard-to-maintain vehicles it has handed them out to police departments all over the United States.

America also provided some 1,200 “High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles.” Better known as Humvees, the U.S. is busy replacing this modern retake of the old military jeep with a newer version called the “Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.”

Even the newly popular tube artillery systems—when donated, the future of much of the 142 155mm and 36 105mm howitzers, the 10 120mm, 10 82 mm and 10 60mm mortar systems donated to Ukraine were in doubt. The Marine Corps was aiming to cut their M777 howitzer batteries from 21 to five, but the importance of artillery on the Ukraine battlefield may have changed a few opinions.

In air defense, all the focus has been on the yet-to-be-delivered Patriot air defense battery and the eight National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NSAMS). But the bigger story is in the old HAWK missiles the U.S. is supplying. The U.S. hasn’t used HAWK missiles since 2002, and, given that we made thousands of them, it would be very interesting to know more about how these old missiles are doing in the field.

Amid The Dross, Ukraine Has Gotten Some “Good Stuff”

This isn’t to say that the U.S. hasn’t supplied “good stuff”—complex, front-line weapons, coupled with always in-demand consumables. But, while the new gear gets a lot of headlines, the truly modern systems are few and far between, dwarfed the array of nearly-obsolete U.S. weaponry.

The modern gear gets headlines. But then again, those modern, front-line systems in Ukraine are very few and far between, reflecting a jaundiced assessment of Ukrainian strategies, technical capabilities, and training. That’s why a modern Patriot air defense system may take time to be fielded in Ukraine. In a few years, eight batteries of National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NSAAMS) will arrive. New operators need a lot of training to fully exploit America’s high-tech gear.

Ukraine supporters, when agitating for more and better weaponry point toward Ukraine’s quick exploitation of the 38 U.S. supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS. But these front-line assets are largely “fire-and-forget” platforms, and, as export items, their effectiveness depends more on the end-user’s prowess in finding, reporting and targeting relevant enemy assets.

That is why the U.S. has put a lot of emphasis upon modern command and control assistance. Command post vehicles, including well over 80 different radars of various types, jamming gear, tactical communications systems, SATCOM terminals and surveillance equipment helped Ukraine plug critical capability gaps. And yet, while these tactical tools are high-demand and are, in many cases, considered relatively modern equipment, the U.S. has plenty to offer.

Some high-tech, relatively “experimental” gear has also gone to Ukraine. The U.S. has fed 700 Switchblade kamikaze drones, 1,800 Phoenix Ghost unmanned aerial systems, unmanned costal defense vessels and other interesting trinkets into the war zone. These new high-tech “experiments” do cost money, but, for the U.S., getting an understanding of how these platforms perform on a modern battlefield is invaluable.

Use rates of relatively modern man-portable or other small defensive anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems—1,600 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, 8,500 Javelin anti-armor missiles, 46,000 other anti-armor systems, as well as 1,500 TOW anti-tank missiles, and 13,000 grenade launchers—have likely outstripped America’s ability to produce the munitions. But, again, this largesse has only made a small dent in America’s supplies—over the years America produced tens of thousands of Stingers and almost 50,000 Javelins.

Another worry is Ukraine’s consumption of modern artillery shells. But this “revelation” is, again, worth an enormous amount to the U.S. military. For years, only a lonely team logisticians and other defense experts worried about America’s habit of underfunding munitions production and weapons sustainment.

Until now, their concerns went unheard by a military more interested in funding shiny new weapons than in refreshing the grubby, dirty, and dangerous industrial base devoted to making munitions. Discovering that the critics were right, and identifying this manufacturing shortfall as a major constraint, enables the U.S. to do something about it now, when U.S. national security is not directly threatened on the battlefield.

While, in total, the amount of military funding sent to Ukraine seems large, in real terms, much of the military aid sent to Ukraine—outside of ammunition—is comprised of systems that the Pentagon has already written off. That is worth remembering when demagogues try to sew public doubts about America’s support of Ukraine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigho...h=6ee67c3b370a

Russia’s electronic warfare capabilities have decimated Ukraine’s drones


Russia may already be gaining the upper hand over the electronic war in Ukraine, knocking out the latter’s drones and potentially blinding its artillery.
In an article this month in Forbes, David Axe cites a November report by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) that Russian electronic warfare (EW) capabilities have knocked out the majority of Ukraine’s drones, with the average lifespan of a small quadcopter drone reduced to three flights, and that of fixed-wing models to six.

According to the RUSI report, 90% of the thousands of drones Ukraine managed to amass before Russia’s invasion in February were shot down or crashed by summer, forcing Ukraine to request replacement drones and fighter jets from the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Axe also notes that Russia’s EW has blunted Ukraine’s intelligence advantages, which enabled its much smaller artillery force to punch far above its weight early in the war.

In a May article for Forbes, David Hambling noted that Ukrainian artillery crews were using various drone models to deliver precise artillery fire against Russian positions, making the most of its limited artillery ammunition stocks by hitting critical targets to maximize the strategic effect.

This advantage may have saved the city of Kiev during the early days of the war. In an article this month for Insider, Michael Peck claims that it was mass fire from old-fashioned Ukrainian artillery that repelled Russia’s February assault on Kiev, not high-tech drones or anti-tank guided missiles.

But Axe says that as Ukraine’s drones are falling out of the sky at an alarming rate, this complicates artillery fire control, removing any precision advantage, increasing the survivability of Russian forces, and allowing them to reconsolidate for further offensive operations.

In addition, Ukraine’s artillery batteries may soon be firing blind, compounding its artillery ammunition woes and further straining US and NATO strategic patience in supplying Ukraine to keep it in the fight.

Ukraine’s air force is also buckling under the effects of improved Russian EW capability. Axe says Ukraine’s fighter pilots were the first to feel the effects of enhanced Russian EW, noting that the pilots frequently discovered that their air-to-air and air-to-ground communications were jammed, their navigation equipment suppressed, and their radars knocked out.

Given these reports, the drone war in Ukraine has potentially changed course. Asia Times has previously reported on the early successes of Ukraine’s Bayraktar TB-2 drones, which inflicted huge losses against Russian forces, and could be behind the most significant casualties of the war, such as the loss of the cruiser Moskva and critically damaging the frigate Admiral Essen.

However, these early successes may have been due to the Russian military’s shortcomings rather than the combat effectiveness of the TB-2. In a report last year by the Turkish think-tank SETA, the TB-2’s success can be ascribed to Russian shortcomings.

The source says Russian forces acted out of their standard tactics, techniques, and procedures that required them to operate under an extensive air defense umbrella with EW capabilities, leaving them vulnerable to TB-2 strikes. In addition, the report states that Russia has yet to establish air superiority fully over Ukraine, which may be due to the latter’s substantial Soviet-era air defense network.

The source says poor coordination and logistics and sub-par maintenance have left Russian forces vulnerable to ambushes and drone strikes. Also, it says Russia’s Soviet-era air defenses are not optimized to deal with the TB-2, as it is small, quiet, does not show a sizable thermal signature, and flies below the minimum detection altitude of long-range radars.

Further, the lack of coordination between Russian combat and EW units may have prevented the latter from using their capabilities to full effect against the TB-2 during the early phases of the Ukraine war.

But in a July article in IEEE Spectrum, Bryan Clark wrote that Russia’s EW was gaining an advantage as the Ukraine conflict turned into a war of attrition.

Clark wrote that during the early stages of the conflict, Russian columns were moving along multiple axes into Ukraine, could not send EW drones over the horizon, and had Ukrainian units interspersed among them. As a result, he says any Russian jamming would have also taken out Russian radios, which forced limits on using EW capabilities.

Moreover, Clark noted that the densely populated areas around Kiev resulted in mixed civilian transmissions and military communications, which prevented Russia from using its EW capabilities to pinpoint and target Ukrainian troops.

He also noted Ukraine’s use of NATO SINCGARS (single channel ground and airborne radio system) jamming and interception-resistant radios to phase out their older Soviet/Russian units, which had back doors built into them for Russian intelligence agencies.

Also, Clark says that during the war’s mobile early stages, Russian forces were unable to advance and change positions quickly enough, resulting in their EW affecting themselves. At the same time, he notes that as Russian troops could not stay for long in their positions, it prevented them from setting up larger, more powerful EW systems to blind NATO satellites and airborne radars.

However, Clark says that as the fighting is now concentrated in less-populated eastern Ukraine and that Russian forces are dug in and no longer thinly spread out, Russia is now using its EW capabilities to detect and degrade Ukrainian communications to support a strategy of incrementally capturing territory using its 10-to-1 advantage in artillery firepower.

https://asiatimes.com/2022/12/russia...ar-in-ukraine/

Originally Posted by sabang

Russia winning the electronic war in Ukraine

Why not just quote the original article? Asia times is a Chinese propaganda site. As usual, your "source" omits key parts of the article.

Russia’s Electronic-Warfare Troops Knocked Out 90 Percent Of Ukraine’s Drones

Stop being such a ridiculous child. So a "Chinese propaganda site" publishes articles like this:-

Chinese dark influence coming to light in Thailand – Asia Times

Originally Posted by bsnub

Why not just quote the original article? Asia times is a Chinese propaganda site. As usual, your "source" omits key parts of the article.

He learned that off RT.

Redux-

Stop being such a ridiculous child. So a "Chinese propaganda site" publishes articles like this:-

Chinese dark influence coming to light in Thailand – Asia Times

Originally Posted by sabang

Redux-

No - Bollux.

Russia launches one of its biggest missile barrages ahead of New Year’s Eve. But Ukrainians say celebrations will go on


—
Explosions rattled villages and cities across Ukraine on Thursday, damaging civilian infrastructure and killing at least three people in what Kyiv has called one of Moscow’s biggest missile barrages since the war began in February.


Authorities have been cautioning for days that Russia was preparing to launch an all-out assault on the power grid to close out 2022, plummeting the country into darkness as Ukrainians attempt to ring in the New Year and celebrate the Christmas holidays, which for the country’s Orthodox Christians falls on January 7.


“Russian terrorists have been saving one of the most massive missile attacks since the beginning of the full-scale invasion for the last days of the year,” Ukraine’s Defense Ministry said in a statement on Twitter Thursday. “They dream that Ukrainians will celebrate the New Year in darkness and cold. But they cannot defeat the Ukrainian people.”

When Anastasiia Hryn, a 34-year-old Kyiv resident, woke up to the sound of air raid sirens followed by an explosion, she and her son descended to the basement shelter beneath their building. But they were not particularly surprised, nor did they let it dampen their spirits.


“I expected this kind of attack before the New Year. There were reports in the news that something like that was being prepared,” she told CNN.


After the sirens gave the all clear, life in the capital went back to normal, Hryn said: “In the elevator I met my neighbors with their child who were in hurry to get to the cinema for the new Avatar movie on time.” Parents took their children to school and people went to work, while others continued with holiday plans in defiance.

MORE Ukrainians defiant amid one of Moscow's biggest missile barrages | CNN

This would be game changing...

The US government is considering sending Bradley Fighting Vehicles to Ukraine as part of a further package of military support, according to people familiar with the matter.

A final decision hasn’t yet been made, one of the people said. When the vehicles would be operational is also unclear, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.

A White House spokesperson, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the US is in constant communications with Ukraine on the capabilities it needs to defend itself but had nothing to announce or preview.

Kyiv has been asking allies for tanks, longer-range missiles, armor and air defense systems, with Russia’s war now in its 11th month. Fighting continues on the ground in the east even as the onset of winter has slowed advances by either side, leaving Moscow resorting to missile strikes against the country’s energy and civilian infrastructure. Russia launched dozens of cruise missiles on Ukrainian cities on Thursday in one of its heaviest barrages of the war, though Ukraine said it shot down most of them.

“Bradleys would provide a major increase in ground combat capability because it is, in effect, a light tank,” said Mark Cancian, a former White House defense budget analyst who’s now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Unlike the previously provided M113s, the Bradley is heavily armed with a powerful 25mm gun and TOW anti-tank missiles. The United States has many Bradleys, though some are older and need upgrades, so inventories are not a problem.”

Cancian added it would be months before Ukraine could field them because crews and maintainers would need to be trained on the vehicles, which are built by BAE Systems Plc.

Ukrainian officials have warned that Russia might be gearing up for a fresh offensive in the spring. Equally, the warmer weather might allow Kyiv’s forces to again press the advantage, having pushed Russian forces back out of areas they occupied in the early days of the war.

Still, some of Ukraine’s allies have been reluctant to send Kyiv all of the more advanced weapons it has been asking for, out of concern it could prompt Moscow to escalate further, or potentially draw other countries into the conflict more directly.

The US also has announced plans to send a Patriot missile battery to Ukraine. But it’s also unlikely to be ready to use before the spring, due to the time it takes to train Ukrainian troops on the system, the people said.

In addition to serving as a lightly armored transport for soldiers, a US Army website says the Bradley’s capabilities include “reconnaissance, fire and maneuver, and ‘hunter-killer”’ engagements.

“The Bradley would be a significant improvement over current Ukrainian fighting vehicles,” said David Perkins, a retired four-star general who as a brigade commander sent tanks into downtown Baghdad during the US invasion of Iraq and later headed the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command. He said in his experience the Bradley is “more than a match” for Russia’s infantry fighting vehicles and its T—72 tanks.

Michael Allen, who held national security policy roles during the presidency of George W. Bush, said providing Ukraine with the fighting vehicles would be “significant because most experts are forecasting that the war will be more like Kherson than Kharkiv, that is to say more grinding and incremental than a break through a weak line and recapturing hundreds of square miles.”

“Bradley is fast and maneuverable and suits our political objectives to give the Ukrainians weapons to hasten the end of the war,” according to Allen, who is now managing director of Beacon

Global Strategies, an advisory firm. “Also, Ukraine is desperate for armor generally.”

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Russia's war against Ukraine should "culminate" by the summer of 2023, according to a retired U.S. Army official.

Retired Major John Spencer told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Georgian service that he doesn't share the opinion that the war will last for years as others have predicted, due to Ukraine's strength on the battlefield and support from Western allies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's initial strategy of overtaking Kyiv in April was a failure, Spencer said, followed by another unsuccessful attempt to alienate Ukrainian allies. Russia's continued attacks on critical Ukrainian infrastructure to literally "freeze" Ukraine and its people are "futile," he said.

"I think it's clear that Putin is not going to let his own intentions go. He doesn't care how many Russian soldiers will die," Spencer said. "But the Russian Army is in trouble, very big trouble. Putin wants to slow down the war. He needs time to give at least a little military training to the thousands of people who were forced into military service.

"At this point, I don't see any direction in which the Russian Army can advance. Their only goal is to keep what they've captured and I think they won't succeed, either."

Hilary Appel, government professor at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, told Newsweek that Russia has other options for military support, such as Iran and North Korea.

Iran's drones are having a significant impact on the war, she said, on the battlefield and on the calculations of other countries such as Israel, which has shown restraint because of its own strategic considerations.

"The first few days in February 2022 failed to achieve the downfall of the Zelensky regime, as hoped for by the Russian government," Appel said. "Yet it is important to recall that the most important advances leading to the control of nearly 20 percent of Ukraine's territory occurred early in the war.

"But the Russian military's poor logistics and an ineffective command structure, combined with the well-trained and highly motivated Ukrainian troops, succeeded in stopping the advance and de-occupying captured territory."

Spencer's comments came as Russia launched a massive missile attack in several regions of Ukraine on Thursday, including in Kyiv. Ukrainian officials reported three injuries and damage to homes, a hospital and other properties.

The newest attacks come as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has accused the "collective West" of first declaring war on Russia in 2014, headed by the U.S.

"This war was declared on us quite a long time ago, after the coup d'etat in Ukraine that was orchestrated by the United States and, in fact, backed by the European Union," Lavrov said.

Lavrov also accused Ukraine of not acting in good faith for peace talks while adding that Russia will not negotiate if certain preconditions are part of any such discussion.

"Putting forward all sorts of ideas and 'formulas of peace,' Zelensky cherishes the illusion of achieving, with the help of the West, the withdrawal of our troops from the Russian territory of Donbas, Crimea, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson region, the payment of reparations by Russia, and the surrender of international tribunals and the like," Lavrov said.

Mikhail Alexseev, a political science professor at San Diego State University, told Newsweek that Thursday's attacks indicate Russia is continuing "its Mariupol 2.0 strategy to subjugate Ukraine." He said that despite major Ukrainian military advances, it's no time for complacency.

That is due to potentially larger-than-expected Russian stockpiles, he said, in addition to an ability to replenish munitions quicker than others might have expected. There is also the question of what Belarusian troops under Russian command could potentially contribute.

"Russia has also been building up its manpower capacity with a view to acquiring capability to rapidly increase the number of troops it can throw into battle," Alexseev said. "It appears the Russian strategy is to deplete Ukraine's power supply and possibly launch new massive attacks from several directions.

"In addition, the regular flow of internal news in Russia indicates the state is beefing up longer-term military footing, switching from two to three shifts at armament factories, conducting mass hiring there, ordering military training at major universities and intensifying claims on all of Ukraine as part of Russia."

Spencer said Ukraine has become "the most proficient military in the world because they're learning how to kill Russians better than anybody in the world."

"I think by next summer Ukraine will have caused the Russian military to culminate, because Russia doesn't have resupply, it doesn't have alliances, it barely has manpower," he said.
It is a war based on logistics, not tactics, Spencer added.

"Ukraine will not run out of bullets, it won't run out of soldiers," Spencer said. "Russia doesn't have a million soldiers to put into the fight. In order to do that, you have to threaten Russia's survival, you've got to make this a fight about Mother Russia, you have to make this about a fight for survival.

"And Russians have already shown that they don't believe that this is a war for survival. That's why more men left the country than joined the mobilization."

https://www.newsweek.com/putins-army...-major-1770188

This is the entire interview. It is an excellent read for those of us who are based in reality...

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-war-...2710_245401755

Putin, unaccustomed to losing, is increasingly isolated as war falters

When Vladimir Putin visited Minsk last week to discuss deepening cooperation, a sarcastic joke by his host, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, seemed to ring all too true. “The two of us are co-aggressors, the most harmful and toxic people on this planet. We have only one dispute: Who is the bigger one? That’s all,” Lukashenko said.

As Putin approaches New Year’s Eve, the 23d anniversary of his appointment in 1999 as acting Russian president, he appears more isolated than ever.


More than 300 days of brutal war against Ukraine have blown up decades of Russia’s carefully cultivated economic relations with the West, turning the country into a pariah, while Kremlin efforts to replace those ties with closer cooperation with India and China appear to be faltering the longer the war grinds on.


Putin, who started his career as a Soviet KGB agent, has always kept his own counsel, relying on a close inner circle of old friends and confidants while seeming to never fully trust or confide in anyone. But now a new gulf is emerging between Putin and much of the country’s elite, according to interviews with Russian business leaders, officials and analysts.


Putin “feels the loss of his friends,” said one Russian state official with close ties to diplomatic circles, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. “Lukashenko is the only one he can pay a serious visit to. All the rest see him only when necessary.”

Even though Putin gathered leaders of former Soviet republics for an informal summit in St. Petersburg this week, across the region the Kremlin’s authority is weakening. Putin spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping over video conference on Friday morning in Moscow in an effort to showcase the two countries’ ties. Although Xi said he was ready to improve strategic cooperation, he acknowledged the “complicated and quite controversial international situation.” In September, he’d made clear his “concerns” over the war.


India’s Narendra Modi this month wrote an article for Russia’s influential Kommersant daily calling for an end to “the epoch of war.” “We read all this and understand, and I think he [Putin] reads and understands too,” the state official said.


Even the Pope, who at the beginning of the war appeared to take care to accommodate Kremlin views, this month compared the war in Ukraine to the Nazi genocide of the Jews.

Among Russia’s elite, questions are growing over Putin’s tactics heading into 2023 following humiliating military retreats this autumn. A divide is emerging between those in the elite who want Putin to stop the military onslaught and those who believe he must escalate further, according to the state official and Tatyana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Despite a media blitz over the past 10 days, with Putin holding carefully choreographed televised meetings with military top brass and officials from the military-industrial complex, as well as a question-and-answer session with a selected pool of loyal journalists, members of the Russian elite interviewed by The Washington Post said they could not predict what might happen next year and said they doubted Putin himself knew how he might act.


“There is huge frustration among the people around him,” said one Russian billionaire who maintains contacts with top-ranking officials. “He clearly doesn’t know what to do.”


The Russian state official said Putin’s only plan appeared to lie in “constant attempts to force the West and Ukraine to begin [peace] talks” through airstrikes on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and other threats. Putin repeated the tactic this week by declaring on Christmas Day that he was open to peace talks even as Russia launched another massive missile strike just days later on Thursday, taking out electricity supplies in several regions. “But,” the official said, Putin is willing to talk “only on his terms.”


The billionaire, the state official and several analysts pointed to the postponement of Putin’s annual State of the Nation address, when the Russian president generally lays out plans for the year ahead, and the cancellation of his annual marathon news conference as signs of Putin’s isolation and an effort to shield him from direct questions since he has no map for the road ahead.


The news conference, in particular, could have proved risky given that hundreds of journalists are typically brought to Moscow from Russia’s far-flung regions, which have been disproportionately affected by casualties and the recent partial mobilization.


“In the address, there should be a plan. But there is no plan. I think they just don’t know what to say,” the billionaire said. “He is in isolation, of course. He doesn’t like speaking with people anyway. He has a very narrow circle, and now it has gotten narrower still.”


In the question-and-answer session with the handful of journalists, Putin countered such assertions about the postponement of his speech to parliament. He said he had addressed key issues in recent public meetings, and it was “complicated for me, and the administration, to squeeze it all again into a formal address without repeating myself.”


But his comments on the war have been short on details. He has gone no further than saying conditions in the four Ukrainian territories that he claims to have annexed, illegally, are “extremely difficult,” and that his government would try to end the conflict “the faster, the better.”

Putin again sought to lay the blame on the United States and NATO for dragging out the war, in what seemed almost a tacit admission that he had lost control of the process. “How can he tell us everything is going to plan, when we are already in the 10th month of the war, and we were told it was only going to take a few days,” the state official said.


Putin appeared exhausted in his recent appearances, Stanovaya said. And even if he does have a secret plan of action, most of the Russian elite is losing faith in him, she said.


“He is a figure who in the eyes of the elite appears to be incapable of giving answers to questions,” she said. “The elite does not know what to believe, and they fear to think about tomorrow.”


“To a large degree, there is the feeling that there is no way out, that the situation is irreparable,” she continued, “that they are totally dependent on one person, and it is impossible to influence anything.”


Alexandra Prokopenko, a former adviser at Russia’s Central Bank who resigned and left Russia in the weeks after the start of the invasion, said in an interview that her former colleagues “try not see the war in terms of winners and losers. But they know there is no good exit for Russia right now.”


“There is a feeling that we cannot attain the political aims that were originally forwarded,” the state official said. “This is clear to all.” But no one knows how large a loss Russia can sustain before its leaders believe its existence is in jeopardy, he said.


Further underscoring the growing distance between the president and the business elite, Putin also canceled his annual New Year’s Eve meeting with the country’s billionaires, officially citing infection risks.


With such a huge question mark hanging over the year ahead, two camps have emerged within the elite: “The pragmatists who consider that Russia took on the burden of a war it can’t sustain and needs to stop,” and those who want to escalate, Stanovaya said.

Those in favor of escalation include Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the Putin ally who leads the Wagner Group of mercenaries and continues to publicly berate Russia’s military leadership.


The growing split presents Putin with yet another risk as he heads into 2023, the last year before presidential elections in 2024.

Even though recent polls show Putin retains the support of the vast majority of the population, who for now continue to accept Kremlin propaganda, the overwhelming perception among the elite is that next year, things could become more precarious.


“We don’t know what will happen in the future,” said a longtime member of Russian diplomatic circles, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “There might be another wave of mobilization. The economic situation in the next year will start to worsen more seriously.”


Sergei Markov, a hawkish former Kremlin adviser who is still in contact with Putin’s team, said it was clear Putin still did not have an answer to the principal question ahead of him. “There are two possible paths ahead,” Markov said. “One is that the army continues to fight while the rest of society lives a normal life — as it was this year. The second path is as it was when Russia went through World War II, when everything was for the front and for victory. There was such a mobilization of society and the economy.”

There are also inescapable questions about glaring weaknesses in the Russian military that have become apparent in recent months, including its evident inability to properly train and equip the 300,000 called up during the autumn mobilization.


“The fact is that these 300,000 mobilized do not have enough weapons,” Markov said. “When will they get the military technology? Putin also does not have the answer to this question.”


According to Markov, who supports escalation, India and China’s doubts have arisen because Putin did not win fast enough. “Privately they say, ‘Win quicker, but if you can’t win, we can’t build good relations with you,’” he said. “You should either win or admit your loss. We need most of all for the war to end as fast as possible.”


Others said the reason for the tepid relations with India and China’s leaders was because they were clearly more worried about further escalation. “We hear there is a worry about the prospect of escalation to the nuclear level,” the longtime member of Russian diplomatic circles said. “And here, it seems to me everyone spoke very clearly that this is extremely undesirable and dangerous.”


Inside Russia, every now and then, members of the liberal-leaning elite are voicing their growing concern.


In an interview last week with Russian daily RBK, Mikhail Zadornov, chairman of Otkritie, one of Russia’s biggest banks, who served as finance minister from 1997 to 1999, noted that Russia had lost markets in the West that it had been building since Soviet times. “For 50 years, a market, mutual economic connections, were being built. Now they are destroyed for decades to come,” Zadornov said.


On the whole, members of Russia’s economic elite “understand this isn’t going to end well,” the Russian billionaire said. Prokopenko, the former Central Bank official, said the Russian elite, including many under sanctions, are watching the situation in horror: “Everything they built collapsed for no reason.”

Putin, unaccustomed to losing, is increasingly isolated as war falters

“Everything they built collapsed for no reason.”

If you tried to find one, you can only think of the war criminal trying to cling onto power.

Russia is running out of troops in the intensifying battle for Bakhmut in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, while battalions are being split up, according to an assessment by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

The U.S. think tank said on Tuesday that Russian forces in Bakhmut may be nearing "culmination"—the point at which an attacking military force can no longer continue its advance—as Russian forces in the southern Kherson region did in August.

Russian losses, the ISW said, are likely forcing the Russian military in the Bakhmut area to use squad-sized assault groups.

The think tank noted that on Tuesday, Ukrainian Eastern Group of Forces Spokesperson Colonel Serhiy Cherevaty reported that Russian forces in the Bakhmut area are no longer operating as company and battalion tactical groups, but are instead operating in smaller groups of 10 to 15 service members, in squad-size organizations.

This move echoes a similar decision by Russia's military in August in the Kherson region, the ISW said, when Russian forces similarly degenerated from company and battalion tactical groups to individual squad-sized groups.

"The Russian military's rate of advance in the Bakhmut area has recently slowed amidst growing personnel and munitions constraints that will likely prevent it from maintaining a high pace of offensive operations in the area in the near term," the ISW said.

According to the think tank's assessment, the Russian military's reported use of squad-sized groups is likely a result of prolonged attritional warfare and indicates the degradation of larger formations above the platoon level.

"Russian rate of advances in the Bakhmut area will likely decrease if Russian forces continue advancing at all unless significant new reinforcements and supplies of artillery rounds arrive soon," it concluded.

Source: Institute for the Study of War and AEI's Critical Threats Project.

Serhiy Haidai, governor of the Russian-occupied Luhansk region, said on his Telegram channel on Monday that thousands of Russian troops have died in the battle for Bakhmut.

Bakhmut is one of the most intense spots of fighting in the war, and Russian forces in the region are being led by members of a notorious mercenary unit, the Wagner Group, founded by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Haidai said on Monday that the battle for Bakhmut is "no longer even a strategic military plan, although there is such a thing, but a rather symbolic matter—which the Kremlin regime loves very much." He alleged that Chechen forces, led by Ramzan Kadyrov, and Prigozhin's Wagner Group, want to prove themselves to Putin.

While the town of Bakhmut doesn't hold a lot of strategic value, its location does. Seizing the region would enable Putin's troops to launch artillery strikes on key places, such as the cities of Kramatorsk and Slovyansk in the Donetsk region.

Newsweek reached out to Russia's Foreign Ministry for comment.

Russia Running Out of Troops in Battle for Bakhmut, Battalions Split Up—ISW

Russia Making Slow Progress in “Fortress” Bakhmut

Russian troops attacking the Ukrainian town of Bakhmut are bogged down because of a tenacious Ukrainian resistance and an extensive network of defensive fortifications, the head of Russia’s mercenary company Wagner said Tuesday.


There is a “fortress in every house” in Bakhmut, Yevgeny Prigozhin said in an interview with state news agency RIA Novosti.


“The lads are fighting over every house, sometimes for more than a day. Sometimes it takes them weeks to capture a house. They take one house, they take another.”


Wagner soldiers — including inmates recruited from Russian prisoners — have been leading a Russian assault on Bakhmut that has lasted almost eight months and intensified in early winter as Russian military commanders apparently came under pressure to deliver a battlefield victory.

Russia’s determination to take Bakhmut, a city of little strategic significance, has puzzled many military experts, who question Moscow’s huge commitment of men and resources.


Bakhmut has been badly damaged in the bitter fighting and fewer than 10,000 civilians from a pre-war population of about 70,000 are believed to remain.


Prigozhin offered little reassurance that Bakhmut could be seized any time soon.


“They took one house this morning and broke through the defenses. But behind that house were new defensive lines — and not just one,” he told RIA Novosti.


“And how many such defensive lines are there in Artemovsk [Bakhmut]? If we say 500 we probably won’t be making a mistake. Every 10 meters there is a defensive line,” he said.

Russia Making Slow Progress in ‘Fortress’ Bakhmut — Wagner Boss Prigozhin - The Moscow Times

Russia raises death toll to 89, blames soldiers' mobile phone use for Ukraine's strike in Donetsk's Makiivka



Russia's defence ministry has blamed the illegal use of mobile phones for a deadly Ukrainian missile strike that killed 89 servicemen, raising the reported death toll significantly.

Key points:

• Russia raised the death toll from the New Year's strike after more bodies were found under rubble
• The deaths sparked renewed criticism within the country of Russia's senior military command
• Russian reports indicate that many of the troops killed were recently mobilised reservists

Moscow previously said 63 Russian soldiers were killed in the New Year's Eve strike, but on Wednesday announced more bodies had been found under rubble.

The ministry's reaction came amid mounting anger among some Russian commentators, who are increasingly vocal about what they see as a half-hearted campaign in Ukraine.

Most of the anger on social media was directed at military commanders rather than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Russian defence ministry said four Ukrainian missiles hit a temporary Russian barracks in a vocational college in Makiivka, the twin city of the Russian-occupied regional capital of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine's military has said it launched a strike that resulted in Russian loss of equipment and possibly personnel near Makiivka, but it has given no further details.
Ukraine has said as many as 400 Russians were killed.

Although an official probe has been launched, the main reason for the attack was clearly the illegal mass use of mobile phones by servicemen, Russia's ministry said.
"This factor allowed the enemy to track and determine the coordinates of the soldiers' location for a missile strike," it said in a statement.

Russians mourn deaths of servicemen

The new announcement came after mourners gathered in several cities of the Volga region of Samara — where some of the servicemen came from — to mourn the dead.
Some 200 people laid roses and wreaths in a central square in the city of Samara — where some of the servicemen came from — as an Orthodox priest recited a prayer.

Soldiers also fired a gun salute at the commemoration, where some of the mourners could be seen holding flags for President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party.
"It's very tough. It's scary. But we cannot be broken. Grief unites," Ekaterina Kolotovkina, head of a group of army spouses, said at the ceremony.

Local media reported similar gatherings in other parts of the Samara region.


The deaths immediately sparked heavy online criticism in Russia of the army's senior command, including from nationalist commentators favourable to Russia's military intervention.

Russian military correspondents, who have gained influence in recent months, said hundreds could have been killed and accused Russia's top commanders of not learning from past mistakes.

The outrage has been amplified by reports that many of the victims were reservists recently mobilised into the army.

There have also been reports that the servicemen were quartered next to a munitions depot that exploded in the strike.

"What conclusions will be drawn? Who will be punished?" Mikhail Matveyev, a member of the Russian parliament representing Samara, wrote on social media.

The Telegram account Rybar, which has about 1 million followers, said it was "criminally naive" for the army to store ammunition next to sleeping quarters.

Mr Putin has yet to react to the Makiivka strike, which comes during the holiday season before Orthodox Christmas, which many Russians spend with their families.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made no mention of the attack in a video address on Tuesday in which he said Russia was set to launch a major offensive to improve its fortunes.

"We have no doubt that current masters of Russia will throw everything they have left and everyone they can round up to try to turn the tide of the war and at least delay their defeat," Mr Zelenskyy said in a video address.

Calls for revenge

At the gathering in Samara, Kolotovkina, the wife of a general, said she had asked her husband to "avenge" the victims.

"We will crush the enemy together. We are left with no choice," she told mourners.

The defence ministry said the strike was carried out by Himars rocket systems supplied to Ukraine by the United States.

Russia raises death toll to 89, blames soldiers''' mobile phone use for Ukraine'''s strike in Donetsk'''s Makiivka - ABC News

Excellent news...

After months of resisting Kyiv’s pleas for tanks to face increasingly dug-in Russian forces along the lengthy southern and eastern fronts, the United States and its allies are now poised to deliver a variety of armored fighting vehicles to Ukraine.

Asked Wednesday if U.S.-produced Bradley Fighting Vehicles were under consideration for transfer to Ukraine, President Biden replied in the affirmative. A senior administration official said that Bradleys could be included in a package of weapons to be announced as soon as this week.

Earlier Wednesday, France said it would provide Ukraine with an unspecified number of light tanks.

The first supply of Western mobile armor is another major milestone in the escalating provision of advanced weaponry to Ukrainian forces, including heavy artillery and long-range precision rocket launchers. It comes just weeks after the Biden administration announced that it would supply Kyiv with a Patriot missile battery, the most sophisticated air defense weapon in the U.S. arsenal, to defend against waves of Russian missile and drone attacks on energy and civilian infrastructure far from the front line.

That line, where the Ukrainian military is engaged in a grueling fight for incremental gains against Russian ground forces, is spread for hundreds of miles along a north-south front in the eastern part of the country. U.S. officials have said the Ukrainians need the ability to conduct combined arms maneuvers, with armored vehicles allowing them to engage the enemy and move forward while under fire.

The United States assesses that “there will be continued fighting along that line ... for the foreseeable future,” a second senior administration official said, with little expectation that combat will slow during the winter months. In a shift from training only small units to operate specific weapons systems, the allies are now pulling thousands of Ukrainian soldiers off the front lines for combined maneuver training in Europe.

But until now, Ukraine’s allies have rebuffed Kyiv, arguing that the Western armor is too logistically complicated to be useful.

Germany has repeatedly turned down Ukrainian requests for its Marder infantry fighting vehicles and Leopard 2 main battle tanks, largely on grounds that it didn’t want to be the first to provide such weaponry.

Much of the West’s hesitation to send advanced armaments has revolved around reluctance to provoke Russia to escalate the war. Decisions to send systems such as HIMARS, the U.S. precision rocket launchers that were first transferred last summer, have come as the situation on the battlefield “evolved,” the second administration official said.

As expected, each advancement in arming Ukraine has brought charges from Russian President Vladimir Putin that NATO is actively fighting a war against Russia. But it is Moscow’s brutality, especially attacks against civilians, that has made the West more forward-leaning, administration officials counter.

“Let’s just be crystal clear here,” the second official said angrily. “Mr. Putin can claim all he wants that this is a war by the West,” and he is fighting “essentially for [Russia’s] security. ... We all know this is a bunch of BS. This is a Russian war of aggression on Ukraine.”

“We are and will continue to provide them the kind of systems to defend themselves,” this official said.

The decision to send armored combat vehicles comes just weeks after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urgently appealed for tanks during a lightning visit to Washington late last month.

On Wednesday, in his nightly address to the Ukrainian people, Zelensky hailed the French announcement as “a clear signal to all our other partners: There is no rational reason why Ukraine has not yet been supplied with Western-style tanks. ... We must put an end to the Russian aggression this year exactly, and not postpone any of the defensive capabilities that can speed up the defeat of the terrorist state.”

“Modern Western armored vehicles, Western-type tanks are just one of these key capabilities,” Zelensky said.

The administration continues to rule out sending even larger Abrams battle tanks, which weigh 55 tons and rely on a turbine engine that guzzles fuel at a drastic rate, said the first official, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive issue. They are also prone to breakdowns and require extensive maintenance expertise.

The battle tanks are so heavy that then-President Trump was dissuaded from plans to include them in the 2019 July Fourth celebration in Washington on grounds that their steel-plate tracks would destroy city streets. The Abrams ultimately stayed in a “static display” on rail cars near Anacostia Park, while Trump was flanked by Bradleys for his Independence Day speech.

The Bradley, while technically not a tank, would offer a significant upgrade for Ukrainian ground forces. Weighing about 28 tons, it travels on tank-like tracks and carries a three-person crew with room for up to six additional soldiers inside. The United States has thousands of the vehicles, and sending an unspecified number to Ukraine would not undercut U.S. inventories.

Named after Gen. Omar Bradley, a senior U.S. commander during World War II, the Bradley lacks the firepower of the 120mm “main gun” cannon fitted on an Abrams. But it is equipped with heavy armor and an array of other weapons, including a 25mm chain gun and M240 machine gun. It is designed to travel up to 35 miles per hour, fast enough to keep up with the Abrams in American combat units.

France’s plan to supply French-made AMX-10 RC light tanks was announced Wednesday after a phone call between Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron. It was not immediately clear how many tanks would be delivered, or when they would arrive.

The wheeled vehicles have been in service with the French military since 1981 and are being gradually decommissioned and replaced with an updated system. Primarily used for reconnaissance and transporting troops, its 105mm gun is smaller than that of many tanks, but the vehicle is considered highly agile and maneuverable.

Also on Wednesday, Poland signed a $1.4 billion deal to purchase a second tranche of U.S. Abrams tanks, replacing more than 300 Soviet-era tanks and armored personnel carriers sent to Ukraine last summer.

Ukrainian forces have also added hundreds of captured or abandoned Russian tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers to their existing stock of Soviet-era vehicles. But spare parts and ammunition have been hard to find.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...hting-vehicle/

What an amazing day! This is a historic day!

The United States and Germany will supply Ukraine with armored combat vehicles, President Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in a joint statement Thursday, marking a significant policy shift after months of resisting Kyiv’s pleas for tanks to face increasingly dug-in Russian forces along the lengthy southern and eastern fronts.

The statement, which followed a telephone call between the two leaders, confirmed that U.S.-produced Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Germany’s Marder infantry fighting vehicles would be transferred. “Both countries plan to train Ukrainian forces on the respective systems,” the statement said.

Scholz has been under increasing pressure from within his own ruling coalition to overcome his reluctance to have Germany be the first NATO country to supply advanced Western-made fighting vehicles. That logjam was broken Wednesday, when France announced it would provide Ukraine with an unspecified number of light tanks, and Biden acknowledged to reporters that Bradleys were on the table.

U.S. officials said the Bradleys could be included in a new package of weapons to be announced as soon as this week.

The first supply of Western mobile armor is another major milestone in the escalating provision of advanced weaponry to Ukrainian forces, including heavy artillery and long-range precision rocket launchers. It comes just weeks after the Biden administration announced that it would supply Kyiv with a Patriot missile battery, the most sophisticated air defense weapon in the U.S. arsenal, to defend against waves of Russian missile and drone attacks on energy and civilian infrastructure far from the front line.

In Thursday’s statement, Biden and Scholz also said Germany will supply an additional Patriot battery to Ukraine.

The front line, where the Ukrainian military is engaged in a grueling fight for incremental gains against Russian ground forces, is spread for hundreds of miles along a north-south front in the eastern part of the country. U.S. officials have said the Ukrainians need the ability to conduct combined arms maneuvers, with armored vehicles allowing them to engage the enemy and move forward while under fire.

The United States assesses that “there will be continued fighting along that line … for the foreseeable future,” a senior administration official said, with little expectation that combat will slow during the winter months. In a shift from training only small units to operate specific weapons systems, the allies are now pulling thousands of Ukrainian soldiers off the front lines for combined maneuver training in Europe.

But until now, Ukraine’s allies have rebuffed Kyiv regarding Western armor, arguing that the equipment is too logistically complicated to be useful.

Much of the West’s hesitation to send advanced armaments has revolved around reluctance to provoke Russia to escalate the war. Decisions to send systems such as HIMARS, the U.S. precision rocket launchers that were first transferred last summer, have come as the situation on the battlefield “evolved,” the administration official said.

As expected, each advancement in arming Ukraine has brought charges from Russian President Vladimir Putin that NATO is actively fighting a war against Russia. But it is Moscow’s brutality, especially attacks against civilians, that has made the West more forward-leaning, administration officials counter.

“Let’s just be crystal clear here,” said the administration official, one of several who discussed the sensitive issue on condition of anonymity. “Mr. Putin can claim all he wants that this is a war by the West,” and he is fighting “essentially for [Russia’s] security. … We all know this is a bunch of BS. This is a Russian war of aggression on Ukraine.”

“We are and will continue to provide them the kind of systems to defend themselves,” this official said.

The decision to send armored combat vehicles comes just weeks after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urgently appealed for tanks during a lightning visit to Washington late last month. On Wednesday, in his nightly address to the Ukrainian people, Zelensky hailed the French announcement as “a clear signal to all our other partners: There is no rational reason why Ukraine has not yet been supplied with Western-style tanks. … We must put an end to the Russian aggression this year exactly, and not postpone any of the defensive capabilities that can speed up the defeat of the terrorist state.”

“Modern Western armored vehicles, Western-type tanks are just one of these key capabilities,” Zelensky said.

The administration continues to rule out sending even larger Abrams battle tanks, which weigh 55 tons and rely on a turbine engine that guzzles fuel at a drastic rate, said a second senior administration official. They are also prone to breakdowns and require extensive maintenance expertise.

The battle tanks are so heavy that then-President Donald Trump was dissuaded from plans to include them in the 2019 July Fourth celebration in Washington on grounds that their steel-plate tracks would destroy city streets. The Abrams ultimately stayed in a “static display” on rail cars near Anacostia Park, while Trump was flanked by Bradleys for his Independence Day speech.

The Bradley, while technically not a tank, would offer a significant upgrade for Ukrainian ground forces. Weighing about 28 tons, it travels on tank-like tracks and carries a three-person crew with room for up to six additional soldiers inside. The United States has thousands of the vehicles, and sending an unspecified number to Ukraine would not undercut U.S. inventories.

Named after Gen. Omar Bradley, a senior U.S. commander during World War II, the Bradley lacks the firepower of the 120mm “main gun” cannon fitted on an Abrams. But it is equipped with heavy armor and an array of other weapons, including a 25mm chain gun and M240 machine gun. It is designed to travel up to 35 mph, fast enough to keep up with the Abrams in American combat units.

France’s plan to supply French-made AMX-10 RC light tanks was announced Wednesday after a phone call between Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron. It was not immediately clear how many tanks would be delivered, or when they would arrive.

The wheeled vehicles have been in service with the French military since 1981 and are being gradually decommissioned and replaced with an updated system. Primarily used for reconnaissance and transporting troops, its 105mm gun is smaller than that of many tanks, but the vehicle is considered highly agile and maneuverable.

Also on Wednesday, Poland signed a $1.4 billion deal to purchase a second tranche of U.S. Abrams tanks, replacing more than 300 Soviet-era tanks and armored personnel carriers sent to Ukraine last summer.

Ukrainian forces have also added hundreds of captured or abandoned Russian tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers to their existing stock of Soviet-era vehicles. But spare parts and ammunition have been hard to find.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...hting-vehicle/

Excellent move by France, Germany and the US

• Putin orders ceasefire over Orthodox Christmas
• Move follows an appeal by Russian Orthodox Church
• Ukraine earlier dismissed Orthodox Church appeal

MOSCOW, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday ordered a 36-hour ceasefire in Ukraine over Orthodox Christmas, the first major truce of the more than 10-month long war that has killed tens of thousands and devastated swathes of Ukraine.

www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-will-cease-fire-ukraine-orthodox-christmas-kremlin-2023-01-05/

Originally Posted by sabang

the first major truce

Truce's require two parties to agree. Putin can go fuck himself. There'll be a cease fire when he leaves.

Recently elected Republicans are ready to fire up the base with anger over billions spent to protect allies overseas.

The most revealing Trump comment this month wasn’t about his legal jeopardy, his taxes or even the get-yours-now NFTs he began hawking ahead of the holidays for a cool $99 each.

In fact, the comment wasn’t even made by Donald Trump himself.

“Zelensky is basically an ungrateful international welfare queen,” Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s eldest son, said on Twitter shortly before the Ukrainian president traveled to Washington.

Like much from his social media oeuvre, Trump the younger was thirsting for clicks and attention (mission accomplished!). Yet his attack, wrapped with a dog whistle-shaped bow for his fellow conservatives, represented more of a substantive critique on a signal foreign policy issue than his dad has ventured in recent weeks.

More significantly, the invective, from a dedicated troll who’s obsessive about properly channeling the right’s id, was a reminder of the churning debate within the Republican Party — one the party’s putative presidential frontrunner is effectively sitting out but that’s only intensifying.

After six years of defeat and coming on two decades since one of their standard-bearers claimed the popular vote, the GOP is in the midst of an identity crisis.

It must grapple with whether it’s going to retain the Reagan-shaped form most of its elites prefer, a light touch on the market and firm hand abroad, or shift to better reflect an increasingly working-class coalition with no doctrinal allegiance to the free markets and free people Gospel of Paul (Gigot). Or, the more likely outcome: try to forge a hybrid between the two approaches while emphasizing issues of tribal consensus — confronting the left at home and the Chinese abroad — and hope the Democrats put forward a weak nominee.

“A lot of people, I think, tried to put off this policy debate for years now by saying, ‘Well this is all just a question about Trump,’ and it’s like, ‘Oh no it’s not, no it’s not,’” Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told me. “He got elected president because he appealed to our new coalition and tapped into it but it’s well beyond any one guy, not to take anything from him.”

Hawley is perhaps the party’s leading exponent of realigning toward what he calls cultural conservatism and economic and foreign policy nationalism. Few Republican lawmakers are more eager than Hawley to transition away from the libertarian-and-interventionist approach favored by so many Republican donors and their allies in the Senate and on the Gigot-led Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Full Article (quite long and detailed)- The Looming GOP Crisis Over Ukraine - POLITICO


There is no question that US domestic politics are going to play a major part in the Ukraine war. How important a factor it will be in the next Presidential election though, not so sure.

^ It isn't actually a truce, it's a 36 hour ceasefire- and has been unilaterally declared by Putin, for right or wrong.

Originally Posted by sabang

There is no question that US domestic politics are going to play a major part in the Ukraine war.

Of course it will but anyone who thinks the Republicans will be less hawkish on arming the Ukraine than the Dems is clearly smoking some heavy dope.