The West Calls Putin's Bluff
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kremlin officials have warned multiple times over the 11 months since the invasion of Ukraine started that Western inference could result in an escalation. However, the United States and other Western allies of Ukraine have repeatedly crossed Putin's supposed red lines.
"If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people. This is not a bluff," Putin said in September address while the U.S. continued providing Ukraine with more armaments to fight on territory illegitimately annexed by Putin.
More recently, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov provided such a warning about arming Ukraine in December. He said, "Weapon supplies continue, the assortment of supplied weapons is expanding. All this, of course, leads to an aggravation of the conflict and, in fact, does not bode well for Ukraine."
If anything, the weapons coming to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky from the West escalated after Peskov's remarks. This week alone, President Joe Biden took the large step of saying the U.S. will provide Ukraine with 31 M1 Abrams tanks. His announcement came on the same day that Germany confirmed it would give Ukrainian forces 13 Leopard 2 tanks.
Kremlin officials and Russian state-controlled media outlets responded to the news of the tanks with outrage. But George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government professor Mark N. Katz told Newsweek that the message from the West was clear: Putin's rhetoric wasn't going to cause them to back down.
"Putin's redlines are designed to deter Western states from crossing them, but Putin has not been able to prevent the West from crossing several of them," Katz said.
Lawrence C. Reardon, a professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire, told Newsweek, "There is a growing global perception that Russian leaders resemble the boy that cried wolf."
He added, "When Russian forces are under pressure, Putin indirectly talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons to defend Russia, especially to defend the newly annexed areas of southeast Ukraine such as the Crimea."
Reardon said that while Western leaders haven't taken Putin's words as fact, they nevertheless likely don't take Russia's nuclear capabilities—or the chance of an angry Putin using them in Ukraine—for granted.
"Thus, the recent hesitance by Berlin and Washington to provide sophisticated tanks is not just related to the difficulty of Ukraine absorbing these tanks into their fighting forces, but also a fear of escalating the conflict," he said. "But western leaders are not crying wolf and no doubt have warned Putin that NATO will rapidly escalate involvement should Putin resort to tactical nuclear weapons."
Katz noted that "Putin and his cronies have already declared that Russia is at war with NATO or the 'Collective West,' not just Ukraine."
"The U.S. and NATO do seem to take seriously the possibility that there are some things Ukraine might do which could result in Putin escalating the conflict," he said.
Another reason why Ukraine's Western allies may feel emboldened in their support of Ukraine is that Russia for the most part has stumbled in its war efforts, according to Katz.
"If Putin's forces are not doing so well against Ukraine, it is hard to see how they can do better by escalating the conflict by attacking any NATO member," he said.
https://www.newsweek.com/west-calls-...-bluff-1776840
Tanks for Ukraine Have Shifted the Balance of Power in Europe
When the German and U.S. governments finally agreed this week to supply some of their most formidable battle tanks to Ukraine, the balance of power within Europe perceptibly shifted. For months, President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, fearing an escalation of conflict between the West and Russia, had stubbornly put off Ukrainian requests for the powerful, highly maneuverable vehicles, and the European states most directly vulnerable to Russian aggression—in Scandinavia, the Baltic region, and Central and Eastern Europe—had grown more and more frustrated with Washington and Berlin. Finally, the smaller countries had had enough. In an impressive show of diplomatic muscle, they forced NATO’s two greatest powers to take a step that Biden and especially Scholz have clearly been afraid of taking.
The episode is a reminder that a security alliance isn’t just a means for major powers, such as the U.S. or Germany, to amplify their own influence by drawing on the forces of smaller nations. In this case, some of NATO’s smaller members and partners understand the Russian threat far more clearly than the U.S. or Germany does, because they don’t have the option of complacency.
Since the start of the war, Germany and the U.S. have tried to give Ukraine enough military aid to perform well on the battlefield, but not so much that the Ukrainians can drive Russian forces out of all of occupied Ukraine—including areas that Russia occupied in 2014. Washington and Berlin have kept sending the same mixed signals: Russia cannot win the war, and Ukraine cannot be allowed to lose, but in the end, the defenders might have to make some significant concessions to the invaders to secure a peace deal.
That message has sounded more and more discordant to states to Germany’s north and east. The longer the war has gone on, and the more grotesque the crimes and destruction that the Russian government has been willing to commit against its neighbor and ostensible “little brother,” Ukraine, the more these states have become convinced that Russia must not only be denied a victory but be defeated outright. During the 20th century, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were incorporated into the Soviet Union against their will. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia were ruled as Soviet vassals during the Cold War. These countries’ leaders instinctively understand the threat of Russian imperialism, and take Moscow’s rhetoric about national expansion and greatness as the menace that it is. They want to see Russian power broken.
Four Nordic countries—Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway—all have their own well-established reasons for unease about Russia. After World War II, Finland and Sweden opted for (or felt obliged to opt for) a neutral stance in the Cold War, staying out of NATO and hoping that, in exchange, Moscow would respect their independence. Norway uncomfortably shares a border with Russia. Denmark, which controls access to the Baltic Sea, has long had to contend with the presence of Russian military force.
When all of these states saw how easily and with what brutality Vladimir Putin ripped up the post-1945 rule book, embarking on an unnecessary war of national expansion while openly discussing the cultural genocide of another people, their old inhibitions dropped away.
Finland might be the most remarkable member of this new coalition. For decades, Helsinki studiously avoided doing anything to offend the Soviet Union, to the point that Finlandization became shorthand for when a smaller country partially acquiesces to a larger power in the hope of avoiding too much interference in its own internal affairs. However, as soon as Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Finnish government reacted with vigor. It quickly applied for NATO membership—which is almost sure to be granted, regardless of the recent stance of the Turkish and Hungarian governments. Of all world leaders, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin has expressed the need to counter the Russian threat most bluntly. She has regretted European Union weakness in opposing Russian actions in Ukraine since 2014 and said that Ukrainian membership in NATO would have prevented the present crisis. She has openly called for Russia’s defeat, saying that its withdrawal from Ukrainian territory is “the way out of the conflict.” Without hesitation, she recently tied her own country’s security to Ukraine’s. “We don’t know when the war will end, but we have to make sure that the Ukrainians will win,” Marin said. “I don’t think there’s any other choice. If Russia would win the war, then we would only see decades of this kind of behavior ahead of us.”
Similar sentiments are coming out of Warsaw, Tallinn, Stockholm, and other capitals in Eastern and Northern Europe. If anything, these governments’ positions have been hardening. The Baltic states, which have consistently given the largest percentage of their defense budgets to aid Ukraine, worked together to persuade Germany to give its advanced Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine. Sweden, maybe most surprisingly, raised the pressure noticeably with a pledge to give the Ukrainians its highly accurate Archer artillery system.
For a while, the U.S. and Germany refused to budge. The Biden administration promised a large number of fighting vehicles, including Bradley armored personnel carriers, but not the Abrams battle tank. Berlin hemmed and hawed, even throwing up new and unexpected conditions on the transfer of Leopards to Ukraine by allied governments. As the NATO states were gathering at Ramstein Air Base in Germany late last week to discuss their latest Ukraine-aid packages, Scholz’s government was insisting that it could not provide Leopards to Ukraine until the U.S. first offered its own battle tanks. This position created the impression in many circles that Berlin was still desperate to protect its relationship with Moscow.
But other European countries simply would not let up. In what became known as the Tallinn Pledge, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands joined NATO states in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia in calling for Russia to be pushed out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and other areas occupied before last February 24. Always a leader in the anti-Russian coalition, Poland formally asked Germany to let it convey its own Leopards to Ukraine, and other states discussed doing so even without requesting permission.
Faced with this open revolt, in a breathtaking two days, the U.S. and Germany caved. In addition to granting other nations’ requests, Germany started planning on directly transferring tanks of its own. Then, Biden publicly offered 31 Abrams tanks. Other European states, including Portugal and Spain, immediately piled on with offers of even more tanks.
A new force has emerged in Europe. By acceding to their smaller allies’ demands, Germany and the U.S. are belatedly recognizing a slow but relentless shift in the Western approach toward Russia—which is being determined not in Washington or Berlin but in the capitals of countries that, until recently, have been seen as junior partners. Moreover, these new drivers of European security strategy are unlikely to ease up. They are among Europe’s richest and fastest-growing economies and have some of the continent’s best-equipped militaries. Plus, they will always have Russia close by, and that reality alone will keep them focused.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...a-nato/672859/
At the Pentagon, push to send F-16s to Ukraine picks up steam
Excellent news!
A contingent of military officials is quietly pushing the Pentagon to approve sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.
Ukraine has kept American-made F-16s on its weapons wish list since the Russian invasion last year. But Washington and Kyiv have viewed artillery, armor and ground-based air defense systems as more urgent needs as Ukraine seeks to protect civilian infrastructure and claw back ground occupied by Russian forces.
As Ukraine prepares to launch a new offensive to retake territory in the spring, the campaign inside the Defense Department for fighter jets is gaining momentum, according to a DoD official and two other people involved in the discussions. Those people, along with others interviewed for this story, asked not to be named in order to discuss internal matters.
Spurred in part by the rapid approval of tanks and Patriot air defense systems — which not long ago were off-limits for export to Ukraine — there is renewed optimism in Kyiv that U.S. jets could be next up.
“I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.
However, Ukraine has yet to declare that fighter jets are its top priority, the official stressed, noting that the Pentagon is focused on sending Kyiv the capabilities it needs for the immediate fight.
But fighter jets may be moving to the top spot soon. Kyiv has renewed its request for modern fighters in recent days, with a top adviser to the country’s defense minister telling media outlets that officials will push for jets from the U.S. and European countries.
A top Ukrainian official said Saturday that Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on possibly sending both long-range missiles and military aircraft.
One adviser to the Ukrainian government said the subject has been raised with Washington, but there has been “nothing too serious” on the table yet. Another person familiar with the conversations between Washington and Kyiv said it could take “weeks” for the U.S. to make a decision on shipments of its own jets and approve the re-export of the F-16s from other countries.
“If we get them, the advantages on the battlefield will be just immense. ... It’s not just F-16s: fourth generation aircraft, this is what we want,” Yuriy Sak, who advises Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, told Reuters.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but pointed to remarks by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer. He said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” Finer said on MSNBC Thursday.
“We have nothing to announce regarding F-16s,” said a DOD spokesperson. “As always, we’ll continue to consult closely with the Ukrainians and our international Allies and partners on Ukraine’s security assistance needs to enable them to defend their country.”
Ukraine wants modern fighters — U.S. Air Force F-16s or F-15s, or their European equivalents the German Tornado or Swedish Gripen — to replace its fleet of Soviet-era jets. Dozens of the more modern planes will become available over the next year as countries such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands upgrade to U.S. F-35 fighters.
Despite the age of Ukraine’s jets, Kyiv’s integrated air defenses have kept Russia from dominating its skies since the Feb. 24 invasion.
But now, officials are concerned that Ukraine is running out of missiles to protect its skies. Once its arsenal is depleted, Russia’s advanced fighter jets will be able to move in and Kyiv “will not be able to compete,” said the DoD official involved in the discussions.
Modern fighter jets could be one solution to this problem, argues a group of military officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere. F-16s carry air-to-air missiles that can shoot down incoming missiles and drones. And unlike the Patriots and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems the West is currently sending, fighter jets can move around an area quickly to protect different targets.
“If they get [F-16] Vipers and they have an active air-to-air missile with the radar the F-16 currently has with some electronic protection, now it’s an even game,” the DoD official said.
Even if the U.S. decided not to send the Air Force’s F-16s, other Western nations have American-made fighters they could supply. For example, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Wopke Hoekstra told the Dutch parliament last week that his Cabinet would look at supplying F-16s, if Kyiv requests them. But the U.S. must approve the transfer.
Senior Pentagon officials acknowledge that Ukraine needs new aircraft for the long term. But for now, some argue that Ukraine has a greater need for more traditional air defenses, such as the Patriots and NASAMs that the U.S. and other countries are supplying, because jets may take months to arrive.
Sending Ukraine F-16s “does not solve the cruise missile or drone problem right now,” the senior DoD official said.
Big push for training
Others say the need for fighter jets is more urgent. Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Many of them have already trained with the U.S. military in major exercises before the invasion. In 2011 and 2018, Americans and Ukrainians participated in military drills in the skies over Ukraine.
In 2011, the Americans brought over their F-16s and taught the Ukrainian pilots, in their MiG-29s and Su-27s, how to protect a stadium in preparation for the 2012 Euro Cup.
After Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. and Ukraine held a second joint 2018 exercise aimed at teaching Ukrainian pilots homeland defense tactics and controlling the skies. The American pilots used their F-15s to replicate Russian fighter tactics.
Ukraine is pushing the U.S. to start training its fighter pilots on the F-16s now, before President Joe Biden approves supplying the jets, according to the Ukrainian official and one of the people familiar. But there is no appetite in the Pentagon for this proposal, U.S. officials said. One alternative under discussion at lower levels is to start training Ukrainian pilots on introductory fighter tactics in trainer jets.
Ukraine has also considered contracting with private companies in the U.S. to begin training pilots, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
It’s likely U.S. military training would not start without a presidential decision to supply American fighters. One concern for the Biden administration all along is that sending advanced weapons could be seen by Russia as an escalation, prompting Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons.
But officials point out that the F-16 was first built in the 1980s, and the Air Force is already retiring parts of the fleet. While sending Ukraine the stealthy American F-22s or F-35s would be considered escalatory, sending F-16s would not, they said.
“Let’s face it, a nuclear war isn’t going to happen over F-16s,” the DoD official said.
One European official agreed, saying F-16s “cannot be considered escalatory.”
“It’s simply part of the toolkit of having conventional weapons,” the person said.
Yet F-16s are complex systems that also require massive infrastructure and highly skilled technicians to operate and maintain. Training Ukrainian maintainers would likely take longer than training the pilots, and the U.S. may need to bring in contractors to do some of that instruction.
Lawmaker support
Providing F-16s is likely to win some support on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans alike have chided the administration for not moving quickly enough or for withholding certain capabilities, such as longer-range artillery. Sending Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, via Eastern European countries that still fly them, won bipartisan support, though a weapons swap ultimately never came to fruition.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, said he’s “not against” providing F-16s to Kyiv, but broadly favors providing Ukraine with “whatever works.”
“You can’t half-ass a war. Putin’s not. You’ve got to meet Putin armor for armor, weapon for weapon, because there’s already an extraordinary disadvantage in number of troops,” Quigley said.
“Whatever works, whatever they need, send to them.
“My message when I first started talking about this is what were once vices are now habits,” he said. “Everything we ever proposed was seen as escalatory.”
But the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), cast doubt on the need to send F-16s into the conflict, where fighters haven’t proved pivotal.
“I’m not opposed to it,” Smith said. “It’s just not at the top of the list of anybody’s priorities who’s focused on what [weapons] the fight really needs right now.”
He noted that F-16s, much like older MiG jets debated last year, would be vulnerable to Russian air defenses and fifth-generation fighters. Instead, Smith underscored the need to supply ammunition for air defense batteries, longer-range missiles, tanks and armored vehicles.
“What we really need to be focused on is air defense, number one,” he said. “And number two, artillery.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...raine-00080045
Crimea is shaping up to be the battleground that will decide the Russia-Ukraine war
The war in Ukraine is poised to become even more violent this year with a major Russian offensive expected and more advanced Western-made weapons pouring in to bolster Ukrainian forces. Along these lines, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg recently warned that the war has entered a "decisive phase."
This new stage of the war could bring the fight to a territory vital to Russia's military capabilities in Ukraine and cherished by Russian President Vladimir Putin: Crimea.
The Black Sea peninsula, which was invaded by Russian forces and illegally annexed by Putin in 2014, served as a launchpad for Russia's invasion last February and helped pave the way for Russian forces to occupy a significant chunk of southern Ukraine. Crimea continues to be a base of attack for Russian aircraft and warships striking Ukraine.
"The decisive terrain for this war is Crimea. The Ukrainian government knows that they cannot settle for Russia retaining control of Crimea," retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of US Army Europe, told Insider.
"The next few months will see Ukraine setting the conditions for the eventual liberation of Crimea," he added, emphasizing that the country will "never be safe or secure or able to rebuild their economy so long as Russia retains Crimea."
Russia occupies Crimea and a significant swath of southern Ukraine — including the cities of Melitopol and Mariupol — that provides it with a land bridge from its own border to the Crimean peninsula. This area serves as a pivotal supply route for the Russian military. The peninsula, roughly the size of Massachusetts, is home to a number of military bases and Russia's Black Sea fleet.
Crimea — annexed by the Russian Empire under Catherine the Great in 1783 — also has major symbolic importance to Putin, who has tied Russia's war in Ukraine to its imperial past. Putin has referred to Crimea as a "holy land" for Russia. In many ways, Putin's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 set the stage for the wider war of conquest that he launched last year.
The fight to retake Crimea could be extremely bloody, in a war that's already led to massive casualties for both sides. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, who has maintained that negotiations will be necessary to end the war, in November said the likelihood of Ukraine kicking Russia out of Crimea "anytime soon is not high, militarily."
But there also appears to be a growing cohort of military experts who believe that reclaiming Crimea is imperative to Ukraine's long-term survival, and contend that Ukrainian forces have already shown they have the ability to get the job done. A threatening campaign against Crimea could also provide a boost to Kyiv's negotiation power in any future peace talks.
"As long as the peninsula remains in the Kremlin's hands, Ukraine — and Ukrainians — cannot be free of Russian aggression," Andriy Zagorodnyuk, Ukraine's former defense minister, recently wrote in Foreign Affairs.
"After consecutive months of battlefield success, it is clear that Ukraine has the capacity to liberate Crimea," Zagorodnyuk went on to say, adding, "Ukraine should therefore plan to liberate Crimea—and the West should plan to help."
'Crimea is our land'
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pledged to expel Russian forces out of all occupied territory, including Crimea. With a new Russian offensive expected to begin in the near future and a fierce desire to retake control of occupied territories, Kyiv has pushed hard for more advanced weapons from the West.
"Crimea is our land, it is our territory, it is our sea and our mountains. Give us your weapons and we will bring our land back," Zelenskyy said via video link at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos this month.
This week, the US and Germany announced they will send advanced Leopard and M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, fulfilling a major request. Ukraine has emphasized that tanks will be necessary to regain control of occupied territories that Russians have mined and are likely to defend with trench networks.
President Joe Biden on Wednesday said the US would provide Ukraine with 31 M1 Abrams tanks. Ahead of the announcement, a senior administration official told reporters that the tanks were being provided not only to bolster Ukraine's defensive capabilities but also to give it the ability to reclaim "sovereign territory." The official said this includes Crimea.
"Crimea is Ukraine. We've never recognized the illegal annexation," the official said.
Similarly, Biden on Wednesday said, "With spring approaching, the Ukrainian forces are working to defend the territory they hold and preparing for additional counter-offensives. To liberate their land, they need to be able to counter Russia's evolving tactics and strategy on the battlefield in the very near term."
A number of top military experts contend that the West's apprehensiveness surrounding various weapons is prolonging the war and hindering Ukraine's ability to take the fight to the Russian invaders at a pivotal moment.
"The allies must simply stop the 'give them part of what they need, slower than they need it' approach to supplying Ukraine. This approach has gone on too long already. Ukraine needs more air defense systems, tanks, and long-range artillery — and rockets to do what is necessary," retired US Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik, now a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, wrote in a recent op-ed for The Hill.
Providing Ukraine with tanks is "very important," Hodges said, before adding that "they are only part of the overall effort required for Ukraine to win, to defeat Russian forces, and to compel them to leave Crimea." To successfully boot Russia out of Crimea, Hodges underscored that Ukraine will need long-range precision strike weapons like the longer-range ATACMS missiles that can be fired from a truck-mounted HIMARS launcher.
Liberating Crimea could be achieved by isolating the peninsula via air and land attacks to sever and disrupt Russia's main links to Crimea — the Kerch Bridge, which has already been sabotaged by Ukraine, and the so-called land bridge (occupied territory linking Russia to Crimea).
Once Crimea is isolated, Ukraine would need to employ a "wide array of long-range systems against the exposed Russian facilities and groupings in Crimea, making it untenable for them, and compelling them to leave," Hodges added.
That said, the Biden administration has so far pushed back on providing Ukraine with long-range missile systems that could be used to strike inside Russia or reach certain installations in Crimea.
Hodges said the US government's unwillingness to provide longer-range weapons has effectively provided "sanctuary" for Russian systems in Crimea and elsewhere that are "killing innocent Ukrainians."
"Delivering capabilities which will deny Russia any sanctuary for its air, drone, and missile strikes will enable Ukraine to make Crimea untenable for the Russians," Hodges added.
'We have crossed a threshold'
If Ukraine moved to retake Crimea, it could renew concerns that Putin might turn to a nuclear weapon. Putin has made a number of nuclear threats since the war began, vowing to protect Russia's territorial integrity.
But many top military analysts have repeatedly said that Putin's nuclear threats are largely designed to deter further Western support for Ukraine, and are skeptical he would actually use such a weapon. Ukraine has pushed Russian forces out of areas Putin now claims as part of Russia, such as Kherson, without facing a nuclear response. And Russian assets in Crimea, including air bases, have already been targeted with Ukrainian attacks.
"There is more clarity on their tolerance for damage and attacks," said Dara Massicot, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, recently told the New York Times. "Crimea has already been hit many times without a massive escalation from the Kremlin."
As things stand, there's a slim chance Russia and Ukraine will hold talks or negotiations to end the war. Putin's decision to illegally annex four Ukrainian territories in September, despite the fact Russian forces do not fully occupy these regions, effectively threw the possibility of talks out the window. Ukraine has been clear it will not agree to any deals requiring it to cede territory to Russia, and it's highly unlikely Moscow would ever walk back on its new territorial claims in Ukraine.
In short, the fighting will continue, and the West's involvement in the war is so deep that it's reached a point of no return.
"Foreign policy rests on the credibility of countries and especially the credibility of the big powers. If the US and its main allies were seen as unable to defend a victim of aggression on the European continent — try to imagine, what does it mean for foreign policy elsewhere?" Araud said, pointing to the potentially reverberating consequences of a Russian victory — particularly for other places that face threats from much larger powers, such as Taiwan.
"Without saying it, and maybe without knowing it, we have crossed a threshold. Now, for the West, a defeat of Ukraine is unacceptable," Araud said. "We have done so much now that the victory of Russia will be a real defeat of the West, and I think the West will not accept it."
https://www.businessinsider.com/crim...ine-war-2023-1
