Putin messaging the US to rein in Ukraine is the problem. The US has listened. Putin should get a busy signal or a secretary telling him the President Will speak to him after he finishes his conversation with NATO members organizing more armed shipments to Ukraine.
Is there any way that further us support can happen before the election?
This seems like an operation long in planning. Not only does AFU avoid defensive positions, but now it gives AFU some optionality. They could drive to Kursk and take the Kursk NPP, or could turn south and get directly behind the main Russian forces in Donbas and attack them without worrying about fortified defensive positions. Or it could be to damage GLC and C2 so badly and then slowly withdraw.
Fact is we do not known for sure which means AFU has great op sec and we will be relying on what Russian Telegram channels and OSINT sources reveal.
At least the Ukrainians don't have General Surovikin's defensive trench lines to deal with, which have hamstrung its attempts in Donetsk and Zaporhizhzhia Oblasts. The only thing that stops the Russians in the south is the destruction of transport across the Kerch Strait - both by bridge and ferry.
As soon as the US will allow them to do so, it seems - but the Biden Administration seems to prefer the status quo - Putin not losing, thus staying in power - and Hamas and Hezbollah staying in power in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively - and that means, amongst other things that the Kerch Strait Bridge stays in place. The US has become a very dangerous ally, and that will cause it to lose a great deal of persuasive power as to the international scene - who at this time would believe in "security guarantees" from the US? I'll bet that Ukraine sorely regrets giving up its nuclear weapons for what have turned out to be evanescent guarantees of security - and no other ex-Soviet nation would dream of accepting any such guarantees from the US. And the interference by the US in Ukraine's prosecution of the war - "keeping Ukraine in the fight" rather than giving Ukraine what it needs to win - seems more like a population reduction scheme, at times.
You'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see that that's precisely the Administration plan for Gaza - the US is halting or slow-walking weapons sales to Israel in order to force Israel into negotiating with Hamas - the same tactic that the US has been using in Ukraine since nearly the outset - "defend your territory" is not the same as "win the war". And the "humanitarian aid" the US is sending in to Gaza goes right into the hands of Hamas - and the US knows this - and Hamas resells the aid items or uses them for its own troops. https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/if-the-us-government-treats-its-allies
I think there is something to be said about the targeting of Russia’s energy industry. I have seen some reporting that the gas pipeline that exports gas to EU nations may be the objective…
We all need to keep in mind the broader geostrategic context. NATO and the USA are failing to fully equip Ukraine's ground forces with modern gear.
The only logical explanation, other than Putin's nuclear bluffs, is fear of a ground attack on NATO territory.
Ukraine just demonstrated that Moscow is fully committed: it can't even adequately protect an area where it has supposedly been building up its own forces for a cross-border attack.
Every NATO country should take this as a sign that it's safe to push modern equipment to Ukraine's brigades as fast as possible. Standing NATO force commitments and its overall posture are much too conservative. Time for the excuses to end.
Paul, we can only hope so. Sometimes it is best to commit the sin and ask for forgiveness later. Jake Sullivan is in his unnecessary nuclear bunker having an escalation meltdown.
Have a good look at this - I think it's what the Ukrainians are actually after in Kursk Oblast - https://ombreolivier.substack.com/p/four-key-russian-rail-junctions "There are four rail nodes in increasing distance from Ukraine that, if taken out, will completely screw Russian supply to the war zone. They are Kursk (or any where south of it), Stary Ospol, Liski and somewhere around Volgograd. See this openrailwaymap and the following screenshot of it.
The key locations (from L to R): Kursk, Stary Ospol, Liski and Volgograd
These nodes are key because they are junctions on the electrified main lines to the border area and especially (in the case of the last two) to Rostov-on-Don which Russia uses for all it’s logistics into the southern section of the war. The first two take out logistics for Kursk/Kharkiv area and one major access to Belgorod (for Northern Luhansk) respectively. Russia relies on its electrified lines as it has far more electrical locomotives than diesel. ..." and so forth.
I wonder whether getting the opportunity to inflict casualties on conscripts (who I believe are not being used on Ukrainian soil any more) is one of Ukraine's objectives?
Putin messaging the US to rein in Ukraine is the problem. The US has listened. Putin should get a busy signal or a secretary telling him the President Will speak to him after he finishes his conversation with NATO members organizing more armed shipments to Ukraine.
Is there any way that further us support can happen before the election?
This seems like an operation long in planning. Not only does AFU avoid defensive positions, but now it gives AFU some optionality. They could drive to Kursk and take the Kursk NPP, or could turn south and get directly behind the main Russian forces in Donbas and attack them without worrying about fortified defensive positions. Or it could be to damage GLC and C2 so badly and then slowly withdraw.
Fact is we do not known for sure which means AFU has great op sec and we will be relying on what Russian Telegram channels and OSINT sources reveal.
At least the Ukrainians don't have General Surovikin's defensive trench lines to deal with, which have hamstrung its attempts in Donetsk and Zaporhizhzhia Oblasts. The only thing that stops the Russians in the south is the destruction of transport across the Kerch Strait - both by bridge and ferry.
When will/how can that bridge be rendered inoperative? It seems critical to close that chapter.
As soon as the US will allow them to do so, it seems - but the Biden Administration seems to prefer the status quo - Putin not losing, thus staying in power - and Hamas and Hezbollah staying in power in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively - and that means, amongst other things that the Kerch Strait Bridge stays in place. The US has become a very dangerous ally, and that will cause it to lose a great deal of persuasive power as to the international scene - who at this time would believe in "security guarantees" from the US? I'll bet that Ukraine sorely regrets giving up its nuclear weapons for what have turned out to be evanescent guarantees of security - and no other ex-Soviet nation would dream of accepting any such guarantees from the US. And the interference by the US in Ukraine's prosecution of the war - "keeping Ukraine in the fight" rather than giving Ukraine what it needs to win - seems more like a population reduction scheme, at times.
> the Biden Administration seems to prefer … Hamas and Hezbollah staying in power in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively
This is so out of left field, I can only conclude that it must be a talking point on Fox News.
You'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see that that's precisely the Administration plan for Gaza - the US is halting or slow-walking weapons sales to Israel in order to force Israel into negotiating with Hamas - the same tactic that the US has been using in Ukraine since nearly the outset - "defend your territory" is not the same as "win the war". And the "humanitarian aid" the US is sending in to Gaza goes right into the hands of Hamas - and the US knows this - and Hamas resells the aid items or uses them for its own troops. https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/if-the-us-government-treats-its-allies
I think there is something to be said about the targeting of Russia’s energy industry. I have seen some reporting that the gas pipeline that exports gas to EU nations may be the objective…
We all need to keep in mind the broader geostrategic context. NATO and the USA are failing to fully equip Ukraine's ground forces with modern gear.
The only logical explanation, other than Putin's nuclear bluffs, is fear of a ground attack on NATO territory.
Ukraine just demonstrated that Moscow is fully committed: it can't even adequately protect an area where it has supposedly been building up its own forces for a cross-border attack.
Every NATO country should take this as a sign that it's safe to push modern equipment to Ukraine's brigades as fast as possible. Standing NATO force commitments and its overall posture are much too conservative. Time for the excuses to end.
> This operation might force the U.S. administration to reconsider the restrictions it has placed on the use of some of its weapons in this war.
I wonder if part of the goal is to shape the narrative going into the U.S. election.
Paul, we can only hope so. Sometimes it is best to commit the sin and ask for forgiveness later. Jake Sullivan is in his unnecessary nuclear bunker having an escalation meltdown.
Have a good look at this - I think it's what the Ukrainians are actually after in Kursk Oblast - https://ombreolivier.substack.com/p/four-key-russian-rail-junctions "There are four rail nodes in increasing distance from Ukraine that, if taken out, will completely screw Russian supply to the war zone. They are Kursk (or any where south of it), Stary Ospol, Liski and somewhere around Volgograd. See this openrailwaymap and the following screenshot of it.
The key locations (from L to R): Kursk, Stary Ospol, Liski and Volgograd
These nodes are key because they are junctions on the electrified main lines to the border area and especially (in the case of the last two) to Rostov-on-Don which Russia uses for all it’s logistics into the southern section of the war. The first two take out logistics for Kursk/Kharkiv area and one major access to Belgorod (for Northern Luhansk) respectively. Russia relies on its electrified lines as it has far more electrical locomotives than diesel. ..." and so forth.
I wonder whether getting the opportunity to inflict casualties on conscripts (who I believe are not being used on Ukrainian soil any more) is one of Ukraine's objectives?