This is my complaint exactly. The message that the West is sending the world right now is, “If you have nukes, you can act with near-impunity. You can commit war crimes, do almost anything, and we’ll just flinch and shy away anytime you threaten the red button.”
Sure it does, but they have more ways to heat. Fires in fireplaces, more access to blankets, sleeping bags, stoves, more clothing options, drinking hot beverages, sleeping in more suitably-enclosed, larger places like basements, bedrooms, etc.
Russians in the convoy vehicles can only just continue sleeping and conserve fuel.
Thanks, I didn’t remember seeing that before. The only Chechens I remember being mentioned were anti-Putin and were fighting with Ukraine.
And maybe finally a real reason for the differing letters. If true, the Chechens may have a larger force in country than advertised.
Unfortunately, with their nuclear arsenal they will still be relevant. We already know they were crap on their maintenance on them during the cold war, let’s hope that hasn’t changed.
I wonder how long the west can keep up the sanctions once they start feeling the after effects at home. People are already pissing and moaning about gas prices.
That’s what I’ve read also. Yet more lack of planning on the part of Russia. Nothing like carelessly taking over a nuke plant with no plan what to do next.
I’m sure they will, but that’s another dead end. With countries denying them passage or landing rights, they are pretty limited to where they can go. It seems another example of Putin just wanting to be a dick.
The media really had nothing to do with starting this, did they? I thought Poland publicly announced the offer.
Yep, no amount of shuffling aircraft around is going to matter. Putin doesn’t need a smoking gun, all he needs is to believe that Ukraine has new aircraft.
Good one!
Oh ye of little faith. Europe is a great starting point for world wars. No reason this can’t be another one. Heck, you may be fighting it in the future without even leaving your country.
Let’s hope so. It would be ironic if Russia was defeated in this war by Old Man Winter. Not a whole bunch of WWII troops left to share their tricks for surviving brutal winter combat.
Just have to add that I’m amazed that convoy seems to be mostly untouched for all this time. It’s location must be the world’s worst kept secret. Which leads me to believe that the Ukrainians have no feasible way to cause any real damage to it.
Man, this thread moves fast!
It’s by far my most successful thread, but I just fell into it. About six hours after the invasion had started I went to the SD to see what was up and there was nothing, so I started the thread.
First, thank you for posting about the bombing of a children’s hospital. It didn’t really get responses, but it’s an important development.
To answer your question, I’m not convinced that even an attack by Russia on a NATO country would be the red line. Little Red Vlady-Pants is waving his nukes, and everyone is terrified at the possibility of provoking him. This feeds his megalomania, and he becomes even more outraged by any perceived aggression. Since he’s become increasingly paranoid, he perceives aggression in just about anything.
There is no red line.
And – like the Russians – I never expected the ferocity of response I got 
This is an unusually strong statement by US secretary of state, Antony Blinken. He sounds fed up. This was at a joint press conference with
British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.
You did a good job, this thread is great for info if you can keep up with it. It was already a couple of days old when I started reading, I think.
I’m beginning to wonder a bit myself. I’m not really sure NATO is up for a full out war. At this point, I’m not really sure how many nations would even keep up sanctions if Putin called a ceasefire and said he was keeping parts of Ukraine.
This is where I’m at … at the moment (ATM).
Besides, the ‘red line’ implies a set of clearly defined, and – likely – even more clearly communicated consequences for crossing that red line.
And it’s hard for me to imagine that we’re there. Or that we should be there.
This thing moves in a large number of dimensions. Short of ‘nuclear weapons’ being a tacit red line, it’s a near impossibility to describe and quantify a specific metric that serves as that red line.
Is it a number of Ukrainian civilian deaths ? By whose count ?
% land mass of populated areas bombed ?
Ratio of Russian troops to regular/irregular Ukrainian fighters ?
X # of million refugees having left Ukraine ?
Again: I’m glad I’m not the one with his finger on the proverbial trigger here. This shit is ridiculously complex and the consequences for both action and inaction can be nigh unto unfathomable.
And we may be trying to psych out a mad man. I truly don’t know. But to the degree that we are, the calculus becomes infinitely more complex and the strategy more difficult to formulate.
All I have … ATM … is to keep watching and reacting to conditions on the ground [ETA: which includes getting all the arms to Ukraine that we can get away with] … without making any apocalyptic pronouncements that either paint us into a corner or poke the (Russian) bear ‘gratuitously’ (I can’t think of a better word).
I hope a lot of talks are quietly happening with China. If we can peal them off of supporting Putin, he should be done pretty quickly.
But it is time for NATO to be wargaming a first strike on Russia & Putin.
I agree, unfortunately. I don’t know what to do about it, but that’s where we appear to be.
I don’t dispute this, at all. It’s absolutely nauseating that we’re in this position. I wish that Putin was paying the price for it, instead of Ukraine and the rest of us.
Sneaker Net – aka portable data Sneakernet - Wikipedia
Given that the convoy seems to be totally stuck it might just be considered a lower priority. Better to use finite resources to counter those forces that constitute a current threat.
Hasn’t that pretty much been the case for many decades?
A journalist spoke to an EU intel official:
In short, if this is correct, Russia probably cannot win convetionally as long as the EU, US, and allies continue to resupply Ukrainian forces from the west.
Bloodymir Sputum.
Pentagon spokesman just reiterated on TV that they’re not going to transfer fighter jets right now, because it is likely to be seen as escalatory by the Russians.
That seems like a decision from weakness rather from strength, IMO, but maybe they have intelligence that suggests this. The only explanation I can gather is that fighter jets can be used for attack, while the other weapons provided so far, like anti tank and anti air missiles, are much more useful as defensive weapons than attack weapons.
Hell, that’s pretty much the whole point of having nukes. When you’re a nuclear power, people pretty much stop telling you what to do. So long as you never get so bad that someone else decides to nuke you first, you’re golden.
Sure, this sucks, but it’s also reality.
The next tweet quotes the EU intelligence official with an estimate of 7k-9k Russians killed. That seems wildly optimistic to me. I suspect they heard a “total casualties” estimate (killed and wounded) and misinterpreted it.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, nothing would make me happier than to know the Ukrainians are stomping the Russians flat. I just don’t think that figure is plausible.
Even if the figure on Russian casualties is inflated, we know that their equipment losses have been substantial, and I believe that the overall conclusion here is correct. The caveat is that it remains true only as long as supply lines into Ukraine from the west remain intact. Putin may very well try to attack and disrupt resupply activity, but such interference should be treated as a direct attack on NATO.