Russia invades Ukraine {2022-02-24} (Part 2)

[Elmer_J.Fudd]

I think the intended sarcasm was lost in translation.

[Cervaise]

I don’t trust that out of context. He could have been responding to a question about the sanctions imposed by other nations, and giving a sarcastic description of himself and Putin as harmful and toxic in the opinion of those weak, flabby Westerners. The joke at the end fits, too: in an argument about which of the two is seen as the bigger villain by the West, they agreed they were both equally villainous.

I mean, I’m just speculating here, but there’s no way Lukashenko says that, so bluntly, the way it’s excerpted, without some sort of explanatory framework.

[aceplace57]

My bs meter pinged too. But, it’s how most of the Western world views Putin and Lukashenko.

[aceplace57]

I found the concern about providing missiles for Patriots very interesting. Ukraine is going through munitions stocks quickly.

This article points out that NATO has to commit to ramping up munitions production. Factories have to retool. That’s expensive and it can’t be done overnight.

Ukraine needs to be careful using expensive missiles to shoot down cheap drones. The Patriot missiles have to be used for serious threats.

Providing US Patriot missiles could transform Ukraine’s defences. But it’s a...

In some respects this problem of supply reflects the wider challenge in munitions supplies to Ukraine. Ukrainian armed forces’ consumption of ammunition significantly exceeds the available supply, and their artillery is wearing out barrels faster than they can be replaced. The hollowing out of Nato’s defence industries has left the alliance in poor shape to support sustained high-intensity operations. In the case of systems such as Patriot, the challenge is greater because it takes much longer to manufacture precision weapons such as air defence missiles than it does to make unguided artillery rounds.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should prompt the regeneration of Nato’s industrial base – investing in munitions factories and critical machine tooling – but this will take time. In the interval before increased supply is available, and with the current pressure on demand, there is also a risk that by providing key systems to Ukraine, the west does so at the expense of its deterrence posture towards China over its threats to Taiwan’s independence.

[Si_Amigo]

@aceplace57

Ukraine needs to be careful using expensive missiles to shoot down cheap drones. The Patriot missiles have to be used for serious threats.

Cheap drones can cause as much damage as expensive missiles. Weren’t the Patriots sent to Israel to shoot down Iraq Scud missiles that were not even accurate?

Russia and China armed North Korea and Vietnam, if Putin wants to return to the cold war and proxy wars this is the price he pays. He always has the option to back down.

[FlikTheBlue]

@Si_Amigo

Russia and China armed North Korea and Vietnam, if Putin wants to return to the cold war and proxy wars this is the price he pays. He always has the option to back down.

Is it still a proxy war when North Korea and Iran are arming Russia instead of the other way around?

[aceplace57]

I would expect there will be a limit on the number of patriot missiles that can be provided.

I know Russia has been sending unarmed missiles (mixed in with live warheads) as decoys to use up Ukraine’s supply. That was discussed here a few weeks ago.

4 million $ a pop.

It’s hard to fully grasp the cost of a modern war. It’s so far beyond any amount a person would have. Even Elon Musk couldn’t fund this war for very long.

Cite What the Patriot missile system can do for Ukraine - CBS News

Over the years the Patriot system and missiles have been continually modified. The current interceptor missile for the Patriot system costs approximately $4 million per round and the launchers cost about $10 million each, CSIS reported in its July missile defense report. At that price, it’s not cost effective or optimal to use the Patriot to shoot down the far smaller and dramatically cheaper Iranian drones that Russia has been buying and using in Ukraine.

[eschereal]

@Newsweek

“You know the two of us are co-aggressors, the most harmful and toxic people on this planet,” Lukashenko said with Putin sitting at his side. “We have only one argument—who is bigger. Vladimir Vladimirovich says I am, I’m starting to think he is, so we decided together. The same. That’s all.”

They do not really offer any additional context either. It is difficult to guess what kind of context could make that not seem ridiculous. Unless it was one of those deepfake thingies.

[aceplace57]

ABC Evening news just reported Zelenskyy will be in Washington tomorrow. (Dec 21).

How long is a flight from Poland to Washington?

Biden, Zelenskyy to meet in DC before Ukrainian president addresses Congress:...

[Elmer_J.Fudd]

Just in time. I doubt he’d get an invitation from the new Speaker of the House next month.

[aceplace57]

Congress needs to pass the defense bill with patriots for Ukraine.

Meeting Zelenskyy should help.

[The_Stainless_Steel_Rat]

@aceplace57

How long is a flight from Poland to Washington?

Non-stop it’s about 10 hours or so.

[aceplace57]

That’s not too bad a trip. Zelenskyy may have gotten a ride on a US military plane. That would provide the best security.

[Ssounder]

I’m going to speculate here:
IMO the Russian troop build-up in Belarus is a Putin strategy to secure the land based route to Kaliningrad, not to storm Kiev.
Kaliningrad is very vulnerable now. It’s surrounded by countries that are hostile to Russia (Lithuania, Latvia and Poland).
Transport and commerce could be cut off easily, especially if Minsk doesn’t respond.
Putin’s visit today might have been to shore up the defense of Kaliningrad.
Putin has to know by now that he’s losing the war.
Losing Kaliningrad would be worse than losing Ukraine.

[Tamerlane]

@Ssounder

Kaliningrad is very vulnerable now. It’s surrounded by countries that are hostile to Russia (Lithuania, Latvia and Poland).

All of which are NATO and none of which are going to attack Russia unless attacked first. It shouldn’t be any sort of priority at all, unless Putin is insanely paranoid. Which, granted, he likely is.

Still, Kaliningrad is save as houses unless Putin goes completely insane and starts trying to bomb Vilnius or something.

[tofor]

@aceplace57

The current interceptor missile for the Patriot system costs approximately $4 million per round and the launchers cost about $10 million each, CSIS reported in its July missile defense report.

I can easily believe that the cost of the Patriot program divided by the number of rounds ever created could be $4m each. I find it hard to believe that the marginal cost of each additional missile is $4m.

[aceplace57]

ISW is making an unusually strong policy statement. I completely agree. I do question whether the politicians and policymakers in Washington are paying any attention.

Zelenskyy has to deliver the greatest speech of his career in Washington. Drive home the message that Russian plans have always been to eliminate Ukraine as a independent state.

Cite Target Russia’s Capability, Not Its Intent | Institute for the Study of War

US policy should recognize that the Kremlin’s intent regarding Ukraine is maximalist, inflexible, and will not change in the foreseeable future. The West should stop expending resources trying to change a reality it does not control and focus on what it can shape plenty: denying Russia’s ability to wage a war against Ukraine.

Negotiations, ceasefires, and peace deals are not off-ramps but rather on-ramps for the Kremlin to renew its attack on Ukraine in the future under conditions that advantage Russia. They are means to the same ends—full control of Ukraine and eradication of Ukraine’s statehood and identity.

The vital US interest in preventing future Russian attacks on Ukraine can be best achieved by denying Russia the capability to carry out those attacks. The immediate requirement is preserving Ukraine’s momentum on the battlefield—accounting for a possible renewed offensive from Russia this winter—to ensure that Ukraine secures the most advantageous position possible. The West should also eliminate Russia’s ability to attack Ukraine in the future, including by denying Russia a military foothold in Ukraine from which to launch attacks, resisting “peace” deals that the Kremlin will use to buy time to reconstitute its forces, not empowering the Russian defense industrial complex with access to Western markets, and committing to building Ukraine’s defensive capabilities over the long term.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intent toward Ukraine has not changed and likely never will. Putin’s intent will most likely outlast him—by design. Russia will use any territory it keeps in Ukraine to stage future attacks.

Putin’s goals in Ukraine always exceeded countering NATO or forcing Ukraine into neutrality. Despite Western assumptions, Putin has never been content with the territorial gains he made in Ukraine in 2014 because control of Ukraine, not its territory, has been his goal. The Kremlin has made clear in word and action over the past 20 years that it will accept nothing less than full control over Ukraine.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@aceplace57

Zelenskyy may have gotten a ride on a US military plane. That would provide the best security

Yes. I doubt he’s flying United.

[Seanette]

Occurs to me to wonder: does he speak English? He could give the speech of the century, but if a translator isn’t up to the task…

[What_Exit]

Yes:

Ukraine War: Zelenskyy calls for protests in rare speech in English

Also as an actor, he probably would study the speech phonetically in this case to improve his delivery.