who cares, **** Ukraine. Of course Jim Crow joe wants to send those racist ****s on planes to America. Disguisting
The facts aren't good enough, so they need to find ways to spin the facts to tell their narrative in order to be relevant and sell papers. Otherwise their readers will find someone other bubble chamber press to get their news.
full article at link What Foreign Fighters Are Seeing in Ukraine - The Atlantic Ukraine’s Three-to-One Advantage It’s not technology or tactics that has given Ukrainian fighters their greatest edge. By Elliot Ackerman About the author: Elliot Ackerman is the author, most recently, of the novel Red Dress in Black and White and a co-author of the novel 2034. He is a former Marine and intelligence officer who served five tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few nights ago in Lviv, after an early dinner (restaurants shut at 8 p.m. because of curfew), I stepped into the elevator of my hotel. I was chatting with a colleague when a man in early middle age, dressed and equipped like a backpacker, thrust his hand into the closing door. “You guys American?” he asked. I told him we were, and as he reached for the elevator button, I couldn’t help but notice his dirty hands and the half-moons of filth beneath each fingernail. I also noticed his fleece. It had an eagle, a globe, and an anchor embossed on its left breast. “You a Marine?” I asked. He said he was (or had been—once a Marine, always a Marine), and I told him that I’d served in the Marines too. He introduced himself (he’s asked that I not use his name, so let’s just call him Jed), and we did a quick swap of bona fides, exchanging the names of the units in which we’d both served as infantrymen a decade ago. Jed asked if I knew where he could get a cup of coffee, or at least a cup of tea. He had, after a 10-hour journey, only just arrived from Kyiv. He was tired and cold, and everything was closed. .. First, Jed wanted to discuss anti-armor weapons, particularly the American-made Javelin and the British-made NLAW. The past month of fighting had demonstrated that the balance of lethality had shifted away from armor, and toward anti-armor weapons. Even the most advanced armor systems, such as the Russian T-90 series main battle tank, had proved vulnerable, their charred husks littering Ukrainian roadways. When I mentioned to Jed that I’d fought in Fallujah in 2004, he said that the tactics the Marine Corps used to take that city would never work today in Ukraine. In Fallujah, our infantry worked in close coordination with our premier tank, the M1A2 Abrams. On several occasions, I watched our tanks take direct hits from rocket-propelled grenades (typically older-generation RPG-7s) without so much as a stutter in their forward progress. Today, a Ukrainian defending Kyiv or any other city, armed with a Javelin or an NLAW, would destroy a similarly capable tank. If the costly main battle tank is the archetypal platform of an army (as is the case for Russia and NATO), then the archetypal platform of a navy (particularly America’s Navy) is the ultra-costly capital ship, such as an aircraft carrier. Just as modern anti-tank weapons have turned the tide for the outnumbered Ukrainian army, the latest generation of anti-ship missiles (both shore- and sea-based) could in the future—say, in a place like the South China Sea or the Strait of Hormuz—turn the tide for a seemingly outmatched navy. Since February 24, the Ukrainian military has convincingly displayed the superiority of an anti-platform-centric method of warfare. Or, as Jed put it, “In Afghanistan, I used to feel jealous of those tankers, buttoned up in all that armor. Not anymore.” This brought Jed to the second subject he wanted to discuss: Russian tactics and doctrine. He said he had spent much of the past few weeks in the trenches northwest of Kyiv. “The Russians have no imagination,” he said. “They would shell our positions, attack in large formations, and when their assaults failed, do it all over again. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians would raid the Russian lines in small groups night after night, wearing them down.” Jed’s observation echoed a conversation I’d had the day before with Andriy Zagorodnyuk. After Russia’s invasion of the Donbas in 2014, Zagorodnyuk oversaw a number of reforms to the Ukrainian military that are now bearing fruit, chief among them changes in Ukraine’s military doctrine; then, from 2019 to 2020, he served as minister of defense. Russian doctrine relies on centralized command and control, while mission-style command and control—as the name suggests—relies on the individual initiative of every soldier, from the private to the general, not only to understand the mission but then to use their initiative to adapt to the exigencies of a chaotic and ever-changing battlefield in order to accomplish that mission. Although the Russian military has modernized under Vladimir Putin, it has never embraced the decentralized mission-style command-and-control structure that is the hallmark of NATO militaries, and that the Ukrainians have since adopted. “The Russians don’t empower their soldiers,” Zagorodnyuk explained. “They tell their soldiers to go from Point A to Point B, and only when they get to Point B will they be told where to go next, and junior soldiers are rarely told the reason they are performing any task. This centralized command and control can work, but only when events go according to plan. When the plan doesn’t hold together, their centralized method collapses. No one can adapt, and you get things like 40-mile-long traffic jams outside Kyiv.” The individual Russian soldier’s lack of knowledge corresponded with a story Jed told me, one that drove home the consequences of this lack of knowledge on the part of individual Russian soldiers. During a failed night assault on his trench, a group of Russian soldiers got lost in the nearby woods. “Eventually, they started calling out,” he said. “I couldn’t help it; I felt bad. They had no idea where to go.” When I asked what happened to them, he returned a grim look. Instead of recounting that part of the story, he described the advantage Ukrainians enjoy in night-vision technology. When I told him I’d heard the Ukrainians didn’t have many sets of night-vision goggles, he said that was true, and that they did need more. “But we’ve got Javelins. Everyone’s talking about the Javelins as an anti-tank weapon, but people forget that the Javelins also have a CLU.” The CLU, or command launch unit, is a highly capable thermal optic that can operate independent of the missile system. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we would often carry at least one Javelin on missions, not because we expected to encounter any al-Qaeda tanks, but because the CLU was such an effective tool. We’d use it to watch road intersections and make sure no one was laying down IEDs. The Javelin has a range in excess of a mile, and the CLU is effective at that distance and beyond. I asked Jed at what ranges they were engaging the Russians. “Typically, the Ukrainians would wait and ambush them pretty close.” When I asked how close, he answered, “Sometimes scary close.” He described one Ukrainian, a soldier he and a few other English speakers had nicknamed “Maniac” because of the risks he’d take engaging Russian armor. “Maniac was the nicest guy, totally mild-mannered. Then in a fight, the guy turned into a psycho, brave as hell. And then after a fight, he’d go right back to being this nice, mild-mannered guy.” I wasn’t in a position to verify anything Jed told me, but he showed me a video he’d taken of himself in a trench, and based on that and details he provided about his time in the Marines, his story seemed credible. The longer we talked, the more the conversation veered away from the tangible, technical variables of Ukraine’s military capacity and toward the psychology of Ukraine’s military. Napoleon, who fought many battles in this part of the world, observed that “the moral is to the physical as three is to one.” I was thinking of this maxim as Jed and I finished our tea. In Ukraine—at least in this first chapter of the war—Napoleon’s words have held true, proving in many ways decisive. In my earlier conversation with Zagorodnyuk, as he and I went through the many reforms and technologies that had given the Ukrainian military its edge, he was quick to point out the one variable he believed trumped all others. “Our motivation—it is the most important factor, more important than anything. We’re fighting for the lives of our families, for our people, and for our homes. The Russians don’t have any of that, and there’s nowhere they can go to get it.”
Typically, the longer sanctions last, the more the people suffer and lose power. I hope there is some miracle of a peaceful transfer.
I think more likely more countries will join NATO from this. I expect Finland and Sweden will consider NATO membership in the following years especially if Russia can force an agreement for Ukrainian neutrality on the battlefield.
There is a vigorous right now in Finland over NATO membership. In polling the amount of Fins that want to join NATO has increased since Russia invaded Ukraine and the PM supports NATO membership. The President of Finland though is against it and warning of Russian cyber attacks and border encroachment from Russia. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...y-join-NATO-fearing-Russia-cyber-attacks.html Finland hints it may not dare apply to join NATO for fear of angering Russia and prompting cyber attacks President Sauli Niinisto said Russians could 'disrupt' nation if Finland tries to join Helsinki could face mass cyber attacks and border violations, he warned Russia has warned Finland not to provoke 'detrimental military consequences' The two countries share an 830-mile border and fought a vicious land war in 1940 - but Stalin's men got bogged down and failed costly, months-long invasion Finland could face 'disruptive' Russian behaviour including cyber hacks and potential border violations if it tries to join NATO, the country's president warned. President Sauli Niinisto said Moscow could breach Finnish territory and launch cyber attacks should Helsinki ask to enter the Western military alliance. Niinisto said: 'We don’t even know all the possibilities for hybrid influencing that someone may invent. The entire world of information technology is vulnerable', according to AP. The president made the striking comments as a record majority of Finns now support joining NATO, despite Russian warnings against the idea. Public support for Finland's entry was 62% earlier this month, up from 53% at the start of Russia's war on Ukraine. Last month Russian foreign affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Finland and Sweden risk 'military consequences' if they launch a NATO accession bid. She said: 'Finland and Sweden should not base their security on damaging the security of other countries. 'Their accession to NATO can have detrimental consequences and some military and political consequences.' If Finland were to join the alliance, it would become the sixth member of the alliance to share a land border Russia - further escalating Kremlin fears of NATO 'encirclement'. Yet any potential NATO entry bid by Helsinki won't be the president's decision. Although Finland's president is technically in charge of foreign policy, the role is now mostly constitutional. Prime minister Sanna Marin - who has championed a tougher sanctions regime against Moscow and said Finland's position toward NATO 'will change' as a result of the war in Ukraine - is far likelier to lead any possible Finnish bid. Marin's tough view towards the Kremlin has made her one of the West's most hardline leaders. She has repeatedly refused to rule out a Finnish application to join the alliance - unlike Ukrainian president Zelensky. What Finland and Ukraine do have in common are testy relations with Russia: Finns are proud of the defence of their country against Stalin's aggression in the Winter War of 1939 and 1940. Facing up to 750,000 invading Soviet troops in -43C temperatures, a Finnish army half that size held off a Russian invasion for three months until it agreed a ceasefire.
Crowdsourcing war… small but another sign that this is beyond just traditional gov https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/th...rmor-drones-and-helmetsto-ukraine-11648385356 A grass-roots effort, funded by donations from around the world, is quickly responding to the military’s needs, from pickup trucks to thermal-vision scopes By James Marson and Ian Lovett The Wall Street Journal Mar. 27, 2022 8:49 am ET
As in the Iraq War the official point of view is largely unanimously available from Fox to the NYT. That time it was wrong. For those who want a different point of view. https://original.antiwar.com/Rick_S...-predicted-russia-might-retaliate-in-ukraine/
The PoV here is the US is at least somewhat responsible for Russia's aggression, which is NOT new and has been reported in multiple media articles, talking heads, and of course, Russia and China have been pushing that same angle. The article referenced listed several options and their impacts on both Russia and the US. With respect to Ukraine, only one option (which was already ongoing due to the 2014 Russia attack on Ukraine) was mentioned: Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.
A "Peace Settlement"... with RUSSIA???... The author here is really taking the naivety of his readers here for a ride. It's Ukraine's country, and their decision to give up land or not. Why would any Ukraine support giving up 1/4 or 1/3 of their country to the Russians who invaded and murdered thousands all for the sake of Putin's grievances?? It's so easy for this Ayan Rand or Rand Paul or whoever this guy follows to say "Ukrainians should just settle for peace. Like what the hell does that even mean? And who is this guy to say that this is what Ukrainians even want?? President Zelensky was elected with like 80% of the vote. His opposition politically has rallied around Zelensky in recent weeks in an effort to fully unify the country. Reports on the ground are that even in the Russian speaking part of Ukraine, Russia is still bombing the crap out of civilian targets, and the Ukranians in those regions are NOT greeting them as liberators. Again... if this guy's theory is accurate, and there are parts of Ukraine that do want to join Russia after Putin just obliterated their lives and killed their neighbors and family members... I have yet to see it. This is the grand theory here laid out in this article. It makes assumptions about what is best for Ukraine, and what Ukrainians should want, and in the end.... is a big whopping piece of anti American sentiment. When in reality it has little to do with the US, and everything to do with Ukrainians wanting to join the EU... .NOT THE US. NATO is something that Zelensky has shown openess to not joining which sounds crazy for his survival plans given that we are seeing EXACTLY WHY he would want to join. However he has brought up some unique ideas to create another defense alliance with some of the other neighboring Baltic states that aren't part of NATO or Russia as a way of having a buffer alliance between NATO and Russia. Also... ooohhhh poor Russia.... said nobody. Russia has more land mass than any other country in the world and if it would allow it's super talented citizens to create industry that could join the rest in the world in trade without war mongering, and lies, Russia could be a thriving player again on the world stage. The problem with Russia is they are constantly threatening to wage war, and use brutal tactics as short cuts to power. Is the US an innocent player on the world stage... hell no... but this whole "Ohhh poor Russia.... US bad" narrative being spun here is pure garbage. Russia deserves to be put in their place where we can do it until they decide to operate like as a non-threat to peace and stability globally. With all due respect @glynch I know you want to wear anti-interventionalism as a badge of honor, and I know it's cool right now to be like "what about iraq" but you gotta shake off some of the naivety. We all are anti-interventionalists here for the most part. I wish people would stop throwing stuff like this at us like we are all a bunch of Kim Jung Saber Rattlers. The reporting on the ground in Ukraine is not telling us EVERYTHING about Ukraine, but it's telling us way more than the Atlas Shrugged fanboy page here is making it seem.
