Ukraine Invasion: Part 26

[MagicFox]

Here we are, on top of our rock

Ukrainian Air Force might still have the capability to hit some targets in Russia and some of the recently delivered artillery can probably do the same....

If the report is correct I wonder if the US concern is that the Ukrainians might just be able to use such systems to hit targets in Russia with a bit too much ease for somebody's liking?

It came at just the right time for him, didn't it?

I'm no lover of Boris but I do often find myself thinking that he really did pick a term to serve didn't he (Brexit, Covid-19, Ukraine, cost of living etc.) Poor soul only ever wanted to be an ex-Prime Minister, didn't think he'd have to actually do anything.

Yeah, I'll hear many things against Boris but I really don't think he was happy about this invasion. It actually had the potential to (and still could) bite him on the arse.

I think he has handled the spin surrounding the Ukraine crisis well. The actual crisis is another matter. Lots of promises of big numbers with pound signs but how much is actually delivered? At one point Liz Truss was forced to admit that only a quarter of promised aid had in fact been sent. And as for their treatment of Ukrainian refugees ...

No I absolutely agree, my point was more that there is a public perception that he's handled it well (see smiling pictures with Zelensky etc.) and that as such an article about the ongoing crisis provides a decent deflection from the shit show that is party-gate.

I'm a swing voter and not a Boris fan but up till now he has been very good at handling yet another crisis during his term.
COVID / nil point. Ukraine/ 7 point's. Far better than some of our European leader's!

I don't give credit to BJ for how he's handled Ukraine as there was cross-party support.

He was/is desperate to appear Churchillian (as opposed to be Churchillian ) which calls into doubt his true motivation (ie is he doing it because it's the right thing to do or because he wants to look good? )

Ironically, there is one player in this tragedy who is being Churchillian - a true leader, motivating the people, inspiring others, making strategic decisions, surrounding himself with a high calibre team - and that's Zelenskyy.

If the report is correct I wonder if the US concern is that the Ukrainians might just be able to use such systems to hit targets in Russia with a bit too much ease for somebody's liking?

I'm wondering that too - and that the Ukrainians might. There were some attacks towards Russia not long ago. Attacks onto (genuine) Russian soil might provoke a frothing rage in Putin that really does make things more fundamentally unstable.

Are these weapons long range enough to strike at Moscow?

I like to think the Ukrainians are too smart to strike directly at Russia. They've won the war on the world stage on the basis of being defenders against evil invaders. That is too valuable to lose.

I would have thought that if Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine from within Russian territory, then sending a precision missile over the border to take out the thing that fires the missiles (military lingo falling short here) is a valid military target.

Absolutely but they're walking a tightrope and they know it.

Bear with me because I'm going to let my emotional head talk for a moment and say I feel Ukraine is being asked to walk a moral high ground that is increasingly untenable.

For a moment, can you imagine if the UK had been invaded. Let's say Plymouth has been razed to the ground, Devon and Somerset are under occupation and they are working their way along the south coast towards capturing London. London is relatively safe but there has been genocide, mass rape and total destruction of the surrounding areas. Our women, men and children are living in basements for months on end. They are being raped, robbed and murdered. Our fathers, husbands and sons are fighting (after a 30 minute tutorial on how to fire a gun) and millions of us are sleeping in a stranger's home on the continent because our own houses are reduced to rubble. Our economy has halved, we can import or export very little, our health and education infrastructure is destroyed and there is little food or medicine. And all the time the free world, whilst standing fully behind us (and enjoying the associated fame and glory that comes with that) will only support us whilst we do not retaliate in kind. That we only defend and do not strike back. Taking a defensive stance only, when peace talks are making genuine headway, is right but when there is no peace to be had then it's fair game. To ask them to continue taking the bullet for us, when we are not prepared to take one for them, is quite frankly galling.

Hillsmakeyoustrong I agree with you, with my heart and head.

Isn't the phrase 'escalate to deescalate' a tactic that is used by every armed forces and often attributed to Russia's nuclear sabre rattling.

Allowing (to the extent it is in NATO's gift to allow) Ukraine to strike back at Russia where it hurts militarily and taking the risk of escalation by a so-called military superpower who has shown themselves to be a paper tiger and laughing stock is a risk worth taking for all the reasons you mentioned. Ukraine is being beaten to a pulp for Europe's security and we are saying hold on, don't strike back too hard. That is pathetic.

I can only speak for myself but it seems clear enough to me that it is in the entire world's interest for the war to end quickly otherwise millions will starve. Wondering why it is taking so long for the weapons which Ukraine has asked (such as the promised MLRS and HIMARS) to arrive.

Would have loved to have been a fly on various walls in Washington during discussions on the various rocket systems....

No idea if any of the higher specification rumoured system options that are not being delivered would have given the Ukrainians the ability to hit Moscow loaded with the right munition's.. that's one for @TargusEasting

Best guess/speculation I've read on Biden's decision is that for some reason (realpolitik, avoidance of escalation?) he doesn't want to introduce new US built systems into theatre that gave the Ukrainians a significant new long range offensive capability.

It's probably seen as OK for Ukraine to, for example, fire whatever long range Tochka missiles they have left into Russia on the basis that the missile is already in both the Ukrainian and Russian arsenal, and I'm guessing the US supplying shorter range rocket systems (? Basic MLRS) might be seen as being reasonable because Russia already has similar.

All the above is my best guess- speculation.

@notimagain , I think you would be right. It is depressing though.

Extract from WSJ article today on Russian Forces Push into Pivotal City in Eastern Ukraine:

"President Biden, arriving back at the White House Monday morning from Delaware, was asked whether the U.S. was planning to send long-range rocket systems to Ukraine.

“We are not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that strike into Russia,” Mr. Biden said, without elaborating.

The Wall Street Journal on Friday reported that the Biden administration is expected to announce as early as this week it will send to Ukraine long-range rocket systems Kyiv says are necessary to fight off the Russian onslaught in the Donbas region.

Among the weapons the U.S. is expected to provide are multiple launch rocket systems, or MLRS, which are mobile artillery launchers that can fire dozens of miles farther than any current system in Ukraine’s control.

After the president’s remarks Monday, an administration official said that sending MLRS to Ukraine is under consideration for battlefield use, but that “nothing is on the table with long-range strike capabilities” that could hit targets in Russia."

<weep>

@blueshoes I have heard of this tactic. I think I come from an existential/primal place when I peel back what we are really asking of Ukrainians, human to human. I feel we are saying please will you die on this hill (so we don't have to) and can you do so magnanimously.

I know what I'd reply.

My worry is that we will indeed have to if Russia and China can't be managed. Two great powers looking to assert and dominate. Russia now, China in the next 10-20 years? The whole world has woken up to a new era. I read a phrase weeks ago now so can't remember where exactly but it's really stuck in my head. I think about it all the time. That we are no longer in a postwar phase but a pre-war phase. I hate it. It's true that Ukraine is fighting for us, for the world order, right now. Sorry, I'm having my weekly misanthropic wine-fuelled rant (strictly for Mondays).

Gideon Rachman (FT): 'The West must hold its nerve on Ukraine'

www.ft.com/content/5d415345-e9cf-4138-80d3-debdf9396d72

@MagicFox
(Makes note to avoid this thread on a Monday evening)

Sorry @katem98! Ignore me :-)

@MagicFox Just kidding, don't be. I love your posts and find them helpful

Feel the same about yours! You often say what I'm thinking

It really hurts, but I do believe that if Putin and his ilk believe that Russia was being attacked then this war would become far more unstable and then, perhaps, all options would be on the table.

The price of not going there is that more people die in Ukraine. But while Putin has stepped into Ukrainian territory, if Ukraine steps back or NATO then the stakes become much higher.

You can't rely on tired, exhausted, desperate and not always well trained troops who have seen their homes and families destroyed -not- to take that step and restrain themselves from firing into Russia because it might take out some of their artillery. But if you step back from the local picture to see the overall picture - I can see why Biden made this decision.