Russia/US-- Europe

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60894142

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656603/Russian-soldier-surrenders-TANK-return-7-500-Ukrainian-citizenship.html

[Crafty_Dog]

Russia’s war against Ukraine is failing. But serious dangers remain. Among them are “peace” terms that, like those Russia imposed on past victims of its aggression, would set up Ukraine—and others—for bloodshed in the years to come. Vladimir Putin, who didn’t bargain on a tough fight, is likely to propose terms that look like concessions but are calculated to hobble Ukraine and threaten security far beyond its borders. Ukrainians won’t accept such an endgame, and other countries should not try to get them to do so.

Russia’s recent wars illustrate what Mr. Putin likely has in mind for Ukraine. In Georgia, which he invaded in 2008; in Moldova, where Russian troops never left; and in Azerbaijan, where Russia supported Armenian separatists in the early 1990s, fighting subsided but ambiguity followed. Russia’s proxies—a mix of puppets and Kremlin thugs—proceeded to dig in behind semiofficial armistice lines. With Russia’s support, fiefs under these proxies in some cases have lasted to the present day.

Contributing to their persistence are the cease-fire terms. Neither continuing war nor cementing peace, the terms deliberately debilitated the countries Russia had attacked by entrenching its proxies on each country’s territory and stipulating “peace processes” that Moscow used not to pursue peace, but to prevent the countries from stabilizing or escaping Russia’s shadow.

Hints from the Kremlin suggest that this is how Mr. Putin hopes to gain lasting ground from his botched invasion. Mr. Putin insists that Ukraine accept the permanent loss of the three pieces of the country that Russia already has taken—the Crimean Peninsula and the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk.


That might sound like a clean-cut outcome, but it wouldn’t be. If Russia wins the terms it demands, then other parts of Ukraine will fall under the shadow of contrived secessions, sham independence movements and whatever other forms of subversion Mr. Putin might improvise. Brutal client outposts, fake referendums and forced population exchanges likely won’t be limited to two or three parts of Ukraine. Even if Mr. Putin makes a show of restraint at first, he would have convenient launchpads from which to do more harm. Under the endgame he likely is pursuing, Ukraine can expect no better a fate than Georgia, Moldova or Azerbaijan, which endured coercion by Russia for decades.

The West tolerated Russia’s strategy of creating and sustaining “frozen conflicts” against its smaller neighbors. This signaled to Mr. Putin in 2014 that it was safe to seize Crimea and conjure the rebel groups through which Russia has ruled Donetsk and Luhansk and menaced Ukraine. Tolerating such an outcome in Ukraine would be a mistake.

The risks for the security of Europe are clear. Ukraine is larger than earlier victims of Russia’s aggression and post-armistice intrigues. It borders four countries—Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania—in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and sets an example for the three NATO countries the U.S.S.R. once directly ruled—Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Permanent ambiguity and destabilization in Ukraine aren’t acceptable.

The horrors that Russia is inflicting on civilians in Ukraine add urgency to the search for peace. Ukraine might reasonably consider concessions on the timing or terms of joining NATO or the European Union. But concessions that give Russia permanent leverage over Ukraine will supply no peace. They will only set the stage for future war, and on the terms Mr. Putin prefers.

President Volodymyr Zelensky, affirming that Ukraine won’t accept ultimatums, sees the danger of accepting Mr. Putin’s terms. If the world wants peace and a secure Europe, then it shouldn’t impose a settlement on Ukraine that ignores lessons from places where Russia got the endgames it demanded.

Mr. Grant served as senior adviser for strategic planning in the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, 2019-21. He is author of “Aggression Against Ukraine: Territory, Responsibility, and International Law.”

[DougMacG]

Regarding Russia 'regime change':  [G M]  "Russia isn’t the Soviet Union. We aren’t the shining city on the hill."

Russia wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union and we had a 50-50 election decided, perhaps wrongly, by less than the margin of fraud. 

Biden was not supposed to say regime change because that is escalating, we want Putin to have a nice, safe off ramp and Russia Putin has nukes.

The discussion was ended by spokespeople, Blinken and others quickly walking that back instantly.  I saw the "Ambassador to NATO" on FNS this Sunday am say "That is not the policy." 

That of course begs the question, who is in charge of US policy?  If you believe in the singular chief executive, commander in chief, and if he or she says it, isn't that the policy?

Back to the original point, [yes, America needs regime change too]  Russia needs regime change.  Their elections aren't fair [what do ours have to do with that point, credibility?  We need work on ours too and regime change as well, but our transitions in power have been regular, frequent and election and constitution-based.] 

This President of Russia is leading an invasion of a neighbor, disrupting a peace, violating sovereignty, killing people, blowing up hospitals, schools, homes, apartment buildings and fuel supplies.  We oppose that.  Why can't we say aloud we want the Russian people to choose new leadership and get rid of this monster?

['But Doug, they have nuclear weapons and we aren't so perfect.']

Therefore, we can't speak, ever, unless it supports the Russian regime?  Like the nothing but suck-up Olympic media coverage in China?  I disagree.

The leader of the free world should be able to say from any podium that the great people of Russia deserve better leadership, that Taiwan is a country, and the Chinese people deserve free and fair elections - even if ours aren't so perfect.

I get it that the timing here is lousy when we are trying to give him an offramp from this invasion, but what kind of world are we in that the 'leader of the free world' can't speak truth to the world?  Then by default Putin or Xi is the leader of the free world.  They decide what we can say and when. 

Others say, "Orwell's 1984 was not a how to book", and I would add, we are not on the side of the censors.

[G M]

"Russia wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union and we had a 50-50 election decided, perhaps wrongly, by less than the margin of fraud. "

No, Russia wants to defend from the fake and gay NATO.

Back to the original point, [yes, America needs regime change too]  Russia needs regime change.  Their elections aren't fair [what do ours have to do with that point, credibility?  We need work on ours too and regime change as well, but our transitions in power have been regular, frequent and election and constitution-based.] 

Not relevant to the 3rd world banana republic that formerly was known as the United States of America.

Regarding Russia 'regime change':  [G M]  "Russia isn’t the Soviet Union. We aren’t the shining city on the hill."

Russia wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union and we had a 50-50 election decided, perhaps wrongly, by less than the margin of fraud. 

Biden was not supposed to say regime change because that is escalating, we want Putin to have a nice, safe off ramp and Russia Putin has nukes.

The discussion was ended by spokespeople, Blinken and others quickly walking that back instantly.  I saw the "Ambassador to NATO" on FNS this Sunday am say "That is not the policy." 

That of course begs the question, who is in charge of US policy?  If you believe in the singular chief executive, commander in chief, and if he or she says it, isn't that the policy?

Back to the original point, [yes, America needs regime change too]  Russia needs regime change.  Their elections aren't fair [what do ours have to do with that point, credibility?  We need work on ours too and regime change as well, but our transitions in power have been regular, frequent and election and constitution-based.] 

This President of Russia is leading an invasion of a neighbor, disrupting a peace, violating sovereignty, killing people, blowing up hospitals, schools, homes, apartment buildings and fuel supplies.  We oppose that.  Why can't we say aloud we want the Russian people to choose new leadership and get rid of this monster?

['But Doug, they have nuclear weapons and we aren't so perfect.']

Therefore, we can't speak, ever, unless it supports the Russian regime?  Like the nothing but suck-up Olympic media coverage in China?  I disagree.

The leader of the free world should be able to say from any podium that the great people of Russia deserve better leadership, that Taiwan is a country, and the Chinese people deserve free and fair elections - even if ours aren't so perfect.

I get it that the timing here is lousy when we are trying to give him an offramp from this invasion, but what kind of world are we in that the 'leader of the free world' can't speak truth to the world?  Then by default Putin or Xi is the leader of the free world.  They decide what we can say and when. 

Others say, "Orwell's 1984 was not a how to book", and I would add, we are not on the side of the censors.

[Crafty_Dog]

Russia’s War With Ukraine Unifies Europe
The conflict positions Germany to be the military and economic powerhouse of the EU.

By Walter Russell Mead
Follow
March 28, 2022 6:29 pm ET


Vladimir Putin hoped to break up the European status quo with his attack on Ukraine. Increasingly, it appears that the chief consequence will be to reinforce it. President Biden may have gaffed his way across Europe last week, but Mr. Putin’s unhinged behavior has removed any doubts European policy makers may have had about the value of the trans-Atlantic alliance. Worse for Russia, Mr. Putin’s war is making Germany more powerful, more activist and more Atlanticist, a combination likely to support American power and undercut Russian influence in Europe for many years to come.

To describe Germany as a winner in Mr. Putin’s war against Ukraine would go too far. The war upended the assumptions on which German energy and security policy has long rested and forced Germany to make harsh decisions it preferred to avoid. Angela Merkel’s Germany dreamed that its companies could prosper indefinitely while a great green energy transition rippled painlessly through an ever-democratizing, ever-disarming world. Thanks to the war, German business is reassessing its relations with China as well as Russia. The military plans spending increases, and energy policy is shifting from “climate first” to “security first” to reduce dependence on Russian imports.

The consequences of these changes for Germany’s place in Europe and Europe’s role in the world will be profound. Assuming Berlin follows through with its pledge to raise defense spending to 2% of gross domestic product, Germany is on course to become the military as well as economic powerhouse of the European Union. France will remain the only nuclear-armed EU member and will likely remain better placed to engage outside the EU than Germany, but Berlin’s growing conventional military power will inevitably tip the balance further toward Germany in the internal politics of the EU.

There is more. Managing a massive refugee program, supporting Ukraine economically in the wake of a devastating war, and building up the strength of frontline states are generational tasks that will engage European policy makers and soak up European economic resources for years. The EU expansion process had ground to a halt in recent years as some member countries fretted over the cost of including new members and others worried that a growing membership could make it harder to reach timely decisions and limit the prospects for a deeper and stronger union. Those concerns remain, but the need to promote economic and political stability on the EU’s eastern flank will likely make the case for expansion harder to resist as more EU money flows east.


All this makes Germany’s role as the EU’s central powerbroker—balancing the conflicting agendas of the Frugal North, the Endangered East and the Indebted South—more crucial to Europe’s future than ever. This will likely be good news for American strategists who have long hesitated between two scenarios for Europe’s future. On one hand, almost everyone in the world of American foreign policy wants Europe to become stronger militarily, as that would help stabilize the region while reducing the cost to the U.S. of European security. On the other hand, a Europe so powerful that it would no longer need American protection might become a political and economic rival in ways that Americans would not always welcome. The German awakening suggests that we are about to see a Europe that is both stronger and less Gaullist than most thought possible before Mr. Putin’s invasion.

Germany’s attitudes about European independence and American power are complex. Germans do not always see the world as Americans do, and the election of Donald Trump significantly reinforced German skepticism about American reliability and strategic competence. But strong trans-Atlantic ties help solidify Germany’s place in Europe. The American military presence in Europe calms countries like Poland that might otherwise fear a rearming Germany even as the NATO security guarantee provides much more confidence than EU security guarantees alone ever could.

Germany won’t, however, turn its back on Brussels or Paris. For both economic and security reasons, Germany needs the EU, and the commitment to a deep relationship with France remains embedded in German political culture and strategic thought. Berlin will deepen defense cooperation with Paris even as it bolsters its Atlantic ties. Presumably one aspect of this will be that much of its new defense budget ultimately will involve joint ventures with French and other European weapons makers.

Mr. Putin wanted a weaker Europe, increasingly separated from the U.S. It looks as if he’s going to get exactly the opposite. Mr. Putin’s war, so far at least, looks set to promote the emergence of a Europe that is militarily stronger and more deeply engaged with the U.S. than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

[Crafty_Dog]

March 30, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Poland: Germany’s Indispensable Partner
Berlin is likely to push for the release of EU funds to Warsaw in light of the war in Ukraine.
By: Francesco Casarotto
More than a month into the war in Ukraine, the conflict is unsurprisingly putting mounting pressure on Europe. Most obviously, pre-war supply chain issues have mixed with the economic fallout from the invasion to send energy prices skyward, and sanctions have forced European firms to find alternative partners. The arrival of millions of Ukrainian refugees is also straining states’ asylum systems. Despite these enormous challenges, the most significant result of the war thus far is that it has revived NATO and reunited the European Union around Russophobia. Among the chief beneficiaries of this development is Germany. And to preserve the bloc’s newfound unity, Berlin is on the front line, willing to show greater flexibility toward its EU partners.

One example involves the rule of law question. Namely, anonymous EU officials said recently that the bloc will likely hold off for now on applying the rule-of-law conditionality mechanism, which links disbursement of EU funds to member states’ respect for democratic principles as defined by Brussels. This marks an apparent shift in the bloc’s pre-war stance, which seemed to be leaning toward withholding funds from states like Poland and Hungary. (Separately, Brussels is already withholding from Warsaw and Budapest funds from the EU’s pandemic recovery program over similar concerns.) Even before the war, Berlin was one of the louder voices calling for compromise, and now it points to the need to prioritize unity in the face of unprecedented challenges. Germany is especially concerned with relations with Poland given that state’s significant role as a buffer between Germany and Russia. Ultimately, German pressure will likely lead the EU to drop the threats to suspend funds and to show greater flexibility toward Poland and Hungary.

Background: Whose Rules and Whose Laws?

The European Union is the most ambitious experiment in economic union in modern history. Importantly, it also aspires toward a form of political union. Over time, its leaders gave themselves the goal of forming an “ever closer union” based on liberal democracy, the rule of law and a free market economy – the so-called Copenhagen criteria. Especially in light of challenges to democracy in recent years, Brussels sees itself as a champion of democracy and human rights.

The problem is that the 27 member states have different notions of liberal democracy and the rule of law, and tensions between EU authorities and national leaders often arise over these disagreements that touch on core issues of national sovereignty. National leaders are reluctant to compromise or cede powers to a regional body they cannot control, especially since governments get their mandate from their voters. Moreover, in the case of rule of law, national governments have little incentive to bend to the EU’s will. With the exception of potential fines – which the bloc often lacks the political will or legal framework to implement – Brussels has no significant, credible tools with which to sanction states that it believes violate rule-of-law standards.

However, in January 2021, the EU introduced the rule-of-law conditionality regulation, which enables the bloc to take steps including the suspension of EU payments to member states if rule-of-law violations jeopardize the utility and scope of the funds. Poland and Hungary strongly opposed the mechanism, which implicitly targeted their governments; both are at loggerheads with Brussels – over judicial independence and media freedom in Warsaw’s case, and over minority rights and corruption in Budapest’s case. In fact, the EU executive is already withholding from the two states money from the bloc’s pandemic recovery fund.

Primary Beneficiaries of EU's Recovery Fund
(click to enlarge)

Pragmatism Prevails

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, however, the European Commission is reportedly planning to unlock recovery funds for Poland and possibly Hungary, marking a transition away from previous rhetoric about safeguarding the rule of law in the bloc. The driving force behind this change is obviously the Ukraine conflict and the subsequent need to avoid divisions between member states. Despite opposition from several lawmakers from the European Parliament, who contend that the EU has a moral duty to enforce respect for the rule of law, leniency is likely to prevail. Simply put, pragmatism above ideals.

At the center of this is Germany, the de facto leader of Europe. Before the war, economic and social pressures related to COVID-19 were tearing at the fabric of the EU. This was particularly problematic for Germany, which has a critical need to keep Europe, its most important trade market, from fragmenting. What’s more, prior to the war there were questions about Berlin’s fitness to lead, especially on economic policy. The war in Ukraine, then, is an opportunity for Germany to reinforce the bloc’s cohesion and regain some of its credibility. As an added benefit, blame for Europe’s economic woes can be shifted to Russia and away from Brussels’ or Berlin’s management of the pandemic response.

Separately, the renewed threat of Russian revanchism has highlighted to Germany the need for a strong and friendly Poland to buffer it from Russia. Lying on the flat North European Plain, with no geographical barriers between it and Moscow, Berlin’s geographical vulnerabilities have always been a concern for its leaders. Before the war, Germany was the most reluctant European state to sanction Russia or to send weapons to Ukraine. This was mainly due to Germany’s dependence on Russian energy. Barely a week before the war began, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said no European security framework should be made without or against Russia.

North European Plain
(click to enlarge)

Now, the German position on Russia has completely reversed. It has supported most of the sanctions against Russia and announced plans to drastically increase its defense budget. Just as Berlin’s friendly attitude toward Moscow became a liability once the bombs started falling, so did its tough stance against Warsaw. Being tough on Poland risks strengthening anti-EU forces in Poland, which to date still make up a minority of the population.

Finally, Poland is on the front lines of the refugee effort. Germany is well aware of the implications of another refugee crisis on the EU’s cohesion, so even if other states are open to accepting refugees now, the more Poland can absorb the better. Warsaw recently said the expense of hosting the refugees would likely be around 24 billion euros ($27 billion), which is almost exactly what the country was due to receive in the form of grants from the bloc’s pandemic fund. Releasing the funds might help Poland better manage the situation and reduce Ukrainians’ incentives to continue moving west.

Ukrainian Refugee Destinations, as of March 27, 2022
(click to enlarge)

Conclusion

There may be other Western European holdouts, but Germany will work hard to convince the European Commission to release the funds to Poland. Maintaining a strong and allied Poland – and, to a lesser extent, Hungary – is a security imperative for Germany. Keeping the EU united is an economic imperative. Germany will act to preserve those two interests.

Almost everything Berlin has done since the start of the war points toward preserving the integrity of the European Union: sanctioning Russia, sending arms to Ukraine and even halting the certification process for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. In doing so, Germany is showing a renewed will to lead the bloc, even if it comes at costs it was previously unwilling to pay.

[Crafty_Dog]

Problems viewing? View as a web page
The D Brief
March 30, 2022   
         
Russia's military is still attacking Ukrainian cities even as negotiations continue in Turkey. Some of that shelling is hitting the capital of Kyiv, where Russia claimed it would "drastically reduce" its hostilities, according to remarks Monday from Kremlin officials in Moscow.

"A nearly endless rumble of artillery audible in central Kyiv today—at times loud enough to startle birds to take fight," U.S. Air Force veteran Nolan Peterson reported on Twitter on Wednesday from the capital. "Clearly there has been no let up in fighting on the city's periphery," he added.

Chernihiv is another city Russia claimed to be departing soon as it allegedly shifted its efforts to invasion's offensives in the south and the east of Ukraine. Chernihiv's mayor told CNN Wednesday morning (afternoon local time) that the city is under "colossal attack," and more than a dozen civilians have been taken to the hospital from those ongoing attacks. Reuters and the Associated Press have more.

News: Russia has launched several hypersonic missiles at Ukraine, America's top military commander in Europe told senators with the Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

"There have been multiple launches. Most of them have been directed at military targets," said Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters of the U.S. military's European Command. As far as why, Wolters told lawmakers, "I think it was to demonstrate the capability and attempt to put fear in the hearts of the enemy. And I don't think they were successful." After all, as our colleague Patrick Tucker reported Tuesday, "Hypersonic missiles are designed to thwart the world's most sophisticated air defenses, so it's unclear why Russia is using them against the Ukrainian military, which doesn't have the sort of defenses that would merit the use of an advanced, experimental, and very expensive weapon." More, here.

Brought to you by AWS Marketplace

How to build a successful zero trust strategy

What does zero trust really mean—especially for cloud access? Join this webinar to discover all the elements of zero trust controls and technology and how to combine them into a best-practice architecture to build and protect your cloud.

Register now

Wolters is on the Hill again today for another hearing, this time before the House Armed Services Committee. He's joined by the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, Celeste Wallander. That one started at 10 a.m. ET. Catch it live via HASC, here.

German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht is at the Pentagon this morning for a meeting with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Lambrecht arrived about an hour after sunrise, at 8 a.m. ET.

New: German officials are asking citizens to begin conserving their natural gas usage, since the country may have little choice but to rely on Russian sources until at least 2024, the Associated Press reports from Berlin and Warsaw. "We are in a situation where, I have to say this clearly, every kilowatt hour of energy saved helps," Economy Minister Robert Habeck said Wednesday. He also said he thinks Germany might be able to cut its reliance on Russian oil and coal as early as the end of this year.

Poland says it will stop using Russian coal possibly as soon as May. And Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said Tuesday he expects his country to stop using Russian oil by the end of December. Meanwhile, "Poland is expanding an [liquid natural gas] terminal to receive deliveries from Qatar, the U.S., Norway, and other exporters," AP reports. And "A new Baltic pipeline bringing gas from Norway is expected to open by the end of the year." More, here.

Updated economic outlook for Russia: Things are improving slightly for ordinary Russians, but the country's overall forecast is still very dim, according to Elina Ribakova of the Center for a New American Security. "Russia's domestic banking system is gradually stabilizing," she tweeted Tuesday, with illustrative data from the Bank of Russia. "Severe bank runs triggered by the war and sanctions appear to have moderated," she said.

That could mean the Kremlin doesn't have that much money to be flexible. Or, as Ribakova put it, "Russian banks barely survived the bank runs and don't have cash sloshing around to pay for military spending. Especially if [an] oil embargo gets implemented."

A second opinion: "Sanctions against Russia have been unprecedented in speed, the scale of targets, and international cooperation," tweeted Eddie Fishman, also of CNAS, on Tuesday. "But they are NOT comprehensive. They remain a 7/10 or 8/10 in intensity, not a 10/10." He explains what more can be done—using charts, tables and graphs—here.

Four European countries booted more than 40 Russian diplomats and officials Tuesday over allegations they were spying or conducting influence operations on behalf of the Kremlin. The Belgians expelled 21; the Dutch kicked out another 17; Ireland booted four; and the Czech Republic said it expelled one as well. North Macedonia booted another five on Monday for similar reasons.

100-plus and counting: Recall that Poland kicked out 45 Russian diplomats last week; and Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia collectively expelled another 20 the week before that, bringing the latest totals to more than 110 Russian expulsions since Putin's Ukraine invasion first began. 

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.statecraft.co.in/article/russia-shuts-down-gas-supply-via-yamal-europe-pipeline?fbclid=IwAR3XyjEUhl-mzC1bn9QFvWSmQA_3DiFbcpNuNCB4bbzIEgNhn0FUt3Q9deA

[Crafty_Dog]

HT for GM

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/german-retailers-increase-food-prices-20-50-monday

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarians-vote-orbans-12-year-rule-tight-ballot-overshadowed-by-ukraine-war-2022-04-03/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily-briefing


Also see!

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/will-viktor-orban-bring-down-house-davos-built?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=584

What do we think of Orban's relationship with Putin and reliance on Russian nat-gas?   BTW in this article note the issue of Central Asian natgas as an alternative to west Russian natgas.  A few years back I repeatedly drew attention to this variable.

[G M]

It’s utterly unacceptable that Muslim rape gangs aren’t allowed to ravage the women of Hungary! Why are they so special? It’s obviously racism! Leaders who act in the interest of their citizens need to be removed from power!

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarians-vote-orbans-12-year-rule-tight-ballot-overshadowed-by-ukraine-war-2022-04-03/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily-briefing


Also see!

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/will-viktor-orban-bring-down-house-davos-built?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=584

What do we think of Orban's relationship with Putin and reliance on Russian nat-gas?   BTW in this article note the issue of Central Asian natgas as an alternative to west Russian natgas.  A few years back I repeatedly drew attention to this variable.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://theintercept.com/2022/04/01/russia-ukraine-proxy-war-washington-diplomacy/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter

[Crafty_Dog]

EASTERN EUROPE

Favoring Putin, populists win in Hungary, Serbia

BY JUSTIN SPIKE AND JOVANA GEC ASSOCIATED PRESS BUDAPEST, HUNGARY | After two nationalist European strongmen won overwhelming victories in elections on Sunday, one of the first foreign leaders to congratulate both was not from a neighboring country or a regional ally. It was Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The parliamentary elections in Hungary and Serbia both brought landslide wins for the two countries’ longtime, pro-Putin leaders — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic.

Their victories on Sunday highlighted an underlying discord in attitudes among European nations toward the autocracies of Russia and China. As those powers seek to exert greater influence on the continent and beyond, conservative populists such as Mr. Orban and Mr. Vucic have aimed to emulate the autocratic touch through their own style of governance in the heart of Europe.

Mr. Orban’s right-wing Fidesz party won more than 53% of the vote, shocking both pollsters and a Western-looking coalition of more liberal opposition parties which had appealed to voters to bring an end to Mr. Orban’s 12 years of increasingly autocratic rule and stronger ties with Moscow and Beijing.

In Serbia, Mr. Vucic cruised into an outright victory with the nearest opposition candidate trailing by some 40 percentage points. It was the first time that a presidential candidate won a second mandate without a runoff vote.

“I managed something no one else has done before me,” Mr. Vucic said in a victory speech. “It wasn’t even close.”

The results — which cemented the power of two leaders who have been accused of undermining democratic norms — underscored an accelerating drift away from the liberal values and internationalist vision of European Union leaders in Brussels among Hungarian and Serbian voters. Russia’s war in Ukraine played an outsized role in the campaigns in both countries, and analysts say the conflict helped to mobilize support for the incumbents.

Serbia’s largely pro-Russian electorate shuns groups identifi ed with pro-Western policies, while Mr. Orban’s reputation as Mr. Putin’s best advocate in the EU has led his supporters to view Russia as a crucial partner.

Formally on the path to EU accession, Serbia has seen a rise in pro-Russian sentiment under Mr. Vucic and mounting skepticism and mistrust of the EU, even as the country’s main financial inflows come from the bloc.

Mr. Vucic’s government has supported the U.N. resolution condemning the attack on Ukraine, but he has refused to join the sanctions against Moscow.

“Vucic has created this atmosphere of huge adoration for Russia and hypocrisy toward the EU,” Biljana Stojkovic, the presidential candidate of a green-left coalition said. “I don’t think he has understood the importance of [the war in Ukraine] and the geopolitical changes.”

Mr. Orban, while begrudgingly voting for most EU sanctions against Russia, has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons or allow for their transfer across the Hungarian- Ukrainian border. He has also fought intensely against sanctions being imposed on Russian energy imports — on which Hungary is deeply dependent, drawing the scorn of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

In a victory speech Sunday, Mr. Orban singled out Mr. Zelenskyy as part of the “overwhelming force” that he said his party had struggled against in the election — “the left at home, the international left all around, the Brussels bureaucrats, the [billionaire George] Soros’ empire with all its money, the international mainstream media, and in the end, even the Ukrainian president.”

Andras Biro-Nagy, a researcher and director of the Policy Solutions think tank in Budapest, said that Mr. Orban and his “media empire” won the war of narratives over the war in Ukraine.

“There was a clash of narratives between the East vs. West narrative which was used by the opposition campaign, and the security and peace versus war narrative created by Orban,” Biro-Nagy said. “It seems that Orban’s narrative which appeals to the Hungarian society’s craving for security and stability and peace won this time.”

A survey by Hungarian pollster Publicus in March showed that only 44% of Fidesz supporters considered Russia the aggressor in the war in Ukraine.

[Crafty_Dog]

third

April 5, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
How the Ukraine War Will Likely End
By: George Friedman
As we consider how the war in Ukraine will end, we must first understand how it began. Russia invaded for geostrategic reasons – having Ukraine as a buffer state safeguards Moscow from invasion from the west – and for economic reasons, which have often gone overlooked. The transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation wasn’t exactly lucrative. It may have increased total wealth, but Russia remains a poor country. Its gross domestic product ranks just behind South Korea's, a respectable placement but hardly where a superpower should be. And in terms of per capita GDP, Russia ranks 85th, nestled between Bulgaria and Malaysia.

Economic statistics rarely tell the whole story, of course, but in Russia’s case they fairly accurately present a country that is poorer than it appears, masked superficially by a top layer of the superrich elite. Life in major cities like St. Petersburg and Moscow is luxurious for the wealthy and bearable for the rest. Life in the countryside is something else entirely.

Individual regimes can’t be solely blamed for Russian poverty. The size of the nation, and the difficulties in areas such as transport associated with its size, makes Russia difficult to govern. From the time of the czars, it has been the state rather than shared economic prosperity that has kept Russia together. Often this has been achieved through the security services, which are tasked with maintaining state power, not with building an economy. It’s little wonder that the country that boasted the Okhrana also produced a president who cut his teeth in the KGB. Rightly or wrongly, Russia’s size and inefficiency tend to demand a strong hand.

This has created an expectation that the state will be strong even if the people are poor. There was pride in the czars and in Stalin – the so-called “man of steel.” But for a ruler to govern Russia, they must demonstrate strength. The intellectuals in Russia speak of democracy and human rights. The people want protection against invaders from without and against impoverishing chaos from within.

Over the years, President Vladimir Putin has made various gestures at improving Russia, but he learned in the KGB that without a strong hand Russia is ungovernable. And he knew that there are two types of strength: The kind that makes other countries tremble, and the kind that keeps homegrown “enemies” in check.

From Belarus to Kazakhstan, Putin has tried, in the only way he sees fit, to rebuild Russia brick by brick. Ukraine is the biggest brick. He believes he had to take it. Russia was becoming restless. Dissidents were being arrested, and foreigners were dismissing it. Strategy and power forced him to act. But the problem was that his instrument of action, the Russian army, was as ineffective as Russia itself. This had not always been the case. As brutal as military service could be, there was a certain pride in it.

The Russian army today seems disorganized, unimaginative and uninspired. The deployment of force, preparation of logistics and command of the battlefields on all levels simply wasn’t there. This was a different sort of Russian army, a bureaucratized one, one more afraid of the czar than of losing to the enemy. Putin demanded a rapid defeat of the enemy. But to rule by strength, you must see clearly and strike decisively at the center of gravity.

Ukraine had no center of gravity, only a widely dispersed light infantry force that provided no single point to destroy. Although that may seem like guerrilla warfare, it is not, and Ukraine surprised its enemy with resilience and unpredictability. The attacker can respond with brutal attacks on the population, but that leaves the Ukrainians with no choice but to fight. The Russian army wasn’t designed for this war, hadn’t planned for this war and has only brutal counter-civilian action to take. And Putin will take it.

The problem, then, is that Putin cannot stop, nor can he reach an agreement with Ukraine that he will keep. Every deal – except for surrender by the enemy – is a revelation of weakness on the part of a weak country and a weak ruler. The only alternatives are ineffective action because the force he sent to war was the wrong force from a country that didn’t have the right one.

He can reach a genuine cease-fire, but if he does, he’s finished. Not being able to defeat the Ukrainians, and held in contempt by others, destroys the myth of his power. Continuing the war endlessly reveals the same thing. As this goes on, Putin’s primary task is to pretend that the defeat is not happening because anything less than victory is a defeat. Every agreement must end in betrayal, and as it happens with guerrillas, they get stronger the longer the war drags out.

A crucial question is whether Russia has strategic reserves. The army has been in the field for over a month, in weather that is still cold, at the end of a logistical line that is problematic. It has been fighting a highly motivated, mobile light infantry force familiar with the terrain. It cannot go on indefinitely. Russia has to rotate its forces. Strategically, it must send more. Instead, it is executing a bloody withdrawal. You don’t fight for the same ground twice unless you have to.

This means that Putin’s war plan is shattered. The resistance has been effective and his troops need a relief he cannot provide. Putin will feint in other directions – perhaps in the Baltics or Moldova – but he lacks the force to fight on another front. He can’t sustain this war easily, especially in the face of NATO soldiers who have so far stayed out of the fray.

Even so, I cannot predict what a leader will do in the end. But for now, it’s clear to me that Putin will cling to power and blame everyone around him. But every day the war goes on, Putin gets weaker. Ukraine should not be able to resist, NATO should not be united, American economic warfare should not be so powerful. Putin is growing more desperate. He has mumbled about nuclear weapons, the sign of utmost desperation. But he knows he and anyone he may love will die in a nuclear exchange. Even if he is prepared to commit suicide rather than capitulate, he knows that the order to launch must go through several hands, and each of those hands knows that the counterstrike will kill their loved ones. Therein lies the weakness of nuclear war: Retaliating is one thing, initiating another. Putin trusts few people, and he doesn’t know how reliable anyone would be in this situation – nor what the Americans might do if they saw preparation for a Russian launch.

If Putin gives up his position, he is compromised, and perhaps lost. The buzzards are circling. So he must continue to fight until he is forced out and someone else not responsible for the disaster takes over and blames it all on Putin. I think that this can’t end until Putin is pulled from the game.

Obviously, I am moving here away from geopolitical analysis into the political. The former tries to minimize individual influence while the latter emphasizes it. That gives my forecast an inevitable imprecision. But given the situation on the ground, and given Russian internal dynamics, it does seem that all the forces coming to bear on Putin dictate a certain direction. The war will end, but the war is evolving in a way that creates unique pressures on the Russian political system, and, because of the nature of the system, that pressure pivots on Putin.

This is not the only outcome. Ukraine might collapse. Russia might collapse. The Russian army may devise a strategy to win the war. A settlement that is respected might be reached. All of these are possible, but I don’t see much movement in any of these directions. A political end is what I would bet on, with the Russians taking the short end of the stick. I wouldn’t have thought this on the first day of the war, but I think this is likely the shape of the last day.

[Crafty_Dog]

A ‘Win’ for Hungary’s Orban
He enjoys some measure of popular support if not a decisive mandate.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
April 4, 2022 6:40 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
99

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and members of the Fidesz party celebrate on stage at their election base in Budapest on April 3.
PHOTO: ATTILA KISBENEDEK/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

More Europeans and Americans purport to care about Hungarian politics than probably should, so Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s re-election Sunday will stir discussion, especially on the political right. Here’s a friendly reminder that whatever else this vote demonstrates, it isn’t the vanguard of a new Christian nationalist movement that can or will lead the West.

Mr. Orban cruised to his fourth term, winning 53% of the vote for his coalition and 135 out of 199 seats in the parliament, compared to 35% of the vote for the next largest opposition group. The result shows that Mr. Orban’s agenda suits some portion of the electorate. This is especially true of his approach to cultural issues, where his conservative views on sexual ethics may be closer to the European mainstream than his critics elsewhere in the European Union care to admit.

But Mr. Orban’s government also tilted the scale against the opposition to a heavy-handed degree. Opposition parties and candidates struggled to get an airing on state-owned television, and in other media that receive large advertising revenue from the government. The Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe, which monitors elections, notes that the government and state-linked firms dominate advertising spending.

Elements of the campaign resemble machine politics that would make Boss Tweed blush. This includes a pervasive mingling of government spending on public communication with Mr. Orban’s electioneering. Taxpayer-financed posters with Mr. Orban’s picture resembled campaign messages, the OSCE notes. Messages on utility bills about low energy prices dovetailed with a key Orban theme.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
The result is something less than unfettered Western European democracy, but more freedom than in Russia or other authoritarian states. The EU, with its threat of financial sanctions against Hungary, has if anything given Mr. Orban a political foil for his nationalism. He doesn’t seem to mind if China supplants the U.S. as a leading global power since Beijing doesn’t care how he governs.

Mr. Orban is a clever manipulator of nationalist, anti-immigration sentiment in a small European state. His soft-on-Putin views are cringe-worthy in the wake of Russian brutality in Ukraine. But they also mirror in substance what was Germany’s foreign policy until the Feb. 24 invasion.

Hungary matters because with Russia threatening NATO’s eastern flank and China, Iran and jihadists on the march, the Western Alliance needs a large measure of unity for common defense. The EU and NATO will have to make some accommodation to Mr. Orban’s government, however distasteful that may be. The bigger threats to world freedom and security are further east.

[Crafty_Dog]

fifth

Daily Memo: European States Expel Russian Diplomats
The move was a response to alleged atrocities in Bucha, Ukraine.
By: Geopolitical Futures
Expulsion. Several European countries, including Germany, France and Italy, announced they will expel dozens of Russian diplomats in response to the discovery of civilians killed in Bucha, Ukraine, following Russian forces’ retreat from the town. Some of the countries also cited national security concerns. Moscow vowed to respond in kind.

Diplomacy in Moscow. Foreign ministers of the Arab League countries met on Monday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow to help find a resolution to the Ukraine crisis. The Arab ministers later held talks with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in Poland.

Gazprom seizure. Germany seized control of the German subsidiary of Russia’s Gazprom on Monday, accusing the company of violating reporting requirements and saying the move was “necessary to ensure security of [natural gas] supply in Germany.” On Tuesday, Gazprom’s British-based subsidiary said it would consider cutting links with its parent company.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-russia-gazprom-rosneft-nationalization-natural-gas-oil-ukraine-war-2022-4

[Crafty_Dog]

Hope the Russkis don't have Javelins!

GPF:  A quarter-million tanks. Poland signed a $4.75 billion deal with the United States on Tuesday for the purchase of 250 M1A2 Abrams tanks. The first 28 tanks should be delivered by the end of this year. Poland’s defense minister said the deal would deter “a potential aggressor.”

[G M]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/meet-kornet-russia%E2%80%99s-killer-anti-tank-weapon-194159

Hope the Russkis don't have Javelins!

GPF:  A quarter-million tanks. Poland signed a $4.75 billion deal with the United States on Tuesday for the purchase of 250 M1A2 Abrams tanks. The first 28 tanks should be delivered by the end of this year. Poland’s defense minister said the deal would deter “a potential aggressor.”

[Crafty_Dog]

The Right’s Russia Temptation
Some in the America-first movement mistake Putin for a strong nationalist leader like Donald Trump.
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
April 10, 2022 2:59 pm ET


I served in the Trump administration and fiercely defended the former president. During his administration, no dictator dared do anything close to what Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine now. But the things some America-first conservatives are now saying about Mr. Putin alarm me.


I noticed this after I condemned Russia’s invasion in a group chat with Trump appointees. One replied with a Z, the pro-Russia war symbol. One made a vulgar suggestion that President Volodymyr Zelensky was crooked. Others supported Ukraine, and it was clear our group was splitting into two factions.

That split within the right has emerged publicly as well. “Putin has laid out what he wants in Ukraine—a decent starting point,” congressional candidate Joe Kent said March 31, speaking at what was styled an “emergency” conference called “Up From Chaos.” Mr. Kent, who is challenging Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R., Wash.) in a primary, called Mr. Putin’s demand that Ukraine cede Donetsk and Luhansk “very reasonable.” Helen Andrews, a senior editor for American Conservative magazine said, “Ukraine is a corrupt country. Come and get me.”

Also on March 31, Compact magazine released a declaration, signed by 33 people on both the right and left, including former Trump White House aide Michael Anton and journalist Glenn Greenwald. It calls for “de-escalation” and “good-faith” peace talks that acknowledge Russia’s “legitimate security needs” and demands that President Biden disavow “regime change” in Moscow.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
Other America-firsters have made comments that sound like Russian propaganda. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) tweeted that U.S. tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on “lethal aid to be given to possible Nazi militias that are torturing innocent people, especially young children and women.” Charlie Kirk, president of Turning Point USA, tweeted that “if you are mindlessly supporting Ukraine . . . you might be cheering for literal Nazis.”

Some of these arguments are made in earnest; others perhaps are mere efforts to be edgy. One might think they’re harmless, but they potentially influence millions of American conservatives, and Russian state media has republished some of them to push the lie that Ukraine is overrun by Nazis targeting Russian civilians. They also damage the credibility of the America-first movement.

Some of my former colleagues buy into Mr. Putin’s false narratives because they mistake him for a Russian Donald Trump—a strong nationalist leader who fights woke ideas. But the war against Ukraine hasn’t benefited Russians, and Mr. Putin is a ruthless dictator with contempt for human life, including the lives of Russians. The Russian opposition he represses is “liberal” not in the sense of being leftist but of favoring freedom. His opposition to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization isn’t antiglobalist but anti-Western and anti-American.

Still, that so many leading America-firsters are parroting the Kremlin’s narrative suggests the movement has taken a dangerous turn. The reasonable goal of reducing military adventurism has regressed toward extreme isolationism, producing a self-described antiwar movement that preaches peace while callously ignoring war crimes.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative journalist who has reported on Russian affairs. He served as a senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, 2017-21.

[G M]

"One made a vulgar suggestion that President Volodymyr Zelensky was crooked."

https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-reveal-offshore-holdings-of-ukrainian-president-and-his-inner-circle

The Right’s Russia Temptation
Some in the America-first movement mistake Putin for a strong nationalist leader like Donald Trump.
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
April 10, 2022 2:59 pm ET


I served in the Trump administration and fiercely defended the former president. During his administration, no dictator dared do anything close to what Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine now. But the things some America-first conservatives are now saying about Mr. Putin alarm me.


I noticed this after I condemned Russia’s invasion in a group chat with Trump appointees. One replied with a Z, the pro-Russia war symbol. One made a vulgar suggestion that President Volodymyr Zelensky was crooked. Others supported Ukraine, and it was clear our group was splitting into two factions.

That split within the right has emerged publicly as well. “Putin has laid out what he wants in Ukraine—a decent starting point,” congressional candidate Joe Kent said March 31, speaking at what was styled an “emergency” conference called “Up From Chaos.” Mr. Kent, who is challenging Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R., Wash.) in a primary, called Mr. Putin’s demand that Ukraine cede Donetsk and Luhansk “very reasonable.” Helen Andrews, a senior editor for American Conservative magazine said, “Ukraine is a corrupt country. Come and get me.”

Also on March 31, Compact magazine released a declaration, signed by 33 people on both the right and left, including former Trump White House aide Michael Anton and journalist Glenn Greenwald. It calls for “de-escalation” and “good-faith” peace talks that acknowledge Russia’s “legitimate security needs” and demands that President Biden disavow “regime change” in Moscow.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
Other America-firsters have made comments that sound like Russian propaganda. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) tweeted that U.S. tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on “lethal aid to be given to possible Nazi militias that are torturing innocent people, especially young children and women.” Charlie Kirk, president of Turning Point USA, tweeted that “if you are mindlessly supporting Ukraine . . . you might be cheering for literal Nazis.”

Some of these arguments are made in earnest; others perhaps are mere efforts to be edgy. One might think they’re harmless, but they potentially influence millions of American conservatives, and Russian state media has republished some of them to push the lie that Ukraine is overrun by Nazis targeting Russian civilians. They also damage the credibility of the America-first movement.

Some of my former colleagues buy into Mr. Putin’s false narratives because they mistake him for a Russian Donald Trump—a strong nationalist leader who fights woke ideas. But the war against Ukraine hasn’t benefited Russians, and Mr. Putin is a ruthless dictator with contempt for human life, including the lives of Russians. The Russian opposition he represses is “liberal” not in the sense of being leftist but of favoring freedom. His opposition to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization isn’t antiglobalist but anti-Western and anti-American.

Still, that so many leading America-firsters are parroting the Kremlin’s narrative suggests the movement has taken a dangerous turn. The reasonable goal of reducing military adventurism has regressed toward extreme isolationism, producing a self-described antiwar movement that preaches peace while callously ignoring war crimes.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative journalist who has reported on Russian affairs. He served as a senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, 2017-21.

[Crafty_Dog]

IIRC the rejoinder was "Given the realities of Ukraine, to have one's money out of reach of the government was the intelligent thing to do."

[Crafty_Dog]

second

Slovakia sent an S-300 air defense system to Ukraine late last week, (video here) and the U.S. military "repositioned" one of its Patriot missile systems, along with a crew of U.S. service members, to Slovakia in response. That repositioning "aligns perfectly with our previous efforts to bolster NATO's defensive capabilities and to demonstrate our collective security requirements under Article 5 of the NATO treaty," U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement Friday. The move also "complements the NATO multinational battlegroup in eastern Slovakia, which includes air defense elements from Germany and the Netherlands," he said.

By the way: China just discretely sent missiles to Russian ally Serbia over the weekend. Open-source intelligence analysts spotted the deliveries—using six Chinese Air Force Y-20 transport planes—and posted imagery on Twitter Saturday. The delivery reportedly involved medium-range HQ-22 surface-to-air missile systems the Serbian military agreed to buy in 2019, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said Saturday. The delivery will make Serbia "the first operator of the Chinese missiles in Europe," according to the Associated Press. Tiny bit more from AP, reporting separately Monday from Beijing, here.

[G M]

IIRC the rejoinder was "Given the realities of Ukraine, to have one's money out of reach of the government was the intelligent thing to do."

"It's just a stutter!"

 

From 10/21

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy

[Crafty_Dog]

He leads bravely with his ass very much on the line.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-delivered-missiles-to-serbia-over-nato-airspace_4396236.html?utm_source=China&utm_campaign=uschina-2022-04-12&utm_medium=email&est=75Ikih02APTw6urS24qc03F1yt%2Ffkn0ve5xtJ0XpmsBUmCYLYmKlLdYRC9kSk5qXaFdG

[Crafty_Dog]

third

April 12, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Time For Putin’s Hail Mary Pass
By: George Friedman

Alexander Dvornikov isn’t exactly a household name, but it could be soon. He’s the Russian general President Vladimir Putin has put in charge of the war in Ukraine after what can generously be described as a disappointing start for Moscow. Dvornikov is credited with saving the Russian campaign in Syria, and the Kremlin hopes he can replicate his successes in Europe.

In Syria, Dvornikov understood that Russia was fighting a diffused infantry force with deep ties to the populations of the areas they were fighting in, so he launched a war on those populations focusing his resources not on the fighters themselves but on their friends and families. He meant to terrify them and thus instill a deep desire to end the war. Put less clinically, Dvornikov carried out mass murder, a calculated measure intended to save Russian lives and to intimidate other populations into staying out of the fight. Putin appointed him because of his reputation and his ability to command and massacre.

Syria and Ukraine differ in one crucial way: Syrians had no external support to speak of. The Ukrainians have NATO. So far, NATO has been part of an economic war against Russia and a source of weapons for the Ukrainians. It has not crossed the line to direct, overt intervention on a major scale. Dvornikov could change that.

NATO members have made clear they would not intervene directly, but as the atrocities mount, so would the pressure to act. The publics of most NATO countries oppose intervention, but it only takes a few Buchas to change their attitudes. And the U.S. itself is never far away.

Appointing Dvornikov to save the day is a Hail Mary. But this misses the point. Even if Dvornikov’s brutality can somehow pacify Ukraine, it will convince the rest of the world to keep sanctions in place, thereby institutionalizing their crippling economic effects. Economic warfare is being waged by a massive global coalition. Russia was hardly economically robust before the war, but there are some claims that Russia’s gross domestic product is contracting by 50 percent. That may be overstated, but there is no question that things are bad. For Russia to “win” in Ukraine would not solve this problem. If anything, it could compound it.

With Dvornikov managing Ukraine, Russia must go from a single Hail Mary to a second larger one. The only way to both win in Ukraine and get free from the sanctions is to create a basis for negotiations and mutual concessions. To do that, Russia must have some basis on which to get the West to abandon its sanctions regime – that is, by having something to trade. Russia cannot impose equivalent sanctions, nor can it gin up public sympathy for Russia. This leaves it only one option: to threaten Western economies by threatening the trading system.

This requires a military solution. Russia has over 20 Kilo-class submarines, diesel-powered subs that lack the range and endurance of nuclear-powered submarines but are nonetheless able to carry both torpedoes and cruise missiles, which means they launch from a distance. There is a range of chokepoints that are critical to the West – the Denmark Strait, the Strait of Gibraltar and the Gulf of Mexico are just a few. A demonstration shot would shut down trade and send insurance rates surging, while navies try to determine the extent of the deployment and target. The goal of the Russians would be to demonstrate presence, break contact and evade. The uncertainty would threaten trade.

Of course, this would be the ultimate Hail Mary, and one I am writing about because it is for me a leading concern from any hostile nation that wants to improve its negotiating position with the U.S. (or any trading nation). In most cases, this is a dubious strategy. It is dubious here as well. Russia’s goal may be to win in Ukraine, but that won’t solve its fundamental problem. It can only get economic negotiations with leverage, and at the moment, it has little economic leverage. Its only possible solution is to turn this into a military lever. Given the power of the U.S. and NATO navies, this is a forlorn hope, but so is appointing Dvornikov. The good choices are evaporating.

I believe that Putin is, in the end, fighting for his political life, and that makes him open to the Hail Marys of the game. Since he will not go quietly, this is a risky and extreme choice. But he seems to be favoring those at the moment – perhaps with good reason.

[G M]

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/europe/2022/04/12/clinton-soros-anti-corruption-unit-head-in-ukraine-fired-admitted-on-tape-working-against-trump/

Very timely post!!!

Here is one of mine from FB in response to another post:

============================

Mostly agree, but I disagree on one major point.

To summarize my thinking:

America has what we call the Monroe Doctrine (for those of us not familiar with it, look it up) The MD is simple and primal: Don't Stand Too Close To Me-- hence the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We have insisted upon it, and we should respect the concern of others in this regard. In this context it is irrelevant what kind of a man Putin is. Just as we would not want Mexico in military alliance with Russia or China, Russia deserves similar respect for reasons of primal geopolitical principles.

Putin has made clear for some 18 years now that he regarded Ukraine into NATO as a red line violation of his MD space, yet Obama-Biden-Clinton-the State Dept (Nuland-Farkas-Vindman-et al)-the Pentagon have pushed in this direction with an incoherent mix of corruption and weakness (e.g. Sec State Hillary signing off of Russia acquiring 25% of American uranium as Bill grifted big bucks from Russia, while sending only MREs and blankets when Putin seized Crimea, Hunter's grifting operation in Ukraine to the corrupt benefit of his father while disabling American oil and NG energy and strengthening Russian energy etc etc etc)

(Also see a similar push for Georgia that Putin bitch slapped down with his invasion of Ossetia in 2008, also with geopolitical NG pipeline issues being part of the mix)

President Trump got in front of the momentum of this Deep State institutional freight train. He saw that:

Driving Russia into the arms of China would be a geopolitical error of catastrophic proportions AND that strength was required.

To this end he rebuilt American arms and their credibility-- no shame of the Biden exit from Afghanistan for him! Instead he killed Bagdaddy of Isis, Suleiman of Iran, killed 250 Russian Wagner mercenaries in Syria and sent 29 missiles up the ass of a Russian airfield in Syria when they chem attacked Syrian civilians.

HE MADE AMERICA AN ENERGY EXPORTER-- contrast the incoherence of the Dem Deep State on this that now finances Russia's attack!!!
Very much worth noting is how he got in Europe's face on this-- particularly Germany (which in effect in recent days has now admitted he was right) demanding that Germany and other NATO countries meet their commitments to NATO-- all to the howls of the Dems and their running dogs (mocking use of an old Russian communist term here) in the MSM.

It is no coincidence that Uke born Col. Vindman of the NSC (who was offered the Uke Defense Ministry!!!) was a major player in the first Trump impeachment in which he virtue signaled he came forward as a whistle blower because President Trump was violating American policy toward Russia!

The hubris of the Deep State mind revealed is stunning. The American PRESIDENT is the one who sets policy! and Trump ran precisely on finding a way of working with Russia!

And what was at the core of the Trump impeachment? His wanting to get at the core of the Biden & Son grifting operation in Ukraine! And we have the hubris to call them corrupt?!?

(Worth noting is that Pelosi's son and other American ruling class children were in on the corruption in Ukrainian energy sector as well)

THERE WAS A DEAL TO BE HAD: UKE NEUTRALITY IN RETURN FOR RESPECT OF UKE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. BY REJECTING THIS TEAM BIDEN REJECTED PUTIN'S LONG AND OPENLY DECLARED RED LINE. TEAM BIDEN IGNORED THE WARNING GROWL OF HIS GRADUAL TROOP BUILD UP.

NONE OF WHAT WE HAVE NOW WAS NECESSARY BUT FOR THE FECKLESS STUPIDITY OF TEAM BIDEN.

And now we have what we have. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. Obama-Biden-Clinton-the State Dept (Nuland-Farkas-Vindman-et al)-the Pentagon have gotten the war that they have pushed for.

Wag the Dog anyone?!?

Watch how this is and will be played in the arena of American electoral politics and decide for yourself!

"The US and Russia have been arming and funding each other’s adversaries/allies since the beginning of the Cold War"

Agree 100%.

"The Russians will not use nukes in response to this or start a full-scale war. They’re bluffing, straight up."

If by "this" you mean giving Migs out of NATO Poland to the Ukes, I disagree.

They HAVE started a full-scale war in response to Obama-Biden-Clinton-the State Dept (Nuland-Farkas-Vindman-et al)-the Pentagon ignoring their clear declaration that Ukraine alliance with the West was a red line for them. PUTIN WAS NOT BLUFFING.

"They believe the West’s resolve can be easily broken through fear and threats of war. Flinching on any front like this sets an irreversible precedent."

Given Biden's incoherent strategy and weakness it is easy to see how Putin got to that conclusion!!! We see now what weakness brings!!!
Thanks in great part to the great courage of the Ukrainian people, Putin has overplayed his hand quite badly. He is clearly showing that he will keep escalating until he has something which he can portray as a victory before his own military and his own people turn on him.

Though blazingly stupid, feckless, and unnecessary as this Wag the Dog war was and is, I agree to flinch now would be great error. Let us continue supplying the brave Uke people! Maybe Congress could get off its fg ass and hold a weekend session when necessary!

But where we disagree is on the point that Tucker is making in the clip above. Just as is proven by the war in progress he was not bluffing when he said that Ukraine alliance with the west was a red line, he is not bluffing when he says that giving the Ukes NATO Migs is a red line.
As the Poles have wisely concluded in ignoring feckless fool Blinken's "green light", this is a bridge too far.

Russian nuke doctrine does call for battlefield nukes and Putin is cornered. You might be right and the Migs would help accelerate his collapse, but you might bewrong and this move could trigger things to a whole other level- quite possibly Russian battlefield nukes- not only between Russia and us, but also our discussion here has yet to take Xi and China, and Taiwan into account.

We do not have the bandwidth for both and are led by people who cannot even depart from Afghanistan without turning it into an epic disaster and shame of American arms.

Meanwhile, there is the small matter of Article Four, Section Four of our Constitution. Time to defend our own borders!!!

[Crafty_Dog]

IIRC we covered this story here.   

What are the implications for America now?

[Crafty_Dog]

IIRC the Russians have been a major financial backer of Le Pen.
==================================

Le Pen signals sharp turn in foreign policy if elected

Right-winger would curb NATO ties, reach out to Russia

ASSOCIATED PRESS

PARIS | French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen warned Wednesday against sending any more weapons to Ukraine, and called for a rapprochement between NATO and Russia once Moscow’s war in Ukraine winds down.

Ms. Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long cultivated ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats centrist President Emmanuel Macron in France’s April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO’s military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.

The comments on the very first days of the run-off indicate the 53-year-old Ms. Le Pen and her National Rally party are largely sticking by their populist, hard-right foreign policies for the face-off with Mr. Macron, despite the uproar in Europe caused by the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Mr. Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harderthan- expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France’s European partners are worried that a Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia’s war on its neighbor.

Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Ms. Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support — with qualifications.

“[But] I’m more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent,” she said, citing concerns about an “escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.”

U.S., French and NATO leaders have all said they want to avoid a wider war and have ruled out NATO troops in the fighting, but have been stepping up both defensive and offenses aid to Kyiv as the invasion has ground on.

Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent $109 million worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms.

Earlier in his term, Mr. Macron had tried to reach out to Russian President Vladimir Putin to improve Russia’s relations with the West, and Mr. Macron met with Mr. Putin weeks before the Russian invasion in an unsuccessful effort to prevent it. Since then, however, France has supported EU sanctions against Moscow, has offered sustained support to Ukraine, and sharply criticized Mr. Putin personally for launching the invasion.

Ms. Le Pen, who lost a similar run-off to Mr. Macron five years ago but is considered by the polls to have a much better chance this time, argued that France should strike a more independent path from the U.S.-led NATO military alliance.

And despite the atrocities that Russian troops have committed in Ukraine, Ms. Le Pen said that NATO should seek a “strategic rapprochement” with Russia once the war is over. Such a relationship would be “in the interest of France and Europe and I think even of the United States,” she said, to stop Russia from forging a stronger alliance with world power China.

She did not directly address the horrors unfolding in Ukraine.

Ms. Le Pen spoke at a press conference Wednesday to lay out her foreign policy plans, which include halting aid to African countries unless they take back “undesirable” migrants seeking entry to France. She also wants to slash support for international efforts to improve women’s reproductive health in poor countries, increase minority rights or solve environmental problems.

At the end of the event, protesters held up a poster showing a 2017 meeting between Ms. Le Pen and Mr. Putin. One activist was pulled out of the room. Anti-racism protesters also held a small demonstration outside.

“The election of Madame Le Pen would mean electing an admirer of Putin’s regime, an autocratic regime and an admirer of Putin’s imperialistic logic,” said Dominique Sopo, head of the group SOS Racism. “It would mean that France would become a vassal to Putin’s Russia.”

On European matters, Ms. Le Pen again outlined an approach in the 90-minute press conference that would give France more operating independence and loosen its ties with neighbor Germany and the European Union. Mr. Macron has spoken repeatedly about building up the EU as a security and diplomatic force in the world.

Where Ms. Le Pen once advocated taking France out of the European Union and dropping the use of the euro currency, she said she now seeks greater freedom to maneuver while staying in the 27-nation bloc.

“Nobody is against Europe,” she said at one point. “We want to reform the European Union from within. The more we free ourselves from the straitjacket of Brussels while remaining in the EU, the more we will look to the wider world.”

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily-briefing

[DougMacG]

"The election of Madame Le Pen would mean electing an admirer of Putin’s regime, an autocratic regime and an admirer of Putin’s imperialistic logic,”" (said some opponent.)

   - Very hard to tell truth from smear. .

[DougMacG]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/04/the-dem-midterm-wipeout-watch-3.php

[Crafty_Dog]

Russia boosts campaign to stir American doubts

False narratives of invasion flood social media

BY JOSEPH CLARK THE WASHINGTON TIMES

U.S. officials are bracing for Russian President Vladimir Putin to double down on his robust disinformation campaign in America.

Kremlin-linked accounts have stepped up propaganda campaigns worldwide on Facebook and Instagram, according to a report by the platforms’ parent company, Meta. Social media have been flooded with amplified disinformation about the Russia-Ukraine war and pro-Moscow conspiracy theories.

The Kremlin cultivated a worldwide network of proxy outlets and social media bots to spread its message, stir internal discord in the West and undermine democratic institutions, U.S. authorities and cybersecurity professionals said.

“They’re really good at this,” said Howard Stoffer, a scholar of national security and international affairs at the University of New Haven. “They’ve developed a very skilled way of getting false information into the narrative, and that then becomes mixed in with the real information, and people don’t know how to sort it out.”

Since the invasion in late February, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, has approached news outlets with paid advertisements that resemble opeds accusing Ukraine of “genocide of the Russian-speaking population” and NATO of using Ukraine to “establish a foothold in the struggle against Russia.”

The Washington Times rejected the advertisement and was

not able to find another news outlet that accepted the ad.

Newsweek ran a story last week with the headline “Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Reveals Why Ukraine War Began, How It Could End,” in which Mr. Antonov conveys the talking points in the ad nearly verbatim.

In the article, the news magazine clarified that Mr. Antonov’s arguments run “contrary to that of Ukraine and its foreign backers, including the U.S.”

Newsweek did not respond to a request for comment.

Russia has also woven its message throughout social media. Disinformation about the war has been posted on user accounts both overtly and covertly linked to Russian government officials.

In a post last week on the official Twitter account for the Russian mission to the United Nations, it said a deadly missile strike on a civilian train station in eastern Ukraine was carried out by Ukrainians to “disrupt the mass exit of residents from the city in order to use them as a ‘human shield.’” Last month, the Russian Embassy in Britain used Twitter posts to accuse Ukrainian forces of staging the March 9 airstrike on a maternity hospital in Mariupol. The messages ignited a flurry of spiraling online conspiracy theories despite verification by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that it was a Russian attack.

In the Meta report released last week, the company detailed efforts by Ghostwriter, a hacker group linked to Russian ally Belarus, to take over the social media profiles of Ukrainian military leaders to post disinformation from their accounts.

The report outlined other Russian efforts to spread online disinformation, including the creation of fake accounts to stoke anti-Ukrainian sentiment.

The Kremlin has been engaged in a simmering information battle with the U.S. since the Cold War. Soviet and later Russian propagandists have seized on opportunities to stoke internal social and political divides in America and engaged in campaigns to discredit the U.S. while bolstering Russia’s image on the world stage.

According to a 2020 report from the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, the Russian disinformation apparatus has evolved into a full-fledged ecosystem expanding well beyond offi cial government and state-funded messaging to achieve their goals.

U.S. officials accused Russia of posting attention-grabbing headlines on social media and sowing online discord to interfere in the 2016 and 2020 elections to help Donald Trump.

Rather than appealing to logic, experts say, Russian propagandists seize on emotions to make their targets question the truth.

Among the most blatant Kremlin apparatus to influence Americans’ perceptions and opinions is the Russian statecontrolled television news network RT America, formerly Russia Today. Until last month, it operated out of a Washington headquarters serving as, according to the Global Engagement Center, a direct conduit for “the Kremlin’s talking points.”

Before it was dropped by major U.S. distributors at the beginning of March, RT and its sister radio news outlet Sputnik operated under the supervision of the Russian government while blending in with major independent and fact-based news outlets. It even had a correspondent at the White House.

As Russia’s military massed on the Ukraine border, RT toed the line by peddling Kremlin claims that the buildup was part of a “routine” military exercise, that NATO expansionism was to blame for the rising tensions, that Nazis overran Ukraine, and that the army was protecting the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine.

Just days before the invasion, RT America ran stories about Russianspeaking “refugees” being relocated from the Donbas region to Russia because of reports that “the Ukrainian army was planning ’a breakthrough’ into the Donbas territory.”

Nathalie Vogel, an information warfare specialist and senior fellow at the Prague-based European Values Center’s Kremlin Watch, said the talking points were nothing new for those experienced in spotting Russian propaganda. Many of the bullet points were recycled line for line from the 2014 annexation of Ukraine, she said.

To dismantle the Kremlin’s propaganda, the Biden administration showed operational intelligence scrubbed of details that would reveal sources and methods.

Weeks before the attack, administration officials from the White House, State Department and Pentagon called Mr. Putin’s bluff from the podium. On Feb. 24, their predictions were proved to be true.

“We did that for several reasons,” a national security official told The Times. “One reason was the importance of countering Russian disinformation and denying them some type of false pretext or justification for launching the attack. And two, because we recognize the united and the closely coordinated response was going to be critical in order to hold Russia accountable for its action and to raise the pressure on Putin.”

The approach helped dismantle Russia’s claims and bolstered U.S. credibility on the world stage, potentially repairing some of the damage from Mr. Biden’s bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan.

As Russia’s information war escalates in tandem with its assault on Ukraine, experts and lawmakers recommend a back-to-basics approach of using U.S. transparency to rebuff Kremlin talking points.

“Putin spent months spinning false narratives he hoped would paralyze Ukraine’s Western allies once he invaded. Now, in danger of losing the war, Putin will no doubt double down on his disinformation efforts,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, the top Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “Transparency is key to ensuring Putin does not succeed in fracturing international opposition to his war.”

Since the invasion, Russia has accused the U.S. of operating chemical and biological weapons development facilities in Ukraine and accused Ukraine of using “crisis actors” and fake atrocities to influence the West.

“The lies are just getting bigger,” said Mr. Stoffer, the national security scholar. “You have to think about the fact that now they’re trying to challenge these outright human rights violations, these outright war crimes, which are only going to get worse.”

He said the most effective anecdote is transparent, objective accounts from media and trusted governments to expose Russia’s actions.

Since the Russian retreat from Kyiv, Ukraine has disputed Russian claims of detente by broadcasting evidence of repositioned forces on its eastern front.

U.S. intelligence capabilities are aimed at collecting evidence of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. A National Security Council official said the evidence could be shared with partner nations and potentially with the public.

Still, the transparency strategy has risks. It requires extensive review to filter out any details that could reveal intelligence tradecraft.

Each release undergoes “a rigorous review process by the National Security Council and the intelligence community to validate the quality of the information and protect sources and methods,” the offi cial said. “We only approve the release of intelligence if we are confident those two requirements are met.”

Ms. Vogel of Kremlin Watch said the goal should be to develop resilience against Russian disinformation.

She said it is not realistic to seal off the West from the Kremlin’s talking points or remove every pro-Russian account on social media. Instead, she said, Americans need to be able to spot Russian disinformation and have access to objective facts that counter the Kremlin’s narrative.

“The people who are behind the accounts are entitled to their opinion, even if it’s nonsense,” Ms. Vogel said. “But you have to have people on the other hand that can identify nonsense. It boils down to exactly that. … Ask yourself: Why these stories are being told?”

[DougMacG]

[Crafty_Dog]

By: Geopolitical Futures
LNG in Europe. Germany’s Finance Ministry said the government will allocate 3 billion euros ($3.2 billion) to lease floating liquified natural gas terminals. Meanwhile, Spain is expecting delivery on Sunday of LNG from Cameroon using a tanker from Russian firm Gazprom. It's a controversial move because, since 2019, Spain hasn’t purchased LNG from Cameroon, where the only LNG manager is Gazprom. Despite calls from Brussels to reduce energy imports from Russia, Spain has increased its purchases of Russian gas in recent weeks.

Gas in Serbia. In an effort to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, Serbia plans to procure LNG from Greece and natural gas from Azerbaijan beginning in 2023. It’s expected that the deliveries will come from the Nis-Dimitrovgrad gas pipeline, which will connect Serbia with Bulgaria and will be completed by next year.

Concession. Armenia, which gets all of its natural gas imports from Russia, has begun paying for gas purchases with rubles. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan abandoned an agreement with the Sber group of Russian companies to introduce a new digital platform for the provision of services and said it would develop another platform on its own.

[Crafty_Dog]

Just saw Jason Beardsley on FOX discussing Ukraine.  Impressed me a lot.  I will be watching for him:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonrbeardsley

Among his points:

* We knew this was coming so why did we not arm BEFORE?  He placed great emphasis on this.
* Referenced the mirror image of the Cuban Missile Crisis analogy
* We need to understand what the hell is the end game?  Why is it in our interest to have the Ukes as a proxy on Russia's border?
* Due to our strategic incoherence getting to this point, this is a VERY dangerous situation.  Russia/Putin unwilling to accept Ukes as American proxy on their border; pressures to double and triple down are very high.
*OTOH Putin cannot be allowed to get away with what he has done and is doing.

Serious cognitive dissonance!!!

===========

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/give-war-a-chance?s=r

[Crafty_Dog]

Helping Ukraine Win Against Russia Is a Vital NATO Interest
Here are steps the West can take to avoid peace compromises that would legitimize Putin’s war crimes.
By Paula Dobriansky and Richard Levine
April 15, 2022 2:23 pm ET
WSJ

The West can’t continue to pretend that a negotiated peace is possible in Ukraine. Not after Russia killed 57 civilians with a ballistic missile at the Kramatorsk train station. Any settlement could only legitimize Russia’s control of Ukrainian land. That’s unacceptable. Ukraine must be victorious, and any instrument of peace should document this fact.


In war, geography determines tactics. Fighting in urban areas conveyed important advantages to Ukrainian forces. Small, highly mobile groups, armed with man-portable antitank and antiaircraft weapons, inflicted grievous losses on Russia. Deprived of his conquest of Kyiv, Vladimir Putin seems poised to fight two battles. One is in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine; the other seeks to establish a permanent land bridge to Crimea and thus deny Ukraine access to the Sea of Azov. The Donbas is composed of the energy-rich Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Mr. Putin would love to get his hands on their natural gas and coal reserves. Both areas are predominantly Russian-speaking and contain self-described breakaway republics.

If Ukraine is to challenge Russia for control of the Donbas, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must provide Kyiv with main battle tanks, tracked howitzers, multiple-launch rocket systems, infantry fighting vehicles and armored troop carriers. The Czech Republic has transferred Soviet-era fighting vehicles and tanks to Ukraine. This is an important demonstration of solidarity, but this equipment was designed in the 1960s and is antiquated.

NATO should proceed in phases. First, send into Ukraine heavy weapons that can be immediately adopted by Ukrainian forces, with little or no training. Next, provide Western-designed armored equipment as soon as possible, along with training packages that will allow Ukraine to deploy the new weapons quickly. American or British tanks, with composite armor and superior targeting systems, will be vital if the war becomes protracted.


Integrated land and air operations will be crucial if Ukraine is to win. Reconnaissance drones are useful, but fighter aircraft are essential. The Ukrainians need fighters like the Mikoyan MiG-29 or other fourth-generation aircraft, and they need them now. The official U.S. position is that MiG-29s can’t fly directly to Ukraine from NATO bases in Germany. To get around this, NATO must find ways to move these fighters into the country using decoys and electronic deception to prevent the Russians from figuring out their points of departure.

Additional antiship missiles like the American-made Harpoon will be necessary to prevent the Kremlin from establishing the land bridge it desires. The Russian navy can’t be allowed to use the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov to assault the cities and ports that dot Ukraine’s coast. Neither can Moscow be allowed to unload troops and equipment.

Faced with staggering losses, Russia has resorted to attacks on civilians. Ukraine needs a defense against medium-range ballistic missiles such as the one used on Kramatorsk. Depending on its configuration, the S-300 surface-to-air missile system may not be up to the task. U.S.-made Patriot batteries can intercept ballistic missiles. Over shorter ranges, the SAMP/T air-defense system, which is used by France and Italy, can also accomplish this job.

Mr. Putin’s barbarism is intended to demoralize Ukraine’s population. NATO must increase its humanitarian aid immediately. The U.S. Navy’s Sealift Command should sail America’s two hospital ships to the region, perhaps docking them in Romania. Each of these vessels has 1,000 beds and is guarded from attack by international conventions to which Russia is a party. These ships would provide medical care to Russian prisoners of war in addition to Ukrainians.

The West shares with Ukraine a conception of liberty that isn’t based on race or heritage but inalienable rights. No tyrannical force must ever be allowed to destroy this profound link. Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine with the goal of erasing the identity of its people, much as Joseph Stalin hoped to do in 1932-33, when he murdered as many as 10 million Ukrainians through starvation in the atrocity known as the Holodomor. Such horror defined the last century. It can’t be allowed to define this one.

Ms. Dobriansky served as undersecretary of state for global affairs, 2001-09. Mr. Levine served as the first deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for technology transfer and security assistance, 1986-88.

[DougMacG]

Jason Beardsley
Among his points:

* We knew this was coming so why did we not arm BEFORE?  He placed great emphasis on this.
---------

That was the conundrum.  Leave Ukraine unprepared and Putin invades, or arm them and Putin declares them a threat and invades.

If the lesson is arm early and thoroughly before the invasion, Taiwan should look like Fort Knox by now.

[G M]

Jason Beardsley
Among his points:

* We knew this was coming so why did we not arm BEFORE?  He placed great emphasis on this.
---------

That was the conundrum.  Leave Ukraine unprepared and Putin invades, or arm them and Putin declares them a threat and invades.

If the lesson is arm early and thoroughly before the invasion, Taiwan should look like Fort Knox by now.

https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/taiwans-defense-plans-are-going-off-the-rails/

[G M]

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/ukraine-us-trains-army-west-fight-east/141577/

We have been training and equipping them for years.

Jason Beardsley
Among his points:

* We knew this was coming so why did we not arm BEFORE?  He placed great emphasis on this.
---------

That was the conundrum.  Leave Ukraine unprepared and Putin invades, or arm them and Putin declares them a threat and invades.

If the lesson is arm early and thoroughly before the invasion, Taiwan should look like Fort Knox by now.

https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/taiwans-defense-plans-are-going-off-the-rails/

[DougMacG]

quote author=G M
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/ukraine-us-trains-army-west-fight-east/141577/
------

Sounds like this war has been continuous in the 'separatist regions' at least since the 2014 invasion.

That article is from 2017.  It would seem that now these regions are already lost to Russia.
 Changing that would require a new offensive from the west, i.e. WWIII, and the west has no plans or will to do that.

Lesson learned in the backyard theory:  The big bad bear, if they have enough nuclear weapons to scare people, can take any neighboring regions they want, any way they want, any time they want.

And face sanctions!  Russia continues to serve and vote as a "permanent member" of the UN "Security Council.  What security?  The security of their civilian bombing expansion plans?

Meanwhile it's outrageous to think of the US in our backyard helping depose tyrannical authoritarian regimes, Cuba, Venezuela, and letting their own people self govern - because THAT would be wrong. What a farce.

Like politics at home, it's two sets of rules.

[G M]

quote author=G M
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/ukraine-us-trains-army-west-fight-east/141577/
------

Sounds like this war has been continuous in the 'separatist regions' at least since the 2014 invasion.

That article is from 2017.  It would seem that now these regions are already lost to Russia.
 Changing that would require a new offensive from the west, i.e. WWIII, and the west has no plans to do that.

Lesson learned in the backyard theory, the big bad bear, if they have enough nuclear weapons to scare people, can take any neighboring regions they want, ant way they want.

And Russia continues to serve and vote as a "permanent member" of the UN "Security Council.  What security?  Theirs??

Meanwhile it's outrageous to think of the US helping depose tyrannical authoritarian regimes in our backyard, Cuba, Venezuela, and letting their own people self govern, because THAT would be wrong. What a farce.

Like politics at home, it's two sets of rules.

Will the big guy get 10%?

[Crafty_Dog]

By

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.Follow

WSJ

April 15, 2022 6:28 pm ET





To paraphrase JP Morgan banker Jamie Dimon’s advice to investors and analysts this week, everything looks pretty good except the possibility that something really bad could happen.

The stock market, so far, has largely recapitulated its pattern from past wars: sell the rumor, buy the news. The S&P 500 hit a recent low on Feb. 23, the day before Russia’s invasion. It’s up 167 points since then.







A Canadian fund manager made news by advising his investors to keep buying stocks because in an all-out nuclear war their portfolio allocation would be irrelevant anyway. Looking back and trying to explain a modest 7% drop during the Cuban missile crisis, economists reached for a similar explanation: There’s no point discounting a worst-case outcome because nobody will be around to benefit from a wise investment decision.

Fritz Todt, who built the autobahn, told Hitler in November 1941 the war could not be won and must be ended politically. Hitler responded: “I can scarcely still see a way of coming politically to an end.”





The führer was talking his book. Negotiated endings are always on the cards, as they now could be for Vladimir Putin. There was no “existential” risk for Germany. Even under the rigorous terms actually imposed—unconditional surrender—Germany survived and quickly was on its way to becoming the leading state in Europe. The “existential” risk belonged to Hitler; under any settlement that might be envisaged, he would have had to leave power and accept accountability for his crimes.



Mr. Putin, in astonishingly short order, has turned his Ukraine lark into a similar risk not for Russia but for Mr. Putin. Hence a heating up of the rhetoric recently. RIA Novosti, an official Moscow news service, issued a bloodcurdling call for the liquidation of Ukraine. Sergey Karaganov, a leading Putin intellectual, told a Western interviewer, “The stakes of the Russian elite are very high—for them it is an existential war,” and gave voice to a miracle scenario in which nuclear threats cause the U.S. to abandon NATO.



And despite Washington having supplied Ukraine’s military for years, a démarche this week from the Russian Embassy demands the U.S. stop and warns of “unpredictable consequences.”



I first mentioned the Hitler-Todt episode in this column in 2014, in anticipation of Mr. Putin bringing the world to such a moment. It is difficult not to imagine him now fingering his weapons of mass destruction, particularly his tactical nuclear warheads, and wondering if they might offer a way out of his dilemma—a concern publicly aired this week by CIA Director William Burns.



Only one answer would seem to fit the situation: a clear signal to Mr. Putin that, in such a case, NATO airpower will join the war on Ukraine’s side and reduce most of his standing army to a smoldering wreck. Where the decisive ground battle is now shaping up in eastern Ukraine, the open terrain is especially conducive to such an aerial campaign.



The logic of preserving his army to fight another day will be hard for Mr. Putin to ignore if he hopes to stay in his job. Seven weeks of war have also been useful: He and his domestic allies have had a chance to wrap their heads around the possibility of defeat. For his colleagues, moreover, an easy decision is not to see everything they value destroyed for the sake of a man they’ve come to loathe personally.



One way or another, the U.S. is likely to find itself moving closer to center stage in the conflict and its endgame. Germany and others resist cutting Mr. Putin’s vital energy dollars not just out of concern for their own economies; they don’t crave the risks and uncertainties that come with making Mr. Putin’s position in Moscow terminally untenable. Probably Mr. Biden’s advisers, except a few militants, agree. And if anything can get China’s Xi Jinping off the sidelines and working with the U.S. and Europe in Ukraine, it will be a desire not to see Mr. Putin humiliated.



Only the Ukrainians themselves, having experienced Russian occupation and seen that it means acquiescing in the mass murder of civilians, are a likely voice of realism and spine-stiffening. Lately recalled have been JFK’s words about the necessity of leaving Khrushchev an exit route. In Mr. Putin’s case, the advice is too late. With his blunders and miscalculations, his survival is now in his own hands; he has left the allies nothing to work with. Joe Biden’s alleged rhetorical excesses may be all that—calling Mr. Putin a war criminal, referring to genocide (not an unreasonable interpretation of recent Russian rhetoric), saying Mr. Putin should not remain in power.



My guess is these out-of-school expostulations pop out for a reason—because the consensus after so many hours of White House discussion is that Mr. Putin is likely beyond saving no matter what the U.S. does.

[Crafty_Dog]

Germany Has a Hungary Problem
Berlin’s complicity with Viktor Orbán imperils European unity against Russian aggression.
By Dalibor Rohac
April 17, 2022 4:34 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
59

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán speaks at a news conference after the parliamentary election in Budapest, April 6.
PHOTO: BERNADETT SZABO/REUTERS

For more than a decade, German leaders have coddled and appeased not only the Kremlin but also the European Union’s most reckless and openly anti-Western government—in Budapest.

Germany’s negligence in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been particularly evident amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. For some Berlin critics, Ukraine’s recent rejection of German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s proposed visit to Kyiv comes as belated vindication.

Days after the war began, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a policy revolution, including a plan to spend more on defense and wean the country off Russian natural gas. But Mr. Scholz’s Zeitenwende, or “new era” of policy, put forth Feb. 27 seems too little, too late. And it doesn’t address Germany’s tolerance of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s outreach to China and Russia and his Fidesz party’s undemocratic policies targeting civil society, free media and the judiciary.

In 2013 Mr. Orbán compared the policies of Chancellor Angela Merkel to those of the Nazis, yet Ms. Merkel’s “strategic patience” approach to foreign policy provided cover for the Hungarian leader’s practices. For years Germany’s ruling Christian Democrats failed to expel Fidesz from the European People’s Party, a family of center-right political groups, and blocked efforts to hold Mr. Orbán accountable for the many rule-of-law violations in the country.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
The EU is a diverse, pluralistic body, and Ms. Merkel always sought to avoid unnecessary conflicts, particularly if they involved domestic matters. At the same time, Hungary has acted as an extension of Bavaria’s auto manufacturing base—Audi is the second-largest employer in Hungary, followed by the likes of Mercedes-Benz and Bosch.

Today, Germany’s complacency is indefensible. The issue is no longer the lack of a level playing field in Hungarian politics, exemplified by the country’s recent parliamentary election. At a time of war in Europe, Hungary is undercutting Western unity. Before the invasion, Mr. Orbán visited Moscow, seeking more natural gas and a license to produce the Sputnik vaccine in Hungary. Instead of pushing for an energy embargo, the Hungarians are touting their 15-year contract with Gazprom and refusing to allow allied shipments of lethal aid to Ukraine through Hungary.

The relationship with Moscow has been so valuable to Mr. Orbán that he decided to sacrifice his longstanding partnership with Poland’s nationalist government over the war in Ukraine. The informal pact with Warsaw had helped shield Fidesz from international criticism of its domestic policies and provided a valuable roadblock to the EU’s use of the Article 7 procedure suspending a member nation’s rights.

One can only speculate whether Hungary’s historic claim to western Ukraine’s Transcarpathia region and its Hungarian-speaking population might play a role in explaining the government’s cold attitude toward Kyiv and its acceptance of Mr. Putin’s aggression. What matters is that Mr. Orbán’s cravenness is again receiving cover from the German government.

What Germany is being asked to do by its European and American partners, as well as by the Ukrainians, has a cost. Weaning Germany off Russian natural gas imports is bound to be disruptive. Reversing the foolish plan to phase out nuclear energy would break German taboos and rattle the Green Party, one of Mr. Scholz’s junior coalition partners, while providing military aid to Ukraine faces resistance in his own party, the Social Democrats.

Mr. Scholz would do well to realize the even higher cost of inaction with regard to opportunistic behavior by bad-faith actors in Moscow and Budapest.

Germany’s power and importance in Europe and NATO are undisputed. But power and importance come with responsibilities, which Ms. Merkel and Mr. Scholz seem to prefer to avoid. Hungary’s withering democracy and Mr. Orbán’s destabilizing role in Eastern Europe are part of the collateral damage from that neglect.

Mr. Rohac is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute

[Crafty_Dog]

The costs of Biden’s abdication of leadership

Lack of U.S. guidance in Ukraine could imperil global security

By Tom Basile

The line between peace and war is thin, but the line between regional and global conflict is thinner still. Russia has crossed one line. It is poised to cross others with the help of China, and the Biden White House appears to have no strategy to handle it.

Those on the left and the right, who have preached for more than a year that the Ukraine conflict is not worth our time or resources, must recognize now how a lack of U.S. leadership in one conflict can precipitate a cascade of events that imperil global security. Think of it as threat inflation.

The Biden White House has said that there will be “consequences” for China helping Russia in Ukraine. Always deft at global brinksmanship and testing the Biden administration’s resolve, six Chinese Air Force Y-20 transport planes delivered HQ-22 surface-to-air missile systems to Serbia. Add that country to the list of nations joining the China-dominated New Axis.

While the Biden White House is focused on spinning inflation as the “Putin price hike” and open borders, Serbia is increasingly looking like a Chinese or Russian proxy in the region. Apparently, there are no repercussions or even rhetorical response for the Chinese arming a European nation.

Communist China is moving into Europe militarily in a way we haven’t seen before. It’s doing it at a time when they should be cautious. They would be cautious if they saw real American leadership.

The war in Ukraine is entering into a new dangerous phase. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is becoming increasingly desperate to demonstrate to his own population that the massive losses are worth it. Only a victory of sorts will suffice between now and Victory Day, May 9. Desperate men do desperate things.

Ukrainian officials are increasingly concerned that Mr. Putin will commit a false flag attack on his own military inside Russia near the border with Ukraine to justify the use of a tactical nuclear or chemical weapon.

The alleged chemical attack in Mariupol this week is believed to have been a trial balloon to gage reaction from the international community. No indication of “consequences” for such an attack from the White House. The Ukrainian crippling of the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet could also spur additional disproportional reprisals.

Moldova is now well within Mr. Putin’s grasp as the non-NATO country already has Russian-backed separatists on its eastern border. Moldova is a sitting duck with virtually no offensive weapons, ground forces or leadership willing to stand against the Russian dictator. The country could fall to a small force of 10,000 to 20,000 Russian troops giving Mr. Putin a win for domestic purposes, control over more territory and a staging ground for attacks into Western Ukraine or more boldly, Romania.

Then there’s Georgia. After Mr. Putin invaded in 2008, under the cover of the U.S. financial crisis, then-President George W. Bush recommended NATO membership to protect the country from Moscow’s aggression. Europe refused, and today the South Ossetia region of Georgia is primed for a full Russian annexation and use as a staging ground for other incursions into the country.

A recent announcement about an effort to hold a referendum on Russian annexation in South Ossetia is curiously timed. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters “... we treat the expression of the opinion of the people of South Ossetia with respect.” A positive vote could give Mr. Putin all the reason he needs to roll into the country.

All this could happen while the battle for Donbas rages on in Eastern Ukraine as a war of attrition that could go on for years.

People in Finland are taking iodine pills and arming themselves against a possible Russian invasion. The Polish are preparing their citizens for the possibility of conflict. The Israelis should be asking themselves what happens if the U.S. allows Russia to get away with a chemical attack, even a modest one, or worse yet, the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

None of this is about Europe. China and Russia aren’t afraid of Europe. What we see happening is due to the abdication of global leadership by the American president, in favor of climate change profiteering and a far-left domestic agenda.

Mr. Putin may have overestimated the preparedness, professionalism and even the will of his military, but he still has the considerable human capital to expend. China is coming out of this first volley of the new Cold War unscathed and is now moving into Europe. Iran waits in the wings to play its part.

President Biden needs to get serious about active deterrence and real consequences for aggressive behavior or we could see a rapid cascade of circumstances that leads to global conflict

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-officials-questioning-putins-decision-to-invade-ukraine-report?fbclid=IwAR1z11Lrj1xxBZPS9qVYbskzE46GYxtWTWBmCgYzK8OAQ7bVrc7RA1jHqgQ

[Crafty_Dog]

third


Problems viewing? View as a web page
The D Brief
April 20, 2022   
         
Russia's Ukraine invasion, day 55: A localized, humanitarian ceasefire may have been reached in the besieged southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol. It reportedly began at 2 p.m. local time (7 a.m. ET), according to Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk; and it's intended to allow women, children, and the elderly to evacuate the besieged city. But it's too soon to know for sure if this will work out as stated, since similar deals for fleeing Ukrainians have collapsed in the recent past due to Russian artillery shelling, including in Mariupol.

European Council President Charles Michel is in Kyiv today, which he called "the heart of a free and democratic Europe," to illustrate his support for Ukraine.

For now anyway, Germany's new chancellor is perfectly fine not giving Ukraine heavy weapons like tanks or armored personnel carriers, Olaf Scholz told reporters Tuesday in Berlin. However, he said he's asked German arms dealers to draw up a list of what weapons they can manufacture for Kyiv. "Ukraine has selected what it needs from this list and we are providing the money they need to buy it," Scholz said Tuesday.

For the record, "Scholz has also significantly ramped up the financial aid Germany is providing to Kyiv," Financial Times reports. That includes "A special fund to help crisis-hit countries invest in their military [that] is being increased from €225mn to €2bn, with the bulk going to Ukraine."

Defense One Special Report

Reagan Forum

China and Russia dominated discussions by top military leaders at the 2021 Reagan National Defense Forum—but the talk wasn't all about near-peer adversaries. Read more in this special report.

Read Now

But as a percentage of GDP, Germany is being out-donated by Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Sweden, the U.S., the Czech Republic, Croatia, the U.K., France, and Italy, according to data compiled by the German-based think tank the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Christoph Trebesch, Kiel's research director said in a statement, "It is remarkable that the U.S. alone is giving significantly more than the entire EU, in whose immediate neighborhood the war is raging."

Hey, rich people: Ukraine wants you to buy its military some jets. That message has been spreading since it seems to have first launched on April 12, via Ukraine's Anton Gerashchenko. "Address the wealthy leaders of the world business and elites representatives that support Ukraine to privately buy planes," he tweeted, sharing a YouTube link for that campaign, here.

Developing: Ukraine's European allies are repairing damaged jets, and some partnered nations are helping provide spare parts, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said Tuesday. "I would just say without getting into what other nations are providing that they have received additional platforms and parts to be able to increase their aircraft fleet size," he said, and added, "I think I'd leave it at that."

Czech defense firms will repair damaged Ukrainian tanks, like T-64s, Prague's defense ministry said Tuesday. Reuters has a tiny bit more, here.

The Netherlands just pledged "armored vehicles" and "additional heavy materiel," Prime Minister Mark Rutte tweeted Tuesday. And the British and Canadian prime ministers on Tuesday both pledged to send Ukraine more artillery soon.

Developing: The U.S. is preparing yet another $800 million batch of arms for Ukraine, CNN reported Tuesday. "If approved, the latest package of $800 million would mean the US has committed approximately $3.4 billion dollars in assistance to Ukraine since Russia's invasion began."

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/russia-general-announces-plan-to-invade-moldova-after-ukraine/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=27457428

Russian General Announces Plan to Invade Moldova after Ukraine

By ARJUN SINGH
April 22, 2022 10:21 AM
A Russian general announced plans to occupy the Transnistria region of Moldova on Friday.

Speaking at a defense industry meeting, Brigadier General Rustam Minnekayev, acting commander of Russia’s Central Military District, stated that the Russian Armed Forces plan to “make passage” into the region — in Moldova’s East, bordering Ukraine and less than 30 miles from the port city of Odessa — to create a “land corridor to Crimea,” Russian media reported. Such a corridor would also purport to connect the Russian mainland to Transnistria.

Minnekayev stated that the measure was part of Russia’s second phase in its war in Ukraine, which involves establishing full control over the Donbas Region and Ukraine’s coast along the Black Sea. No timeline was provided for the maneuver to begin, however.

In his remarks, Minnekayev cited the strategic value of the region, claiming “control over the south of Ukraine is another exit into Transnistria, where there are also facts pointing to the oppression of the Russian-speaking population.” Transnistria is a separatist region of Moldova — comprised primarily of Russian speakers — akin to Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine, which has been autonomously run by a pro-Russian faction since 1990. It is not internationally recognized by any country, including Russia, though nearly 1,500 Russian troops are stationed in the region and its trade is primarily conducted with the Russian mainland.

Ukraine’s armed forces had previously warned on April 2 that Russia was mobilizing troops in Transnistria, though this was initially denied by Moldova. Ukraine believes that such mobilization is a prelude to attacks on Odessa, Ukraine’s largest port city and a gateway for its international trade.

Russia’s occupation of Transnistria would expand the conflict with Ukraine to another European nation-state, since it began in late February of 2022.

[Crafty_Dog]

The Stakes in the Battle for the Donbas
A Russian general lifts the veil on Putin’s plans to grab Ukraine’s south.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
April 22, 2022 6:40 pm ET


As Russia consolidates its forces for an offensive in Ukraine’s east, the temptation is to think the stakes have shrunk for NATO and the West after Russia lost the battle of Kyiv. But Vladimir Putin can still win a major victory that would leave him stronger and better able to menace Ukraine, its neighbors and the Western alliance.


The Kremlin boss still has broad military ambitions, as one of his generals let slip on Friday. “Since the start of the second phase of the special operation . . . one of the tasks of the Russian army is to establish full control over the Donbas and southern Ukraine,” Major General Rustam Minnekaev was quoted as telling Russian news agencies. “This will provide a land corridor to Crimea,” the peninsula Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

Most people have suspected that this is one of Russia’s war aims, though Mr. Putin continues to claim he’s merely trying to protect the Russian-speaking people in Ukraine’s Donbas region. Gen. Minnekaev lifted the veil, and not merely on the goal in Ukraine.

“Control over the south of Ukraine is another way out to Transnistria, where there are cases of Russian-speaking people being oppressed,” Gen. Minnekaev said.


Transnistria is a breakaway Russian-speaking sliver of Moldova, the small country between Ukraine and Romania that leans toward Europe. The Russian general is saying that if Russia captures southern Ukraine, annexing Transnistria if not all of Moldova will be next on the Kremlin menu.

Moldova summoned Russia’s ambassador to its capital of Chisinau to protest the Russian general’s remarks, but no one paying attention doubts that what he said is true.

All of this raises the stakes in the battle for the Donbas, since it means Russia doesn’t plan to settle for protecting the separatist oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk. Russia also wants to move on Odessa, Ukraine’s port on the Black Sea. If the Russians capture the Sea of Azov port of Mariupol, as they likely will after their brutal siege, then Odessa would be Ukraine’s last major maritime link to global commerce. Russian forces have tried to move on Odessa but have faced fierce resistance.

If the Kremlin crushes Ukraine’s eastern army in the Donbas, it would be able to concentrate its forces for the march south. Once the south is conquered, Mr. Putin might then seek a truce that would leave a quarter or third of Ukraine in his hands.

Ukraine would be left as a rump state, more dependent on Western aid. He could bide his time as Western sanctions erode, while rearming and waiting for another chance to march on Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Mr. Putin would then be in a better position to consider his options to challenge NATO solidarity. The likeliest target is one of the Baltic states with an ethnic Russian minority and access to the Baltic Sea.

***
All of this underscores the urgency of continuing to supply Ukraine’s military, especially with heavy weapons such as long-range artillery, rocket-launch systems, tanks, fighter jets, and missile defenses. Off-the-shelf weapons stocks are running low, and Ukraine will soon need ammunition and missiles directly from Western military assembly lines.

President Biden announced another $800 million in weapons for Ukraine this week, and Congress will have to appropriate more in the coming weeks. Military officials from 20 countries will meet next week in Germany to assess Ukraine’s needs and coordinate aid. This is useful as long as it doesn’t default to the most risk-averse thinking.

This is the time to give Ukraine all it can handle to press for victory against Russia. The goal is to block Russian advances and inflict such losses that Mr. Putin is forced to reconsider his war aims again. He could escalate and try to draw in NATO more directly, but that carries risks of more severe Russian losses.

Ukraine has paid dearly to protect its homeland in a war it didn’t choose. The West’s interest is in a Ukrainian victory that pushes Russia out and lets its people decide their own destiny. Russia without Ukraine is a much less significant threat to NATO and the U.S.