kanisatha

Yes, modernization and replacement with new-built systems of the same kind as what was originally deployed. Not entirely new systems. So as an example, replacing a 1975-built F-15 with a 2022-built F-15 was allowed. Replacing with an F-22 falsely designated as a "modernized F-15" was not allowed.

Right, because the US is shooting up eastern Europe. Why would we fight YOUR war in our country? It's a silly thing to say. If someone ever invades the US, we would fight that war here, and very likely do it all by ourselves with no help from our "allies." The point is that even though your countries are what will be getting attacked and not our country, we're still willing to die to help you defend yourselves. But hey, if that's something you don't want, by all means feel free to say so. I'm quite sure the American taxpayers footing that huge defense bill defending Europe will be more than happy to find things here at home to spend our money on.

Hey eastern European friends, you guys just need to keep Putin off your backs for a couple more years. We Americans are pivoting from counter-insurgency and counterterrorism ops to fighting a land war against a major peer enemy. We just need a couple of years to retool. After our retool, we'll have your backs https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/02/23/these-soldiers-will-reinvent-cavalry-over-the-next-two-years/ (Very appropriate the retooling is starting with the US 1st Cavalry Division, as they would have been the division that led the NATO counterattack against the Warsaw Pact in any war back in '80s.) Btw, this retool is already well underway for the navy and marine corps. That's why many US military experts are saying China will face a tough question very soon about whether they move on Taiwan, because their window to do so will actually be closing by decade's end when our current vulnerabilities will close and military power swings back sharply towards the US and away from China.

Giving Ukraine fighter jets is probably the least useful thing we could be doing right now. What they truly need are anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons. Besides, don't the eastern European states have plenty of Russian tanks, AFVs, artillery, rocket launchers, etc., in storage? Heck even the supply of a ton of (Russian) RPGs would help immensely.

Exactly. So why the song and dance about the transfer of the MiGs? Why go through the US?

One of my students in my class today said she'd read that human rights groups have documented Russian use of the so-called 'butterfly bombs' in Ukraine. I was stunned to hear this, because back in my teens in the early 80s, in the old country, I was a very loud voice of condemnation of the Soviets for using these butterfly bombs in Afghanistan which were notorious for especially targetting children.

But hasn't Poland already directly transferred to Ukraine other weapons?

Actually they did. With the ABM Treaty the issue was not quite Russian cheating as it was Russian abuse of the giant loophole in the treaty. The treaty allowed both sides to have two ABM sites around Moscow and Washington, armed with systems developed prior to the treaty going into effect. This resulted in two problems for the US side. First, unlike Russia which only cared/cares about protecting Moscow from attack, the US as a democratic country cannot just only defend Washington. Members of Congress themselves were (correctly) demanding that any US ABM system should defend the whole country (i.e all 50 states) and not just DC. The US tried to get the Russians to agree to an amendment to the treaty to allow the two permitted sites to be anywhere in the country but Russia, understanding how this issue was screwing the US, flatly refused. Second, the Russians replaced their original ABMs with new, much more capable systems in the late 80s and early 90s. This was not permitted under the treaty, but the way Russia argued it was that their new systems were not really new and rather were just upgrades of the old interceptors. To facilitate this argument they even gave their new interceptors the same name and designations as the old interceptors even though the missiles were indisputably brand new systems (like how in the 70s they designated their Tu-26 bombers as Tu-22M so that they could claim they were just an "upgrade" of the Tu-22 bombers and thus not a new system in violation of SALT).

Yes I do. That you don't, in the face of what are extremely credible reports from multiple sources, is troubling.

Yes I've seen these stories too, including first-hand reports documented by human rights groups operating inside Ukraine. Putin's propaganda campaign to villify the Ukrainian people coupled with their vaunted military prowess being mocked the world over has clearly pushed many Russian soldiers over the top. In so many reports the civilian deaths are not accidental but deliberate. They're literally pointing their weapons at innocent civilians and opening fire.

I've been reading several similar articles from a variety of sources in the past few days. Hard to tell what's real and what's part of the information war. But historially, political intrigue and backstabbing are synonymous with the Kremlin, so ....

It is because Russia doesn't want to acknowledge all those countries standing against their invasion, so they are deliberately focusing on only a small subset of those countries as the "unfriendly" countries, all the more so they can simultaneously emphasize the 47 countries that either abstained or did not vote as countries that are with them (even though there is zero evidence to support any such claim).

You mean after Russia was caught cheating or abusing each of these treaties? The real question is why did the US continue to stick with these treaties for as long as they did. That Russia cannot be trusted has been demonstrated again and again, especially in the Putin years.

I have a theory about this. I do not believe the Russians are serious about allowing civilians to leave eastern Ukraine because, for all the nonsense-talk from them, the real reason they want eastern Ukraine is to take control of that population for Russia. The single biggest threat to Russia's future power is domestic demographics. Their population is in steep decline and has been for over 20 years. They desperately need people. But of course given their ultra-nationalism, they only want ethnic Russians. This war is less about a land-grab and much more about a population-grab. So they cannot afford to allow people in eastern Ukraine to leave. And let's be honest. The people fleeing the Russians are not just Ukrainians. Plenty of very credible reports that the ethnic Russians in these areas (Kherson for example) are openly siding with Ukraine and stating very categorically they do not want to live under Putin's rule.

The "deal" being offered by Russia is a horrible deal, one Ukraine should never accept. But, if it is indeed just Russia's opening bid, and Russia is open to meaningful negotiations in which they are willing to give Ukraine certain things, then diplomacy has a chance. But we all know that Putin only operates on the basis of take-it-or-leave-it dictates, so I am skeptical anything will come of this. I do hope I am wrong.

Did I not say here that Shoigu may rebel against Putin? And now, if Putin is trying to scapegoat him, he has that much more reason to try a coup. He has nothing to lose. He's dead whether he doesn't do anything or he tries a coup and loses.

Yup, it's the one silver lining in all of this. I was genuinely concerned that in a NATO-Russia war we actually stood to potentially lose. Not anymore. Even a woefully unprepared and squabbling with each other NATO would utterly crush the Russians (which of course would then cause them to use tac nukes to save their sorry asses). I mean, that 40 mi. convoy broken down and stuck in mud is a humiliating disgrace. If only we would transfer an MLRS battery to the Ukrainians. That convoy would be obliterated in short order.

Or it could just be their pilots can't operate very well at night, they're too vulnerable to SAMs during the day, their aircraft have very low serviceability, and they've run out of their PGMs, so they decided that since civilian casualties was never something they cared about anyway they would just use their artillery to indiscriminately destroy everything.

Yes indeed. Let me fix that tweet for everyone's benefit: BREAKING: Russia plants ... er, oh sorry *finds* "NATO equipment" at the headquarters of a Ukrainian nazi group ....

Well the main issue though is why, with over 300 tactical aircraft in the theater, they are flying so very few sorties per day (since the first couple of days). Seems their overall aviation situation has some huge question marks attached to it.

As a fellow realist I know Mearsheimer's work very well. But he's a bit of an oddball ... and also somewhat of a Russia apologist. His "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" is a classic in the field of international relations. It was mandatory reading in grad school for me. His more recent books have been mandatory in some of my classes for my students.

US and UK defense officials have asked this same question, and their projection is that Russia does not have a good supply of PGMs, that its best munitions are held only in very small quantities, and they have already exhausted their supply or else don't want to exhaust what little they still have. So they have now switched to unguided munitions, and are trying to make up for the loss in capability by using thermobaric bombs and cluster munitions.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have been so absolute.

I LOVE that they send you a pretty kitty!!!

Haha, you beat me to it. I was going to say exactly this. Yes the costs of standing and fighting against an invader are always very high, and have been that way since the beginning of human settlements. But as the old saying goes, "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees." There are so many things worse than dying, and living under Russian domination is one of those things for sure.