My fear is that while the US abandoning Ukraine is almost a given, the new administration will also threaten and pressure European governments to do the same. Will they resist or fold?
I've been skeptical of Europe's willingness to recognize the importance to their own security of Ukraine's fight against Russia but lately have seen some hopeful signs. Britain seems to be reprising their alarm at the rise of the Nazis prior to WWII and the Eastern European states are standing up in a way that hopefully will continue.
I understand your fear and cannot say it is totally unfounded. But given Trumps willingness to threaten and be aggressive to everyone he will face some trouble here. Too many threats and not enough consequences I think. Because he is so likely to start with tariffs and threats on so many issues. If he carries them through, what more can he do next time?
I get that “Ukraine will fight rather than agree to a ceasefire without ironclad security guarantees…”. I absolutely agree with that. If Ukraine can continue to ramp up home-made cruise/drone deep strikes on Russian fuel and armaments, time is no longer clearly on Russia’s side.
Everyone has read that Trump/Kellogg will apply pressures to get both sides to come to the negotiating table. Big deal; so they both show up and snarl at each other. Neither side will accept a multitude of conditions that we can expect the other side will declare non-negotiable. Stalemate. …Go home and have lunch?
The crunch comes with how Trump & team decide to wring results from the “negotiations” (if that’s what they’ll truly deserve to be called). What pressures will they apply to coerce signatures on an “agreement” that Trump/Kellogg may have been the primary authors? In whose favor? Trump has never indicated he cares at all how right and wrong, legal or illegal, or war crimes should factor in; only that he wants “the killing to stop”, so that the US can walk away. Sure sounds like a “peace at any price” recipe to me.
If this does evolve into a “sign it, or else…” show, WHO will be threatened with WHAT for the “or else” option? A simple, “Never mind, we’ll just go back to fighting” choice may not be so easy. Keep working on the drone and missile production.
Thanks for the report, always good to get your perspective. But, if the Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure is failing. And such attacks are bound to be failing. What does that say about the Ukrainian attacks against Russian infrastructure?
Russia’s focus, it seems, is on electrical generation and distribution infrastructure, seeking to maximize pain and inconvenience to civilians - driving morale down and partly to increase emigration. Electricity can be imported from adjacent countries and carried over restrung wires.
Ukraine’s energy related efforts are directed largely at oil refining and fuel storage. Once it’s in flames, it’s gone - unavailable for military use or export for hard currency. Refining facilities (apparently) take considerable time (and tech stuff?) to repair. Keep it up Ukraine !!
It is very early days. But Russian oil refining was cut 17% last year. And Ukraine clearly knows it has to keep hitting the refineries because that is what they keep on doing.
Ukraine's bombing campaign seems mostly targeted at Russian military logistics: ammo, drone, and glide bomb dumps, fuels, trucks, industrial plants producing military materiel etc. You can see the effect in the fall off in artillery fires. And it seems a more sensible strategy than attacking civilian targets. It appears whoever is planning this did read about Allied bombing in WWII.
They’re different. Ukraine is not attacking Russian civilian infrastructure directly. They’re attacking their ability to fuel and supply their army, which has quite a significant knock-on effect for other parts of their economy, particularly now export
Great points about how people just don't understand how big the Ukrainian army is. Or why it is so big. Or why the enormous line of contact means it is stretched so thin.
The French exercise was amusing, if only because it makes Stefan's point about how small many NATO militaries have become. That said, France is deploying a full armored brigade to Romania imminently. The Germans are preparing their own for deployment to Lithuania. IIRC British and US armor are in Estonia and Latvia already. All that will have far more influence on Russian plans than a paradrop exercise.
There is a lack of curiosity and an intellectual laziness in the West with so much of the... I was going to say 'war reporting' but there's too little of that, 'punditry' is a better description. And that punditry is often based on narratives that are now years old and which have been overtaken by subsequent events but it still shapes the rest of the population's opinions.
I'n not suggesting they will suddenly reinforce Ukrainian troops on the frontline. But their presence, thousand of kilometres from their home bases, will concentrate Russian minds. Also that not to do so only invites Russia to expand the conflict. Russia cannot afford to stumble into a war with any of those nations, let alone the whole of NATO.
In addition to the slowly correcting limitations on funding, manning and equipping, there’s more about NATO that justifies concern.
The unanimity requirement for NATO decisions to be approved results in the delaying or potentially precluding of actions that should be executed with expediency. We all watched Hungary (Orban) and Turkey (Erdogan) hold up the inclusion of Sweden and Finland unreasonably. NATO membership is not only the clear best solution for Ukraine security, but would add to NATO the largest, best technologically advancing military in Europe. Even if the majority of current membership does come to realize the good sense of admitting Ukraine (if cowardice could be overcome by sound judgement), we could expect Ukraine’s admission to be effectively vetoed by Hungary and, currently, Slovakia.
A bylaw mechanism is needed for sidelining countries which have evolved into virtual allies of Russia.
And it's getting one. What you're saying needs a little updating. Almost every NATO member is updating equipment and buying modern systems. Order books at defence manufacturers are so full, new plants are being built across Europe (including several in Ukraine). You just don't hear about it. For example, Poland has given ALL of its T-72 MBTs to Ukraine, and that's because it has received more than 100 Abrams already, with hundreds more of the latest model arriving in the next two years. There are dozens of similar examples but there is just too little reporting.
My fear is that while the US abandoning Ukraine is almost a given, the new administration will also threaten and pressure European governments to do the same. Will they resist or fold?
I've been skeptical of Europe's willingness to recognize the importance to their own security of Ukraine's fight against Russia but lately have seen some hopeful signs. Britain seems to be reprising their alarm at the rise of the Nazis prior to WWII and the Eastern European states are standing up in a way that hopefully will continue.
I understand your fear and cannot say it is totally unfounded. But given Trumps willingness to threaten and be aggressive to everyone he will face some trouble here. Too many threats and not enough consequences I think. Because he is so likely to start with tariffs and threats on so many issues. If he carries them through, what more can he do next time?
I get that “Ukraine will fight rather than agree to a ceasefire without ironclad security guarantees…”. I absolutely agree with that. If Ukraine can continue to ramp up home-made cruise/drone deep strikes on Russian fuel and armaments, time is no longer clearly on Russia’s side.
Everyone has read that Trump/Kellogg will apply pressures to get both sides to come to the negotiating table. Big deal; so they both show up and snarl at each other. Neither side will accept a multitude of conditions that we can expect the other side will declare non-negotiable. Stalemate. …Go home and have lunch?
The crunch comes with how Trump & team decide to wring results from the “negotiations” (if that’s what they’ll truly deserve to be called). What pressures will they apply to coerce signatures on an “agreement” that Trump/Kellogg may have been the primary authors? In whose favor? Trump has never indicated he cares at all how right and wrong, legal or illegal, or war crimes should factor in; only that he wants “the killing to stop”, so that the US can walk away. Sure sounds like a “peace at any price” recipe to me.
If this does evolve into a “sign it, or else…” show, WHO will be threatened with WHAT for the “or else” option? A simple, “Never mind, we’ll just go back to fighting” choice may not be so easy. Keep working on the drone and missile production.
Thanks for the report, always good to get your perspective. But, if the Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure is failing. And such attacks are bound to be failing. What does that say about the Ukrainian attacks against Russian infrastructure?
Apples and oranges.
Russia’s focus, it seems, is on electrical generation and distribution infrastructure, seeking to maximize pain and inconvenience to civilians - driving morale down and partly to increase emigration. Electricity can be imported from adjacent countries and carried over restrung wires.
Ukraine’s energy related efforts are directed largely at oil refining and fuel storage. Once it’s in flames, it’s gone - unavailable for military use or export for hard currency. Refining facilities (apparently) take considerable time (and tech stuff?) to repair. Keep it up Ukraine !!
It is very early days. But Russian oil refining was cut 17% last year. And Ukraine clearly knows it has to keep hitting the refineries because that is what they keep on doing.
Ukraine's bombing campaign seems mostly targeted at Russian military logistics: ammo, drone, and glide bomb dumps, fuels, trucks, industrial plants producing military materiel etc. You can see the effect in the fall off in artillery fires. And it seems a more sensible strategy than attacking civilian targets. It appears whoever is planning this did read about Allied bombing in WWII.
Get you points. I just sincerely hope it is not «early days»…
They’re different. Ukraine is not attacking Russian civilian infrastructure directly. They’re attacking their ability to fuel and supply their army, which has quite a significant knock-on effect for other parts of their economy, particularly now export
I was thinking the same.
Great points about how people just don't understand how big the Ukrainian army is. Or why it is so big. Or why the enormous line of contact means it is stretched so thin.
The French exercise was amusing, if only because it makes Stefan's point about how small many NATO militaries have become. That said, France is deploying a full armored brigade to Romania imminently. The Germans are preparing their own for deployment to Lithuania. IIRC British and US armor are in Estonia and Latvia already. All that will have far more influence on Russian plans than a paradrop exercise.
There is a lack of curiosity and an intellectual laziness in the West with so much of the... I was going to say 'war reporting' but there's too little of that, 'punditry' is a better description. And that punditry is often based on narratives that are now years old and which have been overtaken by subsequent events but it still shapes the rest of the population's opinions.
I wonder if they understand that a full armored brigade can hold about 10 km of a frontline. Perhaps 20 if it is really full and fresh.
Multiply that by about ten for Ukraine. :(
I'n not suggesting they will suddenly reinforce Ukrainian troops on the frontline. But their presence, thousand of kilometres from their home bases, will concentrate Russian minds. Also that not to do so only invites Russia to expand the conflict. Russia cannot afford to stumble into a war with any of those nations, let alone the whole of NATO.
"Without credible, real deterrence Russia will attack again."
Excellent reporting as always. I’m worried about NATO.
In addition to the slowly correcting limitations on funding, manning and equipping, there’s more about NATO that justifies concern.
The unanimity requirement for NATO decisions to be approved results in the delaying or potentially precluding of actions that should be executed with expediency. We all watched Hungary (Orban) and Turkey (Erdogan) hold up the inclusion of Sweden and Finland unreasonably. NATO membership is not only the clear best solution for Ukraine security, but would add to NATO the largest, best technologically advancing military in Europe. Even if the majority of current membership does come to realize the good sense of admitting Ukraine (if cowardice could be overcome by sound judgement), we could expect Ukraine’s admission to be effectively vetoed by Hungary and, currently, Slovakia.
A bylaw mechanism is needed for sidelining countries which have evolved into virtual allies of Russia.
We always worry about NATO. It needs one colossal kick up the arsenal !
And it's getting one. What you're saying needs a little updating. Almost every NATO member is updating equipment and buying modern systems. Order books at defence manufacturers are so full, new plants are being built across Europe (including several in Ukraine). You just don't hear about it. For example, Poland has given ALL of its T-72 MBTs to Ukraine, and that's because it has received more than 100 Abrams already, with hundreds more of the latest model arriving in the next two years. There are dozens of similar examples but there is just too little reporting.