SS: Jakub Grygiel writes that the United States should provide Kyiv the weapons it needs to win the war against Russia without limits on striking Russian territory, saying “United States and its allies need to give Kyiv one last serious chance at victory—defined not as a return to Ukraine’s 2013 borders (as Kyiv would prefer) but as a sustainable restoration of roughly its 2021 borders.”
He continues that “the most plausible way to achieve this goal is to surge weapons to Ukraine and place no restrictions on their use.”
Decisive action and “stabilizing Europe first”, Grygiel argues, “would allow Washington to concentrate its efforts in the Asian theater, where it faces a looming threat from China”.
I don’t understand. How could Ukraine possibly recover all lost territories before November? I don’t think that is a realistic scenario at all.
Also, if they’d manage to achieve it, how would they settle on NOT reconquering Crimea also if they see they can take all the rest in few months? War would not end anyway.
On top of that, having no restrictions on weapon usage means they can strike on Donbas, ok, but why not, Moscow. They would not do it, but Russia could use it to escalate the war efforts with the pretext of self-defense.
The only “plan” in the article is “lets give everything we have and maybe somehow it would be a win”. Thats not how serious geopolitical plans are made.
The fastest way to end the war is let Ukraine join NATO, afterwards NATO should give Russia an ultimatum, in whice if they don’t stop attacking Ukraine they will have no other choice but to send troops to help Ukraine.
Russia is on the edge, they cant win against single country, they surely will not have a chance against NATO. Putin knows it. And he knows Russia isn’t ready for this kind of war. He knows that if he want to win this kind of war he need time to prepare and recover the army be lost.
So potentially it can end the war in the fastest way.
On the other hand it can also make it much worse – bringing ww3 to the table. Potentially even tactical nuclear weapons or bigger if Russia feels trapped and in danger to lose control.
So maybe the best option is to send soldiers of other nato nations on passive defence deployment on some parts of the front, letting other armed units of Ukraine be occupied on other more important missions. Russia cant attack those foreign troops, and those troops will not attack Russian forces unless being attacked by the last.
But who can really tell, it’s Putin we are talking about.
The war could’ve ended 10 years ago if NATO actually put their foot down about Crimea, but we didn’t. And now Russian is occupying Eastern Ukraine.
And if we don’t put our foot down now, they’ll occupy the rest as well.
Time and time again, commentators hyperfocus on equipment and technology, and neglect that the primary issue with the ZSU this year is manpower. We can give them our entire stock of Abrams, but if they don’t have the crews to man them, we might as well be sending scrap metal. Zel started mobilizing way too late compared to Russia, and now they’re paying the price.
Furthermore, I truly believe sacking Zaluzhny was a serious strategic blunder. Syrsky doesn’t understand the limitations AND strengths of the ZSU, and is fighting the way Russia wants him to fight – a head-to-head attritional fight.
Unfortunately, aside from continuing to supply ammunition and intelligence, there isn’t that much that partner nations can do to fix this, aside from advising the Ukrainian government and encouraging repatriation of military age men back to Ukraine.
The only way the war ends this year with Ukraine in the stronger negotiating position is a mass kill chain of every logistics hub leading to Ukraine in Russia leading into and during the Winter, causing a mass supply shortage and the weight of the Russian Army collapsing in on itself.
The weight of munitions to do so, especially those of the long range variety is immense and I just can’t see it happening.
Any other plan just doesn’t happen this year as Ukraine is having trouble conserving power for offensives with Russia’s disregard for casualties, and Russia’s supply shortages don’t truly bite until mid next year.
Hey guys I have a plan for Ukraine too. They “just” need to get everything they need (magically of course) and then they “just” need to push Russia out of all of its occupied territories, and then Russia “just” has to accept their loss and agree to peace. This is all so easy why don’t they let me run things.
I also have great ideas for domestic policies. Under me I would simply make like 10 million jobs and “just” give them to homeless people. I’d “just” make people earn a lot of money so nobody is poor. And id “just” make school free for everybody.
8 comments
SS: Jakub Grygiel writes that the United States should provide Kyiv the weapons it needs to win the war against Russia without limits on striking Russian territory, saying “United States and its allies need to give Kyiv one last serious chance at victory—defined not as a return to Ukraine’s 2013 borders (as Kyiv would prefer) but as a sustainable restoration of roughly its 2021 borders.”
He continues that “the most plausible way to achieve this goal is to surge weapons to Ukraine and place no restrictions on their use.”
Decisive action and “stabilizing Europe first”, Grygiel argues, “would allow Washington to concentrate its efforts in the Asian theater, where it faces a looming threat from China”.
I don’t understand. How could Ukraine possibly recover all lost territories before November? I don’t think that is a realistic scenario at all.
Also, if they’d manage to achieve it, how would they settle on NOT reconquering Crimea also if they see they can take all the rest in few months? War would not end anyway.
On top of that, having no restrictions on weapon usage means they can strike on Donbas, ok, but why not, Moscow. They would not do it, but Russia could use it to escalate the war efforts with the pretext of self-defense.
The only “plan” in the article is “lets give everything we have and maybe somehow it would be a win”. Thats not how serious geopolitical plans are made.
The fastest way to end the war is let Ukraine join NATO, afterwards NATO should give Russia an ultimatum, in whice if they don’t stop attacking Ukraine they will have no other choice but to send troops to help Ukraine.
Russia is on the edge, they cant win against single country, they surely will not have a chance against NATO. Putin knows it. And he knows Russia isn’t ready for this kind of war. He knows that if he want to win this kind of war he need time to prepare and recover the army be lost.
So potentially it can end the war in the fastest way.
On the other hand it can also make it much worse – bringing ww3 to the table. Potentially even tactical nuclear weapons or bigger if Russia feels trapped and in danger to lose control.
So maybe the best option is to send soldiers of other nato nations on passive defence deployment on some parts of the front, letting other armed units of Ukraine be occupied on other more important missions. Russia cant attack those foreign troops, and those troops will not attack Russian forces unless being attacked by the last.
But who can really tell, it’s Putin we are talking about.
The war could’ve ended 10 years ago if NATO actually put their foot down about Crimea, but we didn’t. And now Russian is occupying Eastern Ukraine.
And if we don’t put our foot down now, they’ll occupy the rest as well.
Time and time again, commentators hyperfocus on equipment and technology, and neglect that the primary issue with the ZSU this year is manpower. We can give them our entire stock of Abrams, but if they don’t have the crews to man them, we might as well be sending scrap metal. Zel started mobilizing way too late compared to Russia, and now they’re paying the price.
Furthermore, I truly believe sacking Zaluzhny was a serious strategic blunder. Syrsky doesn’t understand the limitations AND strengths of the ZSU, and is fighting the way Russia wants him to fight – a head-to-head attritional fight.
Unfortunately, aside from continuing to supply ammunition and intelligence, there isn’t that much that partner nations can do to fix this, aside from advising the Ukrainian government and encouraging repatriation of military age men back to Ukraine.
The only way the war ends this year with Ukraine in the stronger negotiating position is a mass kill chain of every logistics hub leading to Ukraine in Russia leading into and during the Winter, causing a mass supply shortage and the weight of the Russian Army collapsing in on itself.
The weight of munitions to do so, especially those of the long range variety is immense and I just can’t see it happening.
Any other plan just doesn’t happen this year as Ukraine is having trouble conserving power for offensives with Russia’s disregard for casualties, and Russia’s supply shortages don’t truly bite until mid next year.
Hey guys I have a plan for Ukraine too. They “just” need to get everything they need (magically of course) and then they “just” need to push Russia out of all of its occupied territories, and then Russia “just” has to accept their loss and agree to peace. This is all so easy why don’t they let me run things.
I also have great ideas for domestic policies. Under me I would simply make like 10 million jobs and “just” give them to homeless people. I’d “just” make people earn a lot of money so nobody is poor. And id “just” make school free for everybody.