White House Worries Russia’s Momentum Is Changing Trajectory of Ukraine War

Kokavkrystallos

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2024
1,099
591
Farmington
✟34,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Widowed
Multiple factors are helping Russia’s military advance, including a delay in American weaponry and Moscow’s technological innovations on the battlefield.

Just 18 months ago, White House and Pentagon officials debated whether Russia’s forces in Ukraine might collapse and be pushed out of the country entirely.

Now, after months of slow Russian ground advances and technological leaps in countering American-provided arms, the Biden administration is increasingly concerned that President Vladimir V. Putin is gathering enough momentum to change the trajectory of the war, and perhaps reverse his once-bleak prospects.

In recent days, Moscow’s troops have opened a new push near the country’s second-biggest city, Kharkiv, forcing Ukraine to divert its already thinned-out troops to defend an area that it took back from Russian forces in a stunning victory in the fall of 2022.

Artillery and drones provided by the United States and NATO have been taken out by Russian electronic warfare techniques, which came to the battlefield late but have proven surprisingly effective. And a monthslong debate in Washington about whether to send Ukraine a $61 billion package of arms and ammunition created an opening that Russia has clearly exploited, even though Congress ultimately passed the legislation.

In interviews, American officials express confidence that many of these Russian gains are reversible once the spigot of new arms is fully opened, most likely sometime in July, and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine finds ways to bring more — and younger — troops to the front lines. But they are hesitant to offer predictions of where the battle lines may stand even a few months from now, or whether Mr. Zelensky will be able to mount his long-delayed counteroffensive next year, after one last spring fizzled.

American and allied officials interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity, in order to discuss intelligence reports and sensitive battlefield assessments. But some of the concerns have spilled out in public comments.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said with some understatement on Sunday that “there’s no doubt there’s been a cost” to the long delays in sending arms. He insisted, in his appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” that “we’re doing everything we can to rush this assistance out there.” But American officials say President Biden continues to reject the suggestion from President Emmanuel Macron of France that deployment of Western troops in Ukraine may be necessary, an assessment that Mr. Macron’s office said recently he “stands by absolutely.”

In private, some of Mr. Biden’s aides worry that just as the United States has learned key lessons from the war — about technologies that work and those that do not — so has Mr. Putin....


“Russia oftentimes starts its wars poorly and finishes strong,” Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser under President George W. Bush, said at a Harvard conference on Friday. Now, he said, Russia has “brought its mass” — a far larger population to draw troops from, and a “huge military infrastructure” — to mount a comeback."
 

Merrill

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2023
760
501
44
Chicago
✟58,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Biden's decision to allow Ukrainian troops to launch attacks into Russia is one of the worst geopolitical decisions by any US president in the history of our country. It is a major escalation that could lead to global thermo-nuclear war

we don't have to worry about climate change if the world gets destroyed before that ever happens
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
31,016
18,770
Orlando, Florida
✟1,284,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Biden's decision to allow Ukrainian troops to launch attacks into Russia is one of the worst geopolitical decisions by any US president in the history of our country. It is a major escalation that could lead to global thermo-nuclear war

we don't have to worry about climate change if the world gets destroyed before that ever happens

I don't know about that. Maybe Russia's existence as an empire is an obstacle to addressing Climate Change? They make most of their money off oil and natural gas, after all, and engage in alot of internal meddling in western nations to sow disinformation. To top it all off, they don't believe in the kind of international rules based order necessary to address Climate Change in the first place. Instead, their foreign politics is driven by a bizarre fascist mysticism.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,189
6,404
✟281,287.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Biden's decision to allow Ukrainian troops to launch attacks into Russia is one of the worst geopolitical decisions by any US president in the history of our country.

It wasn't "Biden's decision" - Ukraine could always "launch attacks into Russia". It just couldn't conduct strikes on internationally recognized Russian territory with weapons acquired from the US.

Ukraine has been using artillery, ballistic missiles and drones to attack Russian positions inside Russia from February 2022. Ukraine has conducted an escalating series of attacks against Russian oil infrastructure for the better part of the last eight months. It's also supported "separatist" incursions into Russia.


What the Biden administration has done is relax some (but not all) of the usage limitations on long-range weapons. That includes permitting strikes on regions immediately behind the front lines (like around Kharkiv) with MLRS systems (ATACMS, GLSBD and GMLRS), hitting tactical aviation targets with the same and firing SAMs into Russian airspace to intercept cruise missile and drone strikes.

It is a major escalation that could lead to global thermo-nuclear war

Pray tell us, why? What would be the casus belli for a thermonuclear exchange from Ukraine using US-supplied conventional weapons against targets inside Russian territory?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,896
12,701
54
USA
✟314,656.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't know about that. Maybe Russia's existence as an empire is an obstacle to addressing Climate Change? They make most of their money off oil and natural gas, after all, and engage in alot of internal meddling in western nations to sow disinformation. To top it all off, they don't believe in the kind of international rules based order necessary to address Climate Change in the first place. Instead, their foreign politics is driven by a bizarre fascist mysticism.
I am a little concerned about the amount of Russian oil that the Ukrainians keep blowing up in giant fireballs and flaming oil depots and refineries adding all that CO2 to the atmosphere without the benefit of any usable energy. (The fireballs are pretty, but ...) They claimed another million tons of oil burned up over the weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merrill
Upvote 0

Merrill

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2023
760
501
44
Chicago
✟58,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It wasn't "Biden's decision" - Ukraine could always "launch attacks into Russia". It just couldn't conduct strikes on internationally recognized Russian territory with weapons acquired from the US.

Ukraine has been using artillery, ballistic missiles and drones to attack Russian positions inside Russia from February 2022. Ukraine has conducted an escalating series of attacks against Russian oil infrastructure for the better part of the last eight months. It's also supported "separatist" incursions into Russia.


What the Biden administration has done is relax some (but not all) of the usage limitations on long-range weapons. That includes permitting strikes on regions immediately behind the front lines (like around Kharkiv) with MLRS systems (ATACMS, GLSBD and GMLRS), hitting tactical aviation targets with the same and firing SAMs into Russian airspace to intercept cruise missile and drone strikes.



Pray tell us, why? What would be the casus belli for a thermonuclear exchange from Ukraine using US-supplied conventional weapons against targets inside Russian territory?
We can only base our predictions on what Russia has said outwardly about these actions

They view

1. The authorization of strikes into their country using US weapons as an act of war
2. The seizing of their international assets as an act of war

they are also changing their nuclear weapons doctrine to make it possible to go on the offensive against nations who threaten them without nuclear strikes. In other words, they will attack first

all of this is absolutely "Biden's decision" --this war continues because of Biden, and to a lesser degree, the UK and France.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
2,507
1,438
81
Goldsboro NC
✟181,683.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Multiple factors are helping Russia’s military advance, including a delay in American weaponry and Moscow’s technological innovations on the battlefield.

Just 18 months ago, White House and Pentagon officials debated whether Russia’s forces in Ukraine might collapse and be pushed out of the country entirely.

Now, after months of slow Russian ground advances and technological leaps in countering American-provided arms, the Biden administration is increasingly concerned that President Vladimir V. Putin is gathering enough momentum to change the trajectory of the war, and perhaps reverse his once-bleak prospects.

In recent days, Moscow’s troops have opened a new push near the country’s second-biggest city, Kharkiv, forcing Ukraine to divert its already thinned-out troops to defend an area that it took back from Russian forces in a stunning victory in the fall of 2022.

Artillery and drones provided by the United States and NATO have been taken out by Russian electronic warfare techniques, which came to the battlefield late but have proven surprisingly effective. And a monthslong debate in Washington about whether to send Ukraine a $61 billion package of arms and ammunition created an opening that Russia has clearly exploited, even though Congress ultimately passed the legislation.

In interviews, American officials express confidence that many of these Russian gains are reversible once the spigot of new arms is fully opened, most likely sometime in July, and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine finds ways to bring more — and younger — troops to the front lines. But they are hesitant to offer predictions of where the battle lines may stand even a few months from now, or whether Mr. Zelensky will be able to mount his long-delayed counteroffensive next year, after one last spring fizzled.

American and allied officials interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity, in order to discuss intelligence reports and sensitive battlefield assessments. But some of the concerns have spilled out in public comments.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said with some understatement on Sunday that “there’s no doubt there’s been a cost” to the long delays in sending arms. He insisted, in his appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” that “we’re doing everything we can to rush this assistance out there.” But American officials say President Biden continues to reject the suggestion from President Emmanuel Macron of France that deployment of Western troops in Ukraine may be necessary, an assessment that Mr. Macron’s office said recently he “stands by absolutely.”

In private, some of Mr. Biden’s aides worry that just as the United States has learned key lessons from the war — about technologies that work and those that do not — so has Mr. Putin....


“Russia oftentimes starts its wars poorly and finishes strong,” Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser under President George W. Bush, said at a Harvard conference on Friday. Now, he said, Russia has “brought its mass” — a far larger population to draw troops from, and a “huge military infrastructure” — to mount a comeback."
It appears that Republican policy may have been successful--help bring about the defeat of Ukraine without getting their hands too dirty or being too obviously in favor of the Russians.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,896
12,701
54
USA
✟314,656.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
they are also changing their nuclear weapons doctrine to make it possible to go on the offensive against nations who threaten them without nuclear strikes. In other words, they will attack first
Meh. Russia's been threatening others with nuclear weapons for 70 years and has still yet to use one against another nation.
 
Upvote 0