JoeWeber

I just read the material in each of the three links. I suppose if I really wanted to escalate the war in Ukraine the Memorandum might be used as a part of the pretense. However, I do not. The problems with using the Memorandum for the purpose are many; it's not explicit and we've already ignored it as inconvenient are just two of those problems. So far no ones time table for the war has proved accurate. I still think that as long as it's the war in Ukraine we leave it in Ukraine. There are reasons to believe the Russian frog is boiling.

Sure seems that way. Let's keep them contained.

At least one, maybe two, Russian Major Generals are reported to have been killed by snipers.

I also hope you are wrong. But until there are for real bright lines drawn we need to do what we can. Same as after for real bright lines are drawn. I feel for Keith who believes strongly that military action by the US, followed by NATO, is what is needed now to save Ukrainian lives. I simply believe that is not true. I believe that containing the war in Ukraine is the current best plan.

Nope. I meant just that. It was a reference to the will of individual European Nations not a call to anyone to impose a NATO led No-Fly Zone over Ukraine. You will notice, perhaps, that I didn't state that we we or NATO should. Again, and I get that you will disagree, I think there are scenarios where our European friends can act unilaterally without causing the rest of the NATO alliance to be involved.

It was you who first used the term "no-fly zone" in this thread. I have stated here that I didn't think a European Nation acting offensively would trigger Article 5. If I stated anywhere that I thought a NATO no-fly zone imposed over Ukraine was a fine idea then I was crazy but I'm pretty sure I did not. I have stated that Brents idea of supplying missile defense systems to be used along the border was a good idea. Along the way we clarified what a no fly zone was (BIGUN) and that firing missiles from Polish soil was a bad idea. So why are you still flogging this horse?

Because??? Because what? Of course it won't be a "no-fly zone". It also won't be a pickle barrel, a '59 Edsel or a pepperoni pizza.

Maybe. I spent a month in Myanmar, I think 2003 but who knows. Information in was tightly controlled. The kids figured out the work arounds and got me spooled up. There were underground internet shops, etc. I reckon the Russian kids, with Elons help, will figure out something.

Things change a lot and a decade is a long time, sometimes. I don't have any first hand information on what it is like to be Russian Middle Class in 2022. My understanding is that it's a real thing. What I can state with some confidence is that in some countries that are ruled, um differently, international sanctions have made taking money out a bit more difficult at the lower levels. I have a deal in play in Venezuela for example. Everyone involved is straight up and serious. Because I'll need to go there sooner than later I've been trying to make sense of things on the ground. Looks to me like stores are stocked and things are very different than the picture Brent was painting a bit ago. Yes, money remains concentrated in a smaller percentage of people than logic says makes sense. But, it looks to me like Venezuelans are investing in Venezuela instead of just looking for a way to expatriate funds. I guess, without evidence, that was going on in Russia, too.

Ignore the Oligarchs, Putin built a middle class in Russia. But just like the middle class everywhere if you take away their ease they revolt. That's the soft underbelly this time around.

Maybe real, maybe not but the Ukrainians are owning the news cycle.

Now let's stay smart. Let's make the border area from Poland and Slovakia into Ukraine wide and as safe as possible and keep pumping weapons and material into Ukraine. We cannot win this thing but the Russians can certainly lose this thing. We were driven out of Vietnam by imagery. Let's give the people of Russia a taste of what losing looks like.

Ukraine is a small part of the equation. The situation there only tells us that we failed in advance. Now, like it or not, the best world result is to make it a cauldron of Russian defeat without involving any other nation. Fewer people will die, including children. Sad but true.

Let's not forget that Putin wears the crucifix and his mother is devoutly catholic. Let's also not ignore the bond between Putin's desires and the evangelical right in America. Let's also not ignore the power of Christianity in our own armed forces. And, whether we be believers or not, let none of us discount reactively the influence of religion in world conflicts. And that specifically includes the wanton and indiscriminate murder of innocent children.

Now there you go again. Naive strategic thinking is fun when you're drinking beerski's but the thing we really need here and now is BJ Worth. That's right, it's time to pull BJ out of mothballs to organize a 500 Way. We'll build a big Yellow and Blue F U and land with streamers all around the Russian 1st Guards Motor Rifle Division. How cool would that be?

Close but no cigar. It was actually the Biden/Obama/Chamberlain/Arnold/Doody administration.

As I've been recently informed: "Time will tell; as always."

Maybe that's a good thing. In any case his first book, Ally Versus Ally: America, Europe, and the Siberian Pipeline Crisis published in 1987 shows he's given what faces us today some previous thought. I've not read it, only the review on Foreign Policy, but apparently at the time he felt Russia would be Russia and a strong alliance should be the primary focus. From FP: "In Ally Versus Ally, Blinken evinced little sympathy for the Reagan administration’s campaign of maximum pressure against the Soviet Union, though he also thought the Europeans’ hope that “expanded economic relations will produce positive change in the Kremlin’s foreign and domestic policies” was “wishful thinking.” However, he argued, U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union was less important than U.S. policy toward its European allies. The key geopolitical prize was not changes in Soviet behavior—which were difficult to predict or to shape—but alliance unity." “By promoting a more harmonious alliance, rather than one divided over an issue as fundamental as East-West trade relations, the West will be in a better position to meet the challenges posed by its adversaries,” Blinken wrote. The reason was that the U.S. strategy of containing Soviet influence primarily depended on the durability of the transatlantic alliance. “If the Siberian pipeline crisis teaches us anything, it is that the Western alliance must look inward, and not simply outward, if it is to remain secure.” Given the state of the Alliance, particularly post Trump, he just might be the right guy for the times.

Being consistently scoffable doesn't mean every idea a guy has should be immediately scoffed. I really don't want it to get around but I liked your idea first.

Escalation to what? To not going to direct war? I may well be wrong but it seems unlikely that the Russians will call that NATO intervention after the fact anymore than they'll call all of the shoulder launched weapons the world has been funneling into Ukraine NATO intervention, again, after the fact. Of course they might but we deal with that then.

He's so naive! "The U.S. government is looking for ways to replenish Poland’s arsenal should the country agree to provide some of its Soviet-era combat jets to Ukraine, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said." Who could have thought of that?

Does it really need to so parsed? I still think it's a good idea no matter what it's called if it doesn't cause a wider war. If it eases the transfer of arms or helps fleeing citizens it must be good.

I'd say my plan is faring as well as yours. Both remain well defended but firmly inside the borders of fantasyland and neither has yet caused nuclear war. The casualties would be terrible if fewer but would no doubt be much greater in a wider war. I still think the best play is to keep this inside Ukraine if possible.

I'm currently going with this one as offered by BIGUN for my edification. https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-dangerous-allure-of-the-no-fly-zone/ As far as Putin, not that I know of but if and when he does or doesn't you'll be right again.

Right. We already got like you said. He's thinking something different than the official definition of a no fly zone.