Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Take your GOP plan out of the witness protection program.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

I wonder if trump will be tried as an adult.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Everyone is in a bubble, but some bubbles model reality far better than others!

We still have time to mess this up!

Ah, the different things are different argument.

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

I conferred with the team and they all agree – still not tired of winning!

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

An unpunished coup is a training exercise.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

“Cheese and Kraken paired together for the appetizer trial.”

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Second rate reporter says what?

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

I’m sure you banged some questionable people yourself.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / War for Ukraine Day 503: NATO

War for Ukraine Day 503: NATO

by | 99 Comments

This post is in: , , , , , , ,

(Current mood!)

It’s been another long day, so we’re going to try to keep this short.

President Zelenskyy is in Vilnius for the NATO summit. Here are his remarks from the Ukrainian flags on Lithuanian streets event. His remarks start at the 10:08 mark.

@ZelenskyyUa

Today, a Ukrainian battle flag from Bakhmut is flying over Vilnius. The Battle for Bakhmut is one of the most defining battles for freedom in Europe, and will be remembered as such by our children and grandchildren. This battle flag from Bakhmut reassures Lithuanians that you will never again have to fight against russian soldiers, either under the Vilnius TV tower or anywhere else in the capital of your country.

NATO did exactly what we expected they were going to do. They punted. The Financial Times has details:

Nato leaders have declared they are prepared for Ukraine to ultimately join the military alliance, in a carefully hedged statement that drew immediate condemnation from Kyiv for its lack of a firm timeframe.

A summit communiqué agreed on Tuesday pledges to “extend an invitation” to Ukraine to join the alliance when “allies agree and conditions are met”.

Jens Stoltenberg, secretary-general, said the commitment would streamline the accession process and make Ukraine’s membership dependent simply on a political decision. “This will change Ukraine’s membership path from a two-step process to a one-step process,” he said.

But Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy immediately hit out at the 31-member alliance for negotiating the text without Kyiv at the table.

“It seems there is no readiness neither to invite Ukraine to Nato nor to make it a member of the alliance . . . For Russia, this means motivation to continue its terror,” he said, ahead of arriving at the summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.

Separately, the G7 group of industrialised countries continued negotiations on an overarching package to support Ukraine “as long as it takes”, which they hope to announce as soon as the Nato summit is over.

The summit has been dominated by how to respond to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The communiqué states that Kyiv’s “future is in Nato” but provides no timeline for its accession.

US President Joe Biden signalled Washington’s support for the compromise text, speaking beside Stoltenberg. “We agree on the language that we proposed and you proposed relative to the future of Ukraine being able to join Nato,” Biden said.

But Zelenskyy said it was “unprecedented and absurd when [a] timeframe is not set, neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership”, and also attacked Nato’s “vague conditions” for inviting Kyiv.

The compromise over the text had aimed to show Ukraine’s membership would be a potentially fast-tracked political decision that would bypass Nato’s formal accession process while nodding to US and German concerns about appearing to lower the bar for entry.

The issue of how to acknowledge Ukraine’s membership ambitions as it defends itself against Russian aggression has exposed divisions within Nato in weeks of intense negotiations, with the US and Germany wary of implying that Kyiv’s membership is inevitable without conditions attached.

On the other side, mainly eastern European members, with the backing of France and the UK, had called for the word “invitation” to be included in the statement and for an acknowledgment that it would be a political, not technical decision to invite Ukraine to join.

Dmitry Peskov, Russian president Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, told reporters that any move to speed up Ukraine’s admission into Nato would be “potentially very dangerous for European security”, according to Interfax.

“This carries a lot of risks and the people who will make this decision should admit that,” he said.

The whole point here is TO NOT GIVE MOSCOW A VOTE!!!!!

There is more at the link.

Here’s Gideon Rachman’s take: (emphasis mine)

“Holding Nato together is really critical,” says Joe Biden. But the unity of Nato’s 31 members will be put to its biggest test since the beginning of the Ukraine war, at the organisation’s summit in Lithuania this week.

The issue that threatens to divide the alliance is Ukraine’s ambition to join it. One camp, including Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine itself, wants to see the country put on a fast track to Nato membership. Another, led by the US and supported by Germany, wants to slow the process down and to promote other forms of security guarantee for Ukraine.

Skilful diplomats will probably find a form of words that will paper over these cracks. The final Nato communiqué is likely to assert that Ukraine will join the alliance in the future but avoid any pledge to fast-track the process.

That, however, will not be the end of the matter. Lying behind this argument are fundamental differences about how to end the Ukraine war and how to guarantee the peace once it does end.

The hardline camp believes that the goal should be complete victory for Ukraine and humiliating defeat for Russia. They think that the only way to secure peace is to break Russian power and then to bring Ukraine into Nato. They believe that Kyiv has already paid a heavy price for excessive US and German caution in the delivery of weapons — and that the Americans are now repeating this mistake by dragging their feet over future Ukrainian membership of the alliance.

The American and German governments are more cautious about both war aims and securing the peace. One senior German diplomat muses that behind Poland’s talk of the need for a total defeat of Vladimir Putin is the hope that Russia might eventually break apart. That, he says, is an idea that Berlin has no interest in.

The Americans are not saying that Ukraine can never join Nato. But they are gently applying the brakes by insisting that every technical requirement must be fulfilled first. When the indignant hardliners cite the recent fast-tracking of Finland into the alliance as a precedent, the US response is that Finland, as an EU member, already fulfilled all the requirements on anti-corruption measures, democratic governance and the like.

Behind the formal American objections lies a concern that any commitment to fast-track Ukraine into Nato could prolong the war, and introduce dangerous complications into a future peace settlement. For example, would Crimea be covered by a Nato security guarantee for Ukraine? Some US officials also worry that some allies would actually like to see Nato drawn directly into the war with Russia. “If they want that, they should say so openly,” says one well-placed Washingtonian, “because that’s not our policy.”

Rather than push for Nato now, the US is emphasising alternative forms of security guarantee. The idea would be to establish a unique military partnership with Ukraine involving the transfer of high-tech weaponry and intense military-to-military co-operation. The plan, says one US official, is to create a “defence-oriented force that would present too hard a target for any future Russian aggression”. Biden and others have likened this to the US relationship with Israel. Like the Israelis, the Ukrainians would be a close American ally, furnished with the most advanced military equipment — including, controversially, cluster munitions. But crucially, like Israel, Ukraine would not, initially, be covered by Nato’s Article V security guarantee.

All this talk of alternative security guarantees worries some of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters in Nato. Last week, Kaja Kallas, the Estonian prime minister, put her frustration on the record when she told the FT: “We need practical, concrete steps on the path to Nato membership. I have the feeling that talking about security guarantees actually blurs the picture . . . the only security guarantee that really works . . . is Nato membership.”

It is easy to sympathise with Kallas’s view that ambiguity is dangerous and that “grey zones are sources of conflict and war”. Ukraine would certainly be safer inside Nato and experience suggests that Russia would be unlikely to attack a country covered by Article V.

The Biden White House is likely to be the most Ukraine- and Nato-friendly administration that the US can currently produce. The Republicans are the party of Donald Trump, not of the late John McCain. Any move to fast-track Ukraine into Nato could easily become an issue in the US presidential election. Senate ratification of Ukrainian membership would not be guaranteed.

The Guardian has this absolutely garbage statement from Colin Kahl, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy:

Colin Kahl, the US undersecretary for defence, visiting London alongside the president, said there was resistance in the White House to any suggestion “that there’s a degree of automaticity or immediacy” to Nato membership.

Kahl is supposed to be stepping down some time this month. It can’t happen soon enough!

The simple fact of the matter is if the Republicans retake the presidency in 2024 those unilateral security guarantees are not going to be worth the paper they’re written on! The Ukrainians aren’t stupid, they know about Tom Cotton’s letter to the Iranians regarding the JCPOA. They know about the House GOP’s Ukraine skepticism and Putinphilia. They know that a Republican Congressional Delegation made up of all GOP senators and one GOP representative spent the 4th of July in Moscow less than a decade ago. They know that Senator Paul hand delivered something to Putin from Trump. They know if they’re not fast tracked into NATO before the 2024 election’s get underway, they’re not getting into NATO any time soon if at all. You know who else knows? Vladimir Putin! And he got everything he could’ve wanted out of today’s NATO communique.

I can understand it that NATO can’t admit Ukraine while there’s an ongoing war. But excuse me, saying that Ukraine’s military still needs reforms to join NATO — after it has made Russia lose over 2,100 tanks, over 900 APCs, nearly 2,500 IFVs, almost 700 artillery pieces, over 230 MRLSs, over 80 airplanes, almost 100 helicopters and a large missile cruiser (all per @oryxspioenkop), after it has generally defeated Russia’s initial all-out blitzkrieg, liberated a large part of its territory, successfully acquired a wide range of Western weaponry and equipment, destroyed the myth of Russia’s historical military invincibility, regained the strategic initiative and launched a full-scale counteroffensive — is a very weak excuse. Let’s at least be honest and admit that it’s NATO being not ready now. Which is still understandable. I think after everything we have seen over the last 16 months, the Ukrainian military would be quite capable of completing reforms to reach full compatibility with NATO regulations if the alliance itself was ready.

Before I go any further: learn to fucking thread your tweets!

Now back to your regularly scheduled diatribe!

I’m the only one here at Balloon Juice who really knows what the price for this was for the Georgians in 2008, unless we’ve got Georgian readers. I was deployed in Iraq with the 33rd Shavnabanda. They were attached to our brigade combat team as one of our maneuver battalions. They took more KIAs than the BCT or any echelon within the BCT! It was our job to facilitate them getting home. I will never forget standing there, along with the BCT commander, deputy commander, XO, and the rest of the senior staff, all of us trying to keep proper military bearing while the Georgians – from the battalion commander to the youngest junior enlisted – begged us to come help them. “You’re coming, right? We go, we get started, you come! We came to help you, you’re coming?” We weren’t coming. Our national command authority had lied to their leadership. And now, fifteen years later parts of Georgia are still physically occupied and the government is occupied as well because it is controlled by a party that the Kremlin controls.

If anyone wonders why the US hasn’t been able to win a war since WWII this strategic malpractice is an excellent answer!

Orikihiv:

The rescue operations in Orikhiv have been completed. On July 9, russian aerial bombs destroyed the city’s largest civilian shelter and the humanitarian aid center. Unfortunately, the number of dead has increased to seven. While the rescuers were sorting out the rubble, the russian terrorists launched another airstrike on them.

Berdyansk:

I’m stopping here. I’m just disgusted. I’m embarrassed as an American and as an American national security professional.

Your daily Patron!

A new video from Patron’s official TikTok:

@patron__dsns

✌🏻

♬ kendrick x radiohead – dwells

Open thread!

Reader Interactions

99Comments

  1. 1.

    Alison Rose

    (Adam, there’s something odd happening with the first video. I’m seeing one of those “enter the letters to prove you’re real” things, with some text below about detecting unusual activity from the network. I tried entering the letters but it keeps giving me new ones.)

  3. 3.

    Adam L Silverman

    I’m going to go get cleaned up and rack out. You all have a good night. I don’t think anyone wants me in the comments to this update.

  4. 4.

    japa21

    Adam, thank you for doing all this despite your disgust, a feeling shared by many here.  It doesn’t quite descend to the level that was reached by our betrayal of the Kurds, but it does come close.  Unless there are things being said behind closed doors we are not privy to.

  5. 5.

    Alison Rose

    when “allies agree and conditions are met”.

    Fuck this fucking noise. I’m also disgusted and embarrassed, and angry on behalf of Zelenskyy and all Ukrainians who are once again being told that their lives don’t matter, their land doesn’t matter, and that putin has NATO’s balls in a vice grip and they apparently enjoy it. I’m honestly amazed that Zelenskyy didn’t just tell them to fuck off into the sun, but he’s a better diplomat than I am.

    And since I’m sure we’ll get the parade of people in the comments to explain why this is all good and fine and that literally the worst thing one could ever do is criticize a Democrat, I’m out for the night.

    Thank you as always, Adam, especially on a day when you probably just wanted to dropkick your laptop off the roof.

  7. 7.

    trollhattan

    Context for the “tragic” sudden death while jogging of sub driver Stanislav Rzhytskiy.

    Stanislav Rzhytskiy, the former commander of the Russian Black Sea fleet submarine “Krasnodar”, who fired the missiles that killed Liza Dmytriyeva, was shot dead by an unknown assailant this morning.

    [Text from last year:]

    This is little Liza. She had Down’s Syndrome, and was returning from a speech therapy session with her mother when she was killed in the Russian missile strike on Vinnytsia

    https://nitter.net/JimmySecUK/status/1678496476555538454#m

    This world has no use for terrorists.

    Thank you, Adam!

  8. 8.

    Gin & Tonic

    @trollhattan: More context: Rzhytskiy posted his workouts on Strava, and one of the people who “liked” his posts was Kyrylo Budanov, head of UA military intelligence.

  9. 9.

    Jay

    One senior German diplomat muses that behind Poland’s talk of the need for a total defeat of Vladimir Putin is the hope that Russia might eventually break apart. That, he says, is an idea that Berlin has no interest in.

    Who gives a flying fuck what happens to Ruzzia after. That’s their problem.

  10. 10.

    Gin & Tonic

    @Adam L Silverman: I wouldn’t mind you in comments, but I’m reminded of the remarks by one Earl Monroe, a star NBA player from another era, who was asked for commentary after a particularly badly officiated game and said “If I told you what I think, it would cost me $5,000.” And somehow he got his message across anyway.

    I will upset the usual suspects here, but Biden/Sullivan/Blinken served Zelensky a shit sandwich, and then, when he had the temerity to say “this is a shit sandwich” they leaked their annoyance to the WaPo.

    This was a very good day for V.V. Putin.

  11. 11.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Jay: That German diplomat’s words add fuel to my belief that at some level, this is Germany biding its time until “all this war talk has blown over” so they can get back to what matters: doing business with Russia.  Ugh.

    And why should they make a firm offer of NATO membership?  It ain’t like Ukraine’s gonna stop fighting for their lives either way, right?  So (to paraphrase what one gangster said to another in _Miller’s Crossing_) “it’s the smart move” to not make a firm offer of NATO membership.  Why pay more than you have to?

    Ugh.

  13. 13.

    PJ

    @Jay: No one gets blamed for the status quo persisting.  But if the status quo changes, it might mean that the politician or staffer or diplomat in question has to answer for what happens next.  Better to stick with the status quo.

  14. 14.

    Sparkedcat

    Thank-you Mr. Silverman for these updates. Courtesy of Colin Kahl the word automaticity has been added to my vocabulary.  I would argue that Mr. Kahls’ use of that word is ill-suited for the subject of Ukraine’s inevitable admission to NATO. Slava Ukraini!

  15. 15.

    CaseyL

    I’ve had a suspicion for a while now, and this waffling on admitting Ukraine to NATO has strengthened it:  Neither the US nor Germany are all that eager to see Ukraine in NATO because Ukraine has already shown it is more militarily capable than either of them, more politically mature than either of them, and more socially responsible than either of them.

    IOW, Ukraine could very well be a candidate for leadership in the world, and neither the US nor Germany want that.

  17. 17.

    Rand Careaga

    If anyone wonders why the US hasn’t been able to win a war since WWII…

    I had the impression that the 1990-91 Gulf War was generally considered to have ended with the US in first place. Does my memory play me false?

  18. 18.

    Comrade Bukharin

    I hope commenters here are not hoping for NATO boots on the ground. Absent a Russian strike on Poland or the Baltics it’s not happening.

  20. 20.

    devore

    Wasn’t Biden promising a ‘BIG’ announcement on new weapons for Ukraine?  Such as ATACMS?

  21. 21.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Comrade Bukharin: No,  I don’t think anybody here wants that.  What I think we (and Ukrainians, CEE countries) want, is a firm invitation, of the form of: “the minute this war is over, you’re in, no ifs ands, or buts, and we’ll be sending tripwire forces to prove that, again, the minute the war is over.”

    That’s very different from “the minute this war is over, we’ll gather, and see if we agree to invite you, and under what conditions, which we’ll decide at that point, so, y’know, hang tight, Ukraine!”

    I think nobody is crazy enough to put NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine while this war is going on: that way lies “the living will envy the dead.”

  22. 22.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    @trollhattan:

    Somebody posted that the dead Ruzzian used an app to show his jogging route/progress, making it easy to locate him for a hit job.

    The laugh was that at the bottom of the post it had a red circle around what looks like Patron giving it a thumbs up…lol!

  24. 24.

    Another Scott

    @Chetan Murthy: Devil’s Advocate:

    What I think we (and Ukrainians, CEE countries) want, is a firm invitation, of the form of: “the minute this war is over, you’re in, no ifs ands, or buts, and we’ll be sending tripwire forces to prove that, again, the minute the war is over.”

    Seriously, how could NATO promise that? Nobody knows when the war will be over. Member governments have to approve new membership. Maybe conditions will (somehow) be different in Krakow Warsaw (or Berlin, or Washington) and those new governments won’t feel like honoring that proclamation.

    NATO.int – Enlargement and Article 10 has a decent quick summary of the process, and mentions Ukraine (and Georgia) has had an (indefinite, future) invitation to join NATO since 2008.

    I honestly don’t know how the working within NATO could be any different at this summit. Maybe they’ll massage the final language a little more.

    I ass-u-me that bilateral aid and support will continue and slowly ramp up (fighters, even more artillery and so forth) over time. Yes, there’s a risk that future elections will install monsters. That’s always a risk (remember the worries that TIFG was going to try to pull the USA out of NATO).

    NATO’s superpower is its credibility. Everyone has to be on board.

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  25. 25.

    Comrade Bukharin

    @Gin & Tonic: 🤣 The Stalinist one I guess. I just chose the name because my first comment was during the ‘Comrade John Cole’ days circa 2008.

  26. 26.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Another Scott:

    Maybe conditions will (somehow) be different in Krakow Warsaw (or Berlin, or Washington) and those new governments won’t feel like honoring that proclamation.

    I think this is precisely the point that Ukraine and the CEE countries are making: Ukraine is making the sacrifice today to keep NATO countries safe and free from harm, and NATO countries cannot even be bothered to get their shit together enough to make a firm offer of membership.

  28. 28.

    Ruckus

    Remember that if Ukraine is allowed to join NATO then all NATO nations will have to help them kick russia’s ass. Not that they are seemingly doing a pretty decent job now. But they are doing this at a huge cost to Ukraine. But getting NATO to back them, help them, might just trip vlad into doing something far stupider. Like attacking NATO countries.

    I think we should help them but do we want to be at war with russia? Do the NATO countries near Ukraine want to be at war with russia? I’d bet no is the answer to both, especially as vlad has seen a lot of his capacity of war be used and blown up and he’s left with likely not a lot of choices. He seems like the kind of deranged ass to go, “If I can’t have it no one can!” and blow up the world.

    I think we should help, but I’m not the person that has all the facts and makes all the decisions.

  29. 29.

    Roberto el oso

    @Comrade Bukharin: I believe that Gin&Tonic is referring to the same man, the Bukharin who was all in with some of Stalin’s atrocities before moderating somewhat and falling victim to Comrade Koba’s purges. So you probably want to be the Mandelshtam/Pasternak version.

  31. 31.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Ruckus:

    Do the NATO countries near Ukraine want to be at war with russia?

    At least one Polish elected official was very clear in saying that if Ukraine does not prevail in this war, Poland would be forced to intervene on Ukraine’s side.  There is *no* way the CEE countries (except HU) are going to put up with Russia winning this war.

  33. 33.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Ruckus:

    Remember that if Ukraine is allowed to join NATO then all NATO nations will have to help them kick russia’s ass.

    Maybe Gin & Tonic or others who have paid more attention to the details of Zelenskiyy & Kuleba’s statements could enlighten ?  I didn’t think Ukraine wanted immediate membership; rather, they just wanted certainty about the path to membership.  B/c right now, they’re getting nothing better than they got in 2008: “sure, someday we’ll hold a vote and hey, maybe you’ll get in.”

  34. 34.

    Andrya

    This is sickening and sad, but I don’t see how Biden could guarantee NATO membership for Ukraine even after Ukraine’s victory.  Adding members to NATO means modifying a treaty, and the US Constitution says that requires Senate approval by a two-thirds vote.  I don’t see how that could possibly happen with current US politics.  Ukraine would get Romney’s vote, probably Murkowski’s and a few others, but I don’t see enough Republican senate support to get to 2/3.  And there’s the problem of Orban- in my opinionated opinion, Orban is a free rider on NATO- he’s free to play footsie with his buddy vvp, but if vvp turns on him, NATO is there to bail him out.   Aggghhh.

  36. 36.

    Jay

    @PJ:

    Ruzzia is a terrorist Imperialist state. Does anybody but Ruzzia or China care if the NORKS implode? No. Ditto for Iran. Ruzzia is no different. Let China deal with it.

    As the Ruzzian “Opposition” currently hiding out from Putin, high windows and polonium underwear and Novickock door handles have proven, they are only different from Pootie Poot in that there might be a little less corruption in the economy.

    So who cares what happens after Ukraine win’s, to Ruzzia. Everything in Ruzzia is shit, except where it is piss. It’s their problem to solve if they want to rejoin the rest of the world.

  38. 38.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Andrya: You’re probably right that current US politics make  it difficult to amend the treaty.  But that still doesn’t excuse European members opposing a firm invitation of membership.  Honestly, that’s what really angers me: Ukraine is fighting for their safety, for their ability to sleep at night undisturbed, and these Europeans (these Germans, ugh) simply can’t be bothered to do the honorable thing.

    I mean, nobody wants to start WWIII.  Sure, I get that.  But there’s a big distance between “membership today” and “gosh, we’ll discuss whether you can join …. someday, so sit tight!”

  40. 40.

    Jay

    @Andrya:

    the only guarantee that NATO can provide, is that after the war ends, even if it’s a stalemate with no peace treaty, is that Ukraine either has a path to a vote to join NATO, or an immediate vote on Ukraine’s membership.

    It’s a promise to a vote or a promise on a vote.

    Ukraine didn’t even get that.

  41. 41.

    TheMightyTrowel

    I think I posted once previously that as a descendant of Ukrainian Jews chased out of their homes by the early 20th century pogroms, watching a Jew lead Ukraine in a nation-defining conflict felt rather surreal? Anyhow, I appreciated this thread (and linked article) from Hilzoy – apologies for the bird site link:

     

    https://twitter.com/hilzoy/status/1678946792577089537

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/world/europe/ukraine-poland-volhynia-massacre-history.html?smid=tw-share

  42. 42.

    Andrya

    @Chetan Murthy:   I don’t think we disagree.  Most European countries have shown themselves to be hypocritical chickens.  But there does remain the problem of Hungary (personally, I think Hungary should be kicked out of NATO as a free rider, but I doubt there is a way to do that).

  43. 43.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Andrya: Yep, we agree.  Unfortunately, I think it’s more than just Hungary.  That German diplomat who was quoted, is evidence of that.  And if it were just HU, I’d expect *somebody* to leak that on a not-for-attribution basis.  Yeah: HU is going to be a real problem … *is* a real problem.

  45. 45.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Andrya: What really pisses me off, is that this is the moment when Europe can get up off its ass and show that it’s a force to be reckoned with, that they don’t need the US being their “my dad can beat your dad” every damn time.  And they’re completely screwing up this oppty.  And if God Forbid some GrOPer takes the White House in 2024,  Europe will really, really, really regret not having started on the path to strategic autonomy, b/c we won’t be there to save them.

    That they (and ESPECIALLY THE GERMANS) can’t see this, blows my mind.  I mean,  do they really think they can *bribe* Putin into making nice?  What idiots.

  47. 47.

    sdhays

    @Rand Careaga: At the time it seemed that way, but in retrospect it was such a fucking disaster that the son of the President who prosecuted that war went into office planning to try it again, and unfortunately convinced enough of the country to do it.

    As we all know, it didn’t go well.

  49. 49.

    Carlo Graziani

    For what it’s worth: the Vilnius summit is a pageantry-bespangled sideshow. The main show is the Ukrainian battlefield. The political conditions for Ukrainian accession to NATO do not depend on any reform, but rather on battlefield success of the UA. Major developments in the war can completely overturn all the political assumptions and equilibria that are setting the current terms of the discussion.

    Recall that it was between mid-August and late September 2022 that the UA regained the initiative and recovered Kherson and Kupyansk, and set the Russians to disordered flight. Had they not accomplished all that, I doubt that there would even be any serious discussion of NATO membership at all, and the pressures to settle the war would be enormous. The Ukrainians got their own destiny to this point by winning battles, more than arguments.

    Pace, Adam, but I can’t take this emotional outburst about the summit outcome very seriously. The Russians were not going to change their plans or their conduct of the war in the slightest if Ukraine had received that invitation. None of it matters much, and to imagine that it does requires one to imagine that winning a war of information and political appearances matters more than winning actual battles. It’s actually the other way around. If the Ukrainians in 2023 can match their performance over the Russians in 2022—and why not, as they are stronger than they were, and the Russians much weaker—then with the Southern coast and/or the Donbas cleared of Russian forces, and the Russians themselves in disarray and retreat, the political calculations will have changed completely, not because of diplomacy or argument or propaganda, but because of the facts on the ground.

    So the way forward is to continue arming and training the UA, so as to give them the best possible chance of success. At which point, Ukraine joining NATO will be tantamount to walking through an open door. And European security will be strengthened thereby.

  50. 50.

    Freemark

    Biden and the US diplomatically really cannot make the kind of promise people want. The US is really the shepherd of NATO and generally has to be the one to ultimately herd the cats together. A competent US administration will never publicly make a promise or proclamation until they feel nearly certain they have the cats herded together. Publicly stating a position before that time can make it much harder to do that herding.

  51. 51.

    topclimber

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I posit that providing aid and economic benefits is something more palatable to the hesitators than promising a military alliance.

    EU Institutions, separate from individual members, have contributed about a quarter of all aid to Ukraine since the war began. That’s half what the US has provided, and three times more than the leading EU country itself has given (Germany).

    In terms of non-military aid, the EU instituions match the COMBINED totals of the top 7 countries. Only the US, Germany and non-EU member UK have given more military aid as well.

    If they won’t do NATO yet, keep pushing the EU connection, says I. Especially when it hammers home to Putin & Putzes (TM) that Ukraine has a European future, not a Russian one.

  52. 52.

    Sebastian

    What enrages me the most is the stupidity and short sightedness of this punt. What are they afraid of? That they will have to provide troops on the ground? Ukraine has the most experienced army in the world right now.

    Let’s be realistic, in a conflict with Russia, NATO would be only required to do what it does best: bomb the shit out of Russia with absolute air domination and cruise missiles.

    Ukraine (and Poland!) would take care of the rest.

  53. 53.

    Sebastian

    @topclimber:

    If Sweden’s and Finland’s NATO membership was so easy because they were in the EU, let’s fast track Ukraine’s EU membership! They are surely less corrupt and more democratic than Hungary.

  54. 54.

    Andrya

    @Chetan Murthy:  If I understand vvp’s thinking correctly, he thinks he’s been entrusted with a mission from G-d to re-acquire all the territory that was ever part of the USSR, the USSR satellites,  and/or the Russian Empire.  The Germans might want to remember that East Germany was under russian control 1945-1989.  In fact, vvp was a KGB operative in East Germany.  Those who will not remember history are doomed to repeat it…

    Also, I totally agree with Carlo’s comment # 49.

  55. 55.

    Sebastian

    @Chetan Murthy:

    Germany wants that sweet business with Russia but has to balance it politically against not pissing off Poland, the Baltics, and Scandinavia.

  56. 56.

    Sebastian

    @Jay:

    Just look at Gerhard fucking Schroedinger. Absolutely unreal that a former Prime Chancellor would go work for Gazprom.

  57. 57.

    Sebastian

    @Ruckus:

    Attack NATO countries sounds great in theory, but in practice it raises the question: with what army?

    Russia does not have enough troops and gear to prevent a mercenary column rushing towards Moscow. Every available unit is tied down in Ukraine and every day there is less of Russia’s army left.

  59. 59.

    dirge

    @Another Scott: NATO’s superpower kryptonite is its credibility. Everyone has to be on board.

    Works both ways.

    I can’t disagree that Ukraine was served a shit sandwich here, but it’s still probably the best thing on the menu at this shit restaurant right now.

    That Ukraine be admitted without further conditions, at a date certain, seems a reasonable ask from their perspective, but requires from NATO a few heavy lifts and at least one impossibility.

    NATO members are asked for a unanimous commitment now to admit at a future date, when the actual state of affairs will be unknown.  Out of 31, at least one is going to refuse, quite rationally, simply based on that uncertainty.

    OK, so how about we wave the unanimity requirement?  Catch 22:  you need unanimity to waive it.  What you’re really proposing is rebuilding NATO from the ground up.  Less crazy than it sounds, given the way tyranny of consensus is exposed as a problem right now, but not something anyone wants to try on a compressed timeline during an emergency.

    And even if you could somehow waive consensus, I doubt you’d get even a majority.  That date certain for admission is, in practical terms, a promise to declare war on Russia, if Ukraine isn’t satisfied with any peace terms they’ve been offered by that date.  Not obviously insane to put a clock on this, but that’d be a lot of countries effectively ceding control of their own military and foreign policy to future decisions by Ukraine and Russia.  You’ll get the ones who’d be happy to declare war today, plus maybe a couple more.

    Ok, but given we all see where this needs to go, why doesn’t Biden lead, with leadery leadership?  Well, a bunch of key allies think it’s super important to push back against the perception that the US President is King of NATO.  They have a point, if you think there’s a non-zero chance of a second Trump term.  So if Biden publicly pushes too far outside the consensus, he’s guaranteed pushback from key allies, which will be portrayed by the Kremlin and a tragically large portion of the media as a fracture in the alliance.  That kind of perception can become reality with a terrifying quickness.

    To sum up:  NATO isn’t designed for aggression.  This situation calls for aggression.  So, NATO isn’t designed for this situation, but it’s what we’ve got.

    Or:  this shit restaurant serves only shit.  I recommend the shit sandwich. It’s got pickles.  Comes with a side of HIMARS.

  60. 60.

    way2blue

    @Andrya:

    Can NATO countries abstain from approving/disapproving Ukraine being admitted to NATO?  I’m thinking mainly of Hungry.  (Albeit, I’m assuming the U.S. will approve after being thoroughly chastened, then Germany will follow.)  And I’ve missed the part  where the  US Senate ratified a revised NATO treaty that includes Finland & Sweden…

  61. 61.

    Lyrebird

    @dirge: Well, a bunch of key allies think it’s super important to push back against the perception that the US President is King of NATO. They have a point, if you think there’s a non-zero chance of a second Trump term. So if Biden publicly pushes too far outside the consensus, he’s guaranteed pushback from key allies, which will be portrayed by the Kremlin and a tragically large portion of the media as a fracture in the alliance.

    This fits with whatever clues I have to rub together, which are of course many fewer than most of the folks here, but I wanted to comment anyway.  Nice job doing both the realistic detail and the restaurant analogy.

    I hope and pray that the US DOJ and or IC can continue to root out Putin’s allies and employees in our own government.

  62. 62.

    dirge

    @Carlo Graziani: None of it matters much, and to imagine that it does requires one to imagine that winning a war of information and political appearances matters more than winning actual battles.

    Not that I disagree with you for the most part, but it’s worth noting that the war of appearances is the one the Russians are fighting.  And it’s not entirely bullshit:  you win on the battlefield when the enemy perceives that they can’t stop you.  Russia’s war of appearances has also had some rather striking success with unconventional influence operations in other countries you may be familiar with.

    I don’t think it’s an accident that they appear to prioritize the appearance of winning over concrete military objectives.  I think it’s doctrine, and one that’s effective under certain conditions.  Those conditions no longer obtain within the territory of Ukraine, but they still obtain in some other venues.

    Russia’s goal is and always has been to persuade the world that it’s pointless, or too costly, to stop them from doing whatever they want.  They don’t want a hill or a bridge or an island, they want the appearance of invulnerability.  They can’t afford to lose on the battlefield, because it breaks the illusion, but they have no need to win.

  63. 63.

    Andrya

    @way2blue:   The vote in the Senate on admitting Finland and Sweden to NATO was 95-1.  (link)  Josh Hawley (R-MO) voted “no” and Rand Paul (R-KY) voted “present”.  (In both cases it totally figures.)

    I don’t know what would happen in the case of abstentions.

    I suspect that most of the Republicans who voted for Finland and Sweden to join NATO simply do not realize that Finland is very much in vvp’s crosshairs.  He wants to gather to “mother russia” all the countries that either the Tsarist russian empire or the USSR ruled.  In the late 19th century, Finland was part of the russian empire, and all indications are vvp wants it back.  The Finns certainly think so.

  64. 64.

    Carlo Graziani

    I’ve been watching the Russian fortification-building on the T-0504 highway joining Bakhmut to Popasna. There’s been some considerable buildup there over the past few weeks, with new lines of strongpoints reaching in from the North and South, now spaced less than 500 m apart, rather than more than a km. It looks as if the Russians suddenly got very worried about what will happen if the UA breaks through at Bakhmut.

    I can’t tell from these maps how mature these defensive works are, compared to the ones elsewhere along the front. This still looks like a promising axis to me, though.

  66. 66.

    Jay

    @dirge:

    That date certain for admission is, in practical terms, a promise to declare war on Russia, if Ukraine isn’t satisfied with any peace terms they’ve been offered by that date.

    I don’t think that Ukraine gives a shit about “peace terms”.

    Ruzzia has never met a treaty they won’t break, a de-escalation map they won’t break.

    All Ukraine want’s is Ruzzia to be evicted from every inch of Ukrainian soil and Ruzzia to be punished.

    The only way Ruzzia is going to pay any kind of reparations is if the West seizes every Ruzzian asset hiding in the West, and hands it over to Ukraine.

    The only way that Ruzzia War criminals will be held accountable is if they can’t travel outside of Ruzzia with out being arrested and their families hiding in the West get their asses kicked back home.

    Ruzzia is a terrorist state.

  67. 67.

    Jay

    @Carlo Graziani:

    one thing I have noticed, is in the latest video’s, is that the Ukrainian’s are encountering much better Ruzzian trenches sometimes.

    They are still running into scrapes and holes, and the new ones I have seen arn’t the contractor built useless ones,

    but man, they are still not “good”.

  69. 69.

    dirge

    @Jay: I don’t think that Ukraine gives a shit about “peace terms”.

    Which is kinda my point.  If you say “Ukraine is in NATO as of date X” you’re also saying “after date X, it is no longer my decision whether I go to war with Russia, instead I will allow Ukraine to decide for me.”  Even for a country that’d consider declaring war today, that’s an insanely huge ask, to let another country decide for you at a future date under unknown circumstances.

    ETA:  This is the reason why NATO doesn’t normally admit countries with live territorial disputes.  It’d allow that country to suck NATO into a war at their discretion.  It’s not “should we support these guys” that’s the problem, it’s the “should I let these guys make decisions for me.”

  70. 70.

    Jay

    @dirge:

    My point is, when Ukraine believes they have accomplished their Liberation, and The “War” is over, they should be in NATO.

    Period.

    If Ruzzia want’s to start it up again, or continue their terrorist strikes from Ruzzia against Ukrainian Civilians, NATO should be standing with them.

  71. 71.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Jay: I remember reading about Russia’s trench-digging machines.  I forget which armor chassis they’re built on, but the pics of the sucker in action were pretty impressive.  Of course, ancient tech, wouldn’t be surpriised to learn they were built by the Soviets.

  72. 72.

    dirge

    @Jay: My point is, when Ukraine believes they have accomplished their Liberation, and The “War” is over, they should be in NATO.

    I 100% agree with you.  But easy for us to say, who’s words have no diplomatic consequences.

    I suspect most NATO leaders agree with you too.  I assume also there are some foot draggers wanting assurances and opportunists looking for a concession.  Probably more importantly there are a bunch of diplomats and technocrats who can’t hack through the red tape in a way that satisfies the foot draggers and opportunists.

    So you get this tyranny of consensus crap.  Bureaucratic mumble-speak designed to communicate nothing more than a generally affirmative feeling about a fuzzily defined outcome.  Frustrating, but probably actually the correct official answer right now.

    Maybe Biden will get way out ahead of it with a “gaffe”, everybody will panic for a few news cycles, and a couple weeks later it’ll be generally understood he was right when he blurted it out the first time.  That’s usually what happens when he gets tired of this sort of gridlock.

  73. 73.

    Jay

    @Chetan Murthy:

    proper trenches can’t be built by machines.

    The new improvements that I have seen are:

    grenade pits, ( standard in 1915)

    splinter covers, ( standard in 1915)

    zig zags, ( keeps an explosion from travelling down the trench, again, 1915)

    better shoring, (1915)

    “bunkers” attached to trench lines, (rather than pit’s outside the trench lines), but they ain’t no bunker, a human can’t live in there.

    They arn’t deep enough, are too wide, have no drainage, no firing ledges, and the “splinter shelters” shelters and “bunkers” arn’t “proof” against a 155mm round, an 60mm mortar at best.

    In our doctrine,  you have OP’s, 100 meters infront of the first line. Basically a fox hole connected to the first line by a zig zag 5′ deep narrow trench. People sit out there and watch.

    Then you have the first line, the “fighting line”. 6 feet deep, 18″ at the bottom, zig zag, firing ledges, 155mm proof firing bunkers, 155mm proof splinter shelters every 100 yards. Overhead camo and thermal protection. Half a dozen guys  scattered across, 100 yards, (sorry for the yards and meters bit, I’m old and pre metric), mostly in the heavy machine gun bunkers.

    The first line is connected to the second line by communication trenches.  About 1000 feet apart. The second line is where most of the Company stays.

    The difference there is that the bunkers there are for living in, and are about the same for comfort as a hunting shack or a Vancouver Economy Apartment, except it’s 20 guys. Plus, they are 155mm proof. Off the 2’nd line are zig zag communication trenches leading to bunkers with the ammo.

    The OP guys let you know “they are coming”, the First Line Guy’s slow them down a little until the Second Line comes up to the First line.

  74. 74.

    Jay

    @Jay:

    oh, and btw, all the dirt dug is either hauled away and scattered, or used to make double sided berms in the rear that to satellites and drones, looks like a trench line. That is the worst job, but you don’t pile the dirt up in front, makes it too easy for the trench to be spotted. Two guys with a tarp and 350lbs of dirt, and you can’t drag it, you have to lift it, Dragging it leaves trails.

  75. 75.

    NotoriousJRT

    @Jay: Sincere thanks for the primer. What you describe is way outside my experience and helps my understanding of the challenges and strategies of the warfare in Ukraine.

  76. 76.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @Carlo Graziani: Agree w/ you at #49.

    Admitting Ukraine into NATO at some point seems like a straightforward decision for members of NATO, but I don’t think the specific timing, conditions & process is a straightforward decision. I am not surprised that Ukraine & its most sympathetic supports (such as Poland) tried to force the US’ & other more cautious countries’ hands at Vilnius, not that the summit produced a garbled bureaucratic muddle. However, the messaging by US & German officials have been pretty atrocious. Perhaps they do not appreciate Poland & the Baltics trying to force the issue.

    We also need to note that there are likely real differences among NATO members’ envisioned long term endgames w/ Russia. Some among the CEE countries clearly would like to see the Russia Federation broken up (& you might see Poland moving in on the pieces to try to reincarnate the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), & would take the risk associated w/ directly engaging the Russian military. I don’t think the anonymous American & German officials were lying in their quotes. It is not just the US & Germany, among the NATO member states, who have no interest in risking war w/ Russia or to effect the dissolution of the Russian Federation. Despite all of the diplomatic bonhomie & highfalutin language, countries are ultimately motivated by selfish & not altruistic reasons (as well they should), & they are in NATO because of careful calculation of national interest. This applies to Poland, Finland, the Baltics, Czechia, as much as it applies to the US, Germany & France.

  78. 78.

    Chetan Murthy

    Phillips P. O’Brien lays it out: https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/the-nato-communique-and-ukraine-too?r=qn26&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

    I had hopes this morning that President Biden and other major leaders at the Vilnius NATO summit might grasp the opportunity that they have been given by assuring the Ukrainian government that they would be admitted into NATO not long after the cessation of hostilities with Russia. This would not mean instant accession, as some people seemed to think, or anything that would lead to NATO invoking article 5 to enter the war. It would be a clear and straightforward statement that Ukraine would be welcomed into the alliance as soon as possible after the war had been concluded. After all, the Ukrainians themselves have understood that this was the reality. Ukraine is not going to be in NATO while this war is raging.

  80. 80.

    Chetan Murthy

    @YY_Sima Qian: As does “we’ll let you in someday, after we take a vote, but we won’t tell you when that day is, just hang out and hope.”  O’Brien’s formula is at least clear that there are no further hoops and no further cajoling needed: win the war, and they’re in.

    And it also has the virtue of being *clear*: as he says, nobody in their right mind thinks UA will join NATO in the middle of a hot war with RU.  Nobody.

  82. 82.

    Chetan Murthy

    @Ruckus: I think it’s fair to say that Poland and the other CEE countries would like to avoid a nuclear apocalypse too.  But they recognize that if RU wins in UA and is allowed time to digest its meal, it’ll turn to the CEE countries next.  So the goal is to not allow RU to win.

  83. 83.

    dirge

    @Chetan Murthy:  …win the war, and they’re in.

    And it also has the virtue of being *clear*…

    But who decides when the war is won?  What’s the criteria?  Does Russia need to admit they’ve lost?  Do we need to believe what they say?

    Seriously, try writing that down in unambiguous language that’ll satisfy every individual NATO member plus Ukraine.  The moment you get into implementing it for real, it’s all clear as mud.

  84. 84.

    Ruckus

    @The Moar You Know:

    Man I stayed away too long today….

    Do you think this crap is easy?

    Do you think we can just do whatever the hell we want?

    Effectively we’ve been at war with Russia or whatever it was called at the time, for over 60 yrs.

    I have my suspicions about 2016, but that is likely what they are.

    We in the US talk about all of this like it’s a decision that we alone get to make and the world just does not work that way. Sure we have clout, quite a bit of clout, but we are not the be all of the world.

  86. 86.

    Ruckus

    @Sebastian:

    Normally I’d agree with you 100%.

    But.

    This is russia. This is vlad. vlad has nuclear weapons. Does vlad seem to be even close to rational? His not so great military is getting it’s ass kicked. Badly. What happens when someone like bully vlad gets his ass kicked? If he can and feels he has no alternative will he attempt to win with weapons that will make it far worse and no one wins? This question has really never been asked because while he’s never tried before, he’s never really needed to. If all other options are taken away, will he make the one irreversible decision that will likely do us all in? If he can’t have it no one can….

    I’m just asking. The world does not work on the premise that we make all the decisions and the world goes along. Some think it does, but I guarantee that it doesn’t.

  87. 87.

    Ruckus

    @Sebastian:

    russia does not only have an army…..

    They have other weapons, weapons that will do a lot more damage than what they’ve done so far. If vlad gets his ass kicked hard enough, will he retaliate with them?

    None of this has easy answers, none of this is good for the planet, and he may hit that button no matter what, but if he sees that he’s losing or has actually lost and has no other way forward, will he act in the worst way possible? He walked into Ukraine with a bouncy step and a smile on that ugly mug. Because he thought it would be a cake walk. And he’s getting his ass beat badly. The tally is way lopsided on the order of wins/loses, with Ukraine ahead by several points and getting stronger while his loses grow and grow.

  88. 88.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @Adam L Silverman: I think the key lesson of the episode you shared is that the US should not make false promises in order to muster a “Coalition of the Willing” so that it can prosecute an unjust war based on false pretenses. I do not think at that point it would have been in the US’ interest to intervene and engage the Russian Army for Georgia’s sake. Especially since Saakashvili had fallen for Putin’s bait. The betrayal was in making the false promise, in service of an unjust & ill-advised war.

  89. 89.

    Geminid

    @YY_Sima Qian: There is also the possibility that the phase of this war that began Feb. 24, 2022 will end in a ceasefire, not a peace treaty, with Ukraine having liberated every part of its territory except Crimea. That would certainly complicate the question of NATO membership.

    I think this is a real possibility. Ukraine will pay a great enough price for liberating the rest of Kherson, Zaporizhia(sp?), Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. Assaulting the narrow, fortified approaches to the Crimean Peninsula and then liberating the rest could be terribly costly. And while Ukraine could eventually bombard Crimea into submission, Russia would be bombarding Ukraine as well.

    Ukraine will never, ever cede one inch of Crimea in a peace treaty. Accepting a durable ceasefire with Crimea still in Russian hands would be a different matter. Crimea would in effect be a hostage to Russia’s good behavior elsewhere on its long border with Ukraine.

    Ukraine would then be able to recover and rebuild its economy and military in peace, and continue the social and economic and development this war has put in hiatus. Russia’s economy and society would most likely continue to decay. I could see Ukraine making this choice on its own volition, without the likely pressure from its allies.

  91. 91.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @Geminid: In your scenario, if the Crimea situation stabilizes over time into a de facto border, then I think Ukraine can join NATO based on the precedent of West Germany, despite it having “disputed” territory. NATO should also have some practice dealing w/ territorial disputes between Greece & Türkiye, which might.

  92. 92.

    Another Scott

    NATO.int – from 5:31 PM local time yesterday.

    In their first working session at the Vilnius Summit on Tuesday (11 July 2023), Allies took decisions to bring Ukraine closer to NATO, and reinforce the Alliance’s collective deterrence and defence.

    [ photo ]

    Allies agreed to a package of three elements bringing Ukraine closer to NATO. This includes a new multi-year assistance programme to facilitate the transition of the Ukrainian armed forces from Soviet-era to NATO standards and help rebuild Ukraine’s security and defence sector, covering critical needs like fuel, demining equipment, and medical supplies.

    Allies also agreed to establish the new NATO-Ukraine Council, which will hold its inaugural meeting in Vilnius on Wednesday with the participation of President Zelenskyy. Allies also reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, and agreed to remove the requirement for a Membership Action Plan. “This is a strong package for Ukraine, and a clear path towards its membership in NATO,” said Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

    Allies adopted “the most comprehensive defence plans since the end of the Cold War,” Mr Stoltenberg said. Designed to counter the Alliance’s two main threats – Russia and terrorism – the new regional plans provide for 300,000 troops at high readiness, including substantial air and naval combat power. Allies also approved a new Defence Production Action Plan to accelerate joint procurement, boost production capacity and enhance Allies’ interoperability.

    To meet their defence needs, Allies made an enduring commitment to invest a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in defence. European Allies and Canada recorded an 8.3% real terms increase in their defence budgets in 2023, the largest increase in decades. Eleven Allies meet or exceed the benchmark this year, and this number is expected to grow substantially in 2024.

    Allies also discussed the challenges that a “coercive” China poses to Euro-Atlantic security and values. “China is not our adversary, and we should continue to engage,” the Secretary General said, while stressing that “Beijing’s increasing assertiveness affects our security” and challenges the rules-based international order. On Wednesday, Allies will meet the leaders of Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, as well as the European Union.

    FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  93. 93.

    Geminid

    @Another Scott: This document also addressed the questions of Iran’s nuclear program and its provision of weapons to Russia for use against Ukraine’s civilians and infrastructure.

  94. 94.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    This thread is dead, but I agree that we don’t want the Russian government to collapse. Loose nukes would be a threat to everyone. What we want is a coup. The new leader doesn’t need to be friendly, just willing to leave Ukraine.

  95. 95.

    Another Scott

    Meanwhile, … AlJazeera.com:

    Despite their battlefield difficulties, Ukrainian forces have continued to advance. Ukraine’s general staff said its forces seized 4sq km (1.8sq miles) over the previous week around the eastern city of Bakhmut. That would bring to 162sq km (63sq miles) the territory Ukraine claims to have recaptured since its counteroffensive began on June 4.

    But the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) think tank made its own independent assessment of recaptured territory and said the figure was closer to 253sq km (98sq miles).

    “Russian forces have captured a total of 282 square kilometers in the entire theater since January 1. In five weeks, Ukrainian forces have liberated nearly the same amount of territory that Russian forces captured in over six months,” the ISW said.

    A Ukrainian military intelligence unit commander said Bakhmut – almost completely occupied by Russian forces in early May after the war’s longest and bloodiest battle – was slowly but steadily falling back into Ukrainian hands.

    “We are starting to enter those territories that we did not control from the very beginning [of the war],” Mykola Volokhov, commander of the intelligence unit Terra, said, referring to territory Russia seized in 2014.

    […]

    More at the link.

    Slava Ukraini!!

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  96. 96.

    catfishncod

    I’m a (literal) day late and a (metaphorical) dollar short, but I have a point I haven’t seen here or elsewhere.

    Zelenskyy’ pre-meeting rhetoric and a lot of pro-UA-accession commentators have raised the expectation of a literal and explicit algorithm for UA’s accession into NATO — “when conditions A-QQ are met, the offer of alliance will be made.” The demands for specificity are intended to tie future NATO leaders’ hands to Ukraine so their cold feet can’t drag them away if/when the crisis eases.

    But any algorithm — regardless of complexity or reasons less or technical detail — is just as impossible under current conditions as the accession offer itself is. Why? Because any explicit algorithm for Ukraine’s membership is, ipso facto, a blueprint for Vladimir’s minions to sabotage Ukrainian membership. It can’t even be discussed properly, because you need unanimity for the offer to even be real. You can’t make it public, and you can’t keep it from leaking —  a “secret” shared by thirty-one countries will be on Putin’s desk by morning, even without likely quisling regimes like Hungary’s.

    For Ukrainian accession to succeed, Russia’s practical ability to veto must be defanged. It’s not a question of “granting” them a veto, it’s a question of how to deny them the chance to veto. You can’t give the Kremlin years to counter-conspire against a fixed target.

    The cards will have to stay close to the vest — which means keeping any substantiative discussions in bilateral modes (e.g., US-UA, UK-UA, FR-UA, DE-UA, PL-UA, etc.) — which discussion modes we do in fact see happening, though the discussions are secret.

    I am fully aware of the sizable contingents in Washington, London, Berlin etc. who have zero vision, negative fortitude, and undetectable honor, and who would happily hang Kyiv out to dry for pocket change. This public reticence could well be underwritten by the sameol sameol from so-called “realists”. But it could also be the surface of a rational plan to prevent further Russian interference in Ukraine’s path to membership — a plan that necessarily requires vague and wishywashy public statements at this stage.

  98. 98.

    Bill Arnold

    @catfishncod:
    Thanks for detailing this.
    Didn’t feel like arguing about it last night (mood in the room was found), and you lay it out well.

Comments are closed.