Day 832
I took a weekend off from scowling at war-related content in order to luxuriate several extremely long-distance runs. The result was a rather if-I-may skookum review of the events this past 830 or so days. The markup now published is tidier and easier to read, but the selection of escalation attributes that make it through the editing process remains scattershot and deeply unsatisfying.
We have learned that whatever arrangement Team USA made with Team Russia about not using American weapons to evaporate invaders outside Ukraine is being updated, secretly, regularly, chaotically.
We call this “seeing where things go” approach strategic ambivalence or self-deterrence.
David at The New York Times:
The BOGSAT approach to airing grievances in legacy among partners in the USA-Ukraine partnership — it is not an alliance — are amusing at times, but unhelpful.
This interactive damage report illustrates our predicament.
Gideon waves around “tactical nuclear weapons” in his column for The Financial Times1:
The new willingness to allow Ukraine to strike back at enemy artillery positions and missile bases — even if they are inside Russia itself — reflects a concern that Ukraine is gradually losing the war. As a result, Kyiv’s western backers feel compelled to tolerate a greater level of risk to keep Ukraine in the fight. The west’s willingness to take on this level of risk represents a dramatic shift in thinking since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Back then, Nato countries were nervous about providing Ukraine with any offensive weapons.
But offense is defense if you are preventing invaders from seizing more territory, creating “sanitary zones,” committing genocidal acts, et cetera.
As of this writing, Vovchansk in Kharkiv region looks like it was hit by multiple tactical nuclear weapons, repeatedly.
Does tolerating a greater level of risk represent a dramatic shift in thinking amid cataplectic non-cognitivism?
I thought “Russia’s nuclear thoughts” lost their power on Day 14.2
Russia’s nuclear threats are losing their power. The western alliance is intensifying support for Ukraine in a way that was unthinkable at the beginning of the war (The Financial Times, June 3, 2024)
I am saddened by what we have lost with inaction and support of what’s right (I know people may disagree). I believe in the doctrine that Ukraine should have been supported day one. I also believe that Obama did not act appropriately against Assad in Syria and that created a worse situation. Idk but I still believe in the big picture and supporting those democracies that need our help. It was a tragedy to wait soo long for our damn congress to supply money for Ukraine.
Exasperated but keeping hope!
Thanks for your writing!
It would have a made a lot more sense for NATO and the US to maintain strategic ambiguity right from the start. Supply weapons but do not announce what they are. Russians will find out soon enough what has been supplied when the munitions hit. That way Russia never knows what is safe and what is not - supply base here? or 300 km's away? Use close air support - or relocate aircraft? Don't say a word when Putin talks about nukes but visibly move a SSBN (which they did). Russia is bluffing and Putin is full of shit. 'Advisors' like Jake Sullivan need to be booted. Decisions made from fear are bad decisions.