Russia-Ukraine

[dada_dave]

If the current rumors are true apparently we are sending Abrams and the Germans are sending Leopards themselves as well. Pour one out for the Ukrainian logistics officers.

Edit: I mean for a logistician having the problem of trying to supply, maintain, and keep trained personnel available for lots of different weaponry is a better problem to have than not having weapons at all but it’s still a problem they’ll have to solve. No doubt the Ukrainians will, it’s amazing what people can accomplish when their lives depend on it and the Ukrainians have proven to be resourceful and adaptable. But still: Challengers, all the Leopard variants, and Abrams - heck they might as well add Lecercs at this point …although I suppose the already gave the AMX recon/light tanks

Edit 2: and now there’s a report that the Swiss are going to let others deliver Swiss made weapons to Ukraine. I guess they realized as we (and just about everyone else) wrote above that they were harming themselves as well … let see

View attachment 21486


I dunno how the Swiss government works and who else has to say yes or this is a done deal, but it’s a very good step.

Edit 3: and the US is going to increase 155mm artillery production 6 fold over the next 2 years

 

[Agent47]

Das muss die berühmte deutsche Effizienz sein.

 

[AG_PhamD]

If the current rumors are true apparently we are sending Abrams and the Germans are sending Leopards themselves as well. Pour one out for the Ukrainian logistics officers.

Edit: I mean for a logistician having the problem of trying to supply, maintain, and keep trained personnel available for lots of different weaponry is a better problem to have than not having weapons at all but it’s still a problem they’ll have to solve. No doubt the Ukrainians will, it’s amazing what people can accomplish when their lives depend on it and the Ukrainians have proven to be resourceful and adaptable. But still: Challengers, all the Leopard variants, and Abrams - heck they might as well add Lecercs at this point …although I suppose the already gave the AMX recon/light tanks

Edit 2: and now there’s a report that the Swiss are going to let others deliver Swiss made weapons to Ukraine. I guess they realized as we (and just about everyone else) wrote above that they were harming themselves as well … let see

View attachment 21486


I dunno how the Swiss government works and who else has to say yes or this is a done deal, but it’s a very good step.

Edit 3: and the US is going to increase 155mm artillery production 6 fold over the next 2 years

I’m quite surprised the US conceded to sending Abrams. But if that’s what it takes to get Germany on board, I’m all for it.

The Ukrainians have certainly proved themselves incredibly capable of rapidly adopting new weapons systems and technologies. But I agree, the logistics of maintaining British, American, French, and in addition Soviet tanks must be a complete nightmare. And I would imagine among the Soviet tanks of the same model there’s probably some degree of variation between the several countries they’ve come from given many have opted to upgrade them with their own technologies. This might also be true to some extent for the Leopard as well.

The Abrams luckily can run on basically any liquid fuel, but efficiency and maintenance are affected. The US prefers JP-8 jet fuel but formerly used diesel which is less efficient. The Abrams uses substantially (almost 2x?, perhaps even more depending on the circumstances) more fuel than the Leopard 2- Obviously there are a lot of variables in calculating fuel efficiencies. I’m curious what Ukraine plans to fuel it with.

Hopefully they have the logistics to keep up the fuel supply to all of these tanks and other military vehicles they will be receiving. It’s of course not just having the fuel, but getting it to where is needs to be. Whether it’s an Abrams or Leopard or a Bradley or a Stryker these things use a massive of fuel.

 

[Yoused]

Two Turkish freighters in Kherson harbor have been damaged by Russian ordnance – one hit directly, the other peppered by scatter from the first. The Vanuatu-flagged ships, operated by a Turkish shipping company, were stranded in Kherson because of the Russians blocking traffic in the area. Because of that, there were no injuries due to the minimal crew.

 

[theorist9]

So why are these tanks significant? At last count, Russian and Ukraine are each now fielding ~1,500 operational MBT's. Suppose Ukraine gets 300 more. Is this significant because it represents a 20% increase, or also because the Leopards will give them significant new capabilities they don't have with their T62's and T72's? Sure, the Leopard is a better tank. But is it better by more than simply a difference in degree?

It would be interesting to see the results of Monte Carlo war game simulations with Leopards vs. T72's. For instance, if you had 100 Leopards vs. "x" T72's, with equally-capable crews, and you wanted each side to win an average of 50% of the time, what would you need "x" to be?

 

[Cmaier]

So why are these tanks significant? At last count, Russian and Ukraine are each now fielding ~1,500 operational MBT's. Suppose Ukraine gets 300 more. Is this significant because it represents a 20% increase, or also because the Leopards will give them significant new capabilities they don't have with their T62's and T72's? Sure, the Leopard is a better tank. But are they better by more than simply a difference in degree?

It would be interesting to see the results of Monte Carlo war game simulations with Leopards vs. T72's. For instance, if you had 100 Leopards vs. "x" T72's, with equally-capable crews, and you wanted each side to win an average of 50% of the time, what would you need "x" to be?

They are better than simply the increase in numbers, because they have a huge advantage over T72’s and T90’s. They are designed to be able to locate and destroy those tanks before those tanks can even get a shot off, and they are very good at it. And at night, they are far superior to Russian tanks, which essentially are of little use in the dark. No M1 Abrams has ever been destroyed by enemy fire, as far as I know (a few have been destroyed by our own troops so that they don’t fall into enemy hands). The Leopards are good in their own way.

My buddy, a former tank commander, tells me he’d take 100 M1s over 1000 russian tanks.

 

[Eric]

They are better than simply the increase in numbers, because they have a huge advantage over T72’s and T90’s. They are designed to be able to locate and destroy those tanks before those tanks can even get a shot off, and they are very good at it. And at night, they are far superior to Russian tanks, which essentially are of little use in the dark. No M1 Abrams has ever been destroyed by enemy fire, as far as I know (a few have been destroyed by our own troops so that they don’t fall into enemy hands). The Leopards are good in their own way.

My buddy, a former tank commander, tells me he’d take 100 M1s over 1000 russian tanks.

It also levels the playing field a little but it sounds like Russia is currently gaining ground and the wait for these tanks are anywhere from 3 months to a year (from the US). It's hard not to feel for Zelensky constantly asking for help from the rest of the world as his citizens continue to get indiscriminately slaughtered.

 

[Macky-Mac]

So why are these tanks significant? At last count, Russian and Ukraine are each now fielding ~1,500 operational MBT's. Suppose Ukraine gets 300 more. Is this significant because it represents a 20% increase, or also because the Leopards will give them significant new capabilities they don't have with their T62's and T72's? Sure, the Leopard is a better tank. But is it better by more than simply a difference in degree?

It would be interesting to see the results of Monte Carlo war game simulations with Leopards vs. T72's. For instance, if you had 100 Leopards vs. "x" T72's, with equally-capable crews, and you wanted each side to win an average of 50% of the time, what would you need "x" to be?

they're also significant because they show Putin that support for Ukraine continues, which is contrary to his hopes that western support will fade away

 

[dada_dave]

They are better than simply the increase in numbers, because they have a huge advantage over T72’s and T90’s. They are designed to be able to locate and destroy those tanks before those tanks can even get a shot off, and they are very good at it. And at night, they are far superior to Russian tanks, which essentially are of little use in the dark. No M1 Abrams has ever been destroyed by enemy fire, as far as I know (a few have been destroyed by our own troops so that they don’t fall into enemy hands). The Leopards are good in their own way.

My buddy, a former tank commander, tells me he’d take 100 M1s over 1000 russian tanks.

Some of the Leopard A4s are pretty old themselves and while the M1A2s will be the newest version they won’t have the depleted uranium armor (not sure about the Challenger 2s special armor) - no export Abrams version does. Still all them will be a qualitative increase over much (though not all) of what’s out there in theater now (some like the Challengers, newest Leopards, Abrams will be better than everything) - even the older Leopards especially compared to any T62s Russia has been pulling out of storage to make up the numbers.

The huge qualitative increase for Ukraine will be Bradleys/Strikers/CV90s over BMPs 1/2 (and even 3s) and MRAPs/M113s for infantry/tank support.

 

[Cmaier]

Some of the Leopard A4s are pretty old themselves and while the M1A2s will be the newest version they won’t have the depleted uranium armor (not sure about the Challenger 2s special armor) - no export Abrams version does. Still all them will be a qualitative increase over much (though not all) of what’s out there in theater now (some like the Challengers, newest Leopards, Abrams will be better than everything) - even the older Leopards especially compared to any T62s Russia has been pulling out of storage to make up the numbers.

The huge qualitative increase for Ukraine will be Bradleys/Strikers/CV90s over BMPs 1/2 (and even 3s) and MRAPs/M113s for infantry/tank support.

One question still unanswered is whether they will be given depleted uranium ammo. Probably not needed, given how fragile the russian tanks are.

 

[dada_dave]

 

[Yoused]

Texas congresscritter Troy Nehls has this bit of insight,

… I would say this as it relates to Ukraine and what we’re doing here is that the American people I mean, it’s billions of dollars now, John, if we really want to end this war, you want in this war. Joe Biden, you need to call Donald Trump. Donald Trump will call Vladimir Putin and end this war. We must stop this war. And Donald Trump can do it. He never went into Ukraine under Donald Trump in his four years …​

 

[dada_dave]

Texas congresscritter Troy Nehls has this bit of insight,

… I would say this as it relates to Ukraine and what we’re doing here is that the American people I mean, it’s billions of dollars now, John, if we really want to end this war, you want in this war. Joe Biden, you need to call Donald Trump. Donald Trump will call Vladimir Putin and end this war. We must stop this war. And Donald Trump can do it. He never went into Ukraine under Donald Trump in his four years …​

You know there isn’t enough alcohol in the world to get me drunk enough for that kind of idiocy … and I don’t even drink. On the other hand it truly is inspiring that regardless of how inept and lazy I feel that I am I could always enter politics and become a congressman.

 

[KingOfPain]

A bit more information about the Leopard 2 situation by someone who typically makes quite analytical videos:


As for Donald Trump being able to end the war… That Troy Nehls guy must be totally delusional.
1. If Trump wanted to speak with Putin, he wouldn‘t need the invitation from Biden.
2. For everyone with eyes and a brain it was clear that Putin manipulated Trump, not the other way round. (Just think of the press conference, where Trump said that he believes Putin more than his own intelligence people.)
3. I‘m not totally sure why Putin didn‘t invade Ukraine while Trump was still president (Maybe he feared the US might actually get rid of his trump card then? Pun intended.), but I‘m pretty sure that had it happened, Ukraine would have received absolutely no military support from from the US, just like Trump tried to withhold it in his first perfect phone call to pressure Zelenskyy into announcing investigations into Hunter Biden.

In other news:
According to Russian propaganda 94% of the Germans are agains it (the excerpt wasn‘t quite clear, but I guess they meant the delivery of tanks), which obviously means that Germany is under Nazi control and has to be liberated from it.
I‘m guessing the Russians get their statistics from Churchill, and if it wasn‘t clear before: If Ukraine should lose the war and Russia has any forces left, they have no intention of stopping there!
Ukraine isn‘t just fighting for their own country, they are fighting for the whole of Europe, which means Europe better damn well support them!

 

[KingOfPain]

On the other hand it truly is inspiring that regardless of his inept and lazy I feel that I am I could always enter politics and become a congressman.

I thought we in Germany had some very dumb politicians, but in the US they literally will take anyone.
Herschel Walker almost won his election and he probably has brain damage, George Santos (or whatever name he uses today) is an even bigger liar than Trump, MTG and Lauren Bobert are totally crazy, the list goes on…
If this keeps up, the Republican voters will vote for a literally brain dead person as long as they have an (R) behind their name…

 

[AG_PhamD]

Texas congresscritter Troy Nehls has this bit of insight,

… I would say this as it relates to Ukraine and what we’re doing here is that the American people I mean, it’s billions of dollars now, John, if we really want to end this war, you want in this war. Joe Biden, you need to call Donald Trump. Donald Trump will call Vladimir Putin and end this war. We must stop this war. And Donald Trump can do it. He never went into Ukraine under Donald Trump in his four years …​

I think there are actually very few republicans who seriously think cutting funding to Ukraine. Most of it I think is political posturing- either to differentiate themselves or as a strategy to better account for where money/hardware is going- the latter of which I don’t think is a terrible idea- just with the understanding Ukraine is a war zone and accounting is not going to be easy. Ukraine has a ton of corruption which is a challenge, but corruption exists everywhere, including the US.

I get much the public may not understand the situation, but any reasonable politician will recognize that we are spending very little money to severely hinder one of our greatest geopolitical threats. We spent $27B in 2022 which is not a lot of money in terms of govt spending… especially when a lot of the hardware we sent were materials that were already made and would likely never be used… thus already paid for and otherwise probably would have been disposed of. For example retired HAWK anti-air systems, M113 APCs, I believe many of the Strykers sent were of version that were being retired, etc. A lot of the artillery we sent would probably have expired considering that’s not really how we conduct warfare these days. Some of that could have been resold, but a lot of it probably not. But all of this gets a price tag attached.

We spent $150B a year on the war on terror in the Middle East and accomplished very little. $30B a year in Ukraine is very modest, especially considering what we have to gain- Ukrainian independence, the promotion of democracy, the strengthening of NATO, the subduing of Russian aggression for generations to come, a warning to China and Iran about their own ambitions, etc. Plus we are not sacrificing our own soldiers. If Russia wins, it’s all the more likely they annex more of Europe (as they have been doing for decades!) and all the more likely China will invade Taiwan and Iran attack its neighbors. Plus, voting against support of this war will surely stress the all important relationship between defense contractors and politicians.

Dollar for dollar you couldn’t fund a better war. I find it highly unlikely the republicans would actually cease the funding. Again, it strikes me as political theater.

I believe many of the democrats who have publicly opposed funding the war when push comes to shove, ended up voting to support it.

As for Trump brining peace, short of giving up much of Ukraine to Russia or sending US/NATO troops into Ukraine, I don’t see a reasonable solution considering Putin is neck deep in this war now with little in the way of off-ramps, at least those conducive to both countries.

And while I think peace is a just goal, I think people who think that a peace deal is feasible at the moment are not in touch with reality. Yes, peace is what we should aspire to have, but we also have to be realistic about the situation at hand. And at the moment neither side is willing to make the necessary concessions.

 

[dada_dave]

I think there are actually very few republicans who seriously think cutting funding to Ukraine. Most of it I think is political posturing- either to differentiate themselves or as a strategy to better account for where money/hardware is going- the latter of which I don’t think is a terrible idea- just with the understanding Ukraine is a war zone and accounting is not going to be easy. Ukraine has a ton of corruption which is a challenge, but corruption exists everywhere, including the US.

I get much the public may not understand the situation, but any reasonable politician will recognize that we are spending very little money to severely hinder one of our greatest geopolitical threats. We spent $27B in 2022 which is not a lot of money in terms of govt spending… especially when a lot of the hardware we sent were materials that were already made and would likely never be used… thus already paid for and otherwise probably would have been disposed of. For example retired HAWK anti-air systems, M113 APCs, I believe many of the Strykers sent were of version that were being retired, etc. A lot of the artillery we sent would probably have expired considering that’s not really how we conduct warfare these days. Some of that could have been resold, but a lot of it probably not. But all of this gets a price tag attached.

We spent $150B a year on the war on terror in the Middle East and accomplished very little. $30B a year in Ukraine is very modest, especially considering what we have to gain- Ukrainian independence, the promotion of democracy, the strengthening of NATO, the subduing of Russian aggression for generations to come, a warning to China and Iran about their own ambitions, etc. Plus we are not sacrificing our own soldiers. If Russia wins, it’s all the more likely they annex more of Europe (as they have been doing for decades!) and all the more likely China will invade Taiwan and Iran attack its neighbors. Plus, voting against support of this war will surely stress the all important relationship between defense contractors and politicians.

Dollar for dollar you couldn’t fund a better war. I find it highly unlikely the republicans would actually cease the funding. Again, it strikes me as political theater.

I believe many of the democrats who have publicly opposed funding the war when push comes to shove, ended up voting to support it.

As for Trump brining peace, short of giving up much of Ukraine to Russia or sending US/NATO troops into Ukraine, I don’t see a reasonable solution considering Putin is neck deep in this war now with little in the way of off-ramps, at least those conducive to both countries.

And while I think peace is a just goal, I think people who think that a peace deal is feasible at the moment are not in touch with reality. Yes, peace is what we should aspire to have, but we also have to be realistic about the situation at hand. And at the moment neither side is willing to make the necessary concessions.

While I doubt these morons have ever thought deeply about their inane suggestions, the Trumpist wing of the party has indeed made it clear that cutting funding to Ukraine to force them to negotiate and give up territory is indeed the goal.

Currently, whatever size they are, they control the House leadership and RNC and the rest of the Republicans have let them. So if they want to block further aid packages they can. Now when push comes to shove could this break the party if it comes down to a vote that matters (presumably by the end of the year for next year)? Would those who are merely posers and non-crazies actually stand up? Maybe. It would require a great deal of political pressure from the Senate Republicans (they have their own crazies but they aren’t in control … so far) and McConnell but it’s conceivable. It is also conceivable that they’ll just fold like on everything else. The debt ceiling fight will be a good test for this.

Biden in control of the executive branch will still have some tools - as far as I can tell (and maybe someone can correct me here if I’m wrong) we haven’t touched lend-lease and they may be saving that to use if the Republicans do muck up further aid for Ukraine, I dunno.

 

[AG_PhamD]

While I doubt these morons have ever thought deeply about their inane suggestions, the Trumpist wing of the party has indeed made it clear that cutting funding to Ukraine to force them to negotiate and give up territory is indeed the goal.

Currently, whatever size they are, they control the House leadership and RNC and the rest of the Republicans have let them. So if they want to block further aid packages they can. Now when push comes to shove could this break the party if it comes down to a vote that matters (presumably by the end of the year for next year)? Would those who are merely posers and non-crazies actually stand up? Maybe. It would require a great deal of political pressure from the Senate Republicans (they have their own crazies but they aren’t in control … so far) and McConnell but it’s conceivable. It is also conceivable that they’ll just fold like on everything else. The debt ceiling fight will be a good test for this.

Biden in control of the executive branch will still have some tools - as far as I can tell (and maybe someone can correct me here if I’m wrong) we haven’t touched lend-lease and they may be saving that to use if the Republicans do muck up further aid for Ukraine, I dunno.

Regarding the MAGA idiots sway over the party, I certainly hope not. Of all their ridiculous platform positions, I would assume this is not the hill they will die on- if they indeed believe what they are saying. I would hope these lawmakers are briefed on the value of this war. Despite some of McCarthy’s statements, he has also vocalized the need to support Ukraine. His comment of “no blank check” for Ukraine signals a cutting of aid (whatever that really means) but really means nothing concrete- I’m not aware of any blank check programs. If the our government really needs to scrounge up $30B I’m sure there hundreds of billions in completely wasteful spending that could be identified and cut. $30B out of $6 TRILLION.

Trump himself has been all over the board with his suggestions of what to do with this war. It strikes me he has no strong opinion and will say whatever he thinks is politically expedient at the time. If tomorrow he tells his followers we need to send US troops to Ukraine, invade Russia proper, and drop nukes, I wouldn’t be surprised if his MAGA crowd blindly supported him into creating WWIII.

And thats the way our politics seems to work to a large extent- on both sides. Much of the public is not intimately invested in learning about policy issues and forming their own opinions. Instead, they just seem to agree with what their favored political leaders say. I suppose the logic (or lack thereof) is “if I support X politician’s plan for healthcare then surely whatever their position on geopolitics and war is good too”. I’m quite confident if immediately tomorrow the D’s stopped supporting the war and the R’s fully supported it, you’d see the public polls reflect that quite quickly. It’s weird enough as it is that Democrats are strongly supporting this war and Republicans are not (at least to the same extent, publicly anyways), given how these parties have considered wars historically.

I do think those supporting the war could do a better job of explaining to the public why this war matters. Unfortunately, for Washington to clearly express many of the strongest benefits of support risks escalation with Russia and/or make negotiations more difficult than they are. It would likely harm relationships with Ukraine and partners. (i.e. declaring our explicit desire to destroy the Russian military and sphere of influence, suggesting Ukraine is also fighting this war for us so we don’t risk losing soldiers, pointing out NATO members are finally increasing their budgets, etc).

That’s another point too- There could be some strategy among the republicans (probably not the MAGA Republicans given their collective IQ of of 17) to finagle defense spending out of NATO allies. If European NATO members think the US is cutting aid, they might choose invest more in their militaries and provide more aid now than they otherwise would. It has long been a complaint, particularly on the Right, that NATO members have not been properly funding their militaries, relying on the US for defense. I don’t think that’s unfair criticism.

Considering the US’s recent anti-intervention and indecision on military/geopolitical decisions (Afghanistan pullout, 2014 Ukraine, 2008 Georgia, Syria, perhaps even Chechnya…) it’s really not surprising that Putin assumed he could invade Ukraine again with little-no US/intl military support to Ukraine. Had it not been for Zelensky deciding not to flee his country, the war would have likely been over in a few days as originally predicted.

The Afghanistan debacle (not the fact we left, but the manner in which we left- running off in the middle of the night while failing to give notice to our foreign military partners) severely damaged our credibility as a reliable ally. The Iran Nuclear Deal pullout was also very damaging (not to mention Trump generally to most other nations).

So if the Republicans cease aid to Ukraine entirely or substantially, our reliability and credibility as an alliance member will be completely shot as well as our world standing. Bad actors will infer that if they start a conflict, either they only must hold our long enough until US loses interest or the US won’t involve itself at all. And no country will ever want to support our next military action knowing the risk that the US will unexpectedly pull out leaving others holding the bag and without the resources to continue.

Perhaps the MAGA members of Congress don’t care about such relationships, but I suspect most of the more sane Republicans understand the value and need for such partners as well as having credibility with them.

 

[dada_dave]

Even Russian propagandists, who normally refer to him as “our Trump” (they also adore Tucker Carlson), are mocking Trump’s assertion that he could solve it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1621211837881618433

Even the Russians know that the Ukrainians will continue to fight without assistance for as long as they can and the Nordics/Baltics/CEE will continue support. Obviously US support is the most important, especially for a Ukrainian victory (well one that isn’t pyrrhic anyway). But this war doesn’t end if we pull out. The Russians have been stupid, but they aren’t that dumb.

 

[dada_dave]

Regarding the MAGA idiots sway over the party, I certainly hope not. Of all their ridiculous platform positions, I would assume this is not the hill they will die on- if they indeed believe what they are saying. I would hope these lawmakers are briefed on the value of this war. Despite some of McCarthy’s statements, he has also vocalized the need to support Ukraine. His comment of “no blank check” for Ukraine signals a cutting of aid (whatever that really means) but really means nothing concrete- I’m not aware of any blank check programs. If the our government really needs to scrounge up $30B I’m sure there hundreds of billions in completely wasteful spending that could be identified and cut. $30B out of $6 TRILLION.

Trump himself has been all over the board with his suggestions of what to do with this war. It strikes me he has no strong opinion and will say whatever he thinks is politically expedient at the time. If tomorrow he tells his followers we need to send US troops to Ukraine, invade Russia proper, and drop nukes, I wouldn’t be surprised if his MAGA crowd blindly supported him into creating WWIII.

And thats the way our politics seems to work to a large extent- on both sides. Much of the public is not intimately invested in learning about policy issues and forming their own opinions. Instead, they just seem to agree with what their favored political leaders say. I suppose the logic (or lack thereof) is “if I support X politician’s plan for healthcare then surely whatever their position on geopolitics and war is good too”. I’m quite confident if immediately tomorrow the D’s stopped supporting the war and the R’s fully supported it, you’d see the public polls reflect that quite quickly. It’s weird enough as it is that Democrats are strongly supporting this war and Republicans are not (at least to the same extent, publicly anyways), given how these parties have considered wars historically.

I do think those supporting the war could do a better job of explaining to the public why this war matters. Unfortunately, for Washington to clearly express many of the strongest benefits of support risks escalation with Russia and/or make negotiations more difficult than they are. It would likely harm relationships with Ukraine and partners. (i.e. declaring our explicit desire to destroy the Russian military and sphere of influence, suggesting Ukraine is also fighting this war for us so we don’t risk losing soldiers, pointing out NATO members are finally increasing their budgets, etc).

That’s another point too- There could be some strategy among the republicans (probably not the MAGA Republicans given their collective IQ of of 17) to finagle defense spending out of NATO allies. If European NATO members think the US is cutting aid, they might choose invest more in their militaries and provide more aid now than they otherwise would. It has long been a complaint, particularly on the Right, that NATO members have not been properly funding their militaries, relying on the US for defense. I don’t think that’s unfair criticism.

Considering the US’s recent anti-intervention and indecision on military/geopolitical decisions (Afghanistan pullout, 2014 Ukraine, 2008 Georgia, Syria, perhaps even Chechnya…) it’s really not surprising that Putin assumed he could invade Ukraine again with little-no US/intl military support to Ukraine. Had it not been for Zelensky deciding not to flee his country, the war would have likely been over in a few days as originally predicted.

The Afghanistan debacle (not the fact we left, but the manner in which we left- running off in the middle of the night while failing to give notice to our foreign military partners) severely damaged our credibility as a reliable ally. The Iran Nuclear Deal pullout was also very damaging (not to mention Trump generally to most other nations).

So if the Republicans cease aid to Ukraine entirely or substantially, our reliability and credibility as an alliance member will be completely shot as well as our world standing. Bad actors will infer that if they start a conflict, either they only must hold our long enough until US loses interest or the US won’t involve itself at all. And no country will ever want to support our next military action knowing the risk that the US will unexpectedly pull out leaving others holding the bag and without the resources to continue.

Perhaps the MAGA members of Congress don’t care about such relationships, but I suspect most of the more sane Republicans understand the value and need for such partners as well as having credibility with them.

Trump has been pretty consistently pro Russia or at least as consistent as he is on anything. Hence why the Russians refer to him as “our Trump”. And my concern is that this won’t have to be a hill the MAGAts will die on largely because the rest of the Republicans in the House will fold as they have always done. It’s important to remember that Kevin McCarthy only got the speakership after Gaetz couldn’t think of anything else to extract from him rather than because of any pressure put on Gaetz. They control him. I’m now of the opinion that McCarthy will survive as “Speaker” simply because he has no power and no will. So there will never be a reason for the MAGA wing to remove him and the institutionalist wing (they are not moderates, those are almost extinct) are too weak willed or craven for power themselves to do it. So the pressure would have to come from Senate Republicans.

It’s important to remember that these people’s stated goal is to stop government from functioning - and in some cases depending on their role in Jan 6th, are actual insurrectionists who tried to help overthrow the government in an auto coup. There is no bottom and the Republicans have rewarded their behavior with high profile committee appointments. They simply don’t care about the damage to the US. This is, overall, not a rational political party.

Largely the American public does still support continuing support for Ukraine. However support amongst Republicans is eroding and largely due to the MAGA influence especially in right wing media like Tucker Carlson. And there’s little the administration can do to reach out to those listeners, they would reject it or dig in further. Such influence would have to come from a trusted, ultra conservative source who is not a never Trumper but that is also willing to be clear eyed about Ukraine and willing to defy the MAGAts. And who would that be?