Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Middle-aged Europe]

Went to another protest march today.

[afleitch]

The reality is that no state that Russia sets up in the east of Ukraine will be accepted as a state by the vast majority of UN states (see Crimea and the Donbas). A puppet regime in the west/Kyiv will not be accepted by the majority of UN states if there is a functional Ukrainian government in exile and continued resistance within Ukraine itself.

The bigger question is 'How can Russia reverse the sanctions' and 'How can Russia restore it's status as a non-pariah state.'

That reality isn't found in anything but a return to the status quo. That status quo can be achieved by either a technical defeat or a technical victory. It can, sadly, also be achieved without removing Putin or any of the current corrupt system.

But it does mean a Ukraine (and Moldova) that inevitably joins the EU, and a Sweden and Finland that join NATO.

And Putin can orchestrate whatever narrative or fiction he wants about the end result and continue to bang on about 'expansion' of the apparatus of a political Europe.

[WMS]

https://pastebin.com/2agMRGmd

The most interesting bit to overstate it, is that "nobody" but Putin knew he was actually going to really "just do it."

I question the world famine narrative in my ignorance. At least it seems overstated to me. Food production can be ramped up quickly in a way energy production cannot. Food prices are going to go up however. It is kind of the reverse of the corn laws, which propped up prices so wheat was growing on rather steep slopes that was inefficient but still profitable given the price supports. And land used to grow corn to feed cattle (a relatively inefficient way to produce calories), can be used to grow wheat or soybeans, etc.

I wonder if we really go full bore into a cold war, how much the standard of living of the planet will decline. We had it good as defense budgets declined as a share of GDP and free trade and high tech did the reverse, and improved living standards.

Here’s a bit of potential interest:

From the cynical, I will only add that I do not believe that VV Putin will press the red button to destroy the whole world.
Firstly, there is more than one person making a decision, at least someone will jump off. And there are a lot of people there - there is no "one-man red button".
Secondly, there are some doubts that everything is functioning successfully there. Experience shows that the greater the transparency and control, the easier it is to identify shortcomings. And where it is not clear who controls and how, but always bravura reports - everything is always wrong there. I'm not sure if the red button system works as advertised. In addition, the plutonium charge must be changed every 10 years.
Thirdly, and this is the most vile and sad thing, I personally do not believe in the readiness to sacrifice oneself of a person who does not let the members of the Federation Council, but his closest representatives and ministers, come close to him. For fear of the coronavirus or an attack, it doesn't matter. If you are afraid to let the most trusted people near you, then how will you dare to destroy yourself and your loved ones, inclusive?

So can the OMG PUTIN WILL UNLEASH NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON crowd relax a bit?

[It’s so Joever]

Does anyone know a good place to get some good frontline updates when possible?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1500490557663158272?r
Putin is truly in danger if he's doing something like this, Most civil servants in Russia are delibraty underpaid with a tacit understanding that this allows them to engage in bribery so long as it's not too blatant as to generate public outrage. He's eroding away one of the key pillars to his power

As we have noted, Russia is among the world's most corrupt states. As such, the political logic of private goods can be seen vividly in the workings of its corruption. Low salaries for police forces are a common feature of small coalition regimes and Russia is no exception. At first blush this might seem surprising. The police are crucial to a regime's survival. Police officers are charged with maintaining civil order—which often boils down to crushing antigovernment protests and bashing the heads of antigovernment activists. Surely inducing such behavior requires either great commitment to the regime or goodcompensation. But as elsewhere, the logic of corruption takes a more complex turn.

Though private rewards can be provided directly out of the government's treasury, the easiest way to compensate the police for their loyalty—includingtheir willingness to oppress their fellow citizens—is to give them free rein to be corrupt. Pay them so little that they can't help but realize it is not onlyacceptable but necessary for them to be corrupt. Then they will be doubly beholden to the regime: first, they will be grateful for the wealth the regime letsthem accumulate; second, they will understand that if they waver in loyalty, they are at risk of losing their privileges and being prosecuted. Remember Mikhail Khodorkovsky? He used to be the richest man in Russia.

We do not know whether he was corrupt or not, but we do know that he was not loyal tothe Putin government and duly found himself prosecuted for corruption. Police face the same threat. Consider former police major and whistleblower, Alexei Dymovsky. 8 Mr. Dymovsky, by his own admission, was a corrupt policeman in Novorossiysk, a city of 225,000 people. He noted that on a new recruit's salary of $413 a month (12,000 rubles) he could not make ends meet and so had to turn tocorruption. Dymovsky claims he personally only took very small amounts of money. Whether that is true or not, we cannot know. What we do know is what happened next. In a video he made and sent to Vladimir Putin before it became famous on YouTube, "Mr. Dymovsky also described a practice that is considered common in Russia: When officers end their shifts, they have to turn over a portion of their bribes to the so-called cashier, a senior member of thedepartment. Typically, $25 to $100 a day. If officers do not pay up, they are disciplined."

According to his own account, Mr. Dymovsky eventually grew tired of being corrupt and feeling compelled to be corrupt. As the New York Times reported, he inquired of Vladimir Putin, "How can a police officer accept bribes? . . . Do you understand where our society is heading? . . . You talk about reducing corruption," he said. "You say that it should not be just a crime, that it should be immoral. But it is not like that. I told my boss that the police are corrupt. And he told me that it cannot be done away with." Dymovsky became something of a folk hero in Russia. It seems his whistle-blowing was much appreciated among many ordinary Russians. The official response, however, was quite different. He was shunned, fired, persecuted, prosecuted, and imprisoned. The public uproar that followed led eventually tohis release.

No longer a police officer, he established a business guiding tours of the luxurious homes of some of his police colleagues. Most notableamong these is the home of Chief Chernositov. The chief's salary is about $25,000 a year—yet he owns a beachfront home on land estimated to beworth $800,000. The chief offers no account of how he could afford his home and, it should be noted, he remains in his position as chief. He certainly hasnot faced imprisonment for his apparent corruption, but then, unlike Mikhail Khodorkovsky or Aleksei Dymovsky, Novorossiysk's police chief has remained loyal to the governing regime. As for Dymovsky's whistle-blowing, it did prompt a response from the Kremlin. Russia's central government passed a law imposing tough penalties on police officers who criticize their superiors. As the Times notes, the law has come to be known as "Dymovskylaw." Corruption is a private good of choice for exactly the reasons captured by the Dymovsky Affair. It provides the means to ensure regime loyalty without having to pay good salaries, and it guarantees the prosecutorial means to ferret out any beneficiaries who fail to remain loyal. What could be better from aleader's perspective?

[Frodo]

Apparently Secretary of State Antony Blinken agrees with some of our more optimistic Atlasians that Ukraine could actually win this thing:

Blinken: Putin is 'destined to lose' war against Ukraine

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1500490557663158272?r
Putin is truly in danger if he's doing something like this, Most civil servants in Russia are delibraty underpaid with a tacit understanding that this allows them to engage in bribery so long as it's not too blatant as to generate public outrage. He's eroding away one of the key pillars to his power

Is this a revenue raising measure, like a wealth tax of 100%?

[WMS]

Does anyone know a good place to get some good frontline updates when possible?

https://twitter.com/newvoiceukraine/status/1500114113187483651?s=21
So, for those of you wanting more frequent updates on the war in Ukraine, here is an Ukrainian source that’s updated during the day as events happen. Probably is biased in favor of Ukraine, but then again so is reality.

Buried in this thread of course since it can move fast, but here’s one source.

[Hollywood]

I think y’all are underestimating Russia a bit. While yes the invasion could have gone better, they still are making important advances. Invasions don’t just happen overnight.

They have been taking heavy casualties - extremely heavy casualties according to some estimates - and morale is clearly low for this and other reasons. These things matter a lot in wars, much more than the speed of any advance, particularly in a country with only one significant natural barrier until you reach its extreme western end.

Throughout its varied incarnations, the Russian military has often been able to take casualties and still yet function at a rate that other militaries could not, but this related to the ability of the Empire (whether Romanov or Soviet) to bring new soldiers to the front or create whole new armies that opponents were unable to do for basic demographic reasons. Even so it was often a close-run thing: had the Russian army been destroyed after Borodino (as nearly happened) then that would have been terminal for the defence against Napoleon, for instance. Not only that, but sometimes things still fell through: the sheer weight of casualties suffered during the (technically successful!) Brusilov Offensive in 1916 contributed directly to the collapse of the Russian war effort and the fall of the Tsar.

The thing is, the Russian military these days does not have the capacity to do that. It has lost many of its most productive recruiting grounds (one of which was Ukraine!), the post-Soviet demographic disaster has had a predictable impact on its pool of potential recruits, it has problems in attracting genuine volunteers to become career soldiers, and the military and the state are so utterly riddled with corruption that it lacks the capacity to even enforce conscription at anything like the levels it would theoretically need.

I make no predictions as to how this will unfold (other than to say that thousands more will die and that I really cannot see how any form of military victory can now be turned into a political one: and a military victory that cannot be turned into a political victory is not a victory at all) and given the record of predictions before the invasion neither should anyone else, but certain assumptions based on the military history of Russia that a lot of people have internalised simply do not hold and it is important to be aware of this.

What's the source of these casualties?  Ukraine?  I find the Russian numbers far more believable at this point in the war, and I realize that they're spreading a lot of BS over their airways.  Ukrainians didn't take out 10K Russians while only losing a few hundred Soldiers while counting some armed Ukrainians as "Civilians".  There are Ukrainian Civilians helping and fighting the Russians that they call 'Russian Soliders' or 'Saboteurs'.  Its BS.  For example, I remember the story about those 'Snake Island' Ukrainians that died heroes resisting a Russian Vessel after exclaiming, "Russian Warship. Go F Yourself".  Total Fabrication.  They surrendered immediately without firing a shot, and I believe it cause I saw that none of them were hurt.    The US, EU and NATO are all qualifying their numbers by warning people that the death toll is substantially higher than the official report.  

[ugabug]

Here's a translated Russian article about what it's like in the Kremlin at the moment.

https://ilyalozovsky.substack.com/p/what-russian-officials-think-of-the?showWelcome=true&s=w

this part in particular is interesting.

“Putin now seriously believes what [Defense Minister] Shoigu and [General Staff chief] Gerasimov are telling him: About how quickly they’ll take Kyiv, that the Ukrainians are blowing themselves up, that Zelensky is a coke addict.”

So far, none of the officials have dared to object to what’s happening in the slightest public way, much less to resign.

[It’s so Joever]

We have to consider what we mean by "win" here. Take Kiev and impose a set of borders and puppet gov't sure that is possible. But that isn't enough to avoid getting bled dry by resistance, especially in Western and South Western Ukraine.

I really wish folks predicting a Russian win can expand on what that actually means. Russia taking over the whole country? Just the Eastern part? I also wonder, particularly among the "Russia will win because they just will" contingent, if there's an over-emphasis on the numbers game and not even on the logistical, economical & morale problems Russia has. Every day Russia doesn't advance towards Kiev is another day where Ukraine can resupply & add defense.

At this point in time, I can't see Russia taking all of Ukraine. As you alluded to, almost all of the fighting has taken place in the pro-Russian regions on flatter, favorable terrain against a seemingly unprepared target. For the Russians, this was as close to a cakewalk as you could get for an invasion. If they're having this much trouble, how the hell are they gonna fare out west on rougher terrain & even stronger resistance.

I think this ends with a West & East Ukraine, with the main question being what side Kiev lies on (Unless it's cut in half which I can easily see)

I think in the end Russia wins much of Eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea Coast, which I would consider a win.

As to what you consider a "win:"

1. Do you assume in due course with Russia grabbing that part of Ukraine, that it is let back into the family of nations and trade resumes?

2. What do you assume under the "win" scenario" is the status is of the balance of Ukraine? NATO, EU, real defense treaties, nothing so that we can do this all over again, or what?

3. What under the "win" scenario will be the situation of those in Ukraine now under Russian rule. Are they pacific and resigned, guerilla warfare, expulsion, genocide, etc?

I have trouble myself conceiving of Russia by virtue of this invasion retaining a lot more Ukrainian real estate while at the same time being allowed to become economically enmeshed with the Western economies again, as opposed to being walled in with a cordon sanitaire. I just cannot. I don't think public opinion will allow that, and I think the West has taken to heart its mistakes when dealing with Putin, and with non NATO states on the front line for that matter. Maybe I am being naive and "pollyannish." I certainly hope not. I hope I am as right about that as my prediction that Putin wanted to go for the max, and annex Ukraine, and bear almost any burden to do it, till death do he part.

Al said it far more eloquently and eruditely above. I just don't think there is an outcome out there for Russia that can be considered a "win" for them, whether it retains any more real estate or not. Somewhat more likely is that everybody loses.

1. Yes. Overtime corporations and later countries will shift back to normal once the news cycle changes. Russia is too valuable of an oil producer to isolate forever.
2. Western Ukraine is still in between NATO and Russia. NATO leaders are hesitant to let Western Ukraine in so as not to provoke war, but obviously Western Ukrainians want to be in NATO. Eastern Ukraine is a Russian puppet with Russian military propping it up.
3. Guerrilla Warfare, it will be long and bloody, although will dwindle over time.

[Torie]

Thank you for your response. I hope your prognosis is wrong of course.

[jaichind]

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/visa-suspends-operations-russia-over-ukraine-invasion-2022-03-05/

"Visa, Mastercard suspend operations in Russia over Ukraine invasion"

It seems Visa and Mastercard cards issued with Russian banks and used inside Russia will continue to work.  What will not work is if you are a Russian with one of those cards issued by a Russian bank with a Visa or Mastercard card and try to use it internationally.  Likewise, if you are a foreigner that wants to use a Visa or Mastercard card issued outside of Russia in Russia, it will not work.  If so the impact of this one sounds large but is most likely limited.

[jaichind]

https://fortune.com/2022/03/06/putin-aims-to-avert-defaults-with-ruble-payment-to-creditors/

"Scrambling to avert Russian default, Putin allows ruble payments to creditors"

Earlier Russia forbids payment of foreign debt.  Now Putin says to avoid default coupon payments can be made in RUB.  I would argue this is at a technical level a default.  I guess Putin does not care.  He mostly must have accepted that Russia is not going to get more any Western finance for a while if ever.

[Torie]

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/visa-suspends-operations-russia-over-ukraine-invasion-2022-03-05/

"Visa, Mastercard suspend operations in Russia over Ukraine invasion"

It seems Visa and Mastercard cards issued with Russian banks and used inside Russia will continue to work.  What will not work is if you are a Russian with one of those cards issued by a Russian bank with a Visa or Mastercard card and try to use it internationally.  Likewise, if you are a foreigner that wants to use a Visa or Mastercard card issued outside of Russia in Russia, it will not work.  If so the impact of this one sounds large but is most likely limited.

One would think the Russian banks could issue their own cards for internal use in short order no? Not that there will be much money to draw upon that is sitting in Russian banks by Russians though. So I think it is a big deal if Russians are cut off from drawing upon funds sitting in foreign banks.

[Logical]

I think y’all are underestimating Russia a bit. While yes the invasion could have gone better, they still are making important advances. Invasions don’t just happen overnight.

They have been taking heavy casualties - extremely heavy casualties according to some estimates - and morale is clearly low for this and other reasons. These things matter a lot in wars, much more than the speed of any advance, particularly in a country with only one significant natural barrier until you reach its extreme western end.

Throughout its varied incarnations, the Russian military has often been able to take casualties and still yet function at a rate that other militaries could not, but this related to the ability of the Empire (whether Romanov or Soviet) to bring new soldiers to the front or create whole new armies that opponents were unable to do for basic demographic reasons. Even so it was often a close-run thing: had the Russian army been destroyed after Borodino (as nearly happened) then that would have been terminal for the defence against Napoleon, for instance. Not only that, but sometimes things still fell through: the sheer weight of casualties suffered during the (technically successful!) Brusilov Offensive in 1916 contributed directly to the collapse of the Russian war effort and the fall of the Tsar.

The thing is, the Russian military these days does not have the capacity to do that. It has lost many of its most productive recruiting grounds (one of which was Ukraine!), the post-Soviet demographic disaster has had a predictable impact on its pool of potential recruits, it has problems in attracting genuine volunteers to become career soldiers, and the military and the state are so utterly riddled with corruption that it lacks the capacity to even enforce conscription at anything like the levels it would theoretically need.

I make no predictions as to how this will unfold (other than to say that thousands more will die and that I really cannot see how any form of military victory can now be turned into a political one: and a military victory that cannot be turned into a political victory is not a victory at all) and given the record of predictions before the invasion neither should anyone else, but certain assumptions based on the military history of Russia that a lot of people have internalised simply do not hold and it is important to be aware of this.

Reminds me of this Soviet propaganda poster.

[NOVA Green]

Here are the latest maps from the series Logical was posting daily since they get lost with all of the other activity:

(These were uploaded 11 hours ago):

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1500350300028383240

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1500350533965692928

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1500350674143522821

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1500350888967385088

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1500351457802997760?s=20&t=zEOMhZHABSWiPf...

[Badger]

I lean towards No on this (while being persuadable to support Yes). The only way this will work is if Russia literally cannot find a place to sell its oil. And I doubt that is possible.
The intentions of such moves are noble, but these are likely to marginally increase American oil and gas prices without costing the Russians enough to justify the reduction in supply diversification. Gas is already, what, 4 dollars a galloon? And when you get past the feel-good statements on part of corporate America on this issue, this WILL likely result in higher prices for the common man in this country at the gas pump.
Just because something is a sanction doesn't mean it's worthy to do. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something. Let's not fetishize action at the expense of effective policy.

 Of course they will find some place to sell some of the Royal. No one's believing that there will be a 100% worldwide it blockade or a bargo on Russian oil and gas. The point is obvious supply and demand. The demand for Russian gas and oil decreases dramatically, that f**** Putin  Tremendously. China is right now for example buying all the gas and oil it needs from Russia. It's suddenly not going to buy more gas and oil that it doesn't need, and neither are most other countries, to take up the slack.

There's a LOT of potential and contemporary oil and gas consumers in the Third World.
I think for this to really work, we need the support of the Arab World. Otherwise, Putin can sell oil to Arab governments and then they can de facto circumvent the sanctions.

 And those 3rd world consumers are already purchasing gas and oil at the levels they need. Yes, theoretically some countries could buy up access Russia Russian gas at a cut throat low price, but who is really ready to do that? Mark Eritrea? North Korea?? And the rock bottom price Russia would have to sell it at is is going to further seriously harm Russia's bankroll.

These (oil-importing) third world countries would be signing up for de facto economic warfare against themselves if they were going to go along with sanctions on Russian oil, and what's more, some of them have long bought Russian. Russian oil being in the mix impacts supply and demand. Oil imports getting more expensive would be taxing to these countries.

The long-term costs of a sanction of Russian oil and gas would likely be met in significant part by Western consumers. Yes the Russians would pay a significant cost, and it's not necessarily insane economically for America, but sanctions of this sort are likely not territory that is economical in the long-run.

We actually help our ability to help Ukraine if we only do what is economical anyway.

 You are missing the point. No one is talking about a worldwide embargo on Russian oil and gas. That would be great to come up with no 1 is expecting that period we're talking about Is an American embargo on Russian oil and gas. You see, Russia has a tremendous amount of financial investment in their oil and gas exportation. So if it is reduced, and there are not going to be other people buying as much, then Russia makes less money. There won't be magically other people to buy oil at the same price should we induce such an embargo.

For this sort of thing, I'm inclined to go big or go home. It's a largely meaningless gesture that on net taxes Americans marginally, IF this is a US-only thing. The zeitgeist is already making it sort of done anyway, as corporate America has decided to virtue-signal once again and they benefit from higher prices from the exclusion of Russian oil and gas from the market. The major markets for Russia aren't in America anyway, they are elsewhere. (Like India, I would assume)

snip

Is Russia a comparatively large oil and gas supplier to the US? I assumed not. I had not looked at statistics.
Had to look it up.
Russia supplies 7 percent of our imported oil. That's not a lot. It's even less considering that a huge chunk of our oil is domestic and not foreign. But let's not try to tell ourselves that banning Russian oil will do much for Ukraine at all.

What Ukraine most needs is stability in Eastern Europe so that it's not borderlands for west-east conflict (if possible), and what it does not need is to be a warzone.

I favor big, grand gambits and even-handed compromises to entrench a status quo that will leave Ukraine in peace and allow us to focus on countering China in a reasoned way. But as a pragmatist I can see why politicians would favor something quick and easy, something that virtue signals but barely changes a thing, over something that does more profound and lasting change but might be quite hard.

I stand by my words about fetishizing action in policy being an unideal thing from a policy standpoint. There are indeed times when doing nothing is the best approach, when things not done is just as important to boosting one's position than things that are done.
EDIT: I was however massive wrong about Indian oil imports. Only 2 percent of India's oil is imported from Russia. Comes to show this is an area my knowledge is relatively weaker in.

 No one is claiming that there is a single magic wand, including Is the US  Is cutting off Russian oil and gas to solve this matter. As a small business person, if I lose a client that is 7% of my yearly intake, that is a major kick in the balls. And a friend of that 7% client follows suit, that's additional kick in the balls.

We get it. You have an America first isolation as policy policy that would rather not raise the price of the pump 50 cents a gallon then help the Ukrainian people. Whom, I might add, are the ones saying dear God please help us by imposing this embargo.

You can't have as both ways. You can't on the one hand claim thatSuch an embargo is going to do terrible things to Joe consumer at the pump, and yet simultaneously claimed that it's a fart  In a whirlwind that won't effectively hit rushes natural resources economy.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/Marmusha/status/1500468764772638724

[lfromnj]

Note that 7% stat is imported oil only. The US still produces a lot of oil by itself.

[Lourdes]

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1500479931981180933

[NOVA Green]

"Moody’s cuts Russia’s credit rating deeper into junk territory, predicting losses for investors

Ratings agency Moody’s has cut Russia’s credit rating on its long-term debt deeper into junk territory, citing the risk of a Russian default, three days after downgrading it six notches.

The agency said the risk of a Russian default had increased, explaining that the downgrade was “driven by severe concerns around Russia’s willingness and ability to pay its debt obligations.”

It predicted that Russia’s economy would shrink by 7 percent this year and would continue to decline in 2023, with a long-term ruble decline, rising inflation and lower living standards. Moody’s said the ratings outlook was negative, meaning a further downgrade is likely, and predicted “larger than historical average losses for investors.”

...

Moody’s cut the credit rating to Ca, the second-lowest rating, from B3. On Thursday it was Baa3.

S&P has Russia rated at “CCC-minus” and Fitch has it at B, with a further downgrade likely."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/06/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/#link-U3FUTAXAQJAO5LXIJ2RYU2AIQM

[NOVA Green]

Russia strikes at Ukrainian air bases today

"Russian forces attack airfields in Ukraine as Zelensky pleads for fighter jets

MUKACHEVO, Ukraine — Russia targeted a military air base and a commercial airport in central Ukraine on Sunday, according to Russian and Ukrainian officials, in attacks that could deny Ukraine usable airstrips as Kyiv presses Western allies to send fighter planes to combat Moscow’s invasion.

A spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said the military had struck and disabled Ukraine’s Starokostiantyniv military air base, about 150 miles southwest of Kyiv, early Sunday, using long-range, high precision weapons. The airport was among dozens of targets, including a Russian-made air defense system owned by Ukraine, the spokesman said.

Later Sunday, in a video message, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said a missile strike on Vinnystia, about 70 miles southeast of the air base, had “completely destroyed the airport.”



"



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/06/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/#link-HD5A5ZR5TBD3HA6BGJPATPXNTY

[Torie]

Why was Russia "forced" to sell its oil to Shell at a 30% discount? Maybe that is a start to getting to what the point is, which is to cut down Russia's hard currency revenue stream. That can be done by it selling less oil, and/or oil at a lower price. I think the lower price is the variable that is really in play. 30% is a significant haircut. 50% is better, etc.

I think it is intuitively rather obvious that the relatively small percentage of Russian oil that the US buys is not that important as a revenue stream for Russia, particularly if Russia can sell it elsewhere at not much more of a discount. But the optics are terrible. The US should not be buying anything from Russia right now. Sure it might cause a bit of economic pain in the US but not that much by itself - at all. And that bit of economic pain as compared to what Ukrainians are suffering is just not in the same universe. And thus the optics.

[Torie]

Russia strikes at Ukrainian air bases today

"Russian forces attack airfields in Ukraine as Zelensky pleads for fighter jets

MUKACHEVO, Ukraine — Russia targeted a military air base and a commercial airport in central Ukraine on Sunday, according to Russian and Ukrainian officials, in attacks that could deny Ukraine usable airstrips as Kyiv presses Western allies to send fighter planes to combat Moscow’s invasion.

A spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said the military had struck and disabled Ukraine’s Starokostiantyniv military air base, about 150 miles southwest of Kyiv, early Sunday, using long-range, high precision weapons. The airport was among dozens of targets, including a Russian-made air defense system owned by Ukraine, the spokesman said.

Later Sunday, in a video message, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said a missile strike on Vinnystia, about 70 miles southeast of the air base, had “completely destroyed the airport.”



"



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/06/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/#link-HD5A5ZR5TBD3HA6BGJPATPXNTY

Bad, bad news if Russia can take out critical airports like that.