Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

 

[Riggo-toni]

We really need to give Ukraine a LOT MORE artillery.  Everything is always a week late and a drop in the bucket.

[The Sisko]

Part of me wonders whether we and/or other countries are slow walking things to drag it out for the Russians. If so, not a good idea.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

30 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

Part of me wonders whether we and/or other countries are slow walking things to drag it out for the Russians. If so, not a good idea.

That is what we are doing I think. I dont think US government/military cares if Ukraine wins or looses, they just want to weaken Russias standing as much as possible.

 

I doubt if the US made it clear they were leaving troops on the ground, like we do in South Korea and Japan, that Russia would have attacked Ukraine.

 

so we were probably strategically agnostic toward the idea Russia attacking Ukraine.  

Edited June 14, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[skinsmarydu]

On 6/11/2022 at 10:20 AM, The 12th Commandment said:

Must be catchy

Most definitely.  *sniffles*

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

That is what we are doing I think. I dont think US government/military cares if Ukraine wins or looses, they just want to weaken Russias standing as much as possible.

 

I doubt if the US made it clear they were leaving troops on the ground, like we do in South Korea and Japan, that Russia would have attacked Ukraine.

 

so we were probably strategically agnostic toward the idea Russia attacking Ukraine.  

 

I doubt we're doing that.  There's almost 0 advantage to that for us.  Why would we slow play it if we had the ability to just allow the Ukraine to let the Ukraine Russia out of the Ukraine (without attacking Russia)?  It isn't like we worried about the Ukraine becoming too powerful.  It would be different if it was Russia and China fighting.

 

I suspect we're having to consider our own potential use of the weapons and supply chain/production rate vs. their need. 

 

For example, it is estimated (the military isn't giving out the exact number) that we've already given 1/3 of our Javelins to the Ukraine.

 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks

 

We don't want to get in a situation where something like N. Korea decides to invade S. Korea and we don't have the weapons on hand to fight them.

 

Producing high-tech weapons is hard and expensive, and it isn't like we just have huge stockpiles of extra sitting around.  I believe the current US strategic plan is for our military to be prepared to fight a large regional war and a smaller regional war at the same time (maybe one of the military people here can correct me if I'm wrong), and it is questionable if we'd be able to do that (https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/04/can-the-us-fight-two-big-wars-at-once-new-report-casts-doubts/).  The Ukraine is certainly going through weapons at a rate faster than a small regional conflict and that's an issue for us if we want to be prepared to fight a large regional war during the Russian Ukraine war.

Edited June 14, 2022 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I doubt we're doing that.  There's almost 0 advantage to that for us.  Why would we slow play it if we had the ability to just allow the Ukraine to let the Ukraine Russia out of the Ukraine (without attacking Russia)?  It isn't like we worried about the Ukraine becoming too powerful.  It would be different if it was Russia and China fighting.

 

 

We aren’t worried about Ukraine becoming to powerful. But the war in Ukraine has damaged Russians economy, it’s ability to project power, its ability to develop weapons, cost them defense capital and degrading their blossoming relationship with Europe.  I think those are the benefits the US gets from Russia fighting Ukraine. Our ability to resupply should be much better than Russias.
 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

We aren’t worried about Ukraine becoming to powerful. But the war in Ukraine has damaged Russians economy, it’s ability to project power, its ability to develop weapons, cost them defense capital and degrading their blossoming relationship with Europe.  I think those are the benefits the US gets from Russia fighting Ukraine. Our ability to resupply should be much better than Russias.
 

 

 

But an out and out defeat of Russia by the Ukraine does much of the same things.  The more we give them the more it costs Russia in terms of all of those things.  The more Russians that die in Ukraine the more badly damage the Russian economy is.  The Ukrainians kill more Russians if they have more weapons from us.  The best way to do maximum damage to Russia is to give the Ukraine the maximum number of weapons.

 

Did you read the link that I included?

 

The Russians started with more tanks and armored vehicles than we did Javelins.  And even a lot more.

 

Even if we were willing to give every Javelin we have to the Ukrainians and the Ukrainians used them with a 100% success rate, we don't have nearly enough Javelins to destroy every Russian armored vehicle.

 

In the context of our military planning, things like Javelins are specialized weapons that we don't plan on using a lot.  In our war plans, we expect to destroy most of the enemies armored vehicles with our own armored vehicles and air craft.  So we don't have the a lot of Javelins and our production facilities aren't geared to making a lot of the quickly.  Realistically, the same is true for things like Stingers.  We don't ever plan on fighting a war like the Ukrainians are and so don't have the supplies or infrastructure to do so.

 

It is also pretty easy to make a low-tech armored vehicle.

Edited June 15, 2022 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But an out and out defeat of Russia by the Ukraine does much of the same things.

 

But costs more. A lot more, maybe too much. 
 

10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

  The more we give them the more it costs Russia in terms of all of those things.  The more Russians that die in Ukraine the more badly damage the Russian economy is.  The Ukrainians kill more Russians if they have more weapons from us.  The best way to do maximum damage to Russia is to give the Ukraine the maximum number of weapons.

 

 

Did you read the link that I included?

Yes, I did. It is interesting and something to think about. But I don’t see how my view that the US doesn’t care about who wins contrary to the link you posted. If you are saying if Ukraine ultimately looses the limited weapons we have were a waste, I disagree.

 

If I get anything from the link you posted, it is that at some point it seems like the US will decide they can’t continue to arm Ukraine and Ukraine will be forced to surrender to Russia.  If the US cared that Russia looses they could be doing much more, but they aren’t. 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[The Sisko]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I doubt we're doing that.  There's almost 0 advantage to that for us.  Why would we slow play it if we had the ability to just allow the Ukraine to let the Ukraine Russia out of the Ukraine (without attacking Russia)?  It isn't like we worried about the Ukraine becoming too powerful.  It would be different if it was Russia and China fighting.

 

I suspect we're having to consider our own potential use of the weapons and supply chain/production rate vs. their need. 

 

For example, it is estimated (the military isn't giving out the exact number) that we've already given 1/3 of our Javelins to the Ukraine.

 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks

 

We don't want to get in a situation where something like N. Korea decides to invade S. Korea and we don't have the weapons on hand to fight them.

 

Producing high-tech weapons is hard and expensive, and it isn't like we just have huge stockpiles of extra sitting around.  I believe the current US strategic plan is for our military to be prepared to fight a large regional war and a smaller regional war at the same time (maybe one of the military people here can correct me if I'm wrong), and it is questionable if we'd be able to do that (https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/04/can-the-us-fight-two-big-wars-at-once-new-report-casts-doubts/).  The Ukraine is certainly going through weapons at a rate faster than a small regional conflict and that's an issue for us if we want to be prepared to fight a large regional war during the Russian Ukraine war.

My initial response to this was that we vastly underestimated the number of Javelins we’d need but your next post explained that away nicely. I can only say we should have planned better for the potential need to arm another country like Ukraine given what we knew about Putin. Of course, that’s hindsight across multiple administrations so I suppose I can’t fault them too much. 

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

But costs more. A lot more, maybe too much. 
 

Yes, I did. It is interesting and something to think about. But I don’t see how my view that the US doesn’t care about who wins contrary to the link you posted. If you are saying if Ukraine ultimately looses the limited weapons we have were a waste, I disagree.

 

If I get anything from the link you posted, it is that at some point it seems like the US will decide they can’t continue to arm Ukraine and Ukraine will be forced to surrender to Russia.  If the US cared that Russia looses they could be doing much more, but they aren’t. 

 

 

That's not what I'm saying.

 

I was pretty critical of the fact that they didn't do more early on and still think they should have done more in beginning.

 

But there is a difference between:

 

1.  We don't care and are just using the Ukraine to bleed Russia.

 

2.  We would like to see the Ukrainians win and become a successful democratic state but are balancing that against other concerns including the security of our NATO allies, Japan, and South Korea, the lives of the US military personal, and yes even our own economic health/well being to the point that the costs of supplying weapons to the Ukraine becomes a consideration and an issue.

 

We don't care enough about the Ukraine winning that we'll cause a nuclear war to help them win.  But that doesn't mean we don't care if they win.  It just means we care more about there not being a nuclear war.

 

Doing more comes with risks. Biden weighed those risks differently that I think I would have (though I also acknowledge that Biden has a lot more information than I do and if I had that same information I might have come to the same decision as he has.), but there's no reason to go from that to he doesn't care.

 

In the context of what Biden has decided are acceptable risks then we are a bit handicapped by how many of the weapons we have and how fast we can produce them. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

That's not what I'm saying.

 

I was pretty critical of the fact that they didn't do more early on and still think they should have done more in beginning.

 

But there is a difference between:

 

1.  We don't care and are just using the Ukraine to bleed Russia.

 

2.  We would like to see the Ukrainians win and become a successful democratic state but are balancing that against other concerns including the security of our NATO allies, Japan, and South Korea, the lives of the US military personal, and yes even our own economic health/well being to the point that the costs of supplying weapons to the Ukraine becomes a consideration and an issue.

 

There is a difference, but also, there ultimately isn’t a difference.

 

If we aren’t going to ensure Ukraine wins then we are just bleeding Russia, and we have decided we don’t care if Ukraine wins, de facto.

 

I think for the United States, scenerio one and scenerio two are equally acceptable.

 

 

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

We don't care enough about the Ukraine winning that we'll cause a nuclear war to help them win.  But that doesn't mean we don't care if they win.  It just means we care more about there not being a nuclear war.

 

There are a lot of things we could have done to outright prevent the war from occurring. But didn’t do them. We didn’t just accidentally not do them.

Edited June 15, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[LD0506]

There aren't enough Javelins if you count every mothballed T-54 or every museum T-34/85 in Russia. Really doesn't work that way but ok.

Other nations have supplied lots of portable AT weapons

Fair point that Javelins, Stingers, etc. are just elements in a larger coordinated arms plan but it is what it is, I didn't expect the Russians to stick their tongues out and dare us to loose the A-10s

There has been and still is a timelag in supplying other weapons to Ukraine in that you do not simply uncrate them and plug 'em in like a light. Artillery is itself part of a larger hierarchy of supply, detection, protection, counterfire, etc. and it takes time to get up to speed with the type of system the West has been building for decades. Same reason we can't just give them older aircraft, comms don't match, munitions won't mount, etc. 

The Russians have been trying to change the narrative in that they have been dragging the Ukrainians into grinding frontal warfare where the Russians advantage in troop numbers and barrage artillery works for them.

The Ukrainians have been on the receiving end of "advice" from everybody's military experts and are forced to be uber-diplomatic with them all instead of having the ability to tell any of them to STFU

We do not wage war the same way that Russia does. Not even remotely similar. To date most of the Ukrainian success has been a result of Russian arrogance and hubris. Very large numbers of modern mobile artillery vehicles have been sent there but our doctrine uses them differently, the Ukrainians will need to "trap" the Russians to use them effectively, ie. lure a Russian advance into preset killboxes with the arty waiting. This is why the MRLS matters, because range=options.

Months in and the fighting is still focused on the Donbass, this is huge and a victory (of sorts) but it keeps the Russians hemmed in close to their organic supply and enables them to keep the pressure on. Static war of attrition like this tends towards the Russian advantage. The balance will have to shift to a point where the Ukrainians can effectively strike deeper to disrupt troop concentrations/infrastructure where it is being marshalled behind the front. This is exactly why there has been such an argument about supplying aircraft. Air dominance IS our doctrine, we've never developed a Plan B for when it is contested to this extent.

But this is war, it's not some video game or Netflix series for our amusement. Hundreds and thousands are dying and that forces both sides to evolve at a fantastic rate to cope. One side has huge hurdles politically hamstringing them along with international distrust and friction but does have the upside of the ability to adjust/adapt on the fly, the other side has vast reserves of men/materiel and a single command so they can act without argument but they are almost incapable of adaptation. This means the only way for Ukraine to "win" is to bleed them so badly they falter and fail, and that means the war rages on. Ascribing this to some "political" decision to supply sparingly to drag it out is not a particularly clear assessment of the situation on the ground. Sure it would be fun to simply blast a hole in the front and send armour streaming into their rear, this was essentially the Russian plan for their BTGs but it is divorced from reality. Ukraine's best hope is what ours was in the Revolutionary War, hit-n-run, stay mobile, fight lean and cheap, accept a certain of suffering and count on foreign actors to harry the enemy's flanks until they are exhausted. 

I expect the next few weeks to show a different character as new weapons, new options, new doctrine developed on the ground strike the Russian flanks, not just their geographical flanks but infrastructure, morale, political flanks. There is a terrific amount of pressure building at home for Pooty, the fact that he has to commit so much to keeping it in check and off the front page is in itself a wasteful drain on limited resources. Social pressure is tectonic, it builds incrementally over a long time but eventually ruptures the reality dictated by a government. It is estimated that a third of the Russian military has to be held back to keep order at home, and that would be necessity have to be the most politically reliable units (which in their system gobble up a disproportionate share of quality equipment). 

So we wait. Dammit we wait, in spite of whatever kinship or sympathy we feel for the Ukrainians, we wait. We're doing what we can as a nation, but us? we wait. Follow it in the news, argue amongst ourselves and wait for history to decide for us.

[PeterMP]

46 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There are a lot of things we could have done to outright prevent the war from occurring. But didn’t do them. We didn’t just accidentally not do them.

 

It is extremely difficult to know what we could have done to prevent this war and not cause a larger war.  At what point Russia would have considered actions by us to prevent this war as a direct assault on their sovereignty and security and done something more drastic was very likely an unknown.

 

It is extremely unlikely that we had intelligence that told us that if we do X it would prevent Russia from invading the Ukraine but not create a situation where Russia feels pushed into a corner and does something even more drastic.

 

If you (strongly) believe that Biden KNEW that doing X would absolutely 100% prevent the war and not cause a larger conflict and decided not to do X, then you have beliefs that you have essentially no evidence for and I think are unlikely to be true.

 

And we haven't decided we don't care if the Ukraine wins.  We have decided that we want the Ukraine to win without causing other things to happen (e.g. a nuclear war).

Edited June 15, 2022 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

24 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

We have decided that we want the Ukraine to win without causing other things to happen (e.g. a nuclear war).

Iran, Israel, and North Korea should be taking notes.

[China]

'We have blood on our hands': Russia making more on fossil fuels now than before the war

 

Russia has made more money from the sale of fossil fuels since the war on Ukraine began than in peacetime, new research has found.

The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found Russia made more on coal, oil and gas exports in February than in January, and even more in March.

While Russia has been hit with heavy sanctions, it has still found a ready market for the fossil fuels, which account for most of its exports.

 

Most of those exports were sold to the EU, which bought $86 billion of oil, gas and coal in the first 100 days of the war.

China, Turkey and India were other big buyers.

The war in Ukraine has created a profitable paradox for Russia.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

It's mid-afternoon in Kyiv. Here's what you need to know

 

Ukrainian forces are suffering heavy losses amid intense fighting in the east of the country, while Western leaders have promised to answer the country's call for more heavy weapons.

Here's the latest on the Russian invasion:

 

Situation in eastern Ukraine worsening: The Ukrainian military’s defense in the eastern region of Luhansk is growing more difficult, the head of Luhansk’s military administration said Wednesday morning. “It is getting harder, but our military is holding back the enemy from three directions at once,” Serhiy Hayday said via Telegram. 

 

Conflict at pivotal point: Western intelligence and military officials believe Russia's war in Ukraine is in a critical stage that could determine the long-term outcome of the conflict, according to multiple sources familiar with US and other Western intelligence. Ukraine's military is burning through Soviet-era ammunition that fits older systems as the country pleads with the West to send more heavy weaponry and Russia amasses a significant artillery advantage around two strategically important cities in eastern Ukraine.

 

Ukraine suffering "painful" losses: Fierce fighting continues in Severodonetsk and the Kharkiv region, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a video address on Tuesday. In Severodonetsk “the losses, unfortunately, are painful,” Zelensky said. “But we have to hold on.” He went on to say how it is vital for the Ukrainian military to stay in Donbas.

 

Russia claims NATO weapons destroyed: The Russian Ministry of Defense says it destroyed a warehouse of weapons provided by NATO nations in the western Ukrainian Lviv region on Tuesday. “High-precision long-range Kalibr missiles near Zolochev, Lvov region, have destroyed a warehouse of ammunition for foreign weapons transferred to Ukraine by NATO countries, including 155-mm M777 howitzers,” the Russian MOD said Wednesday.

 

NATO promises more weapons: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday the alliance will continue to support Ukraine, supplying them with a military support package that would help the Ukrainian army transition from Soviet-era artillery to more modern weapons. "We are extremely focused on stepping up, providing more support, more advanced weapons ... because we support them in their just fight against the brutal Russian invasion," Stoltenberg said in Brussels ahead of a meeting of NATO defense ministers.

 

Ukrainian children suffering widespread displacement: Nearly two-thirds of Ukrainian children have been forced to leave their homes, according to Afshan Khan, regional director at UNICEF.

 

Click on the link for more

[China]

Biden: U.S. to build silos on Poland border to export Ukrainian grain

 

President Joe Biden said Tuesday that the U.S. will build temporary silos on Poland’s border with Ukraine to facilitate the export of grain out of the war-torn nation and address surging food prices amid Russia’s invasion.

 

“We’re going to build silos, temporary silos in the borders of Ukraine, including in Poland. So we can transfer [grain] from those cars into those silos into cars in Europe and get it out into the ocean, and get it out across the world. But it’s taking time,” Biden said in a speech at the AFL-CIO convention in Philadelphia, where he discussed potential solutions to rising food prices across the country.

 

U.S. and Western officials have been exploring efforts to build temporary silos in Ukraine and other nations as a means to quickly scale up grain storage capacity in Ukraine, where a Russian naval blockade is holding back more than 25 million tons of grain from the world food supply. Russia’s blockade in the Black Sea has upended global trade routes while threatening to financially strangle Ukraine and deepen hunger crises around the world. In the next month, Ukrainian farmers will start harvesting the summer wheat harvest, but won’t have anywhere to store it, Ukrainian officials have warned.

 

U.S. officials and lawmakers are also worried that food shortages, along with rising fuel and food prices, could spark mass starvation, political unrest and migration across parts of Africa, the Middle East and, possibly, Central America, in the coming months.

 

Biden said Tuesday that the grain can’t be shipped out through the Black Sea “because it’ll get blown out of the water” by Russia’s naval blockade. The U.S. for now has ruled out sending military ships into the region, which would risk Russian retaliation.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, China said:

Biden: U.S. to build silos on Poland border to export Ukrainian grain

 

President Joe Biden said Tuesday that the U.S. will build temporary silos on Poland’s border with Ukraine to facilitate the export of grain out of the war-torn nation and address surging food prices amid Russia’s invasion.

 

“We’re going to build silos, temporary silos in the borders of Ukraine, including in Poland. So we can transfer [grain] from those cars into those silos into cars in Europe and get it out into the ocean, and get it out across the world. But it’s taking time,” Biden said in a speech at the AFL-CIO convention in Philadelphia, where he discussed potential solutions to rising food prices across the country.

 

U.S. and Western officials have been exploring efforts to build temporary silos in Ukraine and other nations as a means to quickly scale up grain storage capacity in Ukraine, where a Russian naval blockade is holding back more than 25 million tons of grain from the world food supply. Russia’s blockade in the Black Sea has upended global trade routes while threatening to financially strangle Ukraine and deepen hunger crises around the world. In the next month, Ukrainian farmers will start harvesting the summer wheat harvest, but won’t have anywhere to store it, Ukrainian officials have warned.

 

U.S. officials and lawmakers are also worried that food shortages, along with rising fuel and food prices, could spark mass starvation, political unrest and migration across parts of Africa, the Middle East and, possibly, Central America, in the coming months.

 

Biden said Tuesday that the grain can’t be shipped out through the Black Sea “because it’ll get blown out of the water” by Russia’s naval blockade. The U.S. for now has ruled out sending military ships into the region, which would risk Russian retaliation.

 

Click on the link for the full article

That good, but then I also heard Biden is telling US agricultural industry to buy Russia fertilizer….

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-13/us-quietly-urges-russia-fertilizer-deals-to-unlock-grain-trade
 

The US government is quietly encouraging agricultural and shipping companies to buy and carry more Russian fertilizer, according to people familiar with the efforts, as sanctions fears have led to a sharp drop in supplies, fueling spiraling global food costs.

The effort is part of complex and difficult negotiations underway involving the United Nations to boost deliveries of fertilizer, grain and other farm products from Russia and Ukraine that have been disrupted by President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of his southern neighbor.

[China]

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

That good, but then I also heard Biden is telling US agricultural industry to buy Russia fertilizer….

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-13/us-quietly-urges-russia-fertilizer-deals-to-unlock-grain-trade
 

The US government is quietly encouraging agricultural and shipping companies to buy and carry more Russian fertilizer, according to people familiar with the efforts, as sanctions fears have led to a sharp drop in supplies, fueling spiraling global food costs.

The effort is part of complex and difficult negotiations underway involving the United Nations to boost deliveries of fertilizer, grain and other farm products from Russia and Ukraine that have been disrupted by President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of his southern neighbor.

 

We just got back from Peru.  They are having major problems there because their supplies of fertilizer are affected by this war.  Fertilizer is now 10 times more expensive than it was.  For dirt poor farmers this is then unaffordable and they are having to resort to ancient farming techniques, which are not as effective.

 

Fertilizer and grain shortages from this war are becoming a problem all across the globe.

Edited June 15, 2022 by China

[China]

The stench of death is the 'smell of victory' for Ukrainians who guard bodies of Russian troops

 

The thick, sticky unmistakable stench of decaying human flesh hangs over a makeshift morgue on the outskirts of Ukraine’s second-largest city.

 

On the dirt, the body of a Russian soldier lies in an open body bag under the beating summer sun, his fatigues soaked with body fluids. Next to him, maggots pick through another soldier’s shriveled skin, exposing his skull.

 

On a warm day in early June, Ukrainian soldiers, many with cigarettes dangling from their mouths to mask the smell, move more than 80 Russian bodies from a refrigerated train car to the bed of a semitruck. The bodies are set to be transported to an undisclosed location to be exchanged for the bodies of Ukrainian soldiers who have died in battle.

 

Since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, a small group of Ukrainian troops in the eastern border region of Kharkiv has been collecting and identifying the bodies of hundreds of Russian soldiers killed and left behind on the battlefield. The work is gruesome — a stark reminder of the war’s toll, and the inevitable dehumanization that accompanies it.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[DCSaints_fan]

Two Americans likely captured in Kharkiv.  Guess it was only a matter of time
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/two-americans-reportedly-captured-russian-194421029.html
 

Quote

 

Two American men who joined Ukrainian forces to fight against the Russian invasion have been captured.

They are the first Americans to be taken prisoner by the Russians since the war began.

Robert Drueke, 39, and Andy Huynh, 27, were captured while fighting with Ukrainians in Kharkiv.

According to reports, the men's 10-man group managed to disable a Russian tank but became separated from their cohort and disappeared.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by DCSaints_fan

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Two Americans likely captured in Kharkiv.  Guess it was only a matter of time
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/two-americans-reportedly-captured-russian-194421029.html
 

 

 

 

Biden had to see this as a possibility and have a plan for it.  Interested to see what that plan is and how it goes.

 

Also, I wonder if they are veterans or not and what their current status.  And how will Putin use whatever status he says they have.