that explains the energy facilities and other strategic targets part, not sure why they would stop attacking airfields though, seems like Ukraine should want to do that either way.
Yeah in the abstract it makes sense but it is in the context of demanding ammunition for front line needs, so posing these secondary and tertiary targets as a “supply us or else we will do this” pretty much reveals the game.
In the context of begging for weapons to stabilize a collapsing front line, then prioritizing secondary targets like airfields and tertiary targets like oil refineries doesn’t actually make much sense.
It reminds me of the Germans investing massive resources to the V2 rocket program to strike London. At face value it might seem impressive to be able to strike your enemy’s capital but when you look at the competing strategic concerns Germany was facing at the time, you quickly realize it was a move of desperate impotency.
For Ukraine to pose this as an “or else” to the west like this makes it clear to me they’re playing a kind of brinksmanship.
Supply us or else we will seek to drag you into this anyway. Supply us or else we escalate the war with Russia at a point when we are already losing. Supply us or else we make it untenable for Russia to have a negotiated peace, making this a war of annihilation - meaning you will have to deal with the prospect of Kyiv and Lviv eventually being occupied. Supply us or else we will maximize the cost of Ukraine losing this war and make you pick up the tab.
Supply us or else we will continue targeting strategically close-to-meaningless oil refineries for the sole effect of jacking the price of oil for you.
It’s all about Ukraine seeking to desperately avert impending military collapse and seeking to avert it by maximizing the cost of that failure to the west.
Ukraine is seeking to change the calculus: Supply us with your weapons or will make sure you have to use them anyway, so your cost-benefit analysis will force you to give them to us now.
Brinksmanship played against their benefactors. Something something biting the hand because it stopped feeding you.
I guess in the abstract it makes sense. Like, if someone is attacking you with planes it makes sense to target their airfields.
But when you add the context that they lack the weapons to target front line targets, then it begs the question why prioritize secondary targets like supporting infrastructure and tertiary targets like energy?
It’s like the V2 rocket program in WW2. The fact Germany could still hit London sounds impressive but when you actually think about why the Germans were pursuing that option instead of devoting the resources to more strategically important concerns and the desperation of the move reveals itself.
This is all to say that sure it makes sense in the abstract to target your enemies infrastructure during war but when you choose those targets instead of the front line, and what’s more you say it as some kind of threat to your would-be suppliers (“supply us or else we will do this”) then it’s revealing quite a lot about their desperation, about their strategic priorities, about their true relationship with their primary allies, and it points towards a kind of brinksmanship in which Ukraine is looking basically threatening to escalate the war into an actual NATO-Russia confrontation or is threatening to trigger economic hardship on its allies if they don’t supply another army worth of gear.
that explains the energy facilities and other strategic targets part, not sure why they would stop attacking airfields though, seems like Ukraine should want to do that either way.
Yeah in the abstract it makes sense but it is in the context of demanding ammunition for front line needs, so posing these secondary and tertiary targets as a “supply us or else we will do this” pretty much reveals the game.
In the context of begging for weapons to stabilize a collapsing front line, then prioritizing secondary targets like airfields and tertiary targets like oil refineries doesn’t actually make much sense.
It reminds me of the Germans investing massive resources to the V2 rocket program to strike London. At face value it might seem impressive to be able to strike your enemy’s capital but when you look at the competing strategic concerns Germany was facing at the time, you quickly realize it was a move of desperate impotency.
For Ukraine to pose this as an “or else” to the west like this makes it clear to me they’re playing a kind of brinksmanship.
Supply us or else we will seek to drag you into this anyway. Supply us or else we escalate the war with Russia at a point when we are already losing. Supply us or else we make it untenable for Russia to have a negotiated peace, making this a war of annihilation - meaning you will have to deal with the prospect of Kyiv and Lviv eventually being occupied. Supply us or else we will maximize the cost of Ukraine losing this war and make you pick up the tab.
Supply us or else we will continue targeting strategically close-to-meaningless oil refineries for the sole effect of jacking the price of oil for you.
It’s all about Ukraine seeking to desperately avert impending military collapse and seeking to avert it by maximizing the cost of that failure to the west.
Ukraine is seeking to change the calculus: Supply us with your weapons or will make sure you have to use them anyway, so your cost-benefit analysis will force you to give them to us now.
Brinksmanship played against their benefactors. Something something biting the hand because it stopped feeding you.
I guess in the abstract it makes sense. Like, if someone is attacking you with planes it makes sense to target their airfields.
But when you add the context that they lack the weapons to target front line targets, then it begs the question why prioritize secondary targets like supporting infrastructure and tertiary targets like energy?
It’s like the V2 rocket program in WW2. The fact Germany could still hit London sounds impressive but when you actually think about why the Germans were pursuing that option instead of devoting the resources to more strategically important concerns and the desperation of the move reveals itself.
This is all to say that sure it makes sense in the abstract to target your enemies infrastructure during war but when you choose those targets instead of the front line, and what’s more you say it as some kind of threat to your would-be suppliers (“supply us or else we will do this”) then it’s revealing quite a lot about their desperation, about their strategic priorities, about their true relationship with their primary allies, and it points towards a kind of brinksmanship in which Ukraine is looking basically threatening to escalate the war into an actual NATO-Russia confrontation or is threatening to trigger economic hardship on its allies if they don’t supply another army worth of gear.