Colors of Blue and Gold

[Joe Elliott]

So as VP Old Joe visited Ukraine SIX times as VP.  He was apparently so interested in Ukraine that he made a visit there on his last day as VP.  Such interest in that country.  And it had nothing do with his son being paid millions from that country.  Just a coincidence.  He was tirelessly promoting democracy even when leaving office.  And the classified documents he left in his private office had something to do with - guess who - Ukraine.  LOL.  And we are supposed to believe that six years after leaving office as VP that Biden's lawyers just decided one day to look through some boxes of papers locked in that office.  They had nothing better to do and surprise!  They found some classified documents.  But they don't announce this to the public until two months after the election.  In fact, they don't announce or explain it at all.  The corruption and legal double standard are astounding.  Trump would have been impeached and imprisoned by now if he had done anything like this.

Do I believe the documents were just discovered? Yes, I do. Biden might want the discovery hidden until after the election. But getting his lawyers to sign off on this? I don't think so. They would be subject to disbarment or worse if they didn't hand in the documents immediately.

Vice President Biden visiting Ukraine six times does not sound suspicious either. Ukraine was clearly menaced by Russia. And this became particularly clear during 2014. I wish the Obama administration had done more during 2014-2016. But we, in part, made up for lost time during January 2020 through February 2021, at least just enough to allow Ukraine to somehow to hold off the Russians.

[Richard Smith]

Do I believe the documents were just discovered? Yes, I do. Biden might want the discovery hidden until after the election. But getting his lawyers to sign off on this? I don't think so. They would be subject to disbarment or worse if they didn't hand in the documents immediately.

Vice President Biden visiting Ukraine six times does not sound suspicious either. Ukraine was clearly menaced by Russia. And this became particularly clear during 2014. I wish the Obama administration had done more during 2014-2016. But we, in part, made up for lost time during January 2020 through February 2021, at least just enough to allow Ukraine to somehow to hold off the Russians.

The Dems knew that the Repubs would start investigating Biden, Inc. after taking over the House.  So they instructed Biden's lawyers to conduct a search for the missing classified documents which were then "found" in a closet after six years.  They self-reported to avoid being caught in an investigation.  Then covered it up until after the election.  The lawyers were a tool to fix the problem.  They did nothing wrong.  It was their client who violated federal law and should go to prison according to his own views expressed about Trump.  And you really don't find it strange that on his last day as VP, Biden take a trip to Ukraine?  Why?  He was on his way out of office the next day, but he travels around the world for some reason.  It's all just bad luck.  And that "Penn Biden Center" is a classic mafia-like money laundering scam.  The corruption associated with that place is almost laughable.

[Joe Elliott]

Ukraine lost Kherson within the first few weeks of the war. Russia took the city relatively easier than other cities in eastern Ukraine. There's some evidence that the local officials in Kherson simply switched sides early on which is part of why the city was captured by Russia so quickly.

As for the Russian withdrawal, it happened because Russia's commanders wanted to leave Kherson city. After Ukraine was given HIMAR launchers, it became too difficult for Russia to supply their forces on the west side of the river in Kherson. So it's more accurate to say that Russia surrendered the city due to the logistics problems. They weren't driven out by Ukrainian ground forces (who failed in dozens of attempts take Kherson between the summer and fall).

Soledar and Bakhmut reportedly are major logistics hubs for Ukrainian forces. Losing those cities will make it more difficult for Ukraine's supply lines on the eastern front. There are also reportedly miles of underground tunnels in that area which the Russians can use to support their logistics in Ukraine and hide equipment from spy western satellites.

The battles for those two cities have been costly for both sides. I doubt that Ukraine would sacrifice so many troops to defend them if they were insignificant targets.

Kherson would not have been hard to keep supplied, if it was not being effectively attacked by Ukraine. So, yes, the Russians were driven out of Kherson.

The Ukrainians took an even larger slice of territory back near Kharhiv. Was this territory on the wrong side of a river?

How are the Russians going to hold the Crimea when it's not on the wrong side of a river but on the wrong side of a strait, with just one long bridge across it, and a narrow and vulnerable land bridge connection? That will be a neat trick.

The Ukrainians have already taken back half of the territories the Russians took in the first few months of the war in 2022. Look for more of the same in 2023, when the ground dries out. And the Ukrainian soldiers who are now receiving NATO training on combined arms return to the front. While reluctant Russian draftees receive almost no training and have their winter clothes stolen from them.

How many of the 24 Ukrainian Oblast administration centers did Russia take in 2022? Only one, Kherson. How many of these does Russia still control? Zero.

Any city of 70,000 or 10,000 could be called "a major communication hub". Name me one city that isn't?

Soledar is strategic because of it's tunnels? It could be used to store ammunition? Yes, it would be a great place. A huge ammunition dump right on the front line, where a minor advance by Ukraine allows the Ukrainian army to capture it and use the ammunition themselves. And how about the job of a Russian truck driver. Driving a Russian truck filled with artillery ammunition right up to the Ukrainian front line. Yes, this makes total sense. I can see how taking Soledar would be an immediate strategic victory for Russia that they can start taking advantage of right away. Soledar won't be useful until Soledar is taken and the Russians are able to drive the Ukrainians back many more miles from there, something we don't see anything like that remotely happening.

Bakhmut and Soledar are strategically important because they happen to lie on the Ukrainian side of the front where it ended up being established when Ukraine managed to stop the Russian offensives this year. Nothing more. The Russians are just looking for some sort of victory to present to the Russian people to offset the major loss of territory in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions.

[Jon Banks]

So as VP Old Joe visited Ukraine SIX times as VP.  He was apparently so interested in Ukraine that he made a visit there on his last day as VP.  Such interest in that country.  And it had nothing do with his son being paid millions from that country.  Just a coincidence.

Not coincidental in the sense that President Obama delegated Ukraine policy to Biden. Which doesn't make the Hunter Biden-Ukraine thing look any better of course. It definitely stinks that a Ukrainian oligarch gave the Vice President's son a lucrative job.

But aside from that, Obama was focused more on Iran, Syria, and Cuba in his second term and largely delegated Ukraine to Biden. Obama resisted bi-partisan calls to send weapons to Ukraine while Biden supported arming Ukraine.

Obama I think primarily focused on securing the Iran Nuclear Deal, which meant he needed to work with Vladimir Putin because Russia is on the UN Security Council. The Iran deal also affected Obama's Syria policies.

Long story short, there's nothing obviously bad about Biden's involvement with Ukraine as Obama's VP. But Hunter Biden's job with the Ukrainian energy company still looks like a clear conflict of interest and it shouldn't have happened.

[Richard Smith]

Not coincidental in the sense that President Obama delegated Ukraine policy to Biden. Which doesn't make the Hunter Biden-Ukraine thing look any better of course. It definitely stinks that a Ukrainian oligarch gave the Vice President's son a lucrative job.

But aside from that, Obama was focused more on Iran, Syria, and Cuba in his second term and largely delegated Ukraine to Biden. Obama resisted bi-partisan calls to send weapons to Ukraine while Biden supported arming Ukraine.

Obama I think primarily focused on securing the Iran Nuclear Deal, which meant he needed to work with Vladimir Putin because Russia is on the UN Security Council. The Iran deal also affected Obama's Syria policies.

Long story short, there's nothing obviously bad about Biden's involvement with Ukraine as Obama's VP. But Hunter Biden's job with the Ukrainian energy company still looks like a clear conflict of interest and it shouldn't have happened.

And what could Biden accomplish on his last day as VP in Ukraine?  So important he had travel there.  He was on his way out.  He had no power or authority to do anything more on behalf of the US government at that point.  He was to become a private citizen the next day.  This stinks to the heavens.  He is a corrupt bureaucrat whose family has made millions peddling influence.  Has he committed a crime or treason?  Maybe.  If so, he has a lot of company among our current establishment in including Pelosi and McConnell.

[Jon Banks]

Kherson would not have been hard to keep supplied, if it was not being effectively attacked by Ukraine. So, yes, the Russians were driven out of Kherson.

That's debatable. I mean, it's possible that the Russian Generals felt that the 20-30,000 troops they had on the west side of Kherson would be of better use in other parts of the Theater where they had manpower shortages a few months ago. I wouldn't rule it out. The manpower shortages are the reason Putin called up 300,000 conscripts around the time of the Kherson withdrawal.

But it's also possible that the Russians told the truth. That they withdrew because the supplying their troops on the west side of the river became too difficult once Ukraine was given long-range artillery systems.

Either way, we know based on reports in the Western Press that Ukrainian offensives in the Kherson region mostly failed. Kherson was nothing like the northern offensives. The Kherson region is mostly flat Plains. Very few areas for troops to hide from drones and artillery. So the Ukrainians suffered heavy losses in their failed ground attacks in Kherson.

Wounded Ukrainian soldiers reveal steep toll of Kherson offensive
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/07/ukraine-kherson-offensive-casualties-ammunition/

"Russia’s Orlan drones exposed Ukrainian positions from more than a kilometer above their heads, they said, an altitude that meant they never heard the buzz of the aircraft tracking their movements.

Russian tanks emerged from newly built cement fortifications to blast infantry with large-caliber artillery, the wounded Ukrainian soldiers said. The vehicles would then shrink back beneath the concrete shelters, shielded from mortar and rocket fire.

Counter-battery radar systems automatically detected and located Ukrainians who were targeting the Russians with projectiles, unleashing a barrage of artillery fire in response.

Russian hacking tools hijacked the drones of Ukrainian operators, who saw their aircraft drift away helplessly behind enemy lines."

The Ukrainians took an even larger slice of territory back near Kharhiv. Was this territory on the wrong side of a river?

No. The Russians simply were severely outnumbered by Ukrainian forces in the Kharkiv region. Different circumstances there.

How are the Russians going to hold the Crimea when it's not on the wrong side of a river but on the wrong side of a strait, with just one long bridge across it, and a narrow and vulnerable land bridge connection? That will be a neat trick.

Crimea is a peninsula with a large naval base, air bases, anti-aircraft defenses, etc. And most Russians have long viewed Crimea as part of Russia. Meaning, it's a non-starter for Putin to give up Crimea they way he gave up Kharkiv and Kherson City.

Most Russians support peace talks but reject return of Crimea, poll finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/13/russian-poll-peace-crimea/

"Seventy-eight percent of Russians said it would be unacceptable to return Crimea to Ukraine, while 66 percent said the same of the eastern Donbas region, which remains occupied by Russian forces and their Ukrainian allies."

Soledar is strategic because of it's tunnels?

Bakhmut and Soledar are strategically important because they happen to lie on the Ukrainian side of the front where it ended up being established when Ukraine managed to stop the Russian offensives this year.

Soledar and Bakhmut are important logistics hubs for Ukrainian military in eastern Ukraine. Losing those towns/cities makes it more difficult for Ukraine to launch a new offensive in the East. It puts them on the Defensive.

Of course, I could be wrong but if those cities are so unimportant, why has Ukraine sacrificed thousands of troops to hold them? It makes more sense to withdraw from areas that aren't worth defending and can easily be taken back later. But instead, we've watched Ukrainian forces suffer massive casualties defending the Bakhmut-Soledar region over the last few months. Seems like it's more important to Ukraine than you think.

[Joe Elliott]

No. The Russians simply were severely outnumbered by Ukrainian forces in the Kharkiv region. Different circumstances there.

Why is it that it's the Russians who find themselves severely outnumbered. Or more accurately, the number of Russians willing to fight were severely outnumbered by the number of Ukrainians willing to fight. Why is it that since mid-summer 2022, it's the Ukrainians who make the big gains, capturing hundreds of square miles at a time, with minimal artillery support, with minimal casualties, while the Russians can only gain a few yards a day, and need massive artillery to do that, while taking heavy casualties.

Where is the equivalent Russian victories in the last six months comparable to the Ukrainian victories to the east of Kharkiv and at Kherson? Answer, there are none. Why? Because Russia is losing the war.

What is the glue that holds the Russian army together? It's not the Wagner group. It's the mud. And the mud is not going to last forever. In 2023, we will see the sort of advances from Ukraine that they had in September, when there was no mud to bog down the Ukrainians.

Why can Ukrainians hold on the the far side of a river, like at Bakhmut, but Russians can't, like at Kherson?

Crimea is a peninsula with a large naval base, air bases, anti-aircraft defenses, etc. And most Russians have long viewed Crimea as part of Russia. Meaning, it's a non-starter for Putin to give up Crimea they way he gave up Kharkiv and Kherson City.

Most Russians support peace talks but reject return of Crimea, poll finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/13/russian-poll-peace-crimea/

"Seventy-eight percent of Russians said it would be unacceptable to return Crimea to Ukraine, while 66 percent said the same of the eastern Donbas region, which remains occupied by Russian forces and their Ukrainian allies."

Doesn't matter. Holding the far bank of a river at Kherson is child's play compared to holding Crimea. You have to have a way to get supplies into an area to hold it. You have to, or it cannot be held.

How can Russia possible get supplies into Crimea? Only one of two ways:

1. The narrow corridor, called the "Land Bridge" that is just to the north of the Sea of Azov. The Ukrainians should be able to cut that off, possibly capturing a good hunk of the Russian army with it's back to the very shallow Sea of Azov.

2. Across a wide strait to the east, with only one bridge across it, and that bridge is not like the multiple bridges of Kherson, just a few hundred yards long, but many miles long.

If they can't supply an army on the far side of a relatively narrow river, with many crossing points, how are they going to do so across this wide strait?

It's not going to matter if Putin and the Russian people feel they must hold Crimea. If they can't hold it that can't hold it. The Russians will have a far easier time holding the Ukrainian stripe of territory along the Russian border in the Donbas region. That is much easier to supply. Crimea is not going to be so easy.

Soledar and Bakhmut are important logistics hubs for Ukrainian military in eastern Ukraine. Losing those towns/cities makes it more difficult for Ukraine to launch a new offensive in the East. It puts them on the Defensive.

I don't buy the notion that suddenly seizing a thousand square miles of territory in a few days, with few casualties, is of little military import. While seizing, what, five or ten square miles of territory, over a period of weeks, while losing far more casualties, is somehow of much greater import? Nope, I don't buy it.

Of course, I could be wrong but if those cities are so unimportant, why has Ukraine sacrificed thousands of troops to hold them? It makes more sense to withdraw from areas that aren't worth defending and can easily be taken back later. But instead, we've watched Ukrainian forces suffer massive casualties defending the Bakhmut-Soledar region over the last few months. Seems like it's more important to Ukraine than you think.

Why?

1. Because the Russians, making World War I like infantry frontal assaults on trenches, are suffering a lot more casualties than the Ukrainians.

This is not the way to win this war. The way to win the war is to make a sudden decisive breakthrough, that allows your forces to advance many miles in a day, with far fewer casualties, like the Ukrainian September offensive east of Kharkiv. That's the formula that the Russians have not been able to follow since last spring.

2. Because the Russians are hoping for some sort of victory, that can fool the Russians into thinking that they might be able to win the win. Which might inspire hundreds of thousands of Russians to start volunteering for duty at the front. As hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians volunteered last February. This is a fools' hope. But, why give the Russians any air?