Russia-Ukrainian War

[cubsfan]

I have no idea where you are going with this argument, but feel free. I really don't get it. I must be dense.

 

It's not some tremendous act of kindness that the Marshall Plan was offered to Europe - it's because the US (and Canada too), were the only superpowers left standing and not totally destroyed by WWII. In retrospect, the "isolationist" policy of the pre-WWII USA was a mistake. It only encouraged Germany & Japan. 

 

Of course, for Europe & Japan to be rebuilt physically and economically without the excessive penalties of WW1 , the Marshall Plan was offered once the "right" leadership was in place for the defeated nations (and our own allies).

 

So if you are questioning the motives of the USA - fine by me - I don't really care. The avoidance of a WW3 is well worth the price to BOTH the USA and Europe.

 

Did the USA, or for that matter, Western Europe , want an ascendant military power like Germany or Japan militarized again? Of course not. Economically - yes.  You'd think that France & England, after 3 wars with Germany since 1880 - would want a "lid" on Germany once and for all, regardless if required that the USA have a lead or a support role.

 

Certainly, Russia is a threat to Western Europe, especially if you live in the Baltic States, Finland, Poland or Western Ukraine.  The only thing that matters is what Putin THINKS he can do, regardless of the diminished capabilities of his military. Much like the situation with Hilter - whereby a despot with a WEAKER military THINKS he can defeat a far STRONGER combined Russian, English, French and USA military in a 2 front war. All that mattered in the end - is what Hitler THOUGHT he could do it - because 25 million Europeans had to die to actually prove him wrong.

 

 

 

 

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

I have no idea where you are going with this argument, but feel free. I really don't get it. I must be dense.

 

It's not some tremendous act of kindness that the Marshall Plan was offered to Europe - it's because the US (and Canada too), were the only superpowers left standing and not totally destroyed by WWII. In retrospect, the "isolationist" policy of the pre-WWII USA was a mistake. It only encouraged Germany & Japan. 

 

Of course, for Europe & Japan to be rebuilt physically and economically without the excessive penalties of WW1 , the Marshall Plan was offered once the "right" leadership was in place for the defeated nations (and our own allies).

 

So if you are questioning the motives of the USA - fine by me - I don't really care. The avoidance of a WW3 is well worth the price to BOTH the USA and Europe.

 

Did the USA, or for that matter, Western Europe , want an ascendant military power like Germany or Japan militarized again? Of course not. Economically - yes.  You'd think that France & England, after 3 wars with Germany since 1880 - would want a "lid" on Germany once and for all, regardless if required that the USA have a lead or a support role.

 

Certainly, Russia is a threat to Western Europe, especially if you live in the Baltic States, Finland, Poland or Western Ukraine.  The only thing that matters is what Putin THINKS he can do, regardless of the diminished capabilities of his military. Much like the situation with Hilter - whereby a despot with a WEAKER military THINKS he can defeat a far STRONGER combined Russian, English, French and USA military in a 2 front war. All that mattered in the end - is what Hitler THOUGHT he could do it - because 25 million Europeans had to die to actually prove him wrong.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately 25mm Europeans did not die in WWII.  More like 75MM if you count the Russians, Ukrainians, and other Soviet citizens. 

[changegonnacome]

5 hours ago, cubsfan said:

Certainly, Russia is a threat to Western Europe, especially if you live in the Baltic States, Finland, Poland or Western Ukraine.

 

Yeah dont think you get it. 

 

NATO isn't there to protect Western Europe from Russia. Not anymore. Russia is a military joke (outside its nuke capability)....NATO is there to protect Western Europe from itself.

 

The biggest threat to democracy and peace in Western Europe over time.....isnt Russia...spoiler alert...its countries in Western Europe!........namely........France and Germany.....Napoleonic wars, WWI, WWII....need I go further back in time........the precursor to each of these most recent Western European wars was increased spending on defence by the main protagonists, France & Germany.....which triggered a security competition in their opposing rival state and a general re-armament across other countries in Europe...with Britain chipping in from across the Channel......creating various great power alliances....a very unstable equilibrium.....which inevitably led to war.....see with enough anxiety and paranoia...most leaders of powers threatened by their neighbour come to the same conclusion.....the best defense, is eventually a good offense. 

 

The creation of the EU economic architecture and the defacto outsourcing of European defense and security to the United States under NATO......is really designed, at its heart, to unburden the French and German's from the paranoia of having to look over each others shoulders around what the other is doing from a military perspective......they can sleep easy knowing each other has a piss poor military incapable of invading the other.

 

Think about it - NATO disappears tomorrow.......France and Germany individually start taking their individual national security deadly serious again....3-4% of GDP.......but France starts spending 5%.....Germany wonders why Macron is so serious about this defense thing so they up their spend to 6%...the German forms a defense pact alliance with Italians..bla bla bla....well you've got yourself an old fashioned security competition.....and the history of Europe in this regard is just brutal in terms of the outcome.

 

So - NATO is a US tool, sure, by which it gets to contain the Soviet threat and Europe gets not worry about Russia......but deep down NATO is a security umbrella under which Western European nations get to be protected, in effect, from themselves.....which is to say the security competitions of the past that inevitably led to wars need never get started cause Uncle Sam is Europe's bodyguard. The cost to Europe is that when its views diverge from that of the US it effectively has no strategic autonomy and inevitably falls into line on major issues.....this lack of European strategic autonomy...is the US's payment/reward for providing this service.

 

Its, IMO, a good deal for all concerned..but a great deal for the US.....and the fact Trump wants to tinker with it.....shows how truly dumb he is on this stuff. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9 by changegonnacome

[UK]

So nobody knows and maybe this is wishfull thinking on my part:), but I am not sure if Trump's position on NATO is that bad or stubborn: 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-17/trump-security-adviser-urges-cutting-china-ties-resuming-nuclear-weapons-tests?embedded-checkout=true

 

"There are moves O’Brien doesn’t call for, and that may be a pleasant surprise to uneasy allies. There’s no mention of withdrawing from NATO — in fact, he says Trump made the defense alliance stronger by demanding that European governments spend more on defense. O’Brien calls on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to rotate ground and air forces to Poland to boost its capabilities close to Russia’s border “and to make unmistakably clear that the alliance will defend all its territory from foreign aggression.”

 

Would making EU pay more, buy more arms from US, while basically keeping the whole system the same, be so stupid?

 

More speculations on this: https://archive.is/qCA3s

 

Edited July 9 by UK

[Sweet]

 

Believe this is a video of the attack that killed so many yesterday.

[cubsfan]

12 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Yeah dont think you get it. 

 

NATO isn't there to protect Western Europe from Russia. Not anymore. Russia is a military joke (outside its nuke capability)....NATO is there to protect Western Europe from itself.

 

The biggest threat to democracy and peace in Western Europe over time.....isnt Russia...spoiler alert...its countries in Western Europe!........namely........France and Germany.....Napoleonic wars, WWI, WWII....need I go further back in time........the precursor to each of these most recent Western European wars was increased spending on defence by the main protagonists, France & Germany.....which triggered a security competition in their opposing rival state and a general re-armament across other countries in Europe...with Britain chipping in from across the Channel......creating various great power alliances....a very unstable equilibrium.....which inevitably led to war.....see with enough anxiety and paranoia...most leaders of powers threatened by their neighbour come to the same conclusion.....the best defense, is eventually a good offense. 

 

The creation of the EU economic architecture and the defacto outsourcing of European defense and security to the United States under NATO......is really designed, at its heart, to unburden the French and German's from the paranoia of having to look over each others shoulders around what the other is doing from a military perspective......they can sleep easy knowing each other has a piss poor military incapable of invading the other.

 

Think about it - NATO disappears tomorrow.......France and Germany individually start taking their individual national security deadly serious again....3-4% of GDP.......but France starts spending 5%.....Germany wonders why Macron is so serious about this defense thing so they up their spend to 6%...the German forms a defense pact alliance with Italians..bla bla bla....well you've got yourself an old fashioned security competition.....and the history of Europe in this regard is just brutal in terms of the outcome.

 

So - NATO is a US tool, sure, by which it gets to contain the Soviet threat and Europe gets not worry about Russia......but deep down NATO is a security umbrella under which Western European nations get to be protected, in effect, from themselves.....which is to say the security competitions of the past that inevitably led to wars need never get started cause Uncle Sam is Europe's bodyguard. The cost to Europe is that when its views diverge from that of the US it effectively has no strategic autonomy and inevitably falls into line on major issues.....this lack of European strategic autonomy...is the US's payment/reward for providing this service.

 

Its, IMO, a good deal for all concerned..but a great deal for the US.....and the fact Trump wants to tinker with it.....shows how truly dumb he is on this stuff. 

 

 

 

 

 

I get it now. Could very well be and have not looked at it that way, and it makes sense. The EU formation was largely done to bring Europe together, however imperfect it works.

 

I do think the criticism of Trump's actions is totally ridiculous considering what Europe stands to lose from a disbanded NATO.

[changegonnacome]

On 7/9/2024 at 9:52 AM, cubsfan said:

I do think the criticism of Trump's actions is totally ridiculous considering what Europe stands to lose from a disbanded NATO.

 

Nah Trump is dumb on this......the USA has Europe exactly where it wants it......if it aint broke, dont fix it.......a Europe systemically underspending on its domestic military capabilities....is a European allies that when push comes to shove follows your lead on all manner of foreign policy issues....the upside, for the Europeans, is that a Europe systematically underspending on its military......paradoxically....is a Europe less likely to see millions die in a war.

 

If Trump's dream is to reinvigorate the Europeans military muscle by forcing them to spend more....expect to see Europe not now but in say a decade diverge from the USA on important issues that they never would have dreamed off before. Who knows maybe China/Taiwain for example....like you do realize how important a trading partner China is for Germany?

 

And why......to save a few billion nickels?.......when your the global superpower with the reserve currency.....projecting global power & guarding your position as the 800ilb Gorilla in the sysem is not where you penny pinch!

 

Trump is concerned with billions being wasted....in a dumb transactional childish way...but again...its kind of 1st level thinking....see when your 800ilb gorilla in the global system and as I've argued NATO is one piece of the puzzle that insures the USA remains the ONLY 800ilb gorilla...its kind of dumb to worry about billions when it comes to maintaining your king of the jungle position......see the king of the jungle doesn't have debts.......Debt to GDP levels are for the little guys....fiscal crisis are for everybody else.

 

The USA could wake up tomorrow.....and tell every foreign holder of US paper to go jump.....and there's zilch anybody could do about....they'd scream bloody murder in France and Germany...bond yields would go crazy....for a while......and a month later BNP Paribas would be sending Deutsche Bank US treasury paper again as collateral...why......cause what else can you do?....the 800ilb gorilla does what it wants....because when you get down to it the USA literally designed, operates and police's the global financial and trade system in which everyone operates. There is no viable alternative to pivot too.

 

Trump's doing Xi & Putin's work for them when he diminishes in any way the US's relative power in the system it currently dominates....withdrawing from NATO or strengthening the underlying militaries of other NATO member states....not participating in TPP.....these moves dont enhance America's power, influence and leverage in the system they degrade it....and with it the exorbitant privilege that being the 800ilb gorilla confers on us all in the USA.

 

Thats the big big big picture @cubsfan

 

 

 

Edited July 11 by changegonnacome

[Xerxes]

Worry not folks. 

We, Canada, are on it.
You just wait and see. 
 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7260649

Trudeau says Canada can meet NATO's military spending benchmark by 2032

[Xerxes]

 

 

Shetland Police Department better get on the case of “vanishing” cables 
 

[UK]

https://www.ft.com/content/44493fa9-d8f2-4407-94ac-a072c1976ca2

 

Donald Trump will quickly demand peace talks between Russia and Ukraine if he wins November’s US presidential election and has developed “well-founded plans” for doing so, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has claimed after private discussions with the Republican candidate.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-16/vance-s-foreign-policy-views-widen-trump-s-break-with-republican-old-guard?srnd=homepage-europe&embedded-checkout=true

 

“Ever since President Kennedy, the United States has been asking for Europe to do more,” UK politician David Lammy said in May, before he became foreign secretary with the Labour Party’s win this month. “My friend, Senator Vance, is right to say we in Europe have a problem that we need to fix with higher defense expenditure.” It’s far too early to know how much Trump would listen to Vance’s counsel if they win in November. But if he does, the US will take an even more skeptical view toward Ukraine than Trump has expressed so far. The Ohio senator says he opposes any further aid to Ukraine and has pushed for peace as soon as possible. “I think it’s ridiculous that we’re focused on this border in Ukraine,” Vance once said on Steve Bannon’s podcast. “I’ve got to be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”

 

Edited July 16 by UK

[ValueArb]

Interesting update on Shoigu scandal

 

 

[Xerxes]

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/geopolitics-decanted-by-silverado/id1614010500?i=1000664009725
 

Koffman and others on the book on Air War in Ukraine. And about the F-16s

 

 

——————

Good review of this new Command & Conquer PC game. Below :

 

[UK]

This is also quite interesting: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/07/24/how-ukraines-new-tech-foils-russian-aerial-attacks

[Pelagic]

The only consolation is Russia has limited aerial refueling capacity and aircraft having to travel further allows for more time to track and potentially intercept them. Still, seems like a miss by the Biden admin that just prolongs the conflict.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/05/ukraine-had-a-chance-to-blow-up-russias-best-warplanes-on-the-tarmac-the-white-house-said-no-and-now-its-too-late/

[Xerxes]

7 minutes ago, Pelagic said:

The only consolation is Russia has limited aerial refueling capacity and aircraft having to travel further allows for more time to track and potentially intercept them. Still, seems like a miss by the Biden admin that just prolongs the conflict.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/05/ukraine-had-a-chance-to-blow-up-russias-best-warplanes-on-the-tarmac-the-white-house-said-no-and-now-its-too-late/

 

how is that different than a hypothetical scenario where let’s say in the 2003 war with Iraq, Moscow would not authorize Baghdad to use its long-range ballistic missiles to hit Diego Garcia, where B-52s are based. 
 

Seems to be just “great power” management. 

[ValueArb]

12 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

 

how is that different than a hypothetical scenario where let’s say in the 2003 war with Iraq, Moscow would not authorize Baghdad to use its long-range ballistic missiles to hit Diego Garcia, where B-52s are based. 
 

Seems to be just “great power” management. 

 

Its the same "great power" management that won us the war in Korea, and the one in Vietnam, and kept Sadaam in power after Kuwait was freed, and allows the Houthis to keep receiving new Iranian missiles and drones through their unmolested ports.

 

To quote Starship Troopers: The ukrainians do the dying while the US just brags about the supplyin.

Edited August 6 by ValueArb

[Xerxes]

2 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

 

Its the same "great power" management that won us the war in Korea, and the one in Vietnam, and kept Sadaam in power after Kuwait was freed, and allows the Houthis to keep receiving new Iranian missiles and drones through their unmolested ports.

… which also brought PRC to Washington’ fold, and broke the Red block, decisively. Or do you prefer seeing 30 million Chinese burned in nuclear blasts in the 1950s, just for the sake of “winning” the Korean War. 

 

 

we can write essays and PhD dissertation about Korea, Vietnam and all the things done wrong, tactically or strategically. But that would be in hindsight. 

 

The game is the game. But the game also has unwritten rules. and it is not about individual feelings of what feels good. 

[Pelagic]

21 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

 

how is that different than a hypothetical scenario where let’s say in the 2003 war with Iraq, Moscow would not authorize Baghdad to use its long-range ballistic missiles to hit Diego Garcia, where B-52s are based. 
 

Seems to be just “great power” management. 

I realize it's a hypothetical but is that a capability Iraq had in 2003? It looks like in 2003 they had modified Scud-Bs which are somewhat similar in range to ATACMs as a tactical ballistic missiles with around 300km range, which they fired a couple of at Kuwait. Their long range cruise missiles program had around 1,000km range, well short of Diego Garcia range.

 

In either case, Russia uses SU-34s in the conflict daily, these are hardly "strategic" assets both by virtue of their continued use and how close Russia was willing to place them to the front. If Ukraine was asking for permission to put an ATACMs through the hull of a SSBN perhaps you have a point in managing escalation but by virtue of them being continuously involved in the conflict they're on the board so to speak.

 

More to the point though, Ukraine has managed to destroy actual strategic assets like the A-50s taken down a few months ago and it didn't lead to further escalation. 

[ValueArb]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

… which also brought PRC to Washington’ fold, and broke the Red block, decisively. Or do you prefer seeing 30 million Chinese burned in nuclear blasts in the 1950s, just for the sake of “winning” the Korean War. 

 

False dichotomy. Didn't have to go nuclear, could have just taken out Chinese airfields and supply depots on other side of Yalu river and starved their Korean troops of ammo and supplies. A decisive defeat in Korea may have led to regime change in China, which would have saved tens of millions of lives and re-opened China decades earlier.

 

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

 

we can write essays and PhD dissertation about Korea, Vietnam and all the things done wrong, tactically or strategically. But that would be in hindsight. 
 

The game is the game. But the game also has unwritten rules. and it is not about individual feelings of what feels good. 

 

Hindsight is also called learning from mistakes. Such as extending conflicts for years on end and causing millions of deaths instead of decisively ending them quickly. And there are no unwritten rules.

 

in the case of Ukraine only allowing the use of US weapons against Russians  throughout all Russian held territory in Ukraine but not 100 miles deep in Russia proper is absurd. Especially when Ukraine is already making those strikes using jerry rigged home designed drones, only not in the volume or effectiveness required. 

 

Russia's been drawing red lines from the shipment of the first palette of ammunition to Ukraine, at Bradleys, at Abrams, at HIMARs, at ATACMs, at F-16s, etc. They have nothing left to escalate other than tactical nukes, which are of very limited effectiveness and would be a huge political disaster for Russia so extremely unlikely.

 

Biden is doing just enough to ensure Russia can't win, but not enough to let Ukraine win and end the conflict. Just let the Ukrainians bleed for years on end until Russia overwhelms them with human waves of conscripts. Just another failure of Realpolitik.

 

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, Pelagic said:

I realize it's a hypothetical but is that a capability Iraq had in 2003? It looks like in 2003 they had modified Scud-Bs which are somewhat similar in range to ATACMs as a tactical ballistic missiles with around 300km range, which they fired a couple of at Kuwait. Their long range cruise missiles program had around 1,000km range, well short of Diego Garcia range.

 

In either case, Russia uses SU-34s in the conflict daily, these are hardly "strategic" assets both by virtue of their continued use and how close Russia was willing to place them to the front. If Ukraine was asking for permission to put an ATACMs through the hull of a SSBN perhaps you have a point in managing escalation but by virtue of them being continuously involved in the conflict they're on the board so to speak.

 

More to the point though, Ukraine has managed to destroy actual strategic assets like the A-50s taken down a few months ago and it didn't lead to further escalation. 

That is fair based on your explanation of their “continued use” as assets. Therefore legitimate target.
 

Would moving of those assets further inland change their status. Does / should distance to the front line play a role  …. Do you think 
 

Were B-52s not used as stand-off launch platforms. But flown across the Indian Ocean ?  
 

Are Tu-160 White Swans, flown say from the Far East, used as stand off launch platforms against Ukraine legitimate target Biden should push for ?

 

If Moscow has nothing left than just bluffs and nukes, why not take out the White Swans … as all their red lines has proven rather not red. 

[Xerxes]

36 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

 

False dichotomy. Didn't have to go nuclear, could have just taken out Chinese airfields and supply depots on other side of Yalu river and starved their Korean troops of ammo and supplies. A decisive defeat in Korea may have led to regime change in China, which would have saved tens of millions of lives and re-opened China decades earlier.

 

Fair comment with my nuke scenario, as it is not as black and white as I wrote.
 

But also not as a clear cut as you wrote about Red China re-opening decades earlier, if Washington was just a bit more decisive in Korea.  
 

Mao was ready to lose tens of millions and move deep inland and fight a guerrilla war. Not sure if that alternative timeline that you proposed would have had any chance of pulling re-opening of PRC much earlier. Those Korean troops that you speak of included 300,000 Chinese volunteers. 
 

For Nixon-Mao to meet, history had to unfold exactly as it did in the 50s, 60s and early 70s. 
 

In other words, both Vietnam and Korea Wars had to unfold exactly as they did. 

[Xerxes]

48 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

Hindsight is also called learning from mistakes. Such as extending conflicts for years on end and causing millions of deaths instead of decisively ending them quickly. And there are no unwritten rules.

 

in the case of Ukraine only allowing the use of US weapons against Russians  throughout all Russian held territory in Ukraine but not 100 miles deep in Russia proper is absurd. Especially when Ukraine is already making those strikes using jerry rigged home designed drones, only not in the volume or effectiveness required. 

 

Russia's been drawing red lines from the shipment of the first palette of ammunition to Ukraine, at Bradleys, at Abrams, at HIMARs, at ATACMs, at F-16s, etc. They have nothing left to escalate other than tactical nukes, which are of very limited effectiveness and would be a huge political disaster for Russia so extremely unlikely.

 

Biden is doing just enough to ensure Russia can't win, but not enough to let Ukraine win and end the conflict. Just let the Ukrainians bleed for years on end until Russia overwhelms them with human waves of conscripts. Just another failure of Realpolitik.

 

 

All true.
 

And everyone played their role in this tragedy. Putin may have pulled the trigger, but he was not the only contributing factor.
 

Just like in the 1854 Crimean War. 
 

what can I say. A true tragedy. And a total waste of human potential.  

[Pelagic]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

That is fair based on your explanation of their “continued use” as assets. Therefore legitimate target.
 

Would moving of those assets further inland change their status. Does / should distance to the front line play a role  …. Do you think 
 

Were B-52s not used as stand-off launch platforms. But flown across the Indian Ocean ?  
 

Are Tu-160 White Swans, flown say from the Far East, used as stand off launch platforms against Ukraine legitimate target Biden should push for ?

 

If Moscow has nothing left than just bluffs and nukes, why not take out the White Swans … as all their red lines has proven rather not red. 

 

Generally, Russia has the option to simply not use assets against Ukraine and move them away from the front if it wants to preserve them. Any assets that are currently being used to target Ukraine or aid the Russian war effort are fair game.

 

Specifically, while Ukraine hasn't downed any tu-160s yet, Russia has lost 3 tu-22s and a tu-95, similar in nature. And perhaps more to the heart of the matter regarding the specific strike against a base full of Su-34s, Russia has lost 31 Su-34s so it's clear that their loss doesn't have major strategic implications.

 

It's also somewhat ironic the Biden admin engages in this high level analysis of specific targets that Ukraine can hit with US weapons while Russia utilizes North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukrainian cities, to say nothing of Iranian drones. Do you think the North Koreans have any input into what targets Russia can use their missiles on?

Edited August 6 by Pelagic

[Xerxes]

54 minutes ago, Pelagic said:

It's also somewhat ironic the Biden admin engages in this high level analysis of specific targets that Ukraine can hit with US weapons while Russia utilizes North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukrainian cities, to say nothing of Iranian drones. Do you think the North Koreans have any input into what targets Russia can use their missiles on?

If I was Ukraine, I would it pretty annoying. The first six months would have been ok …. One can argue.
 

I don’t disagree on how they must feel. 

 

Clearly North Korea doesn’t impose any restrictions, not that it would matter if they would impose any. 

[Spekulatius]

On 8/6/2024 at 4:54 PM, Pelagic said:

 

Generally, Russia has the option to simply not use assets against Ukraine and move them away from the front if it wants to preserve them. Any assets that are currently being used to target Ukraine or aid the Russian war effort are fair game.

 

Specifically, while Ukraine hasn't downed any tu-160s yet, Russia has lost 3 tu-22s and a tu-95, similar in nature. And perhaps more to the heart of the matter regarding the specific strike against a base full of Su-34s, Russia has lost 31 Su-34s so it's clear that their loss doesn't have major strategic implications.

 

It's also somewhat ironic the Biden admin engages in this high level analysis of specific targets that Ukraine can hit with US weapons while Russia utilizes North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukrainian cities, to say nothing of Iranian drones. Do you think the North Koreans have any input into what targets Russia can use their missiles on?

Totally agree here. This micromanagement from the Biden administration is totally counterproductive. Worst was probably to tell Ukraine not to bombard energy infrastructure in Russia, even those that has been used by the Russian army to supply themselves for the war.
At the same time , Russia can sent drones at will into Ukraine and hit any target they can reach, as some will always make it through the air defenses.

Edited August 8 by Spekulatius