Either they're trying more of the Nixon mad-man theory out or they are as I've speculated preparing to move from the escalation of long-range strikes which cannot change the nature of the conflict to sending troops.

I speculate that they'll probably dip their toes in, e.g. they'll openly send some mercenaries or some small units to salami slice their way to sending a whole bunch of units by January (before Trump) or spring of next year to enforce the idea of freezing the conflict.

This is unacceptable to Russia and it should be. They've lost too many lives, spent too much capital in all senses of the word and should see the task finished not frozen so the west can rebuild Ukraine's armies for another go in 15 years and arm it to the teeth with missiles in the mean-time.

The people of the world and Russia cannot submit to their blackmail, we must remain unflinching in this game of chicken. I predict they will blink. But even if I knew they wouldn't I would still advocate against submission to their tyranny no matter the consequences.

I imagine the US has told them to do this.

The thing I think most of the conversation around the salami slicing isn't accounting for is intelligence and counter-intelligence. Every new thing Russia does, and especially every new capability it demonstrates is an intelligence win for the West.

As the West ramps up production, that intelligence will be invaluable in deciding WHAT to ramp up production of, and how to design it to counter Russian capabilities.

Fuuuuuck I hate Macron soooooo much

Europeans yearn for the trenches

This brinksmanship is of course extremely dangerous, but there's at least one optimistic explanation for it. Which bargaining position is better for Ukraine:

1. We're losing the war on the ground and our allies are abandoning us, or
2. We're losing the war on the ground but our allies are seriously considering major escalation?

If you can't walk away from a negotiation because defeat is inevitable, you're going to give up a lot more, and the other side might wonder why they're negotiating at all. But if you have a credible threat of fighting on -- even if your allies don't actually plan on getting involved themselves -- you're far better off in negotiations.

Not that I think this is likely, but a part of me wonders if the US and France are telling “Israel” they need to wrap up a ceasefire with Hezbollah and by extension stop the genocide in Gaza, but only because they plan on majorly ramping up in Ukraine before Trump takes office.

Hard to imagine Biden ever getting tough with Israel, but I was expecting to see NATO look for an off ramp with Russia by now, not escalation.

I legitimately think Russia might be forced to drop the bomb, even if it’s just a tactical one on some unoccupied field somewhere in Northern Ukraine.