While US and western supplies are being depleted, surely Russian supplies are being depleted at a far greater rate..

I wonder if this is a good idea if behind Russian lines means inside Russia borders?

I think the West has to provide Ukraine with the means to strike inside Russia, otherwise Russia is safe in the knowledge it can 'stand back' and launch unending waves of cruise missiles/suicide drones into Ukraine without fear of any comeback.

I think the Ukrainians have shown they can be trusted with their targeting, and to not strike centres of population. The first target should be Putin's dacha on the Black Sea, followed by every Russian air base and military installation within range. At the same time as providing this capability, the West should remind Russia that it is not the only nuclear power in the region should it think about escalating the conflict.

This is what Russia tried to trigger several times, this almost WW3 like scenario. "We" against "NATO". I'd try to keep the cool. Don't support the "Russia is under threat" narrative. Let them face their inner chaos and power struggles instead. Then the long wait works against them.
Ukraine must be supplied as needed and everybody must be ready for a long war, WW1 style. Whatever Russia comes up with by spring must be met with the right responses.

I think what many outsiders (like me) might be wondering is: how to stop the missiles at their source or at least at launch. So we've seen that with the right anti-ship missiles the ship based launchers can be attacked (and why is that not getting priority?) but what about those Tu-95 bombers? Why isn't the West able to help Ukraine put those at risk? Obviously I suppose that range is the number 1 reason and if there are any others perhaps it's best not to talk about them at all. As a civvie I just wonder about that stuff because it seems much more effective to put those aircraft out of operation somehow rather than shoot down all their missiles.

I take your point, but in a long war I wonder who can replenish their stocks/sustain their losses better - Ukraine/the West or Russia. Certainly, replenishment of the stocks it has already given up to Ukraine doesn't seem to be too high on the West's agenda right now. I'd suggest we need to finish this sooner rather than later, and that only means a military defeat of Russia which can only come (IMO) with the provision to Ukraine of long-range weaponry.

We must not forget for all the success the Ukrainians have had Russia is a much larger country and as such has greater resources and, in a war of attrition, they will come out on top. Historically in wars Russia starts badly but in the long term they get better. However tempting a deep strike into Russia would be an escalation and the reluctance of the West to provide the appropriate weapons is probably a reflection of that concern.

While I can understand it from that point of view, without bringing the war home to the Russian people there is less chance of a regime change and less face it at the moment it is a one legged ass kicking contest.
I would target those bases launching missiles and the aircraft that are launching them, all the bridges and rail infrastructure heading into Ukraine, then I would start by knocking the TV channels off the air spreading their bile, drop a few masts should do, redesign Putins palace for him and personally I would let Moscow feel how it is to freeze, a few gas distribution nodes and power ones should do, that would bring it home to those Russians who think it is all one sided...

I think Ukraine has already shown it can be trusted with the weapons they have been given that they will not use them on targets that part of the deal forbids, so I cannot see what is preventing giving them longer range ones.

.

For all the points you raise, I believe the West should give Ukraine the means to strike deep into Russia.

The current status quo of Ukraine fighting a defensive war (in which I include the offensives within its own borders) while Russia can stay out of harm's way, inflicting long term destruction and casualties via long-range strikes, only plays to the Kremlin's advantage, as far as I can see. As the war is currently playing out, Russia has no reason to seek an end to it. The only way that can happen, is if the West provides Ukraine with the means to inflict damage on Russia itself.

A deep strike into Russia could be counter-productive by giving the Russian People cause to support the illegal War kicked off by Putin and his cronies.

They did not care much for the Russian affair in Afghanistan....so why risk alienating any popular opinion for little military gain?

Mothers are seeing their Sons head off to Ukraine and coming home in Caskets....or not coming home at all.

Learn a lesson from other Nations that have conducted unpopular Wars....say.....like maybe the Falklands were the Argies thought they could do something similar to what is going on in the Ukraine.

How did that turnout for that Regime?

Deep strikes damaging Ukrainian infrastructure do not seem to be damaging the nation's resolve and I have no reason to believe that deep strikes into Russia would be any different. I cannot recall of a campaign where anything other than wholesale destruction, or the demonstrated prospect of wholesale destruction, has had a significant effect on the willingness of a people to continue a war.
In terms of effect, bleeding a nation of its young men and material, is more likely to bring on war weariness than direct attacks, which will only give a reason for resentment and a feeling that perhaps the losses were somehow justified after all.

I take your points, and if I had seen any evidence that the Russian people view this as Putin's rather than their war, I'd fully agree with you. Sadly, all the evidence so far is that the general Russian population has a long standing antipathy to the Ukrainians, whom they now appear to despise for the crime of not wanting to be Russian (I don't think the same was true with Afghanistan). I think Putin can play to that gallery for as long as the Russian people themselves are not subjected to any real pain (and I have no joy saying that - like many people no doubt on this forum, I have Russian friends).

I'm not sure that the Falklands analogy really holds up to Ukraine, but in terms of how that turned out the Argentineans still claim the islands to be theirs, 40 years after the end of the war. We can't allow that to happen with Ukraine - the Russians must be militarily defeated, and seen to be militarily defeated. If not, this conflict could last for generations.

It wouldn't be to 'damage their resolve', but to physically impact Russia's ability to wage the war on its current terms. The West has to change the narrative of the war, or else Putin will just sit back and lob missiles into Ukraine for longer than the West can maintain the supply of air defences.

I agree.....and isn't this the reason Russia had to quit Afghanistan though it took some years to get that point. In Afghanistan Russian casualities are believed to be 15,000 deaths; a figure probably exceeded in Ukraine so maybe it happen sooner.
However I suspect that Putin would hold defensive postions during the winter and attempt a full offensive in the spring with aim of the destroying the Ukrainian army.

I don't believe you can do a direct read-across from Afghanistan to Ukraine. For Putin (and also for Russia more generally), Ukraine is an existential matter in a way that Afghanistan just wasn't - the Russian people could walk away from Afghanistan when it all got a bit too much, in a way that they just won't be able or willing to walk away from Ukraine regardless of the death toll. For them, Ukraine is Russia.

The only way this can end favourably for Ukraine and the West, is to give Ukrainians the tools to end the war decisively on their terms, and that means long-range weapons. Let Putin talk about 'escalation' - he's being doing that since before the war started. He's bad but he's not (yet) mad, and he knows as well as anyone what the West can inflict on Russia if it oversteps the mark.

Ask yourselves this: Did The Blitz weaken, or strengthen our resolve?

Did the part of The Troubles than took place on the UK mainland make anyone in the UK say "Well they have a point"?

Did constant bombing the NVA cause them to stop

etc etc

What actually ended The Troubles? Was it in large part that people just got exhausted by it?

Russia will implode by itself after they realise that they are unable to violently keep the occupied territories. Let them fight each other.

No one is talking about a Blitz or a Rolling Thunder on Russian cities, it's a non sequitur.

Ukraine is not the Troubles. A far more relevant question would be to ask what ended the Second World War in Europe?

I do suspect that the loss of Crimea will have a profound effect on the Russian psyche, if and when it happens.

What then, in your opinion, are the respective Russian and Ukrainian Schwerpunkten, if we go back to Clausewitz, which is where I think this discussion is leading.?