Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[08Dawg]

So what do y’all think the odds are that A) those 90K Russians on the Ukrainian border are there to invade and if they do, that B) we’ll do anything about it?  I’m not sure we will. Putin has picked his timing perfectly to coincide with the fallout of our Afghan withdrawal IMHO.

[pawnman]

18 minutes ago, 08Dawg said:

So what do y’all think the odds are that A) those 90K Russians on the Ukrainian border are there to invade and if they do, that B) we’ll do anything about it?  I’m not sure we will. Putin has picked his timing perfectly to coincide with the fallout of our Afghan withdrawal IMHO.

95% and 0%, respectively. 

 

[SuperWSO]

Putin won’t invade, but he will be “Forced to respond to actions against ethnic Russians.”  It’ll be an extremely thin veneer of bullshit to give the press at home what they need to cover his butt. 
   Chance that we will do something? We can’t ignore it but odds are the “something” will be sanctions, a sternly worded statement and further approval of Nord Stream 2. 
    We’ve provided a bunch of Javelins, so hopefully they get put to good use before they’re overrun.

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, SuperWSO said:

Chance that we will do something? We can’t ignore it but odds are the “something” will be sanctions, a sternly worded statement and further approval of Nord Stream 2. 

After Crimea, I think we can pretty much say we can do nothing.

Taiwan will also fall with nothing more than a sternly worded letter from the UN.

[tac airlifter]

When Afghanistan fell in such a shameful fashion, it became obvious our nation wouldn’t do anything about Taiwan or Ukraine either.

[Clark Griswold]

Response can be more than all out WW3
Depending on how they act and how Ukraine fares in conflict will drive our hypothetical response.
Ukraine starts to collapse, that’s one thing, Ukraine does well that’s another.
But ultimately we have to be able to act fast enough to not let them be collapsed and IMHO that’s to preposition troops, armor, artillery, aircraft, SAMs, RPAs, EW assets and prime Cyber-Info capes now
Not sure what the Russian objectives and timelines would be but if they go for it and only the Ukrainians respond initially and we can’t respond in immediately, like within 12 hours, they will have moved things on the ground so far in their favor, it’s essentially a victory
Honestly we should shock the hell out of them and make the first move, rapid surprise deployment of 25,000 troops with 50k more enroute to Ukraine right up to the border with Russia
Put them on the defensive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

Just ask Tom Clancy.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

9 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Just ask Tom Clancy.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

New CBT requirement prior to deployment.

[SPAWNmaster]

This thread is proof that none of you are spending time on high side 🤣. 

[brickhistory]

1 hour ago, SPAWNmaster said:

This thread is proof that none of you are spending time on high side 🤣. 

With the current Administration?

Don't bet on it...

Kamala admits she's smoked marijuana

[SPAWNmaster]

34 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

With the current Administration?

Don't bet on it...

Kamala admits she's smoked marijuana

Uhh…wut. 
 

If you seriously don’t trust your multi agency all source analysis on JWICS or JIANT because you don’t like that your civilian leadership has smoked pot (like virtually everyone in this country) I’d consider that pretty negligent. That’s like saying Trump drank a beer and therefore we should only trust NIPR or lower. Non sequitur. 

 

My point was that this thread sounds more like a retiree rumor mill than informed discussion. You’re not helping that and that was before you linked to CNN 😂.

[Clark Griswold]

Uhh…wut. 
 
If you seriously don’t trust your multi agency all source analysis on JWICS or JIANT because you don’t like that your civilian leadership has smoked pot (like virtually everyone in this country) I’d consider that pretty negligent. That’s like saying Trump drank a beer and therefore we should only trust NIPR or lower. Non sequitur. 
 
My point was that this thread sounds more like a retiree rumor mill than informed discussion. You’re not helping that and that was before you linked to CNN .

Valid point as all my source of old man ranting is open source but the point of showing resolve to deter this and the other fight I’ll stick to
Stand up to Biff or do his homework forever
The quick deployment would send the message we aren’t just going to sit back and watch the borders of the free -ish world be changed, a high risk deterrence mission would be high risk but a non-response to aggression, conventional or hybrid, would be disastrous
The bad guys have been on the offense too long with no response, it’s time to change that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Negatory]

3 hours ago, SPAWNmaster said:

This thread is proof that none of you are spending time on high side 🤣. 

Great bait, man! Adds nothing to the conversation. And the joke about the “high side” was apparently entirely lost on you.

Let’s keep this forum unclass because, well, it has to be. And with that, I’d like to point you to the wargaming scenarios that resulted in the idea of “NGAD” that showed that we get crushed without a fundamental rearchitecting of AirPower in 5-10 years.

I am 100% certain Lockheed/Boeing, the pentagon, and our entrenched leadership will fail to deliver the actual change we need to win overwhelmingly. And I am certain that the American people won’t go fight a war of attrition against China a la WWII. It’s all fun and games until every single fourth Gen fighter is shot down without firing a shot.

https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2021/04/12/a-us-air-force-war-game-shows-what-the-service-needs-to-hold-off-or-win-against-china-in-2030/

Edited November 28, 2021 by Negatory

[Prozac]

The Chinese won’t invade Taiwan. The idea is to create just enough uncertainty about a U.S./Aussie/Japanese response to deter China. It’s working. Add to that the near certain threat of sanctions from the entire western world, and the fact that the Taiwanese are capable of putting a serious dent into any Chinese invasion force and the cost is simply too steep for Xi. Additionally, I don’t think the Chinese possess the organizational skills or actual operational capabilities to pull it off. Their existing infrastructure operates highly inefficiently in practice. I realize mass has a quality all its own, but they’re going to get their heads kicked in for a while before they eventually succeed. That will lead to further domestic/economic pressure that Xi doesn’t want or need at the moment. A Taiwan invasion carries with it a very real chance that the people of China, along with the CCP will lose faith in Xi’s leadership. The last thing he wants is anything that might threaten his grip on power. 

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, SPAWNmaster said:

This thread is proof that none of you are spending time on high side 🤣. 

The same highside analysis that predicted Afghanistan wouldn’t fall in 24 hours?  You can plan whatever you want, if leader ship is paralyzed with indecision you still lose.

 

[GrndPndr]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

The Chinese won’t invade Taiwan. <snip>

Presumably, they won't reposes anything there either?

https://saharareporters.com/2021/11/26/china-takes-over-ugandan-airport-other-countrys-assets-over-207million-loan-deal

[Prozac]

6 hours ago, GrndPndr said:

Presumably, they won't reposes anything there either?

https://saharareporters.com/2021/11/26/china-takes-over-ugandan-airport-other-countrys-assets-over-207million-loan-deal

Not sure what there is on the island of Formosa for the CCP to reposes? Unlike many third world nations, Taipei hasn't wanted or needed mainland Chinese help in building any of their infrastructure. The CCP effectively has no presence in Taiwan, so I think it'd be pretty hard to "reposes" anything there without assaulting it first.

[brickhistory]

a. If the countries actually near-by aren't willing to stand up against The Bear, why is it on us?  Germany, France, et al, you lead.  We'll follow the sounds of crickets to find the your NATO fight and join in.  That is, of course, assuming you have the cojones to ignore the lack of gas that Russia isn't sending your way and you are shivering in the dark.

b. Big China can and will assimilate Little China eventually; likely within Xi's lifetime (aka Winne the Pooh).  And we won't do a thing.  Regardless of Administration, but especially under this one, by the time we could get there in any meaningful way, it's a done deal.  CCP is willing to take the casualties; I'm not sure Taiwan is prepared to.  I know we aren't.  Nor would we trade Shanghai for L.A. in any large-scale exchange.

[BFM this]

45 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

 Nor would we trade Shanghai for L.A. in any large-scale exchange.

Ahem!  

Uhh Mr. Mayor, point of order...

Edited November 29, 2021 by BFM this

[Clark Griswold]

a. If the countries actually near-by aren't willing to stand up against The Bear, why is it on us?  Germany, France, et al, you lead.  We'll follow the sounds of crickets to find the your NATO fight and join in.  That is, of course, assuming you have the cojones to ignore the lack of gas that Russia isn't sending your way and you are shivering in the dark.
b. Big China can and will assimilate Little China eventually; likely within Xi's lifetime (aka Winne the Pooh).  And we won't do a thing.  Regardless of Administration, but especially under this one, by the time we could get there in any meaningful way, it's a done deal.  CCP is willing to take the casualties; I'm not sure Taiwan is prepared to.  I know we aren't.  Nor would we trade Shanghai for L.A. in any large-scale exchange.

The why is the same as why the British retook the Falklands, if they did not no one would respect or fear them, they would face a never ending series of challenges around the world and be reduced to something much less than deserving of their heritage.
Like it or not we are on stage as the protagonist, the defender of the global commons and the one global power that defends a rules based system that albeit imperfect is infinitely better than the vassal-tribute system pushed by Russia-China.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

35 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

The why is the same as why the British retook the Falklands, if they did not no one would respect or fear them, they would face a never ending series of challenges around the world and be reduced to something much less than deserving of their heritage.
Like it or not we are on stage as the protagonist, the defender of the global commons and the one global power that defends a rules based system that albeit imperfect is infinitely better than the vassal-tribute system pushed by Russia-China.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, no one has adequately explained why my son should die for Ukraine or Taiwan.  If those countries are absorbed into their respective aggressors, is anyone in the US less safe in a quantifiable way?  “Defender of the global commons” is insufficient rationale unless it translates to an actual threat to US personnel. 
 

Now if you want to start some shit with China because of the US Fentanyl crisis or C19 I’m game to hear you out, but we should probably have a real intel assessment first.  

[Negatory]

Duh, it’s to defend your god given right to buy an iPhone for $1000 as opposed to $2000. The price of outsourcing important manufacturing.

[pbar]

8 hours ago, brickhistory said:

a. If the countries actually near-by aren't willing to stand up against The Bear, why is it on us?  Germany, France, et al, you lead.  We'll follow the sounds of crickets to find the your NATO fight and join in.  That is, of course, assuming you have the cojones to ignore the lack of gas that Russia isn't sending your way and you are shivering in the dark.

b. Big China can and will assimilate Little China eventually; likely within Xi's lifetime (aka Winne the Pooh).  And we won't do a thing.  Regardless of Administration, but especially under this one, by the time we could get there in any meaningful way, it's a done deal.  CCP is willing to take the casualties; I'm not sure Taiwan is prepared to.  I know we aren't.  Nor would we trade Shanghai for L.A. in any large-scale exchange.

Everybody is willing to fight to the last American....

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Sorry, no one has adequately explained why my son should die for Ukraine or Taiwan.  If those countries are absorbed into their respective aggressors, is anyone in the US less safe in a quantifiable way?  “Defender of the global commons” is insufficient rationale unless it translates to an actual threat to US personnel. 
 

Now if you want to start some shit with China because of the US Fentanyl crisis or C19 I’m game to hear you out, but we should probably have a real intel assessment first.  

I get it, I'm sick of freeloaders with the money, tech, industry and the military age male population to help secure the free world but don't as they benefit from the system and international political and security conditions that exist now thru the sacrifice of blood and treasure, thru expensive and difficult continued vigilance to deter aggression. 

I see how this appears tenuous but allowing the weak to be bullied, conquered, assimilated, etc... when that weak state is not geographically close, economically significant or culturally tied to us but it is.  It is the principle that we don't leave our friends and allies out to dry.  That where it matters, where aggression would threaten the free world, to the rules based order, we and others will fight for it.  That we are the powerful nation that is willing to act on the principle that others deserve the right to live as they wish without being dominated unwillingly by others and that we will fight with those being oppressed to prevent that.

We approached, encouraged and publicly supported Ukranian democracy, reform and turn to the West, this drew the ire of Russia and now as the storm clouds gather, we abandon them?  Seems unbecoming to a nation that prides itself on being the shinning city on the hill and the guarantor of freedom.

I don't believe in poking the bear but running from it is not acceptable either.

I don't think your son, mine or any American should be sacrificed in a war, conflict or military operation that is not fought to win but that rightfully skeptical sentiment given our recent debacle in withdrawal from Afghanistan should not stop us from fighting or deterring a fight that is not an unsolvable problem like nation building in places where a nation really only exists on a map.

I'm not naive, I know our power is not infinite and not every conflict is our responsibility, we have to choose wisely where we have to or should intervene.  If Ukraine is invaded or Russia takes other aggression towards them beyond what they are doing now, I believe we should help them.  Just my two cents.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[BashiChuni]

Nukes. We have them.