Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[JackWhite]

I think nothing will happpen at least in that timeframe which media says. It's stupid to attack at time when everyone knows it and expect. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by JackWhite

[SocialD]

Not that finally leaving after 20+ years with over a decade of that trying to get them to defend themselves is a big "fuck job."  But some of you act like this is the first time we've fucked over those we promised to help.  There have been plenty before and they'll be more in the future.     

Edited November 30, 2021 by SocialD

[Clayton Bigsby]

On 11/29/2021 at 7:44 AM, BFM this said:

Ahem!  

Uhh Mr. Mayor, point of order...

Hey fucker!

[VMFA187]

2 hours ago, JackWhite said:

I think nothing will happpen at least in that timeframe which media says. It's stupid to attack at time when everyone knows it and expect. 

We, both our military and our nation, are weaker now than we've been since I've been alive. 

That is not to degrade our warfighters - We've been betrayed by politicians and the media. As a nation we have never been more divided and as a fighting force we've been out-procured by our biggest threat to a degree not fathomable in the past. 

[brickhistory]

10 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

We, both our military and our nation, are weaker now than we've been since I've been alive. 

That is not to degrade our warfighters - We've been betrayed by politicians and the media. As a nation we have never been more divided and as a fighting force we've been out-procured by our biggest threat to a degree not fathomable in the past. 

Agree, but would add in our most senior military leadership for some several decades.  Post- Fogelman, name one four-star that has resigned in protest or over principle.  The guys who are supposed to provide their best military advice to our civilian leadership.  Now, granted, they may have pointed out the issues behind closed doors, which they are supposed to do, but not one has resigned over being ignored.  Indeed, it certainly appears that at least one sitting general took it upon himself to conduct different foreign policy than his duly-elected, Constitutional boss.

Those cushy corporate boards and revolving very senior gub'mint posts ain't gonna fill themselves...

[Negatory]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Agree, but would add in our most senior military leadership for some several decades.  Post- Fogelman, name one four-star that has resigned in protest or over principle.  The guys who are supposed to provide their best military advice to our civilian leadership.  Now, granted, they may have pointed out the issues behind closed doors, which they are supposed to do, but not one has resigned over being ignored.  Indeed, it certainly appears that at least one sitting general took it upon himself to conduct different foreign policy than his duly-elected, Constitutional boss.

Those cushy corporate boards and revolving very senior gub'mint posts ain't gonna fill themselves...

One example: Gen Moseley fell on his sword for the F-22.

[brickhistory]

3 minutes ago, Negatory said:

One example: Gen Moseley fell on his sword for the F-22.

I'll give this one a "maybe."  He and SECAF were 'fired' over the multiple nuke buffoonery events, but, yes, it was a disagreement with USAF and SECDEF over Predator CAPs vs. F-22s.

So, the 'maybe' part of this was did he resign over principle or get fired?  Huge difference.

If it was resigned over principle and we needing more than the relatively few F-22s we did buy, then good on him.

And Gates is definitively in the "failed us" category of VMFA187 above.  Failed us in Afghanistan and left us light on firepower for any near/peer fight. 

 

Thanks, Bob!

[Negatory]

3 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

I'll give this one a "maybe."  He and SECAF were 'fired' over the multiple nuke buffoonery events, but, yes, it was a disagreement with USAF and SECDEF over Predator CAPs vs. F-22s.

So, the 'maybe' part of this was did he resign over principle or get fired?  Huge difference.

If it was resigned over principle and we needing more than the relatively few F-22s we did buy, then good on him.

And Gates is definitively in the "failed us" category of VMFA187 above.  Failed us in Afghanistan and left us light on firepower for any near/peer fight. 

 

Thanks, Bob!

I talked personally with Gen Moseley about this ~10 years ago and think it was genuine. But everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Agree with everything you said about Bob.

[pawnman]

Russia is mastering the art of pressuring their adversaries without firing a shot. 

https://atthewatersedge.org/2021/11/23/the-border-crisis-is-just-the-beginning/

[JackWhite]

Quote

That is not to degrade our warfighters - We've been betrayed by politicians and the media. As a nation we have never been more divided and as a fighting force we've been out-procured by our biggest threat to a degree not fathomable in the past. 

And this is a big true point by you...I'd never imagine the situation like this one every. But with the help of our polititian it just happens on our eyes...One day we will raise from the ashes and will get what we deserve

[BFM this]

On 11/30/2021 at 11:04 AM, brickhistory said:

Post- Fogelman, name one four-star that has resigned in protest or over principle.  

I would submit that Mattis meets the intent of your question.

[brickhistory]

Did I miss where he resigned as a serving general officer?  Or was it as a political appointee?  (It was the latter)

I'm not hung up on the GO/FO thing, but they are as responsible for our geopolitical weakness as our political class.  Same thing in fact...

[DirkDiggler]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/12/03/russias_military_buildup_reveals_stone-cold_reality_ukrainian_entry_into_nato_would_make_war_more_not_less_likely_806307.html

  Well written article from RCD on the current tensions in Ukraine.

[ClearedHot]

We ran from Afghanistan in the middle of the night, if we sit back and watch Putin steamroll Ukraine I wonder what that message sends China about Taiwan?

[brickhistory]

You know, the thing...!

[DirkDiggler]

3 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

We ran from Afghanistan in the middle of the night, if we sit back and watch Putin steamroll Ukraine I wonder what that message sends China about Taiwan?

Honest question; what COAs do you think we should consider going forward.

  I have a conflicted view on this.  Russia (really Putin's, since he calls all the shots) actions are towards Ukraine are pretty much unceasingly hostile/coercive, and a full blown invasion would violate pretty much any international standard/law.

  The realist in me says any US military intervention on Ukraine's behalf in the event of a Russian invasion would be illogical.  They're not a member of NATO so therefore not entitled to Article 5 status, they're not a powerful conventional or nuclear ally, and they're not integral to US national security.  The liberal in me says they're a struggling democracy under threat from an autocratic enemy of the US, they're making honest efforts to be a part of the international order, and most of their people want freedom/don't want to be a part of Russia thus we shouldn't allow Russia to invade its neighbor.

  I went to ACSC with a couple of Ukrainian servicemembers, they all came across as solid dudes who were proud of their country and willing to fight for it.  One of them completed ACSC and was immediately deployed to the frontlines on his return to Ukraine.  I think about those guys and my Estonian buddy a lot when I think about this problem.

  The blunt reality of this is that Russia plainly sees Ukraine becoming closer to the West/member of NATO a direct threat to their national security.  The US and probably most of Europe doesn't see things that way, nor does most the US population care about Ukrainian sovereignty.  We are not currently in a conventional military position to deter or defeat a Russian invasion of Ukraine, unless we start a force buildup now.  If we would intervene in the event of Russian invasion (talking right of bang) we'd have to face the very likely possibility of high casualties and an adversary that may employ tactical nuclear weapons if they feel they're threatened with a loss.

  All that said if the order's given I'll go without hesitation, would be nice to have a clear goal to fight for for a change.      

[brickhistory]

Well said.

When the Wall came down, we and the rest of the West thought the entire world wanted a Coke and a Big Mac.

Us collectively going into eastern Europe was a strategic mistake.  Encourage those former Soviet-controlled nations certainly.  Do business with them and get them adapted to a modern capitalistic, free society absolutely.

But put them in a binding contract to shed blood and treasure over?  Not so much.  Ivan the Bear has always considered that his sphere of influence.  And now he's strong enough again, somewhat, to throw his weight around.

Radical idea:  disband NATO.  The reason for its creation is gone and has been for decades.  

 

edited to add:  If Ukraine turns into a shooting war, NATO will fold anyway.  Old NATO won't want to get involved and will let Ivan have his way.

Edited December 3, 2021 by brickhistory

[waveshaper]

58 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Us collectively going into eastern Europe was a strategic mistake.  Encourage those former Soviet-controlled nations certainly.  Do business with them and get them adapted to a modern capitalistic, free society absolutely.

But put them in a binding contract to shed blood and treasure over?  Not so much.  Ivan the Bear has always considered that his sphere of influence.  And now he's strong enough again, somewhat, to throw his weight around.

These potential Russian moves involving Eastern Ukrainian turf sound ominously familiar and give me the jitters in a bad karmic kind of way.

Back in the day, when the newly formed Soviet Union was going balls to the wall expanding their empire - they made a similar move in this AO. The Soviets invaded Eastern Ukraine and occupied it while simultaneously Poland invaded and occupied Western Ukraine. Later, Hitler and Stalin cut a deal involving this AO and in Sept 1939 Germany invaded/occupied Western Poland and the Soviets invaded/occupied Polish controlled Western Ukraine/Eastern Poland = the rest is history.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

If Ukraine turns into a shooting war, NATO will fold anyway. 

Curious as to why you believe this? Ukraine is not a NATO member so why should a Russian invasion cause a crisis capable of imploding the alliance? Now, if you’re talking about a similar situation unfolding in the Baltics, you probably have a point. 

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Honest question; what COAs do you think we should consider going forward.

  I have a conflicted view on this.  Russia (really Putin's, since he calls all the shots) actions are towards Ukraine are pretty much unceasingly hostile/coercive, and a full blown invasion would violate pretty much any international standard/law.

  The realist in me says any US military intervention on Ukraine's behalf in the event of a Russian invasion would be illogical.  They're not a member of NATO so therefore not entitled to Article 5 status, they're not a powerful conventional or nuclear ally, and they're not integral to US national security.  The liberal in me says they're a struggling democracy under threat from an autocratic enemy of the US, they're making honest efforts to be a part of the international order, and most of their people want freedom/don't want to be a part of Russia thus we shouldn't allow Russia to invade its neighbor.

  I went to ACSC with a couple of Ukrainian servicemembers, they all came across as solid dudes who were proud of their country and willing to fight for it.  One of them completed ACSC and was immediately deployed to the frontlines on his return to Ukraine.  I think about those guys and my Estonian buddy a lot when I think about this problem.

  The blunt reality of this is that Russia plainly sees Ukraine becoming closer to the West/member of NATO a direct threat to their national security.  The US and probably most of Europe doesn't see things that way, nor does most the US population care about Ukrainian sovereignty.  We are not currently in a conventional military position to deter or defeat a Russian invasion of Ukraine, unless we start a force buildup now.  If we would intervene in the event of Russian invasion (talking right of bang) we'd have to face the very likely possibility of high casualties and an adversary that may employ tactical nuclear weapons if they feel they're threatened with a loss.

  All that said if the order's given I'll go without hesitation, would be nice to have a clear goal to fight for for a change.      

Before I give COAs (and not sure there are any good ones at this point), I have to wax philosophic for a moment. 

One of our biggest faults as Americans and with our foreign policy is our attention span.  Unlike our adversaries we suffer from ADHD and Alzheimer’s, we quickly lose focus and absolutely refuse to play long ball.  We have the world's most powerful and capable military but we want quick victories with few casualties so we can get home as and back to Facebook/Twitter.  We constantly change our goals, shift our expectations and completely revamp our strategy as often as we change a roll of toilet paper.  Our adversaries may adjust their approach for the current environment but ultimately, they play chess while we play checkers.  China wants Taiwan and has been steadily marching towards that goal since they lost it shortly after WW II.  Scholars have openly noted they were employing a 100-year strategy towards reunification.  Our tragic flaw has manifest in every conflict since WW II. How many times did we change our Afghanistan strategy (if we ever had one), finally signally to the Taliban (and every other threat), if you wait, we will tire and go home.

I think my theory is easily proven when looking at the situation with Ukraine.  When the former Soviet Union collapsed and the wall fell, we went to great lengths to sway Ukraine in hopes they would lean to the west.  At the time they had a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons which WE convinced them to destroy in return for a paper promise that we would provide security.  While we did not offer full-fledged NATO membership, we certainly led them to believe we would be there when they needed us.  Flash forward to 2014 when Russia invaded the Crimea and what did we do?  Barack Obama suggested that defending Ukraine against Russia wasn’t a core U.S. national-security concern…sorry you gave up your nukes, you are on your own.  Obama and his minions finally provided aid, but it was all humanitarian.  In total since 2014 we have provided $1.6B in aide but we have mostly stood by and watched them struggle.  That strategy came to full fruition in 2017 when Ukraine was forces to sign the annexation of the Crimea to Russia.  The Trump administration did change the game in some regards when they agreed to give Ukraine lethal “defensive aide.”  Philosophically I wonder, would Ukraine still have the Crimea if Ukraine still had their nukes? 

Putin immediately tested Biden when he took office, the buildup of troops and equipment along the border has taken time.  The fiasco in Afghanistan sent a very clear commitment about our resolve.  If Putin does move against Ukraine, you can bet your paycheck that will signal China to speed the clock against Taiwan.

As far as COAs, there are only a few and the only palatable one I can see would be to act now at N minus to bolster Ukraine and deter Putin.  It is one thing to give Ukraine more lethal aide, it is another to place U.S. forces in Ukraine.  Perhaps a game of chicken but it would drastically complicate Putin’s calculus.  Barring that COA we will likely melt like butter and Russia will steamroll Ukraine.

 

 

 

 

[M2]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Radical idea:  disband NATO.  The reason for its creation is gone and has been for decades.  

Honestly Brick, what good would that do?

The Alliance is simply that, a bunch of countries banding together against a common enemy.

Do you really think that enemy has gone away?

It not only hasn't, but it's gotten worse.

Now, what NATO actually does to counter Russian/Putin aggression in the region has yet to be seen.  So far it's been a useless war of words (typical NATO).  Will the Alliance go to war over Ukraine?  Doubtful, no one has a stomach for it anymore; and we know who we can blame for that!

You can't make fun of NATO without blaming the US.  It's really our "gang" and we have run it for over seven decades.

Its failures are our failures.

[brickhistory]

Just now, M2 said:

You can't make fun of NATO without blaming the US.  It's really our "gang" and we have run it for over seven decades.

Its failures are our failures.

Absolutely agree.  

But to your's and Prozac's responses/question, what good does it do now?  Designed to stop the Soviet hordes from coming through the Fulda Gap and sticking toes in the English Channel, those hordes don't exist, Ivan doesn't need to have those size forces anymore since turning the gas tap off is just as effective as pressuring Old NATO into doing nothing.  New NATO jumped on board full of hope and optimism - Poland, et al - but Old NATO is not going to throw down for them today any more than they did in the past.

Why was NATO a thing in Afghanistan?  And we, apparently, ran off without telling them.  A) Sure seemed outside the NATO AOR and not a NATO mission and B) we and they didn't accomplish much despite efforts of good people in numerous nations.  Taliban 1, US/NATO 0.

If they aren't going to fund it like they should, if they aren't going to fight in their own little continent which I don't believe they will, why does it exist?

Putin knows he's got the best hand.  Short of putting US bodies in as a speed bump, what can we or NATO really do?  What is worth our nation's blood and treasure.

I don't see it.

But I'm old and yell at clouds, too...

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Before I give COAs (and not sure there are any good ones at this point), I have to wax philosophic for a moment. 

 

 

One of our biggest faults as Americans and with our foreign policy is our attention span.  Unlike our adversaries we suffer from ADHD and Alzheimer’s, we quickly lose focus and absolutely refuse to play long ball.  We have the world's most powerful and capable military but we want quick victories with few casualties so we can get home as and back to Facebook/Twitter.  We constantly change our goals, shift our expectations and completely revamp our strategy as often as we change a roll of toilet paper.  Our adversaries may adjust their approach for the current environment but ultimately, they play chess while we play checkers.  China wants Taiwan and has been steadily marching towards that goal since they lost it shortly after WW II.  Scholars have openly noted they were employing a 100-year strategy towards reunification.  Our tragic flaw has manifest in every conflict since WW II. How many times did we change our Afghanistan strategy (if we ever had one), finally signally to the Taliban (and every other threat), if you wait, we will tire and go home.

I think my theory is easily proven when looking at the situation with Ukraine.  When the former Soviet Union collapsed and the wall fell, we went to great lengths to sway Ukraine in hopes they would lean to the west.  At the time they had a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons which WE convinced them to destroy in return for a paper promise that we would provide security.  While we did not offer full-fledged NATO membership, we certainly led them to believe we would be there when they needed us.  Flash forward to 2014 when Russia invaded the Crimea and what did we do?  Barack Obama suggested that defending Ukraine against Russia wasn’t a core U.S. national-security concern…sorry you gave up your nukes, you are on your own.  Obama and his minions finally provided aid, but it was all humanitarian.  In total since 2014 we have provided $1.6B in aide but we have mostly stood by and watched them struggle.  That strategy came to full fruition in 2017 when Ukraine was forces to sign the annexation of the Crimea to Russia.  The Trump administration did change the game in some regards when they agreed to give Ukraine lethal “defensive aide.”  Philosophically I wonder, would Ukraine still have the Crimea if Ukraine still had their nukes? 

Putin immediately tested Biden when he took office, the buildup of troops and equipment along the border has taken time.  The fiasco in Afghanistan sent a very clear commitment about our resolve.  If Putin does move against Ukraine, you can bet your paycheck that will signal China to speed the clock against Taiwan.

As far as COAs, there are only a few and the only palatable one I can see would be to act now at N minus to bolster Ukraine and deter Putin.  It is one thing to give Ukraine more lethal aide, it is another to place U.S. forces in Ukraine.  Perhaps a game of chicken but it would drastically complicate Putin’s calculus.  Barring that COA we will likely melt like butter and Russia will steamroll Ukraine.

 

 

 

 

 

  I partially agree with your assessment of our inability to play the long game; Russia and China tend to do it better than we do, especially lately.  I think the truth is more nuanced.  We still maintain a military presence and are committed to Korea's defense almost 70 years since the armistice, we've also been heavily involved in Colombia's internal defense for going on 50 years.  Those are just two examples outside of Japan and NATO that we've actually stuck to post-WWII.  There's probably others but I'd have to research that more.  I think the greater strategic blunder we've made since the early '90s has been falsely assuming that Russia and China want what we want, and given enough exposure to the liberal international system would want to play by the rules.  This is and has always been patently incorrect

  I've often wondered how things in Ukraine would've turned out had not persuaded them to give up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the fall of the USSR.  In our rush to ensure non-proliferation we ignored some pretty obvious geographic/military realities regarding conventional warfare in that area of the world.  I don't know that Ukraine having nukes would have ultimately made the current crisis better, but I firmly believe it wouldn't have made it worse.  I'm also a believer that the possession of nuclear weapons actually decreases the possibility for large scale conflict in some ways, but that's a discussion for another thread.

  I don't believe that any US administration has handled US foreign policy and crises in that area of the world very well.  Clinton did nothing when the Russians literally flattened Chechnya in '99.  Bush did nothing when the Russian's invaded Georgia in '08.  Obama did nothing in '14 about Crimea as mentioned above.  Trump providing lethal aid in the form of Javelin's was somewhat different, but mostly symbolic.  One of the provisions of the Javelin transfer was that they had to be stored in warehouses hundreds of miles away from the frontline with Russian back separatists and Russia itself (similar to what we did recently with the Kurds).

  As to the COA of putting US forces in the Ukraine, I think that would have to be handled extremely carefully.  Putting something that could actually impact a Russian invasion there, like an ABCT or armored division, would probably send the Russians right over the edge/trip their red lines and maybe force a conflict.  In their defense, looking at through their eyes, I maybe wouldn't blame them.  If all of the sudden Mexico became an ally of Russia and Russia deployed a BTG on our border, we'd lose our shit.

  Maybe conducting a large scale, no notice SOF exercise focusing on asymmetric/guerilla warfare?  Puts boots on the ground and also is something the Russians historically associate with bad memories and lots of casualties.  Or maybe a DFE of 5th gen in country with bombers to another NATO country?  We still hold an advantage there and would remind Mr. Putin that there's no certainty in conflict.  As you said, not a lot of great COAs to choose from though.      

[Clark Griswold]

Like it or not, Ukraine while not a member of NATO would be considered a capitulation as it has become an ally of the West and particularly the US.  

Finland is not a NATO member and Russia has threatened and intimated them in recent history, if they attacked and we did not thing it would be interpreted as cowardice encouraging further aggression.  Treaty and formal alliances are important but everyone knows the score and where the lines of the Western, Free, Developed world exist, allowing the eastern autocracies to aggress with no answer is just about the same as an attack on formal alliances.

Not defending them as they are not a member of NATO but saying that because of that we did not defend them while the bear attacks them seems quibblish and unbecoming... I didn't help that lady as that 250lb dude was attacking her as she was not my wife... I'm not a warmonger nor a monster seeker looking for new adventures for the US to get into but when it is obvious the winds of war are gathering and that our role that we have told others we play in the world would call for us to act then we should, if not stop telling others we are the beacon of liberty and the defender of freedom.  If that is true, then stop offering false hope and poorly placed faith in us, it's a shitty thing to do.  Admit your just like every other nation and go about our business, the truth may not be pretty but at least it avoids the stench of lies.

If we choose to act, call together the allies we have that are reliable and go into the fray with us routinely. Don't waste time trying to get those who can and should fight but won't, bureaucracies and diplomatic bullshit will waste precious time as the initial fight starts and they will delay to give the Russians time to get so far west that they will hide behind the excuse of the fight is over so let's not bother with it.  Don't call on NATO, it's a self-licking ice cream cone system now mostly concerned with the preservation of the institution.

Go big, go strong and don't try to out finesse this.  Intimidate and be ready to cut loose with everything just short of a nuke, communicate to the Russians that we consider the use of tactical nukes as an attack by the Russian Federation upon the United States requiring a retaliatory response, if this comes to fisticuffs then we settle it with conventional weapons only, if you use a nuke, you will regret it.

Anyway, armchair general analysis and recommendation:

- Declare an international crisis forming simultaneously with a national security threat on our southern border.

4 theaters in crisis requiring multi-year, coordinated, coherent response:

Ukraine-Baltics / Straits of Hormuz / Taiwan / Southern US border

Immediately deploy 50,000 boots to Ukraine, tell NATO members to deploy 50,000 troops now or we leave NATO, privately of course, if they balk, do it and begin immediate redeployment from their countries and send any members in training or on exchange tours home.  We're serious, no more of this.

- Use what we have now but come up with an 18 month plan of action to get the whole of DoD pointed to the new heading.

- Call for an increase in end strength of 35%, immediate reform to statutory, policy requirements to get more tooth and less tail.

- Activation of Guard units as required, 2 year call ups.  

- Call Congressmen standing in the way of modernization and divestment of legacy capes, make a Faustian bargain to swap missions/equipment not needed for missions/equipment needed perhaps in quantifies or redundancies not necessary but necessary to get the new gear, people and training.  We may need only X of the new F-69 but we're gonna buy X+75 to make Congressman Porkchop happy so he'll get the bills moving. 

- Others ideas not likely to ever get done but be bold and decisive, not holding breath....

Edited December 3, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[brickhistory]

You're new here, right?

 

 

 

Not being a dcik.  Some bold ideas.  But then there's DC which is the opposite.