Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[DirkDiggler]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Read this a day ago, she's not pulling any punches.  It's time to push back on him.

As to what to do not whether or not to do it, training and equipping Ukrainian forces for guerilla / insurgency replete with the tool and versed in their tactics might give the Russians pause.  Keep the conventional support coming but start getting ready for Red Dawn.  Mines, IEDs, weapons caches, etc..

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/guerrilla-tactics-offer-ukraines-best-chance-against-putins-invasion-force/

I'm starting drift towards her viewpoint (was honestly on the fence for a while, wasn't sure what I thought of the situation).  Putin's list of demands for this latest round of "negotiations" read like something from the late 19th century, or maybe 1938-39.  Either way most of those demands are non-starters.  At a minimum, in addition to what you mentioned above, I think we should start providing additional heavy conventional armaments to Poland and the Baltic states.  Army has reactivated its European long range artillery unit I believe.  Maybe its time to station an armored division or two in Poland permanently as well.  F-35s to Romania.  Reactivate a NATO led Baltic Sea flotilla formed around small SAGs.  I'm sure there's reasons why all this is a bad idea but letting Putin reestablish a new Russian empire at the expense of our allies and at least a semblance of the international order is horseshit. 

[Lord Ratner]

On 12/7/2021 at 12:14 AM, Prozac said:

There are other ways to thwart Russian aggression aside from committing American combat troops. I’’m sure the Ukrainians could become quite adept at using Apaches, Abrams’, F-16s, and any number of Western weapons platforms. US/NATO intelligence would also be a force multiplier. So would covert cyber ops/information warfare. We can make things pretty complicated for Putin without fighting him directly. 

Just give the Ukrainians whatever they need to destroy the Russian pipeline that crosses their land, and commit to seizing the Nord Stream pipeline should the sovereignty of Ukraine be violated. Problem solved.

 

The problem isn't *how* to deal with Russia, the problem is will power. The American Left has been dedicated to the intentional diminishment of American influence for over a decade now, because they view power as synonymous with tyranny. The rise in tensions with China and Russia are in direct conflict with their foundational philosophy that American power asymmetry is the *cause* of international turmoil. So they'll double down and (fail to) resolve the conflict by further reducing our power footprint. 

 

The left has been so busy rewriting history that they have completely forgotten it. In their minds, these aggressions are the product of American exceptionalism. Using our power to constrain Russia would, in their mind, just cause further aggression. 

[DirkDiggler]

Pretty comprehensive analysis of the Ukraine crisis with some good recommendations going forward.

 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-possible-invasion-ukraine

 

[bfargin]

This seems as bad as the frogs during/after Desert Storm, making us fly around their airspace going to and from the UK.

 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftrib.al%2Fy0m6ImN%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0gzNjC0gURtyACR-hPUX6iYgRFXMrosbs3jZnLnksrcYVuCpsSXRWsUvk&h=AT2Qhqo47o35CuUABo1KsNd78N2q5TEB5sMKcCUSRFlh8ocau2apWj-yVGnH9F-YgLmDxumLVqk4NJ5Y1-Vh-WRF3Y83wHvbgywHX_k3nBiQO1zoEzvaWOSkko_KjtAcWai3nPI&__tn__=H-R&c[0]=AT0ZMkh8bE9MUfTFbZiEzmYyuJPja-UhnxkV0Zw3J5GJ2bgyIRiecv9boQpdxubc-EkJ0nxULP_wO-KG_xMmN9m99bzaclAjVqlKltWw6Rch4uyUYnG-k03TrNPruVSs3NhxwcpNeFu4tVZ6SxVpNIgnhjV1bQQUPYyz4CuC8-kDh13UlER_wDxRb-04mCk6ZXWJl2cMwiV1NQ

[DirkDiggler]

21 minutes ago, bfargin said:

This seems as bad as the frogs during/after Desert Storm, making us fly around their airspace going to and from the UK.

 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftrib.al%2Fy0m6ImN%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0gzNjC0gURtyACR-hPUX6iYgRFXMrosbs3jZnLnksrcYVuCpsSXRWsUvk&h=AT2Qhqo47o35CuUABo1KsNd78N2q5TEB5sMKcCUSRFlh8ocau2apWj-yVGnH9F-YgLmDxumLVqk4NJ5Y1-Vh-WRF3Y83wHvbgywHX_k3nBiQO1zoEzvaWOSkko_KjtAcWai3nPI&__tn__=H-R&c[0]=AT0ZMkh8bE9MUfTFbZiEzmYyuJPja-UhnxkV0Zw3J5GJ2bgyIRiecv9boQpdxubc-EkJ0nxULP_wO-KG_xMmN9m99bzaclAjVqlKltWw6Rch4uyUYnG-k03TrNPruVSs3NhxwcpNeFu4tVZ6SxVpNIgnhjV1bQQUPYyz4CuC8-kDh13UlER_wDxRb-04mCk6ZXWJl2cMwiV1NQ

My guess (speculating) is that this was intentional on NATO's part.  It would be very easy for the Russians to use something like allowing overflight of weapons by the German government as justification/pretext of "Ukraine is sliding further toward neo-nazism (something they've already been hyping to the Russian population), NATO is getting ready to invade, remember what the Germans did in WWII and they're coming again, etc" type stuff.  Better for us on the information warfare front left of bang for the Brits to do what they did.  

[bfargin]

That makes sense Dirk. It just hit me wrong when I saw it and flashed back to 1990/91 with desert shield and storm.

[HeloDude]

Finally some good news!  Looks like there’s very little support for large military action against Russia if/when they invade Ukraine (again).
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fewer-than-1-in-6-americans-want-us-soldiers-in-any-ukraine-russia-war-poll/ar-AAT0EBu

As I’ve said in the past, Putin is not going to be dissuaded if he plans to invade—it’s his for the taking if he wants to expend the resources to do so since I would see very little (if any) military response from NATO/European nations.  
 

In other news, we recently bought my son the book “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” (he loves it by the way).  

[Prozac]

13 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Finally some good news!  Looks like there’s very little support for large military action against Russia if/when they invade Ukraine (again).
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fewer-than-1-in-6-americans-want-us-soldiers-in-any-ukraine-russia-war-poll/ar-AAT0EBu

As I’ve said in the past, Putin is not going to be dissuaded if he plans to invade—it’s his for the taking if he wants to expend the resources to do so since I would see very little (if any) military response from NATO/European nations.  
 

In other news, we recently bought my son the book “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” (he loves it by the way).  

If Putin is allowed to invade Ukraine without repercussion do you think he’ll stop there? He will be emboldened and the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, etc, will all be in his crosshairs. What happens when he decides to attack a NATO member, thinking the alliance is too weak to respond? I’m not saying I support a direct NATO response wrt Ukraine, but sanctions, strong military support, and a more aggressive NATO posture in Eastern Europe should be the minimum response. Letting a tyrant run amok on the European continent has never worked out for anyone. 

[1:1:1]

What if the European continent spent > 2% of GDP on defense and therefore presented a credible deterrent? Are What Ifs open?

[Clark Griswold]

24 minutes ago, 1:1:1 said:

What if the European continent spent > 2% of GDP on defense and therefore presented a credible deterrent? Are What Ifs open?

But they would have to be willing to use it, methinks they don't want Ukraine to be assimilated by the Russian Borg but are not going to do anything kinetic or material if they are attacked

Not throwing spears but I doubt the NATO members of Western Europe would put blood and treasure on the line for Ukraine, a non-treaty ally.  Now Central and Eastern Europe might as they know where this train ends if they let it get out of the station.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Clark Griswold

[HeloDude]

32 minutes ago, Prozac said:

If Putin is allowed to invade Ukraine without repercussion do you think he’ll stop there? He will be emboldened and the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, etc, will all be in his crosshairs. What happens when he decides to attack a NATO member, thinking the alliance is too weak to respond? I’m not saying I support a direct NATO response wrt Ukraine, but sanctions, strong military support, and a more aggressive NATO posture in Eastern Europe should be the minimum response. Letting a tyrant run amok on the European continent has never worked out for anyone. 

Define “strong military support”?

One of the reasons Putin is emboldened is because when he last invaded Ukraine, very little was done in response.  If European countries want to fight Russia militarily, then they should go for it…I seriously doubt they will, and Putin knows this.  As for the US, I definitely don’t support military action against Russia…we need to give the war thing a rest for a while unless we’re actually attacked.  Sanctions?  Sure, I guess?  But Germany wants their fossil fuels from Russia, so how strong will the sanctions be?  So no, I don’t think Russia invading is a good thing, but let Europe do something about it.

But as a direct question back to you: Do you actually think European nations will go to war with Russia if the US is not involved?  Do you think you can militarily drive Russia out of Ukraine without attacking Russia itself? 
 

Putin has the upper hand in this whole thing…and after our horrible pull out from Afghanistan and Biden’s terrible press conference on Wednesday, Putin is even more emboldened.  I am hopeful that this somehow gets resolved with Putin invading, but unlike Obama, I’m don’t think hope is a useful strategy. 

[1:1:1]

2 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

But they would have to be willing to use it, methinks they don't want Ukraine to be assimilated by the Russian Borg but are not going to do anything kinetic or material if they are attacked

Not throwing spears but I double the NATO members of Western Europe would put blood and treasure on the line for Ukraine, a non-treaty ally.  Now Central and Eastern Europe might as they know where this train ends if they let it get out of the station.

Fair enough, but as far as I can tell the average American shouldn't want to spend blood and treasure on Ukraine any more than the average German. With that in mind, it seems like the disposition of eastern Europe would mean a lot more to the Germans and Italians than it does to someone who won't leave America once in their life. 

Yet we accept this sort of apathy from the largest countries in Europe because we don't want to make waves in the classic Cold War alliances.

[Clark Griswold]

16 minutes ago, 1:1:1 said:

Fair enough, but as far as I can tell the average American shouldn't want to spend blood and treasure on Ukraine any more than the average German. With that in mind, it seems like the disposition of eastern Europe would mean a lot more to the Germans and Italians than it does to someone who won't leave America once in their life. 

Yet we accept this sort of apathy from the largest countries in Europe because we don't want to make waves in the classic Cold War alliances.

Can't argue with you on those points, this is a pickle

Not a treaty ally but we made assurances 25+ years ago to get them to de-nuclearize to get to what we thought would be a better post Soviet arrangement, don't really have direct interests in their nation but at a very high level strategically / globally allowing them to be overrun undermines the semi-fair and basically decent rules based order that America has led for decades with every alternative to this order worse.

This should light a fire under the asses of the planning and strategy 20-lb brains in the Puzzle Palace to develop capes, systems, training and relationships with nations at the periphery of our influence and inside the threat rings of our enemies

I know there are some systems and support we can share now and are but as we are going into the turbulent 20's, we need to rapidly field systems that are affordable, attrittable with a level of technology that we are not overly concerned with being compromised.  Likely unmanned in some cases, designed to be mainly operated by allies and partners to deter aggression and/or suppress constant needling aggression against them.

Vaporware UCAV from Deal of the Century would be an example:

No LO, weapons truck, unmanned, zero length launch capable, etc... launch it, they direct.it or we surreptitiously direct it and have a cape that raises the cost of aggression without the footprint that our current forces/systems bring

[1:1:1]

4 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Can't argue with you on those points, this is a pickle

Not a treaty ally but we made assurances 25+ years ago to get them to de-nuclearize to get to what we thought would be a better post Soviet arrangement, don't really have direct interests in their nation but at a very high level strategically / globally allowing them to be overrun undermines the semi-fair and basically decent rules based order that America has led for decades with every alternative to this order worse.

This should light a fire under the asses of the planning and strategy 20-lb brains in the Puzzle Palace to develop capes, systems, training and relationships with nations at the periphery of our influence and inside the threat rings of our enemies

I know there are some systems and support we can share now and are but as we are going into the turbulent 20's, we need to rapidly field systems that are affordable, attrittable with a level of technology that we are not overly concerned with being compromised.  Likely unmanned in some cases, designed to be mainly operated by allies and partners to deter aggression and/or suppress constant needling aggression against them.

Vaporware UCAV from Deal of the Century would be an example:

No LO, weapons truck, unmanned, zero length launch capable, etc... launch it, they direct.it or we surreptitiously direct it and have a cape that raises the cost of aggression without the footprint that our current forces/systems bring

I agree there's plenty more we can do. I also think our standing in the world and the future of free nations that cannot defend themselves are hurt by our inaction. I suppose I'm just expressing my frustration that time after time we shoulder that burden more or less alone.

[Clark Griswold]

I agree there's plenty more we can do. I also think our standing in the world and the future of free nations that cannot defend themselves are hurt by our inaction. I suppose I'm just expressing my frustration that time after time we shoulder that burden more or less alone.

Concur
I’m frustrated by free riders enjoying the benefits of a world not wholly ruled by might where the weaker have rights that are mostly respected but it’s the world we live in and our leadership class seems willing to tolerate it so here we are


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

Here are three lessons from AFG we should be smart enough to apply in UKR:

1. We should not attempt fighting a battle for those who don’t care enough to fight it themselves.  The idea Prozac expressed, that we must stop tyranny here before it spreads everywhere, is undercut by the unwillingness of Europe to defend itself. If Germany isn’t worried about Russia threatening them, why are we?  We aren’t isolationists; if Europe is banding together against an aggressive Russia I’m in.  But the situation looks like we’re overly aggressive defending a continent who is apathetic about our noble notions.  We should be smarter.  Do not fight a war for Europe that Europe won’t fight itself.  
 

2.  This one is tough to articulate: There are boundaries that if adversaries cross we should fight. But we should not artificially move those boundaries, then fight over artificially made boundaries.  In AFG we said “AQ attacked us, we have to crush them & their ability to do it again.”  Yup, 100% right.  I spent my adult life doing it.  But then we foolishly transitioned into “we must spread democracy here, as a strategic hedge against AQ ever growing again .  Now we’ll stay for decades forcing democracy.”  Fighting to prop up GIRoA was dumb, even GIRoA didn’t believe in itself.  We should have left after smashing the enemy, let grow whatever political system worked for the Afghans, and come back to smash them again if required.  With Ukraine, the line we cannot allow to be crossed is a NATO member being attacked.  “If they attack UKR they’ll attack Poland!”  Maybe, we don’t know. But if that’s the case, we should fight when they attack Poland (Article 5), not at an artificially made assumption before the one we actually care about.  It is hubris to assume you know what the future holds. 

3. We should not commit troops to war unless our nation actually wants it and we authorize it correctly through Congress.  This thing we’ve all done for the last 20 years was stupid, unpopular, devastating to our national credibility, national debt, and the lives of service members. And ultimately we gained nothing from it. Now the same people are telling us we have to do something similar in Ukraine, and we should trust them. But our countrymen don’t want it, so it will fail.  
 

In light of these three items, we should be clear eyed about our prospects for success on this misadventure in Ukraine.  And although this final item might seem political, it is relevant: given the obvious and massive corrupt political connections between our presidents family and Ukrainian oligarchs, can any of us trust that the information we are receiving about the situation is correct?
 

 

[DirkDiggler]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/22/us-in-talks-with-qatar-over-supplying-lng-to-eu-reports

 

  If Russia's leverage over the EU's energy security is much diminished, the calculus for could change for Mr. Putin.  Russia's economy is heavily reliant on the petroleum sector; sharply diminished exports, isolation from the SWIFT system, and cutting off Russia's largest banks from the Western market would make for an extremely turbulent and difficult time in Russia.  This would be further exacerbated if a Russian invasion of Ukraine bogs down and/or is beset with heavy casualties.  

  History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme.  The Russia civil war happened only 100 years ago and while the political and military situation is very different, there are some parallels.  If a Ukrainian invasion goes poorly, or ends in a brutal stalemate disaffecting the Russian people, and more importantly, the military, things could get tense in Russia.

  The ultimate irony of this is that while Russia (really Putin) plays the long game quite well in many instances, an all-out invasion of Ukraine will probably have an opposite effect of what he's trying gain (security and spheres of influence).  Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic could conceivably start rapid military buildups/rearmament programs (Poland is already there in some respects).  The have recent memories of what its like being under the Russian thumb.  The Baltic States already contribute more than the obligatory 2% NATO requires on defense (a fact my Estonian friend was always very proud of); a further increase would be very likely as would an increase in invasion preparations like arms stockpiling for guerilla warfare, mining of LOCs, fortifications etc.  Sweden and Finland would very likely apply for NATO membership.  Even some of the Western European states might start an arms buildup (I see this as less likely for some though).  BLUF is that for as strong as Russia is in some respects, they're far from invincible and actually quite vulnerable in many aspects.  Russia has few allies and the ones it does have either aren't strong and/or don't trust Putin much more than we do (see Belarus and several of the Stans).  Russia's military, while its made some significant advances in the last 15 years, isn't the Soviet military juggernaut of 1945 or 1980.  

  M2's Baseops signature block still holds some truth today.   

[BashiChuni]

39 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Here are three lessons from AFG we should be smart enough to apply in UKR:

1. We should not attempt fighting a battle for those who don’t care enough to fight it themselves.  The idea Prozac expressed, that we must stop tyranny here before it spreads everywhere, is undercut by the unwillingness of Europe to defend itself. If Germany isn’t worried about Russia threatening them, why are we?  We aren’t isolationists; if Europe is banding together against an aggressive Russia I’m in.  But the situation looks like we’re overly aggressive defending a continent who is apathetic about our noble notions.  We should be smarter.  Do not fight a war for Europe that Europe won’t fight itself.  
 

2.  This one is tough to articulate: There are boundaries that if adversaries cross we should fight. But we should not artificially move those boundaries, then fight over artificially made boundaries.  In AFG we said “AQ attacked us, we have to crush them & their ability to do it again.”  Yup, 100% right.  I spent my adult life doing it.  But then we foolishly transitioned into “we must spread democracy here, as a strategic hedge against AQ ever growing again .  Now we’ll stay for decades forcing democracy.”  Fighting to prop up GIRoA was dumb, even GIRoA didn’t believe in itself.  We should have left after smashing the enemy, let grow whatever political system worked for the Afghans, and come back to smash them again if required.  With Ukraine, the line we cannot allow to be crossed is a NATO member being attacked.  “If they attack UKR they’ll attack Poland!”  Maybe, we don’t know. But if that’s the case, we should fight when they attack Poland (Article 5), not at an artificially made assumption before the one we actually care about.  It is hubris to assume you know what the future holds. 

3. We should not commit troops to war unless our nation actually wants it and we authorize it correctly through Congress.  This thing we’ve all done for the last 20 years was stupid, unpopular, devastating to our national credibility, national debt, and the lives of service members. And ultimately we gained nothing from it. Now the same people are telling us we have to do something similar in Ukraine, and we should trust them. But our countrymen don’t want it, so it will fail.  
 

In light of these three items, we should be clear eyed about our prospects for success on this misadventure in Ukraine.  And although this final item might seem political, it is relevant: given the obvious and massive corrupt political connections between our presidents family and Ukrainian oligarchs, can any of us trust that the information we are receiving about the situation is correct?
 

 

great post. i wanna add #4.

4. If we commit...we commit. No bull shit ROE. Total war, gloves off, unleash the devils to annihilate the enemy. Annihilate. Not win hearts and minds. Total devastation and destruction of the enemy. I think Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 (not finishing the job all the way to Baghdad), and the GWOT have taught us that "police actions/limited wars" are not successful endeavors. If we fight we fight to win with 100% of our effort.

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, BashiChuni said:

great post. i wanna add #4.

4. If we commit...we commit. No bull shit ROE. Total war, gloves off, unleash the devils to annihilate the enemy. Annihilate. Not win hearts and minds. Total devastation and destruction of the enemy. I think Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 (not finishing the job all the way to Baghdad), and the GWOT have taught us that "police actions/limited wars" are not successful endeavors. If we fight we fight to win with 100% of our effort.

An all out war with Russia for invading Ukraine?!  That’s a good one!

[tac airlifter]

Bashi— on your #4, Agree 100%.  Not sure how many people, even in the military, have the appetite for what you’re talking about or even understand it.  Weak leaders have tried to breed it out of us, but a willingness and desire to commit ultimate violence against other humans is a healthy thing for warriors to embrace.  Instead they’re trying to make gunship pilots feel sad for the bodies they’ve smeared on mountainsides.

a topic best discussed around a fire pit with bourbon & bros you trust. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by tac airlifter

[tac airlifter]

13 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

An all out war with Russia for invading Ukraine?!  That’s a good one!

He’s saying if we attempt war again (which we should t on this issue for reasons above), we should have learned from AFG the dangers of fighting an enemy with self imposed ROE limitations.

[Negatory]

Whether you like it or not, ROE lims will exist. Bet we aren’t gonna be allowed to use tactical nukes unless very specific circumstances are met. And I bet most of us are fine with that.

If anything, those wars you listed should have taught us that military action alone is incapable of solving complex geopolitical disagreements effectively. We have basically lost, from a national objectives standpoint, nearly every single kinetic war since WWII. Our greatest success was likely the Cold War, which ironically effectively used diplomacy, information, and economic warfare successfully, but almost no direct military response.

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Negatory

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

An all out war with Russia for invading Ukraine?!  That’s a good one!

which is why i wouldn't fight them. I'm saying the next time we decide to fight, its fight to win.

that calculus would help prevent mindless half hearted, "endless" wars.

but if russia does decide to attack NATO, and we decide to fight back, its all out.

Edited January 22, 2022 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

16 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Whether you like it or not, ROE lims will exist. Bet we aren’t gonna be allowed to use tactical nukes unless very specific circumstances are met. And I bet most of us are fine with that.

If anything, those wars you listed should have taught us that military action alone is incapable of solving complex geopolitical disagreements effectively. We have basically lost, from a national objectives standpoint, nearly every single war since WWII.

good point. before going we need absolutely clear, achievable, worthwhile political objectives.

i'm having a hard time thinking back in history and finding "limited wars" that were successful. The most successful warfare is total. it's an uncomfortable thing to ponder, but the proof is in the pudding.

Edited January 22, 2022 by BashiChuni

[DirkDiggler]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

good point. before going we need absolutely clear, achievable, worthwhile political objectives.

i'm having a hard time thinking back in history and finding "limited wars" that were successful. The most successful warfare is total. it's an uncomfortable thing to ponder, but the proof is in the pudding.

  The above is not an accurate statement.

  Most wars in history have not been "total" wars ie the entire population of a state/tribe/group completely mobilized and waging war for the purpose of complete destruction or subjugation of an enemy.  Its just not that common in history statistically.  Sure, there are wars that were "total" (3rd Punic War, some of the Mongol campaigns, I'm sure there's others I can't think of off the top of my head).  The most recent example would probably be the USSR and Nazi Germany in WWII (Richard Overy's "Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort" is a great read that articulates just how total the Soviet effort in WWII was).

  There are countless (far too many to list here) examples throughout history of limited wars that permanently settled the issues that provoked the conflict. 

  The US has fought several "limited" wars that were successful.  The Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and Desert Storm are all good examples of limited US wars that were very limited in scope with successful outcomes.  The revisionist arguments about Desert Storm being an "unfinished war" ignore the original goals of the war and conflate the muddled reasoning behind the ONW and OSW efforts.  Prior to 1990, Hussein provided a useful cudgel to bleed the Iranians, and we didn't really care what he did to the Kurds and Shiites inside Iraq's borders.