Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[HeloDude]

9 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

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.

All comes down to achieving your objectives.  If you can achieve your objectives without completely destroying your enemy, then why expend the time and resources to go all out war?

The problem is that we don’t usually have clear/measurable objectives or they don’t make sense…or even worse, we don’t follow a strategy that’s in line with achieving those objectives.

Biden’s own party wouldn’t even support him getting us involved with kinetic military action against Russia to support Ukraine.  And with an unpopular President, he can’t afford to lose any of his base.  Oh, and Putin know this, too.

[BashiChuni]

Pulling out of NATO is a very intriguing idea. I’m not opposed to you there. 

[Danger41]

I genuinely think we need to get out of the military model of rotating troops home after committed to action. Don’t come home until the war is over. See how hawkish the political elites are to attempt the recent bullshit we’ve seen with that model. And also maybe the Congress could do it’s actual job WRT declaring war and/or preventing presidents from just sending military wherever for however long.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Pulling out of NATO is a very intriguing idea. I’m not opposed to you there. 

 

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Sure.  But that’s not how our political elite run things.  They love a good war/military involvement, whether it’s small (Iraq 2.5/ISIS or Libya) or not so small (Iraq/Afghanistan invasion and occupation).

It’s beyond time to pull out of NATO…which doesn’t mean that you still can’t have positive relationships with other countries when it suits our interests and provide aid when we want to.  But let’s be honest, NATO gets is power/authority from the US…not because Iceland or Slovenia is a member.  And yet we’re obligated to defend these countries if attacked, who clearly aren’t concerned with protecting themselves.  About 10+ years ago I had dinner with a buddy whose wife’s sister was married to an attorney from Iceland.  We were chatting about militaries and he said that Iceland didn’t need much of a military because NATO would always defend them.  Look at how much Iceland spends wrt their military obligation to NATO, and then tell me who is the fool?

NATO might have made sense when there was the Warsaw Pact…but now, not so much.

Once had a Dutch pilot tell me the NL was wasting money on the F-35 when all they needed was newer F-16s. I asked why he thought that and he said the F-35 was so expensive because of the stealth and EW technologies, which is only day 1 stuff for kicking in the door. He said the NL can just wait for the US to do all that and then they can come in week 3-5 and just help with bombing targets. So let me get this straight? The most dangerous and dynamic part of the air campaign to defend Europe should be handled by the US alone? Why? Infuriated me how he said it. 

2 weeks later I spoke with a Belgian pilot at another occasion. Exact same sentiment from him. Belgium was wasting money on the F-35 because Belgium shouldn't be fighting the first week of the war. 

[HeloDude]

What’s funny is that it seems socialist-type politicians in the US (like Bernie Sanders) agree with libertarian-type politicians (like Rand Paul) that we spend way too much money on military spending (we truly should stop calling “defense”).  Now what they want to do with that “left over” spending is very different.

It also baffles me that people can say that in hindsight the invasions/wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were badly ran and perhaps even a mistake all together…but then are eager to fight Russia just to help out Ukraine.  

[Prozac]

14 hours ago, HeloDude said:

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. 

To be clear, I’m in total agreement that it would be absurd for the US or NATO to directly engage Russia militarily over Ukraine. They are not a NATO member and the cost of a war with Russia is not something the US is, or should be, prepared to bare at this time. This is especially true considering the security issues we face in Asia at the moment.
 

There are ways to make the cost extremely high for Russia though. Diplomatic pressure should be applied to Germany to scrub Nord Stream. See the article Dirk posted above for alternate energy sources available to Western Europe. A Ukrainian insurgency could also be particularly effective at inflicting pain on the Russians. Their proxy forces haven’t exactly been overwhelming in Eastern Ukraine. Even the force they have on the border now would be unlikely to be able to secure the entire country. Resistance fighters could easily be supplied from Poland and Romania and be a painful thorn in Putin’s side for a long time. 

Finally, severe sanctions on Putin & his cronies, & the removal of Russia from international finance organizations could also be very effective in limiting their future abilities to threaten neighbors. 
 

There is a lot we can and should do in the case of Russian aggression, short of actual combat operations. NATO has solidified in recent years based on Russian aggression in it’s former sphere (even if the allies still have their issues) and we should take advantage of the current relative solidarity. 

[Stoker]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

 

Once had a Dutch pilot tell me the NL was wasting money on the F-35 when all they needed was newer F-16s. I asked why he thought that and he said the F-35 was so expensive because of the stealth and EW technologies, which is only day 1 stuff for kicking in the door. He said the NL can just wait for the US to do all that and then they can come in week 3-5 and just help with bombing targets. So let me get this straight? The most dangerous and dynamic part of the air campaign to defend Europe should be handled by the US alone? Why? Infuriated me how he said it. 

2 weeks later I spoke with a Belgian pilot at another occasion. Exact same sentiment from him. Belgium was wasting money on the F-35 because Belgium shouldn't be fighting the first week of the war. 

Not a crazy idea. Given how small some of the NATO members' contributions are, pretending they're a Tier 1 nation is probably wasteful. Our military has 40 times the active personnel and 100 times the reserve personnel of the Netherlands. Give the small guys a niche to fill and let them be good at that niche. Won't happen, for the same reason that Taiwan buys fighters instead of SAMs.

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Stoker said:

Not a crazy idea. Given how small some of the NATO members' contributions are, pretending they're a Tier 1 nation is probably wasteful. Our military has 40 times the active personnel and 100 times the reserve personnel of the Netherlands. Give the small guys a niche to fill and let them be good at that niche. Won't happen, for the same reason that Taiwan buys fighters instead of SAMs.

The niche they can fill is dying for their country.

[HeloDude]

It’s starting…

State Dept. Tells Families of Embassy Workers in Ukraine to Leave Starting Monday: Report

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/state-dept-tells-families-of-embassy-workers-in-ukraine-to-leave-starting-monday-report/

[HeloDude]

11 hours ago, Prozac said:

Finally, severe sanctions on Putin & his cronies, & the removal of Russia from international finance organizations could also be very effective in limiting their future abilities to threaten neighbors. 

As expected, Germany is not on board with “severe sanctions” if/when Putin invades Ukraine.  It’s not surprising…Germany is in bed with Russia when it comes to energy (why doesn’t Germany just build more windmills?).

Germany urges 'prudence' in potential sanctions against Russia over Ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/world/germany-urges-prudence-potential-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine-2022-01-23/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0LMXkakNmnSba1OhnrStAU8dTWLrxG2LMB2USUHMSYWsBXCp95Z3SQocc

But let’s be honest here, if China invaded Taiwan, do you really think the US would support “severe sanctions” against a huge trading partner?  Would you support removing China from “international finance organizations”?  We’re more in bed with China than Hef was with all of girlfriends.

I was asked by a friend on New Years for a big 2022 prediction, and I predicted that either China will invade Taiwan or Russia will invade Ukraine (again)…time will tell.

[FourFans]

Lets face it, there are two events we all don't want to happen: a military intervention of Russia invading Ukraine, and Russians directly threatening more countries.  No western nation has the stomach to stop the current (continuing) invasion, yet no one wants Russia on their own doorstep either.  It's a Catch-22.  If we (western nations) don't want to deal with an increasingly power hungry Russia tomorrow, we have to do something today...which we don't want to do.  

Long game, or short game.  Sometimes winning at one means losing at the other.  I don't have the right answer.  All I know is that America's current leadership is clearly not up to the mental and moral gymnastics needed to successfully navigate these waters to an outcome that is beneficial for our nation, not to mention beneficial for other nations and our collective future.

Edited January 23, 2022 by FourFans130

[FLEA]

9 hours ago, Stoker said:

Not a crazy idea. Given how small some of the NATO members' contributions are, pretending they're a Tier 1 nation is probably wasteful. Our military has 40 times the active personnel and 100 times the reserve personnel of the Netherlands. Give the small guys a niche to fill and let them be good at that niche. Won't happen, for the same reason that Taiwan buys fighters instead of SAMs.

How bout their niche is sustaining some losses the US would otherwise take? I don't care if it guts their defense. Sounds like a Dutch/Belgian problem not a US one. 

[uhhello]

What's a Russian invasion look like?  Surely they aren't going Chechnya style.  Ukraine is going to be decently equipped and it seems from my perception that the will of the people is to attempt to repel.  Its going to be ugly.  How long do they keep it up?

[Stoker]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The niche they can fill is dying for their country.

That's great. What's the most effective way for them to do that? Is it mirroring the entirety of a modern combined arms force, but in miniature? Or is it specializing in something?

[FLEA]

24 minutes ago, Stoker said:

That's great. What's the most effective way for them to do that? Is it mirroring the entirety of a modern combined arms force, but in miniature? Or is it specializing in something?

No they can specialize. They can specialize in night 1 SEAD, DCA, etc.... I don't care if they specialize but theyre going to specialize in the shit that cost casualties and money, not flying around uncontested and won battlespace delivering an occasional JDAM. This is their country. If they aren't willing to die for it why should I be? 

[FLEA]

Just to pivot the discussion back on topic a bit I've been studying the force rations on Global Power Index for a bit: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=ukraine&country2=russia

 

Just some surface level wag analysis shows in many areas, especially in the ground component, Ukraine has a rather adequate force ratio, presuming they are using their time now to fortify and bolster their positions. This is based off of the classical doctrine presumption of a 3-to-1 needed by Russia to avoid heavy casualties. We also have to presume Ukraine has the advantage of being able to use their total force power where Russia will only have the benefit of its south western based and active forces. Its an art not a science but if Ukraine digs in far enough they can hold out long enough to protract Russia into extended conflict, something that would be detrimental for Putin. 

Where they are severely lacking though, obviously, is air power. With the feet dragging happening in our own admin and NATO on exactly how big a commitment we will put forward, I'm starting to see this as a favorable COA to the policy dick dancers in DC who will want to make a strong military statement to show Biden is not weak but will also want to avoid the perceptions that come with extended ground combat. 

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Just to pivot the discussion back on topic a bit I've been studying the force rations on Global Power Index for a bit: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=ukraine&country2=russia

 

Just some surface level wag analysis shows in many areas, especially in the ground component, Ukraine has a rather adequate force ratio, presuming they are using their time now to fortify and bolster their positions. This is based off of the classical doctrine presumption of a 3-to-1 needed by Russia to avoid heavy casualties. We also have to presume Ukraine has the advantage of being able to use their total force power where Russia will only have the benefit of its south western based and active forces. Its an art not a science but if Ukraine digs in far enough they can hold out long enough to protract Russia into extended conflict, something that would be detrimental for Putin. 

Where they are severely lacking though, obviously, is air power. With the feet dragging happening in our own admin and NATO on exactly how big a commitment we will put forward, I'm starting to see this as a favorable COA to the policy dick dancers in DC who will want to make a strong military statement to show Biden is not weak but will also want to avoid the perceptions that come with extended ground combat. 

Good side by side analysis, hadn’t seen that website before, thanks for posting.  
Unfortunately another area where Ukraine will be severely overmatched is long range fires.  I’d hope that if this goes all out that we’ll provide Ukraine real time targeting intelligence which would help to maximize the effectiveness of Ukrainian artillery.

[Clark Griswold]

What's a Russian invasion look like?  Surely they aren't going Chechnya style.  Ukraine is going to be decently equipped and it seems from my perception that the will of the people is to attempt to repel.  Its going to be ugly.  How long do they keep it up?

False flag event with near simultaneous cyber attacks
Little green men along side separatist militias in the Donbas launching coordinated attacks supported by long range fires guided by UAV spotters
Large conventional combined arms thrust from the north to link up with advancing forces in Donbas and establishing a Line of Control either on or east of the Dneiper River
Diplomatic push to create Eastern Ukraine / New Russia and bog down the International Community while consolidating new territorial gains


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Stoker said:

That's great. What's the most effective way for them to do that? Is it mirroring the entirety of a modern combined arms force, but in miniature? Or is it specializing in something?

They have the advantage of being the closest military to their borders. Their focus should be slowing the enemy down long enough for the adults to get in position and save what's left. Every country will have a different way of doing that, but it will always be a very fatal specialty.

If they aren't willing to die for their country, we sure we hell shouldn't.

 

[Prosuper]

If it comes to locking horns with Putin, this will not just be in the Ukraine. What side deals did Putin make with China, will the Russian Pacific fleet support Xi's Navy on an invasion of Taiwan? How many troops families are we willing to send a flag and purple heart to? Don't have much faith in the American people to support this especially with the leadership team voted in and installed. Will true warriors emerge and take charge and be violent and merciless enough to end this nonsense?  It's amazing when your young you want this but after a long career you bang your head against the wall to think the human race is so stupid.

[Blue]

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-warns-russia-that-if-they-invade-ukraine-america-will-evacuate-haphazardly-and-leave-86-billion-of-weapons-behind

[NKAWTG]

Was the no show job Hunter had in Ukraine from the pro Russian side or the pro Ukrainian side?  Just curious which side we're on when the marker is called in.  

[GrndPndr]

2 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

Was the no show job Hunter had in Ukraine from the pro Russian side or the pro Ukrainian side?  Just curious which side we're on when the marker is called in.  

Good question!  In any event, I propose that Hunter B. is appointed as Ambassador to Ukraine.  Or one could make him a regional ambassador, you know of that whole area.  He's been there before and knows one or two of the words they speak.  Plus... Payday!

[DirkDiggler]

Interesting article from CSIS on pipelines that supply Russian gas to Europe.

 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/can-european-energy-cope-conflict-ukraine

[pbar]

Somebody probably said this on here already, but why the hell are the Washington elite (from both parties) so worried about Ukraine's borders but don't give a rat's ass about our southern border?