Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[tac airlifter]

26 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Was actually very effective in Iran and N. Korea. nK even more so because sanctions were backed by a UNSCR. 

Seeing as how both locations are decisively NOT resolved in our favor, I’ll disagree.  None of the sanctions have caused the populace to rise up.  They just suffer.  I do not think this COA is wise. 

[ecugringo]

6 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Isn't it different tho, because it was foreigners on German and Japanese territory. Those soldiers and civilians (thought) they were defending their homes, which is why they fought to the death. The Ukranian's are the ones defending their homes, and they are the ones who are probably only going to fight harder.

Nobody is pushing for Ukrainians to advance into Russian territory and rule Russia. Just for them to leave Ukraine, which Putin could do with a phone call but won't because of his massive ego.  He could end it all right now. 

It is different but.....If Putin goes home he's done.  He cant just hang a Uey and pretend nothing happened.  And then what?  You get a global friendly Russia?  Or Putin 2.0?  I just feel like hes going to double down and go all in.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Have all the sanctions you want.  I love the ones targeting their elite.  But celebrating bread lines?  Do you think that will make people hate the dictator or hate us?

I know it’s an unpopular opinion.  But I’m uninterested in hurting civilians.  I don’t think it will be effective and I don’t think it’s a good look.  

What sanctions do you think would target only the elites?

[FLEA]

Just now, tac airlifter said:

Seeing as how both locations are decisively NOT resolved in our favor, I’ll disagree.  None of the sanctions have caused the populace to rise up.  They just suffer.  I do not think this COA is wise. 

Ok, Ill explain nK because I know this one a lot better. I've also realized a lot of confusion on what sanctions are, how they are enforced, and what we can and cant do with them. Im by no means an expert but I do have a decent grasp on some of this. 

Sanctions can generally be unilateral, or cooperative. The strongest sanctions are cooperative sanctions backed by a UNSCR. This is the case of nK. The reason the UNSCR is important is because it gives the UN the authority to appoint a military commander to enforce the sanctions using military force. In the case of nK, the USINDOPACOM commander is the UNSCR commander and is authorized under the UN to enforce maritime trade against nK. 

North Korea, operates a rice economy. In short, farm crops are traded for commodities more routinely than fiat currency. Under KJI, there was a massive military buildup through the 90s until his death. Specific of note he passed an ordinance through the party cabinet that allowed military commanders the authority to sequester a farmer's crops to feed their battalion. The problem is, this led to corruption, because more often than not, commanders were taking the crops to use as currency and not to feed the battalion. Obviously this caused a lot of starvation. 

When KJU came to power, there were questions about his legitimacy, as it is with any ascension to power in a monarchy (or dictatorship, its not clear what nK is right now). This led KJU to consolidate power by purging but he also realized his father was deeply unpopular with the military and with the working class due to the mass hunger. So KJU led a massive expansion of internal economic expansion and gutted the military. The ONLY military capital he continued growth investment in was his nuclear and SOF forces. This was because DPRK probably assessed they can no longer win a conventional war against sK, even without US support. Therefore, asymmetric capabilities as deterrence became their only option. 

To fuel this growth faster, KJU sought to bring an end to to the war by finally signing peace accords and permanently ending the UN mission to the Korean peninsula. (Different UN mission, this is the 1950's UN mission to maintain the armistice) This would have had major geopolitical effects on the peninsula, but in short he assessed he could further divest his military into the economy if he needed to. And its what brought nK to the talking table, in and of itself a major step. 

The reason the peace talks failed is because nK was insistent that they maintain some nuclear capability because it was their country's only form of defense after gutting their forces. However, this is basically a red line for the US because as one of five benefactors of the NPT, we do not what other country's having nukes. We also we uncertain what allowing nK to continue to hold nuclear weapons would mean for other NPT signers who were not party to the talks. 

That said, there is still hope. nK has temporarily withdrawn but their internal economic policies seem to still be in place. 

 

 

 

Iran is a bit of a different story and I'm less smart on it. Iran was cooperative sanctions that were not backed by a UNSCR. So we relied on the participation of Germany, France the UK and a few other European traders to enforce the sanctions. This arrangement did work and also brought Iran to the talking table. Whether the agreement was good or not is immaterial now because it was simply the best agreement we were going to get. Withdrawing, in my opinion, was a massive mistake. The reason is because Europe largely supported the agreement and they were reluctant partners on the sanctions to begin with. So when we withdrew, the sanctions became unilateral and became near useless. Because of that, when we returned during this administration to the talking table, our bargaining leverage was extremely low. It is being reported by media that Iran is likely going to get away with a steal in this next agreement. I would say its shortsighted to say Iran didn't go our way though because it did go our way and then we withdrew from it. 

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I think it’s a terrible idea to hurt Russia’s economy and their people just because we don’t like what Putin is doing.  Mass punishment doesn’t work on me or you or anyone. Human beings hate that shit.
 

i’m not sure what specific military effect we want to achieve by turning off some grandmother‘s credit card, or what we expect Russian civilians to do, but I’m not going to chuckle at starving civilians standing in food lines. They are innocent.

It's not necessarily about punishment per se. Though it will be punishing, to be sure. It has multi-pronged effects that are more important. Namely, no one in Russia will be able to avoid figuring out WTF is going on since their money is now worth less than shit. It will cause their government many problems at home. It will limit the ability of the Russian military to make war, because as we all know, it's not lift and thrust that makes airplanes fly, it's money. It will cause massive rift within the Russian power brokerage. It will amplify distrust of the government. It will sow doubt among those who actually trust Putin. It will diminish their future ability to modernize their war machine. In short, it will do all manner of objectively good things.

So yeah, sorry your average Ivan is getting it in the pants, but when you compare that to what's happening to your average Ukrainian, that pain inflicted against the Russian populace is meaningless. Fuck 'em.

[DirkDiggler]

55 minutes ago, ecugringo said:

Didnt Iraq have sanctions in the 90's that the UN estimated was responsible for over 500k dead mostly children?

You think in WW2 the allies wanted unconditional surrender.  That made the Germans and Japanese only fight on harder.  More people died in the last year of hte war than all the previous combined.

I dont know what the solution is but backing Putin in a corner could be dangerous.  If he loses in Ukraine more of Russia will break away and he will lose more resources. Mostly the oil around the Caspian Sea which is vast.  He will lose out on the revenue from transportation of crude as well.  Even China could become aggressive in Russia's east.

They can be starved out through sanctions but I think that will only draw more internal support for Putin.

Putin can also show his neighbors that if you go against him he will exhaust all resources to burn you down like Ukraine.  Maybe that is his path to victory and create a new economic zone with his neighboring allies and China?  If he can take Ukraine he will have a stable food source and can influence the global food market.

Also, I guess we're buying Crude from Venezuela now...Good job Brandon!

 

The bold above is historically incorrect.  Unconditional surrender was agreed upon by the Allies at the Casablanca conference for multiple reasons, the most important of which were convincing Stalin that the US/UK wouldn't negotiate a separate peace with Hitler, preventing Germany from a repeat of WWI non-military defeat claims, and the destruction of Germany/Japanese ideologies.  There's no consensus or firm historical evidence that the unconditional surrender requirement made either Germany or Japan fight harder; in any case no negotiated settlement would have been possible given the National Socialist genocide in the USSR and the Holocaust, and the Japanese war crimes across China and the Pacific (not to mention Bushido code and the massive Japanese military influence in all Japanese affairs of the time).

  The last year of the war MAY have been the bloodiest; its impossible to know given incomplete casualty counts in the USSR and China.  Certainly it was much worse for the civilian populations across Europe and Japan.  1942-43 may have been bloodier overall but with incomplete data its impossible to say.        

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Copy the idea.  Has this particular method of pressuring a dictator ever worked?  It didn’t on Saddam, and it didn’t on Ghadafi.  Or Milosevek.  It’s not working in Iran or N Korea.  When you target civilians for suffering, all it really does is hurt civilians.  If you have a counter example I’m game to hear it.  

Hmmm, lemme check. Ghadafi? Dead. Saddam? Dead. Slobodan Milosevic? Dead. So yeah, maybe sanctions don't "work", but if I was a dictator, it would seem to me that sanctions are a pit stop that the West puts me in for a few months or years before I wind up getting killed by someone they support. And to your comment that it's not working in Iran or NK, I will disagree by simply saying you're wrong - without evidence - because I can. Look at a map of SK vs NK when they're lit at night...I'd say they're working.

[FLEA]

If anyone knows what I'm talking about please inform:

I'm trying to find a CSIS video of a speech given by a former SECDEF (cant remember which one) where he talks about Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and how the sanctions work and dont work there.

Interestingly I think he said sanctions in Russia didn't work but I think that was before we had the full international support we do now. 

[tac airlifter]

8 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Hmmm, lemme check. Ghadafi? Dead. Saddam? Dead. Slobodan Milosevic? Dead. So yeah, maybe sanctions don't "work", but if I was a dictator, it would seem to me that sanctions are a pit stop that the West puts me in for a few months or years before I wind up getting killed by someone they support. And to your comment that it's not working in Iran or NK, I will disagree by simply saying you're wrong - without evidence - because I can. Look at a map of SK vs NK when they're lit at night...I'd say they're working.

“Working” was defined as causing the populations to rise up.  I agree NK is dark at night.  Does that mean sanctions are working or does that mean civilians are miserable?

I get it.  Everyone disagrees with me, and that’s fine.  I offer a perspective for consideration so that we think carefully and choose to do things deliberately.  Laughing at hungry civilians is for pussies, not warriors.

[CaptainMorgan]

“Working” was defined as causing the populations to rise up.  I agree NK is dark at night.  Does that mean sanctions are working or does that mean civilians are miserable?
I get it.  Everyone disagrees with me, and that’s fine.  I offer a perspective for consideration so that we think carefully and choose to do things deliberately.  Laughing at hungry civilians is for pussies, not warriors.

Sorry, screw them. They made their bed by supporting Putin all these years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hockeydork]

25 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I get it.  Everyone disagrees with me, and that’s fine.  I offer a perspective for consideration so that we think carefully and choose to do things deliberately.  Laughing at hungry civilians is for pussies, not warriors.

I think there is merit to what you are getting at, which is does punishing a civilian population under the rule of an oppressive regime really have an affect on that regime, because that regime is oppressive and doesn't give a shit about its people to begin with, so it'll just run its own people into misery. That logic checks, but I think that is more applicable in a third world country like NK where the people are (and quite literally) left in the dark. Russia is not that place tho. These citizens have had access to western thoughts. It isn't a place where you are either a peasant or a soldier. They are civilized, and I think there BS meter may be significantly higher.

If we do nothing militarily, and nothing economically, you are basically affirming that autocrats can start redrawing borders. The amount of suffering that could come from this in the future is immeasurable. 

Also the meme is really more of a jab at the Kremlin's justification for invasion, the idea that because "this is how something once was", that's justification to always put it back that way. You were once my wife, but now were divorced, but because you were once my wife I can show up uninvited to dinner with your new husband any time I like.

Nobody wins in war, lives are destroyed on both sides forever. None of this is "funny", literally zero. But if you live the holier than thou life tho and have never laughed at any dark humor good for you, and that is an earnest even tho you just called me a P*ssy.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by hockeydork

[ViperMan]

8 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

“Working” was defined as causing the populations to rise up.  I agree NK is dark at night.  Does that mean sanctions are working or does that mean civilians are miserable?

I get it.  Everyone disagrees with me, and that’s fine.  I offer a perspective for consideration so that we think carefully and choose to do things deliberately.  Laughing at hungry civilians is for pussies, not warriors.

Ok that's cool, we're all working with our own set of terms. Yeah, so they haven't worked according to that metric. That said, sanctions never work overnight, and I think characterizing something that is supposed to work over time as a failure until the moment it works is an unfair judgement to make. I give NK a 0.0% (repeating, of course) chance of being a world-leading nation in the next 100 years under their current regime.

Civilians being miserable is a necessary but insufficient condition for sanctions to work in many cases - this one included. And right now, they are acceptable collateral damage. As are their bank accounts, iPhones, and pantries. I quite literally could not care. I hope it motivates them to ask the all-important question: "WTAF?"

And finally, anyone's attitude about what is and isn't funny or appropriate is a relative judgement. In light of millions of people being illegally and criminally displaced from their homes and being hungry, yeah, I think that would be a shitty thing to laugh at. Looking at some poor Russian who can no longer get cheese from Italy because his government is *ucked, is funny. And I will laugh at it.

[Prozac]

21 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

“Working” was defined as causing the populations to rise up.  I agree NK is dark at night.  Does that mean sanctions are working or does that mean civilians are miserable?

I get it.  Everyone disagrees with me, and that’s fine.  I offer a perspective for consideration so that we think carefully and choose to do things deliberately.  Laughing at hungry civilians is for pussies, not warriors.

I don’t entirely disagree with your position. I also worry that we may be pressing too hard & there’s no telling where this all ends up. The fact that I can’t see an end game that’s acceptable to all parties is what really worries me. I think we are in the most dangerous situation for global security that I’ve seen in my lifetime.
 

Here’s the thing though: Putin has played his hand and shown that he can never be trusted as a global partner. The only way Russia re-joins the civilized world is if and when he goes away. Of course we’re not going to come right out and say it, but it seems to me that our long game is forcing Putin from power one way or another. And we better believe there is far more action happening below the surface that we can’t see at the moment. There is certainly more here than meets the eye. 

[hockeydork]

1 hour ago, ecugringo said:

It is different but.....If Putin goes home he's done.  He cant just hang a Uey and pretend nothing happened.  And then what?  You get a global friendly Russia?  Or Putin 2.0?  I just feel like hes going to double down and go all in.

There is def not a crystal ball on this one, but If the choice is between a Putin 2.0 and Ukraine, and Putin 1.0 and no Ukraine, I'm taking Putin 2.0, at least we have a shot 2.0 will not be as much of a soviet nut case. He can double down, doesn't mean he still won't lose. 

[FLEA]

I think we are all putting way too much optimism that Putin is going away. Ive mentioned it before, he is unfathomably popular in Russia even with the ongoing shenanigans. Highly unlikely they deplace him. 

I believe what is more likely is the insurgency and domestic pressure force him to a compromise in about a year where Ukraine keeps its autonomy but has some significant losses as well. (probably Crimea and Donbas)

Putin isn't really a soviet nut case. The dude was remarkably pro capitalism in his mid years and was very open markets in the 90s. Sort of like mentioned in the Presidents thread, people are not a polarized subset of values. Putin embraced some of soviet culture but hardly all of it. That was discussed in the Jordan Peterson podcast posted earlier. 

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, hockeydork said:

I think there is merit to what you are getting at, which is does punishing a civilian population under the rule of an oppressive regime really have an affect on that regime, because that regime is oppressive and doesn't give a shit about its people to begin with, so it'll just run its own people into misery. That logic checks, but I think that is more applicable in a third world country like NK where the people are (and quite literally) left in the dark. Russia is not that place tho. These citizens have had access to western thoughts. It isn't a place where you are either a peasant or a soldier. They are civilized, and I think there BS meter may be significantly higher.

If we do nothing militarily, and nothing economically, you are basically affirming that autocrats can start redrawing borders. The amount of suffering that could come from this in the future is immeasurable. 

Also the meme is really more of a jab at the Kremlin's justification for invasion, the idea that because "this is how something once was", that's justification to always put it back that way. You were once my wife, but now were divorced, but because you were once my wife I can show up uninvited to dinner with your new husband any time I like.

Nobody wins in war, lives are destroyed on both sides forever. None of this is "funny", literally zero. But if you live the holier than thou life tho and have never laughed at any dark humor good for you, and that is an earnest even tho you just called me a P*ssy.

 

 

 

 

Who is doing the oppressing? It's not likely that Putin is visiting each dissident personally.

[Stoker]

The sanctions don't just have the effect of making Russians miserable. The Russian government, unlike the US, doesn't have the luxury of buying weapons on unlimited credit. They need revenue to pay and feed their soldiers, buy new guns, weaponry, etc. Sure, they still have oil revenues, but my guess is that with the sanctions, the Russians sell less gas this year than they did last year, and next year their actual production drops as specialized, irreplaceable equipment and people become scarce.

[DirkDiggler]

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column/cipher-brief-expert-view/the-risks-facing-putin-and-his-inner-circle

  Interesting interview with a retired CIA officer regarding Putin's mindset and the possible risks he faces from his inner circle.

[DirkDiggler]

 

Good video of Russians cooking and ROI of our Javelin transfers.

[DirkDiggler]

Also, doesn't look like those homemade chicken coop cages on Russian tanks are proving all that effective.

[hockeydork]

15 hours ago, FLEA said:

I agree. And in that case, I fully support NATO sending other aid if they determine its not in their interest to send something that could threaten their own interests. 

 

Edit: Sounds like we are sending patriot batteries though!

Just hoping the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from flying with impunity with their shoulder fired/whatever mobile soviet SAMs they have left. I wish there was a mobile SAM system that could be supplied to them. The defensive nature isn't nearly as inflammatory. 

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Just hoping the Ukrainians can keep the Russians from flying with impunity with their shoulder fired/whatever mobile soviet SAMs they have left. I wish there was a mobile SAM system that could be supplied to them. The defensive nature isn't nearly as inflammatory. 

I was actually wondering how much pants shitting the Russians would do if Turkey transferred their S400s to them to pick up the F-35 again. Its far fetched though. Turkey has been the least supportive NATO country for Ukraine and they really love those S400s. But man if only....

[hockeydork]

14 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I was actually wondering how much pants shitting the Russians would do if Turkey transferred their S400s to them to pick up the F-35 again. Its far fetched though. Turkey has been the least supportive NATO country for Ukraine and they really love those S400s. But man if only....

That would for sure be convenient. I wonder if this highlights an additional need in US capabilities as well. Seems we don't really have a system the sits in between a shoulder fired 40k stinger and a 3 million dollar patriot. 

[ClearedHot]

34 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

 

Good video of Russians cooking and ROI of our Javelin transfers.

This video is far more than watching a few Russians burn, it represents a paradigm shift in conflict not seen since PGMs in the first Gulf War.  Despite S400s and large numbers of Russian tactical SAMs the UAS' have reigned supreme in this conflict.  Ukraine's use of the Turkish TB2 has been masterful and well within the S400 ring that is supposed to handle low flying targets like cruise missiles.  Additionally, The Ukrainians have used large numbers of smaller systems to scout and provide actionable/targetable intelligence. 

ISIS and some other folks in the Middle East started the trend, rigging mortars to DJ drones and flying them over allied positions.  This video and a host of others out there illustrate how smaller UAS systems can cue Javelin teams and other anti-armor teams and allow them to mass at decisive locations.  In effect they have integrated the air land combined arms team at a much lower and highly effective level.  It appears the Russians have tried to do the same with far less success.  There was report this morning of a Ukrainian woman who knocked out a small Russian drone with...a jar of cucumbers, as it hovered outside her apartment window.

I hope those currently serving and our leadership is taking note, I guarantee others are taking learning this lesson and you can bet there will be even more emphasis on counter UAS capabilities. 

[FLEA]

21 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

This video is far more than watching a few Russians burn, it represents a paradigm shift in conflict not seen since PGMs in the first Gulf War.  Despite S400s and large numbers of Russian tactical SAMs the UAS' have reigned supreme in this conflict.  Ukraine's use of the Turkish TB2 has been masterful and well within the S400 ring that is supposed to handle low flying targets like cruise missiles.  Additionally, The Ukrainians have used large numbers of smaller systems to scout and provide actionable/targetable intelligence. 

ISIS and some other folks in the Middle East started the trend, rigging mortars to DJ drones and flying them over allied positions.  This video and a host of others out there illustrate how smaller UAS systems can cue Javelin teams and other anti-armor teams and allow them to mass at decisive locations.  In effect they have integrated the air land combined arms team at a much lower and highly effective level.  It appears the Russians have tried to do the same with far less success.  There was report this morning of a Ukrainian woman who knocked out a small Russian drone with...a jar of cucumbers, as it hovered outside her apartment window.

I hope those currently serving and our leadership is taking note, I guarantee others are taking learning this lesson and you can bet there will be even more emphasis on counter UAS capabilities. 

Wonder if our own leadership is watching this before phasing out the MQ-9. The drones Ukraine is using are very comparable arent they? I think they are using the Turkey predator equivalent.