Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

[Stoker]

On 9/20/2023 at 10:05 PM, frog said:

Source? Not quibbling, just interested.

 

Hard to cover with a single source, but here's one that talks a little bit about the tensions:

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-census-ethnic-minorities-undercounted/32256506.html

Basically the Russian Empire wasn't able to expand into overseas colonies like the rest of Europe, so they expanded eastward and south into Ukraine and Asia. There's always been a very real divide between places view as really Russia (basically, Moscow and St. Petersburg and their suburbs) and the colonies.

It's telling in how the Russians did their conscription process when they needed more cannon fodder. Basically districts were told to each generate X number of soldiers, regardless of population disparities between districts. So you had non-ethnic -Russian areas grabbing half the men of fighting age off the streets, while the same raw numbers of conscription in the big cities was barely noticed. Russia's fine with spending the lives of non-Russian peoples, they don't really matter in their strategic calculus and it might even be a bonus (if all the Chechen men die in Ukraine, they can't cause problems for us in the future).

[Biff_T]

On 9/21/2023 at 5:46 PM, Lawman said:

I think you guys are overthinking the real reasons Ol’Billy wants to do this…






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

It's been a little while. I know there's strong feelings on both sides of the debate, so I thought it best to step back for a bit, let things play out, then revisit the situation and check on the actual results of our efforts.

Anybody know what the total US funding for Ukraine is? I haven't been keeping up. Whatever it is, your paycheck federal withholdings have resulted in a net loss of ground in Ukraine since the beginning of the year.

Sort of makes one wonder how much actually winning a conflict would cost.

 

 

 

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, gearhog said:

Sort of makes one wonder how much actually winning a conflict would cost.

I'm sure Russia is wondering what the answer to this question is too. Don't forget about that half of it. Probably more than they can afford. I wonder if all the Ukraine naysayers would be voicing how well Desert Storm was going if we got stopped dead in our tracks 30 miles in on day one, and a year later we were still involved in this slog of a war in a country that should have taken us 69 hours to roll. I'm sure they still think that's what "winning" looks like.

[Biff_T]

3 hours ago, gearhog said:

It's been a little while. I know there's strong feelings on both sides of the debate, so I thought it best to step back for a bit, let things play out, then revisit the situation and check on the actual results of our efforts.

Anybody know what the total US funding for Ukraine is? I haven't been keeping up. Whatever it is, your paycheck federal withholdings have resulted in a net loss of ground in Ukraine since the beginning of the year.

Sort of makes one wonder how much actually winning a conflict would cost.

 

 

 

Time to spend some more money (gotta keep the rich, rich) and perhaps, send some other young men to do the dieing.  

Its coming. Hug your sons, they might be shooting Russians soon.  

[herkbum]

Brits putting troops on Ukrainian soil

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/30/grant-shapps-to-send-uk-troops-to-ukraine/


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Swizzle]

15 hours ago, herkbum said:

Brits putting troops on Ukrainian soil

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/30/grant-shapps-to-send-uk-troops-to-ukraine/


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

The British investment on Ukrainian soil (aka fixed targets) for war manufacturing is a bigger risk than British-trainers in Western Ukraine I think. Who's £s??? 

Not to mention whatever new involvement in the Black Sea too. Very sticky situation 

[Biff_T]

If the big war goes down....

Put me in coach lol 

In all seriousness, I hope this doesn't go that route.   "Hope isn't a tactic"-some dude in a vault.  

[Boomer6]

I don’t understand the hand wringing WRT US/NATO/EU involvement in this war. I don’t see Polish troops crossing the border like it’s the Yalu River to reinforce Ukraine (yet). As far as I know there aren’t any non-Ukrainians flying MiGs and shooting down Russians. Is Russia not bombing specific airfields because they’re afraid of killing U.S/British advisors and sparking a larger conflict? If the answer is yes, I’d say they’re just as concerned about widening the conflict as the rest of us.
 

Surely these historical connections are obvious. It’s nothing new. The only substantial difference I see is the proximity of the conflict to the super power taking part in the conflict. The larger difference here is that said super power instigated the war themselves.

Open to different points of view regarding these thoughts.

[jice]

48 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

I don’t understand the hand wringing WRT US/NATO/EU involvement in this war. I don’t see Polish troops crossing the border like it’s the Yalu River to reinforce Ukraine (yet). As far as I know there aren’t any non-Ukrainians flying MiGs and shooting down Russians. Is Russia not bombing specific airfields because they’re afraid of killing U.S/British advisors and sparking a larger conflict? If the answer is yes, I’d say they’re just as concerned about widening the conflict as the rest of us.
 

Surely these historical connections are obvious. It’s nothing new. The only substantial difference I see is the proximity of the conflict to the super power taking part in the conflict. The larger difference here is that said super power instigated the war themselves.

Open to different points of view regarding these thoughts.

Reference the news about the Brit RJ from a couple pages back… stupid stuff happens in protracted conflict.

The hedge against escalation due to a mistake is escalation dominance, which is achieved by positioning troops to do exactly the thing that your adversary fears and is trying to avoid in the first place. The detectable signatures look a lot like planning an entry to the war… due to the fact that you’re planning a [contingent] entry to the war.  What trumps that planning? Nukes. Nobody wants this to go that direction, but there’s a primrose path ready to be walked because of dumb f’kn luck.

It’s a dangerous world out there, and wringing of hands, worry, and being ready to divert that train is 100% appropriate. 

[Boomer6]

Are nukes really on the table for Russia? Are they willing to instigate a nuclear confrontation anymore than we were in Korea or Vietnam. Despite an hyperbolic kremlin rhetoric, is anyone assessing that as a realistic possibility? Maybe outside the scope of an unclass network.
 

Also, it wouldn’t be the first time Russians shot down a NATO aircraft, to include crewed aircraft. These occurrences were during the Cold War, where I think we can all agree there was a much higher probability of a nuclear confrontation than any other time in history.

Looking at it from another angle. Would the US actual nuke Russia because they participated in a proxy war against us such as this (history says no, obviously). As a military member the idea of this seems absurd. Those of you wringing hands, why does it seem less absurd that Russia will respond in this way?

[jice]

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

Are nukes really on the table for Russia? Are they willing to instigate a nuclear confrontation anymore than we were in Korea or Vietnam. Despite an hyperbolic kremlin rhetoric, is anyone assessing that as a realistic possibility? Maybe outside the scope of an unclass network.
 

Also, it wouldn’t be the first time Russians shot down a NATO aircraft, to include crewed aircraft. These occurrences were during the Cold War, where I think we can all agree there was a much higher probability of a nuclear confrontation than any other time in history.

Looking at it from another angle. Would the US actual nuke Russia because they participated in a proxy war against us such as this (history says no, obviously). As a military member the idea of this seems absurd. Those of you wringing hands, why does it seem less absurd that Russia will respond in this way?

Are nukes on the table for Russia? Yes. Just like they’re on the table for us. Is it likely to escalate there? Almost certainly not. Many were surprised that we DIDN’T use nukes in Korea. 
 

Maybe the talk about nukes dragged us in a different direction. The point is: if you argue that Russia is concerned about certain actions triggering escalation and assume they are actively managing those risks, you have to consider the increasing possibility of that mitigation failing at some point (human error) as the conflict drags on. 
 

The USSR and US traded aircraft during the Cold War, sure. That was the norm. It is not the norm now, and retaliation in kind would be both justifiable and escalatory should that situation have ended differently.

Would it be WWIII? Probably not. Is there a series of unlikely, unavoidable events that would get us there? Yes. 
 

The folks absolutely convinced that this is the road to the big one are probably nuts. But anybody whose job exists in the security apparatus has to consider it as part of the strategic context. 

[Lawman]

Are nukes on the table for Russia? Yes. Just like they’re on the table for us. Is it likely to escalate there? Almost certainly not. Many were surprised that we DIDN’T use nukes in Korea. 
 
Maybe the talk about nukes dragged us in a different direction. The point is: if you argue that Russia is concerned about certain actions triggering escalation and assume they are actively managing those risks, you have to consider the increasing possibility of that mitigation failing at some point (human error) as the conflict drags on. 
 
The USSR and US traded aircraft during the Cold War, sure. That was the norm. It is not the norm now, and retaliation in kind would be both justifiable and escalatory should that situation have ended differently.
Would it be WWIII? Probably not. Is there a series of unlikely, unavoidable events that would get us there? Yes. 
 
The folks absolutely convinced that this is the road to the big one are probably nuts. But anybody whose job exists in the security apparatus has to consider it as part of the strategic context. 

You don’t have to go back that far to make your point either.

Things got more and a bit excitable in Syria from about 2014 and on. Trading rounds, knocking down aircraft, and actively killing Russians has happened so recently you can YouTube it.

Somehow with all of that we are all still here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Majestik Møøse]

On 9/30/2023 at 4:04 AM, gearhog said:

It's been a little while. I know there's strong feelings on both sides of the debate, so I thought it best to step back for a bit, let things play out, then revisit the situation and check on the actual results of our efforts.

Anybody know what the total US funding for Ukraine is? I haven't been keeping up. Whatever it is, your paycheck federal withholdings have resulted in a net loss of ground in Ukraine since the beginning of the year.

Sort of makes one wonder how much actually winning a conflict would cost.

 

 

 

That’s a net gain of a 14x14 mile square for the world’s 4th largest military after a year of force on force conflict. It boggles the mind how wrong we were about their abilities before the war started. 
 

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

That’s a net gain of a 14x14 mile square for the world’s 4th largest military after a year of force on force conflict. It boggles the mind how wrong we were about their abilities before the war started. 
 

I think about how mismanaged, undermanned, and underfunded we are and then times that by about 5 and it starts to make sense. 

[Danger41]

It also reminds me of WW1 with tactics that hadn’t kept up with the lethality of modern weapons.

[gearhog]

On 10/2/2023 at 11:20 PM, Majestik Møøse said:

That’s a net gain of a 14x14 mile square for the world’s 4th largest military after a year of force on force conflict. It boggles the mind how wrong we were about their abilities before the war started. 
 

Agree. Why is that? It would seem we are either unable to accurately assess the capabilities of our foes, or intentionally misrepresenting them for the sake of funding. Either way, not good.

[Lawman]

Agree. Why is that? It would seem we are either unable to accurately assess the capabilities of our foes, or intentionally misrepresenting them for the sake of funding. Either way, not good.

Or…. And this is just the ground force centric guy on a website full of Air Power people… Taking territory offensively in a conventional war is far more difficult and casualty producing than our two successful one-sided shit kickings in Iraq made it seem… You guys realize we barely made it to Baghdad in 03? Not due to casualties or the Iraqi Army, due to logistical strain and lines of supply vs speed of advance. In some ways the massive sand storm saved us because it allowed some downtime to perform ground maintenance. Most of our tracked vehicles were well beyond the time before overhaul on them when they got there. It’s part of the reason we took a few days doing thunder runs to the airport. If Saddam had pulled himself back to Mosul we physically wouldn’t have had the ass to get up there.

Ukraine is the size of Texas, and unlike Texas it’s full of mine fields, water crossings, and a half dozen drones per square mile tied to a massive network of fires assets looking for a vulnerable ground force on the March with engineer support to get through said mine fields.

Oh also Russia just pulled the bulk of its modern Naval forces in Sevastopol back into Russian home waters because they can’t defend/preserve that combat power. No big deal right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

I think about how mismanaged, undermanned, and underfunded we are and then times that by about 5 and it starts to make sense. 

We aren’t good at war, everybody else has just been gawd awfully terrible at it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Majestik Møøse]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Agree. Why is that? It would seem we are either unable to accurately assess the capabilities of our foes, or intentionally misrepresenting them for the sake of funding. Either way, not good.

Intel defaults to doom and gloom baseball cards. Some of them seem to get enjoyment from telling scary stories to the pilots.

[VigilanteNav]

Thought this was worthy to post for a good chuckle.  The old mishandling of grenades on an aircraft mishap. 

Putin offered a bizarre explanation for Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin’s death during a press conference at the Valdai Discussion Club on October 5 to deflect blame from the Kremlin. Putin stated that the Russian Investigative Committee Head Alexander Bastrykin informed him that the investigation found grenade fragments in the bodies of victims onboard Prigozhin’s plane, suggesting that grenades detonated inside the aircraft.[6] The investigative committee has reported publicly only that all 10 people aboard the plane died.[7] Putin also emphasized that the investigation ruled out external factors that may have caused the plane crash and implied that the plane crash victims may have been using alcohol or drugs onboard that could have led to the negligent handling of grenades (that were presumably on board for some unexplained reason). Putin claimed that, while the investigation did not test the bodies for alcohol and narcotics, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) uncovered five kilograms of cocaine during their investigation into Wagner – likely referring to FSB’s televised raids into Prigozhin’s mansion in June and July 2023. Putin added that in his opinion the investigation needs to test the bodies for substances. Putin’s bizarre explanation of the plane crash is likely an attempt to blame Prigozhin for his own and his comrades’ deaths and further disgrace him among his remaining supporters.

Source:   

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, October 5, 2023 | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)

 

[McJay Pilot]

17 hours ago, Lawman said:

We aren’t good at war, everybody else has just been gawd awfully terrible at it.

Wars are not won by the most competent force. Wars are won by the least incompetent force.

[SocialD]

37 minutes ago, McJay Pilot said:

Wars are not won by the most competent force. Wars are won by the least incompetent force.

 

 

Story of my career!  

[BashiChuni]

19 hours ago, Lawman said:

We aren’t good at war, everybody else has just been gawd awfully terrible at it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

disagree. we are amazing at it with a proven track record.

when we fight american versions of "war" we aren't good at it.

 

take the gloves off, remove concerns about ROE and collateral...watch out.