Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[pawnman]

19 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

the united states has zero national security interests in Ukraine. This conflict has seeds going back decades. it's a fight between ukraine and russia.

conflicts are tragic. civilians are dying. that does not change the geopolitical calculus for the US.

we have zero responsibility to get involved. let europe fight that war if they want.

you are speaking as someone who has no background on how we got here and your type of grandiose chest thumping hubris is how America has gotten ourselves into horrible messes.

All the world is seeing is that US security assurances aren't worth the paper they are written on.

If I'm Iran, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan...I'm clutching my nukes with both hands. Because they provide more security than a US assurance of sovereignty. 

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, pawnman said:

All the world is seeing is that US security assurances aren't worth the paper they are written on.

If I'm Iran, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan...I'm clutching my nukes with both hands. Because they provide more security than a US assurance of sovereignty. 

Was one of the things being talked about behind closed doors in the North Korea talks in 2019. We as a country need to recognize and adapt that the strategy of nuclear counter-proliferations was never meant to be permanent. Its an 80 year old technology and the vast majority of the research needed to construct a nuclear arm is now open source and taught in college physics. 

[FLEA]

14 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

What’s the line flea? If your an isolationist just say so. That is an ok answer.

Not an isolationist. But to be clear, presuming you're an officer, you were taught the DIME Instruments of Power model somewhere in your commissioning or PME courses. You are openly rejecting the viability of three of pillars within that model and broadcasting support for solely military options to solve world problems. In essence, you are basically saying the US should use only force to enforce its moral/ideals/culture onto other nation states. Who sounds like the bully now? 

[goingkinetic]

Copy, you believe nuclear weapons are evil and we as mankind should eliminate them. Sorry flea, thats  a utopian wish.

[brickhistory]

[goingkinetic]

Flea, did the DIME model work for Georgia or Crimea? Discuss.

[FLEA]

Just now, goingkinetic said:

Copy, you believe nuclear weapons are evil and we as mankind should eliminate them. Sorry flea, thats  a utopian wish.

Bro maybe go back and check your reading comprehension. Literally said exactly the opposite. 

[goingkinetic]

Sorry educate me. What is the strategy if everyone has nuclear weapons. Do nothing be isolationist?

[hockeydork]

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

understanding the "why" behind putin's moves is not "signing his praises". he's a bad dude for sure.

he is acting rationally in what HE thinks the best interest of Russia are. so many in the media dismiss him as "crazy", but in my opinion he's anything but crazy. he's been warning us and telling us what HIS red lines are and the west hasn't listened.

we have zero interest in getting involved in WW3 to "save" ukraine. zero. it's scary to see how many Americans are clamoring for war when they have no idea how this conflict came into be.

American foreign policy has been a total disaster since Korea. we need to sit this one out.

I disagree on this idea that he is acting in the best interests of Russia. This is a dude who went from zero to billionaire, for doing what exactly? Nothing.This is critical when deciding what to do with Ukraine. There is a large difference between a man who is out for himself and a man who is out for his people. Putin is not out for the Russian people. Ukraine posed zero threat to the Russian people. ing zero. This isn't Russia acting in Russia's interests, because the Russian people can't act in their own interests because they've been oppressed for god knows how long being force fed state run TV. Obama didn't isolate Russia, the Russian autocracy isolated Russia to preserve its own chokehold over the people. This is in the dictator playbook. 

You say zero interest to save Ukraine. I disagree. Ukraine is a hunk of land far far away, but perceptions matter in this world. Now we have a civilized country fighting for its freedom. We spent so much effort trying to build Iraq and Afghanistan from scratch, and the idea that we shouldn't care about a near freedom getting toppled is no bueno. We care. We're just questioning our methods do to previous performance and the players involved, and we are tip toeing, which is good, rather than reaching for the sledge hammer instantly. I do NOT think we should set up a no fly zone due to the risk of WW3, but if the Ukrainian's want anti-air missiles, coming right up. In this situation, it matters not only that the Russians are beat, but WHO beats them. They NEED to be beaten by the UKRANIANS for this to work, so that this cannot be spun as "American f*cked around in Russia's interests". No, Russia f*cked around in Ukraine's interests, and paid dearly for it. 

People aren't clamoring for war, they are clamoring to stand up to bullies. Yes, it's real scary to think that an old dude (i.e. life almost over, willing to take more risks because he only gives a shit about himself) has a nuke button. But the Ukrainian people have the right to fight for their freedom. And we had better encourage it just as we have been doing. You cannot pick and chose when to be on the side of a free people just because of your strategic interests. The people have a right to govern themselves, always. Death on our feet over life on our knees, always. 

If Putin nukes something over Ukraine well than he had already lost his mind and so be it, it was a matter of time anyways than. Moscow will get wiped off the face of the earth, people will die, and the world will cycle on. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by hockeydork

[goingkinetic]

I went to California state school but I do remember this

War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means.

[FLEA]

Just now, goingkinetic said:

Sorry educate me. What is the strategy if everyone has nuclear weapons. Do nothing be isolationist?

There is no strategy and that is a major problem for the US right now. We are continuing to try and enforce the NPT as the soul means of maintaining our nuclear power margin. However, the NPT becomes exponentially more difficult to enforce over time as the technology becomes wider available, and smaller states are recognizing that they need an asymmetric arm to prevent bullying by larger states. 

The NPT after WW2 is exactly what the international taboo on political assassination after the 30 years war was in the 17th century. It was an attempt by larger states that could afford large standing armies/arsenals, to enforce behavior on smaller states that would prevent them from asymmetrically circumventing those arsenals. 

The break down in the North Korea talks was that North Korea knows it cannot conventionally defeat South Korea (even without US Aid) in a war anymore. Therefore they invested all of their eggs into asymmetric options (specifically, a very robust SOF capability and nuclear arms). North Korea very strongly believes if an armistice is signed the US will end the UN mission and start retrograding in South Korea. They then believe South Korea will attempt unification and North Korea is now stripped of the means to deter that. 

The US internally debated at the academic level the possibility of allowing North Korea limited access to nuclear weapons but it became a red line for Pompeo because it would erode credibility to the NPT. It was basically a license for other small rogue states to go develop nukes as well. He was right, but so were his critics. 

Until the US accepts the fact that the NPT world order is temporary and begins developing strategies for a post nuclear armed world, we are going to struggle adapting to the changing security environment. 

[goingkinetic]

You gave me a real long post that didn’t answer the question. What’s the strategy?

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, goingkinetic said:

You gave me a real long post that didn’t answer the question. What’s the strategy?

What? I'm not going to read your post anymore either. 

 

[goingkinetic]

I read your post, it said there is no strategy. So what would flea do? Continue with the no strategy gameplan? Its a legitimate question.

[ClearedHot]

If Putin starts slinging arty and FAE's into urban areas will the world still sit idly by?  There are an estimated 3 million people still in Kyiv.  There is even concern Putin will resort to tactical nukes given his fumbling army, what happens then?

This sad story is FAR from over and it could get MUCH worse.

[pbar]

2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

If Putin starts slinging arty and FAE's into urban areas will the world still sit idly by?  There are an estimated 3 million people still in Kyiv.  There is even concern Putin will resort to tactical nukes given his fumbling army, what happens then?

This sad story is FAR from over and it could get MUCH worse.

Exactly.  I doubt the Russians will do nothing to us in response to our sanctions and supplying weapons to Ukraine.  They can cause us a helluva lot of pain in cyberspace for example.  Imagine if we were fighting Mexico and the PRC sanctioned us and supplied weapons to Mexico...we wouldn't hit back at the Chinese somehow?  

[FLEA]

Just now, ClearedHot said:

If Putin starts slinging arty and FAE's into urban areas will the world still sit idly by?  There are an estimated 3 million people still in Kyiv.  There is even concern Putin will resort to tactical nukes given his fumbling army, what happens then?

This sad story is FAR from over and it could get MUCH worse.

I would say if Putin does go nuclear we are full in. There is so much in these crises responses that is uncontrollable spin up and once certain actions occur there's no control in it anymore. 

That said, he doesn't need to. North Korea is an excellent example of how artillery can be as effective a deterrent as nukes. 

Honestly, he's playing his hand smart. He's sticking to the rules "just enough" to stay within international norms, only skirting outside for limited instances. 

To goingKinetic's point, I think if we entered, even to enforce a no fly zone, I don't think Putin would go nuclear immediately. I think Belarus would enter full in and Putin would strike targets in Western Europe. At that point things accelerate quite quickly and that's when it gets out of control. Russia will get allies not because they are particularly pro Russia but because they are anti Western Europe and the US and they would see another WW as a chance to reset the victory conditions from the last one. China is a good example of a player that may think that way. 

[ClearedHot]

2 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I would say if Putin does go nuclear we are full in. There is so much in these crises responses that is uncontrollable spin up and once certain actions occur there's no control in it anymore. 

That said, he doesn't need to. North Korea is an excellent example of how artillery can be as effective a deterrent as nukes. 

Honestly, he's playing his hand smart. He's sticking to the rules "just enough" to stay within international norms, only skirting outside for limited instances. 

To goingKinetic's point, I think if we entered, even to enforce a no fly zone, I don't think Putin would go nuclear immediately. I think Belarus would enter full in and Putin would strike targets in Western Europe. At that point things accelerate quite quickly and that's when it gets out of control. Russia will get allies not because they are particularly pro Russia but because they are anti Western Europe and the US and they would see another WW as a chance to reset the victory conditions from the last one. China is a good example of a player that may think that way. 

I think his conventional forces are now stretched very thin.  I've read reports of 200,000 troops dedicated to this effort.  Any Putin attacks into Western Europe would open a front I am not sure he can defend at this point. 

I remain dumbfounded at how poorly his forces and equipment have performed.  Mostly I am SHOCKED at how he has failed to integrated his air and land forces, they are almost operating as two independent operations.  As we all know very well, airpower used properly in close alignment with ground forces is a huge asymmetrical advantage.  It is almost as if he assumed his maneuver elements would be fully support be rotary wing and the Stingers have humbled that advantage.

[goingkinetic]

That’s where I think an AVG II scenario is actually a viable out. We weren’t ready to go to war with Japan, but we were willing to provide equipment and pilots that were “paid” for by the ROC. Based upon Russian ineptitude so far 2 squadrons of Vipers and a squadron of B-1s could gain and maintain air superiority. There is my solution to attempt to prevent escalation.

[FLEA]

Just now, ClearedHot said:

I think his conventional forces are now stretched very thin.  I've read reports of 200,000 troops dedicated to this effort.  Any Putin attacks into Western Europe would open a front I am not sure he can defend at this point. 

I remain dumbfounded at how poorly his forces and equipment have performed.  Mostly I am SHOCKED at how he has failed to integrated his air and land forces, they are almost operating as two independent operations.  As we all know very well, airpower used properly in close alignment with ground forces is a huge asymmetrical advantage.  It is almost as if he assumed his maneuver elements would be fully support be rotary wing and the Stingers have humbled that advantage.

Yeah, ive been thinking about this but then I realized Russia was the one that suffered 8.5 million casualties in WW2 and sent their forces into battle without even having weapons.

We see this as losing but they may not be looking at it the same way. 

I'm also not convinced they are doing as poorly as the media makes them out. I'm certain there are some difficulties but I also know 1.) The media has an interest in denigrating Russian capability, 2.) Ukraine, where much of the reports are coming from, has an interest in denigrating Russian capability. 3.) Our own US IC is incredibly susceptive to confirmation bias as was illustrated by the IC failures that did not predict the rise of ISIS following the withdraw and the subsequent reports that the fight against ISIS was going well. (Pre-Trump, IC got really into a "say what makes the boss happy" mentality and started reporting overly optimistic stats to the WH in what is now seen as a huge community failure.) 

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, goingkinetic said:

That’s where I think an AVG II scenario is actually a viable out. We weren’t ready to go to war with Japan, but we were willing to provide equipment and pilots that were “paid” for by the ROC. Based upon Russian ineptitude so far 2 squadrons of Vipers and a squadron of B-1s could gain and maintain air superiority. There is my solution to attempt to prevent escalation.

So I see what you're getting at now but I think that is sort of already happening albeit other avenues. About 50 fighter aircraft were just transferred to Ukraine from former soviet states, and they are attempting to source more. Question is, would it be beneficial to transfer F-16s and then say get Erik Prince to hire some former Weapon School grads to go over there as PMCs and fly them under Ukraines payroll? 

[goingkinetic]

I think so, the Ukraine is doing pretty well with 80’s era equipment. Not sure how many old retired types they have floating around to replace losses either.

[FLEA]

Speaking of countries trying to reset the world order I think it would be a mistake to try and remove Russia's seat from the security council. I think doing so would isolate China and create a sentiment that the UN is an organization that doesn't work anymore so there is no sense in trying to try diplomatic means anymore. 

The only way I see it working is if we rewrote the rules to reduce the amount of power given to all permanent seats and I don't think any of the other seats want that. 

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, goingkinetic said:

I think so, the Ukraine is doing pretty well with 80’s era equipment. Not sure how many old retired types they have floating around to replace losses either.

Its an interesting idea and it has merit. Given Putin's extensive use of Wagner Group I think it would be hard for him to criticize such a move. 

[BashiChuni]

14 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

That’s where I think an AVG II scenario is actually a viable out. We weren’t ready to go to war with Japan, but we were willing to provide equipment and pilots that were “paid” for by the ROC. Based upon Russian ineptitude so far 2 squadrons of Vipers and a squadron of B-1s could gain and maintain air superiority. There is my solution to attempt to prevent escalation.

PREVENT escalation?

let me get this straight...you think 2 squadrons of vipers and a b-1 bombing russian forces would "prevent" escalation?

jesus dude.

putin is acting in the best interest of russia based on how he sees the world. it is what it is. the whole "fighting for ukranian freedom" argument does not justify US involvement in a war.

give the ukranians weapons sure, but for fucks sake no direct US involvement.