Jump to content
emccabe

ukraine military vs russia

Recommended Posts

I've often had a hard time differentiating 'our' bad guys from 'their' bad guys. We thought for sure that Saddam had WMDs. That's because we had helped coordinate the targeting of his gas attacks fifteen years earlier and had blocked the UN security council from sanctioning Iraq over gassing the Kurds. It seems the countries we 'officially' hate the most are precisely the ones who used to be in our back pocket but who then wandered off the reservation. Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Panama under Noriega, Egypt under Morsi with Mubarak in prison. Returning to the topic at hand, Putin's actions are along the same lines. He lost his handpuppet in Kiev so Ukraine immediately went to the top of the official 'hate' list for straying off the reservation. In his mind he that gave him free rein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

Well I have to admit that at the time I was also thinking that Saddam gone couldn't be a bad thing,

And let us not forget that Saddam himself played his cards all wrong. Instead of making a case to the UN that he had no WMD he did exactly the OPPOSITE! Moron.

Remember, just because one side is itching for a war doesn't mean you have to make it easy! Georgia made this mistake on August 7th, 2008. The interim Ukrainian government, on the other hand, said it would not give Russia an excuse for a larger invasion. Interim President of Ukraine, Turchynov, explicitly stated this early on in the Crimean conflict when Russian and "self defense" forces were trying to get a shooting war started.

"They are implementing the scenario like the one carried out in Abkhazia, when after provoking a conflict, they started an annexation of the territory," President Turchynov said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26392958

Which is why the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in no small part due to Saddam giving the pro-war group ammunition and giving the anti-war group a less stable platform to stand on. This is the problem with dictators... they often mistake brutality for intelligence.

be it under dodgy pretense. In hindsight however it is quite open for debate whether under Saddam a lot less people would have been killed or suffered.

Libya was a dodgy affair too.

It was bound to happen. In physics there is a law which states "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In both cases the countries were held together by maniacal, ruthless dictators. Any change in power, including a heart attack or car crash, would likely lead to a total disintegration of control. And the result would be extremely messy. Look at Syria as an example. I think a competent post-war invasion strategy, even moderately well executed, could have been better. Unfortunately there was no strategy in either case and therefore good opportunities were missed.

But we are straying even further off topic than our previous off topic points :D I think it is simply good to summarize that the entire world is f'd up and we all have to live with the consequences. However, some places in this world are f'd up far more than others and in different ways from each other. It is important to keep this in mind because some of those ways are far more wrong than right, and some of those ways are more right than wrong.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is simply good to summarize that the entire world is f'd up and we all have to live with the consequences. However, some places in this world are f'd up far more than others and in different ways from each other. It is important to keep this in mind because some of those ways are far more wrong than right, and some of those ways are more right than wrong.

Steve

That sounds like your definition of NPR. Now we know what news you listen to. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are straying even further off topic than our previous off topic points :D I think it is simply good to summarize that the entire world is f'd up and we all have to live with the consequences. However, some places in this world are f'd up far more than others and in different ways from each other. It is important to keep this in mind because some of those ways are far more wrong than right, and some of those ways are more right than wrong.

Steve

That about wraps up my thoughts as well on the world...which is sad since I am only 20 and already so jaded!

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are straying even further off topic than our previous off topic points :D I think it is simply good to summarize that the entire world is f'd up and we all have to live with the consequences. However, some places in this world are f'd up far more than others and in different ways from each other. It is important to keep this in mind because some of those ways are far more wrong than right, and some of those ways are more right than wrong.

Steve

Nazdrovje! :D

To get back on Ukraine VS Russia: while Ukraine seemed to have prevented an official invasion by Russia still the Crimea was annexed in short order. Shortly after the start of the conflict in Donbass region I was contemplating Russia created the separatists in Donbass for the negotiation table: Putin's help stopping the separatists in exchange for establishment of fait accompli Crimea. If played right he could have prevented a lot of sanctions imo, and have the international tensions tuned down with Crimea under the belt. Things turned out differently, although I still I don't see Crimea going back to Ukraine without a major direct and open war.

What would be your estimate of Ukrainian success in case of a spring Ukrainian offensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....

But we are straying even further off topic than our previous off topic points :D I think it is simply good to summarize that the entire world is f'd up and we all have to live with the consequences. However, some places in this world are f'd up far more than others and in different ways from each other. It is important to keep this in mind because some of those ways are far more wrong than right, and some of those ways are more right than wrong.

Steve

More Wisdom in the underlined above than most consider or act upon.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could talk about the GAME a little bit, that would be on target. Answer the odd question on helicopter launched missiles vs APS? Some other random details, the AAR has given me a burning desire to know the point cost for the primary pieces of equipment in play for instance? Then we can all argue about something that we can theoretically fix. I mean we all know we are going to argue about something, its what we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a major development. The Ukraine Freedom Support Act has unanimously passed both the Senate and the House and is expected to be sent to President Obama for signature. If this goes through, it could be a game changer, and Russia is already strongly abreacting. Why? The Act directly allows the provision of up to $350 million of US lethal aid to Ukraine, something the Ukrainians have been desperately seeking from the US for months now. This story went up only an hour ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-cheers-us-vote-military-aid-russia-outraged-205849643.html

"Obama, who has resisted sending arms to Ukraine, will have to decide whether to promulgate the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which allows for the delivery of anti-tank and anti-armour weapons, radar, surveillance drones and communications equipment to Ukraine."

I think the writer is a bit confused, for I fail to see a fundamental distinction between antitank and antiarmor weapons, but the rest of the list , as given, is pretty much what was already promised.

(goes off and checks)

The reporter was right. Whoever wrote the bill was confused.

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/UFSA_1-pager.pdf

"Military Assistance: This legislation authorizes $350 million in FY 2015 for the president to provide Ukraine with defense articles, defense services, and military training to the Ukrainian government for the purpose of countering offensive weapons and reestablishing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including anti-tank and anti-armor weapons; crew weapons and ammunition; counter-artillery radars; fire control and guidance equipment; ; surveillance drones; and secure command and communications equipment. The president is required to provide a report to Congress detailing the military assistance to be provided."

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could talk about the GAME a little bit, that would be on target.

Its funny, but I was thinking the same thing.

Wish threads about the *game* would this much attention from Steve :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Libya was a dodgy affair too.

Dodginess seems to be an intrinsic component of contemporary international politics. In other words, it may difficult and even impossible to avoid. When national interests collide and the stakes are high enough, a nation (or even a non-national group) will do what it thinks it needs to do to secure those interests, even when it goes outside the law or ethics. I know I am stating what is probably obvious to all who are reading this thread, but now and then the obvious needs to be put into words, elsewise the discussion is apt to get lost in abstractions.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nazdrovje!

Gesundheit! ;)

To get back on Ukraine VS Russia: while Ukraine seemed to have prevented an official invasion by Russia still the Crimea was annexed in short order. Shortly after the start of the conflict in Donbass region I was contemplating Russia created the separatists in Donbass for the negotiation table: Putin's help stopping the separatists in exchange for establishment of fait accompli Crimea. If played right he could have prevented a lot of sanctions imo, and have the international tensions tuned down with Crimea under the belt.

I heard a talk on the radio today by an ex-State Department official and adjunct professor at the War College. His talk was about understanding the Russian mindset going into this conflict and what it means for the future. As part of the talk the guy quickly ticked off a bunch of major miscalculations that Putin has made so far. Close match to my own list, but mine is a bit more detailed ;)

The thing he said that might surprise most people is that everything since February has been improvised with short term goals foremost in mind. Long term costs have not been correctly assessed, nor has the counter actions to Russia's actions. Then you throw in unexpected events like shooting down a civilian airliner loaded with EU citizens and the crash of crude oil.

It was pretty clear to us, while researching the story a few years ago, that Russia was already putting contingency plans in place should Ukraine try to move away from Moscow's control. Since then we've seen more details about what those plans were and that they were accelerated in the months prior to Yanukovych fleeing. The end of the friendly Kiev government came suddenly and Russia felt the best time to act was to go in fast. According to my research +/- 1 day from Yanukovych's escape of February 21.

The initial plan was to seize Crimea (easily done because this was the focus of planning for years) and get a shooting war started before anybody had time to question who the Green Men were. The shooting war would be a distraction while thugs took over a large chunk of Ukraine from Luhansk down to Odessa, thus giving Russia a land bridge to Crimea. The weak Kiev government would sue for peace, Russia would then act as savior by inserting "peace keepers" into keep a cease fire in place. The occupation would be drawn out long enough for the "locals" to demand a referendum on the so-called-federalizastion concept. After a while Russia would cede some territory back to Ukraine to make it look like there was never any intention to take territory. The newly federalized areas would remain Ukraine's financial responsibility, but the new local powers would request that Russia's military stick around to make sure they weren't reversed by Kiev. This would leave Ukraine a poor country with little to no access to the Black Sea and a large buffer between it and Russia that the Moscow wouldn't have to pay for.

Obviously it didn't turn out that way, starting with Ukraine refusing to start a shooting war, then moving onto an utter failure to get the population to "revolt" at a grassroots level, again when the armed guerilla war stalled out well short of Novorussia plans, then to August when the rump of Novorussia was on the verge of collapse and Russia had to provide direct military intervention to prevent the whole house of cards collapsing. All the while Ukraine has gotten stronger, the West implemented unforeseen sanctions, and nobody is buying the BS out of the Kremlin.

That's just my short overview :D

Things turned out differently, although I still I don't see Crimea going back to Ukraine without a major direct and open war.

The speaker today specifically stated, and I fully agree, that if Putin didn't grab Crimea in February that he might be out of office now. There is no way, no how, that Russia will give up Crimea without a fight. Which is why there is a large and highly capable Russian military force parked in Crimea. Ukraine is militarily incapable of taking Crimea, so it's going to remain in Russia's hands as long as there is a Russia.

What would be your estimate of Ukrainian success in case of a spring Ukrainian offensive?

Russia needs to find a way out of the hole its dug before Spring, because Ukraine is going to retake the Donbas and it will likely take it back very quickly. I project that only a 100% full Russian military invasion could change the outcome. And even then, I'm not sure that would work.

More Wisdom in the underlined above than most consider or act upon.... ;)

I am growing older, so I at least deserve to grow wiser!

You could talk about the GAME a little bit, that would be on target. Answer the odd question on helicopter launched missiles vs APS? Some other random details, the AAR has given me a burning desire to know the point cost for the primary pieces of equipment in play for instance? Then we can all argue about something that we can theoretically fix. I mean we all know we are going to argue about something, its what we do.

Good point, but that's for other threads responded to by other people. I am not the tactical details man this time around. First time for everything :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In both cases the countries were held together by maniacal, ruthless dictators. Any change in power, including a heart attack or car crash, would likely lead to a total disintegration of control. And the result would be extremely messy.

This brings up an interesting point which I would like to explore briefly if a further off-topic digression can be permitted. It seems pretty clear that a lot of the Middle East troubles have their roots in the sometimes completely arbitrary border drawing that followed the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. Iraq, for instance, is an artificial state. It could just as easily been divided into three stable parts with the north going to the Kurds, the south to the Shiites, and everything in between to the Sunnis. But it didn't happen that way and we have had to live with the consequences.

A Line in the Sand

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All borders are artificial, though some borders were more artificial than others when drawn. Even where they made sense at the time they were declared, populations, cultures, religious affiliation, and even languages don't stay static. Yet we expect borders to remain the same as they ever were. And we wonder why peace is just a pipe dream.

The collapse of the Soviet/Russian Empire created nothing but problem areas. Especially because both the Russian and Soviet Empires deliberately depopulated neighboring areas of ethnically non-Russians and replaced them with ethnic Russians. The intention was to make sure it would not be easy to split up the old Russian/Soviet empire. Mission successful, I'd say.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Steve pointed out, all borders are more or less artificial. Very few States conform to the ideal homogeneous nation. You scratch at the history of any country and you often find borders are arbitrary, often the result of wars and any present homogeneity is often the result of long term cultural/linguistic/religious assimilation.

re: Iraq, I know its fashionable to blame the post WW1 borders drawn up by the British and French, but a country encompassing the Tigris and Euphrates valley is as natural and has as long a history as a country encompassing the Nile valley, i.e. Egypt. The sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis is a very recent phenomena, they managed to co-exist peacefully for centuries.

Now certainly part of the Ukraine conflict is also routed in border disputes. The current borders were not drawn up over centuries of conflicts, but were arbitrary internal boundaries between administrative regions drawn up while both Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union. It was perhaps inevitable that Russia would ask for a "readjustment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All borders are artificial, though some borders were more artificial than others when drawn. Even where they made sense at the time they were declared, populations, cultures, religious affiliation, and even languages don't stay static. Yet we expect borders to remain the same as they ever were. And we wonder why peace is just a pipe dream.Steve

More wise words! :)

Borders are after all a strange concept, carving out the earth in zones with special passes (passports) required for entry. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, regarding your answer that attack on Afghanistan was not illegal. USA was eager to start a war. They should have negotiated instead of going to war just because they had the means to and wanted to,sooth own population's anger over 9/11. They didn't provide the proof for Bin's involvment as asked by Talibs in order for them to give him in.

To me this is an act of over agressive warmongering and the number of killed people since 2001 on both sides just testify to incredibly poor planning that started 14 years and counting of sadness and pain incured.

On the other hand I know,things would be,much worse if Russia would be in USA's shoes as a global boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve, regarding your answer that attack on Afghanistan was not illegal. USA was eager to start a war. They should have negotiated instead of going to war just because they had the means to and wanted to,sooth own population's anger over 9/11. They didn't provide the proof for Bin's involvment as asked by Talibs in order for them to give him in.

To me this is an act of over agressive warmongering and the number of killed people since 2001 on both sides just testify to incredibly poor planning that started 14 years and counting of sadness and pain incured.

On the other hand I know,things would be,much worse if Russia would be in USA's shoes as a global boss.

Proof of what? The Taliban knew exactly who and what Osama/Al Qaeda was. They are not very different after all. Soothe our population? The guy had just had driven civilian airliners into a major urban center, wtf?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA asked Talibs to extradict Osama. They said they will do this if USA provides them with a proof he was behind the 9/11 attack. USA never presented it to them. USA also categorically rejected all other solutions suggested by Talibs. USA wanted snd needed the war. People were angry and all that rage needed to be channelled somewhere. It was channelled allright. When USA is angry you must not try to negotiate with it. You either do what it tells you or you get invaded. Just because USA has the means to do so. Real bully.

This is why I consider USA's declaration of war on Afghanistan illegal or at least not morally sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USA asked Talibs to extradict Osama. They said they will do this if USA provides them with a proof he was behind the 9/11 attack. USA never presented it to them. USA also categorically rejected all other solutions suggested by Talibs. USA wanted snd needed the war. People were angry and all that rage needed to be channelled somewhere. It was channelled allright. When USA is angry you must not try to negotiate with it. You either do what it tells you or you get invaded. Just because USA has the means to do so. Real bully.

This is why I consider USA's declaration of war on Afghanistan illegal or at least not morally sound.

Yes.

At the time - well, after the start of the 2nd Gulf War - there was a prime time TV program in the Netherlands where a famous Dutch attorney pleaded just that, and by large polls before and after his plea, he had convinced a majority of the Dutch population.

EDIT: Not that it made any difference, as in our democratic system the government doesn't do what the population wants, but what the US government demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

At the time - well, after the start of the 2nd Gulf War - there was a prime time TV program in the Netherlands where a famous Dutch attorney pleaded just that, and by large polls before and after his plea, he had convinced a majority of the Dutch population.

EDIT: Not that it made any difference, as in our democratic system the government doesn't do what the population wants, but what the US government demands.

yeah it's all our fault. :P

c'mon man you really think the issue with the Taliban is the US needed to supply Mullah Omar and his band of fanatics legal proof that the terrorist he was protecting was involved and he was gonna hand over Osama? Really? Mullah Omar? Really? I wonder how the Dutch would have received that show if that aircraft had hit The Hague.

Sorry I know this is way off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah it's all our fault. :P

c'mon man you really think the issue with the Taliban is the US needed to supply Mullah Omar and his band of fanatics legal proof that the terrorist he was protecting was involved and he was gonna hand over Osama? Really? Mullah Omar? Really? I wonder how the Dutch would have received that show if that aircraft had hit The Hague.

Sorry I know this is way off topic.

Well, as I wrote, this was aired after the beginning of Gulf War II, when the lies of the USA were discovered, and trust in the statements of the US government was pretty low.

And being angry doesn't make you being right.

The Dutch know what war can do to citizens, something the US didn't really experience before (parts of the South in the Civil War excepted), which makes many Americans talk about waging war in a way that is not always appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect some USA forumers are getting emotional now that their state is being under the magnifing glass. A fresh change from previous Russian emotional responses here. What this shows we are all bloody beneath our skin. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...