The_Capt

Haiduk? I disagree, he has been one of the sanest reporters directly from the Ukraine we have. I think I saw him lose his temper exactly once in all this and it was back in Phase I when the Russians were literally at the gates of Kyiv. Ho, man, that is a tall order. A Western puppet inserted into Russia- I mean technically it is feasible but I think you hit the nail on the head - how do you get Russians to accept it? Followed by - what if they do not? I mean we played this game in Iraq and Afghanistan and the short answer is that we either end up supporting a western backed brutally oppressive regime, or we get pulled in and have to do it ourselves. Yo wanna talk about politically prohibitive. And as you point out, how does one actually do it without 1) triggering WW3, or 2) Having Russia go into freefall? Why do you guys keep sidestepping NATO as an answer to not being invaded? The proof is right there in the Baltics. Yes, there is Russian interference and a$$holery but Russia is not seriously going to go to war with NATO, definitely not now. I am not sure we need to deconstruct Russia - it has more risks than reward, I do think Ukraine must be within the NATO umbrella. I suspect the best we can do with Russia is containment and let China deal with their "boy".

So a lot of problems with your theory here: - Belarus has about 10 million people and as far as this war they have not done Ukraine any favours. I am not sure population base is a key metric of how much damage a nation can do to Ukraine. - A few 10 million population countries with a serious hate on for Ukraine - and I am pretty sure there will be that factor, can be problematic. - You are very likely to get non-state, or state sponsored terrorism against Ukraine for a long time. - "Too busy dying from hunger", ok so we are talking about using a humanitarian disaster to keep whatever is left of Russians in line? Would that include withholding food aid like a Somalia warlord? - See my extensive posts on the nuclear proliferation threat. The main push back was that the new states and the West will figure it out; however, I doubt that will be the case if they are "starving". No, it is not "Ok" for Moldovia or Georgia to suffer but it is how things are - have you ever been to Africa? However, I am not sure breaking Russia will really fix that, it could make it worse as the entire region falls into anarchy. Russia is definitely a problem, do not get me wrong; however, I have yet to hear a coherent solution to the post-conflict solution either within Ukraine or in Russia. You have been advocating for the complete dissolution of Russia pretty early on, and frankly I get the impulse, but I see a lot of "worse" here, and not much that actually fixes anything.

So I would offer that you undertake a learning journey into this area: https://www.rand.org/topics/psychological-warfare.html Closely linked to Influence operations: https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/strategic-influence-operations-call-action And the concepts of Reflexive Control: https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2017/02/01/disinformation-and-reflexive-control-the-new-cold-war/ And subversive warfare: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-subversion-considerations-our-special-forces-waller I think you will find that 1) this is an enormously complex field of operations, far beyond WW2 propaganda, and 2) no, western governments do not practice this on their own people. Governments do strategic communications and public affairs but conducting psychological operations directly at ones citizenry occurs in autocratic regimes and not so much in western democracies.

So what are you proposing here? We have talked at length of the risks of Russia collapsing - you may very well wind up with a rogue WMD in Kyiv (I am sure there will be those with a grudge). Even if you could break Russia up into sub-states, how can you guarantee one or more of them won't start another war if it is so deeply embedded in the Russian state as you suggest.

Ah, ok very clear now thanks. Whew, well Ukraine joining NATO should defuse a lot of this. If the next war occurs under Article 5, well it will be a very different war. Then we risk manage a rogue state - frankly not much else we can do beyond some shaping ops in the subversive warfare space. The Cold War strategy was containment and enticement, not sure if that will work based on your assessment.

I am very confident that reparations and war crimes prosecution are going to be a critical condition for lifting of sanctions and re-normalization. As to "another Ukraine in 5-10", I am not sure what you are arguing - if Russia removes Putin it will still start another war?

And what the hell is a YouTube short?! Oh good, even less information.

Fine. I am still annoyed with all these guys. They are incredibly smart, educated and well read, and they had access to all sorts of advice - they should have known better by about day 3. But forgiveness, next to cleanliness, next to the hand sanitizer in heaven..etc.

There is no viable alternative for Putin. The alternative for Russia is to remove him and his immediate circle from power, find someone clean enough we can work with, blame it all on Putin and "those guys", and walk back from complete disaster by putting this whole thing back into the diplomatic arena. What does bother me about all of this is that we box ourselves in some ways and conveniently sidestep others: - Putin has had too long to consolidate power - he will never be overthrown. Or in the same vein: "all Russians are evil and support Putin" - We cannot negotiate with Putin (or Russia) except through the barrel of a gun because he is not a rational actor who is smoking his own supply. - Putin is out of options in a war that is existential for him, and he has nuclear weapons. - "Oh that is silly, Putin will never use nukes because...reasons". - So Putin is 'mobilizing' in a hope to drag the war on; however, his military base is eroding, while Ukraine's is accelerating and it is very likely Russia is going to lose. - Even if we end the war on some lines, we will not re-normalize until reparations/warcrimes etc. This Putin will never do. There is logic here that does not add up. And no matter how one slices it, the answer is remove Putin.

Ah the tyranny of the Oxford comma. I read as "winning with time, and will win", as Kofman was in the "Russia will win, it is a matter of time" camp early on. Russia has lost, the question is "how bad", and how much damage they can do as they come to terms with that. Or until someone finally tosses Putin out a window.

Seriously? Is Kofman still grinding on this theme? So "winning" in 6-12 months for Russia is: - Likely heading towards 100k dead - A Sweden and Finland in NATO - A Ukraine negotiating to enter NATO and EU, and better armed than 3 out of the 5EYES nations. - International Isolation for a generation - which is starting to look like it may include India and China - A looming economic reset that will drop Russian standards of living dramatically - An increasingly hostile domestic minority, likely with western support - Possibly a few extra sq kms than they had in 2014. They are not generating a military capable of offensive operations and cannot in a 12 month window - at least not by 21st century standards. - At least two new regions in the Donbass that have been blasted to pulps and need a massive reconstruction bill. - All of their proposed and real strategic and political objectives are fails. I am sure I missed something. [Edit} Oh yes a smashed military apparatus and zero power-credibility for at least 30 years.

Ah we live in a magical time when none of that matters - the end of expertise. All you need is an internet connection and voila, anyone can be an expert on the employment of psychological operations. And then you can declare that expertise to the world and pass sage definitive judgements - hell, you can start a YouTube channel or podcast if you like. Truly an Age of Ignorance in an ocean of free information.

Not sure you would need anything so elaborate as SOF just drive a truck up and park it: “Noting videos on social media purportedly showing Russian conscripts passed out from too much vodka, the tweet continued, “We also know that soon these ‘soldiers’ will be at the front, and with such a love for alcohol, it will be easier for them to die on our land.” https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ukraine-mocks-russia-s-partial-mobilization-on-twitter-1.6083536

Well there is a solid point that the truth itself can create a lot of effects. You hit the nail on the head on resource load to do this right. It would be massive 24/7, multi-lingual and multi-cultural. You would need satellite analytics teams with just about every facet of human effects represented. Mapping out the human space in Belarus, Russia and diaspora world wide would take time - nodes, links and mavens. We drove ourselves nuts doing it the VEO space let alone a country of 144 million. I personally don’t think it is really possible without machine learning/AI assist in this day and age. But the other team has moved out on it, no denying that. I personally think we need to really get into the game. I am not sure we will get it together in time for this war, but how much is really going on is out out of sight, maybe we will find out once it is over.

Glad yours does, black psyops goes over like a fart in church in my neck of the woods. As to the truth - why is it having such a hard time in the West then? "The truth will out" seems anachronistic in this day and age and we have seen the other teams really be able to reinforce echo chambers with lies people often are just looking for permission to believe. We have thought and discussed what a western version of reflexive control might look like but in some circles it is right next to nuclear weapons and offensive cyber in the palatability playbook. Tricky business, and we were actually very good at back during the Cold War; however, like anything else it take investment. I have zero doubt the US intelligence machine is pulling on every thread it can right now but the wrong people appear to keep falling out of buildings - or maybe they are the right people we just don't see it yet. And for any of the "government is in my fillings" leaning, trust me, Madison Avenue and Silicon Valley are far deeper in your dental work.

Well I know of at least one that does not. You get it at first year of military college but it is retained for about 15 seconds by most cadets. We went with a “STEM will save us” model in the west. The obscenity of the term “political science” is one example. They often ask me what questions to ask new hires and I always go with “what do you read?” The answer I am looking for is fiction: we wrap our lies in “truth” and we hide our truths in our lies.

Well you should not have been dismissed, and if I was part of that dismissal I owe you a Coke. The potential of information warfare is - and has been - definitive in this war. We have been largely playing defence and Ukraine has been weaponizing truth brilliantly. However, this is one area of warfare we in the West are coming from behind compared to Russia - or at least were. For example, during 2014 in Crimea the Russian had hacked the telecommunications system and were able to send individual texts to protestors against the annexation - while they were protesting. Mis and Dis information are one area that the Russians excelled at prior to this war, right up until they started throwing up all over themselves. You can still see it in some circles but neither the information warfare acumen, nor cyber-Geddon seems to be doing much for the Russians. We know they are out there and up to stuff but not at the levels we were expecting. It kind of looks like they have divorced the methods of subversive warfare and conventional - which is another sign we overestimated their sophistication. So why are we not doing the same: - Policy. We have very limited policy authority for these actions. Mainly based on political risk aversion and lack of legal frameworks. For example, is it legal to use disinformation to attack the RA logistical system when it may cause civilian suffering? How much? The LOAC does not account for some of the 2nd and 3rd order effects, so the lawyers have largely avoided then issue. We can get a lot of people killed with information and subversive warfare and right now in the West we have yet to rationalize that with the rules based order - Russia, and China, do not have so much trouble. - Tactics and doctrine. The expertise to do this work exists but it is not concentrated within the military. Hell, we are grappling with how to recruit cyber and information operators - these guys can make seven figures in private industry out of college and we offer them a rank of private and a lot of being yelled at. Then there is the corporate knowledge base. Try briefing a 50 year old general on what information warfare targeting and see why you get - a serious lack of knowledge and experience as it is something we let public affairs deal with. Finally offensive information warfare is really an area we get icky with because it is basically lying to hurt, which is very unsportsmanlike and not something we have spent a lot of time studying. - Human Terrain expertise. We have specialists and experts but nowhere near the capacity and density we had back during the Cold War. This means we could come off sounding like Tokyo Rose if we tried your massive info warfare plan - “Russian gangsters, your Putin is sub-optimal leader and your borscht is getting cold”. Building that to a competitive point is going to take time. So should we get in this game - definitely, about ten years ago. Are we there yet, nope.

This plus the discussions we had before put into perspective something I have been going on about for some time...options. The trouble with doing a proxy war with irrational nuclear power is that as you compress their options - and we have definitely been doing that - they keep falling back until they get to the only one left, nuclear weapon employment. We have piled up the costs on this, and you note, have clearly articulated them - yet, at least on the surface, it still looks like Russia considers them a viable option. Further, at what point is Russia at the "well nothing left to lose"? The problem with being able to call BS on Russia in this circumstance is that we have zero history to pull on - "I don't know general, I have been in as many nuclear wars as you". Every nuclear power has a theoretical red-line but we have never pushed one to that point. We came close back in Cuba but that wasn't a shooting war. I have to believe that someone in the chain of command is going to see that their survival and best interests are in putting a bullet in Putin before it comes to that and a saner head will prevail but based on this entire war I do have doubts.

I am not sure about "gone" but man we would drive ourselves nuts trying to salvage it. It also depends on the context of use. If Russia had tried it while on the offensive and it led to them getting what they want - yep, all bets off and Heaven is on fire. If Russia does it in "self-defence" of regions or partial that they basically stole in order to put the brakes on the UA rolling over them...gets a little more grey...and frankly, we will be desperate for grey at that point. It is ambiguous warfare, worse it is ambiguous nuclear warfare - ok, take a minute, we are actually talking about this in 2022.... - ok, and we are back. Hypothetically, let's say Russia uses a few battlefield nuclear weapons at the choke point in Crimea. A Bn of UA gets wiped out...ok. Well first thing is that there definitely will be an escalation and reaction - let's play DIME: Diplomatic - I expect that Russia will join NK in the bleacher seats within the international community. Out of UNSC and any other influential bodies...the murmurs for that have already started. The US is very likely to get more aggressive about boxing Russia up until Putin is gone. I suspect China and India will back way off support for Russia as it becomes way too toxic. Iran will probably still talk to them but Russia will likely become a hermit nation diplomatically, holding its near abroad like tatters around its cold naked body. Information - see Diplomatic. Worried about Russian information warfare...well still worry but the western security apparatus will kick into high gear. Further, in this space I have zero doubt will switch from integrated deterrence to active integrated deterrence - which is just code for political warfare. So things like support to resistance within Russia itself are on the table, along with all sorts of stuff we hold back on because we are worried about escalation. Military - Oh my...oh my. We discussed this before, but I am not sure we would automatically lob nuclear weapons back as that is on the nuclear escalation ladder. We will start doing a lot of stuff in the region and abroad. We talked about opening up a Pacific deterrence front. Kalingrad etc. Ukraine will likely get more conventional support but defensive if we want them to slow down, include higher tech AD and BMD. You could see a US/NATO carrier battlegroup in the Black Sea and other penning Russia in. A no-fly zone might be on the table, direct SOF support...the list goes on. NATO will be funded until at least D+30 after the Second Coming of Christ. Economic - forget it. Russia is in the penalty box until it is destitute and we can force them to cough up the nukes...again North Korea. Sanctions and isolation. To the point China and India might jump in - crazy is bad for their business too. Now here is the thing - we could do all that and still ask the UA to put the brakes on in the scenario we are talking about. You see from above we are quickly getting to the "Russia has nothing left to lose" point, and that is very dangerous - especially with a deluded 70 year old rabid nationalist who manages to keep his stubby fingers on the button by this point. Could we stop the war and draw new lines and live with?...I think, yes, but it is conditions based. After Russia puts the gun down, we would then go crazy re-affirming nuclear security in those nervous nations. I would tell my son to get into the BMD game because it is going to go crazy. We will be parking those things everywhere...SDI would likely come back, an oldie but a goldie...maybe the original Journey would come back too. Would some nations go "nope", don't buy it, time for my own nukes? Very likely? Could we keep the nuclear club from becoming a rave - maybe, if we can reaffirm the security of the status quo. I think you can start to see why I expect pressure on Ukraine will start well before we get anywhere near close to this scenario. However, if that pressure does not come, I would take it as a clear sign that we know Putin is full of crap...which would also be wonderful. This is all incredibly scary and unpredictable space - and it blows my mind that it is on the table in 2022. You are absolutely correct, it could break C-WMD, I am not sold it is automatic but it would be on the table as well. It is what makes this war so incredibly dangerous. So back to "are tanks dead?"...?

Gawd, I hate when that happens. Ok, that is a major unsupported leap of logic, and frankly we are get way too many of these in the last 50 pages - at some point this is going to devolve this venture into the same rhetorical and propaganda spaces we see all over the internet, and at that point I will be lobbying to close the thread down because it is no longer keeping people informed, it will have become a dogmatic platform. If Russia employs battlefield nuclear weapons, there will be a response, there must be. However, let's say hypothetically that the West backs down and says "ok, well now it is getting real - let's negotiate an endstate". Yes, it is not a good thing for the future risk the employment of nuclear weapons may have on imperialist expansion. Russia will likely try the same game elsewhere; however what is missing between the Baltic nations and Ukraine is certainty. If Russia annexes, invades or attacks a Baltic nation, and IF that nation declares an article 5 then Russia is not getting handsie on some side hustle, it is declaring war on NATO. "Oh, sure but who says NATO will actually do anything about it?" some say cynically - well 1) NATO nations sure as hell have done something about Ukraine and 2) NATO is too big to fail, and 3) if NATO does fail - and don't take this too personally - but we individually won't give two figs what happens in Baltics or the entirety of Eastern Europe, and even more bluntly in North America, we might not even really care too much about all of Europe anymore - at least as far as collective defence goes. 1) You know, a simple "thank you for having our backs" would go a long way once and awhile. Instead we get "well what have you done for me lately" and "what do you mean you are not willing to risk nuclear escalation for Ukraine?! How dare you!!" I am very grateful that those voices are in the minority. NATO has already committed to the defence of Ukraine, the question is how far will that will last in a nuclear exchange...good question, but I suspect it isn't to drop everything and declare unconditional surrender. But we are not likely to be interested in a bottomless pit of cost and risk either. And before anyone crawls on a morality high horse - take a long look at Africa and the Middle East, we have and will let places burn to the ground outside of our orbit/key interests or if risk/cost gets too high - "change the channel Marge." 2) In NATO and out of NATO is a very significant different state - kinda why we make such a big deal about entry. By definition NATO is a collective defensive alliance, supported by a very complex and political treaty. NATO is, in effect, the military power of the western world and the hard power that backs up the western rules-based order. Without it, that order starts to unravel. If Russia pushes the West into "well let us do what we want, and NATO collapses" situation, we are living in the End Times. Russia, as immensely stupid as they have been, has yet to try and back the West into a corner, even though they themselves are being rammed into one. Why? Because the West would crush Russia beyond recognition to protect itself...and NATO is central to that equation. I expect that NATO would accept nuclear exchange losses, leaving Russia a radioactive wasteland for a few centuries, before it is going to allow itself to fall apart through direct force. Oddly enough, Putin was on the right track to actually defeat NATO by continuing to support narratives that "NATO was irrelevant" - NATO could have evolved into something less than it is now, that would have given Russia more....wait for it...options space. But then they did this useless war and pushed NATO in the exact opposite direction. Maybe Russia needs NATO to be big and strong and scary so that it can hold itself together, but they even have to be smart enough to realize...they just made NATO big strong and scary. 3) If NATO collapses under direct pressure. The whole edifice falls apart. Then, and try not to be too hurt, we got much bigger problems than Ukraine, the Baltics or Russia to worry about. We would likely see a series of new collective defensive bodies arise from the ashes, and a fair number of them can't even find Ukraine or the Baltics on the map. The EU might hold together militarily but Europe has a bit of shaky history in that regard. I suspect it may fall back on internal alignment, most of which won't care what happens in the Baltics. The bigger players will likely try to hold it together, 5 EYES+ for example but even then, the most liberal humanist nations are going to start to contract back to their own borders and interests. This will have economic repercussions as we no longer have unified collective military power to secure globalization. I expect China will be invading Taiwan the following Tues - at which point all of this Eastern Europe/Russia noise is going to fade to background while we hit a singularity decision point in Asia. So as bluntly as I can - The Baltics are more important to NATO and the West because they are in NATO under the collective defence mechanism that affords. We will take far fewer risks or BS from Russia in these countries because they are within that framework. I suspect that there are more than a few politicians that are quietly thanking whatever gods they pray to that Ukraine is not in NATO right now because we would not even have the option to pull back. That said, the issue of having Ukraine in NATO is likely largely settled at this point, so once this war is over, it will also come under that collective protection - for the love of god, just take the freakin win! Russia nuclear deterrence is working in this war, that is why we are not Shock and Awing Moscow, Bagdad Style. In this game of chicken Ukraine may lose - I personally do not think that is the most probable outcome but, dare we admit it and not get yelled at for 15 pages - it is a possibility. Lastly, I am going to put out the question of "what are we doing here?" On this thread? If we are continuing the collective and distributed objective analysis and assessment of this war as it unfolds, then let's do that. I think we are safe to say that we all agree Russia's war is illegal and immoral and they deserve everything they are getting. However, if this is turning into a maximalist Pro-Ukrainian propaganda machine, I am out - lock it down and people can go elsewhere for their information.

Not as far as I can tell. Crimea's water came from the North Crimea canal, which Ukraine cut back in 2014. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal) so they have local reservoirs and it looks like Russia had to ship it in, which caused problems: https://www.ft.com/content/5eda71fc-d678-41cd-ac5a-d7f324e19441 An exchange here, be it conventional or nuclear will not really make a difference to Russia, or Crimea if Ukraine controls their water supply from the north. Bu the time the UA got to this point, they would already be cut off. As to "uninhabitable", well that figured out how to live with it for 8 years, so no I do not think that is a risk.

So since it is Nuclear Terror Week here on the old forum: I still think likelihood is low to be honest, but we cannot say "zero" - which is disconcerting. IF the Russians actually go down this road (and it is a big IF): In and around here is where it is most likely to happen. From a military operations point of view, attacking out of or into the Crimea under resistance is not nice: You basically have a 10 km land bottleneck hemmed in by the Black Sea and those significant water features to the east. A bottleneck of concentrated force is what tactical nuclear weapons were designed for. This is also right on the Crimean border and has low population density. Although, I have to be honest, I am not sure Russia needs to use nuclear weapons and take the associated risks here. Conventionally they could simply mine the ever-living crap out of this area and pour conscripts into it. The UA could try amphib ops (and these water features would need that) but the level of risk and preparation is driven up significantly; however, they really risk military disaster or being bled white. I guess this will be a key indicator of a lot of things, if/when the UA get to this point. A major campaign decision point.

Ok, well we knew these were coming. First concern is whether the can be integrated into a larger C4ISR architecture. Likely first sign of this happening will be a focus on a single type of target, like UA comms or some such, that creates operational effect. If they keep being used as terror weapons or tactically then it ain’t great but Russia is still not anywhere near C4ISR parity. Next thing will be to see if any new weird c-UAV stuff starts popping up. I am sure people are on it and now is the time to field em.

Mazel Tov!

Seriously - in 5-10 years: Ukraine: Donbas and Crimea under Russian administration: