The_Capt

CMBS is fine....but if you really want to see where it all started in the modern era, try out CMCW....now available in the gift shop.

I did: “Strategic value[edit] The Port of Sevastopol is considered a key hold[clarification needed] for maritime routes between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, and, therefore, the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The port is one of the few warm deepwater ports available to Russia in the Black Sea. Russia leased the port from Ukraine, until its annexation in 2014. Access to the port is considered one of the main factors that sparked the 2014 Crimean crisis between Ukraine and Russia, and Russia's subsequent military intervention on Crimea.” (Wikipedia) Now whether or not that is true really depends on how the Russians view it and whether it is a deal breaker. I am pretty confident Russian nationalist will play it up as such.

LOL! I was going to go that way but thought it too below the belt - that is outstanding.

Look, we are going to have to agree to disagree here. You once called my experience into question so let me fill you in a bit - I have personally been on the ground in one civil war and an insurgency. You are really underplaying a lot of really complex factors here, for example: “I’m sure there will be some sort of insurgency, but a clampdown of the border should keep it down.” This tells me that you have zero idea how insurgencies actually work and frankly you are making some extremely dangerous deductions from that. It appears that you have a firm conclusion and you are wrapping reality around it - this has been a serious strategic error in the past - see Iraq 2003. Insurgencies are about an idea. An idea by a sub-section of a population that things need to be different. When you are combating one, you are combating that idea. As you have noted and I do not think anyone can deny, the idea of being “not Ukraine” exists within these regions to a statistically significant level. Further, these factions have demonstrated that they will act on that idea, clearly. So assuming you can “clampdown” on hundreds of kms of coastline in Crimea, and along the Russia border in Crimea - perhaps by “building a wall”? You have done nothing, nor have you suggested anything to actually combat the idea of an insurgency- one you admit is likely. You are glossing over some enormously difficult, some say unsolvable problems, all in pursuit of a nice clean end-state. ”I am not sure it will be a risk to Ukraine’s PR”. Seriously? So Ukraine has to deal with two likely insurgencies deeply embedded within two separate regions. Two insurgencies that you, and others fully admit cannot be solved through democratic process. So we are at FID. So how is your history? Now find me a counter-insurgency, or god help us, civil war, that was nice and clean. And we are talking years here, maybe decades - the same decade Ukraine is reliant on western reconstruction money. You think the first collateral damage, or unrighteous shoot isn’t going to wind up on the internet as Macgregor makes as much hay about it within political circles? One soldier screw up caught on camera and you are talking narrative risk - especially as you are also prescribing restrictions on democratic freedoms. Even if those reasons are legitimate, it will get lost in the political churn. I get the point but in the business we call this exposure. And Ukraine’s exposure in these regions is too high in my estimation. Beyond the spectre of nuclear weapons, the post-conflict risks are very high as there are all the ingredients for some really dark roads. Solutions that may actually work: - kick it over to international community. Let the UN deal with these open sores and in a generation or two you may have re-integration. - Let Russia have them and then build a shining city on a hill and attack the idea that life in Russia is better than in a new Ukraine - money and personal interest matter. Russia is going to botch the job anyway, they are being set up for economic collapse. Attraction back into Ukraine is a powerful tool, and a win-win if you tie it to democratic freedoms. In a few years you will likely have them begging to re-enter into the Ukrainian union. Key attribute here is patience. Even in the face of atrocity and injustice. Play it right and you can come out on top without risking WW3 and/or a weeping open sore that covers you in sh#t while you are trying to rebuild a nation.

Geez, trying to. Groovy or not, that line is a classic, sig worthy.

You should put that on a T Shirt.

I concurrence with this, very much. I absolute think Ukraine is entitled to regain its 1991 borders, that is recognized by the international community and my own government. But should they? I am not an expert on governments or politics with all the permutations and combinations that distribution of power can play out in a society. I am an expert on defence and security, and in my business both Donbas and Crimea are starting to look like poison pills. Now before everyone gets excited, hear me out. We have gone round and round on the issue of what democracy would look like in this regions, let alone re-integration challenges back into Ukraine. I am sure smarter and better educated people than me would figure it out, after what looks like a painful journey. However from a security point of view: - We have around 50% percent of the populations (pre-war) in these regions who are or have been “pro-Russian”. In Crimea that number appears to be closer to 68 percent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimeahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea - I think we can all agree that complete removal of Russian influence in these regions is the end goal; however, we should also be pragmatic in that will be very difficult. It is highly likely that Russia will continue to do what it did before this war, subvert-meddle and support resistance groups. - We have an unsolvable riddle on enfranchisements of these groups. In fact some members here don’t even feel that people who fought in this war on the other side can be re-integrated back into Ukraine. Others have outlined how a referendum is impossible due to 1) Russian gerrymandering thru war crimes, which is true and 2) these regions lack legitimacy based on previous actions. Either way returning large proportions of regional population back into Ukraine with full democratic freedoms is not going to be easy. With those three factors, and there are more - these regions are the setup for a security nightmare. First, in Crimea there will likely be a humanitarian crisis when the UA re-takes the region as people flee across a single bridge - that can and will blow up all over the internet. Second, as some point out, these regions will be as Germany was in 1945 - except now they all have cellphones - the odds of information resistance and warfare in these regions is almost a certainty. Third, you have all the conditions for an insurgency backed by Russia in both these regions. All risks during what is supposed to be a western backed reconstruction phase. The risks to Ukraine losing the strategic narrative are extremely high, in fact a weakened Russia will go out of its way to make it happen. Ukraine will risk taking on a decades-long nearly unsolvable ethnic based security riddle. Maximalist is a very good word here, Steve. These goals are just and Ukraine is entitled to them, no argument but the risks are very high that Ukraine will risk it’s strategic high ground when it needs it most if they pursue these ends. In the end this will be a Ukrainian decision, it is their right and they have earned it. My advice is that they think long and hard before they wade into this, it has broken more powerful nations.

Hey now, I didn't say that - the free state of sburke is starting to look pretty good right now.

Ah, well now this is a different story. This is Russia and separatist abandoning democratic process and turning to violence because they did not like the answer...not cool. My point on "clear" is that there it was unclear as to the level of separatist sentiment in the region, I think you answered that; clearly a section of the population within the Donbass region are not "all in" with the Ukrainian union. I suspect we would find the same in Crimea. So what does Ukraine do when it re-takes these regions, assuming Russia fall all the way back and is no longer a real factor? We have been debating legitimacy a lot and frankly I do not know if the cause of the separatist was or is legitimate, I am not even sure we on the outside have the right to judge - how they went about trying to gain freedom, or Russian involvement, was clearly not legitimate. I am very concerned about any suggestion that the peoples of the Donbass or Crimea, who were separatists or even served in the LNR/DNR forces are somehow not entitled to democratic rights and freedoms as any Ukrainian citizens, not that I think that is what most of us are suggesting. I think there are a lot of grey areas here, and we should not dismiss a peoples free choice lightly - even the ones we really do not like. I am very concerned about side-stepping or sweeping the issue aside when we discuss end-states for this war. I have to say this entire discussion has gotten me really thinking about post-conflict and the challenges of nation building, which are muscles I have not used in some time.

Interestingly I have been wondering the same thing - what is the threshold? Not a single household (it has been tried). Is is a county, a township, I don't think so, a province or region seems to be on the table. I do think a state has a right to establish territorial integrity; however, this is also contract between the people who live within it. At some point, not entirely sure where, if they people wish it, that contract may need to be renegotiated. I think removing that freedom is extremely dangerous, unless of course it is agreed to beforehand. My concern here is that we are playing fast and lose with peoples rights and freedoms, largely because we might not like the answer. Democracy says that power is derived from a mandate from the people - the only international bounds on that which I know of are laws with respect to human rights (and even here we play a little loose). A state is free to determine how it is governed. We even have an index for democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index). So if you and others are saying Donbas or Crimea does not have a right to explore the question - of course when it can be established as free and fair - then who does and why? According to @RandomCommenter Scotland does as it was an independent nation who joined a union and retained the right to leave - so it has to do with entry into the union? What about places like Quebec, who were conquered and then as our democracy evolved so did their rights to separate? What about indigenous peoples, like Greenland? Regardless, it may not even come to this; however, it is an issue worth considering, I do not think we can simply sweep it under the carpet.

Sorry missed this one, no. Ukrainian citizens get the vote under Ukrainian law. If a Russians immigrate to Ukraine become citizens then, yes they should be afforded those rights.

Dude, read some posts further down, we settled this already. Hours ago, no need to resurrect.

“Prior to the Revolution of Dignity, the politics of the region were dominated by the pro-Russian Party of Regions, which gained about 50% of Donbas votes in the 2008 Ukrainian parliamentary election. Prominent members of that party, such as former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, were from the Donbas.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donbas I have zero doubt there was Russian influence, however, I would say the issue is far from clear. You and I do not need to see a “legitimate right” for these regions to explore separation - it is implied within the framework of a modern free democracy. Or are we selling something else? In the end this is not a debate about whether or not these regions have the ‘right’ or not, it is about their freedom to chose to do so. If you are saying that they are not entitled to this because…well why are you saying they do not have that right? What is a “legitimate right” then? And who gets to determine that? If the majority of people in this region after reintegration want to explore separation are you proposing a prison state where that option is removed? The only thing I have heard is that is may not be allowed in the Ukrainian constitution; but that is a slippery slope post-conflict. In fact if they are not afforded that right, is not Ukraine risking another civil conflict in the future?

This guy has been predicting the immanent collapse of the UA since Feb, he is the anti-Steve. The UA was completely done at Kyiv, they were completely done in the Donbas, and I am sure in his bizarro world the offensive around Kharkiv was a Russian reorg or “trap”. This former serving officer with his background he also knows better, which makes this worse. I would not trust his analysis, assessments or data in the least. As to UA casualties, I am sure there has been a spike in the last few weeks, attacking will do that. However, they suffered similar casualties back over the summer in the Donbas and were still able to pull of a double operational offensive in Sep…they are clearly able to absorb these levels and still force generate combat power.

Well I guess the same way we keep order right now. We try and negotiate, entice and keep people within exiting states; however, if they employ a free and fair democratic process to derive a mandate from the people to leave that state, then a negotiation begins for that separation. Plenty of history and precedent on this, particularly after the break up of the USSR; however, we also have them in the west. Scotland is still debating the issue and if they vote to leave, does anyone think England will force them to stay against their will? In my own country we came within millimeters of Quebec separation and it would have been an ugly divorce but no one was even discussing the use of force to hold the nation together. I am not sure that the threshold is: Greenland did a soft-pull away back in 2008 and their population is about 56k: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence. Donbass region had about 6 million people in it. If we mean what we stand for then this isn't about what we want, it is about what the populations within those regions want - we cannot go back-sies on democracy because we don't like the result. International recognition of Ukrainian borders pre-2014 is already in place, we are not talking about that issue until Ukraine decides one way or the other. I too agree Ukraine should be supported in re-gaining its former frontiers, I am just not sure it will. I also think that the re-integration of those occupied regions is also very important part of the process should Ukraine regain them, and should include free and fair elections/referendums on the issue, if the people there so decide it. I guess my question back to you the other way: where do we draw the line in trying to keep people in a nation structure they do not want to be within? At what point does their freedom not count? The easy answer is "well they can leave" but how is that any different from a slippery form of forced deportation? Which is exactly what we are seeing Russia do.

I have never found officers that central to the process . Worse, NCOs, which they never had a strong corps of to begin with. I honestly do not have much sympathy for Russia left in me. But those poor kids - yes kraze we know that they sat back and let this happen, but these ones are being dragged onto the battlefield - are going to die in droves come winter, if they make it that far.

Ok, on mobilization. I hope I am not repeating myself too much but my assessment is that it won't help Russia much at this point in the war. If they were serious they should have done whatever this is back in March. Why? - It does not fix the Russian operational system, in fact it might make it worse. The Russian logistical and C4ISR systems are already strained under the current load, and the UA are not making life easier by hitting them all over the place. Adding another 300k troops to that system, may do as much damage as HIMARs on a good day. This is everything from uniforms, weapons, equipment, food/water/consumables and medical support - dear gawd, the medical support plan just got burned badly. Further, unless Russia is recruiting from a 5 EYES nation or possible China, they are not going to get the technical expertise to even start to try and get their C4ISR to a competitive level. I am sure Russia has switched on tech savvy young people but intake into these trades is not quick or easy. Nor is getting the equipment they need to do the job. No, my bet is that IT specialist is going to wind up in a freezing trench with a Cold War era AK-47. - It does not fix the joint force - which for Russia may as well be a magical/mythical concept along with fairies and functional democracy. It takes years to create pilot and air weapons controllers, let alone integrating that at an operational level. Maritime crews are in the same boat (bah-dump, bump). So 300k barely trained infantry are not going to solve the lack of joint force integration in the RA. - It does not create offensive capability. Even if the RA could magically create the logistics and C4ISR system to support them. Turning 300k individual troops into fighting units and formations is a very large time bill. We are talking Lvl 1 - 7 training, to start with. Training formation staff that can actually plan and synchronize offensive operations is also a years long effort. This mobilization creates, at best (or worse, depending on how one looks at it), defensive capability. Which means that with the exception of tactical surges, the operationally offensive phase for the RA in this was is likely over. I strongly suspect this signals a "dig in and hold onto whatever ground you can so Putin can call it a win" warfare for Russia from here on out. - It creates massive political exposure. Hence why I think this is endgame. It forces people who wanted to sit on the sidelines into the fire. It puts pressure on home front that wasn't there before. It is the last card in conventional warfare, done in desperation to try and keep things afloat. The equation is upside down for Russia on this. It cannot create wins on the battlefield, and will only create losses politically. Were I Steve, I would call it the death spiral. - This is 2022, not 1941. The lethality of warfare is frankly pants-wettingly scary. 300k poorly trained and equipped troops are going to get cut to pieces by modern precision artillery backed up with ISR of the gods. It is going to be brutal and nasty. These units are going to have a very rough time of it and their morale is going to iffy from the start. That, or they will feed these poor sods in as replacements into existing line units, which does nothing for cohesion. You can integrate replacements but you need a period of unit integration, and I am doubting the RA has that time. I am betting RSOMI is going to look like the opening of Enemy at the Gates. - Last point, it does not change the simple fact that also unlike 1941 these lads are not fighting on Russian soil. No matter how many times Putin or the generals say it, they are not stupid. They are in a foreign country dying for "what?" exactly. Conscript troops will fight and die like mad dogs for their homes and families. Fighting over a few yards in a country that isn't theirs is the land of professional militaries with years of training and experience. There are plenty of examples from Afghanistan back in the 80s to back this up. So basically, mobilization is not a sign of much beyond just how bad thing have gotten on the RA side. My bet is that casualty rates are in the higher ranges we have seen. 300k is not enough to cover the now-700 km frontage in any kind of depth, so hardpoints and isolated fort is the likely plan. The only question I have left is - how much time does it actually buy the RA?

I keep wondering what happens when someone invents a minefield with legs, or flies...or both. Dumb ones in the ground are bad enough, what happens when they become sentient?

Ok, ok, let's all settle down. Irritate is fine by me. We are in a heated debate, I am sure we can irritate each other just fine and still have productive conversations. Look, we are all on the same side here. We vary in some areas but I can say we are all very much pro-Ukrainian on this thread. Probably on me, I poked back too hard. I withdraw "irritate", maybe frustrate is a better word, but hey we can disagree. So long as we keep it clean and most importantly productive. Right?

Ok, I think that just about wraps up this topic, so glad we could come to rational common ground. I am pretty sure the Canadian government will find and fleece me in my tax bracket over this, as they have demonstrated so much acumen to do, but so be it. You guys in the "non-negotiable" camp do you, I hope maybe you found a few things to think about and mull over, I know I did - the entire post-conflict thing is something to unpack, but we need to get there first.

I think that was actually the weird Dr Strangelove logic back in the day. We could somehow trade cities and still de-escalate. I think they definitely could have picked a secondary city but whatever.

So once retaken you are locked in? You either have to flee or live under a constitution that does not allow for freedom to chose to be another nation or state? And as you note, democracy of any kind should not be allowed for some period of time because of Russian war crimes? How are these un-citizens going to be represented? Will they have equal representation by, unelected/appointed officials because of your first assertation? Are they going to be taxed? Where will they sit in the reconstruction priority, how will you ensure that they are not discriminated against because they stayed in these regions during occupation - hell a not so small portion were born under that condition. So now you may have a constitutional crisis on your hands? Or you simply ignore the will of a significant portion of the population? Do you drive them out...that ought to sell well in the west.

"Faith, belief" - you guys toss these around like they are hard truths and it is starting to irritate. Second is the black and white calculus that anyone does not align with as "defeatists etc". We are not investing billions, in the middle of post-pandemic recession, and risking a slow roll towards nuclear Armageddon because we have "faith and hope" that anyone will "do the right thing" - a concept we cannot even agree on internally. We are doing it because of what we know. We know Russia cannot win this war and we know Ukraine cannot lose the peace. A significant portion of the populations of the west don't have faith in their own governments, let alone one 7-time zones away. I honestly have watched the Ukrainian government steer a brilliant narrative, a few missteps but rock solid. But Reconstruction/Post Conflict is like wedding - everyone loses their freaking minds! You want to propose a non-negotiable push to the pre-2014 borders, then you need to answer the question of how to deal with those regions who have been outside of Ukraine for 8 years, because that post-game show directly impacts what we know.

Not suggesting anything of the sort. I am asking "FancyCat" how he thinks post-conflict will go down post-conflict. Also, I am not going to subscribe to "how dare you that is internal business" when we stand as significant stakeholders in this conflict and post-conflict. Of course, I do not think Ukraine will behave as the Russians, they have already demonstrated this in the prosecution of this war. However, in all those past experiences the narrative of "just gives us the money and stay out of our business" does not fly, and will not fly for this war. The west is going to make a long-term commitment to Ukraine (we had better) and Ukraine will need to make a reciprocal commitment back, that very much includes what we are talking about. Once again, you do not have to like it or even listen to me, but I will bet a c-note that these sorts conversations are happening in the halls of power in the west right now.