The_Capt

Really damn risky play. Far right in the US get wind that Russia backed a slaughter of Israelis and the whole thing could swing enormous support into the arms of “let’s get Russia”. Would only be a big win of the US does not find out and given the intelligence architectures in the region, that is a stretch. Done the math. The “help” will likely be symbolic. Israel does not need a lifeline of support to pound Hamas into sand, they just needed permission…and I think they just got it.

All I want for (the real) Thanksgiving, is a River Crossing Assault to break the left flank!

So first of all, if you are turning to Lindsey Graham for foreign policy advice, you may want to check outside and ensure that the sky in in the right location. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/lindsey-grahams-foreign-policy-advice-donald-trump/572089/ But that is just me. Of course we want Russia to get back in the box. Hell we want them back in the G7 and selling all that cheap gas. We want the global order back because it was a lot more peaceful and profitable than whatever this is turning into. We want Putin and enough of his ilk gone, but apparently your position is that we are in this in order to exterminate your "eternal enemy". Ukraine is not a "weapon in our hands," it is a nation who we are desperately trying to keep above water. The strategy you are proposing is so bafflingly short-sighted that is borders on self-destructive. So how many Russians are enough? What happens if Ukraine doesn't kill enough Russians to satisfy our bloodlust? Of course when you are done killing Russians we will simply walk away and leave you in the ruins, because all we care about are dead Russians and not the reconstruction of Ukraine. There is an element of proxy war to this conflict, but it is not one we wanted. If the objective were to destroy Russia, then we would drag this thing out for decades - that is the argument coming out of the US far right, btw, "this is a forever war where we fight til the last Ukrainian...we should get out now!" MacGregor pretty much has been saying this from Day 1. So all talks of "Dead Russians as Strategic Objective" and "Economic Interests - War for Cash" and "Ukraine is a Handgun", you can leave in the far right loonie bins where they belong. Finally, if you are telling me that Canada, under a liberal government, is spending over 2 billion, coming up on 10 percent of our annual defence spending, in the defence of your nation because "killing Russians" is our sole national interest, then I think this conversation is pretty much over.

I think it is a fascinating look into the far right info sphere. They have a very significant Judeo-Christian base that honestly believe that Israel are the chosen people and is central to biblical prophesy (and oddity at the same time next door to rampant anti-Semites). Israel gets enormous attention and positive support pressure from the Bible Belt base, which are the foundation of the entire right movement in the US. So Don Don #2 is really just reflecting what that info sphere is putting out there - almost nothing on Ukraine, because Pop Pop likes Russia, and losing its mind over Israel because Jesus said so. Given Don Jrs track record, this guy could not organize plan if it was a hostage teleprompter held down by gun tape. So my bet is he is just parroting what he is seeing. Definitely going to make the next few months interesting as this whole Israeli thing could suck a lot of air out of the room. US far right thinks Ukraine is “fake news” while Israel is the End Times.

If that were true then why is my country spending an order of magnitude more on support than it ever saw in trade? https://www.international.gc.ca/country-pays/ukraine/relations.aspx?lang=eng# https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/campaigns/canadian-military-support-to-ukraine.html# By your paradigm there is no stark national interest for Canada to spend billions in supporting your country. Sure Russia is doing dirty but it is a country that we historically do much more trade with than Ukraine: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports/canada https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/exports/canada We live under the security umbrella of the US and are 9 timezones away. Beyond diaspora - and last we recognized that relationship it did not work out so well (https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-house-speaker-apologizes-recognition-veteran-who-fought-nazis-2023-09-24/)…why in the hell should we spend that much taxpayers money on Ukraine? A non-NATO, non-EU, non-5EYES, non-G7 nation that is at war with another nation we historically did about 3-4 times more trade with? No, I reject your premise as it does not match the facts. Do nations work toward interest? Absolutely. However, those interest are expressed as far more than money and fear - and they should be. We are in this because we tried to build a world where nations were not permitted to do what Russia is doing right now. Where unilateral invasions are in fact against the law. We built that world to get and stay well, we also built it because we actually care enough about humanity that we would prefer we don’t destroy ourselves through narrow minded greed. There is no hard geopolitical or economic reasons for Canada to be spending this amount of money on supporting your nation in this war. There are some incredibly powerful morale and ethical ones, and as bafflingly ignorant as a we can be at times, those things still matter. We got rid of AP landmines because they did more harm than good. Not some weird “hey everyone let’s disarm Ukraine so Russian can maul them later - tee hee”. Same definitely goes for nukes - sorry but Eastern Europe was a hot mess after the USSR fell and no junior partner still trying to figure which way was up was going to be keeping hands on strategic weapons. Frankly Ukraine was not that important to anyone’s calculus in the 90s and 00s to put that together - you may recall we kinda had our hands full. So I think we are done here. You want to be a bitter old man dreaming reasons why “everyone screwed you” and why “we all owe you”, I can’t stop you. But the reality is that our sin in the west was we simply did not care. We were focused on other things while Russia kept sticking its toes over the line while getting people hooked on cheap energy. There was no conspiracy, there was neglect. But Ukraine was and is an independent nation that needs to own it mistakes as well - and there were many. In the end all that added up to an embolden Russia that leaned in to far too fast…and here we are. We support Ukraine because we all owe it to each other to ensure that we do not fall back into dictators doing whatever they want to grab power. We fought two of the largest wars in human history in the last century when we allowed that to happen. It is bigger than money and geopolitics. It is bigger than whatever grudges, bias or prejudice you bring onto this. This is about global order and the right thing to do.

Like most of your other theories, come up with one shred of supporting evidence. Of course there was diplomacy but no one coerced Ukraine into giving up land mines. The fact that Ukraine still has cluster munitions is proof that coercion was not the primary method of trying to get people to sign on to any of these treaties. Prove it. Again the West can’t win. We somehow blindly trusted Russia and then violated agreements not to contain them through NATO expansion. We forced Russia’s hand and let them do dirty through inaction- at the same time. Here is the truth and you can go back to the Budapest Memo debate we had on this…Ukraine agreed to all of the arms reductions the each step on the way. Ukraine was paid millions for those reductions and signed off on every one. Ukraine signed off on guarantees - weak as they were - as well. So now that things have obviously gone sideways, you want to forget all that and put all the blame on the US/West for this mess? You want to forget gross political corruption in defence - that is still happening according to some - that very likely would have seen all those MANPADs sold off to a highest bidder, many in those VEOs we faced for 20 years? Are we to honestly believe that you are saying with a straight face that Ukraine would have held onto all that weaponry for a rainy day 20-30 years later? The West’s failure was in not acting decisively and with unity back in 2014. We definitely did not step up and push back hard enough. That is a fair point. Further we definitely could have moved faster in late 21. The rest of your narrative is unsubstantiated, and frankly self-serving. The West does not owe Ukraine a damned thing based on its failures. It owes you support because it is the right thing to do. Ukraine is an independent nation that was minding its own business when Russia decided to invade and murder. That is why we support Ukraine. Not some bizarre construct of culpability pulling half the facts from the 1990s.

And this is where I stop listening. "Forced" to sign the Ottawa treaty. Sure. By who? Bigfoot? They were! "May 1990: Gorbachev and Bush Meet at Camp David and Washington Presidents Bush and Gorbachev met in Washington and Camp David in May 1990. They signed a key elements agreement for a strategic arms treaty, a chemical weapons reduction accord, and a trade agreement reducing barriers to U.S.-Soviet commerce. They also concluded several other bilateral accords to increase cultural and scientific exchanges, and maritime and air links. In addition, the two leaders discussed the topics of Lithuania and German unification. Following the summit, President Gorbachev journeyed to Minneapolis to meet local business leaders. The next day, he met with former President Reagan in San Francisco before returning to Moscow." https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/85962.htm#:~:text=Presidents Bush and Gorbachev met,barriers to U.S.-Soviet commerce. Hey, you want to paint some nonsense Grampa Simpson rants on how this war you are in is all the US/West's fault - go for it, see how far it gets you in sustaining international support. Oh and you totally got me with that picture: Clear indication of a Canadian conspiracy to get into bed with Russia...must be why we forced Ukraine to sign the Ottawa treaty.

I honestly do not even see that link. Israel does not need anymore western support to deal with Hamas. The IDF is the 15th largest military on the planet by budget and has about 650k thousand troops to pull on. They are amongst the most modern equipped and trained land forces in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces Hamas military wing is a fraction of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam_Brigades An although getting some pretty deep pockets for a terror organization, is not in the same league with respect to conventional warfare. I am not sure what triggered this whole thing right now, but my money is on internal pressures not international events. In fact Hamas timing is actually poor. With the West being distracted and somewhat numb we probably will be less likely to care when the IDF start pounding the ever living crap out of Gaza, followed up by a brutal ground invasion.

Well sure, by that logic I guess the US is in bed with Iran too: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/04/politics/iranian-drone-parts-13-us-companies-ukraine-russia/index.html Russia is in bed with Iran because they will do business with each other and both hate the US. Iran is selling what Russia needs right now, weapons, and they are one of the few countries in the world comfortable doing that. US just released billions in Iranian assets to get US citizens back: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-prisoner-swap-sanctions-assets-4e1fa477f8e6af45fb764acd259c2f1a Is this a US plot to attack Israel because they did not "go all in" on Ukraine too? All this build up to "Israel should be a global pariah because Ukraine and Hamas proves it." Complete and utter bovine scatology.

In the 90s the US held back and tried to be a team player. In the 2000s after 9/11 it said "screw that" and started throwing weight around. It was "wrong" both times according just about everyone. It is any surprise that a highly conservative-isolationist sentiment is on the rise in US politics? But hey, we are at the point where a few Palestinian idiots (who are likely to be dead soon) singing at a wedding are being taken as a foreign policy indicator. Here is a guy who is convinced it was a Russian attack because Hamas used drones: https://tvpworld.com/73258518/russia-is-behind-hamas-attacks-on-israel-expert But hey choose your own truth, I guess: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/many-albertans-think-global-warming-is-a-hoax-but-ufos-are-real-poll

C'mon, that is really bordering on conspiracy theories we do not want to get into. In fact the logic doesn't even make sense. Israel had "too strong ties with Russia", yet Russia was also supporting Hamas to conduct an attack of this scale? So Russia did this because...why? Israel was already pretty much out of this war, so why open up another front? Russia is in bed with Iran because they are anti-US/West. What interest does Russia possibly have in a war in Israel? In fact if Russia had that sort of pull wouldn't Israel "going all in in Ukraine" simply accelerated what is happening now? This is drawing links where none exist. Hamas and Israel have been going to war with each other for over 20 years, they really don't need a Russian (or US) excuse to do so again. None of this comes close to justify saying that "it is all Israel's fault because Ukraine". If Israel had somehow really supported Ukraine then Hamas would not be doing whatever this is, I mean seriously?!

Oh even better, let’s double down shall we - now it is all the “West’s fault”. The US did not “force” anyone to disarm. Ukraine took the money happily and got rid of mountains of old USSR stocks that would not have shortened you current war at all. Or worse held onto strategic nukes that would have accelerated one. Regardless, what is unfolding in Israel has nothing to do with their stance on Russia. Or the West not carpet bombing Moscow every time a suicide bomber goes off in Tel Aviv. In fact beyond some pretty tenuous money trails from Russia buying stuff from Tehran to support their war, that in turn likely funded some Hamas, the link is non-existent. We could have pounded Russia into sand and Hamas would still be doing this sort of stuff, or do you honestly think deterrence extends that far. For the record it is in extremely bad taste to post video of slaughtered Israeli civilians and follow up with “I told you so”, especially when the “told” is so far off the mark it borders on John Kettler-level. It suggests that in your opinion that Israel deserves whatever this is because they have not sent Ukraine enough whatever - statements like that make one wonder just who the hell we are supporting in this war. Globally, basically the only way you appear to be satisfied is if the US and West essentially start behaving like Russia - that will somehow make the world a better place? We tried a lot of hard power flexing in the 2000s, we invaded two countries and a whole lot of westerners are left wondering what the freakin point was. Now we got new messes to deal with and do not need partners we are trying to keep above water telling us “you are doing it wrong” anymore than Ukraine wants us to tell you how to win your war.

Dude, stick to Ukraine. You are making enormously unfounded leaps of logic here. No one can reasonably describe Israeli foreign policy with respect to Iran (where they launched numerous HVT strikes over the years) or Gaza/Hamas (where they have conducted regular airstrikes and military action/war back to 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza–Israel_conflict) as “two chair sitting”. Drawing a leap between Israeli perceived restraint with respect to the war in your country and what just happened in and around Gaza is drifting into conspiracy theory and disinformation. As I read it you are basically on the road to blaming every misery and long standing conflict in the west sphere on our escalation restraint. This is 1) wrong and 2) disingenuous.

Well I will now! Gotta be honest was on a whole separate journey - and my reward for completion was...more work!

Thanks guys. Guess who got tagged to do a Future of Joint Warfare piece at work? Yep, the guy who won't shut up about it. If Steve was particularly profit driven he would charge a membership fee for this thread.

Quick call for assistance from the community - in the massive stream of videos and link being posted on this monster thread, there was one that showed a UA company/bn attack from planning to execution - drones being used while HQ is directing. Can someone re-post that link for me as a favour because I have no idea how to find it in the stream. It was maybe last month, or even Aug? Doesn't matter really, just need one of UA doing a deliberate attack and how they are doing tactical C2. Please and thank you.

I think no small amount of the dis/mis Information Age we live in is because most people do not know how to vet and apply critical thinking with respect to the internet. Younger generations seem better at this but is digital refugees tend to lack some of the basic skill. We grew up when information was pumped at us through a box. We believed it, to a point. Then the information world blew up. In an ocean of information, anything can be made true. Connecting dots - even ones that were not there- became too easy. We gorged and got sick on it. Then we got scared and went back to listening to one or two channels on the box. Problem was we all seemed to pick the channels we liked and not the ones we could trust because we did not know which ones to trust. So we wind up with information being provided based on what we want to hear as opposed to what is actually happening. The monetization of mainstream information channels did not help (although one could argue it was always monetized) but they adapted and began to tell truths they could seem to a market...not the actual truth. It was all fun and games until politicians started doing it. Now everyone else but my sources is “lying”, in an age that lying should be impossible. The truth became relevant. Again one could argue it always has been but the distance between relevance frameworks grew and diversified as we all sought certainty instead of truth. I can only hope that young people are growing up far more digitally cynical and can smell “fake” much better than we can. Of course with AI, “fake” is simply getting better as well.

I think of these three, #2 was the most viable but now after the war went all sideways where is the internal political threat? If there were frictions and divisions that drove this pretty extreme course of action, then why have they not exploded in the mess that followed? It only matters if the calculus that started the war can give insight into how to end it. But so far I have not really seen any definitive explanation - we might never get one. My best guess is that military and security forces were not ready until Feb 22, so that may explain “earlier”. But it does not explain “why not later?” Maybe Putin is feeling his own mortality. Maybe there was an internal forcing function that somehow went away after the war dragged on. Maybe the plan was to go later but Russia got wind that US intel had picked them up and they had to go before support to Ukraine started to build.

I still do not see the forcing function. Subversive campaigns can take a decade or more. How long did Russia play silly buggers in Ukraine before 2014? I think it is pretty obvious that he tried because he thought he could pull it off. The plan was to hold Kyiv, install some puppet, leave some occupation support and a helluva lot of security forces to solidify control (see that RUSI reports on Russian unconventional warfare, the level and detail of planning is staggering). The West would make quacking noises and toss on a few more sanctions at oligarchs but was too addicted to cheap energy to really unify. It would all settle down and Russia would really be no worse off than they were in 2015. Ok, but why Feb 22? Worst time of year weather wise. No crisis in the Kremlin - that we know about. No looming NATO entry - hell the vast majority of westerners were entirely consumed by the pandemic. You got a Rules Based Order guy in the White House. I mean Jan 6th 2021, sure makes a lot of sense. 2022? The smoke had cleared and the US actually had a moment to breathe. It is the timing that gets me. Putin could have waited another 24 months and hit in the middle of the US election. NATO and the rest of the west would have been left wondering who to bet on. You do this special operation in Nov or Oct and Europe would have had a whole winter needing more gas. I get the motive, it is the opportunity space that really does not line up for me.

There is a threshold of due diligence. Otherwise one could carpet bomb neighbourhoods while trying to hit a single military target. Whoopsies happen but it is on the targeting commander to demonstrate that all reasonable attempts to mitigate civilian casualties were made. If one accidentally drops bombs on civilians but is found negligent on controls and targeting procedures they may face prosecution. I am pretty sure there is evidence of criminal negligence on the part of the RA based on the number of non-military targets hit.

Going to speak out of school a bit - I have other jobs than just military faculty at a staff college. I few years I came out of some higher level meetings with my boss - she is a simply brilliant civilian international lawyer type who is destine to run this country one day. She had just got into her new job in our outfit so we were still getting to know each other. The topic of discussion is not for here but it centered on how dangerous the world was becoming and how antiquated our Canadian theories of how it all worked were in the face of it. Me and another military guy in the shop were going round and round on the unsolvable riddle that is Canadian Defence and Security. Our boss broke in and said straight-faced "We should think about a strategic nuclear weapon program." I think I peed my pants a little bit. The old rules are buckling. New ones will be needed. The use of hard power, military power, as an extension of diplomacy is back on the menu, and that is not a vegan dish.

I find a lot of this sort of analysis wrt escalation as "easy to say, very hard to do." I do not think people fully understand what is at risk in widening this conflict. The standard justifications are: - Russia will never go nuclear. - Russia will back down - they are full of BS. - We got all the guns, what are they going to do? Ok, I will buy the first one for arguments sake. A functioning Russia will very likely not use the nuclear option unless we are talking foreign troops invading Russia itself. (a broken Russia is another story) Russia may even back down. They definitely talk a good game but so far those red lines have been pretty mobile. And we do have a lot of military power within NATO...but herein lies the rub. It only works if it is unified. Professionally speaking, the single largest risk of escalation with Russia is a Russian response - controlled or otherwise - that triggers a NATO Ch 5. We have already had errant missiles in Poland that became Ukrainian ones pretty damned quick. If Russia starts lobbing them at a NATO nation in response to significant escalation within Russia...what happens? Well, we essentially move to a NATO Ch 5 escalation, which will get out of hand pretty quick. Or more likely, NATO falls apart. An Article 5 could actually break NATO. It could nations deciding that maybe Poland, or Estonia, or Latvia are not worth dying for. We have had a single Article 5 declaration in the history of the alliance - 9/11. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#:~:text=NATO invoked Article 5 for,the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And most of this was intelligence sharing and overflights/port usage permissions. NATO stayed out of Iraq in '03 completely, GWOT as a concept was not sold in its entirety in the least - even given 9/11. ISAF in Afghanistan did not come into play until much later in that war, and a lot of NATO nations kept their forces out of combat...and that was the Taliban FFS. I am betting that those in power have already done this calculus and know exactly how vulnerable the alliance is right now. A lot of people on this board have been asking "well why don' they just do X?" "It about ATACMS stupid!" Well it is likely because they know what is actually at risk and a lot of these capabilities are just not worth those risks...at this time. In fact a lot of those capabilities value right now is as a threat to Russia as opposed to actual use. This war is not simple, and there are no simple solutions. If anyone starts believing that there are you are likely missing something.

Welcome to my world. Even crazier - killing the right civilians = legal. International law allows the legal targeting of anything directly tied to the war effort - less hospitals and humanitarian stuff (obviously). So if you are a janitor working in a power generation plant that is feeding production of tanks...guy with mop goes boom. Kill that janitor while he is dropping his kids off at school = warcrime. HVTs are even more messy. At what point does a person themselves become intrinsically linked to the war no matter where they are? Political leadership, military civilian leadership - easy. Defence scientists? Ideological figures? Influencers? There is a reason we have damned lawyers in the kill chain. But trust me, this is better than taking the cuffs off the Red God entirely.

Not how it really works. Mainly because “the law”. The international community has never passed laws on the use of nuclear weapons. Restrictions and limitations on their use are all managed by treaties. The employment of nuclear weapons is essentially off the legal map. As JonS pointed out, striking a large dam that would lead to massive civilian casualties is against the law. Fellas can we not drift into “let’s do warcrimes because XYZ?” C’mon, we are supposed to be the adults in an internet of children. No, we can not condone warcrimes because Russia did them (and oh we made a lot of noise when they blew that dam down by Kherson). We cannot condone them because “back in WW2 everyone did it” - doesn’t freakin matter, take a look at your calendar…what year does it say. Most international law on warcrimes were written after WW2 because everyone was doing them. WW2 was an example of what a total war looked like when everyone sat around after WW1 and did nothing. So we decided that was a bad thing and passed a whole bunch of laws to prevent it from happening again. We do not do war crimes for some very good reasons: Unity. If Ukraine (or anyone else) starts playing fast and loose with unrighteous targeting, we risk splitting the coalition of support for Ukraine. Canada for instance would lose its mind and likely start turning off the taps. Escalation. Ok, we take out a dam, kill a bunch of civilians. Russia potato-in-the-exhaust-pipes a nuclear power plant. You see where this goes. Post-war justice. You want criminal prosecution for Bucha? Might want to skip committing warcrimes of your own. Utility. It won’t work. A mass killing of Russian civilians anywhere will very likely drive enormous active support into Putin’s arms. We will wind up with a stronger Russian Will, not a weaker one. So can we please skip warcrimes week…again?

Go left.