NamEndedAllen

Nah. NATO’s Reanimation is seen as a major accomplishment here - even largely as bipartisan, and a reversal of at least some of USA failures. Not to mention that it is intrinsically a win for the post WWII stability that has enabled economic growth. Imperfect, challenges along the way. But proven by events to still be of great value.

Steve, iirc, discussed the issues about mobilizing various combat and support specialists, the training needed, and the likely failures Russia is accomplishing. I’ve wondered about the other end of the pipeline: bizarre mobilizing of civilian specialists, those in important industry positions, the technical expertises, even in military production positions…all this being ground up in simply incomprehensible madness. It’s as if Putin is bent on doing the Allies’ work for us all. Tearing down Russia from within, wittingly or not!

Out of likes, but terribly true. Lessons learned yet??!

Well said indeed! Only the Agencies involved know the full extent of the damage Snowden wrought. But the closer you are able to look, the greater the harm done to not just the USA - the Allies too. The betrayal also aided terrorists and organized crime by helping them further evade detection. But harm to Russia? Any? No? There was no damaging information concerning Russia? Then this was a successful Russian op sowing confusion to its enemies. Regardless of the mindset of its instrument.

Guys, you are both wonderful people. Now abandon all hope of changing the past.

Smoking while underground?

Excellent thoughts on the fundamental nature of Nazism. Which is enjoying its perennial rebirth around the world. Defined as you have, it can never be eradicated, only unequivocally opposed and defeated. For a time. What you describe, the hyper idealization of one’s ethnicity and history uber all others - combined with might makes right, is unfortunately embedded to one extent or another in humans across the world. Most people reject this tendency in themselves as they mature, and reject it for their country. Except in sports! But it never goes completely away. Something too about the evolutionary value of group solidarity for survival, “us against them” survival mechanisms, all gone amok. Social stresses aggravate it and lead to the emergence of torchlight parades and chants of you will not replace us, as in Charlottesville USA. And like-minded groups worldwide seeing Russia as the largest white supremacist nation in the world. So we see the parallels to the rise of Nazism in the 1930’s, the invasion of neighbors, the concentration camps mentality, the genocidal rants, the disdain for life. Details of course differ. Histories and individuals differ. But they lead too often to the same dark places. For me, this is why appeasement of this streak of human nature in whatever form is among the greatest dangers civilization faces. Abandon all hope of changing the past. But we must find ways to put this current eruption back in its cage. Until next time.

Out of likes, but yes. Too many problems and challenges and opportunities that cross too many lines on a map to continue to act as if we just learned how to organize something more than big hostile city states when such matters arise. Apologies for what is veering further off track. Does stem from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an implication about another, wider step about the challenge policies toward a post war Russia. But beyond this thread’s scope?

Actually, no. I do not see in today’s world two “sides” and Russia doesn’t really represent an equal and opposite group of anything. Russia isn’t “United”, it has utterly trashed the charter it was bound to. Lastly, China exercises the veto power - it only takes one - for the latter day “other side”, if there is one. The world is much different now than the era that you are using as a template. In any event, having Russia a part of a “Security” detachment for a group of nations trying to work together (and succeeding through a number of their other facets such as WHO - eradicating smallpox, UNESCO, UNICEF, and the CFC Montreal.Protocol etc)… is like having a grad school seminar in a locked room with a serial killer inside.

Psst! Over here.

Hey, Jon, thanks for your replies. Mathematically , that is a good point. However I wouldn’t say strongly hobbling the UNSC was the design or the intent. Certainly the charge was to act as mandated by the Charter. The vetoes have too often simply stood in the way of the Charter. But are you saying that you prefer keeping Russia as a permanent member? I had been considering whether there is actually any means to remove Russia. That the invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes we can see unfolding are the grounds for so doing. We may disagree about the record of the past vetoes by Russia, but to me that is a secondary to this war. And would be an unexpected benefit to the daily tragedies and outrages taking place. However a discussion about that benefit might not be best here? (Not sure why the double quote!)

In point of specific fact, I agree to a large extent. But I am not making a one to one rigid identification of the USA Congress and the UN GA - UNSC relationship. The point is that the US Senate until lately has functioned as the “cooling chamber” for initiatives by the House. James Madison said the Senate is a “fence against” periodic eruptions of heated emotions and poor judgement in the House. The Security Council broadly speaking functions in a similar fashion, in the sense that if the General Assembly were the ruling authority of the UN, the UN itself would quite likely soon end. I don’t think we need or should take the space here to list the reasons, especially since it would drag this even further off topic. But the viability and resulting value of removing Russia as a permanent member is my question. Certainly that would not solve all the UN’s woes. However like the Senate, where the veto power nowadays is the constantly used 60 vote filibuster threshold - the veto power of a sole permanent member is and has been used and abused by Russia far more than any other member. For perspective, Russia has used the veto 122 times since UN’s founding. That is nearly as many as ALL the vetos by the other four members, combined. There in a nutshell is a major reason the UN has become increasingly ineffective in achieving the goals of its Charter and the respect of the world. “The UN Charter mandates the UN and its member states to maintain international peace and security, uphold international law, achieve "higher standards of living" for their citizens, address "economic, social, health, and related problems", and promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".[2] As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations

I see your point, however having only the General Assembly without the UNSC is analogous to the USA Congress with only the House of Representatives. After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia doesn’t belong on the UNSC any longer regardless of whether that would solve ALL the UN’s or Council’s ills. It would move the UNSC closer to being able to address some of its own issues - or ANY issues. Rather like the war itself, I see no single actual silver bullets that can alone solve any of our greatest challenges today.

The time may be ripe for working on a solution to one major problem with the UN Security Council: Russia. Russia has clearly trashed the spirit and likely some of the letters of UN rules. But on its own UNSC cannot remove a permanent member - Russia - because such members may veto any of its actions. The other route is removal from the UN itself. But iirc that process needs both the General Assembly AND the UNSC approval. Back to square one. However…Russia was never made a permanent member of the UNSC. It holds the former Soviet Union’s seat as “the inheritor” of that deceased member. Is there a route to a successful challenge that the process by which Russia occupies the former USSR seat was invalid? BTW the PRC China holds its seat in a different way, again IIRC. The UN simply chose to recognize one delegation over the other (Nationalist) delegation. China is another potential roadblock via a veto of *any* approach. Today. But the art of compromise (“politics”) could have at least a chance in that instance. And circumstances change.

Thanks Steve. Agreed! Indeed, there must be. Those and his beliefs must be *the* fundamental, underlying questions of this war. We here speculate about his state of mind and make projections onward from our various favored assumptions. I do think there is at least one place where the West’s very best understanding of Putin’s mindset exists: CIA and DIA. Profiles developed over years of varying circumstances and results have honed their best estimates. I am *guessing* that the use of the previously unused term “catastrophic” was carefully chosen with all that in mind. As always, to what effect only time will tell. And not forgetting Putin’s KGB background, and as others have mentioned, Nixon’s use of the “I am unbalanced and might do *anything*” tactic.

Yes, agreed. He was warned. About conventionally invading a non-NATO country. However those warnings were about sanctions and sending modern *defensive* weapons to Ukraine. Light years away from warning about “catastrophic” consequences that can in no way be assumed not just by Putin, but by his military and civilian leadership that this time they would not face the full force of the military arrayed against Russia. And I imagine the private and back channel communications we know have taken place to have been much less diplomatic. And couched in the context of crossing the one single red line that *all * the powers that be have insisted not be crossed. Here in the cheap seats, we cannot know the final decision policy of Washington or the Allies. But I would bet on general agreement that the punishment for using a nuclear weapon in anger today must be so clearly “catastrophic” for the attacker that other nations watching with interest have zero doubt about just how very very bad an idea that would be. In fact, one could imagine the core message to Russia:being just that: We are so sorry. This isn’t a civilized, gentlemanly proportional response situation. Understand, this is nothing personal. It’s just not good for business. Which you won’t be in any longer. Because this will not stand. Here in the cheap seats, I realize this is just an opinion, one without the weight and responsibility that weigh on those who must make such a monumental decision.

I thought we had been beating the nuke policy donkey to a thin bloody but necessarily undecided pulp. Perhaps this USA statement will at least reassure some - and possibly frighten others. Here is Jake Sullivan: “US national security adviser says: ‘Any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia’ “We have communicated directly, privately and at very high levels to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the US and our allies will respond decisively, and we have been clear and specific about what that will entail,” Sullivan told CBS’s Face The Nation.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/25/us-russia-ukraine-war-nuclear-weapons-jake-sullivan And the other major USA news sources including NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, and the internet sites like the Hill, Bloomberg, Newsweek. FOX strangely led by saying Sullivan was unsure about designating Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. AND: fhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-25/biden-aide-says-us-has-warned-kremlin-against-using-nuclear-arms President Joe Biden’s administration has privately told the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine would have “catastrophic consequences” for Russia, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said. Russian President Vladimir Putin renewed his warnings of a nuclear threat last week as he mobilized hundreds of thousands of reservists after Ukrainian forces recaptured a swath of Russian-occupied territory. Those nuclear threats are “a matter that we have to take deadly seriously,” Sullivan said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

Insult to toilet paper. Fine softwood trees died for that vital product! His opinions…

“A mob with guns”. iirc, that was a ret. USA General’s assessment of the Russian Army much earlier in this debacle.

Indeed! Apart from the Capt’s range of more nuanced post war scenarios and the more aggressive varied positions here, the battlefield has a big vote. Right now, it looks as if Ukraine is making concerted efforts to be holding a big time Royal straight flush at the negotiation table. They and/or Russia and their mutual interlocutors may already be quietly speaking about the shape and size of that table. But won’t the scale and impact of Ukraine’s battlefield victories be the loudest voice? (assuming that the near unanimous opinion here that Russia will not be making a Hail Mary game-ending drive). What we don’t know is how and when Ukraine’s counter-offensives will culminate. Until then our discussions here are largely academic, and need not boil over. Far too much has already been spilled on the battlefield. My opinion, worth less than you paid for it is that Ukraine has the deciding vote on when open negotiations can start, although certainly not without advice from the Allies. IIRC, fighting continued during drawn out negotiations between North Vietnam and the USA. So both may be carried out in parallel. The currently winning side needn’t call a cease fire until it is good and ready. Does Ukraine definitely see 2014 “borders” as that time? Don’t know. if settlements were made only by the pure light of reason, perhaps the abstractions of fully rational outcomes would always be the result. Then the Capt’s painstakingly measured best outcome and future projections might somehow come about - AND be stable. Bitterly fought WWI did not end that way. But an unconditional WWII type surrender by Russia is not in the cards, even if they withdrew their various forces. Is there a plausible version though? Collapse appears to be the only Walk Off scenario. And most here see that as either a black hole of misery and nukes, or an even worse replacement than Putin at the helm. Again the Capt has an off-ramp vision of a terrible dictator of a rather broken state, but a sorta kinda tame enough one that we could “ manage” and do business with. Maybe that’s the best we could *reasonably* hope for. Stable? Well, how long did Putin take before beginning to subvert, invade and reduce Russia’s neighboring countries?

I tried. Concerns about sorting the contradictory thicket of work rules about posting on social media have already ended his prolific sim and other related internet articles from ten or fifteen years ago. Which I reluctantly admitted weren’t awful. Even tried a threat that Aragorn and LongLeftFlank might pay him a persuasive “visit”. He remains unmoved. Honestly, it’s too bad. He has experience pertaining to this thread that would be of interest.

He does jealously guard that cloaking device. But I will discuss the matter with him, calmly and judiciously. And when that doesn’t work…

Steve, thank you for both your - carefully chosen words! - and your kind welcome. I had intended a more conventional first post but red lines are useless if they are not observed! But in all seriousness, thank you Steve for your even-handed oversight and your always thoughtful, insightful observations. I’m sure most of us have seen other beloved sim forums blown to kingdom come. Gone, due to escalating fire fights. Which also means much gratitude to all the far flung members here. You have somehow, someway managed to conduct some times heated debates and discussions of profound import (Philly vs Dallas, for example) with world class, possibly world beating respectfulness. Thank you all for the education and community. I have managed to convert at least one instructor at the CGSC into a CMBS “How Hot” thread addict.

As one who has held his tongue reading EVERY SINGLE PAGE thru 1,40freaking2 of this unprecedented and now legendary thread - despite all the numerous assertions with no evidence except (well informed) opinions about the past…and despite the important and profound debates on morality and ethical conduct during and after war…and the demonstrated courage and sacrifice of a nation standing up to one of the all time biggest bullies in history…and the terrific analyses of the ebb and flow of the front lines…and the historical and cultural explanations…all without daring to stick my only neck out - THIS CROSSED THE RED LINE! Loyalty DEMANDS solidarity! FLY, EAGLES, FLY! COWBOYS, BYE BYE! PS forum name is in honor of my first childhood best friend, who refused to abandon a downed severely wounded black ops pilot as time ran out on a mission up North. Cost him dearly the rest of his life - ended too soon. Clear skies, Allen. Never forgotten.