How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The risk of NATO ending this rolling atrocity/fiasco is obviously not zero. But there are risk of letting continue too. The flywheel of barbarity is just going to keep spinning faster. Putin is already at a point where it take WMD to "win" this conflict. And virtually all evidence is that The Russian army will just dissolve under even minimal NATO air attack. I think most of would dissolve if the was a NATO OVERFLIGHT. The risk of getting in, and staying are more balanced than most people think. Putin doesn't make it if this army just surrenders in mass/ deserts and walks home.

By not getting involved, we at least leave Putin a way out. Negotiate, keep some symbolic territory, and spin it to declare victory at home.

[dan/california]

I just don't see Putin climbing down, he is going to have to be bumped off the ladder. Or he is going to have to see a guy walking up to bottom of his ladder with a sawzall at least.

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

I just don't see Putin climbing down, he is going to have to be bumped off the ladder. Or he is going to have to see a guy walking up to bottom of his ladder with a sawzall at least.

Yes, but the trick is to find the right balance to make Putin believe that he can spin it as a victory at home, but still getting bumped off by somebody who has had enough of his BS.

[Blazing 88's]

Not sure if anyone else saw this further down in that twitter thread of the Russians in the elevator. Russians in the streets protesting....

More and more and more......

Edited March 5, 2022 by Blazing 88's

[BeondTheGrave]

To be honest I agree with those who say NATO should become directly involved. We could easy create a no fly zone that would give the Ukrainians an even greater tactical advantage. I think air frames should be transferred to Ukrainian pilots and even volunteers who will fly them in combat. And to be honest I think NATO should turn Lviv and parts of western Ukraine into a 'peacezone' enforced by western troops. I think honestly NATO could create a situation in which even a short term Russian victory is impossible. 

RE: Nukes Putin is as trapped by his threats as NATO. What would exactly happen if he nuked Kyiv? Forget Moscow, what would happen to those huge convoys of Russian soldiers scattered across the country? NATO could respond immediately by killing 100k Russian soldiers and wasting the Russian army. Would Putin nuke NATO troops? Or launch a nuclear strike on bases in NATO countries? Would he risk trading Lviv for Rostov? Despite the bluster I suspect not. The threat is too great, the risk to both too steep. 

IMO the real limitations are first public opinion, committing troops would be seen I think as a step too far. Combat operations would cause a near panic across the west. Second I think despite most reporting that Europe has shaken its isolation, there are serious limitations as to how far Europe will go. Most of these militaries have not fought a major conventional war since 1945 (Mali and Afghanistan hardly count in this respect) and there will be a tremendous fear that the vulnerable norther and central flanks will be next. If youre in Warsaw, for example, you would certainly be in favor of a free Ukraine and even many of the arms transfers proposed. But would you support a no-fly zone if it meant Polish bases became Grad targets or a ground intervention if it mean the Russians would invade over your eastern border? And Poland is the most secure of the eastern allies. Has anyone ever thought NATO would hold the Baltics if Russia invaded? Again I personally suspect that this is a good moment to strike. Russia can already barely hold its own against Ukraine. I doubt it would do any better against German, Polish, or American forces backed up by NATO air power. 

Strategically its a huge roll of the dice, and many countries even within NATO would end up at least short term losers in that. Personally I am slowly moving towards the position that it might be worth the roll, but I suspect I am far more optimistic than most European defense ministries. After all no matter what happens I'll be comfortable in my work chair, its not my home that has been (or would be) invaded, and it will be others who have to do the fighting and the dying. 

[BeondTheGrave]

22 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

By not getting involved, we at least leave Putin a way out. Negotiate, keep some symbolic territory, and spin it to declare victory at home.

This is also a huge point. I suspect that most of these popular demonstrations against Putin would disappear once NATO started killing Russian citizens. Intervention would trade a long term victory over Putin for a short term success in Ukraine. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by BeondTheGrave

[Vet 0369]

7 hours ago, BornGinger said:

Doesn't Krasnoyartsev mean "Someone from Krasnoyar (or possibly Krasnoyarsk)"?

Probably does, but that doesn’t mean anything. Take “Ponce De Leon (spelling probably incorrect)!” It means Ponce of Leon. A very common thing among European countries, where Nordic, Baltic, and Slavic cultures used son (or sen) or dotage, ski, sky, or ska or something similar to indicate son or daughter. 

[Bulletpoint]

Ukrainians are already butchering the Russian army. It would be foolish at this point for NATO to get involved. That's the cynical evaluation. I understand that for Ukrainian civilians getting bombed, things are not theoretical like that.

[danfrodo]

While direct attacks of any sort by NATO forces would be big escalation, the safe zone would be emphasized as humanitarian and defensive.   Yes, arms would leave that safe zone for the east and Putin will flip out over that, but that makes it all that much better.  If he attacked those NATO forces he could really get hurt badly by retaliatory strikes; badly enough he might actually be compelled to remove forces from much of Ukraine.

[BeondTheGrave]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Ukrainians are already butchering the Russian army. It would be foolish at this point for NATO to get involved. That's the cynical evaluation. I understand that for Ukrainian civilians getting bombed, things are not theoretical like that.

This assumes that the Ukrainians will win. The Russian army may not be good, but it is big. And as fighting Joe once said, quality has a quantity all its own. I dont think its guaranteed the Ukrainians are going to win this at all. I want them too, I think they might (more than I would have said two weeks ago) but I dont know its guaranteed. Ukraine needs to transform the conflict and change its terms to bring about a sure victory. They need to strategically recontexualize the war. But theyve just about hit their limit tactical with this. They need something bigger to change up some of the fundamental issues which are still running against them. 

[Vet 0369]

6 hours ago, womble said:

Initially I thought that was a "fake" picture of the portly gentleman. "That's never a pilot! He'd fail his physical, surely." Do I have a too-Hollywood mental image of pilots? 

How do we know he was the pilot? Was he questioned and said “I’m just the driver. Another of the crew who didn’t survive was the one who dropped the bombs.”

[BlutUndEhre]

Quote

I am blown away by the mindless chauvinistic replies on this thread and at the risk of having my account locked I'm going to call out a couple of you people; danfrodo and dan/california...how in the god%$#% h%$# can you feel justified in screaming for American military adventurism after the piss poor showing of such after the Afghan and Iraqi debacles? Abject %^&*#@! failures in every sense of the word and you still beckon for more American blood and treasure to be wasted on third world $%^* piles. Heres a real %^#$*&% lesson for you. I went to Vietnam when I was 19, I believed all the BS about securing the third world for democracy, about making a bulwark against communism and it was all a giant load of BS. I came back with a F'ed up brain, shrapnel in my ass and a lifetime of wtf type questions. I took hills, some of them multiple times for not a goddamned reason. I sat on "the hill of angels" to stop the commies from overrunning the DMZ and I did it for nothing. I got my brain shelled out and they still overran the DMZ and along with that the entire damned country. I have a lifetime of wounds, physical and mental, for a war my country never had a thought of winning. Why? My son, whom I never spoke to about that experience, because I was too cowardly to address the situation, joined the USMC to make daddy proud and now hes a mind%$## too. He shipped off to another imperialistic adventure and now hes ruined just the same as me because he believed some BS about WMDs and Al Qaeda connections. That was the one time I talked to him about war, when I told him you can't trust what the government says but it was too late. Now he's another lifelong casualty of believing what this morally bereft american government says. #$@% that, and $%^@ those people who continue to send our sons off to die for third world countries that don't have a god^^%#ed thing to do with American security. If you support sending young americans to die for something as nebulous as "democracy" I propose that you send yourself or your children to do it,that would give me much more confidence in the depth of your beliefs. As somebody who suffered greatly as a result of "patriots" of your ilk? Yeah, count me the %$$& out, my family has suffered enough...

On 3/2/2022 at 1:29 PM, Vet 0369 said:

Yes, with BOTH Russia and the USA signing an agreement to protect Ukraine from the aggression of a foreign invader. I assume that Russia feels since “Ukraine is historically and culturally part of Russia,” that they don’t qualify them as a “foreign invader.” Why the U.S. doesn’t “put boots on the ground” to satisfy it’s pledge is beyond me. I served the U.S. for more than thirty years in different capacities, and I must say that I’m disgusted that the U.S. Government has again shown that it cannot be trusted to keep it’s promises and commitments that it makes to defend others.

 

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

This assumes that the Ukrainians will win. The Russian army may not be good, but it is big. And as fighting Joe once said, quality has a quantity all its own. I dont think its guaranteed the Ukrainians are going to win this at all. I want them too, I think they might (more than I would have said two weeks ago) but I dont know its guaranteed.

Yes, Ukrainian victory is not assured at this point. But it's going in that direction, and as such, seen from a game theoretical perspective, this is not the point where NATO should escalate. If they lose Kyiv, that calculation might change. Right now, they are far from that situation.

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, BlutUndEhre said:

 

Whom are you quoting? You post doesn't show.

[Vet 0369]

6 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Two abandoned T-90A somewhere on southern direction

Note the sandbags on top of the bed frame. Obvious attempt to defend from top-down munitions.

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Whom are you quoting? You post doesn't show.

I think himself

[BeondTheGrave]

Just now, Vet 0369 said:

Note the sandbags on top of the bed frame. Obvious attempt to defend from top-down munitions.

No that cant be it. The Anti-Javelin BBQ is undefeatable. Those must be bags of sunflower seeds for the troops at the front. 

[sburke]

26 minutes ago, Blazing 88's said:

Not sure if anyone else saw this further down in that twitter thread of the Russians in the elevator. Russians in the streets protesting....

More and more and more......

yeah I think that maybe too many to arrest...   So when does Putin give the order to start shooting Russians?

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

yeah I think that maybe too many to arrest...   So when does Putin give the order to start shooting Russians?

Hopefully never, but if he does, that's usually the "make or break" point for any dictator.

[womble]

7 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

How do we know he was the pilot? Was he questioned and said “I’m just the driver. Another of the crew who didn’t survive was the one who dropped the bombs.”

Meh. The mission specialist has to react just as fast as a pilot does, and remain conscious through heavy G maneouvres. Pilot or navigator/weapons; still need a decent level of fitness.

[BlutUndEhre]

I am extremely technologically illiterate and I wasn't trying to quote anyone. I was just trying to post my thoughts and apparently posting to a forum from my phone is WAY too much for this old man. I hope my original thoughts are accessible because it was hell for me to try and post in the first damned place.

[Bulletpoint]

Just now, BlutUndEhre said:

I am extremely technologically illiterate and I wasn't trying to quote anyone. I was just trying to post my thoughts and apparently posting to a forum from my phone is WAY too much for this old man. I hope my original thoughts are accessible because it was hell for me to try and post in the first damned place.

Understood you loud and clear. Was just wondering if you were quoting someone else.

[Kinophile]

Guys, youre all smoking somrthing super funky.

NATO getting involved is not going to happen.

It's fundamentally a defensive alliance. 

"Imposing a no-fly zone" is not the correct description of that action, instead it's - "attacking Russian air & AA forces" without provocation or military cause.

RUS needs to attack first.

If NATO attacks first  then that just makes Putin's narrative come true and he'll just go YOU SEE!? YOU SEE!? and boom he wins the narrative, will never EVER be kicked off and solidifies the victimhood/grievance bull**** as self evident fact.

Let it go, you're wasting post count, my friends.

 

 

[sburke]

Just now, BlutUndEhre said:

I am extremely technologically illiterate and I wasn't trying to quote anyone. I was just trying to post my thoughts and apparently posting to a forum from my phone is WAY too much for this old man. I hope my original thoughts are accessible because it was hell for me to try and post in the first damned place.

yep, run into that quote thing myself when editing and that's on PC...I guess that makes me even a little more technologically illiterate.

 

[The_Capt]

18 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The risk of NATO ending this rolling atrocity/fiasco is obviously not zero. But there are risk of letting continue too. The flywheel of barbarity is just going to keep spinning faster. Putin is already at a point where it would take WMD to "win" this conflict. And virtually all evidence is that The Russian army will just dissolve under even minimal NATO air attack. I think most of would dissolve if there was a NATO OVERFLIGHT. The risk of getting in, and staying out are more balanced than most people think. Putin doesn't make it if this army just surrenders in mass/ deserts and walks home. At the moments the Ukrainians would let most of them walk home, another week of shelling...

So option four "Go for Nagasaki": Russians get more and more desperate and employ chemical first and then maybe (and it is a very big maybe) tactical nuclear weapons.  The shock of their use somehow crumbles Ukrainian resolve, quick surrender and back to Option 1 - Puppet Government in new province of mighty mother Russia, while West cowers in fear at their own inadequacy.

Hm, ok.  Well more than a few problems with this.  Not the least of which the military operation so far has the hallmarks of amateur political interference.  We all remember this in WW2 when ol AH used to get right down there on the map and start micro-managing.  So in this little shin-dig we all pretty much know who is pulling the strings on the Russian side [aside: there is some military genius going on the Ukrainian side, I hope they are taking notes] and I am pretty sure this fustercluck is all due to either military professionals lacking the courage to speak truth-to-power or are being ignored.   Putin has demonstrated that he knows his stuff in the Grey, dirty espionage and subversive type operations, makes sense given he is an ex KGB type, but he literally knows nothing about military operations at this level, or any level.

So what?  Well dollars to doughnuts he is actually thinking WMDs are an option, hell he thought 3 days of supply was an option apparently.  First let's stick with chemical weapons, tac nukes last. 

Chemicals: The question is, "will the Russian military finally step up and push back?".  Why won't they?  Books will be written on that.  Why Should They?

- #1 War crimes - Russia signed onto the CWC so there use is violation of that convention and will probably wind up with everyone involved in there use at The Hague (note: we are not even sure if Russia has chemical weapons anymore as they declared them free of stockpiles in 2017, but we will see how that goes)

- #2 Tricky Ops.  Given the clown car ride this operation has been so far I would be nervous about hitting my own troops with chemical and slowing down an already glacial operation as one tries to advance through now contaminated terrain.  

- #3 Trickier Logistics.  If the Russian are having logistical issues now, just wait until they have to throw decontamination into the mix of everything (vehicles, equipment, people).  Given they cannot provide fuel at this point, even if Russian troops do have protective gear, they will be living in it for a month at a time, which is just a recipe for disaster.

-#4 Ukrainian response.  Oh my.  Well a chemical release may shock the Ukrainians, but it also may create massive further resistance.  Any hope of breaking resolve could sail away as a backlash.  And forget installing a puppet government, it will not last a week.  So Russian forces will be in Ukraine forever supporting a propped up government, and taking hits the whole time.

- #5 Western Response.  Sanctions until the end of time.  In order to survive Russia will have to become a satellite of the Chinese if they will even have them after chemical attacks.

- #6 Russian response.  Russian public are already soft on this use of chemical weapons could cause revolts in the population and munities in the military

All bad built on a weak theory; however, this whole crazy plan was pretty much that from the start.

Tac Nukes - This might just pull the West in and the Russian power structure and military know it.  Western direct involvement is a sliding scale but none of it is good.  Tactical nukes might just be enough for the West to figure that Russia has become too unstable and it is time for a reckoning.  Putin knows the US has been working BMD hard in the backfield and if we are going with harsh calculus of nuclear war, he may very well be at a significant disadvantage: yes, he might actually lose a nuclear war.

So will he or won't he is still in the wind but my bet is that he will be removed from power if it comes to that, or at least I would hope so.