How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, BornGinger said:

Now when volunteers are coming into Ukraine (the number 16000 has been mentioned) and thus makes it a bit easier for the Ukrainian army to defend the country, I wonder whether it could help to send in Russian speaking Ukrainians into Russia to cause interruptions to the Russian railway system which leads to the Ukrainian border?

Yes, and I'd expect this if it were going to become a prolonged war.  However, cutting the rails within Ukraine's borders is just as effective at blocking the flow, but far easier since the FSB doesn't operate in Ukraine.

Steve

[Falaise]

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, so there has been a lot of finger pointing at the US on what it, should have done, should do or not do etc.  I think it is time to point that finger back at Europe on this point.  Who thought it was a good idea to become energy dependent on a nation that has been causing ruckus since 2008, did a soft invasion of another European nation in 2014, has been pulling stunts in the backfield ever since then and now has demonstrated just how unstable it is?

This is worse than US dependence on Arab oil, which they have worked very hard to get rid of, as Arabs can be jerks and support terrorism but they are not likely to invade with 100k plus troops.

Can someone explain this one to me?  Because the Euros that paid for that gas found their way to funding this fiasco and no one seems to be saying to much about it.

This is indeed a question worth asking.
Apart from a blissful angelism, I think that for 20 years Putin for economic and strategic reasons has placed men of his own in Europe, one can wonder for exemple about the presence of European politics within Russian companies that do lobing with European institutions
Germany looks particularly affected, as does France
But you are not exempt from its infiltrations in your economic and political spheres.

[The_Capt]

19 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

So clearly a case of a paradigm shift.

At the same time there are geopolitical analysts (on both sides of ocean) stating that aggressive Western (USA) geopolitical strategy is the cause of this and that all could have been diverted if we would have allowed Russia in NATO or had made clear that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO.

I think mistakes were made, to say the least.  In reality this is going to likely go down as a massive Russian strategic failure, possibly nation breaking but we would be remiss not to look in that mirror and recognize that it is also a western failure writ large.  We collectively run the planet (casting nervous glance at China) and as such this mess that took 20+ years to happen has to come home to roost on our decision making.

As to the NATO argument, I guess what sticks is that every former eastern bloc nation who has joined NATO did so of their own free will and for very good reasons.  What happened is akin to watching a man with three wives he abused for years beating the one who stayed behind and blaming the other two who left.  Yes, technically he might have just spread the abuse more equitably but how on earth does that equation get right?!  The US was using the same strategy that won the Cold War, enticement and Russian response with a strategy of bombing or threats of bombing, followed by more bombing cannot compete, and that is not on us.  

I think we in the West do need to take a long hard look at how we basically went past "letting it happen" to "enabling because we like cheap gas and were to busy with our own crap".  I am Canadian and frankly the lines we fed ourselves for over 30 years of a utopian liberal humanistic new world order, and kept smoking right up until Feb 24th meant we lost sight of just how nasty the world was really getting and failed to do anything about it.

I hope that some lines are re-drawn as a result of this and we try and realize that things like freedom and democracy come at costs that every generation must pay, not just the ones in the movies. 

Edited March 8, 2022 by The_Capt

[Battlefront.com]

31 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, so there has been a lot of finger pointing at the US on what it, should have done, should do or not do etc.  I think it is time to point that finger back at Europe on this point

Even more so, whenever the US started to push for tougher action on Russia the EU pushed back.  Not just because of oil/gas, but because of the easy access EU companies had to Russian markets.  Markets that were growing for the most part. 

If the US pushed too hard then the EU started complaining about how the US is always trying to tell Europeans what to do as if they own everything.  Then in the US political groups and politicians would start in with isolationist rhetoric that what happens in Europe is of no concern to the US.  And Putin was funding all of these voices, primarily right wing nationalism but also left wing "peace" movements.

Sorry, the fact is Europe has a very long history of wishing away complicated problems in their own back yard.  There's only so much the US can do without looking to be the same kind of jerk that Russia is.

Steve

[cyrano01]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The alternative is... not have any alliances with legal teeth in it to protect itself from Russian aggression?  I think it's better to get NATO and the EU to commit to something and then see how things go.

If things go the right way there will be a change of foreign policy in Russia that moves it away from beating up its neighbors to feel good about itself.  That won't happen overnight, but given enough disincentives for aggression it is possible to get started on that.

EDIT to add that becoming a full member of NATO is also a possibility for Ukraine.  That should be up to Ukraine and NATO, not Russia (long standing argument here from Russia!).  But for now, if I were Ukraine I'd not be pushing that particular point.  It's not necessary.

Steve

Certainly better to have than not. I just wouldn't want to place any reliance on it once the immediate crisis is past. Oddly enough I would be pushing for NATO membership were I Ukrainian, my bet would be that allies would be more likely to make good on Article 5 than anything else - or at least the Russians couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't.

 

Still the matter of beating the Russians first though. As Mrs Beeton said, 'first catch your hare.'

[Commanderski]

Now that the US and some European allies are going to ban Russian oil imports not to make light of the situation but this is funny...

 

[Battlefront.com]

OPEC will, for a while, not increase production so that it can benefit from the higher price.  But that won't last too long.  History shows that one or more of the OPEC countries will move to unilaterally sell more oil/gas and then the rest follow suit because they know the price will stabilize and drop, so they want to lock in contracts before that happens.

Steve

[dan/california]

8 hours ago, sburke said:

we did see that idiot trying to break into the electronic store, but I have not heard a case yet of rape.

Check out the Polish radio station that has an english site. They have some of the less filtered info. 

[Haiduk]

UKR S-300 launcher burning near Kherson, 24th Feb. 

 

[cyrano01]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Even more so, whenever the US started to push for tougher action on Russia the EU pushed back.  Not just because of oil/gas, but because of the easy access EU companies had to Russian markets.  Markets that were growing for the most part.  And if the US pushed too hard then the EU started complaining about how the US is always trying to tell Europeans what to do as if they own everything.  And then in the US political groups and politicians would start in with isolationist rhetoric.  And Putin was funding all of these voices, primarily right wing nationalism but also left wing "peace" movements.

Sorry, the fact is Europe has a very long history of wishing away complicated problems in their own back yard.  There's only so much the US can do without looking to be the same kind of jerk that Russia is.

Steve

Definitely this. You pay a price for strategic resilience and governments/taxpayers have not been willing to pay it.  Large scale movmenet towards gas to reduce carbon levels from coal fired power stations and a total unwillingness to invest in nuclear (France excepted), Germany is in a particualr bind due to the closure of their nuclear plants. Meanwhile in the UK we have  governments that simply hate ever having to do anything or spend money, so long term resilience or strategic thought are totally out of the question. This applies to health services, military, transport, energy, the lot.

Edited March 8, 2022 by cyrano01

[danfrodo]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

OPEC will, for a while, not increase production so that it can benefit from the higher price.  But that won't last too long.  History shows that one or more of the OPEC countries will move to unilaterally sell more oil/gas and then the rest follow suit because they know the price will stabilize and drop, so they want to lock in contracts before that happens.

Steve

and why will countries increase their production?  TO MAKE MONEY.  Oil prices very high so there's big opportunity.  If country X says "I'll wait to increase to drive up price" then country Y says "I'm gonna pump a bunch of oil right now and rake in the bucks while the others are waiting.'  This ALWAYS happens, where some country needs to make money while it can w/o the increased competition from the other suppliers.  So, despite the very funny meme above, countries will increase production.  Because holding back will simply lose them a lot of money, and make no mistake, they love money just as much as US & EU. 

There's an empty hole b/w supply and demand w/o russian oil.  If any one country can fill that hole by themselves, they are gonna get rich fast.  So pretty soon they will all be trying to fill that hole, whether they admit it or not.

[danfrodo]

I need to make a complaint about this forum.  I have a ton of work to do and need to deliver results every day right now.  And the people here are mostly providing thoughtful, insightful, and well reasoned posts which are significantly impeding my productivity.  So if you could all instead make inane posts w worn out cliches, I would greatly appreciate it. 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I think the major difference between discussions here and what I have seen from a lot of the "experts" is that they seem to focusing on quantitative assessment, while we are largely focus on qualitative. 

Yup.  And let's not forget that most of these guys right up until the war started were sure that Russia would crush Ukraine within days if not a week or two.  The reason they got it so wrong is they weren't looking at the right factors, or at least not weighing them correctly.  Now they seem to be scrambling to show that their initial way of thinking wasn't total rubbish by making modifications to their models instead of trying to start over.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I am not surprised that a forum of avid wargamers and students of history are taking a broader qualitative system view, and frankly the real experts/analysist who work for government/military are doing the exact same thing (with better data).  In the end events will confirm or deny which viewpoint has been correct and the truth is probably somewhere in between. 

True, but so far I'd put the score at Think Tank Pundits -> 0, Avid Wargamers/Historians -> 1

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

What has been interesting is that we here have been about 24-48 hours ahead of mainstream in a lot of ways. 

I attribute this to the nature of how we experience warfare as gamers.  How many of us have been in a position where we think we are going to win, and statistically probably should, only to have victory snatched from our fingers?  Lots!

Quick story... I participated in a CMSF1 battalion staff exercise with a US IBCT.  This was early and a crash bug nuked the game before it finished.  BLUE had broken RED's force and was closing in on taking the objective when the crash happened.  What BLUE didn't see was there was a concealed BMP and some infantry (not much, mind you) right where he was about to move his light forces.  The BLUE guys had no backup as Javelins and support weapons were empty. 

At this point the Major in command of BLUE said he was satisfied that they had won the engagement.  I then revealed what I knew that he didn't and that it was quite possible he'd have wound up losing.  He told me, flat out, that I was wrong.  What he didn't see couldn't hurt him, so to speak.  We gamers know that is a dangerous thing to presume in Combat Mission!

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

We will see how close everyone is as this thing unfolds, we could be wrong or too optimistic based on a steady stream of what may be fairly isolated events but when strung together on social media look like a trend.

Very true.  However, I've been trying to account for this by not thinking that Russia's efforts are going to collapse any second.  I have NO IDEA when it will happen, but I am confident that it won't go the way the pundits are predicting with an Afghanistan type scenario.  That ship has sailed already. 

The thing about seeing only the Ukrainian perspective is kinda irrelevant at this point.  We have the information we need to conclude that Russia lost the war already.  Another video of a T-80 being towed by a Ukrainian tractor is just icing on the cake.

Steve

[danfrodo]

and there he goes again, geeeez, y'all are killing me. 

I think Steve's right about pundit land. They have been caught being wrong but are doubling down thinking they are still right it's just that Russia hasn't brought in the reserves.  But we're seeing the reserves -- it's civilian vehicles on trains and syrian terrorists.  Why would Russia even mention a little 1000 man syrian force in its own propaganda?  Doesn't that show it's running out of men?  Or is it to pretend they have a coalition?  If Russia needs such help it shows desperation.

[Bulletpoint]

I think the reason the EU has become reliant on Russian gas in in part because Putin used to be seen as someone who was reliable, which was something sorely needed after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Not a nice guy, but reliable.

Then as he became ever more unpleasant (poisoning people,strangling Russian democracy in its infancy, invading countries, propping up Assad and committing warcrimes etc), we've been in a "frog in the pot" situation. At which point could EU politicians decide that enough was enough? After we have become increasingly reliant on Russia?

Secondly because there has been the general idea that trade between countries is in itself a factor for peace and stability. Until recently, I was certain that Putin would never actually attack, not least because that might risk his oil and gas exports.

[kraze]

If EU ever considered Russia to be reliable - they must've been effing blind.

Russia has been abusing their gas deliveries to Ukraine (and ALL other non-EU neighbors) since 1991 to enforce whatever political decisions they wanted.

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

If EU ever considered Russia to be reliable - they must've been effing blind.

Yes. But it's often difficult to see things we don't want to see.

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

15 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Until recently, I was certain that Putin would never actually attack, not least because that might risk his oil and gas exports.

And there is the rub, I don't think anyone in the EU thought he would actually do this. Calculated victories in exchange for a few sanctions, yes. Start a war, no. Like others have said, this is not something many people expected of such a cautious man (although those in neighbouring countries would probably disagree).

MMM

Edited March 8, 2022 by Monty's Mighty Moustache

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I think mistakes were made, to say the least.  In reality this is going to likely go down as a massive Russian strategic failure, possibly nation breaking but we would be remiss not to look in that mirror and recognize that it is also a western failure writ large.  We collectively run the planet (casting nervous glance at China) and as such this mess that took 20+ years to happen has to come home to roost on our decision making.

As to the NATO argument, I guess what sticks is that every former eastern bloc nation who has joined NATO did so of their own free will and for very good reasons.  What happened is akin to watching a man with three wives he abused for years beating the one who stayed behind and blaming the other two who left.  Yes, technically he might have just spread the abuse more equitably but how on earth does that equation get right?!  The US was using the same strategy that won the Cold War, enticement and Russian response with a strategy of bombing or threats of bombing, followed by more bombing cannot compete, and that is not on us.  

And I fully understand those former easter bloc countries. The interesting 'what if' is perhaps what we could have done early '90s to support Russia transitioning from the USSR ways into new ways and weather that would have enabled different leadership later on.
There are several excellent documentaries about how, after the collapse of the USSR, many ex state industries were acquired by the new oligarchy using mafia practices.  "Thieves by law" is one of them.

Financial motives played a large part in our inaction as well, I guess.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Even more so, whenever the US started to push for tougher action on Russia the EU pushed back.  Not just because of oil/gas, but because of the easy access EU companies had to Russian markets.  Markets that were growing for the most part. 

If the US pushed too hard then the EU started complaining about how the US is always trying to tell Europeans what to do as if they own everything.  Then in the US political groups and politicians would start in with isolationist rhetoric that what happens in Europe is of no concern to the US.  And Putin was funding all of these voices, primarily right wing nationalism but also left wing "peace" movements.

Sorry, the fact is Europe has a very long history of wishing away complicated problems in their own back yard.  There's only so much the US can do without looking to be the same kind of jerk that Russia is.

Steve

I think USA does indeed have a rather large 'told you so' card they can play in this.

One part of the divide, I guess (although I know for sure it played a role politically in EU), is the 2nd Iraq war and the consequences it had. After, the EU more and more wanted to choose it's own course and not follow the USA course, which is perceived to often mainly serve it's own interests.

And indeed Putin was playing all the instruments rather smart in a form of divide & conquer. Although at the end of the fold he seems to have grossly overestimated his own hand especially with regards to the Ukrainian resolve. 

Imo the overarching issue is the lack of tooth on the UN, or more simple the VETO rights in the security council.

Now one could also call it a pipe dream (or wonder what I'm smoking), but instead of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization it would have been conceptually MUCH more fitting imo, if a United Nations body would be serving law and order across the globe.

It's a rather clear majority of the world against this invasion and the moral ground for doing something about it would be much more powerful from a United Nations perspectives than from the 'West' / USA police agent perspective.

There are some other resolutions on the backlog in need of serving as well.

Maybe in a couple of centuries lol.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Lethaface

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, and I'd expect this if it were going to become a prolonged war.  However, cutting the rails within Ukraine's borders is just as effective at blocking the flow, but far easier since the FSB doesn't operate in Ukraine.

Steve

sure they do.  They had to make that call to Tula regarding Gerasimov returning to Russia!  

[Bulletpoint]

6 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

It's a rather clear majority of the world against this invasion and the moral ground for doing something about it would be much more powerful from a United Nations perspectives than from the 'West' / USA police agent perspective.

There was a vote held and Russia only had around five countries in support.. and they were North Korea, Syria, Eritrea and a couple others I forget now. Basically the world voted clearly against this war.

Not that it matters much in a legal sense, but it does give some moral legitimacy to efforts to stop it.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[sburke]

I find it difficult to criticize EU dependence on Russian oil when the US does the same with the Saudis and basically fell flat after they murdered Jamal Khashoggi.  Face it.  We are all hostages to the petro states.  The US just happened to pick ones incapable of invading Europe.

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

I find it difficult to criticize EU dependence on Russian oil when the US does the same with the Saudis and basically fell flat after they murdered Jamal Khashoggi.  Face it.  We are all hostages to the petro states.  The US just happened to pick ones incapable of invading Europe.

It will take five to ten years, an enormous amount of money, and , GASP, political compromises to fix this. If we don't do it we are IDIOTS.

[Haiduk]

Captured Russians, Mykolaiv oblast

Bogged and abandoned Russian T-72B

 

[Lethaface]

16 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

There was a vote held and Russia only had around five countries in support.. and they were North Korea, Syria, Eritrea and a couple others I forget now. Basically the world voted clearly against this war.

Not that it matters much in a legal sense, but it does give some moral legitimacy to efforts to stop it.

Yeah its pretty clear. If only there was a global body administering the serving of punishments. 

Threatening to nuke the UN would be an interesting concept as well.