How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

54 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

I don´t think it has much to do with Trump. My theory is that the pull of the allied forces from Afghanistan and Kabul in 08/2021 was the trigger which was interpreted by Putin as a sign of weakness of the west and made him think he could get through with an invasion of Ukraine without the west significantly supporting Ukraine. Anyways it´s just my theory. Putin is a madman, so I could be totally off with my assessment.

The idea that pulling out of Afghanistan was a sign of weakness was certainly a favorite trope for CNN journalists who made their careers there but what's never noted is that Afghanistan kept American resources (both diplomatic and military) tied up in a region that was completely removed from any strategic interest to the country. Worse, it forced the Pentagon into retaining a force structure that was not geared towards near peer warfare. 

The pullout was certainly not the US' finest hour but from a state competition standpoint, it was a net negative for Russia and China which would become more of a negative as the US reoriented globally. 

[Huba]

21 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

The problem is that even if Ukraine can push the Russians back across the border, they can not invade Russian territory without losing Western support. And yet that's the only way to really convince the Russian people that they've lost the war. 

Crimea is a Russian territory ( according to Russians)

[Aragorn2002]

Just now, Huba said:

Crimea is a Russian territory ( according to Russians)

According to Dugin even Greece is...

[panzermartin]

Apologies for releasing the Trump here.

[Artkin]

27 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Naval forces had own TB2 already before a war. They participated in sinking of Moskva, they hit targets on Zmiinyi island and hit several boats around the island. At least one naval TB2 was shot down over the sea

It just makes me wonder, because I would assume a ship in the sea would be the most capable against drones. I'd expect the most powerful radars, thermal imagers. But I wouldn't be surprised if Russian warships (Like Moskva) didn't have an EW package to counter drones.

[Aragorn2002]

12 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The idea that pulling out of Afghanistan was a sign of weakness was certainly a favorite trope for CNN journalists who made their careers there but what's never noted is that Afghanistan kept American resources (both diplomatic and military) tied up in a region that was completely removed from any strategic interest to the country. Worse, it forced the Pentagon into retaining a force structure that was not geared towards near peer warfare. 

The pullout was certainly not the US' finest hour but from a state competition standpoint, it was a net negative for Russia and China which would become more of a negative as the US reoriented globally. 

Married to an Afghan lady who is both pro-Russian and anti-NATO (for the rest we're doing fine, thank you) I truly don't see what more could have been done in Afghanistan. It's Afghan corruption and stupidity that prevented a better outcome. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Suleyman]

My view on this war is different, I definitely believe the Ukrainians should be able to choose what they want and Russia shouldn’t invade a country over something majority of them wanting. However our foreign policy (US) is funny to me. There’s other nations in the world right now that are under severe oppression and occupation (arguably more than Ukraine) yet we don’t really do nothing for them. I’m fine with us helping Ukraine with military gear but spinning up this thing that we are righteous is hilarious to me.

To me it seems our government just wants to wreak havoc on the Russian military and government since they are our historical rival in certain regions of the world(which is fine I guess they’d do the same to us). I earn decent pay however a lot of Americans don’t, and a lot of them suffer from the increases in gas prices and other inflation caused by this war. If we as a people are so willing to suffer to help people in need we should also help other peoples in need too not just the ones that our foreign policy decides is absolutely important. 

[DesertFox]

20 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

According to Dugin even Greece is...

Well that´s obvious isn´t it? Orthodox christs all belong to russia, because russia is the successor of the byzantine empire and since the great schism of the christian church in 1054 AD hence has gods assignment to rule them all (the orthodox christs that is). Half of the mediterranian once belonged to east-rome (aka byzantine empire). So geologically we still have much to expect from Mr. Putin and his cronies in the future...or maybe not?

All in jest 

[dan/california]

37 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The idea that pulling out of Afghanistan was a sign of weakness was certainly a favorite trope for CNN journalists who made their careers there but what's never noted is that Afghanistan kept American resources (both diplomatic and military) tied up in a region that was completely removed from any strategic interest to the country. Worse, it forced the Pentagon into retaining a force structure that was not geared towards near peer warfare. 

The pullout was certainly not the US' finest hour but from a state competition standpoint, it was a net negative for Russia and China which would become more of a negative as the US reoriented globally. 

And we would epically bleeped if we were still there with Russian ATGMs raining down from every hill top.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

I am going to let the politics of the last twelve years go, for now. The inexcusable mistake that the entire civilized world has been making since AT LEAST 1973 is the refusal to bite the bullet and do what is necessary to quit buying hydrocarbons from absolutely awful regimes/governments. Oil and natural gas consumption could be less than half its current level if rational polices had been implemented decades ago. We have not been willing to take the short term economic pain of doing it rationally, So we are caught in doom loop of crises when these god awful regimes do something god awful. And then we learn NOTHING. Bleep me I hope this time is different....

wow, what a great bunch of posts, thanks all.  I ran out of likes pretty fast.  I was scrambling to get some work stuff sent out so I could then catch up on all the posts, guilt free.

I singled out the quote from dan/CA above, because it really is so true.  Fossil fuels drive so much of international problems and we could be doing sooooooo much better w minimal investment compared to the ongoing economic, environmental, and political costs of fossil fuels.  Fossil fuels are AMAZING in power, transportability, etc.  But dang, the costs!  Unfortunately fossil fuels, like DDT & asbestos, which were really really good at their intended use, have a rather nasty bunch of side effects.  Picture Saudi Arabia & Russia w/o all that oil money -- what a beautiful world.

Aragorn once again ready to ride into Ukraine!  Right on, Dude!  My little fantasy is that Belarus invades on the western-most N-S highway toward Lviv and Poland jumps across the border and smashes them.  Hey, that sounds like a great CMBS module!  I wouldn't want to play as Belarus, that's for sure.  Anyway, Lukashenko falls and it starts a bigger political collapse all the way to Putin, fulfilling The Prophecy of Dan/CA.  

And let's remember who's at fault for this war:  PUTIN.  No one but PUTIN.  Yeah, lots of folks could've done this or that or some other, but the reality is that this is all PUTIN.  It continues because PUTIN needs to save face.  He's driving his entire nation over the cliff because he can't politically afford to lose a war of choice that has no conceivable payback relative to cost -- even including all the stolen toilets.  And stolen MacBooks -- they do realize those are password locked, right?

 

[Combatintman]

17 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The idea that pulling out of Afghanistan was a sign of weakness was certainly a favorite trope for CNN journalists who made their careers there but what's never noted is that Afghanistan kept American resources (both diplomatic and military) tied up in a region that was completely removed from any strategic interest to the country. Worse, it forced the Pentagon into retaining a force structure that was not geared towards near peer warfare. 

The pullout was certainly not the US' finest hour but from a state competition standpoint, it was a net negative for Russia and China which would become more of a negative as the US reoriented globally. 

Beat me to it - the time to invade Ukraine would have been while the US and NATO still had forces in Afghanistan - all that military hardware that is pouring into Ukraine now would have been unthinkable if troops were still on the ground in Afghanistan.  All it would have taken was for a US/NATO soldier to get killed in Afghanistan and someone to unearth a social media post where the soldier said before their death - 'we didn't have enough body amour/MRAPs/fire support because it got sent to Ukraine.'  In fact it wouldn't even take that - the press or an opposition politician would just seize on the fact that equipment and supplies were going to a non-US//NATO country while the former were still engaged in Afghanistan. 

Also, all of those ISR platforms that were able to focus on Ukraine and Russia plus the analytical support behind them which did and still is making a huge difference to Ukraine would likely have been at least half of what they are now.  Also look at the political bandwidth that is being spent in Ukraine right now.  For the latter, I go back to the optics - the calculus would be 'are there any US/NATO troops there?  Nope ... Let's throw Ukraine some bones to keep the press off our backs but we need to focus on where US/NATO troops are in a combat training and advising role.'

US/NATO weakness in Afghanistan was signalled well before August 2021 and the current US President's decision to call it a day earlier that same year.  I can't name an actual year when it was obvious that the US/NATO will was lacking but it was at least a decade ago and probably longer than that.  Or put another way - the 'Biden was weak' theory is ... errrmmm ... weak.  

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Beat me to it - the time to invade Ukraine would have been while the US and NATO still had forces in Afghanistan - all that military hardware that is pouring into Ukraine now would have been unthinkable if troops were still on the ground in Afghanistan.  All it would have taken was for a US/NATO soldier to get killed in Afghanistan and someone to unearth a social media post where the soldier said before their death - 'we didn't have enough body amour/MRAPs/fire support because it got sent to Ukraine.'  In fact it wouldn't even take that - the press or an opposition politician would just seize on the fact that equipment and supplies were going to a non-US//NATO country while the former were still engaged in Afghanistan. 

Also, all of those ISR platforms that were able to focus on Ukraine and Russia plus the analytical support behind them which did and still is making a huge difference to Ukraine would likely have been at least half of what they are now.  Also look at the political bandwidth that is being spent in Ukraine right now.  For the latter, I go back to the optics - the calculus would be 'are there any US/NATO troops there?  Nope ... Let's throw Ukraine some bones to keep the press off our backs but we need to focus on where US/NATO troops are in a combat training and advising role.'

US/NATO weakness in Afghanistan was signalled well before August 2021 and the current US President's decision to call it a day earlier that same year.  I can't name an actual year when it was obvious that the US/NATO will was lacking but it was at least a decade ago and probably longer than that.  Or put another way - the 'Biden was weak' theory is ... errrmmm ... weak.  

Indeed, I wonder if intelligence about Putin's plans informed the decision that it was time to go?

[Huba]

48 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

According to Dugin even Greece is...

And Alaska. 

On a serious note though, it looks like there's a chance RU will be pushedout of Kherson quite soon - let's see how that will work on their morale. Next in the order of business would probably be "the landbridge", Donbas and Crimea, assuming UA is capable of that. Each of those steps is more aggravating than previous, offering possibility to push RU past the breaking point.  It is an interesting " what if" to consider what happens when RU will still be willing and capable to continue hostilities after that, it seems really unlikely though. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Huba

[dan/california]

The dominoes are starting to at least tremble with regards to Russia's position in central Asia. The complete immolation of your army can do that to an empire.

[Harmon Rabb]

5 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The dominoes are starting to at least tremble with regards to Russia's position in central Asia. The complete immolation of your army can do that to an empire.

Was just going to post this but you beat me to it.

[danfrodo]

13 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Beat me to it - the time to invade Ukraine would have been while the US and NATO still had forces in Afghanistan - all that military hardware that is pouring into Ukraine now would have been unthinkable if troops were still on the ground in Afghanistan.  All it would have taken was for a US/NATO soldier to get killed in Afghanistan and someone to unearth a social media post where the soldier said before their death - 'we didn't have enough body amour/MRAPs/fire support because it got sent to Ukraine.'  In fact it wouldn't even take that - the press or an opposition politician would just seize on the fact that equipment and supplies were going to a non-US//NATO country while the former were still engaged in Afghanistan. 

Also, all of those ISR platforms that were able to focus on Ukraine and Russia plus the analytical support behind them which did and still is making a huge difference to Ukraine would likely have been at least half of what they are now.  Also look at the political bandwidth that is being spent in Ukraine right now.  For the latter, I go back to the optics - the calculus would be 'are there any US/NATO troops there?  Nope ... Let's throw Ukraine some bones to keep the press off our backs but we need to focus on where US/NATO troops are in a combat training and advising role.'

US/NATO weakness in Afghanistan was signalled well before August 2021 and the current US President's decision to call it a day earlier that same year.  I can't name an actual year when it was obvious that the US/NATO will was lacking but it was at least a decade ago and probably longer than that.  Or put another way - the 'Biden was weak' theory is ... errrmmm ... weak.  

maybe weakness is kicking the afghan can down the road, yet again, while knowing it was hopeless.  Afghan army selling weapons to taliban, horrific corruption, nearly 20 years of "we just need another 2 years to stand up the afghan army".  At some point someone has to have the guts to take the political heat for getting out.  If we could've fixed it, we would have after nearly 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Russia would be best served by simply leaving Ukraine, but that would be too politically costly -- to just one man!  It would save the rest of the country.

I remember like 10 years ago I was talking to a guy at work and I said "We already know how afghan mess will end.  One day we will just leave.  There is no win, no lose, we will simply leave."   This prediction now makes me like 2 correct for every 100 predictions.  So in baseball talk I am batting 0.002, which means I should be on the lawn maintenence crew, not actually in the game.  

[sburke]

WSJ saying that that Russian tug was hit be a Harpoon missile.

Ukraine Uses Western Harpoon Missile System to Sink Russian Tugboat (msn.com)

[danfrodo]

12 minutes ago, Huba said:

And Alaska. 

On a serious note though, it looks like there's a chance RU will be pushedout of Kherson quite soon - let's see how that will work on their morale. Next in the order of business would probably be "the landbridge", Donbas and Crimea, assuming UA is capable of that. Each of those steps is more aggravating than previous, offering possibility to push RU past the breaking point.  It is an interesting " what if" to consider what happens when RU will still be willing and capable to continue hostilities after that, it seems really unlikely though. 

I have, like many here, always thought the landbridge (Melitopol axis, then turn west) was the best way to go because it could unhinge kherson w/o having to fight for the town.  I'd love to be a fly on the wall to see what UKR strategists are seeing and thinking.  

[sburke]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

which means I should be on the lawn maintenence crew, not actually in the game.  

Our sincerest regrets for your application for the lawn maintenance crew.  Unfortunately, your ability to predict effects would we feel have an unfortunate impact on our field.  We really don't feel crabgrass makes for a good outfield. For the record our current hiring practice requires at least a .005 average.

-signed the management.

[Taranis]

*2S1 Gvozdika

[Combatintman]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Indeed, I wonder if intelligence about Putin's plans informed the decision that it was time to go?

In a word ... no.  I doubt that in early 2021 Putin had decided that he was going to conduct a 'special military operation.'  Bear in mind that the dust had only just settled on the Nagorno-Karabach conflict of the previous year and Russia is pretty sensitive about Islamic-extremist terrorism landing on Russian soil from Afghanistan via the other 'stans to the North with whom Russia has a security pact, the CSTO.  I am sure there was plenty of bandwidth being spent in the Kremlin about how to ensure that Russia's borders could be secured from that extremist Islamic terrorists in that neck of the woods after the US/NATO left.  Indeed on more than one occasion in the last 12 months Russia has sent troops to shore up its CSTO allies due to that perceived threat plus civil unrest in a couple of those countries.  In the latter case, Russian troops were sent to put down riots in one of the CSTO countries in the region either late last year or very early this year.

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

Our sincerest regrets for your application for the lawn maintenance crew.  Unfortunately, your ability to predict effects would we feel have an unfortunate impact on our field.  We really don't feel crabgrass makes for a good outfield. For the record our current hiring practice requires at least a .005 average.

-signed the management.

out of likes, funny!

[Calamine Waffles]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

The idea that pulling out of Afghanistan was a sign of weakness was certainly a favorite trope for CNN journalists who made their careers there but what's never noted is that Afghanistan kept American resources (both diplomatic and military) tied up in a region that was completely removed from any strategic interest to the country. Worse, it forced the Pentagon into retaining a force structure that was not geared towards near peer warfare. 

The pullout was certainly not the US' finest hour but from a state competition standpoint, it was a net negative for Russia and China which would become more of a negative as the US reoriented globally. 

Also should be noted that US/NATO continued presence in Afghanistan relies on Russian co-operation.

[kraze]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Existential wars are on an entirely different level and as such we should not focus on "500 casualties per day" but instead on what those 500 troops are buying for their side.

Yes, exactly. It's not some border dispute or dispute over some political ideas or decisions. If Ukraine stops fighting - they will kill us all, or at least will try hard to do it like they did many many times before. Millions dead and with no place to live for whoever survives is a much worse outcome than hundreds of daily casualties - even though it's horrific either way.

[panzermartin]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Using your logic, you would have supported Hitler in 1939.  Do you have family members that lived under German occupation that you can ask about the wisdom of this?

Actually yes, my parents. My father in Athens had some very rough time, executions, hunger, people dying in the streets searching for food...My mother in Crete had a better 4 years living in a self sufficient village. Only one day they were rounded up in a church with her mother and the villagers with germans pouring gasoline around. Repisals for beating (killing?) two german soldiers. The wehrmacht doctor, that also looked after the kids of the region, intervened and prevented the holocaust. I still believe they didnt intend to burn them though but rather scare them. But a 15yr old kid that run away was shot in the back. Strangelly she still recalls, a soldier among the chaos stealing a pouch and some money from some poor peasants house and the officer forcing him to return it. A paradox, among the sheer sinster brutality they still had a sense of "professionalism" and discipline. 

Apologies for the off topic but thought you mind find it interesting. So yes, I dont think there is wisdom in supporting fascism. That being said I dont think Russia will ever achieve even a fraction of the level of darkness Nazi Germany brought, so I cant see the parallel with Hitler. I hope I'm not mistaken with their potential, I will come here to sincerely apologize to be honest and recognize the vision you all had and I missed.

 

Quote

As an American, I say "yes" to that.  I'll go beyond that.  I've personally sent quite a lot of my own money to Ukraine in the past few months.  I've sent a good chunk of money to a Polish relief organization to help Poland too

And I very respect that.

 

Quote

Thank you for making my point   Assad and ISIS were about to get snuffed out by even the weak, inadequate response of the US and Europe to the civil war there.  Then Russia stepped in and the US/Europe pulled out.  Russia deliberately engaged in behaviors that sent refugees to Europe.  In fact, Russia did this deliberately because it knew that it would fracture and burden the EU.  This is not debatable.  Belarus even directly facilitated refugees getting to the Polish border and then pushed them across until Poland put a stop to it

Here I have to say that Russias intervention role effectively ended the rule of ISIS. I don't know what we were doing there training and arming moderate rebels that somehow were ending in the radical islamists ranks but we had a share on the mess. I think ISIS was hell on earth. Probably worse than Assad. And ISIS was the child of the iraqi invasion, Europe had no involvment and opposed vigorously. (hence the French fries were banned) .

Also the refugee boats are filled with many nationalities, some are coming through Libya that has become an international slave hub, some from Iraq, many were also coming from Afghanistan. The biggest weaponizer of the refugees is by far Erdogan, (see the greek/turkish border crisis a couple of years ago) a ruler we are harbouring in our alliance, conduct common army drills and even allowing to have a say in Finland -Sweden entrance to NATO.