How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

33 minutes ago, Butschi said:

NATO? I do admit that I wouldn't bet money on Germany being overly enthusiastic about admitting Ukraine. But this is not 2008 and I think we'd agree in the end. Well, if it doesn't mean we have to station an entire division in Ukraine - just because we don't have it...

33 minutes ago, Butschi said:

EU? Eventually, I think. But not in the next 5 or so years. I mean, really, despite all the nice speeches, does anyone think EU will admit Ukraine sometime next year just because Zelensky he wants it and Ukraine deserves it? Not when other countries have waited and worked towards that goal for decades already.

Question of time will be crucial here; Muscovy, whoever will be in the seat, will not forget this humiliation (unless some magic happens and they go civilized). You are right that Zelensky may have parades and high fives, but realpolitics works differently. There is also internal dimension of Ukrainian access; if not given reasonable roadmap, population in this war-torned country may slowly turned out from Europe (which btw. may be the goal of populists in the West).

33 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Btw. if we play the finger pointing and unfounded accusation game: Are you certain that Poland is really behind this? I don't think the net payers are going to substantially increase their payments and more EU bonds are unlikely to be well received (not only by Germany, mind you). So the money for Ukraine will mean less EU money for the other current net receivers.

Mate, we just broke ourselves by buying 700 rocket launchers. But yes, free and armed Ukraine is vital interests of Polish state (and several others). It simply occupy different place in Maslov Pyramid; defence beats business every time when comes to this issue. This is one of main reasons we have such different perception of this war in different countries.

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Yeesh went straight for the “colonial” card.  Ya we get it, Europe is a complex tapestry of cats, to which applying the action of herding is nearly impossible.

No pun intended.

But I am mildly optimistic in a sense that West is visibly starting to plan way ahead from several months, apparently even after war ends. We will probably have messy and  uneasy time if Ukraine fails to achieve their maximalist goals and will be encouraged to negotiate, but this is future.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Beleg85

[dan/california]

10 minutes ago, Butschi said:

You mean Canada is just more self-destructive than Europe?

Seriously, FWIW, I agree that on a grand scale China will be the real test. If have been telling people for what seems like decades that China nowadays is capable of far more than doing cheap copies of our stuff. I think by now this begins to dawn on most but it doesn't translate into anything useful. Just a few weeks ago the company I work for has announced that it is building a huge research campus in China. When I asked if it is smart to do that when we can watch live and in color what over-dependence on autocrats leads to I was criticized by a lot of colleagues because this was supposedly all about business and there was already too much politics involved with the sanctions against Russia. Those colleagues are of cause the ones who approach retirement and want to make good money until then. Who cares what happens afterwards, right?

Disentangling ourselves, by which I mean the West, from China is going to be a slow, hard process in the best case scenario. If China picks the fast way, it will be much, much less pleasant than that. But at the end of the day China imports a lot of its food, and a lot of its energy. That worked out great for Japan in WW2. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by dan/california

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Butschi said:

You mean Canada is just more self-destructive than Europe?

Seriously, FWIW, I agree that on a grand scale China will be the real test. If have been telling people for what seems like decades that China nowadays is capable of far more than doing cheap copies of our stuff. I think by now this begins to dawn on most but it doesn't translate into anything useful. Just a few weeks ago the company I work for has announced that it is building a huge research campus in China. When I asked if it is smart to do that when we can watch live and in color what over-dependence on autocrats leads to I was criticized by a lot of colleagues because this was supposedly all about business and there was already too much politics involved with the sanctions against Russia. Those colleagues are of cause the ones who approach retirement and want to make good money until then. Who cares what happens afterwards, right?

No I mean we had deep invested interests in staying on the fence on this whole China thing.  Our political level tried (and still is trying) a bunch of weasel words and side-scuttling on the issue, we danced around the whole 5G Huawei thing and tried to pretend it would all go away.  But it did not.  And recently guns were pulled and ultimatums made and we folded.  Now the decoupling will likely happen slowly over time unless Taiwan or some such happens but it is going to happen.

US seems to be taking this one pretty seriously, so word to the wise when they come knocking.  The collision with China in the next 20 years is going to be challenging.

[Lethaface]

35 minutes ago, Yet said:

You assume the war started in 2022. Imo the war started 2014 and this is just the 2nd battle.

since 2014 there was no peace declaration, no mutually (or internationally) agreed new borders and no leadership (system) change during the ceasefire with drastic different intentions.

if after this battle (or any following battle) there are new recognised borders (incl Crimea with RU) and the war ends; you might argue that RU won the first battle (2014) lost the 2nd battle (2022/23) and walked away with a bone, (international recognised strategic territory expansion).

this doesn't give an incentive not to do this again, just to play it different next time (with lower losses, if RU cares about that at all). 

I even specifically said 'current hot war'. I know about the 2014 war lol. The current war is rather different compared to the 2014 one. There might be a 'third battle' as you call it. Russia can frame either gaining or losing Crimea as a casus belli for another war, that's what you don't seem to see.

[Beleg85]

Ok, Spirit of 1942 coming...I am curious what "humane" will mean in this conmtext:

 

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, Beleg85 said:

Ok, Spirit of 1942 coming...I am curious what "humane" will mean in this conmtext:

 

No more sledgehammers?

[Battlefront.com]

51 minutes ago, Butschi said:

To be fair, listening to some of you Americans one can get the same impression.

Nah, we acknowledge the contributions of others.  We just recognize they wouldn't matter much if America hadn't been involved   Seriously though, there is a big difference in how the American and Russian mentality works in this regard:

American says "Americans won WW2"

Russian says "Russia won WW2"

The difference is subtle.  In the first statement the American is defining the victory as belonging to all American citizens.  In the second statement the Russian is literally attributing the victory to ethnic Russians, not the Soviet Union nor the other ethnicities within.  Put another way, it would be like someone from Texas saying that Texans won WW2.  Sure, they might THINK that, but they would never say it

As for dismissing the contribution of allies fighting along side America, it is true that the uninformed American might not fully appreciate the contributions of other nations to the collective victory.  However, from a factual analysis it wouldn't necessarily be wrong to conclude that the US' efforts were the most important. 

When I was at school in London a history professor said something I will never forget.  He said that Britain's single most important contribution to WW2 was not surrendering so that the United States had a place to base its forces to liberate Europe.  He was overstating, of course, but there is an underlying truth to it.

Note that it cuts both ways.  Americans take responsibility for losing the Vietnam War and Afghanistan, despite dozens of other countries being involved.  I have never heard anybody say "Saigon only fell because Australia didn't pull its weight" or "we would have won Afghanistan if only the Germans had done more".  In fact, most Americans do not hold the South Vietnamese or the Afghans responsible for either final result, rather they blame US policy and execution for them.

You won't find parallels within the societies of other great empires (for that is what the United States effectively is) of a similar mindset.  Later UK Empire perhaps, but for most of it I think you'll find that the English thought of it as more English than British.

The US is a strange and powerful country.  Americans are powerfully strange people  

Steve

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

No more sledgehammers?

No, bullet to the head….more humane.  Seriously, what century are we in?

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

No I mean we had deep invested interests in staying on the fence on this whole China thing.  Our political level tried (and still is trying) a bunch of weasel words and side-scuttling on the issue, we danced around the whole 5G Huawei thing and tried to pretend it would all go away.  But it did not.  And recently guns were pulled and ultimatums made and we folded.  Now the decoupling will likely happen slowly over time unless Taiwan or some such happens but it is going to happen.

US seems to be taking this one pretty seriously, so word to the wise when they come knocking.  The collision with China in the next 20 years is going to be challenging.

 

14 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Ok, Spirit of 1942 coming...I am curious what "humane" will mean in this conmtext:

 

It means they just shoot you in front of the whole unit, instead of torturing you to death, not joking. But I also suspect it means recruitment just became entirely involuntary. They will just round up whole everyone in a given camp who can move under their on power, and herd them towards the Ukrainian machine guns. 

[billbindc]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

No I mean we had deep invested interests in staying on the fence on this whole China thing.  Our political level tried (and still is trying) a bunch of weasel words and side-scuttling on the issue, we danced around the whole 5G Huawei thing and tried to pretend it would all go away.  But it did not.  And recently guns were pulled and ultimatums made and we folded.  Now the decoupling will likely happen slowly over time unless Taiwan or some such happens but it is going to happen.

US seems to be taking this one pretty seriously, so word to the wise when they come knocking.  The collision with China in the next 20 years is going to be challenging.

I’m happy to take bets on  how far the US is willing to go vis a vis decoupling with China. With Russia in DC, there is *some* debate about how far to go on Ukraine. With China, the only debate is whether or not we are going fast enough and far enough. One salient and crucial example is the agreement Netherlands and Japan have made with the US on high end chips. It’s extensive, it’s seriously debilitating to China’s chip industry and Xi is bitter about it. The US is going forward and allies are coming along. 

To give a sense of how things are being seen here, there is more discussion of *when* we are likely to be in a conflict with China than *if*. With that mindset, the US isn’t going to take no for answer for often or for long.

[poesel]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

From possible objectors, Hungary could be supressed, Turkey bargained, but Germany will simply not allow it. Or worse, try never ending scholzing, perhaps even under successive new chancellors. Unless there would be an earthquake in German internal political scene of Wagnerian proportions, and more balsy politicians would take the lead.

If Ukraine wants to join NATO and is at peace with Russia and the US is ok with it, Germany will follow suit. Why wouldn't we? It is an explicit guideline for German foreign politics in NATO matters to only work in conjunction with her allies. The only ally that really matters (in this respect) is the US.
Germany will neither be the first nor the last to sign, but we will sign it when the day comes.

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I’m happy to take bets on  how far the US is willing to go vis a vis decoupling with China. With Russia in DC, there is *some* debate about how far to go on Ukraine. With China, the only debate is whether or not we are going fast enough and far enough. One salient and crucial example is the agreement Netherlands and Japan have made with the US on high end chips. It’s extensive, it’s seriously debilitating to China’s chip industry and Xi is bitter about it. The US is going forward and allies are coming along. 

To give a sense of how things are being seen here, there is more discussion of *when* we are likely to be in a conflict with China than *if*. With that mindset, the US isn’t going to take no for answer for often or for long.

That is definitely the vibe in defence circles.  Fence sitting is no longer an option, neutrality is fine but you are out of the club.  For us it was the whole AUKUS thing and a real fear of being punted from 5EYES.  Suddenly we are buying F-35s and have an aggressive (for Canada) Indo-Pac strategy.  Basically Empire is calling in the chips, and frankly we do have debts to pay up on.

[poesel]

I've read that the Typhoons and F16s are rather unsuited for Ukraine.

What plane would then be useful?
(apart from the Soviet types they already have)

[billbindc]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

That is definitely the vibe in defence circles.  Fence sitting is no longer an option, neutrality is fine but you are out of the club.  For us it was the whole AUKUS thing and a real fear of being punted from 5EYES.  Suddenly we are buying F-35s and have an aggressive (for Canada) Indo-Pac strategy.  Basically Empire is calling in the chips, and frankly we do have debts to pay up on.

Exactly. And I hate to break to the trade folks, but those Aussie subs aren't intended to sit around the Great Barrier Reef when/if the balloon goes up. They are to supplement the naval embargo the US will impose if things get kinetic. DC has belatedly seen that China is potentially planning a big war with much broader aims than simply taking Taiwan...which would be bad enough...and that the only way to stop it is to show China that we are able to do whatever it takes to win it.

[dan/california]

14 minutes ago, poesel said:

I've read that the Typhoons and F16s are rather unsuited for Ukraine.

What plane would then be useful?
(apart from the Soviet types they already have)

Grippen, it was designed from the ground up to work with bad/improvised runways/bases. The Finns understood from that they wouldn't have any other kind five minutes after the balloon went up.

Edit: Swedes, not Finns, sorry.

Edited February 9, 2023 by dan/california

[Maciej Zwolinski]

8 minutes ago, poesel said:

I've read that the Typhoons and F16s are rather unsuited for Ukraine.

What plane would then be useful?
(apart from the Soviet types they already have)

According to many experts, Grippen is ideal because it is made with a view to fighting in the conditions of Russian air superiority. It can use dispersed field airfields and stretches of highway instead of permanent air bases, with minimised logistic requirements

[Maciej Zwolinski]

Just now, dan/california said:

The Finns understood from that they wouldn't have any other kind five minutes after the balloon went up.

Swedes, not Finns

[Butschi]

12 minutes ago, poesel said:

If Ukraine wants to join NATO and is at peace with Russia and the US is ok with it, Germany will follow suit. Why wouldn't we? It is an explicit guideline for German foreign politics in NATO matters to only work in conjunction with her allies. The only ally that really matters (in this respect) is the US.
Germany will neither be the first nor the last to sign, but we will sign it when the day comes.

But I think it was Germany (and France) who opposed George W. Bush in 2008 in Bucharest, right? The situation is different now and so I think you are right that in the end Germany will not stand in the way but it is not really an automatism.

[panzermartin]

14 minutes ago, poesel said:

I've read that the Typhoons and F16s are rather unsuited for Ukraine.

What plane would then be useful?
(apart from the Soviet types they already have)

Tornados? And why A10s havent been discussed much , they could be the equivalent of SU 25 which seems popular in this conflict , flying low avoiding the fat S400s and going tank hunting in the stepes 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

What it WOULD do is make it politically possible for Ukraine to let go of Crimea and/or the Donbas, maybe. Zelensky might be able to sell that, if the all the treaties were signed by same people, on the same day, at the same table. NATO & EU membership effective immediately, the next Russian platoon to stick a tank tread into Ukraine gets greeted by a U.S. Air Force F15E. What is peace worth to Scholz?

**** Scholz, he isn't going to decide 'the future'. That I would be willing to bet on.

[JonS]

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Gripen, it was designed from the ground up to work with bad/improvised runways/bases. The Finns understood from that they wouldn't have any other kind five minutes after the balloon went up.

Grippen is a Swedish a/c from Saab, that has never been operated by Finland.

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Tornados? And why A10s havent been discussed much , they could be the equivalent of SU 25 which seems popular in this conflict , flying low avoiding the fat S400s and going tank hunting in the stepes 

I think the A-10 was designed to withstand small arms, not missiles. It's a pretty slow airplane, vulnerable to MANPADs.

Also it was made to hunt tanks. And Russia doesn't really have many tanks left to hunt. And the ones that are left are no real problem.

Heck, not even the ones they started out with posed much of a problem.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, panzermartin said:

Tornados? And why A10s havent been discussed much , they could be the equivalent of SU 25 which seems popular in this conflict , flying low avoiding the fat S400s and going tank hunting in the stepes 

The A10s apparently need SEAD support than they are likely to get in this war. I am not saying they wouldn't be of some use, but they couldn't be used aggressively enough to REALLY change the balance. If we are going to give the Medvedev an embolism, ATACMS is the the thing that could be going boom on Monday morning.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, JonS said:

Grippen is a Swedish a/c from Saab, that has never been operated by Finland.

I plead guilty to getting my Nordic countries mixed up, I apologize to both.

[Beleg85]

33 minutes ago, poesel said:

If Ukraine wants to join NATO and is at peace with Russia and the US is ok with it, Germany will follow suit. Why wouldn't we? It is an explicit guideline for German foreign politics in NATO matters to only work in conjunction with her allies. The only ally that really matters (in this respect) is the US.
Germany will neither be the first nor the last to sign, but we will sign it when the day comes.

Of course when negotiations are done and decision is set in motion, all allies may follow (minus perhaps Turkey, like was the case last time). But what if Ukraine lands in, let's say, perpetual purgatory when comes to internaltional law like South Korea/long time Israel? I mean a technical peace/or at least long ceasfire (note, it's technically still SMO, which complicates matters even more) with Big Bad Ivan along the border, habitually doing bloody provocations . International status can be a wide spectrum, not necessarly 0/1 game. What if US/willing countries will push for access nonetheless, while other do not? Population of different countries may read it very selectively, as they please and according to changing political trends.

Btw. what you think is current stance of internal disputes in Germany about possible access of Ukraine in NATO? Positive, negative, or too early too tell?

40 minutes ago, billbindc said:

To give a sense of how things are being seen here, there is more discussion of *when* we are likely to be in a conflict with China than *if*. With that mindset, the US isn’t going to take no for answer for often or for long.

Yes, that's quite probable. I am also curious what sticks and carrots can US apply to stubborn members of the West. This is no longer peripherial Ukraine issue, but potentially seriously globalization- and economic-breaking problems. Pressure will be enormous.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Beleg85