How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

All is not well in Mordor.

‘Putin’s Chef’ Leaks Grisly Corpse Photo in Public Betrayal of Kremlin (yahoo.com)

[Seminole]

6 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Ukraine war: What support is China giving Russia?

https://www.bbc.com/news/60571253

They seem to have turned up the verbal support:

 

MOSCOW, February 21. /TASS/. The People’s Republic of China is ready to join forces with Russia to decisively stand up for national interests and promote mutually beneficial cooperation in all areas, Wang Yi, director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China’s Central Committee, said on Tuesday as he met with Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev.

"During a virtual meeting at the end of last year our leaders (Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin - TASS) came up with a plan for further development of bilateral relations. We are ready to join forces with the Russian side, in accordance with the high-level agreements, to decisively stand up for national interests and virtues, and promote mutually beneficial cooperation in all areas," he said.

Wang Yi said China will "together with all like-minded partners further promote the development of the international order in the direction of equitable development." The diplomat also said that the consultations of Beijing and Moscow on strategic security issues are some of the highly effective communications between the parties, and play a unique role in strengthening mutual trust and interaction.

Wang Yi also drew attention to the fact that in the context of the changing international situation, it’s important to compare notes, in a timely and in-depth manner, on the bilateral agenda and the issues of the international and regional dimension.

"It’s necessary to unlock the potential of this mechanism, and it’s also necessary to develop new steps of strategic interaction in accordance with the changing situation in order to provide the necessary guarantees for national development," he said. "I want to fully join your appreciation of the strategic cooperation between the two countries."

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I have heard this inspirational "innovative verve" argument before and I am not entirely sold to be honest.  At strategic and operational levels we did not adapt in Afghanistan or at least nowhere near enough.  We became hammers looking for nails and never prioritized the non-kinetic over the kinetic.  In Iraq we also failed to win a peace by setting in motion sectarian alienation.  Place it still a mess.  Now in some ways these wars were (are) unwinnable as the adaption we would need to make to win them are off our maps.

Tactical innovation does stand out but troops everywhere have been doing this for centuries.  Largely due to Darwinian pressure on the battlefield - those who cannot improvise, die.  I am not sure we can definitively say we are better or worse than other forces to be honest.

So the evidence that at the scope and scale of this conflict that we would really do any better going off-doctrine than the UA already has, is pretty limited.  We are pretty dogmatic about how we fight, for example to suggest that we should start thinking about Detailed Command, and the utility of Mission Command could be limiting is outright heresy in western military circles.  And although you won't be taken out and shot for speaking heresy in the west, you will still be sidelined and isolated. Military cultures are extremely conservative - look at our track record in the people space, we have always lagged the rest of society on social change (don't ask, don't tell, integration of women etc)

I think the only real advantage we may have is in learning because the west is built on liberal education.  That does allow for a lot faster and more agile collective learning potential, but again we counter it with culture in a lot of ways. 

In the end I am not sure what we would do if airpower was removed.  I think we would likely initially try to do what we have always done with airpower and suffered setbacks. We then likely would have also adopted more cautious and deliberate strategies much in the same way the Ukrainians have. I like to think we would done better than the RA because they are extremely wasteful in chasing attrition, and have demonstrated an extreme aversion to actually learning.  However, we may have also stuck too close to manoeuvre and decisive battle as opposed to the far more distributed defence we saw from the UA in Phase I, which could have gotten us into serious trouble given the battlefield realities we saw emerge.

I never assume advantage or overmatch until I am damn sure we actually have it.  Understanding ones weaknesses is almost as important as understanding theirs, same goes for strengths.

Speaking of books, when are you and Combat-Infantry-Man getting together and writing yours? You both have priceless experience and perspective on the last twenty years? 

[Letter from Prague]

My take is that robustness is a tradeoff. Just like you could ask about bacterial antibiotic resistance - what if it becomes resistant to all the antibiotics? Well it won't, because that costs energy and that is a waste when not in use. If NATO style of fighting is fragile, it might be a tradeoff with that money that robustness would cost spent elsewhere. Which is fine, as long as that robustness is not needed, it is an exercise in "what are the right tradeoffs for my situation".

As for "what if NATO can't use airpower" specifically, I think the success of HIMARS/MLRS in being used as replacement airpower by Ukraine shows that someone in the West actually thought about this thing, and put money into "backup airpower".

Or maybe not, it might be coincidence.

[The_Capt]

Just now, Letter from Prague said:

My take is that robustness is a tradeoff. Just like you could ask about bacterial antibiotic resistance - what if it becomes resistant to all the antibiotics? Well it won't, because that costs energy and that is a waste when not in use. If NATO style of fighting is fragile, it might be a tradeoff with that money that robustness would cost spent elsewhere. Which is fine, as long as that robustness is not needed, it is an exercise in "what are the right tradeoffs for my situation".

As for "what if NATO can't use airpower" specifically, I think the success of HIMARS/MLRS in being used as replacement airpower by Ukraine shows that someone in the West actually thought about this thing, and put money into "backup airpower".

Or maybe not, it might be coincidence.

I never heard of HIMARs as “ersatz AirPower before this war”.  I also know an entire military service that would have fought that idea tooth and nail - in fact they still are.  Which of course gets into another factor of innovation stifling - service equities.  I do think we sure as hell would have figured it out though.

The trade off of the Western system is economy, speed and lethality.  We prioritize lower casualties and quick deadly wars, while Russia comes from the old school of blood-volumes.  Even the Soviet manoeuvre doctrine was built on savage attritional echelons.  We simply do not think that way anymore - the fact that we never stockpile enough ammo is a pretty clear indicator.

The issue is that we have streamlined ourselves to fight our wars.  We are not anymore set up for robustness than Russia was for the information environment it found itself within.  This is not something we could glue together quickly in a conflict and hopefully capacity-matters is one lesson we come away from this war.

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Speaking of books, when are you and Combat-Infantry-Man getting together and writing yours? You both have priceless experience and perspective on the last twenty years? 

Our shared canvass will be CMCW.

[Battlefront.com]

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I have heard this inspirational "innovative verve" argument before and I am not entirely sold to be honest.  At strategic and operational levels we did not adapt in Afghanistan or at least nowhere near enough.  We became hammers looking for nails and never prioritized the non-kinetic over the kinetic.  In Iraq we also failed to win a peace by setting in motion sectarian alienation.  Place it still a mess.  Now in some ways these wars were (are) unwinnable as the adaption we would need to make to win them are off our maps.

True, but that's a different matter IMHO.  That gets into political failures way more than military, as those problems were political in nature.  I'm not saying that the military isn't political itself and that it wasn't at least partly to blame for the messes, but ultimately it was the civilians calling the shots and they didn't do a good job at al.  Though, as you say, there might not have been viable solutions even with better political leadership.

What we're discussing, or at least what I'm discussing, is the kinetic phase of the war.  NATO's doctrine and forces won that phase decisively in Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan.  I have a feeling it would win in Ukraine because in practice it has always done better than what the Russians have shown of themselves so far.  I look at Russia's forces and see more Saddam than I do a near peer.

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So the evidence that at the scope and scale of this conflict that we would really do any better going off-doctrine than the UA already has, is pretty limited. 

This I agree with.  Due to the fact the UA is fighting for its right to exist and doing so based on Soviet concepts of attrition, I do think the window for NATO force to show itself better than UA is limited to a couple of weeks of initial engagement.  If Russia was able to hold on for more than that the NATO system might not handle things as well as the UA.

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

In the end I am not sure what we would do if airpower was removed. 

Think Combat Mission   In your mind play out a Ukraine type scenario without air power, with you as NATO and the dumbest guy capable of (barely) playing Combat Mission sitting in for Bil (there is no Russian analog to Bil!).  Now picture how things would go and how things would wind up.  When I do this I come up with a pretty well smoked Russian force, especially if it is on the offense.

Steve

[Harmon Rabb]

Czechs Raise Two Million Crowns for Rocket Launcher in Record-short Time (praguemorning.cz)

Czechs doing their part to help out. First time that I have heard of this Gift for Putin crowdfunding campaign.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I look at Russia's forces and see more Saddam than I do a near peer.

Now that is definitely a fair point.  The RA’s dogmatic adherence to old metrics of mass is frankly baffling.  “Look at all my mighty tanks” which I cannot man, maintain, coordinate, move to the front undetected and integrate into whatever the hell combined arms is becoming.

I again think this comes down to ability to learn - translate lived experience into shareable knowledge.  Russia (and I am looking at China as well) is a cognitively constipated outfit due to the way it power structures are built.  And it is coming back to haunt them in this war - even Stalin figured this one out at the back end.

I think a western commander would get bit, and maybe even more than once but at some point a subordinate commander is going to go “What the F#ck, sir?!”  And the healing could begin.

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In your mind play out a Ukraine type scenario without air power, with you as NATO and the dumbest guy capable of (barely) playing Combat Mission sitting in for Bil (there is no Russian analog to Bil!).  Now picture how things would go and how things would wind up.  When I do this I come up with a pretty well smoked Russian force, especially if it is on the offense.

Funny you should mention this…

Бил Hardenberger is a slippery one, but your point is valid.

[Vet 0369]

On 2/20/2023 at 2:16 PM, Artkin said:

Yeah, very ugly. The whole "American politics is ONLY right and left" is the sort of thing that is ripping this country apart. FFS I hate seeing these types of posts more than anything around here.

Come to New Hampshire, the true Libertarian Paradise! 

[Letter from Prague]

16 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Czechs Raise Two Million Crowns for Rocket Launcher in Record-short Time (praguemorning.cz)

Czechs doing their part to help out. First time that I have heard of this Gift for Putin crowdfunding campaign.

The launcher is named after legendary (as in, from a legend) Přemysl_the_Ploughman and it says "the spring tillage won't wait". Hope they till the orcs good.

[Simcoe]

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I never heard of HIMARs as “ersatz AirPower before this war”.  I also know an entire military service that would have fought that idea tooth and nail - in fact they still are.  Which of course gets into another factor of innovation stifling - service equities.  I do think we sure as hell would have figured it out though.

The trade off of the Western system is economy, speed and lethality.  We prioritize lower casualties and quick deadly wars, while Russia comes from the old school of blood-volumes.  Even the Soviet manoeuvre doctrine was built on savage attritional echelons.  We simply do not think that way anymore - the fact that we never stockpile enough ammo is a pretty clear indicator.

The issue is that we have streamlined ourselves to fight our wars.  We are not anymore set up for robustness than Russia was for the information environment it found itself within.  This is not something we could glue together quickly in a conflict and hopefully capacity-matters is one lesson we come away from this war.

I think you bring up an interesting point. It seems like the American military is built for Desert Storm. Gain air superiority, use air power to destroy C2, use combined arms to destroy the hapless remains.

What happens if we can't fulfill that checklist? The Russian/Soviet doctrine is bloody because they can't assume those first two criteria are met. Their aircraft can be shot down and missiles don't always hit their target.

In a conflict with China we can't assume air superiority and the destruction of C2. Without those, things start to look like Ukraine.

 

[Beleg85]

We should probably expect this to appear more often- remotely controlled SVBIED's:

 

[Haiduk]

10 hours ago, poesel said:

Video of a failed HIMARS missile. A bit into the video it shows the missile path through the roof, 3 levels and down into the cellar!

 

This is the same episode, which Khodakovskiy meant in own TG - I forgot Kyrylivka or Stepove in 14-18 km S/SE from Vuhledar. There was HQ of "Kaskad", combined unit of DPR Internal Troops. The guy, who was "lucky" to be hammered by unexploded missile directly in the bed was chief of staff deputy sen.lt. Andrey Maksak, citizen of Ukraine, veteran of "Vostok" battalion, which was under Khodakovskiy command in 2014-15. Now this is 11th motor-rifle regiment "Vostok" of DPR Internal troops

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Haiduk

[Vet 0369]

On 2/20/2023 at 2:19 PM, MSBoxer said:

I place more of the blame on the monied lobbyists who represent the companies/unions/special interests who own the legislators.  Nothing happens without their input up to and including the crafting of bills.  They have far more influence than any voting block. Most of the general public has no idea what any single piece of legislation contains, unless some PR group representing even more money tells them what is in the bill and how they should feel about it.

I on the other hand place the blame on the legislators in the Congress and the Senate who lack the integrity to refuse the “gifts” of the Lobbyists who are attempting to gain through bribes. The Lobbyist’s “gifts” (dinners, lunches, vacations, trips, etc., are simply bribes. Employees of the Executive Branch are “forbidden from accepting any “gift” that has a value of more than $20.00 USD. The question is, Why doesn’t the Legislative Branch have the same prohibition? Because it is the same people who take those bribes who write and pass the laws that would stop them from taking the bribes!

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

I think you bring up an interesting point. It seems like the American military is built for Desert Storm. Gain air superiority, use air power to destroy C2, use combined arms to destroy the hapless remains.

What happens if we can't fulfill that checklist? The Russian/Soviet doctrine is bloody because they can't assume those first two criteria are met. Their aircraft can be shot down and missiles don't always hit their target.

In a conflict with China we can't assume air superiority and the destruction of C2. Without those, things start to look like Ukraine.

 

So my initial thinking is that with respect to China we need to do two things right (at least) based on what we have seen so far:

Sustain our warfighting “cloud” while denying same to opponent.  This is really C4ISR heavy but more than that. Essentially we are moving to an Amazon effects model.  Customer makes an order, systems figures out best way to link - well outside traditional C2 lines and delivers.  We do that better-faster than an opponent we are well on our way.  Our cloud is our C4ISR bubble that is completely integrated with effects, shield and sustainment.  Air, sea and/or land matter less than the sum of the whole.  Whole system superiority if you will, as opposed to domain components.  If capabilities get eroded, we re-wire in motion.  In the end if what we want is a big freakin boom on an X, how that happens needs to be almost entirely militarily capability agnostic.

Learn faster than our opponent and sustain that advantage.  War is a collision and as such is dynamic.  We need to be able to build theories of cause-to-effect-to-outcome faster and better than an opponent.  We do that and we are on our way to being able to fight on completely different levels and dimensions.  China has already declared aspirations in this space…put those to the test.

 

 

[Yet]

59 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I have heard this inspirational "innovative verve" argument before and I am not entirely sold to be honest.  At strategic and operational levels we did not adapt in Afghanistan or at least nowhere near enough.  We became hammers looking for nails and never prioritized the non-kinetic over the kinetic.  In Iraq we also failed to win a peace by setting in motion sectarian alienation.  Place it still a mess.  Now in some ways these wars were (are) unwinnable as the adaption we would need to make to win them are off our maps.

Tactical innovation does stand out but troops everywhere have been doing this for centuries.  Largely due to Darwinian pressure on the battlefield - those who cannot improvise, die.  I am not sure we can definitively say we are better or worse than other forces to be honest.

So the evidence that at the scope and scale of this conflict that we would really do any better going off-doctrine than the UA already has, is pretty limited.  We are pretty dogmatic about how we fight, for example to suggest that we should start thinking about Detailed Command, and the utility of Mission Command could be limiting is outright heresy in western military circles.  And although you won't be taken out and shot for speaking heresy in the west, you will still be sidelined and isolated. Military cultures are extremely conservative - look at our track record in the people space, we have always lagged the rest of society on social change (don't ask, don't tell, integration of women etc)

I think the only real advantage we may have is in learning because the west is built on liberal education.  That does allow for a lot faster and more agile collective learning potential, but again we counter it with culture in a lot of ways. 

In the end I am not sure what we would do if airpower was removed.  I think we would likely initially try to do what we have always done with airpower and suffered setbacks. We then likely would have also adopted more cautious and deliberate strategies much in the same way the Ukrainians have. I like to think we would done better than the RA because they are extremely wasteful in chasing attrition, and have demonstrated an extreme aversion to actually learning.  However, we may have also stuck too close to manoeuvre and decisive battle as opposed to the far more distributed defence we saw from the UA in Phase I, which could have gotten us into serious trouble given the battlefield realities we saw emerge.

I never assume advantage or overmatch until I am damn sure we actually have it.  Understanding ones weaknesses is almost as important as understanding theirs, same goes for strengths.

well, i know im going to open Pandoras box here but hey.

i think the Iraqi war and Afghan war both were wildly successful. There was control after a few days.

War and militairy was never designed to make lasting peace. They are designed to win battles and open up a space where a new government with new rules can win (the good way or the bad way) the bless of the people. Building up the Trias politicas (government, juridical system, police) failed. This can have a lot of reasons, probably also a wrong strategy for this situation because we try to do it always nice for everyone.

Maybe partly it didnt help also (minor issue but imo worth mentioning) there was heavily relied on US (and international) army to do police-work. This means that the same guys in the same uniform are: 

-gathering intel, make the chats, win trust

-being police to make arrests

- manage revolts

- shoot the crap out of a breakout

for these tasks we have local agents, mainstream police, riot police and army; All in different uniforms. This way if you see one making mistakes or fight, it doesnt interfere with your relations to the other types.

 

 

[Haiduk]

Not all simple with thіs confrontation between Prigozhyn and MoD about "shell hunger", because of which Wagners as if suffering heavy losses. 

Today Prigozhyn made new emotional hit on public, showing dozens of dead Wagners on the snow on backyard of some morgue with the same accusing - "Do you see? How much our guys were fallen because an artifical shortage of shells because of betrayal of MoD officials!"

 

But judging on talks on LostArmor, where users have direct information from Wagner merceneries - this confrontation between Prigozhyn and MoD is more complicated and can have completely other goals than this shows to public.

According to their information - there is no any "shell hunger" indeed.

First reason of this conflict, which some Lost Armor members mean is unclear undercover struggle between group of Shoigu-Gerasimov against so-called "Southern military district mafia". And despite on tough criticism from the side of Prigozhyn toward MoD, he as if indeed plays on the side of Shoigu. And his rhetoric is attempt to play own game in appointment of "useful persons" on some duties in MoD and General Staff. 

Second reason - this is thin PsyOps to suggest to AFU false illusion that conditions of Wagners near Bakhmut is bad and force them to counter-attack in order to make a trap.  

Khodakovskiy today issued a post, where he told that Wagners now didn't really suffrer "shell hunger", but they now are supplied with ammo like all other regular units, without any preferences. So, since they got ammo like all other - their tactical sucesses are sharply reduced. He also told that for Vuhledar offensive Russians were forced to limited wasting of ammo on other directions in order to accumulate shells for Vuhledar, but they couldn't completely supress UKR defense in first two days, having full superiority in "salvo mass" and further, when number of ammunition became usual, whitout its acuumulated surpluses, operation bogged at the moment and led to the loss of alsmost all achievmnets

Today Russian milblogger Vladlen Tatarskiy issued a requst from Wagner PMC to Gerasimov, Chief of the Staff about quantity of ammunition for one day of work (first column) and for 10 days (second column) of work. In third column with digits, being written by hand showed real quantuty for 10 days, which was supplied. Some positions even exceed request, but some - significantly lower. Tatarskiy didn't show names of ammunition, though likely 10566 is a number of mortar shells, maybe 82 mm. For a day. And 105660 for 10 days. Really they got 3800. Some have opinion this is about 152 mm ammunition, but this is enough large number for Bakhmut front.

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Haiduk

[Peregrine]

18 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Today Prigozhyn made new emotional hit on public, showing dozens of dead Wagners on the snow on backyard of some morgue with the same accusing - "Do you see? How much our guys were fallen because an artifical shortage of shells because of betrayal of MoD officials!"

What military leader of any quality would show a pile of his own soldiers and say it's not my fault.

[Kinophile]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Of course this makes the somewhat biased assumption that NATO commanders know how to fight this war any better.  In fact in many ways fighting this war employing NATO doctrine would be worse and likely lead to operational cul de sacs.  I am not sure mission command is always appropriate or effective in this sort of environment. 

I should clarify that I don't see the Western strategic approaches being inherently better than Ukraine's current process at those levels.  

I emphasize and highlight the NATO level training up of Ukraines office corp as a strategic advantage because their institutional mass improvement and deeper professional development is the direct opposite of Russias current process.  

If we're talking how smart mass precision beats dumb mass hand-over-fist I'd argue that it's not just in the realm of technology and hardware but also in mindset. As we can see,  an institution where exploiting smart mass precision is in the cultural bedrock will adapt to and explore  future technologies far quicker and more easily than one that does not have that culture. That is exactly what is happening right now on the battlefield,  but the unique amplifier for the ZSU is the external factor of NATO and its massive technological and intellectual depth. 

By contrast, the Russian MoD has no one else to turn to for intellectual development,  and probably has no interest in that very idea. The chauvinistic mentality is a roadblock to deeper exploration of new concepts and strange technologies. 

So while AFRF is crawling towards a modern FORCE concept,  the ZSU is getting into NATOs battlewagon and uber-ing off. 

  NATO is not some font of wisdom or amazing perfection -  but it comes from two continents wort of advanced technology and deep military exploration and professionalism. 

Russia has nothing like that to draw on for it to adapt to this future war. 

The AFRF is going to keep making the same fundamental mistakes because it has no one else to offer alternative ideas, it has no interest in outside teachings above tech transfer and it politically incapable of accepting the idea e that it is wrong. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Kinophile

[kevinkin]

57 minutes ago, Yet said:

This means that the same guys in the same uniform are: 

-gathering intel, make the chats, win trust

-being police to make arrests

- manage revolts

- shoot the crap out of a breakout

- and get approval from lawyers a half a world away on whether a military target risks too many civilian losses.

You could only afford to do that in a expeditionary COIN war. If NATO were to enter on the ground in Ukraine fighting a continental war, those attorneys would have to find other work. 

[Haiduk]

15 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

What military leader of any quality would show a pile of his own soldiers and say it's not my fault.

On background of regular army fails, Wagners in Russia are very popular. Prigozhyn with aid of own milbloggers and some "Kremlin towers" made the myth of "invinsible successful" PMC and "prosperous business" of his "Concord" company. Soon to be employed in "Concord" probably will be so prestigious like and in Gazprom. 

Company of Prigozhyn can have up to 250 millions $ yearly income from resources mining in Africa and Asia. 

So such pictures has the same public effect if in 2015 would be appeared the similar pictures of dead Azov fighters, fallen because "Poroshenko and Muzhenko left them without fire support and fuel during their offensive". This is a public opinion lever to achieve some political and cadre goals.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

48 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Khodakovskiy today issued a post, where he told that Wagners now didn't really suffrer "shell hunger", but they now are supplied with ammo like all other regular units, without any preferences. So, since they got ammo like all other - their tactical sucesses are sharply reduced. He also told that for Vuhledar offensive Russians were forced to limited wasting of ammo on other directions in order to accumulate shells for Vuhledar, but they couldn't completely supress UKR defense in first two days, having full superiority in "salvo mass" and further, when number of ammunition became usual, whitout its acuumulated surpluses, operation bogged at the moment and led to the loss of alsmost all achievmnets

If this is true, this confirms what we suspect about Russian shell availability.  Through a combination of reduced stocks and having to store them far to the rear, Russian frontline forces are not receiving the quantity of shells they used to.  This is good news as Russia relies upon artillery and I don't see them having anything to replace it with.  There's only so many MTLBs they can turn into VBIEDs

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Yet said:

well, i know im going to open Pandoras box here but hey.

i think the Iraqi war and Afghan war both were wildly successful. There was control after a few days.

War and militairy was never designed to make lasting peace. They are designed to win battles and open up a space where a new government with new rules can win (the good way or the bad way) the bless of the people. Building up the Trias politicas (government, juridical system, police) failed. This can have a lot of reasons, probably also a wrong strategy for this situation because we try to do it always nice for everyone.

Maybe partly it didnt help also (minor issue but imo worth mentioning) there was heavily relied on US (and international) army to do police-work. This means that the same guys in the same uniform are: 

-gathering intel, make the chats, win trust

-being police to make arrests

- manage revolts

- shoot the crap out of a breakout

for these tasks we have local agents, mainstream police, riot police and army; All in different uniforms. This way if you see one making mistakes or fight, it doesnt interfere with your relations to the other types.

 

 

I think you are missing a whole lot of nuance of what actually happened on these missions.  The military was not simply being “police” as there was an open insurgency/guerrilla war going on, which is well outside the scope of police forces. Police forces were not anywhere near prepared to deal with what was going on in these places, and military power alone could not do it either.  These insurgencies were to the point that governments in country could not function and in the end defeated both us and those governments.  We cannot and should not approach this with a “whelp the first three days went really well, watcha gonna do?”

Military power is “designed” to do whatever the political level asks it to do - we do not get to say “sorry we are not designed for this”, we redesign ourselves to the problem and win.  This is an extension of what military power within the context of our nation states, is really there for - to implement policy, and guarantor implement of policy by others.

Moving the goal posts is an incredibly bad idea.  I mean why learn from our mistakes and build better, when “we really won after all?”

[danfrodo]

WTF is China thinking?  All they are doing is making confrontation w the countries w which they have the most to lose.  It's so stupid.  Jeeebus, why on earth would you wreck your economically necessary trade relationships to support some serial mass murdering war criminal who is gonna lose in the end, even he does manage to hold some of the land.  

US now needs to go on PR campaign of all the murder & mayhem being sewn by Putler.  The PR china wants is they are being responsible in standing up for soverienty, etc.  The PR that needs to happen is that they are aiding and abetting terrorism.