How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, alison said:

I don't think the G7 is in decline, and without a doubt the US and other western democracies continue to have a larger cultural impact via the entertainment industry

nope, it is all K Pop now.  

[NamEndedAllen]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

I too am on the "this is total BS" side, but some things do add up in the right light.

My fear is that enough of the “right” NATO nations might secretly give China/Russia a “wink wink, nod nod” to yes, Ukraine has the right to TRY to join NATO or a smaller western military treaty - but they won’t actually ever let Ukraine in. Not of course that a nation has *ever* in history been deceived in an international agreement. Under that misconception, Ukraine might agree to some sort of thin veneer of a reasonable sounding resolution of its violated borders. Russia drops the annexation, but Ukraine agrees that some sort of UN peacekeeping monitors Russia’s administrators in the three conquered Oblasts. Ultimately, Ukraine is out in the cold  and loses the eastern Oblasts. Russia keeps its land bridge. Right wing politicians rejoice throughout the Western World that our senseless warmongering against Russia is over, and trade resumes, the spice flows. Oops. I mean the oil.

[Seminole]

28 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

That's an internal confliction within an absurdity. A state backed digital coinage issued by China, first taken up by Russia, then the tiny number of other parish states, then some more in the Third World... Is going to somehow undercut the Western backed,  already in use, easy to trade and deeply familiar American Dollar? 

Government fiat is going to be government fiat, with all the inherent and readily observable risks, whether they slap a blockchain on it or not.  They'll inflate it when they need to finance what they can thereby.   I think given China's debt situation anyone lining up to obtain their inevitable CBDC will in the end get what they deserve.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

25 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

My fear is that enough of the “right” NATO nations might secretly give China/Russia a “wink wink, nod nod” to yes, Ukraine has the right to TRY to join NATO or a smaller western military treaty - but they won’t actually ever let Ukraine in. Not of course that a nation has *ever* in history been deceived in an international agreement. Under that misconception, Ukraine might agree to some sort of thin veneer of a reasonable sounding resolution of its violated borders. Russia drops the annexation, but Ukraine agrees that some sort of UN peacekeeping monitors Russia’s administrators in the three conquered Oblasts. Ultimately, Ukraine is out in the cold  and loses the eastern Oblasts. Russia keeps its land bridge. Right wing politicians rejoice throughout the Western World that our senseless warmongering against Russia is over, and trade resumes, the spice flows. Oops. I mean the oil.

Then the Anglosphere (US-Canada-Britain) sponsors a new 'Amber Alliance*' taking in Norway + Sweden + Finland + Baltics + Poland + Ukraine... keeping a seat warm for a free Belarus.

Pass the pickled herring....

* IIRC, amber was a key commodity traded down the Dnipr, from Neolithic times. @Beleg85?

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[billbindc]

53 minutes ago, alison said:

Speaking of the mindset of in "the Global South" is no more a generalization then speaking of the mindset of "the west". I don't think it should surprise anyone that there is great diversity of opinion in every country of the world, including developing countries, and authoritarian countries for that matter. There is diversity of opinion everywhere - we see it right here on this thread where western allies bicker all the time. But I also don't think it is helpful to use that diversity as an escape hatch to avoid talking about broader trends in international politics, and specifically how the Chinese government hopes to manipulate those trends to gain power and increase their influence globally.

I don't think you can generalize about the Global South in the same way you can about 'The West". There are two reasons for my assertion.

First, the West states share common histories and institutions that make it easier for them to cooperate and coordinate interests. The "West" isn't an imaginary construct. The BRICS simply don't share those bonds. India and China are actively hostile. Russia and Brazil have little in common in political institutions or culture. In fact, what generally unites them is competition and varying levels of antipathy towards the West with the rising economic power to do something about it.

Second, the BRICS don't have the United States or anything close to it. The US acts as arbiter, bully, ringleader and goad to it's alliance systems while at the same time enjoying the sort of preponderant military power that cannot be challenged safely by anyone...as Russia is learning to its chagrin. None of the BRICS can come close to fulfilling that role. 

 

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, alison said:

Personally, although I've seen plenty of skepticism and concern about China around the world, I've also seen a realpolitik acceptance of the fact that Chinese money is not going away, and so it's worth it to at least play both sides, if not throw in completely with what in most cases has become the larger trade partner. I don't think the G7 is in decline, and without a doubt the US and other western democracies continue to have a larger cultural impact via the entertainment industry, selling the immigrant dream and so on. But I don't think it makes sense to dismiss Chinese influence efforts by implying that countries outside of the G7 are too poor or corrupt or self-involved to worry about. I think it does matter how western governments present their case to the rest of the world. I think it's important to win the propaganda battle of what the rules-based international order actually means. And, on this, I think the west hasn't been as successful recently as I would hope.

I'm curious in light of the above what you think of Beijing's wolf warrior diplomacy. From this little town by the Potomac, it seems like the most disastrous propaganda campaign in modern diplomatic history. I think I know why it happened but I'd be interested to hear your take.

[cesmonkey]

Biden sits down with ABC News for an interview:

 

[cesmonkey]

Secretary Blinken’s Remarks at the United Nations Security Council Ministerial Meeting on Ukraine
 

Quote

Members of this council have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that any peace is just and durable.

Council members should not be fooled by calls for a temporary or unconditional ceasefire.  Russia will use any pause in fighting to consolidate control over the territory it’s illegally seized and replenish its forces for further attacks.  That’s what happened when Russia’s first assault on Ukraine froze in 2015.  Look at what followed.

And members of this council should not fall into the false equivalency of calling on both sides to stop fighting, or calling on other nations to stop supporting Ukraine in the name of peace.

No member of this council should call for peace while supporting Russia’s war on Ukraine and on the UN Charter.

 

[alison]

8 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I'm curious in light of the above what you think of Beijing's wolf warrior diplomacy. From this little town by the Potomac, it seems like the most disastrous propaganda campaign in modern diplomatic history. I think I know why it happened but I'd be interested to hear your take.

I have wavered back and forth on how effective Chinese propaganda has been under Xi. On one hand, the "wolf warrior" style has hardened the resolve of hawks in the west and perhaps alienated some fence-sitters who might otherwise have been sympathetic. On the other hand, the increased assertiveness has absolutely been beneficial in bolstering nationalist sentiment at home and that has probably paid for itself in building a populist base that can provide some stability for the government in challenging times (Hong Kong protests, COVID etc).

What I am unsure about is how well it's landed in countries outside of the traditional western sphere of influence. Certainly in some parts of the world where there is a "frenemy" relationship with the US, there is an appeal in seeing another great power stand up to them - at least rhetorically - but I am not sure whether that has translated into more favorable opinions of China, or whether people are just seeing it as a bit of schadenfreude.

Something I have often encountered when talking to people from developing countries is that they are quite happy for their government to play both sides to line up whatever benefits they can get. The thinking is to stay on the good side of both the US and China - or at least not get on anyone's bad side - so the main focus can remain on internal development (or personal enrichment, if you want to look at it cynically). This means nod and smile when China complains about America's "Cold War mentality", nod and smile when the US pushes their "rules-based order", while not really buying into any of it. And when China's ally invades a neighboring country, just nod and smile when they tell you it was to resist NATO aggression. The question is: is it a failure of the west to not get people in other countries to acknowledge this war as unjust? Does people being apathetic or disinterested mean we lost the propaganda battle, or does it just mean we didn't win it?

On how this might affect the situation on the ground in Ukraine in a concrete way, I think if more countries around the world really, full-throatedly condemned the war, it's possible that sanctions against Russia could have been more effective. Shouldn't the US have India on-side, for example, given so-called Indo-Pacific security concerns? Why did Vietnam - no friend of China - abstain in the most recent UN vote? These relationships play on my mind, because ultimately I think they may also affect the shape of future conflict in Taiwan, where I currently live.

[sburke]

25 minutes ago, alison said:

Taiwan, where I currently live.

dang dude, things make a little more sense now.  A front row seat for what, despite open warfare in Ukraine, is likely the tensest hot spot on the globe.  Any take the on the KMT visit that just happened in China?

[LongLeftFlank]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

dang dude, things make a little more sense now.  A front row seat for what, despite open warfare in Ukraine, is likely the tensest hot spot on the globe.  Any take the on the KMT visit that just happened in China?

Alison..... Is that a dude's name now? I am so confused. 

Of course, back in the day it used to be a radial engine.

[sburke]

11 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Alison..... Is that a dude's name now? I am so confused. 

Of course, back in the day it used to be a radial engine.

err heck I dunno.  My barista the other day had pronouns that said them/they.  I was really confused.  Just decided to use their name on tag every time to not over think it.

I mean geez my first nightmare was from that movie about giant ants - "Them".  Then there was that Far Side panel where the dude sitting at the phone is "them".

Edited February 25, 2023 by sburke

[chrisl]

7 minutes ago, sburke said:

err heck I dunno.  My barista the other day had pronouns that said them/they.  I was really confused.  Just decided to use their name on tag every time to not over think it.

"Dude" is gender neutral.  (edit: when used in the second person)

FWIW, it doesn't take long to get used to using NB pronouns, especially "they/them", since it's already a fairly common thing in English anyway.

Edited February 25, 2023 by chrisl

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

"Dude" is gender neutral.  

FWIW, it doesn't take long to get used to using NB pronouns, especially "they/them", since it's already a fairly common thing in English anyway.

the mental block I have is it is plural.  heck I'm a boomer, what do I know?   back to Ukraine.  Still reading through alll the stuff in the politico article posted earlier.  Fascinating look at how the US gov't was responding through the fall all the way up to the invasion.  After so many other things we've hedged on or f'd up, amazing to see how well our whole gov't apparatus functioned through that period.

Also depressing to see how Russia just ignored all the warnings, requests etc and marched right to the bloodiest war in Europe since WW2.

Quote

GEN. MARK MILLEY: I called up my counterpart in Russia a couple of different times. He just said that they were doing an exercise, and I confronted him on it. I talked to him as late as maybe two weeks before the actual invasion, I said, “This is a terrible strategic mistake. It’s placing Europe at risk. It’s obviously going to have tragic consequences for Ukraine. This is going to be an extremely bloody affair for Russia. This is an enormous strategic mistake that you’re making.” I think I said, “You’ll get in there in 14 days, you won’t get out for 14 years, and you will have body bags flowing back to Moscow the entire time. These people are going to fight you.” The demographic of present-day Ukraine is that anybody who’s 60 years or younger knows nothing but freedom for the most part, and a country like that is not easily conquered.

 

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, alison said:

And when China's ally invades a neighboring country, just nod and smile when they tell you it was to resist NATO aggression.

They always look surprised when the neighboring country in question happens to be  theirs. Please note I in no way accuse Ukraine of this. They have literally been dying to get into the E.U. and NATO for twenty years.

Edit: I don't accuse Taiwan of it either, just to be clear, South Africa on the other hand...

Second edit: It is great to hear from someone in Taiwan, welcome to the forum.

Edited February 25, 2023 by dan/california

[dan/california]

33 minutes ago, sburke said:

the mental block I have is it is plural.  heck I'm a boomer, what do I know?   back to Ukraine.  Still reading through alll the stuff in the politico article posted earlier.  Fascinating look at how the US gov't was responding through the fall all the way up to the invasion.  After so many other things we've hedged on or f'd up, amazing to see how well our whole gov't apparatus functioned through that period.

Also depressing to see how Russia just ignored all the warnings, requests etc and marched right to the bloodiest war in Europe since WW2.

 

And even Miley's warning wasn't pessimistic enough. They have gotten the body bags, and bleep all else.

[chuckdyke]

How to handle journalists during a press-conference.

 

[sross112]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I think what is killing the RA is DC at the operational level.  We have not really discussed the differences here but one can do MC at the operational level and DC at the tactical - Soviet doctrine was kinda built for this...theoretically (I kind of think this was BS as the entire Soviet system was pretty tightly controlled but...).

War is multi-dimensional.  So even if you have Gunny Sergeants going all Clint Eastwood and exercising initiative it won't matter if the operational level is doing more conservative DC style C2 - tactical level just becomes fireflies in a jar.  But vice versa can work, again in theory.  The RA can move and control their troops like proper killbots, but if the operational level is able to exploit opportunity and keep the killbots moving towards that opportunity....well you have a solution.

Hard DC is a symptom of an autocratic political body.  One does not give a lot of empowerment in people who have all the guns when you are a dictator.  But you can make it work if you allow higher commanders to run with the ball (or at least did) but you risk them getting too "uppity".  This is what created the whole "Joe Stalin is threatened by Zhukov dynamic". 

I personally don't think it is really "easier" one way or the other.  It affects more than simply how we give orders.  It lays down a foundation of just about every aspect of what follows - from force generation through sustainment, to employment.  MC has different bandwidth requirements than DC - how enablers are packaged and organized.  Even how much fuel they burn.  So it is not a simple as "ok. now you are all empowered/not empowered."  Now re-designing a force to be able to quickly do both is an interesting concept.  

So if I am thinking through this right, the MC/DC ratio is going to be very dependent upon your communications ability and C4ISR. If you can't trust your communications for real time changes or updates you need to be more DC. The more real time C4ISR or situational awareness you have and the lower it goes the more reliant on MC your forces can be. Of course the ratio will also depend greatly on the knowledge, skills and abilities of all the leaders from junior NCO's on up. So that goes back to levels of training and confidence. So the amount of MC is proportional to the technical capabilities of the force but tempered by the cultural factors of training, trust and information sharing.

 

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, poesel said:

The G7 have a GDP of about 34 trillion US$ while BRICS has about 25 trillion US$ which puts it just ahead of the USA alone.

I have worked in all the BRICS countries and in 4 of the G7. Of course, it depends a bit on where you are, but there is literally a world between these two groups. A world of wealth.

We in the West point fingers at our economic and governmental systems which allow so much wealth to flow to so few people.  BRICS?  Pretty much all of the wealth goes to a few people.  That's why GDP alone is a really stupid way to compare economic strength.  Now, if the BRICS countries invested as much of their GDP into their economies and governance, instead of doing the minimum so a few people get the rest, then maybe there'd be some serious competition.

In fact, think about how much of the GDP of the BRICS nations is sitting in real estate, yachts, football clubs, and other things permanently located in Western countries.  Shows where the powerful elites believe the real economic strength of the world is, doesn't it?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I personally don't think it is really "easier" one way or the other.  It affects more than simply how we give orders.  It lays down a foundation of just about every aspect of what follows - from force generation through sustainment, to employment.  MC has different bandwidth requirements than DC - how enablers are packaged and organized.  Even how much fuel they burn.  So it is not a simple as "ok. now you are all empowered/not empowered."  Now re-designing a force to be able to quickly do both is an interesting concept.  

It is "easier" for a MC force to do DC than a DC force to do MC because MC involves a crudload of investment and culture to work correctly.  DC?  Not even close.

Back to my guitarist analogy... I taught myself how to play thrash metal when I was a youngster.  I could transpose and competently play anything I wanted to at the time.  Stuff that made Kirk Hammett seem like David Gilmour in terms of speed.  HOWEVER, I could not improvise worth a damn and the few songs I tried to write sucked.  A buddy of mine went the opposite direction and studied music HARD.  He went on to be an award winning jazz guitarist and later classical guitarist.  If you put a gun to my head and said "play me some jazz or else" I know how that would wind up.  Why?  Because I did not put in the time or perhaps even have the aptitude for it.  My buddy, on the other hand, could have a gun pointed to his head and play Metallica pretty easily.  Why?  Because that guy learned the skilz (as the kids say these days).

So yeah, it isn't as simple as empowerment.  Absolutely it comes down to training and learned skills.  MC learns how to do a wide variety of things with chaos in mind.  DC does not.

Your point about Operational vs. Tactical is also valid, of course.  As you point out the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 developed doctrine that was amazingly nimble operationally, but tactically was a rote as could be.  The only reason why this comb worked was the Soviets had resources to lose and the Axis forces did not.  Being operationally flexible with all your tactical forces dead doesn't get one very far

Steve

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

How to handle journalists during a press-conference.

 

He is just absurdly good at his job. We are just unbelievably lucky he was the guy when the balloon went up, and that Putins assassins didn't get him in the first forty eight hours.  

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, dan/california said:

He is just absurdly good at his job.

A clown became a president and a president became a clown. 

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, alison said:

Whether this will succeed remains to be seen, but I think some of the dismissiveness on this thread of the economic relevance of BRICS and the mindset of people in the Global South is indicative of the kind of western hubris that propaganda merchants from authoritaran nations love to hype.

I think what you're seeing is a commentary on the reality of how things stand at the moment, not where they theoretically could go in the future.

I remember how much the Kremlin tried to hype BRICS back in 2014 when it had a competent foreign PR campaign in full swing.  According to that sort of messaging, I should be going down to the street to withdraw my paycheck from an account at The Bank of Beijing-Moscow.  In either Rubels or Yuan, of course.

All of the world's economies right now are entering a phase of adapt or crumble.  All of them.  History, however, doesn't show the underdogs coming out ahead very often.

5 hours ago, alison said:

Despite the fact that this is transparently a play for power and influence by the Chinese government, there is a chance it could succeed where a western-brokered peace might not.

Of course.  There is also a chance that Putin gets deposed and things become even more interesting.  I think China's moves might benefit China in various ways, but I don't think it holds out much promise of ending the war in Ukraine.  Case in point.. Chinese do not mention anything about Russia withdrawing from Ukraine's land or offering reparations.  Those are two conditions that I doubt Ukraine would ever agree to.  The West won't either.  And if China does propose those two things, and Russia accepts them, then I think Russia would accept them just as easily without the Chinese being involved because it amounts to 100% defeat.

So. while China can position itself as the "honest broker" for the audience it is trying to impress, the ones that really matter in this war aren't going to fall for it.

Steve

[dan/california]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/russia-fsb-intelligence-ukraine-war/?itid=mr_world_4

Russia's first, and perhaps worst failure. They based a really bad plan on epically awful information and wishful thinking.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, Seminole said:

I just think back to the effectiveness of sanctions to roll back Iraq in 1990, and how at that time the world was largely in line together enforcing them.  If you measure them by result, Kuwait would still be the '19th province' of Iraq, right?

False comparison.  You're comparing sanctions against a country not fighting a war with an economy that had almost no ties to the West in any meaningful way.  To this you're comparing it to Russia bleeding itself white in a war it can not win while at the same time having it's Western dependent economy trashed by sanctions?  It's not even close to the same situation.

The closer comparison would be Iraq 1990-2003 and Russia 2015-2021.  Even then, not a good comparison.

Steve