How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

31 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I do believe that Russia appears to have a bit of an addiction to autocrats, democracy has never really stuck in that nation.  We discussed this previously and I don’t think there was a consensus as to why.

This is a question most Russia experts, intellectuals and "literati" ask for about 200 years already. They never seemed to reach consensus neither, other than vague conclusions about "incomprehensible Russian soul".  You are right on many points, but it is too late in the night respond in full, and we had this interesting discussion before so maybe let's put it for later anyway.

Just to note that there were in fact 3 revolutions  and it can be argued that only the first one (1905) was "truly" revolutionary; rest were rather coups d'etat conducted by (and within) relatively narrow political circles. And with serious external interference, on top of massive legitimacy crisis. Unfortunately, none of these factors is here currently. I hope more European countries than just CEE introduce visa bans- it could seriously shaken the illusion of stability Kremlin created for its populace. In fact, potentially it could be even more destructive for domestic front than military defeats in Ukraine.

 

[DesertFox]

Well, I have a very bad feeling about this.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by DesertFox

[The_Capt]

27 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Just to note that there were in fact 3 revolutions  and it can be argued that only the first one (1905) was "truly" revolutionary;

Interestingly I have just begun to really get into pre-WW1 and have been reading The War That Ended Peace by Macmillan.  It looks to me like 1905 and 1917 are so intrinsically linked that one could argue that the entire period 05-17 was one big revolution - given the level assassination and bank robbery campaigns (see: Stalin) going on, it is a solid case.

Regardless, I contend that no human organization is airtight.  The stiffest cults have splinters and internal divisions.  Outliers, exiles and apostates are an endemic human social condition.  No social construct is not without friction, tension and accelerants.  Some are in deeper stasis than others, however they still exist - hell the Last Supper had a splitter FFS.

We also should recognize that there are some serious risks here.  I have talked about a broken Russia with 6000 nuclear weapons rolling around on the floor.  I honestly do not think another Russian civil war is a good idea, and I have been personally burned on the whole, “we need only enable them and their inner democracy will simply bloom” narrative - nonsense.

Best case is Putin dying in his sleep, a bunch of gangsters and villains we can do business with, and enough of the old guard offered as a sacrifice to restabilizing the global order.  Everyone can blame them and Putin, turn the gas back on and we can re-build Ukraine with a westward facing - sorry Russia you blew that one.

China takes notes on the lesson, we in the west get over ourselves and realize that the wolves are a lot closer to the door, God does not “have our back” and we need to get our sh#t together.

[sburke]

on the artillery question.  Even assuming they have all those shells, and they are the right kind, and they are in good shape AND they are accesssible..... what about the tubes themselves?  What is the perspective on how long Russian can keep firing before they are just too worn out and start having technical boom difficulties?

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Well, I have a very bad feeling about this.

 

 

Russia has 13 nuclear power plants, at various stages of operation by my count (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia).  Yeesh, this could get ugly.

 

[paxromana]

An Australian assessment of Ukraine's situation ...

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/ukraine-can-win-this-war-on-these-five-conditions-20220817-p5bajr.html

... generally optimistic (it's behind a paywall of sorts, but you get 5 or 10 'free' articles a month).

Ryan has been providing some valuable insights into the conflict since early on and is most definitely NOT some useless talking head 'expert' without a clew.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well yes and no.  NATO is a defensive alliance that is designed around the idea of collective response to an attack.  NATO has played a role in UNSCR Ch VII missions, which were essentially military interventions; however, this was done under UN mandate and UNSC blessing.

As the US demonstrated very aptly in 2001-2003, a NATO nation may act independently in its own defence - there is nothing in NATO restraining a nation from defensive action.  But here is where it gets trickier as diplomatic pressure is normally applied to try and keep a nation in line - this just happened with Turkey and the whole Sweden/Finland thing.

Further all of the weapons and training support to Ukraine has been done bilaterally, or multilaterally (I.e. 5 EYES), there is no named NATO mission in that country (plenty around them in the Baltics).

So what?  If Poland decides that it is directly threatened by Russia, it can 1) go independently or with a “coalition of the willing” outside of the NATO framework and engage in direct military operations in it defence against Russia, or 2) declare and article 5, and we are likely looking at WW3.  The level of pressure to prevent Poland from doing either of those things will be very high because neither are going help keep the war contained.

 A release of radioactive material, which is basically weaponization of nuclear power, would likely cross that threshold.  My fear here is that Russia has demonstrated a baffling level of lack of awareness of the situation.  In the old hybrid warfare mentality the release of radioactive fallout against your opponent and then creating enough doubt around it (see: The Capt’s rants on null decision space), that one’s opponents become paralyzed is straight out of the play book.  Problem is that Russia does not realize that it is no longer in Kansas anymore and basically if I stub my toe getting a glass of water in Europe right now, I am going to blame the Russians.

This is where miscalculations can get out of hand very quickly.  Normally a self-aware nation would see that in Russias position escalation is not in their favour.  For example a massive radioactive release could easily lead to Ukraine receiving an order of magnitude more HIMARs and ATACMS along with the “fill your boots lads” blessing from the US to start hitting Moscow….whoops.  Or a nuclear power plant in Russia suddenly experiencing a workplace “cigarette” accident.

Normally I would assume that saner heads will prevail and the grown ups in Russia would put the kibosh on this whole idea, but Russia has displayed the strategic acumen of a spoiled teenager so far in this war.

We shall see.

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Hmm, not sure this matches observed history to be honest.  We had a conversation awhile back on Russia culture and it influence on this war and obviously there are some very strong opinions.

I don’t think it is easy to paint any culture in one monotone colour, internal divisions and stressors exist in far more closed cultures that Russia (eg NK), it is human nature.  We in North America have a proud tradition of lemming [I know it is a myth but just put that aside: insert Marlin Perkins meme] behaviours.  Ours come from religion and sub-cultures - we convinced ourselves that slavery was a good idea and that God supported it- that have been just as restrictive as any autocratic government.  In fact these “norms” can be more tyrannical than any one leader - plenty of evidence of that.  Also there is the fact that Russia has had 2 major revolutions and a pretty nasty Civil War in 20th century, so I am not all onboard that they are “sheeple”.

I do believe that Russia appears to have a bit of an addiction to autocrats, democracy has never really stuck in that nation.  We discussed this previously and I don’t think there was a consensus as to why.  I suspect Russians are a product of their environment, so a weird collection of outsiders who have been invaded repeatedly likely has a role to play in them embracing strongmen leaders.

Regardless, based on history the Russians can definitely “awaken” and pretty violently.  The real question is “what will it take for that to happen?”, followed by “does this insane war qualify?”.  And then finally, “do we need to help that happen sooner than later?”

 

42 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Interestingly I have just begun to really get into pre-WW1 and have been reading The War That Ended Peace by Macmillan.  It looks to me like 1905 and 1917 are so intrinsically linked that one could argue that the entire period 05-17 was one big revolution - given the level assassination and bank robbery campaigns (see: Stalin) going on, it is a solid case.

Regardless, I contend that no human organization is airtight.  The stiffest cults have splinters and internal divisions.  Outliers, exiles and apostates are an endemic human social condition.  No social construct is not without friction, tension and accelerants.  Some are in deeper stasis than others, however they still exist - hell the Last Supper had a splitter FFS.

We also should recognize that there are some serious risks here.  I have talked about a broken Russia with 6000 nuclear weapons rolling around on the floor.  I honestly do not think another Russian civil war is a good idea, and I have been personally burned on the whole, “we need only enable them and their inner democracy will simply bloom” narrative - nonsense.

Best case is Putin dying in his sleep, a bunch of gangsters and villains we can do business with, and enough of the old guard offered as a sacrifice to restabilizing the global order.  Everyone can blame them and Putin, turn the gas back on and we can re-build Ukraine with a westward facing - sorry Russia you blew that one.

China takes notes on the lesson, we in the west get over ourselves and realize that the wolves are a lot closer to the door, God does not “have our back” and we need to get our sh#t together.

Ok this is a real question, and a hard one, and maybe a little nuts, but it needs asking. Are we going to have to fight Russia eventually? Or can we kick this can down the road forever? If the answer to the first question is yes, will they ever be weaker than they are now? And by the the way a LOT of people owe Patton an apology. It would have been better to roll straight on to Moscow.

Edited August 19, 2022 by dan/california
spelling

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Ok this is a real question, and a hard one, and maybe a little nuts, but it needs asking. Are we going to have to fight Russia eventually? Or can we kick this can down the road forever? If the answer to the first question is yes, will they ever be weaker than they are now? And by the the way a LOT of people owe Patton an apology. It would have been better to roll straight on to Moscow.

Damn, had to go pull the crystal ball out of the attic.  my bet is no.  Russia after this war will be in no shape to fight anyone for a while and I think we'll find as time goes by Russia will become progressively weaker.  In fact the only way I see Russia emerging from this downward spiral is to actually embrace reforms for real.  The country desperately needs it.

[danfrodo]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

 

Ok this is a real question, and a hard one, and maybe a little nuts, but it needs asking. Are we going to have to fight Russia eventually? Or can we kick this can down the road forever. If the answer to the first question is yes, will they ever be weaker than they are now? And by the the way a LOT of people owe Patton an apology. It would have been better to roll straight on to Moscow.

DanCA, I must respectfully disagree, something I think I have not done before.  Patton, IMO, was a lunatic -- he was right that RU was a threat and trouble but his solution was WW3, full land war.  My father was one of the knuckleheads who fell for his nonsense, joining the 82nd airborne specifically to go fight the commies for Patton (he missed WW2 by a year).  There was zero zero zero possibility of the US marching to Moscow in 1945 an even less in 1946.  Didn't have the force, didn't have the supplies, didn't have an army that would've obeyed those orders, and had a population at home that would've burned down the white house had we tried based on the horrific casualites we would be incurring every wretched mile.

Why would we have to directly fight Russia in the near future?  Russia is busy destroying itself.  We certainly aren't going to invade.  If we did fight RU it would be in some land exterior to RU, like Ukraine.  And where is RU gonna go now?   I guess Putin could attack the 'stans, but that's a ways off considering he has destroyed his army.  If he attacks NATO he'll get smashed and crawl back across the border, looking like Napolean in 1812-3.  I don't see any path that would lead to US/NATO invasion.  I do often wish Putin would do something dumb that triggers NATO intervention, but it would be an air attack, not by ground.

I do, however, think it's vitally important for all of us to have the opportunity to fight Russia.  And for Poles, Danes, Norwegians, Germans, French, etc, to also be included.  Hint hint hint CM-NATO.  Maybe nice Russian attack on Baltic states? 

 

[dan/california]

45 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

DanCA, I must respectfully disagree, something I think I have not done before.  Patton, IMO, was a lunatic -- he was right that RU was a threat and trouble but his solution was WW3, full land war.  My father was one of the knuckleheads who fell for his nonsense, joining the 82nd airborne specifically to go fight the commies for Patton (he missed WW2 by a year).  There was zero zero zero possibility of the US marching to Moscow in 1945 an even less in 1946.  Didn't have the force, didn't have the supplies, didn't have an army that would've obeyed those orders, and had a population at home that would've burned down the white house had we tried based on the horrific casualites we would be incurring every wretched mile.

Why would we have to directly fight Russia in the near future?  Russia is busy destroying itself.  We certainly aren't going to invade.  If we did fight RU it would be in some land exterior to RU, like Ukraine.  And where is RU gonna go now?   I guess Putin could attack the 'stans, but that's a ways off considering he has destroyed his army.  If he attacks NATO he'll get smashed and crawl back across the border, looking like Napolean in 1812-3.  I don't see any path that would lead to US/NATO invasion.  I do often wish Putin would do something dumb that triggers NATO intervention, but it would be an air attack, not by ground.

I do, however, think it's vitally important for all of us to have the opportunity to fight Russia.  And for Poles, Danes, Norwegians, Germans, French, etc, to also be included.  Hint hint hint CM-NATO.  Maybe nice Russian attack on Baltic states? 

 

Fair enough, even my steadiest voter disagrees. But not even the Iranians on their worst day have bleeped up a reactor.

Edited August 19, 2022 by dan/california

[danfrodo]

Just now, dan/california said:

Fair enough, even my steadiest voter disagrees. But not even the Iranians on their worst day have bleep up a reactor.

I am still, of course, your #1 supporter on most any other theory you've promulagated.  Particularly your smash hit "regime change in Belarus will trigger fall of Putin".  It just feels right. 

 

[dan/california]

39 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I am still, of course, your #1 supporter on most any other theory you've promulagated.  Particularly your smash hit "regime change in Belarus will trigger fall of Putin".  It just feels right. 

 

Can we wind the clock back to 2016 and get back on the sane timeline? Pretty please?

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Russia has 13 nuclear power plants, at various stages of operation by my count (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia).  Yeesh, this could get ugly.

 

Unfortunately, it probably will.  Here's what we know:

Fact #1 = Putin and his cronies are never going to willingly yield power to anybody

Fact #2 = If Russia doesn't win this war, Putin and his cronies are going to lose power (probably dead)

Fact #3 = There is no way Russia can win this war through Russia's usual conventional, unconventional, or hybrid methods for getting what it wants

This has been the situation for months now, but things have progressed.  Russia has continually cycled through its bag of tricks ("Putin's Playbook") and has come up short each and every time.  Now that Ukraine has turned up the heat and appears to be poised to significantly weaken, if not collapse, Russia's capacity to continue this war. 

Logically, Putin and his cronies know this.  Maybe not in the same way we do, maybe not to the full extent they should.  But they know they aren't going to get what they want by creeping offensives or declaring Kherson a new Republic.  And if Putin knows this, then at some point he's going to roll the dice on something audacious even by Russian standards.  He has to.  And if that fails there will be another roll of the dice on something else, and another, and another until either he succeeds or dies trying.

He's got a lot of incentives to roll the dice.  Same for most of the people who serve him.

There's no way to know at this minute if this specific threat we're hearing about is one of his dice rolls.  Could be, might not be.  But there will be something and I think we all can agree it has to happen soon or he's done.

Steve

[danfrodo]

RU exile journalist in NYTimes, behind paywall.  It's about power in RU and unlikelihood of some person or faction overthrowing Putin due to the structure of the kleptocracy. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/opinion/russia-putin-corruption.html

And tagging along w Steve comments above:  The current, linear trajectory of events means definite loss for Putin, and badly.  So the only answer will be flip the chessboard via some non-linear event.  And he's got nuclear weapons to keep the western reaction within some limits.  This is what scares me. 

[sburke]

15 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

RU exile journalist in NYTimes, behind paywall.  It's about power in RU and unlikelihood of some person or faction overthrowing Putin due to the structure of the kleptocracy. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/opinion/russia-putin-corruption.html

And tagging along w Steve comments above:  The current, linear trajectory of events means definite loss for Putin, and badly.  So the only answer will be flip the chessboard via some non-linear event.  And he's got nuclear weapons to keep the western reaction within some limits.  This is what scares me. 

fortunately, it isn't a card he can play well. It will only seal Russia's fate.  Flip the board and no one will play with you again ever.  China and India would both balk at this.

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting series of Tweets from Schlottman about Russia's dilemma for replacing lost IFVs:

The summary of this is for more than 15 years Russia only produces BMP-3 and BMD-4 or upgrades existing BMP-2s to BMP-2M.  While traditional annual production of BMP-3 is enough to replace their likely losses of BMP-3, it isn't enough to replace both BMP-3 and BMP-2 losses.  Russia might also not have many BMP-2 remaining to convert to BMP-2M, or the conversions might not be significantly shorter to do than a brand new BMP-3 (overhauling is often not as efficient as new production, so quite possible).  This means Russia needs to do something different if it wants everything replaced in short order (i.e. 1-2 years, not 3-4 years).  The BMP-3 is also more expensive to make and maintain than the BMP-2.  Therefore, it is possible that Russia will restart BMP-2 production even though there's an upfront hit to getting the factories set up.

Interesting.

Steve

[dan/california]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting series of Tweets from Schlottman about Russia's dilemma for replacing lost IFVs:

The summary of this is for more than 15 years Russia only produces BMP-3 and BMD-4 or upgrades existing BMP-2s to BMP-2M.  While traditional annual production of BMP-3 is enough to replace their likely losses of BMP-3, it isn't enough to replace both BMP-3 and BMP-2 losses.  Russia might also not have many BMP-2 remaining to convert to BMP-2M, or the conversions might not be significantly shorter to do than a brand new BMP-3 (overhauling is often not as efficient as new production, so quite possible).  This means Russia needs to do something different if it wants everything replaced in short order (i.e. 1-2 years, not 3-4 years).  The BMP-3 is also more expensive to make and maintain than the BMP-2.  Therefore, it is possible that Russia will restart BMP-2 production even though there's an upfront hit to getting the factories set up.

Interesting.

Steve

There is a significant possibility there is some critical component of the BMP-3 they just can't get anymore, at least once stock on hand is used up. This may be a simple case of not really having a choice.

[Calamine Waffles]

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting series of Tweets from Schlottman about Russia's dilemma for replacing lost IFVs:

The summary of this is for more than 15 years Russia only produces BMP-3 and BMD-4 or upgrades existing BMP-2s to BMP-2M.  While traditional annual production of BMP-3 is enough to replace their likely losses of BMP-3, it isn't enough to replace both BMP-3 and BMP-2 losses.  Russia might also not have many BMP-2 remaining to convert to BMP-2M, or the conversions might not be significantly shorter to do than a brand new BMP-3 (overhauling is often not as efficient as new production, so quite possible).  This means Russia needs to do something different if it wants everything replaced in short order (i.e. 1-2 years, not 3-4 years).  The BMP-3 is also more expensive to make and maintain than the BMP-2.  Therefore, it is possible that Russia will restart BMP-2 production even though there's an upfront hit to getting the factories set up.

Interesting.

Steve

That may be a problem because the manufacturer of BMPs, Kurganmashzavod, has not exactly been managed well for the past few decades

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

fortunately, it isn't a card he can play well. It will only seal Russia's fate.  Flip the board and no one will play with you again ever.  China and India would both balk at this.

Sure, but what if Putin doesn't really care?  Remember Hitler was all about Germany's place in the world and ruling over the üntermensch.  But in the end he said the Germans didn't deserve to live because they weren't strong enough.  Putin could come to the same conclusion.  Bad for everybody if he does.

 

For months now I've been trying to think outside of the box to put forward an option for Putin to get out of this horrible war with enough of a win to survive as a regime.  I've not come up with anything, either on my own or by reading the musings of others.  In fact, reading what "experts" have written about possible ways the war might end with Putin still in power has helped convince me there isn't one.

If I'm correct then that leaves Putin with little else to work with other than high risk long shot options.  More troubling is the history of Putin being a short term thinker.  Sure, he has a long term vision he's working towards, but he's OK with progressing towards it without a viable long term plan.  Instead, when he finds himself in a bind he'll go for a short term solution, even if painful, to the immediate crisis.  From there he'll make a new plan which will hopefully work.  Pain in the short term is fine as long as he doesn't lose the game.

This pattern of behavior is what we've seen with every frozen conflict he's created, including 8 years of war in Ukraine.  It's even the reason for Kadyrov.  We should not underestimate how much pain he's willing to accept if it offers him a chance to survive to fight another day.  The only caveat being that there are limits and Putin understands and respects at least some of them (e.g. full and open mobilization, no use of conscripts, can't lose more big ships, etc.).

We need to acknowledge that our logic about what Putin should/shouldn't do is not the same as his.  He willingly screwed with the gas supplies to 75% of his customer base.  A base that was already pissed at him.  By our thinking not a smart move.  But if he believes that these customers will eventually come around and resume buying, then yes it is at least a logical move. And so he did it.  Don't think for a second he might not make similarly decisions based on logic very different from our own.

Since Putin's whole point here is to survive this catastrophic war, there are likely some things that Putin will not do because even by his logic it means his destruction.  Nuking a NATO country, for example.  However, he knows the only remaining thing Russia has that the West really fears is nukes.  Therefore, according to Putin logic, he'll use nukes to the extent that it freezes the war (minimum goal) and not hasten his regime's end.  What comes after that is not as important, therefore it's not a big factor in his decision making.

Putin also doesn't care one iota if the West or the rest of the world believes whatever false flag story he comes up with.  In fact, it's in his best interests if the West thinks Russia did it.  Domestically?  Well, better that they believe the Ukrainians did it.  Therefore, the false flag nonsense is mostly aimed at his domestic audience.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

30 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

That may be a problem because the manufacturer of BMPs, Kurganmashzavod, has not exactly been managed well for the past few decades

For sure.  I also think that the notion of restarting BMP-2 production is fantasy.  It won't work in the real world, or at least not in any timeframe that matters to Russia.

The other thing to note is there's no mention of Armata production of any sort.  Does it surprise anybody here?  Not likely

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hey look at what a US Navy SEAL came up with:

I'm pretty pleased I came to the same conclusion the day after the attack happened.

The one thing I think the SEAL got wrong is the weapon used.  The craters seem to be too big for what ATACAMS packs.  We've also seen plenty of other HIMARS attacks and the resulting explosions were of a very different character.  So either what was blown up at this base was significantly different, and therefore reacted differently, or it was hit by something other than ATACMS. 

To me the debate is between ATACMS or Hrim-2.  Whatever it was, I hope Ukraine has a lot more of them.

Steve

[sburke]

27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, but what if Putin doesn't really care?  Remember Hitler was all about Germany's place in the world and ruling over the üntermensch.  But in the end he said the Germans didn't deserve to live because they weren't strong enough.  Putin could come to the same conclusion.  Bad for everybody if he does.

 

Steve

great - now I'm gonna have nightmares. 

[Aragorn2002]

Edited August 19, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[fireship4]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Hey look at what a US Navy SEAL came up with:

I'm pretty pleased I came to the same conclusion the day after the attack happened.

The one thing I think the SEAL got wrong is the weapon used.  The craters seem to be too big for what ATACAMS packs.  We've also seen plenty of other HIMARS attacks and the resulting explosions were of a very different character.  So either what was blown up at this base was significantly different, and therefore reacted differently, or it was hit by something other than ATACMS. 

To me the debate is between ATACMS or Hrim-2.  Whatever it was, I hope Ukraine has a lot more of them.

Steve

Doesn't mention the ammunition/stores at the locations of the craters... assumes SOF raid must have been during the day as opposed to the night before... doesn't explain multiple planes in revetments with some blast cover being destroyed... doesn't show his working on judging the craters to be 'consistent with 500lb warhead', apart from saying one has a  'diameter in excess of 10m'... 

Not a thorough assessment I feel. 

EDIT: Still up in the air for me, SOF was my guess, I don't know enough about explosives to say whether detonating ammunition would create the focused craters we see.  The blasts were powerful enough to knock over a bunch of stuff I would have assumed had protection from a ground-level blast judging from some of the images, so I don't know.

Edited August 19, 2022 by fireship4

[Aragorn2002]

4 hours ago, danfrodo said:

DanCA, I must respectfully disagree, something I think I have not done before.  Patton, IMO, was a lunatic -- he was right that RU was a threat and trouble but his solution was WW3, full land war.  My father was one of the knuckleheads who fell for his nonsense, joining the 82nd airborne specifically to go fight the commies for Patton (he missed WW2 by a year).  There was zero zero zero possibility of the US marching to Moscow in 1945 an even less in 1946.  Didn't have the force, didn't have the supplies, didn't have an army that would've obeyed those orders, and had a population at home that would've burned down the white house had we tried based on the horrific casualites we would be incurring every wretched mile.

Why would we have to directly fight Russia in the near future?  Russia is busy destroying itself.  We certainly aren't going to invade.  If we did fight RU it would be in some land exterior to RU, like Ukraine.  And where is RU gonna go now?   I guess Putin could attack the 'stans, but that's a ways off considering he has destroyed his army.  If he attacks NATO he'll get smashed and crawl back across the border, looking like Napolean in 1812-3.  I don't see any path that would lead to US/NATO invasion.  I do often wish Putin would do something dumb that triggers NATO intervention, but it would be an air attack, not by ground.

I do, however, think it's vitally important for all of us to have the opportunity to fight Russia.  And for Poles, Danes, Norwegians, Germans, French, etc, to also be included.  Hint hint hint CM-NATO.  Maybe nice Russian attack on Baltic states? 

 

You know I love you, Dan, but if you call Patton a lunatic again and forget again to mention the Dutch for CM-NATO I will block you.