How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

This sounds like an Austro-Hungarian general, blotto on pálinka, planning world domination. 

And no, the US isn't afraid of Moscow. It's been made clear that the nukes are off the table for anything short of an actual invasion of Russia proper and the bloody incompetence of the Russian armed forces wouldn't let them take on Finland, much less the armed combination of all of NATO. It would be messy but decisively short. 

 

 

You have a very optimistic view of NATO's combat readiness. Do you think NATO generals are preparing for war with Russia, or do they assume that Russia will not dare to attack them? 

I must say that I do not have the same optimism. A good example is the recent admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO. How long did it take them - a year or more (and in my opinion Sweden has not yet been accepted into NATO)? This is a good indication of the speed with which vital decisions are made in NATO

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Zeleban said:

Buy what exactly? Has the West really increased the production of military products in volumes sufficient to arm at least itself, not to mention the sale of military products for export? Today there are long-term queues for the purchase of certain military goods, even for NATO countries

Is Ukraine gutting the Russian army? Everything is just the opposite: Russia is gutting the Ukrainian army. We have an acute shortage of literally everything from personnel to ammunition. And it’s not clear where we can get all this? While Russia is only increasing the supply of everything necessary.

You are responding emotionally rather than rationally based on facts.

Russia has demonstrated that it is inept and incompetent.  Yes, it is able to smash Ukraine, but it had to empty out 40 years of military hardware to do that.  It's had to invest almost its entire military into the effort and it's come away with almost nothing so far, despite going in with overwhelming odds.

Militarily, Russia is unable to engage in another land war of this nature even if it had to.  This has led to Russia's Near Abroad thumbing their nose at Russian interests in a way that even I did not expect to happen so soon and so thoroughly.  Armenia is the biggest example, but it's true for others as well.

As for your repeated comments about Western support, you are coming off as both ungrateful and uninformed.  In just 1.5 years the West has provided Ukraine with more than Ukraine's pre-war annual GDP.  It has voluntarily severed most of its business relationships with Russia and made it nearly impossible for Russia to conduct business globally.  The West did NOT HAVE TO DO ANY OF THIS!  You could argue that it should be doing more, and I think everybody here would agree with that.  But to say that the lesson for other countries is the West won't do anything to stop Russia is just... well... not a reality based conclusion.

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

 

You have a very optimistic view of NATO's combat readiness. Do you think NATO generals are preparing for war with Russia, or do they assume that Russia will not dare to attack them?

Yes to the first one.  The West has been preparing for war against Russia since 1945.  It isn't always what it should be, and China keeps the conversations "interesting", but the primary military planning is in the event of Russian aggression.  This is one of the primary reasons it is holding back some support for Ukraine.  It wants things for itself in case it has to go to war.

As for the second one, the West assumes that Russia isn't stupid enough to attack NATO.  So far that assumption has been proven sound.  In fact, it's pretty clear Russia is petrified of getting into a shooting war with NATO.  Which is rational, because the West, even in its state today, would decimate Russia in a matter of days.  Russia knows this very well because the handful of Western weapons it has given untrained and inexperienced Ukrainians are destroying massive amounts of Russian military capacity and they can't do much about it.

Further, Russia has stripped most of its forces and now even air defenses from areas bordering NATO.  It is weaker now than ever before.  Russia knows this too.

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

I must say that I do not have the same optimism. A good example is the recent admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO. How long did it take them - a year or more (and in my opinion Sweden has not yet been accepted into NATO)? This is a good indication of the speed with which vital decisions are made in NATO

You do not understand much about the West.  If the war goes hot between NATO and Russia tomorrow, you'd see Swedish forces fighting alongside of NATO forces a few minutes later.  NATO membership or not.

In fact, the acceptance of Finland and Sweden into NATO was more-or-less a formality.  They have been tightly integrated into NATO for decades.

You also don't seem to remember what happened in 1942 when the United States entered the war against Nazi Germany and Japan.  Or what happened after 9/11.  The United States should never be judged by how it is, it should be judged by how it can be if motivated.

Steve

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has demonstrated that it is inept and incompetent.  Yes, it is able to smash Ukraine, but it had to empty out 40 years of military hardware to do that.  It's had to invest almost its entire military into the effort and it's come away with almost nothing so far, despite going in with overwhelming odds.

 

And at the same time, Russia demonstrates impressive strategic competence and the will to win, and these are the determining factors in the “long run”.

 

As for the pre-war Russian army, they were just Putin’s “ceremonial” troops. The real Russian army is being created right now on the battlefield.

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The West did NOT HAVE TO DO ANY OF THIS!

Absolutely. While Russia is doing EVERYTHING to win. Putin is betting everything he has on victory, while the West does not need Ukraine’s victory at all. This is why Putin will win this war

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

It seems that information about the political crisis in Ukraine is beginning to go beyond its borders. How do you think this will affect continued support from the West? I'm sure it's not the best

I doubt that is really political crisis takes place. A statement of Bezuhla and interview of Arakhamiya were issued almost by duet likely timely unleashed PsyOps. Who is beneficiary for this? I doubt this is Russia. Despite messages "Zelenskiy and Yermak want to dismiss Zaluzhnyi in favor of Syrskiy", which they were throwing each several months and which repeating here with glad by Poroshenko-followers, this two scandal statements may be not their initiative. Russia just will get unexpected profit. Bezuhla in own time had an intership in White House and Arakhamia one of "Servants of the People" party, who always had appeasement moods. I suppose they played for western party "you are faliled, it's time to talk with Russia. Finish the war, money like a calm"

Edited November 29, 2023 by Haiduk

[Carolus]

Completely disregarding whether the West has done enough or not for Ukraine, I think one common political narrative can be laid to rest forever:

The dreaded "military-industrial complex", which has haunted us since Iraq, is a myth. As real as a boogeyman under my nephews' beds. 

We are seeing the largest conventional war in Europe since WW2 and the West is pushing more vehicles to the scrapyard than out of the factories. No sinister cabal has managed to bring military expenditures even remotely to the level where they should be, given the situation.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Carolus
corrections

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes to the first one.  The West has been preparing for war against Russia since 1945.  It isn't always what it should be, and China keeps the conversations "interesting", but the primary military planning is in the event of Russian aggression.  This is one of the primary reasons it is holding back some support for Ukraine.  It wants things for itself in case it has to go to war.

As for the second one, the West assumes that Russia isn't stupid enough to attack NATO.  So far that assumption has been proven sound.  In fact, it's pretty clear Russia is petrified of getting into a shooting war with NATO.  Which is rational, because the West, even in its state today, would decimate Russia in a matter of days.  Russia knows this very well because the handful of Western weapons it has given untrained and inexperienced Ukrainians are destroying massive amounts of Russian military capacity and they can't do much about it.

Further, Russia has stripped most of its forces and now even air defenses from areas bordering NATO.  It is weaker now than ever before.  Russia knows this too.

You do not understand much about the West.  If the war goes hot between NATO and Russia tomorrow, you'd see Swedish forces fighting alongside of NATO forces a few minutes later.  NATO membership or not.

In fact, the acceptance of Finland and Sweden into NATO was more-or-less a formality.  They have been tightly integrated into NATO for decades.

You also don't seem to remember what happened in 1942 when the United States entered the war against Nazi Germany and Japan.  Or what happened after 9/11.  The United States should never be judged by how it is, it should be judged by how it can be if motivated.

Steve

I don’t claim that I understand the West) I’m just saying what lies on the surface and what I can observe myself - and this is the amazing slowness and lack of unity among NATO member countries (Turkey, Slovakia, Hungary) 

As for 1942. It was so long ago that it seems to me that they were completely different countries than today

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

And at the same time, Russia demonstrates impressive strategic competence and the will to win, and these are the determining factors in the “long run”.

I see a nation that got itself in over its head and it is now desperately trying to extricate itself.  Strategically I think Russia has demonstrated creativity rather than competence.

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

As for the pre-war Russian army, they were just Putin’s “ceremonial” troops. The real Russian army is being created right now on the battlefield.

And being lost almost as quickly.  And to my point that you ignored, in order to do this it has had to empty all of its bases and 40 years worth of stored up military potential.  Even with all of this, Russia is not on track to "win".  At best it is on track to "stalemate".  Which, given how badly it has f'd up this whole war, is not the outcome Russia deserves.

We've also seen no Russian solutions to the West's technological advantages.  Even Russia's vaunted hypersonic missiles can be intercepted by a 30+ year old AD system.

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

Absolutely. While Russia is doing EVERYTHING to win. Putin is betting everything he has on victory, while the West does not need Ukraine’s victory at all. This is why Putin will win this war

Russia is doing everything to win, though not very smartly or efficiently.  It is also unclear how much further it can carry on like it has been.  It is surprising it has made it this far, but that doesn't mean we will continue to be surprised.

As for Putin "winning" the war, we keep going over and over and over this.  Putin has lost the war long ago.  At best he might manage to struggle to get a stalemate to avoid total defeat.  Saying you are going to run a marathon but instead cut off your leg in the process doesn't bode well.  Stopping the bleeding doesn't mean you're going to cross the finish line.

Steve

[Zeleban]

8 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I doubt that is really political crisis takes place. A statement of Bezuhla and interview of Arakhamiya were issed almost by duet likely timely unleashed PsyOps. Who is beneficiary for this? I doubt this is Russia. Despite messages "Zelenskiy and Yermak want to dismiss Zaluzhnyi in favor of Syrskiy", which they were throwing each several months and which repeating here with glad by Poroshenko-followers, this two scandal statements may be not their initiative. Russia just will get unexpected profit. Bezuhla in own time had an intership in White House and Arakhamia one of "Servants of the People" party, who always had appeasement moods. I suppose they played for western party "you are faliled, it's time to talk with Russia. Finish the war, money like a calm"

It may very well be. Western companies can no longer bear the losses caused by the lack of trade with Russia. I am confident that the trade aspirations of the West will be much faster and more efficient than the military ones, and soon after the capitulation of Ukraine the West will resume trade with Putin

[Bearstronaut]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

Damn accurate description of Ukraine

There's been plenty of examples of a weak and brittle nation on the brink of collapse over the past half century. Afghanistan and South Vietnam being the most obvious examples. Ukraine reminds me more of South Korea than either of those countries. Definitely not perfect to be sure but with a strong sense of national will and the determination to fight for their country. Hell, Ukraine is even better than the ROK was. People are seriously talking about Zelensky losing an election during an existential war while absolutely nobody would have thought that about Rhee Syngman or Park Chung-hee. 

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

 

Look, the Slovaks have decided to improve our difficult economic situation. What else can I say - brothers Slavs

To be fair, Slovaks always treat cool to Ukrainian refugges and Ukraine, since the war began. This country is more pro-Russian than Hungary (wich in my opinion just more anti-EU, then pro-Russian) and I can't explain why. My familiar escaped from Kyiv to Slovakia in first day and write that many Slovaks don't like Ukrainians. They consider, they are too poor country to supply refugees, that our refugees make competention on their job market, and of course that "Ukrainans are fascists, who 8 years bombed Donbas". To be fair, enouh part of our refugees, who came to Slovakia are indeed not a real refugees. Many of them from western Ukriane, even from Transcarpatia, where only one time for whole war was a missile strike. These people lease own appartments in L'viv, Uzhhorod, Ivano-Frankivsk to real refugees for astronomic prices and in this time live on allowance of Slovakian government, receive many humanitarian aid, which then mostly turned out on the markets of westrn Ukraine through a gypsies as mediators (there are many gypsies in Transcarpatia). Even more, such "refugees" have pretensions to Slovakian authorities - "we need hotel appartments", "what the fu...k cast-offs you give us as humanitarian clothes, where the good brand stuff?!" Of course after this I would want too to kick them back to Ukraine. Our compatriots in much number just got greedy and on the place ot local governments I would be allow to stay there only for those people, who realy fled from oocupied territories, or who lost own houses. All other, from western Ukraine, safe and wealthy Kyiv - get out and welcome home.   

Edited November 29, 2023 by Haiduk

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

We've also seen no Russian solutions to the West's technological advantages. 

 

But in my opinion, on the contrary, Russia has clearly demonstrated this: perseverance, determination, the will to win and huge human reserves, which, no matter what, are ready to die for the idea of their leader. Let's imagine the US or Germany in a global war with Russia. How many dead fellow citizens will cause an internal crisis in these countries (remember Vietnam or Afghanistan). It is not technology that remains the decisive factor in victory. As in the old days, the decisive factor remains the will to win

[billbindc]

21 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

You have a very optimistic view of NATO's combat readiness. Do you think NATO generals are preparing for war with Russia, or do they assume that Russia will not dare to attack them? 

I must say that I do not have the same optimism. A good example is the recent admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO. How long did it take them - a year or more (and in my opinion Sweden has not yet been accepted into NATO)? This is a good indication of the speed with which vital decisions are made in NATO

I don't have an optimistic or pessimistic view of NATO. I have a factual view that NATO has far greater technical capabilities, better trained and larger armies and economic might that Russia cannot hope to match. Russia has its hand full fighting a country with a patchwork logistical net, mixed equipment and 1/3 the population...but enormous motivation. Russia violating Article 5 will provide that in bucketloads to the Finns, Poles, Rumanian, US, etc. 

As to the accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO, neither was much interested until the AustroHungarians invaded Serbia...excuse me...until Russia invaded Ukraine and one got in almost immediately and the other is already integrated to the point that they would be alongside fighting from the get....adding something like a million NATO forces to any showdown?  

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I don’t claim that I understand the West) I’m just saying what lies on the surface and what I can observe myself - and this is the amazing slowness and lack of unity among NATO member countries (Turkey, Slovakia, Hungary)

Frankly, most of us in the West were shocked by how unified and quick to respond the West has been thus far. 

The thing is Western unity is not necessary. Countries are free to help Ukraine on their own if they wish to.  And they can coordinate that with each other outside of NATO and the EU framework.

6 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

As for 1942. It was so long ago that it seems to me that they were completely different countries than today

If the US is attacked or one of its close allies is, there will be a swift and overwhelming response by it.

Now, let me point out a major logical error in your thinking.

You seem to agree that Russia is struggling to fight this war against Ukraine because of minimal Western aid.  You argue that the West could be doing more and also should be doing more.  Yet you also think that even if it has every incentive to do more it won't change the equation.  That's illogical.

The fact is that Russia is losing this war by any reasonable military measurement you care to suggest.  Losing.  The only thing it has going for it is the ability to sustain losses without being obligated to quit (so far, anyway).  Russia has not developed any counter measure to Western aid, therefore any increase in aid will increase Russian losses. 

Every nation has its breaking point and it's pretty much certain that Russia's breaking point is nearer than countries that haven't even entered into the war yet.  The US alone could defeat Russia within a couple of days or weeks if it decided it had to go to war.  Russia knows this, which is why it's been paranoid about doing anything to draw the US directly into this war.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

It may very well be. Western companies can no longer bear the losses caused by the lack of trade with Russia. I am confident that the trade aspirations of the West will be much faster and more efficient than the military ones, and soon after the capitulation of Ukraine the West will resume trade with Putin

You really do need to read what is being written here more closely.  Not only don't you understand the political and military mentality of the West, you also don't understand the economic mindset either.

Russia is toxic to Western investment until sanctions are removed.  For sure there are exceptions to this, and there are companies that are happy to pretend selling things to Kazakhstan doesn't go to Russia.  This only illustrates the point that sanctions are imperfect, not that they don't work or don't have a real impact.

If there is a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia this situation will not change because sanctions will not end.  Russia is economically isolated and will remain so indefinitely because the financial incentives to invest in Russia are not going to magically return without the end of sanctions.

Steve

[Zeleban]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You seem to agree that Russia is struggling to fight this war against Ukraine because of minimal Western aid.  You argue that the West could be doing more and also should be doing more.  Yet you also think that even if it has every incentive to do more it won't change the equation.  That's illogical.

On the contrary Russia is not tense at all. In large Russian cities there is practically no news about the war in Ukraine. This war doesn't bother them at all.

 

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has not developed any counter measure to Western aid, therefore any increase in aid will increase Russian losses. 

On the contrary, Russia has developed effective measures to counter Western assistance - this is a play on the internal problems of Western countries. All we see lately is constant talk about reducing support for Ukraine

Edited November 29, 2023 by Zeleban

[Haiduk]

40 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Do you think NATO generals are preparing for war with Russia, or do they assume that Russia will not dare to attack them? 

Hehe...

Russian Foreign Ministry says Russia is ready for war with NATO

Sergei Ryabkov, Russia's Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, has said he does not rule out an armed conflict between Russia and NATO, saying there is no way to restore relations.

Source: Ryabkov in an interview with Kremlin-aligned newspaper Izvestia (The News)

Quote from Ryabkov in response to a question of whether we can expect an armed conflict in the future: "It depends on the North Atlantic Alliance. NATO has a choice. As we already demonstrated, we are ready to protect our national interests by all means."

Details: In the traditional arrogant manner of Russian officials, he added that it was allegedly impossible to "encroach endlessly" on Russia's interests and that "the people who continue to test our strength, they must have believed that there was no limit to their own rate-raising game, but they may find themselves among the total losers in this arena".

Quote: "I don't think relations between Russia and NATO will be restored in the foreseeable future. It is impossible for reasons of both principle and practical nature. If someone in the West thinks that we need these relations and will come one day and ask for their restoration, then this is the biggest mistake."

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/29/7430833/

[billbindc]

12 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

But in my opinion, on the contrary, Russia has clearly demonstrated this: perseverance, determination, the will to win and huge human reserves, which, no matter what, are ready to die for the idea of their leader. Let's imagine the US or Germany in a global war with Russia. How many dead fellow citizens will cause an internal crisis in these countries (remember Vietnam or Afghanistan). It is not technology that remains the decisive factor in victory. As in the old days, the decisive factor remains the will to win

Your fundamental error is there in equating Vietnam or Afghanistan to a Russian attack on NATO. Neither war was in any real way a fight to defend vital American or European interests. NATO is the ne plus ultra of American interests that we have been willing to go nuclear to defend since 1946 or thereabouts. Both were also mostly counter insurgency fights with unfriendly populations. Let's not for moment pretend either of those conditions pertain here. 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

On the contrary Russia is not tense at all. In large Russian cities there is practically no news about the war in Ukraine. This war doesn't bother them at all.

And why doesn't it bother them at all?  Because they aren't being mobilized, there is still food on the shelves, and most are still employed.  At some point one or more of these things will not be true.  Russia simply doesn't have the resources to wage this sort of costly war indefinitely.

5 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

On the contrary, Russia has developed effective measures to counter Western assistance - this is a play on the internal problems of Western countries. All we see lately is constant talk about reducing support for Ukraine

For sure there is stress over aiding Ukraine within the West.  But that was inevitable and it has been warned about since the war began.  Putin might be able to nudge it a bit, however do not give him more credit than that.

Steve

[Harmon Rabb]

 

Another one of those things I would not think I would ever see in my life .

Neat.

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Your fundamental error is there in equating Vietnam or Afghanistan to a Russian attack on NATO. Neither war was in any real way a fight to defend vital American or European interests. NATO is the ne plus ultra of American interests that we have been willing to go nuclear to defend since 1946 or thereabouts. Both were also mostly counter insurgency fights with unfriendly populations. Let's not for moment pretend either of those conditions pertain here. 

That is, you claim that American citizens will gladly go to another continent to die for the sake of the Germans or the Baltic states, while they were not ready to go and die for the sake of the Vietnamese or Afghans. Do I understand you correctly?

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Your fundamental error is there in equating Vietnam or Afghanistan to a Russian attack on NATO. Neither war was in any real way a fight to defend vital American or European interests. NATO is the ne plus ultra of American interests that we have been willing to go nuclear to defend since 1946 or thereabouts. Both were also mostly counter insurgency fights with unfriendly populations. Let's not for moment pretend either of those conditions pertain here. 

Also, let's not forget that Afghanistan is more complicated than most.  It started out being a war of national interests, with massive backing of all political factions that lasted for TWO DECADES.  It ultimately failed because of political incompetence in "winning" a war of this type.

Steve

[Haiduk]

UKR BMPs train to float together with RIBs and boats... Hm....

 

[sburke]

30 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

It may very well be. Western companies can no longer bear the losses caused by the lack of trade with Russia. I am confident that the trade aspirations of the West will be much faster and more efficient than the military ones, and soon after the capitulation of Ukraine the West will resume trade with Putin

Do you know how long it took western nations to invest in Russia after the previous time they cancelled western debt?  Use google, it might just be an educational experience for you as you seem to have some real difficulty getting out of your predisposed bias.

here is a hint, after the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian federation was forced to pay on old czarist bonds.  Investment is defined by risk.  Russia is now extremely toxic even if the war ended tomorrow and Russia pulled back to pre 2014 borders.

[sburke]

7 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

That is, you claim that American citizens will gladly go to another continent to die for the sake of the Germans or the Baltic states, while they were not ready to go and die for the sake of the Vietnamese or Afghans. Do I understand you correctly?

They actually did go and fight and die in those countries.  WTF are you even thinking?  Dude you are really into an alternate history world now.