How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

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.

Well. I'm sure we'll see it ourselves soon

[Battlefront.com]

37 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

Again, you have a flawed premise... that Russia has no breaking point.  This is untrue for any nation or people, including Russia's past history (1990 and 1917 being the biggest examples).

The amount of conventional damage that the West can do to Russia within hours is massive.  It is helped by the fact that Russia has withdrawn AD and EW assets from along the NATO border because they are needed in Ukraine.  NATO would be able to sink any Russian ship, down any aircraft, destroy any Russian facility ANYWHERE in Russia, destroy any number of command and communications centers, etc. within hours.  How much NATO would do and how quickly is a different set of questions because nukes have to be brought into consideration.  But militarily?  Not a problem.

In response, Russia would not find itself capable of doing much of anything.  Almost everything that functions is in Ukraine.  Sure, it could randomly shell border towns and get in an airstrike or two before its artillery and aircraft are silenced, but then what?  Divert its drone/missile attacks that aren't having much impact on 1 country to now include a dozen?

With all of this I doubt you'd see the same Russian resolve to keep the war going.  Why?  Because the losses would be too large and too high profile for the people to ignore.  And even if they do have the will to resist, what would they do with that will?  Try to invade Estonia or Finland?

Russia is barely able to keep the war going against Ukraine despite all of its advantages and its "will to win".  Against NATO it would be worse.

The point of all of this discussion is to dispel the myth of Russian invincibility that you're creating for yourself with, ironically, the help of Russian propaganda.  Russia has already lost this war.  At best they can freeze the loss.  They can not win, no matter how much will they have.

Steve

[Zeleban]

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

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.

Remind me how these US wars ended and for what reason?

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

How much NATO would do and how quickly is a different set of questions because nukes have to be brought into consideration.

That's for sure. I do not argue

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Remind me how these US wars ended and for what reason?

Good god.  Look, you said they aren't willing to fight and die abroad.  That is demonstrably untrue.  US forces fought and died for 20 years in Afghanistan with no sign of will to fight breaking.  The fact that the war ended badly for the US has nothing to do with the will to fight.  It has to do with political incompetence.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Two more AD assets hit

Buk M3 by HIMARS

And TOR likely hit by the howitzer of 128th mountain-assault brigade

 

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Good god.  Look, you said they aren't willing to fight and die abroad.  That is demonstrably untrue.  US forces fought and died for 20 years in Afghanistan with no sign of will to fight breaking.  The fact that the war ended badly for the US has nothing to do with the will to fight.  It has to do with political incompetence.

Steve

This has nothing to do with the desire of American soldiers to fight. This is directly related to the reluctance of American citizens to fight. Today everything is the same. The most popular presidential candidate today among American citizens is one who does not support US participation in NATO

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

This has nothing to do with the desire of American soldiers to fight. This is directly related to the reluctance of American citizens to fight. Today everything is the same. The most popular presidential candidate today among American citizens is one who does not support US participation in NATO

The same was said about right up until Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

There has always been an "isolationist" component of the US population and political establishment.  And yet, the US has waged many wars in many places for many reasons since the end of the Civil War. 

But why are you distracting yourself with this?  It doesn't mean much of anything to the war that is currently being fought unless Russia is dumb enough to attack NATO.  Which so far it hasn't been.

What is more important is Russia's ability to continue this war without direct NATO intervention.  It is barely able to do that and Trump becoming President and withdrawing the US from NATO won't change the equation much, if at all.

Steve

[Bearstronaut]

36 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?

We went and died in the hundreds of thousands for the French and British twice last century.

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

unless Russia is dumb enough to attack NATO

Until Russia dares to attack the United States. But who claims that her plans include an attack on the United States? 

USA is not equal to NATO. 

In my understanding, to implement the plan to take over Europe, Putin should not repeat Hitler’s mistakes and fight on several fronts at once. I think after the invasion of Eastern Europe, the Americans will say “these are not our problems, let the Europeans solve their problems themselves.”

And who is talking about a military invasion? You can relax and engage in a hybrid war, profiting from trade with the West and disintegrating Europe from the inside and then absorbing the breakaway pieces. Then everything will go quietly and no one will express any alarm. In addition, Europe demonstrates a weakness for precisely this method of warfare

[billbindc]

41 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?

No. Americans will go to fight and die in order to defend our obvious, compelling interests. It's not a hard sell in a country that has spent the last 75 years plus thinking about the implications of a Russian takeover of Europe. 

[Zeleban]

5 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

We went and died in the hundreds of thousands for the French and British twice last century.

Absolutely. Then the worldview of your ancestors approximately corresponded to the worldview of today's Russians. But look at today's generations of Americans. Do you seriously think that they will die for the French?

[billbindc]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

Correct. In other words, that America can stick with a diversionary war for at least 15 years after emotions have cooled is not exactly an argument that the US can't apply itself. 

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

Until Russia dares to attack the United States. But who claims that her plans include an attack on the United States? 

USA is not equal to NATO. 

In my understanding, to implement the plan to take over Europe, Putin should not repeat Hitler’s mistakes and fight on several fronts at once. I think after the invasion of Eastern Europe, the Americans will say “these are not our problems, let the Europeans solve their problems themselves.”

And who is talking about a military invasion? You can relax and engage in a hybrid war, profiting from trade with the West and disintegrating Europe from the inside and then absorbing the breakaway pieces. Then everything will go quietly and no one will express any alarm. In addition, Europe demonstrates a weakness for precisely this method of warfare

Which is why Putin was so absolutely dumb for attacking Ukraine.  It took modern Russia two decades to build up the sort of hybrid warfare model that you're talking about, and now its effectively neutralized.  Not completely, unfortunately, but it isn't capable of a fraction of the influence it once had.  Sanctions are a big part of that.

Steve

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

No. Americans will go to fight and die in order to defend our obvious, compelling interests. It's not a hard sell in a country that has spent the last 75 years plus thinking about the implications of a Russian takeover of Europe. 

Yes, but for the last 30 years this country has been thinking about something completely different, hasn't it?

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Absolutely. Then the worldview of your ancestors approximately corresponded to the worldview of today's Russians. But look at today's generations of Americans. Do you seriously think that they will die for the French?

Yes.  If France were directly attacked and asked for US military aid, it would get it without any doubts.

Look, you are embarrassing yourself.  Stop arguing so assuredly when you clearly don't know what you are talking about.  Instead, try listening to those who do.

Steve

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Absolutely. Then the worldview of your ancestors approximately corresponded to the worldview of today's Russians. But look at today's generations of Americans. Do you seriously think that they will die for the French?

France is the third most popular country in the United States at 83% (Gallup) favorability. So...yes, they would. 

[Zeleban]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

France is the third most popular country in the United States at 83% (Gallup) favorability. So...yes, they would. 

Come on, going to look at the Eiffel Tower for the weekend is not at all the same as going into a dirty trench under the blows of Russian drones and shells

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Yes, but for the last 30 years this country has been thinking about something completely different, hasn't it?

Um...no? 

Russia is in the news constantly and has been my entire life. Russia has a *9%* favorability rating the poll I mentioned above.  Helping Ukraine is pretty much the most salient bipartisan point of agreement among regular Americans. 

You have a cartoonish perspective on America that more than anything else resembles the folks on Russia Today. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Come on, going to look at the Eiffel Tower for the weekend is not at all the same as going into a dirty trench under the blows of Russian drones and shells

Again, I request that you stop embarrassing yourself.  Your arguments are the same ones I've seen pushed by Russians for decades.  Which, given Ukraine's history, is not too surprising to see.  You've been swimming in Russian and Soviet propaganda your whole life.

[Edit!  Ninja'd by Billbindc]

Steve

[sburke]

38 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Remind me how these US wars ended and for what reason?

Umm your statement was they didn't fight there.  I pointed out that in fact they did, so now you move the goal post.  Sorry man.  Whether they SHOULD have fought there or not is a whole other thread.  It seems pointless for me to discuss with you if you can't even stick with what you have said.  I have a belly button full of lint that needs attention and seems more productive.

[billbindc]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

Come on, going to look at the Eiffel Tower for the weekend is not at all the same as going into a dirty trench under the blows of Russian drones and shells

Again, totally misguided. Americans who go to the White House can't help but notice the statue of Rochambeau in Lafayette Park. They are taught about who made the Battle of Yorktown possible in school. French is the second most commonly taught language in public schools. 

You don't know us at all. 

[Zeleban]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

You have a cartoonish perspective on America that more than anything else resembles the folks on Russia Today. 

Not at all. I love America and American culture, but I look at things objectively. American support for Russia is much more than 9%, and recently it has only been growing. Not least due to independent American media

[Splinty]

11 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Absolutely. Then the worldview of your ancestors approximately corresponded to the worldview of today's Russians. But look at today's generations of Americans. Do you seriously think that they will die for the French?

I did 20+ years in the US Army. I went to Desert Storm and did 2 tours in Iraq. You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities. You know even less about Americans and what we will or will not fight for. Drop this stupid argument, and let's get back on topic.

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Again, I request that you stop embarrassing yourself.  Your arguments are the same ones I've seen pushed by Russians for decades.  Which, given Ukraine's history, is not too surprising to see.  You've been swimming in Russian and Soviet propaganda your whole life.

Steve