Page 5 of 26 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 775

Thread: Great Power contentions

  1. #121
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    This is just what happened in Cuba a mere half-year ago, and laterally in France 3 (!) years ago, among many other examples.

    Whether motivated by climate adaptation or other reasons, or even as external development, it is evident that governments have little choice but to counter rising food or fuel prices with compensatory aid or credits.
    Not over here in the UK. The Tories still armour themselves with Brexit, even as energy and food prices go up. Even as the PM has been caught lying again (although it's a given every time he opens his mouth), even as he's caught taking money for renovations in exchange for favours, even as his friends and colleagues are caught giving tens of millions to their friends and family, he thinks mocking the acting LOTO as a Remainer is the way to go. Looking at how loyal Tories act (more worship of the national anthem yeah!), I'm not sure he's wrong.

  2. #122
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Our Democracy allows a vote every 5 years, and that's about it. Both major parties benefit from FPTP so of course no one wants to change it.
    The PM chooses the person to investigate himself and can withhold information from them with impunity and even lying at PMQs is apparently no biggie. This isn't a problem unless the information gets out of course - and the committee didn't think that the withholding of information was a problem.

    We have a website where we can petition for things to be discussed but even that is controlled, hence why change.org was used for the popular one regarding Tony Blair's Knighthood being removed.

    The Monarchy seems quite content to be nothing but a figurehead rather than the last backstop when the system is clearly failing - to point out the obvious, we have no President so no alternate source of power and the Lords is subservient to the Commons. There is nothing else in our system to improve matters. So here we are - apparently in a first rate democracy...

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

    Member thankful for this post:



  3. #123
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Our Democracy allows a vote every 5 years, and that's about it. Both major parties benefit from FPTP so of course no one wants to change it.
    The PM chooses the person to investigate himself and can withhold information from them with impunity and even lying at PMQs is apparently no biggie. This isn't a problem unless the information gets out of course - and the committee didn't think that the withholding of information was a problem.

    We have a website where we can petition for things to be discussed but even that is controlled, hence why change.org was used for the popular one regarding Tony Blair's Knighthood being removed.

    The Monarchy seems quite content to be nothing but a figurehead rather than the last backstop when the system is clearly failing - to point out the obvious, we have no President so no alternate source of power and the Lords is subservient to the Commons. There is nothing else in our system to improve matters. So here we are - apparently in a first rate democracy...

    The problem with our system is that the checks and balances are dependent on the very thing that gives the chief executive their power; the Commons majority. After that, it's dependent on custom. If a PM with a majority has no sense of ethics, there is nothing to stop them from doing whatever they like under the guise of democracy. And if there are enough voters to cast their vote their way, then we have what we have. A PM with no restrictions of any kind, who is good at pressing buttons to get those requisite votes.

    We westerners shouldn't be so comfortable about assuming that our democracy is the best thing in the world. It may be less bad than the alternative, but we are quite capable of messing things up ourselves. Reality isn't the all-powerful check on power, if the votes can be relied on. The US might just be on the brink with just enough of a voting coalition to stop Trump. The UK's Tories have found a sure thing and are playing it with all their heart.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  4. #124
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,985

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Good debate on France24 on the possibility of Russia invading Ukraine:
    If Russia did invade: How far would the West go to support Ukraine?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ExRbjmcf-8

    I've personally been thinking that this has gone from rhetoric to a genuine threat. I think Melinda's assessment is closest to what I fear is happening too, Putin would very much like to be one of the Great Men of Russia and there's little other realms he could make that claim aside from resurgence and 'reclaiming' Ukraine for Russia.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

  5. #125
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    I am fairly confident that Russia will invade Ukraine within the next 4-6 weeks or so. The size of the invasion is hard to predict, but my guess is that they will try to seize Kyiv and install a Russia-friendly government. I've been following various open-source intelligence pages, and the information coming out is troubling to say the least. One bit of news that Russia was moving military police units into Belarus to these staging areas could be an indication of plans to secure Kyiv.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  6. #126
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    If they restrict themselves to the parts that are mainly Russian friendly then they might be able to benefit from it since they'll be less likely to have an insurrection and have some semblance of excuse that they are doing what the people actually want; going further and trying to hold it makes things worse and worse.

    Although the West tends to massively punch under its weight, long range strikes with artillery and missiles from the ground / water or air could reap a heavy toll outside of the Russian soil on high tech equipment, and the Ukranians with additional support would be able to make the rest a hard slog - unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where the locals seem to expect the West to do everything for them and ran off when confronted, Ukranians have been fighting for themselves for some years now. Yes, they'd loose but assuming they don't try a pitched battle this would eventually be expensive - and for Russia, there are more important fronts.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  7. #127
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Maybe, but the locations of the military buildups are heavily indicating that they will not be limiting themselves to attacking eastern Ukraine. For example some of the latest images show Russian brigades near the Belarusian town of Mazyr, which is a mere 3.5 hours north of Kyiv.

    The real question is the resolve of the Ukrainian people. It is extremely likely that most Ukrainian frontline forces will be decimated in the opening day of the conflict, as Russia has the overwhelming advantage in artillery, air power, and missiles. But will the government and people fold quickly? Or will we see a widespread insurgency? Hard to say at this moment. People can bluster all they want, but when the shells are flying it will be far different.

    Edit: I thought this was a really interesting article about what signs to look for an invasion: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...w-these-clues/
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 01-21-2022 at 19:16.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  8. #128
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,985

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    I am fairly confident that Russia will invade Ukraine within the next 4-6 weeks or so. The size of the invasion is hard to predict, but my guess is that they will try to seize Kyiv and install a Russia-friendly government.
    I'm feeling the same here, conditions are good for Putin. Biden is weak politically and has been struggling to get a unified NATO front against Russia. Europe has no leadership: Merkel is gone and Scholz is new and not near established enough to get Germany to do anything 'difficult' meanwhile Macron and Boris are dealing more with COVID-19 fallout in different forms.
    With Biden having put a commitment to no ground troops that means Putin only has to weigh how difficult the economic repercussions are and when it comes to gaining territory, well at some point in the future the economy can recovery but changes to borders are permanent short of revolutions or outside force, both of which are not forthcoming.

    If they restrict themselves to the parts that are mainly Russian friendly then they might be able to benefit from it since they'll be less likely to have an insurrection and have some semblance of excuse that they are doing what the people actually want; going further and trying to hold it makes things worse and worse.
    They already hold in fact or through their Separatist proxies the Russian majority regions, any further expansion would be into Ukrainian majority areas. I don't think they worry much about insurgency for several reasons. One: unlike the middle east there isn't going to be a bloc of neighboring co-religionists funneling in diehard supporters, two: the language and culture are similar enough that 'policing' against dissent will be easier, three: if they go full on oppression like in Belarus, well the West will stand by and shake their fingers.

    Putting in a Russian proxy government and then moving toward full incorporation into Russia at some point in the future seems the likely goal.

    Although the West tends to massively punch under its weight, long range strikes with artillery and missiles from the ground / water or air could reap a heavy toll outside of the Russian soil on high tech equipment, and the Ukrainians with additional support would be able to make the rest a hard slog - unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where the locals seem to expect the West to do everything for them and ran off when confronted, Ukrainians have been fighting for themselves for some years now.
    That's why Biden taking ground troops off the table is such a disaster. Conducting strikes against a near-peer power like Russia even within 'friendly territory' of the Ukraine would require a mix of air and ground enablers to do electronic warfare against Russian radar and intelligence systems, strike against integrated air defense systems and so on. Given the distances from our bases in Germany or Carrier Strike Groups in the Med that type of concentrated and consistence power isn't easy to project, especially if all our NATO allies are dithering.
    Also, in the event that aircraft are shot down you want to have recovery forces available, something difficult to coordinate if we don't have troops on the ground and in the same HQ as the Ukraine Army.

    The following video is just a simulation from a publicly available 'game' but from what I get (I'm just Army wise not Navy or Air Force) it seems fairly well done showing the capabilities in modern war.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGwU9HKH_Eo&t=22s

    I think realistically that the US won't be giving the Ukrainians much aside from intelligence support and perhaps some cyberwarfare support.

    Crazy to see the effects in the region though with the heightened tensions. Sweden posting troops in Gotland incase things get hot in the Baltic too. The case of Ukraine and Taiwan too certainly demonstrate that being non-aligned has severe limitations in the case of protecting one's sovereignty, wonder if this would drive Sweden and Finland to being more pro-NATO if not outright mulling joining.

    Sweden boosts patrols on Gotland amid Russia tensions
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ns-2022-01-13/

    As always I wonder where Turkey stands on this issue. Turkey being the wildcard of NATO and having soured its relations with NATO through purchasing S400 systems certainly make their stance unclear. Wonder if they'd allow US warships or aircraft to freely navigate into the Black Sea seeing as we have that airbase in Incirlik and they control the Bosphorus.
    Last edited by spmetla; 01-21-2022 at 20:03.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

  9. #129
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    I'm feeling the same here, conditions are good for Putin. Biden is weak politically and has been struggling to get a unified NATO front against Russia. Europe has no leadership: Merkel is gone and Scholz is new and not near established enough to get Germany to do anything 'difficult' meanwhile Macron and Boris are dealing more with COVID-19 fallout in different forms.
    With Biden having put a commitment to no ground troops that means Putin only has to weigh how difficult the economic repercussions are and when it comes to gaining territory, well at some point in the future the economy can recovery but changes to borders are permanent short of revolutions or outside force, both of which are not forthcoming.
    Case in point, Germany just blocked Estonia from transferring weapons to Ukraine, as well as refusing to meet with Biden over Ukraine. Clearly Germany sees the way this is going and would prefer to preserve the Nord Stream pipeline rather than rile things up. Cowards.

    I don't think they worry much about insurgency for several reasons.
    Eh, I think Ukrainian anti-Russian sentiment is far higher in the western part of the country, compared to the Donbas area which is far more pro-Russian. But this is something that we will only really know for sure when the bullets start flying.

    I think realistically that the US won't be giving the Ukrainians much aside from intelligence support and perhaps some cyberwarfare support.
    I believe we are also sending hardware as well, but I dont know what exactly.

    I hate to say this though, the hard truth is that there is no scenario where the US jumps into a war between Russia and Ukraine. Besides the fact that there's no political will for it, US equipment just isnt positioned for it. How many weeks would it take to get armored brigade combat teams from the US to Europe? We have the equipment for a single ABCT prepositioned now, plus whatever current forces we have on rotation in Germany, Poland, and the Baltics. Now compare that to the current buildup of forces in Belarus and on the Ukranian border. It would be a bloodbath.

    Crazy to see the effects in the region though with the heightened tensions. Sweden posting troops in Gotland incase things get hot in the Baltic too. The case of Ukraine and Taiwan too certainly demonstrate that being non-aligned has severe limitations in the case of protecting one's sovereignty, wonder if this would drive Sweden and Finland to being more pro-NATO if not outright mulling joining.

    Sweden boosts patrols on Gotland amid Russia tensions
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ns-2022-01-13/
    Yup, I am expecting pro-NATO sentiment to skyrocket after all this. Maybe more in Finland than Sweden but we will see.

    As always I wonder where Turkey stands on this issue. Turkey being the wildcard of NATO and having soured its relations with NATO through purchasing S400 systems certainly make their stance unclear. Wonder if they'd allow US warships or aircraft to freely navigate into the Black Sea seeing as we have that airbase in Incirlik and they control the Bosphorus.
    Well they did sell their TB2 drones to Ukraine last year, which was used with great effect by Azerbaijan in their 2020 war with Armenia. Doing so made Russia mad, but we will see how effective they would be now considering that Russia has far better technology than Armenia does to counter them.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 01-21-2022 at 23:08.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

    Member thankful for this post:



  10. #130
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,985

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Case in point, Germany just blocked Estonia from transferring weapons to Ukraine, as well as refusing to meet with Biden over Ukraine. Clearly Germany sees the way this is going and would prefer to preserve the Nord Stream pipeline rather than rile things up. Cowards.
    Absolutely cowards. Short-sighted easy out policies time and time again. Too vital to Europe to be left out and too afraid of 'difficult' choices to be trusted in charge. Though given a century of poor 'great power' decision making I understand their hesitance to assert a strong EU policy of mutual defense against more than just terrorism. After having dumped nuclear without other 'cleaner' options about they are absolutely reliant on Russian fuel to keep their economy stable and prosperous, especially in the winter.

    I wonder if that AUKUS sub deal hadn't so taken Macron and the French establishment by surprise whether they could be trusted to lead a bit more in regard to EU vs Russian power plays. Only France or Germany will ever have the economic, military, and diplomatic credibility to lead the EU but France doesn't have the historical baggage holding it quite back, just a preference to maintain its interests in West Africa and its remaining overseas territories.

    hate to say this though, the hard truth is that there is no scenario where the US jumps into a war between Russia and Ukraine. Besides the fact that there's no political will for it, US equipment just isnt positioned for it. How many weeks would it take to get armored brigade combat teams from the US to Europe? We have the equipment for a single ABCT prepositioned now, plus whatever current forces we have on rotation in Germany, Poland, and the Baltics. Now compare that to the current buildup of forces in Belarus and on the Ukranian border. It would be a bloodbath.
    That's exactly why I've always opposed us reducing our presence in Europe to a brigade of paratroopers, a Stryker brigade, and one rotational brigade of armor. Of all the global environments in which heavy units may be useful for deterrence if nothing else it is Europe. Positioning 1st Armored Division in Texas to reap the local economic benefits of military spending is nice for the economy but absolutely useless being postured to actually use them. There are also the negative effects of two decades of COIN focus that our conventional formations have suffered from.
    Not that I'd want a division to have to go in and fight the Russians but moving them (and ideally the European 'rapid reaction forces') to Poland or Romania would at least make the Russians have to doubt somewhat. Even if we sent all we had in Europe to the Ukraine to help it would be the absolute bloodbath you describe. Credible deterrence to Russia requires us and our allies to be able to assemble tens of the thousands, not just thousands.

    What are your thoughts of a 'creeping invasion' with a limited incursion in one area, defeat of Ukrainians and then expansion elsewhere, slow escalations are harder to galvanize democratic societies against than outright war.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

  11. #131
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    Absolutely cowards. Short-sighted easy out policies time and time again. Too vital to Europe to be left out and too afraid of 'difficult' choices to be trusted in charge. Though given a century of poor 'great power' decision making I understand their hesitance to assert a strong EU policy of mutual defense against more than just terrorism. After having dumped nuclear without other 'cleaner' options about they are absolutely reliant on Russian fuel to keep their economy stable and prosperous, especially in the winter.

    I wonder if that AUKUS sub deal hadn't so taken Macron and the French establishment by surprise whether they could be trusted to lead a bit more in regard to EU vs Russian power plays. Only France or Germany will ever have the economic, military, and diplomatic credibility to lead the EU but France doesn't have the historical baggage holding it quite back, just a preference to maintain its interests in West Africa and its remaining overseas territories.


    That's exactly why I've always opposed us reducing our presence in Europe to a brigade of paratroopers, a Stryker brigade, and one rotational brigade of armor. Of all the global environments in which heavy units may be useful for deterrence if nothing else it is Europe. Positioning 1st Armored Division in Texas to reap the local economic benefits of military spending is nice for the economy but absolutely useless being postured to actually use them. There are also the negative effects of two decades of COIN focus that our conventional formations have suffered from.
    Not that I'd want a division to have to go in and fight the Russians but moving them (and ideally the European 'rapid reaction forces') to Poland or Romania would at least make the Russians have to doubt somewhat. Even if we sent all we had in Europe to the Ukraine to help it would be the absolute bloodbath you describe. Credible deterrence to Russia requires us and our allies to be able to assemble tens of the thousands, not just thousands.

    What are your thoughts of a 'creeping invasion' with a limited incursion in one area, defeat of Ukrainians and then expansion elsewhere, slow escalations are harder to galvanize democratic societies against than outright war.
    If you wanted Europe to be a substantial help in any military endeavour, you'd want hawks in both Paris and London. But the UK lost its appetite with Iraq, and now views Europe as an enemy as a matter of ideology. Russia has its hooks in the UK government as well, bankrolling its ruling party. It used to do the same in the US, until you got rid of Trump. If I were the US, I would not trust the UK to do anything practically useful against Russia, nor for it to coordinate anything with the rest of Europe.

  12. #132
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    If you wanted Europe to be a substantial help in any military endeavour, you'd want hawks in both Paris and London. But the UK lost its appetite with Iraq,
    True, to a degree. France and the UK are the [only] european powers have global reach and great-power perspective for geopolitics. And iraq has damaged the UK's appetite for elective war - but it remains miles ahead of any european war with the exception of France.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    [the UK] and now views Europe as an enemy as a matter of ideology.
    This is not true. The UK is culturally reverting to a seapower mentality, which has no use for ideologicial enemies as the goal is limited aims and the preservation of trade. If you wanted to make it ideological, the hat would fit even better on the EU as the spurned mistress who actions are bent of limiting the regulatory autonomy of a new regional rival.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Russia has its hooks in the UK government as well, bankrolling its ruling party. It used to do the same in the US, until you got rid of Trump.
    This is not true. It is not true in any useful sense where you consider relative capture of the a european countries foriegn policy agenda to organise opposition to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    If I were the US, I would not trust the UK to do anything practically useful against Russia, nor for it to coordinate anything with the rest of Europe.
    This is not in any way true. Of [ALL] european nations the UK has provided the most material and training support to the Ukraine with the express intention of blunting any Russian offensive. Of [ALL] european nations the UK and Poland have provided the most diplomatic support in building a european coalition to oppose a new Russian offensive.

    Germany ranks among the top five arms exporters of the world. The refusal to send defensive weapons to Ukraine is not “rooted in the history” as the German government tries to present it but it’s a deliberate geopolitical choice due to the ties with Russia:
    https://twitter.com/vtchakarova/stat...10237358432259

    It's not a united West. An active sub-alliance of Britain, Poland, the Baltic and a few others is in fact very apparent in this crisis. As is Germany sabotaging deterrence efforts -- trying to rule out SWIFT -- American weariness and French hesitancy. Not the geopolitics of 2014.:
    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1483197581358514181

    Britain wants to create a tripartite alliance with Poland and Ukraine:
    https://globalhappenings.com/top-global-news/89056.html

    UK Delivers Light Anti-Tank Defensive Weapon Systems To Ukraine:
    https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/01...ms-to-ukraine/

    Germany blocks Estonia from exporting German-origin weapons to Ukraine -WSJ:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/germ...-idUSL1N2U123W

    None of this is true. Your dislike of the government (and the policy that won it power), is preventing you from holding any kind of objective view about its [actual] actions.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 01-22-2022 at 16:18.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

    Member thankful for this post:



  13. #133

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    I could be wrong. I think 100,000 soldiers aren't enough to invade Ukraine. Putin might be hiding more near the border. Or maybe this is just a distraction, and his main intention was on Kazakhstan. Or maybe he's just distracting his people away from his domestic problems by raising tensions on the western border.
    Last edited by Shaka_Khan; 01-23-2022 at 00:26.
    Wooooo!!!

  14. #134
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    Absolutely cowards. Short-sighted easy out policies time and time again. Too vital to Europe to be left out and too afraid of 'difficult' choices to be trusted in charge. Though given a century of poor 'great power' decision making I understand their hesitance to assert a strong EU policy of mutual defense against more than just terrorism. After having dumped nuclear without other 'cleaner' options about they are absolutely reliant on Russian fuel to keep their economy stable and prosperous, especially in the winter.
    I wonder if Merkel was still in charge if things would have played out the same. Reportedly Biden is trying to work out with the Gulf States to bring in natural gas to help keep Germany afloat, but I dont think it will be enough.

    That's exactly why I've always opposed us reducing our presence in Europe to a brigade of paratroopers, a Stryker brigade, and one rotational brigade of armor. Of all the global environments in which heavy units may be useful for deterrence if nothing else it is Europe. Positioning 1st Armored Division in Texas to reap the local economic benefits of military spending is nice for the economy but absolutely useless being postured to actually use them. There are also the negative effects of two decades of COIN focus that our conventional formations have suffered from.
    Not that I'd want a division to have to go in and fight the Russians but moving them (and ideally the European 'rapid reaction forces') to Poland or Romania would at least make the Russians have to doubt somewhat. Even if we sent all we had in Europe to the Ukraine to help it would be the absolute bloodbath you describe. Credible deterrence to Russia requires us and our allies to be able to assemble tens of the thousands, not just thousands.
    No argument here. I think a lot of the post-2014 thinking has been that Russia would try to do another hybrid war in Eastern Europe like they did in Crimea and the Donbas, not huge invasions. Additionally, with the pivot to Asia, the argument to keep huge amount of troops stationed in Europe has previously been a difficult one to make. But I do think whatever happens now we can be looking at expanded garrisons in Europe. Perhaps Poland will finally get that permanent US base they have been clamoring for. Last time they suggested Fort Trump. Perhaps they would be down with a Fort Biden

    What are your thoughts of a 'creeping invasion' with a limited incursion in one area, defeat of Ukrainians and then expansion elsewhere, slow escalations are harder to galvanize democratic societies against than outright war.
    I'm more inclined to think it will begin with an attack in the southeast to link Crimea with the Donbas region. Which is why they are bringing those landing ships to the Black Sea. It would be followed by (or done in coordination with) an assault by the forces in the north on Kyiv to overthrow the government. Supposedly, according to US and UK intelligence, there's a plan to install a new government in Kyiv, which is in line with this prediction. To me it makes sense for the Russians to want this done as quickly as possible. Especially before the roads turn to mud.

    Also should be noted that the terrain of Ukraine isnt the most conducive for an insurgency outside of the cities. Not many mountains, nor are large portions of the country heavily forested. It will be no Afghanistan or Chechnya for Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan View Post
    I could be wrong. I think 100,000 soldiers aren't enough to invade Ukraine. Putin might be hiding more near the border. Or maybe this is just a distraction, and his main intention was on Kazakhstan. Or maybe he's just distracting his people away from his domestic problems by raising tensions on the western border.
    They dont need to hold the entire country. If Russia can seize Kyiv and Odesa as well as link Crimea to the Donbas, I would imagine that would be enough to force the capitulation of the Ukrainian government. Doing so would effectively landlock Ukraine which would be devastating for its economy. All this also depends on the fighting will of the Ukrainian people. I also wager that the number of troops involved go up to 200,000 by the time of invasion.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 01-23-2022 at 02:41.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  15. #135

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    I agree that we shouldn't appease. We'd see a more bold Putin now if none of the NATO members were supporting Ukraine.
    Wooooo!!!

  16. #136
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Although I'd be more than happy to see the USA choosing to supply troops to Europe, there would be much smaller problem if NATO and the wider EU spent at least 2% of GDP on defence in a meaningful way to deter likely threats.

    And the big country here is Germany. If they are so terrified of accidentally conquering Europe for a third time, then they should spend the money on equipping other countries forces... Erm, they did that last time too, and they tended to be worse...

    Look, WW2 was dreadful but if the USA stopped killing civilians and committing war crimes we'd have no one to protect the free world from threats such as democratic leaders they don't like...

    Europe needs a strong Germany as frankly its still probably a lesser evil than Russia.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

    Member thankful for this post:



  17. #137
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,985

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    I wonder if Merkel was still in charge if things would have played out the same. Reportedly Biden is trying to work out with the Gulf States to bring in natural gas to help keep Germany afloat, but I dont think it will be enough.
    I think the German stance would be more or less the same just a clear stance instead of this dithering.

    No argument here. I think a lot of the post-2014 thinking has been that Russia would try to do another hybrid war in Eastern Europe like they did in Crimea and the Donbas, not huge invasions. Additionally, with the pivot to Asia, the argument to keep huge amount of troops stationed in Europe has previously been a difficult one to make. But I do think whatever happens now we can be looking at expanded garrisons in Europe. Perhaps Poland will finally get that permanent US base they have been clamoring for. Last time they suggested Fort Trump. Perhaps they would be down with a Fort Biden
    I'd prefer a Fort Kościuszko as he's got ties to the US Revolutionary War as well as Poland's wars against Russia prior to its partition.

    I think the hybrid aspect of 2014 was in large part because Russia needed the deniability. If the US had at the time sent troops to help the Ukraine this aspect of deniability would allow it protest without escalating tensions. After the US and EU essentially just had accept the outcome apart from some sanctions there's no need for deniability.
    As for the pivot to Asia, that's in large part a matter of focus and spending, not troop dispositions. No additional troops are going to Korea, Japan or elsewhere in the region. More Naval and Air Force presence and a lot more training exercises. But with the pivot to Asia, outside of the Korean peninsula there's really not much call for large, armored formations short of full fledged war with China or a heavy garrison in Taiwan.
    Europe on the other hand is a useful place for armor. Armor was considered for use in the war against Serbia in '99, armor would have been useful if intervening on behalf of the Ukraine in '14, and if something ever happens in the Baltics or Poland you'll need armor again. Stationing heavy units in the US is strategically pointless but good economically.

    I'm more inclined to think it will begin with an attack in the southeast to link Crimea with the Donbas region. Which is why they are bringing those landing ships to the Black Sea. It would be followed by (or done in coordination with) an assault by the forces in the north on Kyiv to overthrow the government. Supposedly, according to US and UK intelligence, there's a plan to install a new government in Kyiv, which is in line with this prediction. To me it makes sense for the Russians to want this done as quickly as possible. Especially before the roads turn to mud.

    Also should be noted that the terrain of Ukraine isnt the most conducive for an insurgency outside of the cities. Not many mountains, nor are large portions of the country heavily forested. It will be no Afghanistan or Chechnya for Russia.
    I agree with your assumptions there.

    I could be wrong. I think 100,000 soldiers aren't enough to invade Ukraine. Putin might be hiding more near the border. Or maybe this is just a distraction, and his main intention was on Kazakhstan. Or maybe he's just distracting his people away from his domestic problems by raising tensions on the western border.
    100K is plenty to invade. The Ukraine has a long frontier to protect with a much smaller full-time army, Russia just needs to put enough force in the right area to affect a break-through and march on the few major cities. With Russia dominance of the air and sea and so much surrounding land it's not like the Ukraine will be able to mount successful second and third lines of defense. Ukrainian forces trying to deploy into other sectors would be interdicted from the air without much interference.

    Although I'd be more than happy to see the USA choosing to supply troops to Europe, there would be much smaller problem if NATO and the wider EU spent at least 2% of GDP on defence in a meaningful way to deter likely threats.
    Absolutely agree, but as we've debated here it'd also require political will to use. If the Germans with their current token military were to take a strong stance on behalf of the Ukraine with weapons support, recall its reservists to boost numbers, and start positioning its various heavy units in Poland and Romania it would be a huge deterrent to Russia despite its numerical inferiority and the inexperience of the Germans in modern war.
    I'd rather our allies spent their 2% but if they're not willing to even think of applying hard power to support soft power within Europe itself then whats the point. As usual though, I think it's Europe looking to the US for leadership, if Biden were to start putting heavy units in Romania and Poland right now as a deterrent and build up then he could rally other NATO nations to do the same with probably more than just token support.

    Look, WW2 was dreadful but if the USA stopped killing civilians and committing war crimes we'd have no one to protect the free world from threats such as democratic leaders they don't like...
    While I agree that the US war on terror as thoroughly soured a lot of people on 'hard power' there's a huge difference between defending the borders of a free Europe as opposed to invading Iran or something. France and Germany selling themselves out is just mind-boggling and I don't think the GWOT is to blame.

    Europe needs a strong Germany as frankly its still probably a lesser evil than Russia.
    It's certainly a lesser evil as it's so afraid of being evil that it's at the point of being considered pathetic. An economic powerhouse happy to please whoever holds its leash so long as there's not hard choices to make.

    I agree that we shouldn't appease. We'd see a more bold Putin now if none of the NATO members were supporting Ukraine.
    If the Ukraine is invaded do you think we'll finally see other NATO members spend on their own defense too? If not then definatley a more divided world-politik for Putin to take advantage of.
    For Biden though, he absolutely NEEDS to handle this right after his Afghan debacle but I think he's so adverse to another war just like everyone else that he's not willing to threaten the force that could actually prevent a war.
    The strong despise weakness and I think this attitude guides Putin's worldview.
    Last edited by spmetla; 01-23-2022 at 19:39.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  18. #138

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Good stuff Hooah.


    Even ignoring that Biden had already overtly communicated multiple times the unwillingness of the US to go to war over Ukraine, no one could have believed ex ante that the US would commit ground forces against Russia in Ukraine. We shouldn't criticize politicians for stating the plainest facts. (The alternative, tough-guy bluffing without basis, was tried by Obama with Assad about a decade ago. It didn't end well.)

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    What are your thoughts of a 'creeping invasion' with a limited incursion in one area, defeat of Ukrainians and then expansion elsewhere, slow escalations are harder to galvanize democratic societies against than outright war.
    The main considerations for Putin must be how many of their economic retaliative options the US and allies would be willing to impose (and for how long, with Ukraine potentially under Russian rule), but also how much resistance there will be from the Ukrainian polity. At one end, desultory unrest is of course no problem for an authoritarian regime - as demonstrated in Kazakhstan this month. But the need for a permanent military occupation, if it comes to that - and it would if Russia intends a closer arrangement than a new Yanukovych - is an imposing prospect both for the occupier and the occupied, yet if Russia managed just to establish a puppet government and pull out, what would be stopping the Ukrainians from overthrowing it in a couple months? Wouldn't they be intensely motivated to do so? That would leave the status quo unchanged at best, with dramatic expenditures to nought by both Ukraine and Russia. Any articles that address these questions?

    On the other hand, my father - with deep familial ties in Ukraine and Belarus, but basically ignorant of all politics, foreign policy, and the principles of rational study beyond Fox News and web headlines - thinks the Ukrainian masses are readier to assent to Russian control than to fight it. (He also believes that the only thing stopping Russia from joining and dominating the EU/NATO is American dissent FWIW.)

    In terms of a partisan element the primary social group willing to put up long-term resistance against Russian military presence is evidently the Ukrainian far-right and Neo-Nazis. It may be in everyone's interest to facilitate their resistance, under the onerous occupying scenarios, since fascists annihilating against Russian soldiers is - well, not like that, but you get the gist. Geographically, the north and west of the country are best suited to guerilla operations. I don't know what the Ukrainian army has trained for.



    In our worst-case though, a successful Russian incorporation of Ukraine implies an inexorable progression toward invasion of the Baltics (since those are easier targets to take and hold military), and it's not an insane gamble to bet regime survival and sustained acquisition through a "limited" war with NATO. After all, there are few possible ways for a NATO thrust through 250 miles of Ukranian or Belarussian forests to the Russian border not to escalate into a century-defining WW3. Would the US and EU be willing to entertain more than a few skirmishes over Kaliningrad in that light? It's hard to believe Russia could reach such prerequisite success in Ukraine though.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  19. #139

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Remember when I posted in this thread about Task Force 9 in Syria ordering drone strikes and other acts outside of military protocol and likely international law, killing buttloads of civilians and trying to cover it up? Another of their greatest hits:

    The Tabqa Dam was a strategic linchpin and the Islamic State controlled it. The explosions on March 26, 2017, knocked dam workers to the ground and everything went dark. Witnesses say one bomb punched down five floors. A fire spread, and crucial equipment failed. The mighty flow of the Euphrates River suddenly had no way through, the reservoir began to rise, and local authorities used loudspeakers to warn people downstream to flee.

    The Islamic State, the Syrian government and Russia blamed the United States, but the dam was on the U.S. military’s “no-strike list” of protected civilian sites and the commander of the U.S. offensive at the time, then-Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, said allegations of U.S. involvement were based on “crazy reporting.”

    “The Tabqa Dam is not a coalition target,” he declared emphatically two days after the blasts.

    In fact, members of a top secret U.S. Special Operations unit called Task Force 9 had struck the dam using some of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal, including at least one BLU-109 bunker-buster bomb designed to destroy thick concrete structures, according to two former senior officials. And they had done it despite a military report warning not to bomb the dam, because the damage could cause a flood that might kill tens of thousands of civilians.
    These haven't been the only stories I've posted on the Org on the subject of SOF wilding...



    Returning to the Taiwan hotspot, here is an essay recommending a "porcupine" strategy for Taiwan's defense, a "distributed, survivable, and affordable defense" comprising a "large number of small things" oriented on area denial. This is pretty much what I advocated earlier, but I was surprised to learn that Taiwan has by and large not adopted this doctrine - the Overall Defense Concept - preferring to deepen its reliance on expensive legacy symmetric weapons platforms (such as Abrams tanks, Paladin SPGs, F16s, long-range cruise missiles, and diesel submarines, contrasted with Harpoon and Stinger missiles, UAVs, and missile boats).

    To move to a force posture that emphasizes such distributed defenses, Taiwan’s future budgets should include funding for the acquisition of systems so numerous, distributed, and mobile that they could not all be targeted by Chinese missile strikes, along with the associated training and support needed to enable effective combat operations. These defenses would be able to survive and engage Chinese military ships, aircraft, helicopters, and drones attempting to cross the strait and land on Taiwan. Examples of specific ground-based systems that should be considered include the Phalanx close-in weapon system, the Hellfire missile, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System rocket, the Israeli Spike missile, and additional Javelin and Stinger missiles, all of which are low-cost, proven short-range weapons that could be adapted and deployed in large numbers to make Taiwan more difficult to approach by sea or air. Small fast-attack missile boats, additional naval mines and minelaying capabilities, and additional land-based coastal defense cruise missiles could further threaten approaching ships. Drones could provide reconnaissance and targeting information.
    [...]
    In order to prepare for the evolving capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army, Taiwan should pursue a longer-term development program in addition to near-term plans based on existing systems. Looking to the future, and recognizing Taiwan’s advanced technical capabilities, the large number of small things could include land-based coastal defenses employing advanced technologies against ships, aircraft, and swarms of drones; networks of small, fast, manned and unmanned surface craft and unmanned underwater systems to complicate Chinese naval operations; and drones to increase situational awareness.44 Such systems could be developed and produced in Taiwan with technical assistance from the United States and perhaps other states as well.
    Taiwan should continue its legacy programs for conventional systems, but at a level that would free up resources for developing and acquiring distributed, survivable, and affordable defenses. Taiwan’s conventional systems, particularly its F-16s, are important for countering gray-zone provocations that fall below the threshold of armed conflict, have economic and industrial benefits, and enjoy military and political support. However, the opportunity cost of acquiring and operating conventional platforms is high. Taiwan’s leaders should make space in the defense budget to provide for the procurement of affordable short-range defenses and the personnel, training, communications, and situational awareness necessary to operate effectively and contribute to the deterrence of an invasion.
    [...]
    Nevertheless, the underlying concept of an asymmetric response remains sound: Rather than attempt to match China’s air and sea capabilities, Taiwan should leverage its strengths (especially its geography and technology) and exploit the People’s Liberation Army’s vulnerabilities (especially the need to move large amounts of men and equipment across 100 miles of contested water and airspace). The shorthand for this concept should be “a large number of small things.”


    Here is another recent article criticizing Taiwan's military procurement and doctrine as too focused on prestige optics and political dealmaking.

    Taiwan can and should do more — a lot more — especially when it comes to preparing to defend the island from attack. Responsibility for why it is not falls squarely on the shoulders of Taiwan’s military bureaucracy. Most notably, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense has abandoned asymmetric defense reform in all but name and has not been reined in by President Tsai Ing-wen. Instead, the ministry is now planning to deter an invasion by threatening to retaliate with missile strikes against the Chinese homeland and by pitting Taiwanese units in direct combat against the vastly superior People’s Liberation Army. Moreover, the ministry has the audacity to tell American audiences that this dramatic shift is fully congruent with an asymmetric posture.
    [...]
    The explanation revolves around habit and institutional inertia. For generations, Taiwan’s military planned to counter an invasion force by meeting and defeating it head-on. The idea was that the island’s small fleet of technologically superior, American-made jets, ships, and tanks could offset the People’s Liberation Army’s numerical advantages. Unfortunately, this approach stopped making sense once China’s military modernization efforts gave it the edge quantitively and qualitatively.
    [...]
    Senior defense officials are fully aware that the United States still expects Taiwan to pursue asymmetric defense capabilities. But rather than acquiesce to these painful and costly demands, the ministry has instead coopted and repurposed asymmetry’s lexicon so as to rationalize their decidedly symmetric plans.
    Take, for example, Taiwan’s decision to spend $5 billion upgrading its fleet of 141 F-16A/B jets. Although it inked a deal in 2011, the upgrades did not start until 2016. Five years later, the first combat wing of upgraded F-16s will stand up this month. The air force even spent another $140 million this year to try to speed the process up so it can hopefully finish the last upgrades in another two years — more than a decade after starting the process. Similarly, in a best-case scenario, Taiwan’s navy will not receive its first submarine until 2024 — but there are indications that the [$16 billion] program is about to be significantly delayed. The last of the M1A2 main battle tanks purchased in 2019 will not reach the island until 2027.

    Nor will these shiny new weapons be ready to go into action the moment they arrive. Units will still need to learn how to use and fix them. The services will still have to develop the maintenance capacity to keep them operational. And the Ministry of National Defense will need to stockpile logistics to ensure that these capabilities will have enough ammunition, fuel, and parts to stay in the fight (at least those that survive a first strike). These critical but oft-ignored changes can take years to implement under the best of circumstances. Unfortunately, with tens of billions of dollars’ worth of purchases and platforms already coming down the pipeline, the risk that the Ministry of National Defense might choke on the glut of new toys is real.
    In essence, these documents reveal that the Ministry of National Defense hopes to extend the battlefield deep inside of China in a way that justifies the pursuit of expensive long-range strike, air superiority, and sea control capabilities.
    [...]
    Yet instead of worrying about how to wage a prolonged defense of the island — especially in the all-too-likely event that invasion troops make it past the beaches — the 2021 review says that Taiwan’s military must find ways to achieve air superiority and sea control. Never mind the fact that even the U.S. Navy and Air Force are not sure they can attain these goals against a determined, capable, and proximate Chinese foe. The Ministry of National Defense is, with a straight face, committing itself to the pursuit of achieving air and sea control using fourth-generation aircraft, a few dozen major surface combatants, a handful of indigenously produced diesel submarines, and yes — main battle tanks and self-propelled howitzers.

    If Taiwan doesn't go asymmetric shit's gonna look like Azerbaijan vs. Armenia, where Azerbaijan is China.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 01-24-2022 at 00:53.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:



  20. #140
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,985

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Even ignoring that Biden had already overtly communicated multiple times the unwillingness of the US to go to war over Ukraine, no one could have believed ex ante that the US would commit ground forces against Russia in Ukraine. We shouldn't criticize politicians for stating the plainest facts. (The alternative, tough-guy bluffing without basis, was tried by Obama with Assad about a decade ago. It didn't end well.)
    I'm not advocating bluffing as you only lose even bigger that way. I'd be more for sending in troops to help defend Kiev if the Russians cross the frontier together with a massive support of airpower to deny the Russians air dominance, of at least the Ukrainian interior. Sending in troops to try and defend Ukraine's frontier would be a lost cause but the moment US/NATO troops are there supporting Ukraine's sovereignty the calculus for Putin would change.
    To save Ukraine you have to be willing to fight for it to prevent a war. Though in today's political climate I see that in the choice of "Why die for Danzig?" most of Europe favors appeasement.

    Returning to the Taiwan hotspot, here is an essay recommending a "porcupine" strategy for Taiwan's defense, a "distributed, survivable, and affordable defense" comprising a "large number of small things" oriented on area denial. This is pretty much what I advocated earlier, but I was surprised to learn that Taiwan has by and large not adopted this doctrine - the Overall Defense Concept - preferring to deepen its reliance on expensive legacy symmetric weapons platforms (such as Abrams tanks, Paladin SPGs, F16s, long-range cruise missiles, and diesel submarines, contrasted with Harpoon and Stinger missiles, UAVs, and missile boats).
    It's a good article but the smaller more survivable items would need to be alongside the larger 'legacy' items to work. The 'opportunity cost' for China to actually establish a foothold and gain air superiority needs to be high enough and capable enough to allow the US, Japan, and UK/AUS to actually get support to them. If Taiwan can't hold long enough for its allies to muster strength before a PRC landing I can't see any scenario in which the US would try to land and retake Taiwan.

    These haven't been the only stories I've posted on the Org on the subject of SOF wilding...
    Yup and I fully support these being investigated and it would be nice if for once the Officers making those decisions finally faced repercussions. The US is certainly too nonchalant about the lives of others. I get guys on the ground in 'heat of the moment' making poor decisions but those in the air-conditioned HQs approving these decisions should suffer some consequences.
    Decisions like those may be tactical successes but certainly strategic failures as guys in the heat of the moment don't realize the 2nd and 3rd order effects. Pilots don't casually drop bombs, someone in some HQ gave them the okay, it is never just pilot and observer decision making, even with SOF involved.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

  21. #141
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    If you wanted Europe to be a substantial help in any military endeavour, you'd want hawks in both Paris and London. But the UK lost its appetite with Iraq, and now views Europe as an enemy as a matter of ideology. Russia has its hooks in the UK government as well, bankrolling its ruling party. It used to do the same in the US, until you got rid of Trump. If I were the US, I would not trust the UK to do anything practically useful against Russia, nor for it to coordinate anything with the rest of Europe.
    I would disagree only to the extent that Russian agents appear to have played the Trumps for suckers without even having to shell out enough money to buy very many of their people. Gullible AND cheap.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

    Member thankful for this post:



  22. #142
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Some news updates:

    The US State Department has ordered the families of embassy staff in Ukraine to leave, as non-essential staff. I am guessing other western nations will follow suit this week as well.

    Biden is debating sending thousands more troops to NATO's eastern flank:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WASHINGTON — President Biden is considering deploying several thousand U.S. troops, as well as warships and aircraft, to NATO allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, an expansion of American military involvement amid mounting fears of a Russian incursion into Ukraine, according to administration officials.

    The move would signal a major pivot for the Biden administration, which up until recently was taking a restrained stance on Ukraine, out of fear of provoking Russia into invading. But as President Vladimir V. Putin has ramped up his threatening actions toward Ukraine, and talks between American and Russian officials have failed to discourage him, the administration is now moving away from its do-not-provoke strategy.


    In a meeting on Saturday at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, senior Pentagon officials presented Mr. Biden with several options that would shift American military assets much closer to Mr. Putin’s doorstep, the administration officials said. The options include sending 1,000 to 5,000 troops to Eastern European countries, with the potential to increase that number tenfold if things deteriorate.

    The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about internal deliberations.

    Mr. Biden is expected to make a decision as early as this week, they said. He is weighing the buildup as Russia has escalated its menacing posture against Ukraine, including massing more than 100,000 troops and weaponry on the border and stationing Russian forces in Belarus. On Saturday, Britain accused Moscow of developing plans to install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine.

    “Even as we’re engaged in diplomacy, we are very much focused on building up defense, building up deterrence,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “NATO itself will continue to be reinforced in a significant way if Russia commits renewed acts of aggression. All of that is on the table.”

    So far, none of the military options being considered include deploying additional American troops to Ukraine itself, and Mr. Biden has made clear that he is loath to enter another conflict following America’s painful exit from Afghanistan last summer after 20 years.

    But after years of tiptoeing around the question of how much military support to provide to Ukraine, for fear of provoking Russia, Biden officials have recently warned that the United States could throw its weight behind a Ukrainian insurgency should Mr. Putin invade Ukraine.

    And the deployment of thousands of additional American troops to NATO’s eastern flank, which includes Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Biden administration officials said, is exactly the scenario that Mr. Putin has wanted to avoid, as he has seen the western military alliance creep closer and closer to Russia’s own border.

    In his news conference last week, Mr. Biden said he had cautioned Mr. Putin that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would prompt Washington to send more troops to the region.

    “We’re going to actually increase troop presence in Poland, in Romania, etc., if in fact he moves,” Mr. Biden said. “They are part of NATO.”

    During a phone call this month, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III warned his Russian counterpart, Sergey Shoygu, that a Russian incursion into Ukraine would most likely result in the exact troop buildup that Mr. Biden is now considering.

    At the time of the phone call — Jan. 6 — the Biden administration was still trying to be more restrained in its stance on Ukraine. But after unsuccessful talks between Mr. Blinken and the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Friday, the administration is eying a more muscular posture, including not only diplomatic options like sanctions, but military options like increasing military support to Ukrainian forces and deploying American troops to the region.

    “This is clearly in response to the sudden stationing of Russian forces in Belarus, on the border, essentially, with NATO,” said Evelyn Farkas, the top Pentagon official for Russia and Ukraine during the Obama administration. “There is no way that NATO could not reply to such a sudden military move in this political context. The Kremlin needs to understand that they are only escalating the situation with all of these deployments and increasing the danger to all parties, including themselves.”

    Another former top Pentagon official for Russia policy, Jim Townsend, said the administration’s proposal did not go far enough.

    “It’s too little too late to deter Putin,” Mr. Townsend said in an email. “If the Russians do invade Ukraine in a few weeks, those 5,000 should be just a down payment for a much larger U.S. and allied force presence. Western Europe should once again be an armed camp.”

    During the meeting at Camp David, Mr. Austin and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared by video from the Pentagon and from General Milley’s quarters, where he has been quarantining since he tested positive for the coronavirus. Officials said that if Mr. Biden approved the deployment, some of the troops would come from the United States, while others would move from other parts of Europe to the more vulnerable countries on NATO’s eastern flank. American officials did not describe in detail the ground troop reinforcements under review, but current and former commanders said they should include more air defense, engineering, logistics and artillery forces.

    Besides the troops, Mr. Biden could also approve sending additional aircraft to the region.

    Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Sunday that the United States also needed to conduct more training in those NATO nations.

    “We need joint exercises in Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, Bulgaria, to show Putin that we’re serious,” Mr. McCaul said on “Face the Nation.” “Right now, he doesn’t see we’re serious.”

    According to Poland’s defense ministry, there are currently about 4,000 U.S. troops and 1,000 other NATO troops stationed in Poland. There are also about 4,000 NATO troops in the Baltic States.

    The United States has been regularly flying Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic-eavesdropping planes over Ukraine since late December. The planes allow American intelligence operatives to listen to Russian ground commanders’ communications. The Air Force is also flying E-8 JSTARS ground-surveillance planes to track the Russian troop buildup and the movements of the forces.

    The Biden administration is especially interested in any indication that Russia may deploy tactical nuclear weapons to the border, a move that Russian officials have suggested could be an option.

    More than 150 U.S. military advisers are in Ukraine, trainers who have for years worked out of the training ground near Lviv, in the country’s west, far from the front lines. The current group includes Special Operations forces, mostly Army Green Berets, as well as National Guard trainers from Florida’s 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team.

    Military advisers from about a dozen allied countries are also in Ukraine, U.S. officials said. Several NATO countries, including Britain, Canada, Lithuania and Poland, have regularly sent training forces to the country.

    In the event of a full-scale Russian invasion, the United States intends to move its military trainers out of the country quickly. But it is possible that some Americans could stay to advise Ukrainian officials in Kyiv, the capital, or provide frontline support, a U.S. official said.


    People might also be interested in this twitter thread. Long story short, the author thinks that Russia can defeat Ukraine within 60 days, with any potential resistance movement being stamped out by the GRU and FSB. Putin's main goals are to keep Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence via constitutional changes preventing partnership with the EU/NATO, end the Donbas conflict, and force Ukraine to recognize Crimea as being part of Russia. He also mentions something interesting- Putin might want to install a Lebanon-style government, with a power sharing agreement with eastern and western Ukraine so Russia can influence affairs that way.

    The big question here is what Ukrainians do. They have been at war for nearly 8 years. There are nearly 400,000 veterans of the Donbas war on top of the 260,000 members of the Ukrainian military. Do they accept peace with such terms, or do they fight on as Ukraine gets burnt to the ground? I recently listened to a podcast where the guest was a UK national who lives in Ukraine and moved in 2015 to help train their army. Even he wasn't sure what Ukrainians would do.

    But what I am pretty sure about is that this is the end of "a Europe Whole, Free and at Peace.” Europe will likely be militarized again, or at least the eastern flank. It would certainly be nice if military spending went up so the US didnt have to do most of the heavy lifting. The 2% GDP guideline is kinda BS, mainly because theres no guidelines about it, allowing for countries like Greece to add military pension spending, pushing them over the 2% line. I also wager that Finland and Sweden will strongly consider joining NATO.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 01-24-2022 at 06:11.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  23. #143

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    100K is plenty to invade. The Ukraine has a long frontier to protect with a much smaller full-time army, Russia just needs to put enough force in the right area to affect a break-through and march on the few major cities. With Russia dominance of the air and sea and so much surrounding land it's not like the Ukraine will be able to mount successful second and third lines of defense. Ukrainian forces trying to deploy into other sectors would be interdicted from the air without much interference.
    According to this link, Ukraine has 200K active (150K of them army).
    https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbo...y-and-security

    I don't know... I'm an expat in a country that's in a state of war, although the ceasefire since 1953 has made the interior of this country quite peaceful. I live just 45 minutes away from the border of a hostile country that has over a million soldiers and has tested hypersonic missiles recently. The country that I live in has 555K active soldiers and 2,750K in reserve. It used to be 650K during the 1990s when the length of military service was longer. In addition, both sides have thousands of tanks and large air forces. And 28,500 US soldiers stationed here act as a trip wire, which makes our northern neighbors think twice before attacking again. I can't help feeling that 100K is a small number to invade with, especially when NATO is supporting Ukraine. This is a very different situation from Crimea. Of course, Russia could increase the number near the border in the near future. I think Putin is increasing his military at the border in increments, seeing how NATO would respond each time.

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    For Biden though, he absolutely NEEDS to handle this right after his Afghan debacle but I think he's so adverse to another war just like everyone else that he's not willing to threaten the force that could actually prevent a war.
    The strong despise weakness and I think this attitude guides Putin's worldview.
    I said the same thing about the Afghan debacle when it happened. Many thought that world peace had finally come, and they didn't understand what I was worried about. Now I think they know. You know, many of them assumed that the WWII generation just followed orders to war without questioning, and that the current generation would be different. In reality, most of the Americans opposed participation in the war prior to Pearl Harbor. I've talked to a lot of people who remembered that era, and I found them to be not that different from us. Some of them mentioned that the US should've warned Hitler strongly early on. (Then maybe Tojo would've been more careful). And act soon after if Hitler took Czechoslovakia, instead of after his military became stronger. Of course, Russia is stronger than Germany was in 1938-1939, but Putin won't act rashly if NATO positions to intervene.
    Last edited by Shaka_Khan; 01-25-2022 at 10:55.
    Wooooo!!!

    Member thankful for this post:



  24. #144
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    I have asserted on these threads before and I still maintain...

    Putin is old-school in many ways. He will stop when he knows you are willing to bleed to stop him. If NATO mobilizes and positions to intervene, THAT will tell him it is time to stop.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

    Member thankful for this post:



  25. #145
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Unfortunately, few in the west are willing to bleed for Ukraine. Or fortunately, depending on how you look at it.

    Also this is an excellent map of where Russian units currently are:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FJ28XtuXMAQ8HIN.png 
Views:	37 
Size:	1.19 MB 
ID:	25350
    source

    Edit: seems like Russia is already laying the groundwork for a casus belli for invading, claiming that Ukraine is massing for an attack on the Donbas.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 01-24-2022 at 17:30.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  26. #146
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,985

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    According to this link, Ukraine has 200K active (150K of them army).
    https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbo...y-and-security

    I don't know... I'm an expat in a country that's in a state of war, although the ceasefire since 1953 has made the interior of this country quite peaceful. I live just 45 minutes away from the border of a hostile country that has over a million soldiers and has tested hypersonic missiles recently. The country that I live in has 555K active soldiers and 2,750K in reserve. It used to be 650K during the 1990s when the length of military service was longer. In addition, both sides have thousands of tanks and large air forces. I can't help feeling that 100K is a small number to invade with, especially when NATO is supporting Ukraine. This is a very different situation from Crimea. Of course, Russia could increase the number near the border in the near future. I think Putin is increasing his military at the border in increments, seeing how NATO would respond each time.
    My point wasn't the overall numbers but that the Ukrainians need to spread their numbers out to cover a large frontier. As the Russians are not likely needing to defend against a Ukrainian counterattack into Russia itself that allows them to mass that 100k so they have local numerical superiority and achieve a breakthrough.
    The biggest and most important disparity is in the air power, the Russians have a much larger and more modern air force together with arguably the best ground based air defense system in the world. Once the limited Ukrainian Air Force is destroyed there's very little that the ground based units can do. Areas that put up strong resistance will either be isolated and bypassed or just reduced by Russia's many modern artillery/rocket units.
    The entire Ukrainian Air Force is about 120 aircraft including transports and trainers and all of the stuff is essentially cold war equipment with modest upgrades. The Russians have thousands of aircraft available, much more experience and while they also have a lot of cold war era stuff they also have very modern aircraft too.
    How The Russian And Ukrainian Air Forces Stack Up Against Each Other
    In an air war, Ukraine and Russia can bring to bear many similar aircraft types, but in vastly different quantities.
    BY THOMAS NEWDICK DECEMBER 23, 2021

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...orces-stack-up
    Ultimately, Ukraine possesses a relatively tiny military force staring down a much larger one, and it has very little real means of counter-striking against Russian airpower facilities near the border. For Moscow, air superiority is likely assured, and Russia has shown that it is willing to accept combat losses during its campaign in Syria. Aside from the various manned air assets discussed here, Russia would likely make extensive use of lower-end drones for artillery spotting and for directing airstrikes, and loitering munitions are also now being employed, including in combat trials in Syria.

    Whatever course a Russian intervention in Ukraine might take, there is little chance that it would not involve significant participation by the air assets of the WMD, SMD, and the wider VKS. Despite the gulf between the Russian and Ukrainian airpower in terms of numbers and modernity, Moscow’s defense planners will be well aware that a confrontation with the Ukrainian military would involve no shortage of hazards and that the control of the air will likely be crucial to developments on the ground.

    Were there to be a new and large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Kyiv could perhaps try to impose enough attrition in the air over a long enough period for Moscow to rethink its actions. But the odds in the sky are very clearly weighted against Ukraine. As such, another strategy could be for Ukraine to forfeit air sovereignty over the war-torn eastern part of Ukraine and fortify everything to the west, especially around Kyiv, in preparation for what could be a long and arduous conflict.
    South Korea, especially in the North is mountainous terrain that constricts attacking forces, South Korea has a large and modern air force. South Korea is more than a match for the North in all but the nuclear realm. North Korean convential forces only have a advantage in quantity.
    South Korea is ready enough to defend itself that the US forces there are really only a tripwire to ensure that the US remains committed as well as to coordinate the various US assets needed.
    Ukraine on the other hand has been fighting an 8 year war against separatists, it has not had a massive conventional buildup and is no where ready to take on Russia by itself.
    I think it has the capability to put up a hell of a fight but without the US/NATO coming to to help protect the western regions and Kiev and especially to help in the realm of airpower a Ukrainian defeat seems extremely likely.

    Sadly though, even if intervention was done as I would like a South Korea scenario would probably end up a best case end result for the Ukraine with The West/South as a NATO ally/zone and the East occupied and annexed by Russia with Cold War 2.0 in full effect if we can somehow restrict the war to just the Ukraine and not allow a WW3 like what happened with Korea in regards to the PRC and USSR in that war.
    Last edited by spmetla; 01-24-2022 at 20:17.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

    Member thankful for this post:



  27. #147

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    I have asserted on these threads before and I still maintain...

    Putin is old-school in many ways. He will stop when he knows you are willing to bleed to stop him. If NATO mobilizes and positions to intervene, THAT will tell him it is time to stop.
    One can't help but observe that if such a mobilization were feasible in the first place, the fact might have laid a prohibitive threshold for escalation in Ukraine as a proximate concern. As Putin surely understands, one doesn't gin up a maximal response on the fly.

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    I'm not advocating bluffing as you only lose even bigger that way. I'd be more for sending in troops to help defend Kiev if the Russians cross the frontier together with a massive support of airpower to deny the Russians air dominance, of at least the Ukrainian interior. Sending in troops to try and defend Ukraine's frontier would be a lost cause but the moment US/NATO troops are there supporting Ukraine's sovereignty the calculus for Putin would change.
    To save Ukraine you have to be willing to fight for it to prevent a war. Though in today's political climate I see that in the choice of "Why die for Danzig?" most of Europe favors appeasement.
    Right, it wasn't in the cards and no US admin would make this a priority. Not that I think they should, beyond emphasizing that the fall of Putin's government will become the formal policy of the US government should he invade. To build on my comment to Seamus, Russia has been conditioning its military capabilities and the political ground for this eventuality for 8 years, not including historical predispositions. Sending thousands of soldiers into a foreign land with whatever heavy equipment is on hand to offer assistance without coordination or preparation would make them little more than a sacrificial gesture to be cynically exploited toward greater future entanglement. And this observation doesn't even support a retroactive argument for much closer defense coordination with Ukraine since 2014, since that would have brought up Putin's timetable and shortened his opposition's, if attributing him the absolute will to dictate matters in Ukraine by force.

    It's a good article but the smaller more survivable items would need to be alongside the larger 'legacy' items to work. The 'opportunity cost' for China to actually establish a foothold and gain air superiority needs to be high enough and capable enough to allow the US, Japan, and UK/AUS to actually get support to them. If Taiwan can't hold long enough for its allies to muster strength before a PRC landing I can't see any scenario in which the US would try to land and retake Taiwan.
    Once they achieve a foothold there is no opportunity cost for the PLA surely; almost by definition those legacy systems will have been thoroughly degraded at that stage, large (physically and logistically) and relatively exposed as they are. You're looking at this from a ground combat level, and as noted in the articles DoD takes the asymmetric view (even if they won't break the habit of enabling the most lucrative arms deals yet). Assuming some level of allied intervention in wartime, Taiwan's only logical option is to deny China any force concentrations on the main island by all means until help arrives. If Taiwan had to choose between zero tanks or zero missile boats, which would leave it less capable of self-defense? There's at least an argument for the F16s providing a few weeks' cover for total mobilization under interdiction, but other prestige systems...

    Yup and I fully support these being investigated and it would be nice if for once the Officers making those decisions finally faced repercussions. The US is certainly too nonchalant about the lives of others. I get guys on the ground in 'heat of the moment' making poor decisions but those in the air-conditioned HQs approving these decisions should suffer some consequences.
    Decisions like those may be tactical successes but certainly strategic failures as guys in the heat of the moment don't realize the 2nd and 3rd order effects. Pilots don't casually drop bombs, someone in some HQ gave them the okay, it is never just pilot and observer decision making, even with SOF involved.
    It's impressive how components or individuals of the US military can veer from obtusely hidebound to wantonly genocidal in the same theaters and time periods.



    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  28. #148
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    On a side note, I can't help but notice that 2022 is the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Soviet Union. It can't be a coincidence that Putin is seemingly trying extra hard to reestablish Russian influence in Eurasia.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  29. #149
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    I very much think it is coincidental. I believe Putin has been following this strategy, as resources and opportunity have permitted, every since his position of power was consolidated.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  30. #150
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,985

    Default Re: Great Power contentions

    One can't help but observe that if such a mobilization were feasible in the first place, the fact might have laid a prohibitive threshold for escalation in Ukraine as a proximate concern. As Putin surely understands, one doesn't gin up a maximal response on the fly.
    No, it doesn't happen on the fly which is why the current mobilizations should have started a few weeks ago. I imagine that if Putin chooses to invade it will start well before those 8500 US troops notified to prep for deployment have all their equipment and personnel ready to ship. That's why I keep stating that we should have a larger permanent presence in Europe again.

    Right, it wasn't in the cards and no US admin would make this a priority. Not that I think they should, beyond emphasizing that the fall of Putin's government will become the formal policy of the US government should he invade. To build on my comment to Seamus, Russia has been conditioning its military capabilities and the political ground for this eventuality for 8 years, not including historical predispositions. Sending thousands of soldiers into a foreign land with whatever heavy equipment is on hand to offer assistance without coordination or preparation would make them little more than a sacrificial gesture to be cynically exploited toward greater future entanglement. And this observation doesn't even support a retroactive argument for much closer defense coordination with Ukraine since 2014, since that would have brought up Putin's timetable and shortened his opposition's, if attributing him the absolute will to dictate matters in Ukraine by force.
    You are right, no admin would have made this a priority since Bush Sr, we've been dealing with people pretending that Europe is at the end of history and bad stuff can't happen to it anymore despite the Yugoslavian civil war, the Serbian genocide of the Kosovars, the Russia-Georgia war, the Russian invasion of Crimea, and the warfooting tensions.

    As for sending 1000s of troops, why do assume that it would be done without coordination or preparation? I know you think poorly of the US military but you really think it'd be as daft as just driving into the Ukraine and setting up a defense independent of any coordination with Ukraine itself? Really?

    It certainly wouldn't be a sacrificial gesture, much rather an overt and undeniable statement of where the 'line in the sand' is.

    Once they achieve a foothold there is no opportunity cost for the PLA surely; almost by definition those legacy systems will have been thoroughly degraded at that stage, large (physically and logistically) and relatively exposed as they are. You're looking at this from a ground combat level, and as noted in the articles DoD takes the asymmetric view (even if they won't break the habit of enabling the most lucrative arms deals yet). Assuming some level of allied intervention in wartime, Taiwan's only logical option is to deny China any force concentrations on the main island by all means until help arrives. If Taiwan had to choose between zero tanks or zero missile boats, which would leave it less capable of self-defense? There's at least an argument for the F16s providing a few weeks' cover for total mobilization under interdiction, but other prestige systems...
    I'm actually not thinking of this from a ground-combat role at all, once a good PLA foothold is established the likelyhood of Taiwan/Allied success is pretty much nill. Like I said, I see no scenario where US troops would be sent to retake Taiwan, the only possibility of success is deterring an invasion and if one happens to fight enough of a delaying action to allow the US and Japan primarily to come to its aid.
    I don't know what specific platforms you're thinking of as asymmetric but generally self-propelled artillery, SAM sites and so on are all mobile, the size of them is directly related to the capability. Smaller more survivable stuff is also far less capable, it'd be important alongside 'legacy' stuff in trying to push any invasion back into the sea.
    That said, I actually agree that Taiwan trying to pretend it can achieve any parity at sea or in the air is insane and pursuing missiles for striking the mainland is a waste of resources. It does need a lot of more survivable stuff, yes, but it also needs those legacy items too. The procument may take a while but eventually the current slew of equipment does need to be upgraded. I'd want to see lots of missile boats, lots of drones, lots of antiship missiles and air defense systems but those need to complement other assets too.

    It's impressive how components or individuals of the US military can veer from obtusely hidebound to wantonly genocidal in the same theaters and time periods.
    Has the definition of genocide changed? As for hidebound, well the military is a big bureaucracy serving an even bigger bureaucracy. Systematic change and accountability is the way to change the current culture which is callous when considering collateral. I'm fully an advocate for holding people accountable as well as those in the chain of command that enabled or covered up said mistakes.

    Ukraine: US troops on alert as West voices unity
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60118193
    The Pentagon has said some 8,500 combat-ready US troops are on alert to deploy at short notice.

    But they would only be deployed if the Nato military alliance decides to activate a rapid-reaction force, "or if other situations develop", said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby.

    There are no plans to deploy to Ukraine itself, he added.
    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_190458.htm
    In 2022, the VJTF will comprise a multinational force of several thousand troops. The Franco-German brigade of 3,500 troops will serve as the core of the force, drawing on the 1st Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Hussar Regiment. Led by France’s Rapid Reaction Corps in Lille, the Franco-German brigade is a bi-national unit, underlining the strong bond between NATO Allies Germany and France. Other NATO countries, including Spain, Portugal, and Poland will also provide forces. The majority of the force is comprised of units from the lead brigade.
    Glad something is being done to at the least reassure the eastern half of the alliance. Interesting to see the Truman carrier group put under NATO directly, something that hasn't happened since the 1980s. The current Rapid-Reaction forces are led by France and the core unit is the Franco-German brigade so France and Germany would have to agree to action for NATO to be capable of reaction, something I see as extremely unlikely and a good highlight of the problems in achieving NATO unity, though putting them on alert and doing the planning for mobilizing will be a necessity to find the sticking points politically and militarily.
    Last edited by spmetla; 01-25-2022 at 20:55.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

Page 5 of 26 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO