|
It's exactly that. Russia was seen as, if not benign, at least a spent and contained power during the 2000s. The West was focussed on the Great Game in the Muslim world and stopped paying attention to the defeated enemy. Putin's progression from simple dictator to bellicose regional imperialist was a minor concern right up until it was realised just how severe and successful his assault on the alliance was. Russia has poured poison into the foundations of western democracy, successfully placed an asset on the US throne, and crippled the staunchest Nato member in Europe. And almost brought Germany to total subservience Oh, and carried out a nerve agent attack against a Nato nation and got away with it essentially scot-free. Ukraine is lucky in as much as it is convenient for Nato to help them now, but no one should make the mistake of thinking that this is anything other than the Nato (and alligned) countries realising that they cannot continue to ignore Putin, and wanting to contain Russia again. Both from pragmatism and for revenge. To that end what's best for Ukraine is very much a secondary consideration.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
I do wonder how many of the '300000' will be used for border security to show the 'stans/Georgia/Azerbaijan that Russia is still strong. Though quite how well that message works when your getting pushed back in Ukraine is another matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 07:07
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:It's exactly that. Russia was seen as, if not benign, at least a spent and contained power during the 2000s. The West was focussed on the Great Game in the Muslim world and stopped paying attention to the defeated enemy. Putin's progression from simple dictator to bellicose regional imperialist was a minor concern right up until it was realised just how severe and successful his assault on the alliance was. It might just be my perspective, since everyone's personal experience shines a little brighter in their mind than actual facts, but I don't know that's true, I spent most of my 12 year Navy career acting as a direct deterrent to Russia. There's a reason the US is has been pumping out billion dollar submarines every year, and there's a reason those new submarines mostly appear in port in Norway, Scotland and Japan, not Souda Bay and Subic Bay. Back in 2012, on my first deployment I thought the hawkish attitude of the senior officers I worked for was an anachronistic remnant of the Cold War, O-5s cosplaying the CO of the Parche in Blind Man's Bluff. In hindsight they mostly might have been just a little better informed than I was about the current state of Russia and just how antagonistic they're willing to be. Or broken clock, twice a day, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:It might just be my perspective, since everyone's personal experience shines a little brighter in their mind than actual facts, but I don't know that's true, I spent most of my 12 year Navy career acting as a direct deterrent to Russia. There's a reason the US is has been pumping out billion dollar submarines every year, and there's a reason those new submarines mostly appear in port in Norway, Scotland and Japan, not Souda Bay and Subic Bay. Russia never really dropped off the list, but they definitely remained an afterthought with regards to military and diplomatic strategic planning for all of the Bush era and Obama's first term. Even now, it appears the Biden administration has determined (based upon the evidence at hand, I think we can all agree) that they are at best a regional power that's better contained via allies. Contrast that against China, which is causing headaches as far away as LATAM (and who could torpedo Russia's war if they wanted to) and who has much better diplomatic leverage among key mid-tier players that are crucial to regional success.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 07:54
|
|
|
Russia's biggest trump card is the nuclear one, without it, they'd be barely a blip on the radar and also the war in Ukraine would have been over in 3 weeks after they got curbstomped right back over the Russian border by Europe & the US for aggressively invading Ukraine and attempting to genocide the Ukrainian people. When you have nukes, people are more careful around you because while it would be absolutely stupid and foolish to use nuclear weapons in a conflict like the war in Ukraine or the Syrian Civil War in which Russia is supporting the Syrian government forces, does the rest of the world feel like calling that bluff, is the juice worth the squeeze so to speak?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 08:03
|
|
|
China's certainly a threat, I just think US military leadership's assessment may be different than perception. Nukes being the crux of it is 100% on point though, only one country in the world is doing something the US abandoned as "too insane for the cold War" in the mid 60's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:But there is absolutely no way to spin this as an existential threat to the USA. There just isn't, and Russia sees this as a fight on our periphery or extreme reach of influence. wins32767 posted:Again, there is a big difference between Ukraine and the US. If he uses nukes on Ukraine, that’s very different from using them on a NATO member. I can tell you right now, European NATO members will take a very dim view if nuclear fallout rains down over their territory. And at least the Baltic States, and arguably the entire EU, have cause to very much view Russia as an existential threat if it isn't defeated in Ukraine, or at the very least left crippled even if it can't be kicked out. US support has to be calibrated maybe not so much to keep Ukraine happy, but to satisfy Poland and the Baltics. quote:It’s not realistic to expect Putin to back down. If he does, he’s likely dead and it’s a real possibility he gets replaced with a hardcore ultra nationalist. The path to a rainbows and unicorns Ukrainian victory is really narrow and giving them all the weapons in the world makes that less likely. I don't think nuking Ukraine will ever be on the table. That would mean admitting the defeat of conventional Russian forces by Ukraine, a huge loss of international prestige, and China and India forced to stop sitting the fence. That said, we already have at least one precedent from history of a narcissistic shithead autocrat trying to pull the world down with him rather than giving up. So if Russia loses, in Putin's mind that can obviously only be because he's fighting the entirety of NATO, which means he's justified in using a nuke to get them to back down. Either he's calling NATO's bluff, or everyone dies. That's the Clancychat escalation path I find more plausible. If he's nuking someone, it's going to be NATO outright, not Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:It’s not realistic to expect Putin to back down. Not voluntarily, no. A Carnation revolution style military coup is the most probable result, once the officers that aren't FSB plants get tired of being fed into the colonial wood chipper. It wouldn't be the first time there's Russian on Russian tank battles in the streets of Moscow. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 10:20
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:It wouldn't be the first time there's Russian on Russian tank battles in the streets of Moscow. I wonder if some of those tanks went on to fight in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 12:33
|
|
|
Jack Watling RUSI article: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/time-hidden-flank-assessing-russias-mobilisation Pretty compelling argument that what we are seeing is heavy signalling of an intent to continue the war into 2024.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 12:44
|
|
|
While I agree with the assessment, I suspect Russia will run out of money in 2023, maybe 2024. Considering the rate at which they're burning through their forex reserves, the low oil price, and Europe making great strides cutting itself off from Russian gas, it's not looking good for the Russian economy and state budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 12:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1573368671556476928
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
All of the photos I've seen of the Azovstal survivors look like they were the demonstration models in a "how to violate the Geneva Conventions on the handling of prisoners of war" course. That guy's arm no longer goes in a straight line. I saw several dudes whose before and after photos show that their faces have been quite literally rearranged and are no longer symmetrical. All of them have lost half of their body mass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 13:01
|
|
|
Mr Bean got really dark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
How does prosecuting that even work? Guards/officers wind up getting captured and then handed over to the ICC for prosecution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 13:41
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Jack Watling RUSI article: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/time-hidden-flank-assessing-russias-mobilisation I think it's accurate to say that Putin intends that but I don't think this mobilization was "planned" or the result of reasoned military decision making. Reasoned military planning would have done this fove months ago when Russia still had an army to train these conscripts with. This is just one third "gently caress we're losing, hit our win button," one third "my right wing base of support thinks I'm weak if I don't do this" and one third " I'm still in charge, fuckos, you want to complain do it from the front".
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
psydude posted:How does prosecuting that even work? Guards/officers wind up getting captured and then handed over to the ICC for prosecution? Without the sovereign nation of Russia capitulating they will never be prosecuted. It’s sort of what sovereignty means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
The only end for Putin is dead. What countries are there that could give him asylum and have the political weight to resist pressure from America and friends to extradite him. The only ones are really China, Saudi, and Iran. And all 3 would give him up in a second if it was momentarily in their interest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
In all the discussions for ATACMs no one has ever given a good reason why Ukraine needs them that isn’t met by GMLRS and HIMARS. More swiftly respond to tactical targets of opportunity is an argument for more HIMARS not a 300 km capability. The reason for a 300 Km weapon is to strike strategic targets deep in the Russian rear in the absence of air superiority/dominance. Striking rail depots, marshaling yards; air bases, other logistics, communications and command and control deep in Russia and very likely inside Russian urban areas is what is being asked for when you say that Ukraine needs ATACMs. My opinion is that this is very escalating and also counter to the USs probable big picture goal of exhausting Russias war making capability and it’s populaces stamina for border wars. It makes sense for Ukraine to want this capability, if effective it helps end this war much sooner, even if just temporarily as without complete exhaustion russia will just recuperate and try again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
Murgos posted:In all the discussions for ATACMs no one has ever given a good reason why Ukraine needs them that isn’t met by GMLRS and HIMARS. The best argument for ATACMS today is for striking the Kerch Strait bridge and other military targets deep in Crimea. However, that's assuming Ukraine intends to start doing that right away. If they can take Kherson and push to Mariopol, standard GMLRS will give them most of the tactical capability they need to prosecute a Crimean liberation. In the other hand, if Russia can successfully stage a renewed attack using Crimea as a logistics hub, then that's a very strong argument for ATACMS right loving now. We'll see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:I can tell you right now, European NATO members will take a very dim view if nuclear fallout rains down over their territory. And at least the Baltic States, and arguably the entire EU, have cause to very much view Russia as an existential threat if it isn't defeated in Ukraine, or at the very least left crippled even if it can't be kicked out. US support has to be calibrated maybe not so much to keep Ukraine happy, but to satisfy Poland and the Baltics. I agree they wouldn’t be happy, but what are they going to do? Polish “volunteers” seems like the highest risk and Polish volunteers getting nuked in Ukraine doesn’t trigger NATO collective defense (see article 6).
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
Murgos posted:In all the discussions for ATACMs no one has ever given a good reason why Ukraine needs them that isn’t met by GMLRS and HIMARS. Or striking those things deep in occupied territory while keeping the launchers well out of range of any counterbattery fire. Also, more missiles is better than fewer missiles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
There are places wher Ukr is up against the border. Or at least have been. So just throwing a rock over would, in theory, be attacking Russia. Yes that is facetious but still that's one limit. So the capacity to attack Russia soil has long been passed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:While I agree with the assessment, I suspect Russia will run out of money in 2023, maybe 2024. Considering the rate at which they're burning through their forex reserves, the low oil price, and Europe making great strides cutting itself off from Russian gas, it's not looking good for the Russian economy and state budget. The Economist looked at the effect of sanctions and found that while Russia has been able to bridge gaps in the short term, long term they are hosed. Its from ~4 weeks ago tho before the Karkhiv offensive. Are sanctions on Russia working? https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/08/25/are-sanctions-working
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
lightpole posted:The Economist looked at the effect of sanctions and found that while Russia has been able to bridge gaps in the short term, long term they are hosed. Its from ~4 weeks ago tho before the Karkhiv offensive. Yeah, I think that's what I said?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
psydude posted:How does prosecuting that even work? Guards/officers wind up getting captured and then handed over to the ICC for prosecution? Prosecution in absentia and if the people in question ever leave to europe theyll get picked up. Or if the war goes cold ukraine pulls a mossad and starts assassinating. Being stuck in russia during an economic down turn even if you are a well off prison guard is probably its own brand of hell so thats something atleast. Edit: unless youre asking about ways and means about how you would figure out who was war criming in the gulag? Prisoner interviews combined with osint these days would be enough to tag just about anyone these days. Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Sep 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
One day we are going to wake up to news that Putin died suddenly under perfectly normal circumstances according to Kremlin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:There isn’t a defined red line and I haven’t argued there is. But Putin is clearly more worried about the results of losing a war than the results from escalating and he’s got room to go still, mainly into chemical and nuclear weapons. I think he still has a lot of options that are below the threshold of nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. Russia has a lot of forms of escalation, which it has not acted upon, that remain below the threshold of nuclear war with US or NATO. Here's a pull from House Armed Service Testimony from the NORAD and USNORTHCOM commander, made 30 days after Russia invaded Ukraine: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/USNORTHCOM%20and%20NORAD%202022%20Posture%20Statement%20FINAL%20(SASC).pdf MAR, 2022 posted:Over the last 15 years, Russia has also executed a systematic program to develop offensive capabilities below the nuclear threshold that Russian leaders believe will constrain U.S. options in an escalating crisis. Their capabilities include very capable cyber capabilities like those demonstrated by Russia-based actors during last year’s ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline. Russia has also invested in counter-space capabilities like the direct-ascent antisatellite weapon that Russia recklessly tested in November 2021. So if we sketched out just some basic decision points for Russia, it might look like this (I'm sure I'm missing something, but bear with me). These are not in a firm escalatory order; I am not suggesting that this is the order Russia would escalate, just a collection of options at the open source level 1. Re-scope operation rather than going for an immediate decapitation of government of Ukraine [X] 2. Target infrastructure, to include power generation [X] (I have checked this, but the scope of their targeting is still rather small compared to what they could be doing to mass target economic and logistical targets in Ukraine) 3. Activate reserves [X] 4. Cut Europe off from gas [X] 5. Deploy conscripts into direct conflict outside of the Russian Federation as it was known ante-bellum [ ] 6. Full war economy [ ] 7. Non-lethal Cyber-attacks on European critical infrastructure [ ] 8. Non-lethal Cyber-attacks on US critical infrastructure [ ] 9. Non-lethally target US/NATO space assets [ ] 10. Commit more aviation assets, artillery/missiles, and PGM ordnance to the fight, which has previously been held in reserve for other contingency operations [ ] 11. Limited kinetic strikes against NATO targets, with a focus on where western arms stage and flow and/or ISR assets feeding Ukrainian targeting [ ] 12. Limited kinetic strikes on European or US communications or critical strategic deterrent assets, to include holding homelands at risk [ ] 13. Demonstration or limited tactical nuclear attack on Ukrainian combat forces [ ] 14. Tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine as operational weapons vs demonstration or spoiling attack [ ] and many more, mostly worse
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
WaltherFeng posted:One day we are going to wake up to news that Putin died suddenly under perfectly normal circumstances according to Kremlin. People of his age die from falls all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
What are Russian CW capabilities? Most of the old stuff was destroyed, right? It would be FSB loading weird poo poo into drones or small delivery system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
If Russia had the advanced cruise missiles in that quote they’re either expended, made out of stuff they can’t get anymore, or both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:If Russia had the advanced cruise missiles in that quote they’re either expended, made out of stuff they can’t get anymore, or both. Not even remotely true; why do you think this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Not even remotely true; why do you think this? They repurposed S300s to use as makeshift rocket launchers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
lightpole posted:They repurposed S300s to use as makeshift rocket launchers. If that’s the reason why people think Russia does not retain weapons for contingency plans including strategic bombers and submarine forces, it’s an extremely ignorant reason. Russia has not committed more than an acceptable-to-them portion of its strategic forces to the fight in Ukraine. They have committed a pretty unacceptable level of ground troops, mech units, etc, but that is a different pool of support.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Not even remotely true; why do you think this? Because they're using worse missiles for the same missions? Why do you think they're hoarding these advanced missiles in reserve?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:Because they're using worse missiles for the same missions? Firing missiles in support of maneuver formations is NOT the same mission as retaining missiles on strategic sub and bomber forces for use in conplans and oplans or to deter intervention. Completely different missions, and directly contrary to Russia’s development and fielding of new strategic, but conventional, forces. If Russia had actually committed all their reserve strategic and contingency / homeland defense capability to Ukraine already, the war would look different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
I'm leaning towards mlmp08's approach of treating them with seriousness. I'd be much happier with us curb-stomping the Russians due to an over-estimation of their capabilities than trying to fight them on an even level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Tankies are so loving dumb. https://twitter.com/andreas_adam/status/1573704300831940609?s=46&t=daQzoDTavUW_ShCPKldB2A https://twitter.com/mattppea/status/1573726871937753095?s=46&t=daQzoDTavUW_ShCPKldB2A
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
psydude posted:I'm leaning towards mlmp08's approach of treating them with seriousness. I'd be much happier with us curb-stomping the Russians due to an over-estimation of their capabilities than trying to fight them on an even level. Exactly. War is not a sport. The more overmatch you have, the better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I think he still has a lot of options that are below the threshold of nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. They've already tried to kill the American Republic. The war was already declared quite some time ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:49
|
|