|
Tomn posted:Better you than me, you poor bastard. Good luck. Yes Ukraine will be fighting russia for the indefinite future (even long after major hostilities have ended) as russia is likely to turn into a terrorist state lobbing a missile a week (or however fast they can build them) to no effect simply because they're too feckless to do anything else with their rage. I bet it looks a lot like Israel a decade from now... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Once they retake Melitopol, they'll have safety and definitively be in rocket range of the Kerch bridge. It's at that point they can offer Russia terms of armistace or they rocket the bridge to rubble and the real humiliation begins. Unless they would be able to get lucky with hitting fuel trains, doing significant damage to the bridge would take a lot of valuable ammo. The bridge in Kherson took HIMARS hits for months before it became unusable. Anyway, taking Melitopol and the coastline (along with the rest of Kherson region) is still a massive challenge. fatherboxx fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Yes Ukraine will be fighting russia for the indefinite future (even long after major hostilities have ended) as russia is likely to turn into a terrorist state lobbing a missile a week (or however fast they can build them) to no effect simply because they're too feckless to do anything else with their rage. I bet it looks a lot like Israel a decade from now... I'm very sad the gif didn't embed on my phone so here: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:And freezing the conflict would forestall Russia from doing the same thing from a stronger position... how, exactly? Surely as a Rational State Actor, Russia will realize that they can't invade without damaging their economy and other foreign interests, right? Right!? OddObserver posted:It's from the same guy who wrote an article like 10 months ago about how weapons aid to Ukraine won't make any difference. Because arming a lost cause in a region with no strategic or economic benefits for the West isn't rational! Rational!! WHY AM I THE ONLY RATIONAL ONE HERE!!?? It's been a real bad year for a certain kind of political scientist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
I kinda of got a sense that calling one's IR theory "realism" is like calling one's used car dealership "Honest Bob's".
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I kinda of got a sense that calling one's IR theory "realism" is like calling one's used car dealership "Honest Bob's". My impression is this is true of most schools of theory that include "realism" in their title, like legal realism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:And freezing the conflict would forestall Russia from doing the same thing from a stronger position... how, exactly? I imagine most of the governments supplying weapons believe that even if the war ended today (either it freezes or Russia just withdraws to 2013 borders) that they would just rebuild and come back in 2-10 years. And that war certainly won't be better, easier or have few civilian casualties than the current one. That one probably runs a much higher risk of escalating out of control. This war is going to continue, intermissions or not. until Russia comes to terms with their place in the world and that they have lost here. There is no peace to be had until that reckoning happens, and it is going to take awhile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:To an American, a draft is an extremely unpopular thing, due to the last time it was used, it was to send unwilling teenagers to die in Vietnam for a war they didn't support. I view this as a feature, not a bug. Because the society had a vested interest in the conflict, it protested when it felt the government was not acting in its interests, and the government responded. The US certainly has a more professional military by having an all-volunteer military, but we do risk creating a de facto janissary class which continues to drift away from the society at large. You already see some of this in parts of the country: the number of veterans my age in my part of New England is startingly small. Sir Kodiak posted:If you want some reading related to the subject, I found this essay from the historian Bret Devereaux interesting. Here's a relevant portion (emphasis in original): This is a good essay. The US Army instituted a program to instill a "warrior ethos" in the early 2000s. Even young me worried that was foolish: we were soldiers, not warriors. Words are important. Fritz the Horse posted:fatherboxx has graciously agreed to IK this thread. Feel free to offer them your condolences. We may (hopefully) yet find a second IK. spankmeister posted:Picked off the streets to be mobilized as an IK, that's appropriate. Condolences on your promotion. Wait, I'm American. "Thoughts and prayers" for your promotion to MobIK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
jaete posted:Labour... out of the conscripts? evil_bunnY posted:Don't be obtuse, the civil service is what he's talking about. It actually wasn't, though in retrospect I kind of formulated that part badly. The point I was going for was without conscription, there wouldn't be enough inflow of people into Basic Training for the processes responsible for training them to actually be kept busy enough to stave off the kind of decay and neglect allowed by inactivity that happened to the tank forces, to draw a comparison there. The reason to keep it isn't that trained conscripts are currently in-demand or expected to be soon, but to keep the training process sharp and ready to scale up the day it becomes necessary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 18:34
|
|
Are you including, in "conscipts", the people who choose non-military service instead?
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I'm very sad the gif didn't embed on my phone so here: This must be one of the Clancy ghost writers because positing that Russia might lob a missile every now and then to no effect isn’t really his style
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
Another interesting overview, from a seperate WaPo newsletter, focusing on US domestic politics and aid:quote:U.S. cautions Ukraine on aid as public support slips
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I view this as a feature, not a bug. Because the society had a vested interest in the conflict, it protested when it felt the government was not acting in its interests, and the government responded. The US certainly has a more professional military by having an all-volunteer military, but we do risk creating a de facto janissary class which continues to drift away from the society at large. You already see some of this in parts of the country: the number of veterans my age in my part of New England is startingly small. Yeah I definitely appreciated the essay, and I can see the concern about creating a separate class of people beyond 'civilian'. There certainly are some pros and cons to both volunteer and mandatory military service, and most people's opinion's on the matter seem to sway depending on the current political climate they're in. To not get lost in the weeds about this, does having a 'warrior mentality' result in soldier's performance being different than non-warrior one's? How do posters ITT predict Ukraine/Russia will continue to fill their ranks, both during this conflict and after. Obviously both are doing active conscription at the moment, though with differing methods... to put it mildly. Any possibility that the burn rate of lives will force either country to change their recruitment/military behaviors as this war grinds on, or will it be put to rest before either side are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel? After the conflict, do we see Ukraine dealing with their own jannissary class, if not how did would they avoid it? What of Russia? Its perhaps early to ask, but an interesting topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:And freezing the conflict would forestall Russia from doing the same thing from a stronger position... how, exactly? Despite this type of sentiment being a popular "clapback" and seen to be "owning" IR writers, when one puts a modicum of thought into it, one realizes it is an argument that doesn't hold water. Simply put, what end game scenario exists in which Russia doesn't exist as some sort of threat to reopen the conflict? Say the dreams of the moralists and Zelensky come true tomorrow and Russia is pushed all the way back to 1991 borders; how is Russia any less of a threat than freezing the conflict on the current front lines in a meaningful way? Even 'total victory' s defined by Zelensky won't prevent Russia, should it choose it, from re-arming and coming for round 3 or 4 or 10 for that matter. This war is the result of the Russian elite still believing that they have the "right " to adjudicate affairs in their Near Abroad, a philosophy that has been a constant since Catherine the Great, and Ukrainian and now the West's rejection of that constant. One might say to keep the war going until Russia is exhausted and choose to quit its own. Ok but that just elongate the timeline for a potential Russian come back. The truth of the matter is that so long as people like Putin and other Russian elites believe that Russia is still destined for continued Great Power status, Ukraine will *never* be guaranteed safety and like the Poles, Finns, and the Baltic states, or other countries in the world like Taiwan and Korea, will continue to have to cast an uneasy eye to their neighbors and be forced to live in some sense of uncertainty. In the past 100 years four other Great Powers or nations with Great Power ambitions relinquished that dream. Germany, UK, France, and Japan. It took the total destruction of those 2 of those countries and a rebuild of their societies to convince the elites and population in those countries that Great Power status is no longer possible or desirable. The French and the Brits were essentially bankrupted out of theirs and turned inwards and accepted American leadership. Does Russia look like it is about to accept American leadership anytime soon? No? Then it is fair to ask the questions RAND is asking. Is it to the benefit of the US and her allies to sustain an indefinite war in Ukraine when a distinct possibility of a conflict that lasts long enough to give the Ukrainians 100% territorial integrity means the potential for sustained political instability of that country and its traditional dependents (see the poo poo show ongoing in the Caucuses), granting your new geopolitical rival a resource rich client staye, and even the failure and dissolution of Russian state and the uncertain fate of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet? It is certainly fair to ask and explore those questions. One can logically argue that total victory for Ukraine and its full integration into the EU and NATO structure is what is best for the US. But that is far from a trivial question and it can also be logically argued that Russia as an immediate threat to NATO and Europe is effectively finished for the next 10 years and it would be wiser see what new power base emerges after Putin inevitably dies. After all, core American interests have already been served. Europe is now firmly back into the US orbit after two decades of drift, Russian power projection capabilities are at an all time low, and indeed keeping a toothless Bear in the east as a boogeyman might be desirable. I stress again that these questions are not trivial and while it is easy for posters on a dead comedy forum with no responsibilities on their shoulders to take the easy moralist stance, people in positions of power do not have that luxury and I would hope are actively keeping that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Simply put, what end game scenario exists in which Russia doesn't exist as some sort of threat to reopen the conflict? Say the dreams of the moralists and Zelensky come true tomorrow and Russia is pushed all the way back to 1991 borders; how is Russia any less of a threat than freezing the conflict on the current front lines in a meaningful way? Even 'total victory' s defined by Zelensky won't prevent Russia, should it choose it, from re-arming and coming for round 3 or 4 or 10 for that matter. Total UA victory would remove the disputed land borders in the Donbas and Crimea and so greatly simplify/accelerate NATO membership, at which point a third war is off the table. NATO membership might still happen in the event of a stalemated conflict, but it would be more difficult and more controversial, especially if the fighting continues at a low level over some DMZ. Indeed, Russia would probably try to continually keep some level of violence going specifically to prevent this and leave the door open for round three a few years later in the event that they held onto a sliver of Ukrainian territory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
saratoga posted:Total UA victory would remove the disputed land borders in the Donbas and Crimea and so greatly simplify/accelerate NATO membership, at which point a third war is off the table. NATO membership might still happen in the event of a stalemated conflict, but it would be more difficult and more controversial, especially if the fighting continues at a low level over some DMZ. Indeed, Russia would probably try to continually keep some level of violence going specifically to prevent this and leave the door open for round three a few years later in the event that they held onto a sliver of Ukrainian territory. This line of argument relies on the idea that Ukrainian NATO acceptence is a given.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
saratoga posted:Total UA victory would remove the disputed land borders in the Donbas and Crimea and so greatly simplify/accelerate NATO membership, at which point a third war is off the table. NATO membership might still happen in the event of a stalemated conflict, but it would be more difficult and more controversial, especially if the fighting continues at a low level over some DMZ. Indeed, Russia would probably try to continually keep some level of violence going specifically to prevent this and leave the door open for round three a few years later in the event that they held onto a sliver of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine won't be admitted to NATO even in case of a total Ukrainian victory e.g getting all their de jure territory back. Half of Europe (France, Germany etc) will cockblock it and even the US most likely won't allow it out of respect for Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
Also it can be easily argued that NATO membership only raises the barrier for reopening conflict and that should Putin become truly desperate enough to try again, this time it is Russia vs NATO for real without the one degree of separation that the current war provides. Once again, not a deal breaker but something that should be thought over very carefully. Buffer states have been created and existed between empires for all of human history for this very reason, to keep those aspiring for power a buffer zone from which the game can be played with lower risks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
'Buffer state' theory is nonsense, they just give empires a reason to fight each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
Yeah, even if Ukraine retook everything, the territory could still be considered "disputed" just from Russia asserting that those are actually the wrongfully occupied Donetsk and Luhansk republics, and the point of not adding anyone with an open dispute is to avoid the extremely high risk of conflict it'd bring. I think there's maybe more chance of joining the European Union one day, since the mutual defence obligation involved is a lot less serious than "trigger a potentially nuclear war". That's a process where I could see being intact and at peace versus an active if low-intensity ongoing conflict would make a big difference, and might be a safer way to forestall a future reopening of hostilities. This would all be in the far future, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I stress again that these questions are not trivial and while it is easy for posters on a dead comedy forum with no responsibilities on their shoulders to take the easy moralist stance, people in positions of power do not have that luxury and I would hope are actively keeping that in mind. Sorry your essay isn't being well received, Mr. Chivvis. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Also it can be easily argued that NATO membership only raises the barrier for reopening conflict and that should Putin become truly desperate enough to try again, this time it is Russia vs NATO for real without the one degree of separation that the current war provides. Once again, not a deal breaker but something that should be thought over very carefully. You are basically saying that what is going on in Ukraine this very second is not only fine, it's a desirable state of international order??? Because that's what buffer states imply
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:Ukraine won't be admitted to NATO even in case of a total Ukrainian victory e.g getting all their de jure territory back. Half of Europe (France, Germany etc) will cockblock it and even the US most likely won't allow it out of respect for Russia. What respect? They failed to do anything meaningful about the west crossing their numerous red lines. Why would they suddenly command respect after losing the war and wasting their military?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:'Buffer state' theory is nonsense, they just give empires a reason to fight each other. Indeed, I think it's pretty clear from the history of the cold war that the places that were most integrated into one of the opposing camps were least likely to turn into conflict hotspots between them and vice versa - wars broke out whenever the borders and assurances became fuzzy / insufficiently credible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:What respect? They failed to do anything meaningful about the west crossing their numerous red lines. Why would they suddenly command respect after losing the war and wasting their military? Because at the end of the day they have a poo poo ton of nukes, no one wants to actually be the one to test the theory that their nukes are all non functioning, and that in the event of a complete collapse of the Russian state you would then have a bunch of nukes out in the wild which is a nightmare scenario for literally everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:'Buffer state' theory is nonsense, they just give empires a reason to fight each other. This is true, but it would be a refreshing change of pace if this war would end up causing at least some balkanization of the Russian state to slow down the next iteration of strong leader taking over, and series of border wars following in 5-8 year cycles. I mean, I would not object to a Karelia republic existing between Russia and Finland, even though I know that there really are no Karelians or other regional cultures living in the region anymore in meaningful numbers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
People talk about how if the war froze in some manner that then Russia would start rebuilding and rearming their military. But wouldn't the same also be true for Ukraine? Like wouldn't the west take the lull in hostilities as the perfect time to train the poo poo out of the Ukrainian military and supply it with some of the best weaponry they have (like tanks and aircraft) that are far more difficult to supply and train on during wartime?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:People talk about how if the war froze in some manner that then Russia would start rebuilding and rearming their military. But wouldn't the same also be true for Ukraine? Like wouldn't the west take the lull in hostilities as the perfect time to train the poo poo out of the Ukrainian military and supply it with some of the best weaponry they have (like tanks and aircraft) that are far more difficult to supply and train on during wartime? The problem here is that there is no guarantee that the next war would be in Ukraine, or anywhere near EU for that matter. There are several Inner Asia regions where Russia can rebuild power and redraw borders until they decide to have another go at the European front. For frozen conflict and hostile cease fire it would not be the same as with North Korea, where their options are South Korea again, China or Russia. Der Kyhe fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Feb 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:People talk about how if the war froze in some manner that then Russia would start rebuilding and rearming their military. But wouldn't the same also be true for Ukraine? Like wouldn't the west take the lull in hostilities as the perfect time to train the poo poo out of the Ukrainian military and supply it with some of the best weaponry they have (like tanks and aircraft) that are far more difficult to supply and train on during wartime? There's a limit to what Ukraine can support and field effectively without the West spending absolute stupid amounts of money and equipment on for years and that limit is almost certainly significantly lower than what Russia could field if they stopped being incredibly incompetent and corrupt. I realize it's a big ask though. Keep in mind that infrastructure rebuilding is likely going to be a huge focus for Ukraine when the conflict ends, they probably just can't just dump a poo poo ton of money and manpower into military stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
I mean the west can collectively spend absolutely stupid amounts of money on military poo poo very easily. That's like our main thing. Russia *cannot* compete directly with American, much less Western, military spending. The question is whether or not the entire Russian economy can compete with the equivalent of America's spare change drawer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:This is true, but it would be a refreshing change of pace if this war would end up causing at least some balkanization of the Russian state to slow down the next iteration of strong leader taking over, and series of border wars following in 5-8 year cycles. Russians would object. Carving a bunch of Sudetenlands out of Russia sounds like a surefire way to ensure the extra revanchist irredeemable Russia some people fear comes into existence. There is 0 meaningful separatists sentiment outside of North Caucasus. Is the west going to occupy Karelia and Buryatia and Altay and Tuva etc etc to prevent them from immediately rejoining? Are they going to pay for these already impoverished regions now even more cut off? (lol no)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean the west can collectively spend absolutely stupid amounts of money on military poo poo very easily. That's like our main thing. If it becomes a political issue for the US, which it is rapidly becoming, then US military spending is not a guarantee. We are very good at spending a poo poo ton of money on ourselves, sending it to another country is a whole nother ball game. Additional other things ARE going to pop off or become concerns, and attention may need to shift else where. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Feb 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Russians would object. Carving a bunch of Sudetenlands out of Russia sounds like a surefire way to ensure the extra revanchist irredeemable Russia some people fear comes into existence. There is 0 meaningful separatists sentiment outside of North Caucasus. I am not proposing west to carve out Sudetenlands, no. Maybe something similar than what happened then the last tsar fell, and the natural progression of Moscow-driven leadership being contested and regional powers and usurpers growing tired of all money going to Moscow and St. Petersburg.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1620868286987501568 Big news, I wonder how long it'll be before they're delivered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Simply put, what end game scenario exists in which Russia doesn't exist as some sort of threat to reopen the conflict? Say the dreams of the moralists and Zelensky come true tomorrow and Russia is pushed all the way back to 1991 borders; how is Russia any less of a threat than freezing the conflict on the current front lines in a meaningful way? Even 'total victory' s defined by Zelensky won't prevent Russia, should it choose it, from re-arming and coming for round 3 or 4 or 10 for that matter. This war is the result of the Russian elite still believing that they have the "right " to adjudicate affairs in their Near Abroad, a philosophy that has been a constant since Catherine the Great, and Ukrainian and now the West's rejection of that constant. Yes, this was literally my point? This conflict is going to continue in some form or another until Russia decides to abandon its imperial ambitions. Even setting aside humanitarian concerns, there is no reason to expect that sacrificing any amount of Ukraine is going to satisfy Russia's appetite for adventurism in the former Soviet sphere. Until then, everything is strictly tactical. I agree that there's no reason to keep negotiated armistices off the table, but neither is there any inherent virtue to them, and "peace at any costs" positions are ultimately not beneficial to Ukraine's long term well-being. If Ukraine can call the war a minor loss and proceed win the peace--e.g. persuading Russia to take a disadvantageous settlement in exchange for securing some portion of its gains--I'd personally be all for it and would not object to Western leaders pressuring Ukraine to accept it. But there are no signs that Russia would be interested in such a bargain, or offering any concessions at all beyond a pinky swear that they definitely won't do it again, and even that much seems unlikely without giving Russia more of what it wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
Chalks posted:https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1620868286987501568 Some of the news coverage makes it sound like there will be a small quantity of prototypes delivered initially and the details of full manufacturing haven't been worked out yet. It will be a big impact if they can get some deployed though, as it would force the russians to move their ammo unloading/distribution points something like 3x further from the front lines compared to how far they need to be from HIMARS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Chalks posted:https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1620868286987501568 Can they reach the Kerch Strait now or not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Can they reach the Kerch Strait now or not? From south of Melitopol yes, they can theoretically reach Kerch bridge on where it lands to Crimea. But from the current positions, no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
Chalks posted:https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1620868286987501568 I wonder if they require any additional training. https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2019/march/flexible-precise-and-reliable--the-versatile-long-range-solution-that-has-it-all If “MLRS Launch pod” is what I think it is, e.g., the 6-tube default launcher on HIMARS, and you just need to insert new rockets of the same shape into same hole, this could become operational near instantly? I guess they’d have to bolt OPSEC down even harder, since I can’t imagine Russian army being a huge fan of these.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:If it becomes a political issue for the US, which it is rapidly becoming, then US military spending is not a guarantee. I mean, if McCarthy successfully breaks the debt limit or if Trump gets re-elected then all bets are off, sure. That's always been Putin's long game here; stall until he can shift American internal politics in his favor. That doesn't really seem likely to happen as long as Biden is president though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, if McCarthy successfully breaks the debt limit or if Trump gets re-elected then all bets are off, sure. Maybe, there's a variety of ways it could go down and it doesnt even have to be a full on shut down of aid, the US could just switch to only sending ammunition and spare parts and stop sending vehicles over, which would be a pretty significant decrease. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Feb 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 21:47
|
|