|
Majorian posted:Because he calculated that he had more to gain by intervening. On several fronts. Now, its time to let some rising asian powers show him how weak a move that was. Reason #1 why Russian is only a regional power: they can only invade one country at a time Reason #1 America rules: we have invaded the rest of the world. Some realize they're now under occupation more than others, and those who realize we call partners.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why would anyone believe Russia would respect Ukrainian sovereignty then, if the only thing stopping Putin from invading is whether he believes he personally has more to gain by not doing so? Why would anyone believe Russia would respect Estonian or Polish sovereignty, if the only thing stopping Putin from invading is whether he believes he personally has more to gain by not doing so? The answer: because neither course of action is worthwhile. The risks far outweigh the potential benefits. This isn't just how Russia operates; this is how all states reach decisions. They weigh the potential costs against the potential gains, and they base their decisions on those analyses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why would anyone believe Russia would respect Estonian or Polish sovereignty, if the only thing stopping Putin from invading is whether he believes he personally has more to gain by not doing so? Realanswer: because he dies if he invades. So long as any policy option is better to him than death, he will take.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Realanswer: because he dies if he invades. So long as any policy option is better to him than death, he will take. Well, but that fits in with his cost-benefit analysis. It's an extreme possible outcome, but it's still a potential "cost" to taking these actions. If it's likely going to cost him his life, his job, or his power, he's probably not going to take that action, because the possible benefits usually won't outweigh those costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but that fits in with his cost-benefit analysis. It's an extreme possible outcome, but it's still a potential "cost" to taking these actions. No, I don't mean dies once. I mean, dead forever. Erased from history. As known as the 3rd true king of Assyria. Dead, with his name only known to the 3 readers of cyrillic tax records in the world. E: and for all his family and loved ones, too. Nuclear war would be bad for us. Nuclear war would exterminate the heritics. Why else do we maintain so much 5th strike capacity?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
I don't doubt it, but it still underlines my point: if the risks far outweigh the potential benefits, he's not going to take that action. The trick with negotiating Ukrainian neutrality is going to be making sure that the cost for violating Ukrainian neutrality is high enough to outweigh any potential benefits. But I don't think that should be too difficult to achieve, as long as we make sure it cuts both ways. If the US and NATO constrain their own potential actions, Russia is likely to be more amenable to doing likewise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't doubt it, but it still underlines my point: if the risks far outweigh the potential benefits, he's not going to take that action. Oh, I dunno. Nixon was deposed before he went all-out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why would anyone believe Russia would respect Estonian or Polish sovereignty, if the only thing stopping Putin from invading is whether he believes he personally has more to gain by not doing so? Majorian posted:The answer: because neither course of action is worthwhile. The risks far outweigh the potential benefits. This isn't just how Russia operates; this is how all states reach decisions. They weigh the potential costs against the potential gains, and they base their decisions on those analyses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:No, I don't mean dies once. I mean, dead forever. Erased from history. As known as the 3rd true king of Assyria. Dead, with his name only known to the 3 readers of cyrillic tax records in the world. That logic requires that Putin believe America's leadership is willing to go in 100% to save NATO and Estonia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah, moving the capital isn't in the realm of possibility, one thing would simply it would be complete chaos since the Russian government has such hard ties to Moscow and all of its infrastructure and office space is there. St.Petersburg is much smaller city as well, I don't know where you would actually put ministries. It would be like moving the US capital to Cleveland. Also, Moscow is also by far the biggest concentration of wealth in the country as well tied to rail/transportation infrastructure. If anything Putin has doubled down on infrastructure in Moscow to make it a "Western-like" showpiece capital, including trains to all 3 airports and improvements to bikesharing. Anyway, St.Petersburg has its share of liberals and a bit of counter-culture of its own. Also yeah Carlsberg, sorry about that. The Danes are the goliaths of the Russian beer market after all, eat your heart out Inbev.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That logic requires that Putin believe America's leadership is willing to go in 100% to save NATO and Estonia. If Putin doesn't think America is 100% behind killing commies, he's wrong and should be ousted. E: There's too much infrastructure in Russia, too much to defend it all. One tactical suicide bomber against a pipeline at the correct point? Billions in loss. One correct tactical suicide team tapping into the pipeline, chopping a few trees, and setting fire to the trans-siberian network at appropriate points during the spring? Only air transport begins to get through. Several suicide teams working with the MANPADs we give them? Well, its not hard to imagine that a war fought in the Siberian forests would go worse than one in asian jungle My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That logic requires that Putin believe America's leadership is willing to go in 100% to save NATO and Estonia. Well, we're hoping that they already believe that about Estonia. If not, then we have bigger problems than just figuring out how to maintain Ukraine's neutrality. I think it should be do-able with Ukraine, though. Both sides make it clear to one another that they will consider any violation of Ukrainian neutrality to be an act of war. A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes, but the whole point of Ukrainian neutrality is that the cost of invading is going to be much lower than an invasion of a NATO member. No, the point of neutrality, for Russia, is to ensure that NATO missiles and ABMs do not end up stationed on Ukrainian territory. quote:I don't agree that all states decide their actions solely by selfish risk vs. reward, but let's ignore that for a moment. Putin's Russia stands out because it's Putin's Russia. Since Putin much more directly benefits from whatever he uses the Russian state for, the cost-benefit analysis is heavily skewed compared to what it would be in the case of for example Merkel. Combine that with a "neutral" Ukraine being less costly to invade and you have a very good reason for why a neutral Ukraine seems like a near impossibility for many people. What, do you think, he would have to gain from continuing to invade and occupy Ukraine? Why do you think it would outweigh the risks for him and his government?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That logic requires that Putin believe America's leadership is willing to go in 100% to save NATO and Estonia. Estonia seems like a nice place, I think we should do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Estonia seems like a nice place, I think we should do it. Here in Chicago, Estonians and Lithuanians vote. On issues of national security, they vote as a take-all bloc. We could let Putin take Estonia, if we want to let Putin have Illinois go Republican for three generations. We don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Here in Chicago, Estonians and Lithuanians vote. On issues of national security, they vote as a take-all bloc. We could let Putin take Estonia, if we want to let Putin have Illinois go Republican for three generations. We don't. This is all a great opportunity for Democrats to recapture the Polish vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also yeah Carlsberg, sorry about that. The Danes are the goliaths of the Russian beer market after all, eat your heart out Inbev. Majorian posted:Well, we're hoping that they already believe that about Estonia. If not, then we have bigger problems than just figuring out how to maintain Ukraine's neutrality. I think it should be do-able with Ukraine, though. Both sides make it clear to one another that they will consider any violation of Ukrainian neutrality to be an act of war. Majorian posted:No, the point of neutrality, for Russia, is to ensure that NATO missiles and ABMs do not end up stationed on Ukrainian territory. Majorian posted:What, do you think, he would have to gain from continuing to invade and occupy Ukraine? Why do you think it would outweigh the risks for him and his government?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Here in Chicago, Estonians and Lithuanians vote. On issues of national security, they vote as a take-all bloc. We could let Putin take Estonia, if we want to let Putin have Illinois go Republican for three generations. We don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Hm, so you're saying the Republicans in Congress would hobble military response so Illinois goes red, then? I'm saying the only American response allowed would be on a scale of "limited total war" to "holocaust the heritics"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What is a violation of Ukrainian neutrality? Apparently Russia thinks the US/NATO/The West violated Ukrainian neutrality first this time, so would any future protest be seen as an act of war? I would hope not - that's why you codify things very, very carefully in the agreement. The US and Russia have a lot of practice in that regard. We've been doing it for decades under the arms control regime. Part of the problem with the Budapest Memorandum is that it was too broadly written, with few specifications on what constituted a violation. (seriously, what I just linked there is the whole text) quote:Sorry, that was (very) sloppily written. I meant "but the whole point is that the cost of invading Ukraine is going to be much lower than an invasion of a NATO member". He may, but there's always going to be that risk no matter what path Ukraine takes. If Ukraine once again opted for NATO accession, though, I'm pretty certain that the chances of Russia invading soon would be much greater than if Ukraine were to become strategically neutral.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Pretty decently - there was that famous exercise in Cope, India ten years ago, where Indian SU-30's achieved a 9:1 kill ratio against F-15's. One thing to keep in mind is that during these exercises, the F-15s operated at a numerical disadvantage -- 3 Su-30 to 1 F-15. That helps a lot, when you have planes with modern avionics and data links. Typical example: one plane (the striker) flies ahead of the other, radar turned off, at low altitudes to be as stealthy as its airframe allows. Another plane further behind (the spotter) flies high and uses its radar. When the spotter detects an enemy, it transmits the enemy's position to the sneaky striker, and the striker launches a missile that is guided by the spotter's radar. Since radar range is greater than missile range, the spotter is outside the enemy's strike range, and since a low-flying passive plane is harder to detect than a high-flying active one, the striker may evade detection long enough for it to be too late. Bip Roberts posted:Is the Cobra maneuver seriously 100% of the hype they have for these jets? It seems like a funny thing to put all your chips on. Pugachev's Cobra is an airshow maneuver. In actual combat, it'd be a "kill me, please, look I'm being a sitting duck, make it quick" move. Maybe it could be useful in a WW2 dogfight situation, guns only, no missile, very close distance, no computer-assisted targeting. But modern missiles can be launched at an enemy on your six and while it's not optimal (it's always better for the missile to go in the same direction as the plane to get more speed), it's not really important given the energy lost by the cobra plane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I would hope not - that's why you codify things very, very carefully in the agreement. The US and Russia have a lot of practice in that regard. We've been doing it for decades under the arms control regime. Part of the problem with the Budapest Memorandum is that it was too broadly written, with few specifications on what constituted a violation. (seriously, what I just linked there is the whole text) Solution: finalize NATO membership after everything is in place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Solution: finalize NATO membership after everything is in place. Probably wouldn't happen. You'd have to get France and Germany onboard with the plan, and I have a feeling that more states than just those two would object to a bait-and-switch strategy. It's a fun idea though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Pugachev's Cobra is an airshow maneuver. In actual combat, it'd be a "kill me, please, look I'm being a sitting duck, make it quick" move. Maybe it could be useful in a WW2 dogfight situation, guns only, no missile, very close distance, no computer-assisted targeting. But modern missiles can be launched at an enemy on your six and while it's not optimal (it's always better for the missile to go in the same direction as the plane to get more speed), it's not really important given the energy lost by the cobra plane. There have been a few decades, but looking at the F-35 poo poo I'm dubious. Does all this crap we've spent all this money on actually work in a real dogfight against planes that are actually able to fight back?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Probably wouldn't happen. You'd have to get France and Germany onboard with the plan, and I have a feeling that more states than just those two would object to a bait-and-switch strategy. Hey Germany, what are you afraid of? That some more things from your Nazi past may be revealed from the Ukranian State Archives? You're not a Nazi, are you, Angela? I expect France to follow the will of Germany. So do the Germans. If they refuse, expect a full and immediate support of Ukraine with Bundeswehr redeployments to show France her place in her corner of Europe. E: "In the face of the current EVD outbreak, Europe's EEZ relation to Africa must be brought under intense inspection as a primal cause of the second EVD outbreak wave amplification." My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hey Germany, what are you afraid of? That some more things from your Nazi past may be revealed from the Ukranian State Archives? You're not a Nazi, are you, Angela?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Nessus posted:There would be a certain heroic irony to German soldiers fighting to defend Eastern Europe from aggression, now wouldn't there? Now you see why Russia is paranoid about homonazis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hey Germany, what are you afraid of? That some more things from your Nazi past may be revealed from the Ukranian State Archives? You're not a Nazi, are you, Angela? Why would the German or French governments risk retaliation from their voters by causing Russia to raise their energy rates?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why would the German or French governments risk retaliation from their voters by causing Russia to raise their energy rates? Because if they don't, we'd buy everything they get for very-much-cheaper-than-actual from Africa at slightly-less-cheaper-than-actual. Instead, they'll be free to purchase Russian Wheat or American Corn. E: And I have yet to meet a European which cares more about their marginal tax rates and fuel costs then their food. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Boy, if only the world worked like that...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Boy, if only the world worked like that...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Boy, if only the world worked like that...  "You can't cut Africa's ability to fund their own healthcare systems. You will regret that."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
In recent history, Germans have voted to raise their energy costs on multiple occasions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In recent history, Germans have voted to raise their energy costs on multiple occasions. Hos often have they voted to directly raise their chocolate costs while E: Nessus posted:While I am sure energy rates are important to people, I would say that historical evidence indicates that national populations often care about things other than the cost of their home energy consumption. Energy causes people to bitch. Food kills. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:While I am sure energy rates are important to people, I would say that historical evidence indicates that national populations often care about things other than the cost of their home energy consumption. Oh sure they do, no question. I just doubt that they care enough about Ukraine as it currently stands to be willing to damage their relations with Russia. e: One obvious consequence of which would probably be higher energy costs. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh sure they do, no question. I just doubt that they care enough about Ukraine as it currently stands to be willing to damage their relations with Russia. Their relation with Russia? Cheap energy. America's relation with cheap energy? Yes. I believed I detailed how America could profit off the joint Exxon-Gazprom LNG Siberian export projects. I hear the northwest passage is even open for supra-panamax LNG shipment for some parts of the year. And as we know, Canadian territorial waters are American territorial waters. Sure would be a shame if we had to tax that transport under the full rules of EPA risk-assessment, wouldn't it? Sure would suck, and be completely understandable, if the Estonians sold a deep-sea pipeline cutter as a Ukranian-flagged and crewed vessel with a SSBM NATO escort, wouldn't it? E2: There would not be higher energy costs. There would be windfalls for German banks from commodity trading, there would be an increase in LNG import from the Americas, and plenty of economy growth in Africa. One of the major issues you're seeing in global energy trade at this time is that costs are too low for international shipping to be fully viable at this time; there are about 107 panamax tankers worth of excess shipping line capacity that would love for a 3-7% increase, or even limiting price decreases to sub-3% for at least 2 quarters, in LNG and LSC rates. The supply is there; the transport capacity exists. Russia is undermining the global shipping market with its pipelines. And what is bad for Hapag-Lloyd, is bad for Germany. Policy solution: Increase German economic growth, African development, reduce global terrorism, and promote partnership in East Asis through direct Russian gas containment. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Their relation with Russia? Cheap energy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I actually can't follow what you're talking about here. Are you just doing Clancy porn stuff here? (And we wouldn't use SSBMs, don't be silly!) "SSBN-730 RAMMED BY RUSSIAN CUTTER IN NORTH SEA, ALL HANDS LOST" "14 SSBMs DESTROYED BY COMMIES IN NORTH SEA DURING ROUTINE NAVAL TRAINING EXERCISES" E: Why yes. I am arguing for using a nuclear shield against independent Ukranian anti-Russian operations. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
Dunno, but it'll all be a bit moot anyway when we finally get around to fully autonomous fighter aircraft. The tech is pretty much there, it's the political will that's lacking, I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Dunno, but it'll all be a bit moot anyway when we finally get around to fully autonomous fighter aircraft. The tech is pretty much there, it's the political will that's lacking, I think. Yeah, its best to think of the F35 as the public of face of autonomous fighter research.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Nessus posted:I may be echoing old poo poo from books from the late 80s, but does this actually work in practice? I had read that a lot of air to air missiles are fiddly and difficult to use in practice (if useful in theory) just because they are such a loving pain in the rear end that the pilot is better served not using them at all and instead closing in to fire his cannons. IIRC, the last gun kill against a fixed wing aircraft in flight was during the Falkland War. After that, there was a gun kill against a flying helicopter in the 1991 Gulf War. My Imaginary GF posted:Yeah, its best to think of the F35 as the public of face of autonomous fighter research. Indeed, the F-35 is self-aware enough to commit suicide during take-off. Very smart plane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:15
|
|