Ukraine

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I don't think they have the capacity to occupy Ukraine much less the national will. I don't doubt that Ukraine will accept being smaller just to end the war. I believe a lot will be learned in the assault on Kyiv. If the Ukrainians can kill enough infantry up front that the streets become a killing ground for Russian tanks this thing may wind down sooner than later. I'm not a military tactician by any measure but it seems to me that now would be a good time to knock out as many APC's full of infantry and fuel bowsers as possible and let the tanks come on.

Hi Joe,

According to the news that I was watching yesterday afternoon, Kyiv is down to two weeks supply of food.  Once he has Kyiv surrounded*, he can sit back & starve them into submission.

* It is known as a pincer movement; just as Marshal Zhukov did at Stalingrad.

Jerry Baumchen

[yoink 321]

11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Do you honestly think the Russian chain of command would allow Putin to launch a nuclear attack on the west? Given the current world political dynamics. Putin is a history buff himself.

Put it this way, I’m not 100% sure they wouldn’t, and like Joe said, I’m not convinced a tactical nuclear weapon being set off in Ukraine would trigger a nuclear response from NATO. I’m fact I’m almost certain it wouldn’t.

 

MAD only works if both sides are equally insane.

Edited March 13, 2022 by yoink

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Yes.  I agree with all that.  You are arguing that becoming more dependent on foreign oil is a good thing, for all the reasons you listed.

I personally think energy independence in oil is a transitory issue. As more and more countries wean themselves from oil. It will become a moot point. The environment is driving the world away from oil. High current prices helping of course.

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

According to the news that I was watching yesterday afternoon, Kyiv is down to two weeks supply of food.  Once he has Kyiv surrounded*, he can sit back & starve them into submission.

* It is known as a pincer movement; just as Marshal Zhukov did at Stalingrad.

Jerry Baumchen

Zhukov had tens of millions of soldiers, not tens of thousands.  The Russians are undermanned.  Once again their reach has exceeded their grasp.

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,304]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Zhukov had tens of millions of soldiers, not tens of thousands.  The Russians are undermanned.  Once again their reach has exceeded their grasp.

 

If the Russians fail to take Kyiv quickly and suffer horrendous losses, which seems likely, it also seems likely that the Russians will pull back and shell the city into oblivion. That level of war crime may well bring the US and NATO to the point of action. 

[gowlerk 1,915]

1 hour ago, yoink said:

Put it this way, I’m not 100% sure they wouldn’t, and like Joe said, I’m not convinced a tactical nuclear weapon being set off in Ukraine would trigger a nuclear response from NATO. I’m fact I’m almost certain it wouldn’t.

But it also would not advance their goal. A tactical nuke would be best used to stop a large force that was advancing on your nation. I can't see any other use and certainly none in this situation.

[billvon 2,402]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

But it also would not advance their goal. A tactical nuke would be best used to stop a large force that was advancing on your nation. I can't see any other use and certainly none in this situation.

To rapidly end resistance to an invasion.  "We leveled 100 blocks of your city and will level another 100 if you don't sit down at the bargaining table" is a strong position.  And Putin needs a rapid end to this.

[gowlerk 1,915]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

To rapidly end resistance to an invasion.  "We leveled 100 blocks of your city and will level another 100 if you don't sit down at the bargaining table" is a strong position.  And Putin needs a rapid end to this.

I'm certainly not an expert or even a well studied amature on war fighting. But that would not seem to be a tactical use of a weapon. I am also fairly certain it would result in retaliation of some form from NATO. Because once a willingness to use them in this kind of situation is demonstrated further use would be nearly guaranteed. 

[wmw999 2,123]

It’s kind of bothering me more and more that we’re willing to let Kyiv (or some other random Ukrainian city — I guess they’re all the same, right?) be bombed into oblivion, or even nuked. But then we (and here I’m talking about the global we, not the US specifically) were OK with the Syrian situation, the Hutus massacring the Tutsis, the various groups in northeastern Africa, all whale away at each other.

Where does “not our business” end and “STOP IT” begin? Not genocide (Rwanda) — white genocide (well, consider the internal purges in 1930’s USSR). Only when it’s physically close? There isn’t a right answer necessarily, because you just don’t want a hard and fast line — someone WILL exploit it. Or is it the danger to one’s self? In which case, maybe it IS happening the way is normal. European countries are at risk. We are allied with them.

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 384]

10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

It’s kind of bothering me more and more that we’re willing to let Kyiv (or some other random Ukrainian city — I guess they’re all the same, right?) be bombed into oblivion, or even nuked. But then we (and here I’m talking about the global we, not the US specifically) were OK with the Syrian situation, the Hutus massacring the Tutsis, the various groups in northeastern Africa, all whale away at each other.

Where does “not our business” end and “STOP IT” begin? Not genocide (Rwanda) — white genocide (well, consider the internal purges in 1930’s USSR). Only when it’s physically close? There isn’t a right answer necessarily, because you just don’t want a hard and fast line — someone WILL exploit it. Or is it the danger to one’s self? In which case, maybe it IS happening the way is normal. European countries are at risk. We are allied with them.

Wendy P. 

It may just come down to what the press decides to cover, which comes down to what coverage generates ratings.

[metalslug 31]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

It’s kind of bothering me more and more that we’re willing to let Kyiv (or some other random Ukrainian city — I guess they’re all the same, right?) be bombed into oblivion, or even nuked. But then we (and here I’m talking about the global we, not the US specifically) were OK with the Syrian situation, the Hutus massacring the Tutsis, the various groups in northeastern Africa, all whale away at each other.

Where does “not our business” end and “STOP IT” begin? Not genocide (Rwanda) — white genocide (well, consider the internal purges in 1930’s USSR). Only when it’s physically close? There isn’t a right answer necessarily, because you just don’t want a hard and fast line — someone WILL exploit it. Or is it the danger to one’s self? In which case, maybe it IS happening the way is normal. European countries are at risk. We are allied with them.

Wendy P. 

It's a discussion often raised and often answered by "Cant save every puppy in the pound." and "Cant be the world's police force forever" and both of these are very valid positions. I can't reliably say where the line should be but do think I know where it is and where it will be;

For the USA, and likely for other NATO members, it's down to Article 5 of their membership that they all signed. It's an obligation that's politically unsurvivable for members who don't honour it. It's also politically unsurvivable for a country to join an avoidable war if they have no mandate from their voting citizens to do so.

I believe this is also why Taiwan will be taken by China before 2028, with zero direct military intervention by 'the west' because Taiwan too is not an actual NATO member and because China is significantly stronger than Russia.

[jakee 1,257]

On 3/11/2022 at 7:32 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi jakee,

Re:  your idea that anything short of immediately winning is meaningless.

I never said that.

I would prefer that you not try to put words in my mouth.

Jerry Baumchen

Then why are you saying that declaring war was meaningless? You keep jumping back and forwards between claiming that the declaration of war was meaningless because we didn't actually do anything, and saying that it was meaningless because what we did didn't stop Hitler straight away. Even though it categorically did change the path of the war - nothing happens in isolation.

If you feel like words are being put in your mouth it's because you don't actually know what you're saying. You clearly haven't thought this through and instead of thinking about how each counterpoint affects your core idea you're just twisting around and moving the goalposts to avoid having to realise that maybe you didn't have a very good point to begin with.

[JoeWeber 2,304]

9 hours ago, wmw999 said:

It’s kind of bothering me more and more that we’re willing to let Kyiv (or some other random Ukrainian city — I guess they’re all the same, right?) be bombed into oblivion, or even nuked. But then we (and here I’m talking about the global we, not the US specifically) were OK with the Syrian situation, the Hutus massacring the Tutsis, the various groups in northeastern Africa, all whale away at each other.

Where does “not our business” end and “STOP IT” begin? Not genocide (Rwanda) — white genocide (well, consider the internal purges in 1930’s USSR). Only when it’s physically close? There isn’t a right answer necessarily, because you just don’t want a hard and fast line — someone WILL exploit it. Or is it the danger to one’s self? In which case, maybe it IS happening the way is normal. European countries are at risk. We are allied with them.

Wendy P. 

I'd like to think that our leadership has in mind such a line and has already crafted our response. I'd like to believe that response included wide, firm and believable consensus among our European Allies that crossing that line would spring them into powerful action. But I don't, not yet. It sucks to be Ukraine, they're likely thinking, but if Ukraine becomes part of Russia Christmas will still happen in Iowa and the miracle of the EU will continue. Putin likely figures that in the aftermath, once we all calm down, Europe will go back to buying Russian gas and oil, multi-nationals will continue to confirm their allegiance to the bourses, and life will go on.

[brenthutch 384]

35 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I'd like to think that our leadership has in mind such a line and has already crafted our response. I'd like to believe that response included wide, firm and believable consensus among our European Allies that crossing that line would spring them into powerful action. But I don't, not yet. It sucks to be Ukraine, they're likely thinking, but if Ukraine becomes part of Russia Christmas will still happen in Iowa and the miracle of the EU will continue. Putin likely figures that in the aftermath, once we all calm down, Europe will go back to buying Russian gas and oil, multi-nationals will continue to confirm their allegiance to the bourses, and life will go on.

Life will go on until an emboldened Russia moves into the Baltic states, after all are we willing to risk WW3 to save Estonia?  And what about the playbook Putin is writing for China? Both of these countries have imperial ambitions.  If only there was a historical parallel we could study to help guide our choices.

=

[JoeWeber 2,304]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Life will go on until an emboldened Russia moves into the Baltic states, after all are we willing to risk WW3 to save Estonia?  And what about the playbook Putin is writing for China? Both of these countries have imperial ambitions.  If only there was a historical parallel we could study to help guide our choices.

=

Más sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo? Sounds good, I guess. The problem, of course, is that the old devils didn't hold nuclear playing cards. New devils need to play the game differently, I think. Everyone is fervently hoping that Russia doesn't force a hand. Well, they are now striking within 35 miles of a NATO countries border doing just what Putin threatened: disrupting the west's supply line to the Ukrainian Army. It won't take much of an F-up from an Army of F-up's to change the equation. 

Edited March 13, 2022 by JoeWeber

[Phil1111 911]

10 hours ago, wmw999 said:

It’s kind of bothering me more and more that we’re willing to let Kyiv (or some other random Ukrainian city — I guess they’re all the same, right?) be bombed into oblivion, or even nuked. But then we (and here I’m talking about the global we, not the US specifically) were OK with the Syrian situation, the Hutus massacring the Tutsis, the various groups in northeastern Africa, all whale away at each other.

Where does “not our business” end and “STOP IT” begin? Not genocide (Rwanda) — white genocide (well, consider the internal purges in 1930’s USSR). Only when it’s physically close? There isn’t a right answer necessarily, because you just don’t want a hard and fast line — someone WILL exploit it. Or is it the danger to one’s self? In which case, maybe it IS happening the way is normal. European countries are at risk. We are allied with them.

Wendy P. 

Latest US polling has Ukrainians trusted and "liked" as much as any other nation. High percentages of people supporting the administrations position.

The answer to your question is simple. Many of the refugees speak English. There are lots of children with blue eyes and blond hair.

[Phil1111 911]

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

If the Russians fail to take Kyiv quickly and suffer horrendous losses, which seems likely, it also seems likely that the Russians will pull back and shell the city into oblivion. That level of war crime may well bring the US and NATO to the point of action. 

Currently the only statements akin to "action" are if Russia uses "weapons of mass destruction". Otherwise the default is status quo.

With regards to other posts of Kiev starving, being leveled etc. Kiev has water, which is number one. Food? Well The siege of Leningrad, also known as the 900-Day Siege though it lasted a grueling 872 days, resulted in the deaths of some one million of the city's civilians and Red Army defenders. The ration for non fighters was something like 240 grams of bread a day in the winter. Fighters about 400 grams.

As long as the suffering can be broadcast to the world .....well... the status quo can continue I guess.

Crap I'm beginning to sound like you.

[ryoder 1,390]

[gowlerk 1,915]

59 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Sounds good, I guess. The problem, of course, is that the old devils didn't hold nuclear playing cards. New devils need to play the game differently,

Who are we kidding? The existence of the strategic nuclear arms of the "superpowers" guarantees that the world will suffer their use sooner or later. Murphy said so long ago.

Edited March 13, 2022 by gowlerk

[yoink 321]

59 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Who are we kidding? The existence of the strategic nuclear arms of the "superpowers" guarantees that the world will suffer their use sooner or later. Murphy said so long ago.

Probably. But lets strive for later, eh?

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

Cute, but my BS detector was buzzing while I was reading it.  Nobody would try to push a 40 ton out of a ditch with three guys 

Edited March 13, 2022 by brenthutch

[kallend 1,632]

We will do nothing so long as so many of our countrymen and women consider whining about the price of gas to be the most important action they can take.

[JoeWeber 2,304]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Cute, but my BS detector was buzzing while I was reading it.  Nobody would try to push a 40 ton out of a ditch with three guys 

You sure it wasn't a battery low warning?

[brenthutch 384]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

We will do nothing so long as so many of our countrymen and women consider whining about the price of gas to be the most important action they can take.

If it gets loud enough the Democrat slogan for 2022 will be “Drill Baby Drill!”

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

16 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

If the Russians fail to take Kyiv quickly and suffer horrendous losses, which seems likely, it also seems likely that the Russians will pull back and shell the city into oblivion. That level of war crime may well bring the US and NATO to the point of action. 

Hi Joe,

One has to wonder just what Putin considers horrendous losses.  Stalin's mantra was, 'Not one step back.'

I do not know if Putin is making the day-to-day decisions or leaving it up to his generals.

Should they not be able to surround Kyiv, then your scenario of shell the city into oblivion would seem to be Plan B.  Either will work for him.

Re:  That level of war crime may well bring the US and NATO to the point of action. 

At this time, I have no idea on what the US & NATO are considering.

Jerry Baumchen

Pentagon push to send more trainers to Ukraine was scrapped in December amid White House fears of provoking Russia - POLITICO

‘He's lashing out’: U.S. sees ‘broadening’ of Putin strategy in Western Ukraine strike - POLITICO

Edited March 13, 2022 by JerryBaumchen