Ukraine

[Phil1111 913]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Because Putin will want to avoid this at all costs. Becoming dependent on one country is the exact antithesis of Putin's goal. Also, I don't think China and Russia's goals are aligned.

Putin and Xi are dancing the same step. The Chinese people are cheering Russia. Cheering the narrative that the west and the US hate China. Are out to stab China in the back. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[brenthutch 388]

51 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

 

Can you explain to me how you see a European response as separate from a NATO response?

Finland Sweden Switzerland Austria Ireland to name a few

Edited March 4, 2022 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,319]

41 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Airplanes in the sky is the same as boots on the ground and would actively bring NATO into the conflict.

Can you explain to me how you see a European response as separate from a NATO response?

I doubt it. No matter, a European Nation suffering combat losses while acting offensively, alone or in concert with other European Nations, would not necessarily trigger a NATO Article 5 response. In the world of politics and manufactured pretenses we live in it takes only an understanding. All it would take, and Ottawa could do it, is a statement that it was not a NATO undertaking as far as Canada was concerned. 

[SkyDekker 1,135]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I doubt it.

Just copying this, cause I know you will complain about people not being nice enough to you in the future.

To the rest of your post, it seems overly simplistic. You cannot establish a no-fly zone without the willingness to engage ground targets and the willingness to put troops on the ground.

Secondly, there is no way a European Country or a coalition of European Countries or NATO could announce they are enforcing a no-fly zone without Russia using that as an indication of a declaration of war. certainly not at this point.

 

[billvon 2,419]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I can't see Putin lasting more than a month or two like this. 
I don't know how long Ukraine can hold out, but it's now a 'who gives in first' situation.

I recall that after Russia invaded Afghanistan it met a similar international response.  The UN condemned them, the US led an Olympic boycott then put a trade embargo in place, even China applauded the "heroic resistance" of the native insurgents.   The US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Kuwait funneled the resistance money, weapons and training to the tune of at least $10 billion - and we trained and equipped the Mujahideen to fight the Russians.  (Of course, that backfired later, but at the time it was effective at whittling away at the Russian occupation.)

Even in the face of that, Russia was there for ten years.

[gowlerk 1,920]

12 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Secondly, there is no way a European Country or a coalition of European Countries or NATO could announce they are enforcing a no-fly zone without Russia using that as an indication of a declaration of war. certainly not at this point.

It would clearly be a declaration of war. At least if they tried to enforce it.

[billvon 2,419]

11 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

To the rest of your post, it seems overly simplistic. You cannot establish a no-fly zone without the willingness to engage ground targets and the willingness to put troops on the ground.

For a truly effective no-fly zone - agreed.

However, there is a great deal you could do to harass Russia's air forces without any nearby ground support, if your goal was to make it expensive for Russia to operate there.
 

[SkyDekker 1,135]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

However, there is a great deal you could do to harass Russia's air forces without any nearby ground support, if your goal was to make it expensive for Russia to operate there.

Sure, but that assumes Russia will not escalate.

Russia has now shut down Twitter and Facebook within its borders. It has enacted emergency legislation that has effectively shut down international journalists within Russia. Putin is shutting down access to information and is going to try and manage all the messaging. Ultimately, in today's world I don't think he will be successful in that.

If you can no longer control the message, you have to change the message to something all consuming. For Putin that will be "NATO is attacking us" and how the West has always been out to destroy Russia. This is why any implementation of a no-fly zone by any western country or alliance will quickly escalate.

Also why pinky swearing you won't call on NATO really is a little naïve.

[JoeWeber 2,319]

21 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Just copying this, cause I know you will complain about people not being nice enough to you in the future.

To the rest of your post, it seems overly simplistic. You cannot establish a no-fly zone without the willingness to engage ground targets and the willingness to put troops on the ground.

Secondly, there is no way a European Country or a coalition of European Countries or NATO could announce they are enforcing a no-fly zone without Russia using that as an indication of a declaration of war. certainly not at this point.

 

Just copying this, cause I know you will complain about people not being nice enough to you in the future.

Typical projection. Consult your therapy app.

To the rest of your post, it seems overly simplistic. You cannot establish a no-fly zone without the willingness to engage ground targets and the willingness to put troops on the ground.

Manufactured bullshit. Your Black and White world isn't useful when complexity occurs. Why couldn't air cover be strictly focused on enemy aircraft?

Secondly, there is no way a European Country or a coalition of European Countries or NATO could announce they are enforcing a no-fly zone without Russia using that as an indication of a declaration of war. certainly not at this point.

Strawman. Non-sequiter. Ear wax. First the Germans fly some cover. Minutes later Canada disavows any knowledge of Mr. Phelps. Theater Nuclear War doesn't happen. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

I recall that after Russia invaded Afghanistan it met a similar international response.  The UN condemned them, the US led an Olympic boycott then put a trade embargo in place, even China applauded the "heroic resistance" of the native insurgents.   The US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Kuwait funneled the resistance money, weapons and training to the tune of at least $10 billion - and we trained and equipped the Mujahideen to fight the Russians.  (Of course, that backfired later, but at the time it was effective at whittling away at the Russian occupation.)

Even in the face of that, Russia was there for ten years.

The old Soviet Union (and Warsaw Pact) was pretty insular and self sufficient.

The embargo was rather limited and not very effective.

Today, Russia is a 'world player'. Cutting them off is going to have much greater effect.
Last I heard, the Ruble is worth less than a penny (the joke posted the other day: What's the difference between a Ruble and a Dollar? A Dollar.)
The Russian stock market tanked and hasn't been open for a couple days.
Russian oil is priced INCREDIBLY low. I saw a story where it was around $22/barrel. And virtually nobody is buying it.

The sanctions today are going to hurt a lot more than the ones back in 80. 
And they're being implemented by almost the entire free world. 

I can't see the oligarchs putting up with losing that much of their wealth for that long.

Putin wants to rebuild an empire. The old Soviet Union. 
The oligarchs/kleptocrats built their wealth from the carcass of the old Soviet Union. They don't care about 'empires'. They just want to stay really rich & powerful.

Putin has a lot of power. But not total power.

I hope he falls from power.
But I know that's far from a certainty.

[SkyDekker 1,135]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

Just copying this, cause I know you will complain about people not being nice enough to you in the future.

Typical projection. Consult your therapy app.

To the rest of your post, it seems overly simplistic. You cannot establish a no-fly zone without the willingness to engage ground targets and the willingness to put troops on the ground.

Manufactured bullshit. Your Black and White world isn't useful when complexity occurs. Why couldn't air cover be strictly focused on enemy aircraft?

Secondly, there is no way a European Country or a coalition of European Countries or NATO could announce they are enforcing a no-fly zone without Russia using that as an indication of a declaration of war. certainly not at this point.

Strawman. Non-sequiter. Ear wax. First the Germans fly some cover. Minutes later Canada disavows any knowledge of Mr. Phelps. Theater Nuclear War doesn't happen. 

Laughable, utterly totally laughable.

[JoeWeber 2,319]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Laughable, utterly totally laughable.

You have that right. I explained in detail your confusions a few posts back regarding a conversation I was having with BIGUN. Unable to admit to the color of the sky you went back to post #32 for your petard. Well you screwed that up, too.

I was conversing with Brent, not BIGUN and certainly not you, and he was bloviating. I said in post #32:

How would you play this hand? You're superb at bloviating, denigrating, and Monday morning Quarterbacking but be brave and tell us just what you would do. 

You decided that my comment meant that I knew just what I would do, another non-sequitur, and launched into your usual attack.

So, yes, it is very laughable.

 

[Phil1111 913]

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

For a truly effective no-fly zone - agreed.

However, there is a great deal you could do to harass Russia's air forces without any nearby ground support, if your goal was to make it expensive for Russia to operate there.
 

Perhaps. The big issue with no fly is that Russian SAM sites on the ground have to be destroyed. Russia has S400 mobile launchers that have a range of 250km. So everything about 250km west of Kyiv would be subject to attack by them. Certainly they and the Russian AF can be dispatched. But that means all out war.

You're on the right track though. Stingers, mortars, AK-47s, ammo, food, fuel need to pour across the NATO borders into Ukraine. Ukrainians want to fight. Then pour more ammo, food, fuel, anti-tank weapons in. Because Molotov cocktails make for a good narrative. But its a waste of a good life trying to employ them.

[billvon 2,419]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure, but that assumes Russia will not escalate.

Well, of course he will try to escalate.  But if he escalates against Ukranian entities using US/Israeli/Saudi weaponry - he's already at war with them.  He could threaten to go after the suppliers of course but he is unlikely to try to retaliate directly against the US.  (Or Israel, or Saudi Arabia.)

[billvon 2,419]

19 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The sanctions today are going to hurt a lot more than the ones back in 80. 
And they're being implemented by almost the entire free world. 

I can't see the oligarchs putting up with losing that much of their wealth for that long.

Not that much they can do, really, beyond assassination or direct rebellion.  And I have a feeling they won't try that.  Losing your yachts isn't much compared to Putin's forces showing up and abducting your family.

But the more pressure we can put on them externally the better.  And perhaps as you mention Russia is more dependent on the rest of the world these days.  But Putin may be backed into a corner where he feels he can't back down without irreparable damage to his reputation and power.

[billvon 2,419]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

So, yes, it is very laughable.

Both of you - enough already.

[SkyDekker 1,135]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, of course he will try to escalate.  But if he escalates against Ukranian entities using US/Israeli/Saudi weaponry - he's already at war with them.  He could threaten to go after the suppliers of course but he is unlikely to try to retaliate directly against the US.  (Or Israel, or Saudi Arabia.)

Not sure why you are leaving out the entirety of Europe (outside of Ukraine) in these possible retaliations.

[Phil1111 913]

19 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

...
Last I heard, the Ruble is worth less than a penny (the joke posted the other day: What's the difference between a Ruble and a Dollar? A Dollar.)
The Russian stock market tanked and hasn't been open for a couple days.
Russian oil is priced INCREDIBLY low. I saw a story where it was around $22/barrel. And virtually nobody is buying it....

Everybody is trying to avoid Russian oil, but I'm guessing thats a discount to current mkt values of $22 a bbl. China will happily buy those crude and CNG cargoes.

You forget that Russia's only real exports is energy. They get paid in cash for that and the denomination is always in USD. The few Russian banks not sanctioned. Is so that Finland, Germany,etc. can pay for their ongoing imports.

"European Union could reduce its reliance on Russian natural gas by more than one-third within a year by turning to other suppliers and using other energy sources." meanwhile "The European benchmark natural gas price surged on Thursday morning to hit a new record-high for a second consecutive day, trading at the equivalent of $360 per barrel oil, "

So still be dependent on Russian energy for 2/3 of use a year from now. Thats more than enough cash to pay the KGB, the generals and the propaganda machines. i.e. FOX

[SkyDekker 1,135]

26 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Today, Russia is a 'world player'. Cutting them off is going to have much greater effect.
Last I heard, the Ruble is worth less than a penny (the joke posted the other day: What's the difference between a Ruble and a Dollar? A Dollar.)

Supposedly it was Chrystia Freeland's idea to put sanctions on the Russian Central Bank. I think that is going to be a potential deciding factor in all of this. It has caused Russia to lose access to about 60% of its Foreign FX reserves and has seriously handicapped and devalued the remaining 40%.

With the rouble in freefall, Russia is going to run out of money, or at least value in money.

[JoeWeber 2,319]

10 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Everybody is trying to avoid Russian oil, but I'm guessing thats a discount to current mkt values of $22 a bbl. China will happily buy those crude and CNG cargoes.

You forget that Russia's only real exports is energy. They get paid in cash for that and the denomination is always in USD. The few Russian banks not sanctioned. Is so that Finland, Germany,etc. can pay for their ongoing imports.

"European Union could reduce its reliance on Russian natural gas by more than one-third within a year by turning to other suppliers and using other energy sources." meanwhile "The European benchmark natural gas price surged on Thursday morning to hit a new record-high for a second consecutive day, trading at the equivalent of $360 per barrel oil, "

So still be dependent on Russian energy for 2/3 of use a year from now. Thats more than enough cash to pay the KGB, the generals and the propaganda machines. i.e. FOX

Appearances, just like dumping Russian Vodka down the drain at your favorite cocktail lounge. But, appearances matter these days more than ever, you know "influencing", and 10 seconds later no one gives a shit if you bought the oil or vodka but the effect is real.

I just want to point out, chicken bone in my throat, that Brent is right on some things. Yes, burning hydrocarbons causes global warming. But also yes, so does burning cities and transferring the western worlds wealth to our enemies ain't too smart.

Edited March 4, 2022 by JoeWeber

[billeisele 122]

26 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

You're on the right track though. Stingers, mortars, AK-47s, ammo, food, fuel need to pour across the NATO borders into Ukraine. Ukrainians want to fight. Then pour more ammo, food, fuel, anti-tank weapons in. Because Molotov cocktails make for a good narrative. But its a waste of a good life trying to employ them.

The citizens want to fight. ~44 million people (minus those that have left), if only 5% took up arms that would be a formidable force. They could harass the heck out of the ground forces, take out the ground mobile equipment and some of the aircraft.

Any deterrent gives Putin a big problem and more time for the sanctions to work. At some point the billionaires may decide to act against Putin.

Edited March 4, 2022 by billeisele

[SkyDekker 1,135]

Some levity in dark times.

https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1499860268490362887?s=20&t=wkOJZLBYXl2QKgx7-63wNA

[JerryBaumchen 1,053]

Hi folks,

Blinken goes all opitimestic:  Ukraine war: Ukraine can absolutely win against Russia - Blinken - BBC News

While I'll believe it when I see it, I do hope that he is right:  US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has told the BBC that he is convinced Ukraine can win its war with Russia.

With this outlook, I say we should give Ukraine anything that they want.

Jerry Baumchen

Edited March 5, 2022 by JerryBaumchen

[billvon 2,419]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Not sure why you are leaving out the entirety of Europe (outside of Ukraine) in these possible retaliations.

Because striking at Germany or Israel (for example) is almost indistinguishable from striking at the US - from a response perspective.

Sure, he could retaliate against Afghanistan or something.  But that just puts him in a worse position.

[brenthutch 388]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Just copying this, cause I know you will complain about people not being nice enough to you in the future.

To the rest of your post, it seems overly simplistic. You cannot establish a no-fly zone without the willingness to engage ground targets and the willingness to put troops on the ground.

 

That is simply not true, several Patriot batteries based in Poland could establish a no fly zone nearly 100 miles deep into Ukraine, protecting humanitarian as well as military resupply operations.  An example would be the Egyptian SA-2 batteries in the Yom Kippur war.

Edited March 5, 2022 by brenthutch