Ukraine

[JoeWeber 2,298]

50 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Uh huh. I'm sure he'll go for that.  

It isn't all in or nothing. So we give it a go and they calibrate a response. Whatever amount of time passes, we all deal with the response and more time passes. Think rope-a-dope. If it works we give Russia a forever war while their economy and world standing tanks. If it doesn't work, and if there is no other option, we can still implement post #37. Why is that not preferable?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“Mr Putin we are establishing a buffer zone to reduce the chance of an accidental engagement between NATO and Russia.”
It is naive to believe Putin needs a legitimate reason for escalation.  After all, he justified the invasion as a quest to denazify the jewish leadership of Ukraine 

yeah except Putin already said any no-fly zone would be seen as a declaration of war. Like I said, thinking differently is pretty naïve.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-fly-zone-war-b2029328.html

[JoeWeber 2,298]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

yeah except Putin already said any no-fly zone would be seen as a declaration of war. Like I said, thinking differently is pretty naïve.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-fly-zone-war-b2029328.html

Right. We already got like you said. He's thinking something different than the official definition of a no fly zone.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Why are you so worried about what Putin will “go for”. He doesn’t need an excuse. He will do what he will do.  The only question is what WE will do.

Sure. But remember the argument was instituting something that wouldn't draw NATO into the conflict. Only have European countries involved and not have the US actively involved. That was Joe's 9and maybe yours too?) argument.

So by now that means any non-NATO European nation implementing a no-fly zone, having Russia see that as a declaration of war and not having it escalate to a full blown NATO/US involvement. My argument consistently has been that this is not possible and any scenario you can dream of that might fit into that box is naïve. Can't say I have seen a suggestion that would work and not significantly escalate the conflict. (though I am really not opposed to escalating the conflict. I believe we are already in WW3 and we might as well escalate earlier and defeat him now)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Right. We already got like you said. He's thinking something different than the official definition of a no fly zone.

What is the official definition of a no-fly zone and has Putin agreed to this official definition?

[gowlerk 1,909]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Can't say I have seen a suggestion that would work and not significantly escalate the conflict. (though I am really not opposed to escalating the conflict. I believe we are already in WW3 and we might as well escalate earlier and defeat him now)

This is what I believe will happen. But slowly in stages ratcheting up the pressure on Putin. He has crossed the Rubicon now.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

What is the official definition of a no-fly zone and has Putin agreed to this official definition?

I'm currently going with this one as offered by BIGUN for my edification. https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-dangerous-allure-of-the-no-fly-zone/

As far as Putin, not that I know of but if and when he does or doesn't you'll be right again.

[Phil1111 910]

IMO a good compromise for Ukraine in the absence of a no-fly-zone are drones. They have a history of operating Turkish and Israeli drones. Both to good effects.

Prior to the war Ukraine operated 20 Bayraktar TB2s. They received new shipments this week of more TB2s.

[BIGUN 1,053]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Why are you so worried about what Putin will “go for”. He doesn’t need an excuse. He will do what he will do.  The only question is what WE will do.

What the hell kind of turnaround shit is that? I've been trying to communicate to you and Joe that - we cannot worry about Putin. According to my plan we would have been there by now. You guys are the ones trying to avoid the situation with sanctions and batteries of Air Defense on other borders and humanitarian aid and maybe this and maybe that, and, and . . . 

Ya know, for someone who went to Ranger school you seem to have forgot about "Follow Me."

[BIGUN 1,053]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

It isn't all in or nothing. So we give it a go and they calibrate a response. Whatever amount of time passes, we all deal with the response and more time passes. Think rope-a-dope. If it works we give Russia a forever war while their economy and world standing tanks. If it doesn't work, and if there is no other option, we can still implement post #37. Why is that not preferable?

But it is. It's been nine days since post 37 and the United Nations has recorded at least 752 civilian casualties so far across the Ukraine, with 227 killed and 525 injured, including 34 children and 1.2 million refugees. How's your plan going? 

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Right. We already got like you said. He's thinking something different than the official definition of a no fly zone.

To avoid talking at cross purposes - a no fly zone means direct conflict between NATO and Russian forces. It means shooting at Russian planes and killing Russian aircrew. Bigun’s point, which I fully agree with, is that you can’t talk about a no fly zone as if it’s an alternative to entering into combat. A no fly zone is combat, so you simply have to think in terms of whether you want NATO to be in direct combat against Russia or not.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

What the hell kind of turnaround shit is that? I've been trying to communicate to you and Joe that - we cannot worry about Putin. According to my plan we would have been there by now. You guys are the ones trying to avoid the situation with sanctions and batteries of Air Defense on other borders and humanitarian aid and maybe this and maybe that, and, and . . . 

Ya know, for someone who went to Ranger school you seem to have forgot about "Follow Me."

I never advocated for a no fly zone, I just said it could be done without hundred of planes and thousands of troops.  I agree that creating a no-fly zone over the entirety of Ukraine would require the level of force you and SkyDekker are suggesting.  I simply pointed out that a much more modest zone could be established with much less.  I even gave a real world example.

 

[ryoder 1,381]

About damned time!

WCJ: Blinken Says U.S. Is Eyeing Ways for Poland to Supply Jets to Ukraine

[JoeWeber 2,298]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

But it is. It's been nine days since post 37 and the United Nations has recorded at least 752 civilian casualties so far across the Ukraine, with 227 killed and 525 injured, including 34 children and 1.2 million refugees. How's your plan going? 

I'd say my plan is faring as well as yours. Both remain well defended but firmly inside the borders of fantasyland and neither has yet caused nuclear war. The casualties would be terrible if fewer but would no doubt be much greater in a wider war. I still think the best play is to keep this inside Ukraine if possible.

[BIGUN 1,053]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I never advocated for a no fly zone, I just said it could be done without hundred of planes and thousands of troops.  I agree that creating a no-fly zone over the entirety of Ukraine would require the level of force you and SkyDekker are suggesting.  I simply pointed out that a much more modest zone could be established with much less.  I even gave a real world example.

So, a much more modest zone is not a fly-zone. Got it. 

[JoeWeber 2,298]

Just now, BIGUN said:

So, a much more modest zone is not a fly-zone. Got it. 

Does it really need to so parsed? I still think it's a good idea no matter what it's called if it doesn't cause a wider war. If it eases the transfer of arms or helps fleeing citizens it must be good. 

[JoeWeber 2,298]

10 minutes ago, ryoder said:

About damned time!

WCJ: Blinken Says U.S. Is Eyeing Ways for Poland to Supply Jets to Ukraine

He's so naive! 

"The U.S. government is looking for ways to replenish Poland’s arsenal should the country agree to provide some of its Soviet-era combat jets to Ukraine, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said." 

Who could have thought of that?

[ryoder 1,381]

Two GOP senators share photos of Zelenskyy during call after lawmakers asked not to by Ukraine

Zelensky's response:

 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

So, a much more modest zone is not a fly-zone. Got it. 

No, I don’t think you do.

[gowlerk 1,909]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

He's so naive! 

"The U.S. government is looking for ways to replenish Poland’s arsenal should the country agree to provide some of its Soviet-era combat jets to Ukraine, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said." 

Who could have thought of that?

This is the slow steady escalation that I'm talking about.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

This is the slow steady escalation that I'm talking about.

Escalation to what? To not going to direct war? I may well be wrong but it seems unlikely that the Russians will call that NATO intervention after the fact anymore than they'll call all of the shoulder launched weapons the world has been funneling into Ukraine NATO intervention, again, after the fact. Of course they might but we deal with that then.

[gowlerk 1,909]

20 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Escalation to what? To not going to direct war?

This is the beginning of some kind of war with Russia. Something more than cold war 2.0 but hopefully less than WWIII. Either that or the Russians replace Putin and settle. These are interesting times.

[olofscience 420]

Just keep Ukraine alive for the next few months.

Remember all the arguments about how expensive it was for the USA to keep forces in the Middle East for almost 20 years? Resupplying them, getting back troops with PTSD, etc.?

That was expensive even for the the biggest economy in the world. And nobody was sanctioning the US then.

Russia, with their economy already smaller than Italy before the invasion, will be going bankrupt even without counting the ongoing military expenses. They probably have until June at the latest. They'll run out of ammo, out of money, and out of friends.

[jakee 1,254]

Well, this is on Russia’s border, not on the other side of the world. And while it’s not free, I think the relatively low tech way Russia conducts war is a hell of a lot cheaper than the way the west conducts war. What do they really need? Munitions which they’ll have vast quantities of stockpiled already, and oil which they pump out of the ground. We spend a hell of a lot on protecting our soldiers, Russia is quite happy to spend its soldiers lives. They were in Syria in force for several years without worrying much about the cost. 

[olofscience 420]

24 minutes ago, jakee said:

What do they really need? Munitions which they’ll have vast quantities of stockpiled already, and oil which they pump out of the ground.

They'll need:

• spare parts to repair and maintain their vehicles. Should be ok for the simplest ones, for the most advanced ones, the sanctions will have a bite.
• manufacturing capability to replace vehicles destroyed in combat
• refinery capacity. You don't just pump oil out of the ground and pour it into fuel tanks. Many of these refineries also depend on western technology to operate and maintain.
• probably many other things.

Supply chain and logistics sounds boring, but it's the most difficult aspect that people often underestimate. Heck, companies like Ford are having trouble manufacturing enough cars due to supply chain issues (due to covid), and they're not even under sanctions.