Europe under extreme duress

[Hair Warrior]

I am not advocating a 'carte blanche' policy or a blank check, but full support for Ukraine's continued fight to survive. And Ukraine has been pretty careful not to go too far when it comes to striking Russia, like not hitting nuclear weapons sites for example.

I agree on supporting Ukraine to the point of not letting it get overrun and conquered. What is considered “going too far” is subjective, though. The recent strikes on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet will surely rattle Russia’s leadership. We’ll see about Russia’s response and escalation calculus.

I’m not convinced that a longer war (still ongoing years from now) is necessarily a better outcome for the US, NATO, or Ukraine, for a variety of reasons.

 

[CommodoreMid]

When you control the mail, you control information!

 

[Lawman]

I agree on supporting Ukraine to the point of not letting it get overrun and conquered. What is considered “going too far” is subjective, though. The recent strikes on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet will surely rattle Russia’s leadership. We’ll see about Russia’s response and escalation calculus.

I’m not convinced that a longer war (still ongoing years from now) is necessarily a better outcome for the US, NATO, or Ukraine, for a variety of reasons.

We’ve crossed 38 Putin declared redlines at this point.

Remember when Abrams or Bradley’s was worth nuclear saber rattling? All of the V2 Bradley’s in 3 divisions of the US Army are being sent along with plenty of other munitions we would rather not DRMO.

Oh no guys Putin put a mobile launcher that can literally be tracked from space on a highway to remind us he’s a nuclear power. Weird he did that after losing 1/3 of his strategic AirPower. Quick let’s worry ourselves into abandoning the country the size of Texas he has expended 2/3 of his tanks and APCs trying to conquer instead of recognizing the same BS reason he claims Ukraine isnt a country could be applied to Poland.

 

[Spekkio]

@robav8r might have proposed some aggressive responses, but his point is very valid: We seem to have failed at crafting a cogent policy / strategic goal and then implementing measures that would achieve it.

If the goal is a free and independent Ukraine, we need to give far more support than what we are currently providing. Our current strategy is merely prolonging the inevitable outcome of Russian victory.

That's okay if our long-term goal is to use the Ukrainian conflict to cause significant Russian attrition such that they can't conduct follow-on offensive operations into Georgia or the Balkans. But then let's call a spade a spade - we don't give a shit about Ukraine, we only care that they can inflict maximum damage against Russian forces in the process.

 

[Lawman]

@robav8r might have proposed some aggressive responses, but his point is very valid: We seem to have failed at crafting a cogent policy / strategic goal and then implementing measures that would achieve it.

If the goal is a free and independent Ukraine, we need to give far more support than what we are currently providing. Our current strategy is merely prolonging the inevitable outcome of Russian victory.

That's okay if our long-term goal is to use the Ukrainian conflict to cause significant Russian attrition such that they can't conduct follow-on offensive operations into Georgia or the Balkans. But then let's call a spade a spade - we don't give a shit about Ukraine, we only care that they can inflict maximum damage against Russian forces in the process.

At current rate the Russians stand to conquer Ukraine on or about 2038.

The barrier to that being the combat power they are expending doesn’t exist in numbers it did in a year. At the current expense rate the assault forces they need would be expended on or about Sumy/Odessa and they have to pick which axis is more critical to them. At the end of that they have no remaining ground combat power to expend in a war against the Baltic states outside of their fires elements.

Artillery and rocket forces don’t take ground, they just make it unusable for the population being fired upon.

Russia isn’t achieving a breakthrough anymore than Ukraine is. The people subscribing to the “Russia wins eventually” narrative are ignoring that do that they effectively stop being a military power even regionally and even if they do that they come up short.

 

[Faded Float Coat]

No snark is intended when I ask this question... That article doesn't seem to have much new info about PLA's zappers. They've been showing these off for the last several years at defense shows. Is there something new about them I'm missing in the article? Or just validation that they're a (potentially) valuable tool?

Vaguely speaking.... they're functional.

 

[Spekkio]

At current rate the Russians stand to conquer Ukraine on or about 2038.

The barrier to that being the combat power they are expending doesn’t exist in numbers it did in a year. At the current expense rate the assault forces they need would be expended on or about Sumy/Odessa and they have to pick which axis is more critical to them. At the end of that they have no remaining ground combat power to expend in a war against the Baltic states outside of their fires elements.

Artillery and rocket forces don’t take ground, they just make it unusable for the population being fired upon.

Russia isn’t achieving a breakthrough anymore than Ukraine is. The people subscribing to the “Russia wins eventually” narrative are ignoring that do that they effectively stop being a military power even regionally and even if they do that they come up short.

That was my point - I recognize it's politically unpalatable to say this, but if the goal is to sacrifice Ukraine to ensure Russia scores a pyrrhic victory, then great. We're not saying that publicly, although I understand why that would be politically unpalatable.

But if the goal is a free and independent Ukraine who will partner with the U.S.... well, we're not on that path.

 

[Lawman]

That was my point - I recognize it's politically unpalatable to say this, but if the goal is to sacrifice Ukraine to ensure Russia scores a pyrrhic victory, then great. We're not saying that publicly, although I understand why that would be politically unpalatable.

But if the goal is a free and independent Ukraine who will partner with the U.S.... well, we're not on that path.

If Ukraine loses the current territory with Russian boots on it, it’s still Ukraine, and effectiveness wise it’s the most powerful land force in Europe opposing Russian aggression.

Hey you know what Russia can’t do with that force sitting on the opposite side of Dnieper River? It can’t deploy what’s left of its land forces to take territory in the Baltics or Poland because the second it does that half million personnel ground force that is capable of action is going to take its territory back.

Stop parroting RT talking points and realize the force that is committing BTR50s to its offensive action isn’t nearly as destined to win as you seem to think it is. The Russians are going to culminate and it’s going to be far short of even half of the Ukrainian territory they expected to conquer after 2 weeks of special military operations.

 

[Spekkio]

If Ukraine loses the current territory with Russian boots on it, it’s still Ukraine, and effectiveness wise it’s the most powerful land force in Europe opposing Russian aggression.

Hey you know what Russia can’t do with that force sitting on the opposite side of Dnieper River? It can’t deploy what’s left of its land forces to take territory in the Baltics or Poland because the second it does that half million personnel ground force that is capable of action is going to take its territory back.

Stop parroting RT talking points and realize the force that is committing BTR50s to its offensive action isn’t nearly as destined to win as you seem to think it is. The Russians are going to culminate and it’s going to be far short of even half of the Ukrainian territory they expected to conquer after 2 weeks of special military operations.

It's not parroting Russian talking points to look at demographics and realize that the math ain't mathing.

Same reason someone ought to have told Hitler that Operation Barbarossa was going to fail before anyone ever conceived it.

Without direct US or EU military intervention, the entirety of Ukraine will become Russia. Putin is committed to this and he has the expendable resources to make it happen.... eventually. Our current strategy and support is not sufficient to prevent this, it only delays it.

What I personally disagree with is the cohort in DC who argues that we shouldn't commit to Ukraine because we need to preserve our capabilities for a frontal amphibious Taiwan invasion, insofar as I believe that China will never conduct such an operation.

 

[JTS11]

I’m not convinced that a longer war (still ongoing years from now) is necessarily a better outcome for the US, NATO, or Ukraine, for a variety of reasons.

I guess I don't understand your point, and what the variety of reasons you mention are. The master strategist Putin since the full-scale invasion of UKR in 2022 has added two very capable militaries to NATO, further turning the Baltic Sea into Lake NATO. The Russians are approaching 1 million casualties right now. They've just lost 1/3 of their bomber fleet. They've got 1-3 A-50 AWACS-type left in their inventory. Their Black Sea fleet is neutered, and scared to venture out. Their economy is in the toilet, and can be further damaged by a big strengthening of secondary sanctions by coordinating the Graham-Blumenthal Senate bill with EU countries. Russia has provoked European countries to get off their ass, and pour more resources into their defense/weapons industries...etc/etc

So, explain to me why this would be worse for US/NATO/UKR than RUS? UKR is in an existential fight, and it shouldn't be the West to dictate anything to them...Fuck that. They're trying to throw off the yoke of Russian tyranny, and we should support them, both morally and from a national interest perspective.

Despite some claims to the contrary, RUS cannot sustain this economically...and that needs to be accelerated for them.

 

[ChuckMK23]

 

[Griz882]

According to this article the recent, and impressive, drone strike has strategic consequences for Russia. It makes sense.

Ukraine’s Stunning Assault Roils Russia’s Global Military Strategy — The Wall Street Journal

Surprise drone attack hits Moscow’s capacity to threaten distant rivals such as U.S.

apple.news

 

[JTS11]

It seems that UKR is following this up with a substantial attack on the Crimean Kerch Bridge rn...interesting. I guess they do have some cards left.

 

[Randy Daytona]

That’s one of the things I actually support about this Administration, as far as burning down all our stupider bureaucratic bullshit.

I haven’t played much in MILCON $ but it is absurd how much I hear that as an excuse for why we can’t do something. If we’re not able to do put up something as basic as a HAS structure up economically (more than Red threats) at least for our bases directly in the WEZ, we deserve to lose.

A relevant article from last June:

Does The U.S. Need To Be Building Hardened Aircraft Shelters For Its Combat Aircraft?

The US military and Congress are increasingly butting heads over aircraft shelters even as threats, especially from drones, grow.

www.twz.com

 

[Hair Warrior]

I guess I don't understand your point, and what the variety of reasons you mention are. The master strategist Putin since the full-scale invasion of UKR in 2022 has added two very capable militaries to NATO, further turning the Baltic Sea into Lake NATO. The Russians are approaching 1 million casualties right now. They've just lost 1/3 of their bomber fleet. They've got 1-3 A-50 AWACS-type left in their inventory. Their Black Sea fleet is neutered, and scared to venture out. Their economy is in the toilet, and can be further damaged by a big strengthening of secondary sanctions by coordinating the Graham-Blumenthal Senate bill with EU countries. Russia has provoked European countries to get off their ass, and pour more resources into their defense/weapons industries...etc/etc

So, explain to me why this would be worse for US/NATO/UKR than RUS? UKR is in an existential fight, and it shouldn't be the West to dictate anything to them...Fuck that. They're trying to throw off the yoke of Russian tyranny, and we should support them, both morally and from a national interest perspective.

Despite some claims to the contrary, RUS cannot sustain this economically...and that needs to be accelerated for them.

1. War sucks. There is a hidden cost to Ukraine the more years this drags on. This isn’t like the US where we have an all-volunteer force; it’s going to be more like the male populations of France and England post WWI. And the rebuilding process is going to be a whole other ball of wax that I’m sure will be contentious. I feel for the Ukrainian people and don’t want them to be at war for longer than is necessary.

2. You correctly point out that we’ve done damage to Russia far beyond our wildest dreams. At what point does Russia reach a threshhold where the regime feels threatened enough to resort to drastic measures, such as CBRN weapons (including nukes, but not only nukes) to signal their displeasure with how the war’s going. If we are to believe the “Putin is in poor health” rumors, that is another wild card which makes the regime unpredictable.

3. Parts of Ukraine (e.g. Crimea) are so pro Russian now that Ukraine may think it’s worth some territorial concessions to allow Russia to save face while exiting the war with (some) dignity. We all say that appeasement is bad because look at what happened to Neville Chamberlain. Well, also look at what happened to the Weimar Republic after it was humiliated and crushed by the victors of WWI, economically, militarily, and socially. Can we really forecast who will take over (eventually) after Putin, and what they will behave like? (Hint: One of the reasons Putin acts how he acts is because Putin felt his country was badly humiliated during the fall of the Berlin Wall and the economic chaos of the 1990s that Putin perceives was caused by meddling from West-aligned insititutions like the IMF, which is well documented in biographies on Putin such as The New Tsar by Myers.) My point is, a Ukraine war outcome that utterly humiliates Putin and his successor(s) - while leaving them with 2k nuclear weapons and a badly bruised economy/military/ego - is not on my list of good ideas.

For the above reasons, I’m of the opinion that the US and NATO should help Ukraine and Russia find an offramp within the next year or so that is tolerable to both sides. Prolonging the fight because we like seeing Russia obliterated and Putin humiliated may have unintended long term consequences that are bad for Europe.