NATO Declares Russia an Enemy - Your take.

[Flash]

Guys please don't amuse yourself: there won't be any real fight between Russian and Ukranian militaries that clearly marked as such and allowed to act as such. Putin is not a master of war, he is an avid explorer of specops realm. Let alone Ukranian leader Vlad Zelenskiy who uses every opportunity to calm the rough seas.
Of course Russain Army dominates Eastern Europe but Russian economy wouldn't support any war: Crimea, Donbass, Belarus, now KZ and most of all Chechnya are too expensive to Russia on everyday basis, and any war will break already weak economy within weeks. It may be far from evident but stability of Russian currency is not linked to a storages of gas and oil: since both pumper and pipeliner are under state's control, Russia cannot influence stock prices by volumes, like Saudis.
So, please note that each time we are buying buckets of popcorn watching Russian news, there something is going on around China - unnoticed and unexplainable.

I think Putin sees a narrowing window of opportunity to act in what he considers Russia's, in reality his own, best interest. With a Ukraine that is becoming more independent from Russia every day, slowly but surely, Russia's military reforms bearing fruit and a Europe that is still dependent on Russia for gas this is a pretty good time to act for him.

While the Russian economy will likely suffer as a result he doesn't have to take over all of Ukraine to 'win', at least for him. A short, sharp campaign to 'punish' Ukraine for its intransigence will still be effective in sending a message to much of Eastern Europe, while fearful of Russia isn't 'dominated' by any stretch by them, not to go against Russia's interests. And while sanctions and other measures might take a bite out of the Russian economy the reality is that there is only so much pain Europe is likely willing to endure and most probably don't care enough about Ukraine anyways to hold the line too long. A geopolitical 'fuck around and find out' by Russia if you will.

Remember, Putin is not Napoleon, Friedrich der Grosse, Peter the Great, Winston Churchill or George Patton: he is rather kinda Richelieu or Pope Alexander VI Borgia, his victories are not military ones but political firstly.

Putin doesn't need to be Napoleon to or any other great military leader to occupy much of Ukraine, even with reforms over the past few years the Ukrainian military isn't unfortunately that big a threat to Russia.

The main reason to hope there won't be any war is that with essentially no smart weapon in both adversaries' possession, collateral death toll will be terrible on both Russian and Ukranian soil.

There are plenty of Russian weapons that are smart enough, and Putin has proven from Chechnya to Syria that he doesn't care too much about civilian casualties.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Russia's military reforms bearing fruit and a Europe that is still dependent on Russia for gas this is a pretty good time to act for him.

Maybe so, except that you seem to overestimate the "fruit" - no sufficient advance in the field of land warfare has been achieved since 2008. Russian infantry, both regular and airborne, is still closely tied to tanks and APCs and almost unable to operate independently, which is the problem in urban environment since Ukraine drifts from rural way of life all the time it is independent. You surely know that to bomb the town is not the same that control the town, and since the beginning of Syrian campaign Russian Army never controlled the soil there, though swept some places of course. If it would be the air campaign only then I'll agree but it definitely will be far cry from the Chechnya.

and Putin has proven from Chechnya to Syria that he doesn't care too much about civilian casualties.

This case is different I think. Chechens were rebels and Syrians aliens - they both won't vote for him anyway. But when the retaliatory bombs or missiles smash the houses of those who vote, it really hurts within Cremlin since this time it would be quite hard to convince the victims that "this is terrorism and we'll fight it till the end". Very little amount of people still trusts him in the major Russian cities, and while it doesn't threat to powers as such, they cannot accept further reducing of public support.

 

[Hotdogs]

Maybe so, except that you seem to overestimate the "fruit" - no sufficient advance in the field of land warfare has been achieved since 2008. Russian infantry, both regular and airborne, is still closely tied to tanks and APCs and almost unable to operate independently, which is the problem in urban environment since Ukraine drifts from rural way of life all the time it is independent.

Wrong. You might want to start paying attention. Particularly with how Azerbaijan conducted the war compared to the Armenians.

The Air and Missile War in Nagorno-Karabakh: Lessons for the Future of Strike and Defense

 

[taxi1]

But when the retaliatory bombs or missiles smash the houses

So what do you think the Ukrainians would strike back at? I’m unfamiliar with the geography and ranges over there.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Particularly with how Azerbaijan conducted the war compared to the Armenians

The drone war comes where AAW gone for good;-)

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

So what do you think the Ukrainians would strike back at? I’m unfamiliar with the geography and ranges over there.

Well, at least three major Russian cities are within 100 km from Russian-Ukranian border - Belgorod (40 km), Kursk (90 km) and Rostov (100 km), which all is within the Ukranian land-to-land missile systems SS-21 Scarab range. This is old and inaccurate weapon but namely this aspect is the most scaring one when considered to be used in dencely populated areas

 

[AllAmerican75]

Nothing new. Samuel Huntington in his "Clash of Civilizations" stated in 1994 that Ukraine is typical "torn country", and this was true then. But in this century the gap between Ukranian elites and ordinary people became significantly narrower, surprisingly, by mostly mutual activity of Russia and NATO and, to a greatest degree, by the Crimea annexion. Look, Russia is still merchantile export economy just like it have been for the last 300 years, and this in itself is the main factor in contradiction with globalization process. So within the Russian economy logic, the annexation of new territories, even former Soviet, has absolutely no sence if that territory doesn't have its own significant sources of gas or oil. Thus both Russian economy and industry this time contradict Russian politicsas deep as the roots level. Thus, Putin reaps what had been sown when he restored an Empire. Note that this Empire is not equal to, say, British one - as they say, "Britain HAD an empire but Russia WAS an empire, and probably is". But there are the Moscow elites beneath Putin, neither hedged from that empire nor detached from it, and now they are in a threefold struggle: national leader tries to push the whole thing in his direction, national economy clearly resists, and national elites wait for the moment to support the force which will prevail.

I'm curious as to the opinions of the locals in the Donbass. From my understanding many are ethnically Russian (trying to parse out the difference between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians makes my head hurt) and would like to be part of the Motherland again. Does that gel with your own familiarity with the region? If so, why not give the Donbass back to Russia?

Really so. Historically, Ukrainians are probably the only Slavic people with no respect to a vertically built monarchy. What it always resembled is US Wild West, i.e. Frontier. The word "Ukraine" means "fringe", "outskirt". And people there always had the taste of crude freedom. The problem is neighbour - Russia. While Ukraine had never been seapower state, it several times shared fate of Athens, Carthage, Venice and Genoa when the big land empire, first Ottoman Turkey then Tsarist Russia seized it and used as a greenhouse/wheatfield, exporting wheat and dooming the Ukranians to starve. The word "cossak" stems from that time and deeds, when people fled to borderless steppes and settled in the wilderness, though the core cossak breed is of no Slavic blood, they are rather of Turk origin.
Yesterday I was in Kyiv and spoke to friends, they just don't believe the Russia is so stupid to make an offence militarily.
Remember, Putin is not Napoleon, Friedrich der Grosse, Peter the Great, Winston Churchill or George Patton: he is rather kinda Richelieu or Pope Alexander VI Borgia, his victories are not military ones but political firstly.
The main reason to hope there won't be any war is that with essentially no smart weapon in both adversaries' possession, collateral death toll will be terrible on both Russian and Ukranian soil.

Maybe the solution is to make Ukraine the wild frontier again and give control of it back to the Zaporozhian Sich. I guess at that point, we could also make the argument to give everything West of the Dniepr back to Poland. ??‍♂️

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

If so, why not give the Donbass back to Russia

Well, there are FIVE Ukraines. Western one, who are actually of Polish-Romanian cultural roots, Catholics. They state themselves are only true Ukranians, all four the rest parts may not always understand Western accent and render Westerners the Habsburg Empire relics. Central one, living on both banks of Dnepr River, from Kyiv to Dnepr City, are balanced and moderate people, not quite religious, just want to live and let die. This is the most reasonable part of society, and it is their, on low banks, the "cossak county": trading part knowing the lock, stock and two smokin' barrels. Then, Eastern one, i.e. Donbass - traditionally most criminal and at the same time poorest Ukranians, close in ethos and language to Russia which they border, envious and sincerely sinister, the best way to describe them gives the old proverb: it is not the problem that my cow is dead, the worse is that my neighbour's one is still alive. The Southern Ukraine, Kharkyv to Odessa longitudinally, is Jewish soil: let's make a deal, all the rest comes after. And fifth part is Crimea - neither Ukraine nor Russia culturally, rather Turkish ethos and roots. So answering your question directly: maybe it is sound decision to let Donbass go, but who will be next? Central riverine part? Russia enlarges just like Universe... For now Donbass is kinda buffer and believe me: Easterners don't want to be Russians, they want to conserve the situation in which they are now.

to give everything West of the Dniepr back to Poland

Does it coincide with Polish will?

 

[AllAmerican75]

Well, there are FIVE Ukraines. Western one, who are actually of Polish-Romanian cultural roots, Catholics. They state themselves are only true Ukranians, all four the rest parts may not always understand Western accent and render Westerners the Habsburg Empire relics. Central one, living on both banks of Dnepr River, from Kyiv to Dnepr City, are balanced and moderate people, not quite religious, just want to live and let die. This is the most reasonable part of society, and it is their, on low banks, the "cossak county": trading part knowing the lock, stock and two smokin' barrels. Then, Eastern one, i.e. Donbass - traditionally most criminal and at the same time poorest Ukranians, close in ethos and language to Russia which they border, envious and sincerely sinister, the best way to describe them gives the old proverb: it is not the problem that my cow is dead, the worse is that my neighbour's one is still alive. The Southern Ukraine, Kharkyv to Odessa longitudinally, is Jewish soil: let's make a deal, all the rest comes after. And fifth part is Crimea - neither Ukraine nor Russia culturally, rather Turkish ethos and roots. So answering your question directly: maybe it is sound decision to let Donbass go, but who will be next? Central riverine part? Russia enlarges just like Universe... For now Donbass is kinda buffer and believe me: Easterners don't want to be Russians, they want to conserve the situation in which they are now.

Does it coincide with Polish will?

Then perhaps it's better that Ukraine once again be ruled by Cossacks and we (the West) stop meddling in Cossack affairs.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Look, Ukranian Cossacks are Slavic equivalent of both Med and Carribbean pirates and cowboys of Wild West and, aside from Northern Novgorod "Veche", the earliest known democracy of Slavic world. Russian Cossacks for their part once decided to lay under Tsar power and became the border guard, kinda paramilitary of the era. But from time to time they fled to Ukraine and joined Sich Cossack brotherhood and freedom. This is quite intricate story but please be sure: true Cossacks weren't the sacking and raping crowd (that's the habits of Russian Don Cossacks when within the ranks of regular Army, which Sich Cossacks had never participated) but simultaneously they always strongly opposed to unite under sole flag, be that of Ottoman, Austrian or Russian empires: their freedom is over any gold or glory. It is quite hard to deal with such people in modern realities

 

[Randy Daytona]

Thought this was an interesting read:

Russia Has Been Building Up its Conventional Forces All Along

Russia Has Been Building Up its Conventional Forces All Along | Small Wars Journal

When examining the conventional balance of power between NATO and Russian forces, the numbers alone are not sufficient. To better understand this balance power, it is necessary to inspect not just the sheer number of conventional forces (ground troops, tanks, and aircraft), but where these...

smallwarsjournal.com

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Somehow overestimated Russian armour prowess makes me curious whether some scenario of tank-vs-tank battles is the ground of such supposition. Though Russian armour forces indeed made a leap forward in vehicles protection as such, yet still there are serious problems in sensors and overall C4IR realm. The Russian armour isn't ready to mass strike against Ukranian Army. Maybe it's worth to have a couple of live Javelin engagements to show that armour doesn't work as advertised. Though it's better to keep peace indeed

 

[Hotdogs]

Thought this was an interesting read:

Russia Has Been Building Up its Conventional Forces All Along

Russia Has Been Building Up its Conventional Forces All Along | Small Wars Journal

When examining the conventional balance of power between NATO and Russian forces, the numbers alone are not sufficient. To better understand this balance power, it is necessary to inspect not just the sheer number of conventional forces (ground troops, tanks, and aircraft), but where these...

smallwarsjournal.com

The most interesting part of this article is that it took a PhD to understand the concept of relative combat power….and subsequently deduce that the Baltics are mere speed bumps for the Russian military.

 

[Flash]

Thought this was an interesting read:

Russia Has Been Building Up its Conventional Forces All Along

Russia Has Been Building Up its Conventional Forces All Along | Small Wars Journal

When examining the conventional balance of power between NATO and Russian forces, the numbers alone are not sufficient. To better understand this balance power, it is necessary to inspect not just the sheer number of conventional forces (ground troops, tanks, and aircraft), but where these...

smallwarsjournal.com

One thing to note when it comes to defense budgets, not all are created equal. While a lot of ink is spilled about how the US's defense budget is bigger than the next X number countries combined in reality several of them, like Russia and China, don't count all the same things we do as part of the defense budget, obscure or classify large parts of their budget or just plain lie.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Russia doesn't have anywhere near the logistical 'depth' that we and several of our NATO allies have, which would be a big impediment to any military ops beyond their 'near abroad', basically the countries right next door to them or close by.

 

[Random8145]

One thing to note when it comes to defense budgets, not all are created equal. While a lot of ink is spilled about how the US's defense budget is bigger than the next X number countries combined in reality several of them, like Russia and China, don't count all the same things we do as part of the defense budget, obscure or classify large parts of their budget or just plain lie.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Russia doesn't have anywhere near the logistical 'depth' that we and several of our NATO allies have, which would be a big impediment to any military ops beyond their 'near abroad', basically the countries right next door to them or close by.

Was just about to ask about this, because in order to project power, Putin is going to have to run supply lines and if the Russian military's logistics aren't up to par, then it doesn't matter how good their tanks and troops are. This inadequacy severely hampered the Germans in WWII. I have a few questions though:

1) My understanding is that the Soviets invented the concept of the operational level of war, and that it came about because Russian military thinkers began recognizing that with industrialization, and also just Russia's sheer size, that future wars (for Russia anyway) would involve massive forces with large battlefronts and very long supply lines. And so developed the idea of Soviet Deep Battle theory which entails penetrating deep into the enemy's interior, which as a prerequisite would mean mastery of logistics. Now Russia now is not the Soviet military at its height I would think, but, I am sure this school of thinking, and especially given its success by the Russians against the Germans in WWII, still is with the Russians and thus they are aware of its importance. Which probably means this is something they are working towards building in their military buildup.

2) When you say "logistical depth," how do you mean? Like do you mean physical locations of supplies laid out by NATO forces to support any kind of conflict or do you just mean the overall logistical capabilities of said forces? (like their numbers of logistics personnel and professionalism, numbers of supply and fuel trucks, etc...?)

3) You say the U.S. and several of our NATO allies; just wondering who those several are?