The Russia vs Ukraine show

[GlasgowJock]

Was curious as to the Yank group think on this august forum concerning the unfolding Slavic saga following Biden's somewhat flaccid response earlier this week to perceived Russian aggression.

There's some considerable Russian forces amassing on the border with reports now of 200'000 plus troops and the necessary hardware to support combined arms warfare against the Ukraine.

Does anyone in the US really give a shit about continental Europe vs Russia in the strategic/ military sense, particularly with the Germans in thrall of Russia for their energy needs & Western Europe paying lip service to their defence budgets?

Are the Ukrainians really the 'bad guys' in all of this making Russia appear more 'belligerent' than it actually is to secure additional Western materiel to retake East Ukraine?

Will the Russians justify an invasion perhaps using separatists to provoke the Ukrainians into a perceived 'first response' ?

Do various heads of state secretly desire such a war to distract from woeful domestic issues and/ or fuel the #militaryindustrialcomplex?

Thoughts?

[Culican]

I think I'll buy some Raytheon stock tomorrow.

[zappey1]

I think lots of us are tired of America playing world police only to get dumped on. Afghanistan pullout was a shit show and basically ended up costing trillions, thousands of lives for little return. Plus we are having several domestic issues, to say the least.

I would say now would be the ideal time for countries to make a move. Russia in Ukraine or China in Taiwan. I would give 50 50 odds to the US doing nothing (other than talk/ light sanctions) especially if the EU/ other allies sat on the sidelines. If history holds true even if the US did have interventions they would be restricted to air support/ special operations missions (democrat in office).

If Russia or China were going to make a move I would think now would be the best time since before WW2. I think they both might wait until they need money/ resources a little more as neither one is hurting that bad right now. Both are doing ok in the current financial situations they are in and probably don't want to risk messing that up.

[aurelius]

Flaccid? Probably half the US can't point to Ukraine on the map. The other half of the US doesn't have the wherewithal for a prolonged skirmish against Russia in the Ukraine. We are too busy yelling at each other over abortions. What would you have liked Biden to say?

State to State: Putin had all those demands and the US just fucking laughed at him. The US President can wage war for 90 days without Congressional approval. Probably more so now after the Patriot Act. Biden does not need political support to respond in the Ukraine. Not even Russia is pushing for war in their propaganda and instead are calling this a military exercise. So why beat the drums of war publicly now? Let Russia invade and then respond with righteous fury.

Russia is the bad guy. Russia forcibly took the Crimean Peninsula years ago. And as you point out has now amassed an invasion force off of Ukraine's border. US and NATO allies have already uncovered a Russian plot to stage 'attacks' on Russian soil to justify the invasion.

The Scandanavians aren't thrilled. Neither is Belarus. The Ukraine has 300,000 since 2014 with military experience. And NATO allies (including the US) have flooded the Ukraine with personnel anti-tank and anti-air weaponry. The Ukraine is not a soft target. The last large scale invasion Russia attempted was Georgia in 2008. That did not go well for the Russians. I don't think Russia would have any real hopes of holding Ukraine at this point and the invasion would be costly.

Putin's miscalculation is how this has galvanized NATO. Western Europe might decide fighting in Ukraine is the best option on the table. The US already has sizeable forces in Europe. If NATO acts, the US will be heavily involved. If NATO does not, the US will provide support in the form of intelligence and 'consultants' on the ground. Maybe even air support. Even that will probably be enough to turn the tide. The Germans will fall in line with NATO. And the military budget issue is a bit of a red herring. No ones spends as much as the US on defense. The combined European NATO nations spend a lot more than Russia on defense. The real issue is leadership. US military leadership is the only worldwide leadership that has experience on how plan and run a large scale war. It would make a significant difference for NATO to have US involvement to benefit from US military leadership.

I believe the W. Bush and Obama made a huge mistake allowing Russia to take the Crimean Peninsula without real consequence. The US should have drawn the line in the sand at that point. Ostensibly ending the war in Afghanistan allows the US to focus on its more traditional role of defending the West. Geopolitically, the US has no choice. Let Russia do this and it will only embolden Putin. China is clearly a bad actor. Taiwan and Southeast Asia is at stake. Time for the West to show it has some teeth. The other option is for the US just to become isolationist and cede the world stage to Russia and China.

[aurelius]

Good article that discusses the various military issues.

https://www.economist.com/europe/what-a ... id=1025626

IMO, the US should push to make open conflict happen:

1) Russia is not really prepared for a determined resistance. Russia has not engaged in large scale conflict since WW2.
2) While conflict would hurt Europe's economy, it may prove fatal to the Russian economy.
3) This would be a great conflict to test the effectiveness of Russian military technology and assets.
4) This may provide a unifying opportunity for the politically fractured US populace.
5) The West's geopolitical goals are dependent upon Russia and China fearing a military response to aggression.

If Putin is rational, he backs down. The juice is not worth the squeeze.

[dw]

At least until recently either path was open to the US. I am fine with US imperialism and also fine with US retrenchment.

What seems indefensible to me is maintaining the most expensive military in the world and still being seen as a pushover. What's the point?

[quikky]

Whatever happens, can we at least stop calling it the Ukraine?

It's just Ukraine.

[KyleSchuant]

What seems indefensible to me is maintaining the most expensive military in the world and still being seen as a pushover. What's the point?

It's a job creation scheme. First you hire a shitload of people to be in your military. Then you hire a shitload of people to build overpriced junk that doesn't work. After that you hire a shitload of people to fix the overpriced junk that doesn't work.

Then you get into a war in which that overpriced junk is totally irrelevant, so you have to build a whole lot of other overpriced junk instead. After you've withdrawn from that in disgrace, you quickly warm up to the idea of a completely different kind of war coming on up where some different overpriced junk will be needed.

That's why within three week of the fall of Kabul, everyone in the Western world was talking about the possibility of war with China. Or Russia. Because if you just had another guerilla war then there'd be no need to buy more overpriced junk, you could just use all the stuff you'd stockpiled for Afghanistan and Iraq. If you do have a war with one of those places then everyone will quickly pivot to some guerilla war threat after that.

Lots of jobs, lots of money flowing around. A war economy is the best kind of consumer economy. I mean, the US defence budget is a quarter million dollars per person in the defence forces - and that's without even shooting at anyone. How many neighbourhoods in US cities do a quarter of million dollars per person in consumer spending annually?

BTW, Australia spends half a million per ADF member, and we can't even deploy anyone anywhere without your help, and we had to chuck out a bunch of troop helicopters because... the doors were too small, you could strap a machinegun on to give cover to guys dropping out, or you could fit a guy in or out, not both at once. Then there was that time when we got new subs and didn't have torpedoes for them for five years because the department ordered the wrong size torp. You guys really have to catch on the wastefulness index.

[BostonRugger]

Good article that discusses the various military issues.

https://www.economist.com/europe/what-a ... id=1025626

IMO, the US should push to make open conflict happen:

1) Russia is not really prepared for a determined resistance. Russia has not engaged in large scale conflict since WW2.
2) While conflict would hurt Europe's economy, it may prove fatal to the Russian economy.
3) This would be a great conflict to test the effectiveness of Russian military technology and assets.
4) This may provide a unifying opportunity for the politically fractured US populace.
5) The West's geopolitical goals are dependent upon Russia and China fearing a military response to aggression.

If Putin is rational, he backs down. The juice is not worth the squeeze.

BenAffleckSmokingThePainAway.jpg

Did not read link, per custom. Proxy war with Russia is just about the dustiest 20th century meme there is, outside of Bill Kristol's entire career. There is no US interest in Ukraine unless we want to give Archer Daniels Midland a hookup on some wheat fields. The only way that Russia could be considered a threat to the United Sates (you know, the geographic area between Canada and Mexico) is through their nuclear weapons. Shall we get out our maps and look at where Ukraine is? It's Russia. It has been Russia (and Poland and Austro Hungary, and blahblah) before and if it's Russia again, I can't imagine why I should care about that.

[aurelius]

BenAffleckSmokingThePainAway.jpg

Did not read link, per custom. Proxy war with Russia is just about the dustiest 20th century meme there is, outside of Bill Kristol's entire career. There is no US interest in Ukraine unless we want to give Archer Daniels Midland a hookup on some wheat fields. The only way that Russia could be considered a threat to the United Sates (you know, the geographic area between Canada and Mexico) is through their nuclear weapons. Shall we get out our maps and look at where Ukraine is? It's Russia. It has been Russia (and Poland and Austro Hungary, and blahblah) before and if it's Russia again, I can't imagine why I should care about that.

Substitute Germany here or pick your aggressive country, but some version of this same argument has been used by isolationists since the beginning of time. This could have been lifted from the draft dodgers and isolationist arguments regarding any US war including WW2. It was wrong then and wrong now. I can't imagine a worse argument: Hey, that was the Roman Empire's borders! The United States used to be England. Get out the maps King George. Historical borders... For real.

Does that mean all wars are 'worthwhile'. No. The US wars of Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East all were questionable. Mainly for lack a strategic goal beyond reacting.

You have created a false test. One which the US must face an imminent military threat to respond with force. But you forget a bunch of dudes sitting in the caves effectively attacked the US on 9/11. Cyber attacks cost trillions (both Russian and China regularly engage in both). And there are other grave threats to a nation beyond war. A very limited and frankly poor geopolitical perspective. Commerce and diplomacy does not work with autocrats that care very little about economic repercussions. War is politic by other means.

[BostonRugger]

The 'draft dodgers' were right. That's term is not a pejorative. Are were making an argument for conscription now?

Does that mean all wars are 'worthwhile'. No. The US wars of Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East all were questionable. Mainly for lack a strategic goal beyond reacting.

How do you perceive this one to be different? Or that it will be better managed?

ETA:

But you forget a bunch of dudes sitting in the caves effectively attacked the US on 9/11.

Why did they do that again? Hated our freedom? As if OBL was just wandering around the desert one day, came across a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the sand and just said "Nah, I gotta get these mf'ers."

Per OBL's own fatwas, he attacked us because of our military presence/support for Saudi, plus sanctions and other atrocities in Iraq. Acting on the belief that America must be a world empire created those enemies for us. Continuing to do so, just as we have for the past 2 decades in the ME will create even more of them.

[JonA]

There is no US interest in Ukraine

I could have swore there was a big todo about the Ukraine a couple of years ago. Something about corruption and/or military funding....

[aurelius]

The 'draft dodgers' were right. That's term is not a pejorative. Are were making an argument for conscription now?

If discussing WW2, No they weren't.

Conscription is neither good nor bad. Just a tool.

How do you perceive this one to be different? Or that it will be better managed?

The strategic goal is clear. Stop Russian aggression. Which allows for a free Western world. That has a 70 year history of success despite the last 20 years of timidity.

Putin:
-"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,”
-“As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."

Ukranians do not consider themselves Russian...

Why did they do that again? Hated our freedom? As if OBL was just wandering around the desert one day, came across a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the sand and just said "Nah, I gotta get these mf'ers."

Per OBL's own fatwas, he attacked us because of our military presence/support for Saudi, plus sanctions and other atrocities in Iraq. Acting on the belief that America must be a world empire created those enemies for us. Continuing to do so, just as we have for the past 2 decades in the ME will create even more of them.

Yep. The US's approach to the Middle East was unnecessary and counter to our ideals. Should have treated the Middle East like Europe after WW2. But racism and the thought that maybe we could inherit the British Empire drove different policy decisions.

Libertarianism and the resultant political ideology of isolationism is a narrow, tone deaf perspective that ignores the lessons of history. Putin has no intention at stopping at Ukraine or Russia's 'historic' boundaries (whatever the fuck that means).

Then we must consider Russia's open hostility towards the US: cyber warfare, economic and political attacks...so if we get the chance to lay the smackdown and put Russia on its heels, we should.

[aurelius]

I'd also add that this 'historic' boundaries thing is something aggressors have commonly used to justify invasion. Germany did it in WW2. The so called Fatherland. The USSR and its Motherland. Now Putin. China is using it to justify its aggression in the South Sea and lay claim to surrounding areas. It is something autocrats use in an attempt to give validity to their goals. The US had to cook up 'manifest destiny', a combination of American exceptionalism and God, to justify its conquest of the Western US. It is laughable.

[Renascent]

4) This may provide a unifying opportunity for the politically fractured US populace.

How? Another Big Bad Other™?

[aurelius]

4) This may provide a unifying opportunity for the politically fractured US populace.

How? Another Big Bad Other™?

Yes.

I will always think of 9/11 as the greatest missed political opportunity of the early 21 century. The country was already fracturing. Could have been a great rallying point to solidify a nation that had lost focus since the fall of the USSR. But then all that momentum and unity was wasted on Iraq 2. That decision fractured the US even more than it was prior to 9/11. Imagine if the original mission of smash Al Qaeda had been adhered to. The US goes into Afghanistan, smashes Al Qaeda, then leaves. What a different world.

[BostonRugger]

Conscription is slavery. Even in muh WW2, slavery is bad. Call me an extremist I guess.

You saying that the goal clear does not make it clear. "Stop Russian Aggression." Where? Everywhere? Forever? Why Russian aggression as opposed to any other aggressive states?

If by "treat the ME like Europe after WW2," you mean we should set up a bunch of military bases in places we don't belong, we did do that. A little more slowly, but done is done.

Russian aggression?



NATO has pushed our mutual defense treaty org from the other side of their former defensive buffer, right up to their doorstep over the course of 30 years. How do you think US would respond if faced with anything remotely similar?

[BostonRugger]

4) This may provide a unifying opportunity for the politically fractured US populace.

How? Another Big Bad Other™?

Russia, Eastasia. Tomato, tomahto.

[BostonRugger]

That decision fractured the US even more than it was prior to 9/11. Imagine if the original mission of smash Al Qaeda had been adhered to. The US goes into Afghanistan, smashes Al Qaeda, then leaves. What a different world.

Amen. It didn't have to be this way. Bush Cheney arguably the biggest failures in the past century. Had all the power and cultural cache conservatives could ever ask for and they set back the country, the world and their own party irrevocably because warmongers.

[aurelius]

Conscription is slavery. Even in muh WW2, slavery is bad. Call me an extremist I guess.

Capitalism is slavery. Sure we have it better than those that came before. But work or starve is the mantra.

Conscription is a 'necessary evil' which is less necessary as military might no longer depends on manpower. Or at least it has not in the types of engagements the US has been involved in.

You saying that the goal clear does not make it clear. "Stop Russian Aggression." Where? Everywhere? Forever? Why Russian aggression as opposed to any other aggressive states?

Specifically referring to the Marshall plan that was applied post WW2 in Europe. Stop Russian expansion. Build strong military and economic allies.

Keep in mind strengthening our political and economic relationships with Europe has other benefits. Like disentangling our economic reliance on China. China can't be dealt with unilaterally.

If by "treat the ME like Europe after WW2," you mean we should set up a bunch of military bases in places we don't belong, we did do that. A little more slowly, but done is done. Russian aggression?

Equating the plan to rebuild Europe and create NATO is not equitable to what we did in the Middle East: install puppet governments, regime change, and use of force.

Nations voluntarily joining NATO is not conquest nor aggression. What does NATO rule exactly? Who has NATO invaded?

You are a serious person. These are not serious arguments.

NATO has pushed our mutual defense treaty org from the other side of their former defensive buffer, right up to their doorstep over the course of 30 years. How do you think US would respond if faced with anything remotely similar?

Nations bordering Russia would not join NATO unless they the saw the need. Russia invasions of Georgia, Crimea and numerous other smaller aggressions in the regions are driving the need for NATO. At the turn of the 20th century there was a question if NATO was even necessary. Well, thanks to Putin, it is. That is what is laughable. If Putin wanted NATO to dissolve, all he had to do was nothing.

I don't fault Iran for wanting a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. That is the only way to guarantee the US will not invade. The US's political and foreign policy towards the Middle East has never aligned with our values. We literally treat it as our own private sandbox where we carry out extra-judicial killings with no oversight. This is something that is stain mark on the US that we all will have to carry for generations to come.

But Europe is not the Middle East. The US's role is less muddled and supported by free nations in the region. Russia is not some ill begotten country. Putin is a bad actor that 100% seeks to dominate those it does not agree with. Putin's main drive: nostalgia. He wishes the USSR had won the Cold War and is looking for a do over.

Amen. It didn't have to be this way. Bush Cheney arguably the biggest failures in the past century. Had all the power and cultural cache conservatives could ever ask for and they set back the country, the world and their own party irrevocably because warmongers.

Yep. What a missed opportunity for the US and the world. I wish Obama had the courage to just yank us from Afghanistan in 2008. Oh well.

We are not going to agree. I don't like the US's 'police the world' role but the world does benefit from the relatively benign (comparatively) US hegemony. The alternatives are far worse. To be clear, intervening in Ukraine would not be 'police the world'. It would be fucking up Putin. Who needs an Uncle Sam sized boot up his ass. Russia has been attacking the US for almost 2 decades. Ukraine gives us an opportunity to hit back in a way Putin will understand.