Russia-Ukrainian War

[rkbabang]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

@crs223 the libertarian utopia does not exist. Any Government  might do a lot of things wrong, but try to do without it. Even if you do manage without it, the neighbor government / country  will just move their army in your utopia and that will be it.

 

As for Ukraine winning, I think it is possible, but might take a long time, unless the Russian army collapses , which I don't think is likely. They can win, when Ukraine as well as the territorial forces and newer formed volunteer units get NATO weaponry and fully trained on those as well as getting seasoned. (the Ukraine regulars are seasoned and some territorial forces are, but many are not and neither are most volunteer units at this point and they are taking heavy losses on front lines).

 

If Ukraine is fully armed with western/ NATO weapons, I don't think the Russians have a chance against them any more.

 

 

Funny how we can live in violent societies where governments are powerless to stop it, see wars and genocides where hundreds of millions are killed, and still think gee maybe it is the government that stops my neighbor from attacking me.    No society involving humans will ever be a utopia.  The only ones who ever call a libertarian society a "utopia" are non-libertarians.   Violence between people will always happen, but for large scale Hitler or Stalin type violence you need a government.  Your government utopia is the only way to slaughter hundreds of millions of people.  I'm far more worried about Russia and NATO coming to nuclear blows than I am about my neighbor attacking me.  I have enough firepower to handle that on my own. 

 

 

[patience_and_focus]

1 hour ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

Funny how we can live in violent societies where governments are powerless to stop it, see wars and genocides where hundreds of millions are killed, and still think gee maybe it is the government that stops my neighbor from attacking me.    No society involving humans will ever be a utopia.  The only ones who ever call a libertarian society a "utopia" are non-libertarians.   Violence between people will always happen, but for large scale Hitler or Stalin type violence you need a government.  Your government utopia is the only way to slaughter hundreds of millions of people.  I'm far more worried about Russia and NATO coming to nuclear blows than I am about my neighbor attacking me.  I have enough firepower to handle that on my own. 

 

 

 

Yes, but to stop it, you also need a govt or collective on the other side. Govt is a necessary evil because without it adversaries will (a) form a collective by pooling resources (call it Govt backed by taxes - either democratic or autocratic by force) (b) sense weakness outside their sphere of influence and exploit it.

 

Nothing is utopia, but the next best thing is to pray that the collective is a democratic govt with the heft that can stop your adversaries so that people inside that collective usually live in relative peace and freedom. Now, nothing is stopping the democratic govt from starting their own oppression on people outside their purview but that is the best one can do.

 

[Spekulatius]

The modern nation state evolved to wage war more efficiently. Conscription as well as waging a total war was not possible before. One may or may not like it, but a amalgation of tiny little fiefdoms would not have a chance against modern organized army. It's jungle out there and without a nation and institution to protect out. we would be in the middle of it.

 

The Ukraine is an example of what happens with a state on it's own when the large neighboring state goes bonkers.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

[Ross812]

On 5/18/2022 at 6:52 PM, cubsfan said:

 

 Yeah, right Ross. Keep that social agenda going for the US military - it's of utmost importance.

 

Meanwhile, your "woke" Pentagon oversees an enormous disaster in Afghanistan killing dozens

of Americans with a totally botched withdrawal in hopes of meeting the political pressure for

a September 11th victory parade for Biden. Nothing like taking your eye off the ball for politics.

 

Message to our Afghan allies:  "Sorry we unleashed a total bloodbath nightmare for you and your

families. You helped us, so we cut and run to meet our political agenda. Sorry the Taliban came

in and cut your throats in front of your children - and then shot you too boot"

 

But it certainly did work out in spectacular fashion for the Taliban - since the

morons at the Pentagon left them billions of dollars of the most sophisticated

weapons know to man. 

 

If you don't think the rest of our allies have noticed and are going to arm up - you're dreaming.

 

The military has always had civilian leadership (the president) and big decisions like going to war are always political decisions. The military has also always implemented "radical" social change - integration, women on the front lines, etc. The military implements the changes because, in the long run, it makes the military more cohesive and better. Our Afghan allies weren't the first to see what happens when the military is ready to pull out; I remember the same outrage when we pulled out of Iraq in the 90's and let the Kurds fend for themselves. You seem to really be advocation for the military changing up the way they have always done things. Very progressive of you . 

 

Wasn't Trump the one who wanted our allies to arm up and quit relying on the US to subsidize their low defense spending? I'm confused, you either want to pull out of NATO because the US is pulling all the weight, but when NATO gets stronger with increased allied defense spending and new members you throw a tantrum? It's almost like "woke" politics got Trump the NATO he wanted - that right there is a mind fuck!

[cubsfan]

^^^ Hey, don't be confused. Like you said, Ukraine was not part of NATO, which was Ukraine's issue

since they dumped their missiles etc, for the Russians back in 1991.  That turned out to be a disaster,

which is exactly why other countries are going to be prepared via, hopefully, new alliances or getting nukes. Finally, now we are seeing NATO getting serious, to the benefit of Europe. So that's all good.

 

Of course Trump wanted NATO to pull their weight and fair share!! He just called out all the fucking

freeloaders, led by the Germans to ante up for defense budgets! He threaten to pull out, which

is exactly what he should have done. Now NATO is beginning to galvanize in their opposition

to Russia - unfortunately it just took a wholesale destruction of Ukrainian cities and tremendous

loss of life. 

 

The Afghan pullout was a disaster like no past US administration has seen: totally avoidable, totally

predictable. So much for the "honor" of the Pentagon generals to give in to the idiots in the

White House. Rather that resign in honor for a failure everyone could see coming - they choose

to protect their careers and insure the slaughter of the Afghan allies, as well as making a weak

Taliban the best armed terrorist army in the world.  Better to focus on transgenders rights...

 

The Taliban had no fear of Biden and his Pentagon flunkies. You seem to forget for Trump's

last 18 months, no Americans were killed in Afghanistan. One MOAB bomb did the trick.

 

The difference between Biden & Trump were stark: Given the most powerful military in the 

world - Trump was not afraid to use it and send a powerful message of deterrence.

Biden, on the other hand, being a total coward, like Neville Chamberlain - possessed

the weapons and the greatest military - but WOULD NOT USE IT - and insured a complete disaster

for Afghan allies and American soldiers.

 

All American Allies have taken note. 

[aws]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/26/putin-george-soros-says-russia-is-blackmailing-europe-with-gas.html?&qsearchterm=russia

 

This article is much in line with how I think a good endgame could be reached. Russia does not want to be turning off any taps, and all of its threats on the subject are bluffs. They want to project the image that Europe needs the gas more than they need to sell it. They hope by cutting off a few small countries it will scare the rest into making deals, and in the meantime the loss of volume is made up for by higher prices, but a complete termination of gas exports to Europe hurts Russia massively more than Europe. Revenue drops to zero, and the gas production can actually become a burden if their storage is full and they need to shut in wells which can't be started again easily if tensions cool soon after. 

 

And how much of Russia's NG production is associated gas, which cannot be turned off without losing oil output as well? Operators in the permian in recent years had to flare or accept negative prices for their gas as there was no way to get it to market. And they couldn't shut in the gas as it was just a byproduct of their oil production. 

 

Russia has no other customers and cannot afford to stop production. But while Europe holds all the cards, they are playing it in a way that so far has been a net positive for Russia's O&G revenue. The fears of shortages has driven up prices and any actions that may have a real impact on the dependence on Russian energy are months or years away. If they took drastic action and called Russia's bluff two months ago, the war might have been over already. 

 

 

[Gregmal]

I was watching a documentary the other day and it brought up a period earlier in the 2000s where the US was fighting its Iraq/Afghanistan war. There was great outrage, constant "denouncing", and a general stink made about Pakistan "aiding" some of their allies(whom happened to be fighting the US) through providing weaponry. Interesting perspective now, given todays situation. Of course it was different because whatever we are doing is right and whatever we dont like or are fighting against is evil and wrong. 

[CGJB]

I'm no military strategist, but I always felt the end game in this would be the Donbas becoming independent, maybe joining Russia at some point, with Russia establishing a land bridge to Crimea. Now I suspect Russia will eventually take Odessa.

 

In the end, what's left of Ukraine will be a landlocked country. Every bit as corrupt as it has been, but much poorer as well.

[no_free_lunch]

56 minutes ago, CGJB said:

I'm no military strategist, but I always felt the end game in this would be the Donbas becoming independent, maybe joining Russia at some point, with Russia establishing a land bridge to Crimea. Now I suspect Russia will eventually take Odessa.

 

In the end, what's left of Ukraine will be a landlocked country. Every bit as corrupt as it has been, but much poorer as well.

I wonder which country Russia will attack next.  It seems the only thing Russia is capable of is to attack smaller neighbor countries and the domestic issues are bound to resurface as this invasion has not resolved the underlying cluster fuck that is the Russian economy. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[mcliu]

On 6/1/2022 at 10:58 AM, Gregmal said:

I was watching a documentary the other day and it brought up a period earlier in the 2000s where the US was fighting its Iraq/Afghanistan war. There was great outrage, constant "denouncing", and a general stink made about Pakistan "aiding" some of their allies(whom happened to be fighting the US) through providing weaponry. Interesting perspective now, given todays situation. Of course it was different because whatever we are doing is right and whatever we dont like or are fighting against is evil and wrong. 

It seems like most Americans cheer the start of every war/proxy war, ex. Afghanistan, Iraq, now Ukraine, etc. And then a years later that the money & lives could have been better used at home. Also disturbing is that many Americans will rightly denounce right-wing extremism in the US but will happily support neo-nazi/extremist groups abroad as long as they're fighting for the "proper" side.

 

16 hours ago, CGJB said:

I'm no military strategist, but I always felt the end game in this would be the Donbas becoming independent, maybe joining Russia at some point, with Russia establishing a land bridge to Crimea. Now I suspect Russia will eventually take Odessa.

 

In the end, what's left of Ukraine will be a landlocked country. Every bit as corrupt as it has been, but much poorer as well.

I agree, no matter what, it's a sad outcome for Ukrainians either way to be dragged into this proxy war instead of negotiating peace.

 

Seems like the sanctions are backfiring on Europe too. Inflation hitting records. Factories shutting down due to high input costs, furthering reducing supply and increasing costs. Meanwhile, India & China are buying record amounts of Russian energy. Rouble is higher than pre-war.

[Spekulatius]

I don't think the Russian can get Odessa. They have trouble to even get Severodonetsk and they are losing tons of material and troops. bthe west just has to keep supplying more and better weapons and the Russian army will just expend themselves in a meat grinder to gain a few miles here and there.

 

The Russian Ruble is up because the Russians can't buy much with it due to sanctions so the proceeds from energy sales  just pile up. In the mean time the rest of their economy is slowly shutting down.

[shhughes1116]

On 6/14/2022 at 5:56 PM, CGJB said:

I'm no military strategist, but I always felt the end game in this would be the Donbas becoming independent, maybe joining Russia at some point, with Russia establishing a land bridge to Crimea. Now I suspect Russia will eventually take Odessa.

 

In the end, what's left of Ukraine will be a landlocked country. Every bit as corrupt as it has been, but much poorer as well.

Read my earlier post about mobilization.  
 

Ukraine is just now hitting the exponential curve upwards for mobilization, while Russia is struggling to fill frontline units with fresh meat.  Ukraine’s problem isn’t numbers - they have more combat-experienced troops than any country in the world given the 8 year conflict in the Donbas and their 1-year rotation for conscripts.   Ukraine’s problem is that they are struggling to outfit units with all the stuff needed for the front lines - helmets, boots, NVGs, etc.   By the end of the Summer, Ukraine will likely have 750k mobilized troops, most of whom will already have combat experience from the Donbas. 
 

My prediction - 

- Ukraine pushes Russia back to the Feb 2022 borders;

- Ukraine gives up Crimea during negotiations with Russia, and then promptly cuts the water at Nova Kakhovka, turning Crimea into an uninhabitable wasteland.  
- Referendum conducted in the Donbas by UN, and turns out people aren’t so interested in living under Russian rule. 
 

There are two additional facts which I think are helpful to understand -

- Eastern front in WW2 was won on the backs of Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Siberian fighters, not ethnic Russians.  The Ukrainians and Belorussians and Siberians know how to fight.  
- most of the Russian casualties have been among ethnic minorities and PMC soldiers.  In other words, the elites and ethnic Russians don’t give a f**k about the human costs of the “special military operation”.  If Putin starts a general mobilization by calling this a war, he is going to have a political problem with the elites and ethnic Russians, likely resulting in the end of his reign.  
 

 

[Spekulatius]

The difference between Afghanistan and a Ukraine is that the people of Ukraine are willing to fight for their independence, while the Afghans were not. So, if we supply the Ukraine with enough weapons, Ukraine will defend themselves and the Russians will continue to get into a meat drinker until their army is in shreds and the Ukraine can go I into the offensive and win their territory back.

 

Russia is afraid to mobilize because it will risk considerable civil unrest and their conscripts have to will to fight could repeat the 1917, which led to a Revolution.

 

The US and the west has to start ramping production of weapons to supply the Ukraine with everything, Advanced artillery, tanks, armored vehicles,  Anti tank, aircraft, anti aircraft weapons, fins body armor, ammo, basic supplies - everything to keep their army going.

 

It will be expensive but much cheaper than dealing with Putin if he wins.

[Dinar]

You are assuming Putin just sits back and does nothing.  What scares me if he does any of the following: tactical nukes, complete cut-off oil and gas from the world markets, massive cyber attacks that cripple utilities and hospitals in Europe and US.   I think a negotiated solution is needed ASAP that allows Putin to save face.  He needs to claim victory, even if it is really a defeat.

[formthirteen]

4 hours ago, Dinar said:

You are assuming Putin just sits back and does nothing.  What scares me if he does any of the following: tactical nukes, complete cut-off oil and gas from the world markets, massive cyber attacks that cripple utilities and hospitals in Europe and US.   I think a negotiated solution is needed ASAP that allows Putin to save face.  He needs to claim victory, even if it is really a defeat.

 

My first priority wouldn't be to negotiate with someone who I know has no plans on following any agreement I sign. This is a war of ideology, democracy vs authoritarianism, that will continue whatever happens in Ukraine. Showing weakness (being scared, etc.) is an invitation to the next invasion and most of the European countries have once again shown that they have weak leadership. IMO, Ukraine simply needs to be stronger than Russia to solve this problem.

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by formthirteen

[aws]

Putin doesn't need to save face. He doesn't care at all what the west things about him, and his propaganda machine in Russia can spin whatever outcome into some heroic victory. Give Ukraine as much as they can use to defend themselves for as long as they have the will to do so.

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, aws said:

Putin doesn't need to save face. He doesn't care at all what the west things about him, and his propaganda machine in Russia can spin whatever outcome into some heroic victory. Give Ukraine as much as they can use to defend themselves for as long as they have the will to do so.

Yep, thats it in a nutshell.

Who cares what Putin thinks at this point. His nukes are useless - using them even on tactical level will get NATO involved (likely with a massive conventional response ) and makes him lose the war very quickly.

 

Just remember that  we had wars between nuclear armed parties before, it is nothing new.

[maplevalue]

18 hours ago, shhughes1116 said:

Ukraine’s problem is that they are struggling to outfit units with all the stuff needed for the front lines - helmets, boots, NVGs, etc.   By the end of the Summer, Ukraine will likely have 750k mobilized troops, most of whom will already have combat experience from the Donbas. 

 

This is very interesting. Do you have a source for this?

[Spekulatius]

5 hours ago, maplevalue said:

 

This is very interesting. Do you have a source for this?

Several blogs talk about this including the war in Ukraine youtube channel.

 

Here is a CBS article. Many of the ukrainian volunteer/conscripts units take heavy losses upon contact with the enemy due to lack of heavy weapons and training. Keep in mind that most casualties are due to artillery right now  and while Ukraine has received some from the west, it isn't enough to counter Russian firepower. Those conscript units often have no artillery whatsoever.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/ukrainian-forces-lacking-essential-equipment/

 

We should be producing hundreds of Howitzers right now, so we can sent them to Ukraine. Enough artillery in Ukrainian hands and the Russians become mincemeat. They are very good at using them, but they don't have enough and in addition ammunition for their Russian made (which is still the vast majority of their existing material) are running out, because it's only produced in Russia.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Spekulatius

[shhughes1116]

5 hours ago, maplevalue said:

 

This is very interesting. Do you have a source for this?

A bunch of sources, yes.  At the beginning of the war when they started conscription, they were moving guys through the system in a couple of days.  They had equipment on-hand, and clearly a need for numbers.   Now I am hearing that it is taking more than a month - they are waiting around for equipment and the need for numbers is not as desperate.  
 

People get really focused on the heavy equipment like HIMARS and tanks and IFVs.  Clearly those are important, especially in the South.  But people forget about the small stuff - body armor, helmets, secure radios, small-arms and NVGs.  The NVGs are pretty crucial.  In some areas of the front, can’t go toe-to-toe in a conventional fight with Russians right  now given the disparity in artillery.  But the Ukrainians have a lot of NVG gear compared to the Russians, and some really incredible NVG stuff for their relatively large force of SOF guys.  So from what I am hearing, the Ukrainians are doing a lot of fighting at night.  The Russians don’t have a lot of working NVG equipment, don’t have much working thermal optics, and so they are basically blind (and sometimes drunk) at night.  

 

 

[no_free_lunch]

5 hours ago, maplevalue said:

 

This is very interesting. Do you have a source for this?

I don't have a source handy but I have heard similar numbers.   It is possible. 100k troops in Donbass a year since 2014 when the war started, so 8 years worth.  I don't think there is a problem with equipping these types of numbers with basic infantry equipment.

 

It's more about having the heavy equipment than number of men, from what I can tell.  Tanks, drones, artillery, aircraft.  This in true in particular in the open areas.  So it will really come down to the west supplying the equipment.  There is no doubt they have the manpower to use it.

[shhughes1116]

5 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Several blogs talk about this including the war in Ukraine youtube channel.

 

Here is a CBS article. Many of the ukrainian volunteer/conscripts units take heavy losses upon contact with the enemy due to lack of heavy weapons and training. Keep in mind that most casualties are due to artillery right now  and while Ukraine has received some from the west, it isn't enough to counter Russian firepower. Those conscript units often have no artillery whatsoever.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/ukrainian-forces-lacking-essential-equipment/

 

We should be producing hundreds of Howitzers right now, so we can sent them to Ukraine. Enough artillery in Ukrainian hands and the Russians become mincemeat. They are very good at using them, but they don't have enough and in addition ammunition for their Russian made (which is still the vast majority of their existing material) are running out, because it's only produced in Russia.

if we were serious about ending this, we would send ~500 M109A6 Palladins.  An upgraded version of the M109s that Norway recently sent and the M109s that the British are about to send.  We bought almost 1000 back in the 90’s before the production line closed.  Great weapon for shoot and scoot, very accurate, and when combined with the counter-battery radars that we’ve given to Ukraine, the Russian artillery would be toast in about a week.  
 

 

 

 

[Gregmal]

Nah haven’t you seen how important the excuses of Putin and the War are to Bidens entire schtick right now? Before the war even really got going I said how he rather have an excuse and a scapegoat for $125 oil than have it at $90 and no one but himself to blame. 

[Spekulatius]

Severodonetsk has become another Stalingrad. Absolutely nuts. If you ever watched the movie with Jude law and Ed Harris, at the end this will look like the “impossible shot scene”. Supposedly one guy did not make the gap, but it’s not shown.

Similar to Stalingrad for the Germans, the city is sort of worthless strategically, but has become a trophy price for the Russians. The Ukrainians using this to draw in the Russian resources in a meat grinder (at least that what it looks like)

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Spekulatius