Who'd Have Thought (back in 1984)?

[stilleto69]

@Raellus "How is allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine in the USA's national interest? If NATO turned a blind eye to the Russian conquest of Ukraine in 2022, would Putin really have believed that NATO has the stomach to go to war for Latvia or Estonia?" I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not for allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine, I'm just asking are we (the West) sure we have the stomach to do what is necessary. Is the West ready to possibly go to war with Russia and deal with the consequences (possible reinstatement of the Draft, massive casualties (military & civilian), etc.? I mean look at how the world is slowly changing it's attitude regarding Israel and it's war against Hamas, first it was do what you need to do to retaliate, now it's become you need to find a ceasefire agreement ASAP. Furthermore, the argument that the West would not fight for Latvia or Estonia is erroneous due to both members being in NATO and any hesitation/refusal to intervene would basically destroy the entire purpose of Article 5. And finally, as I stated even if Putin wins in Ukraine, I don't see the Ukrainian Resistance just trowing their hands up and walking away. I see it like the Taliban/Iraqi forces that drove our (the US) "F'ing nuts" with the constant roadside attacks, etc. I see them doing just the same to any Russian "Liberators" until their military/political leadership has had enough and withdraws (even just to save face) like they did in Afghanistan 1989.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by stilleto69

I'm not for allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine, I'm just asking are we (the West) sure we have the stomach to do what is necessary. Is the West ready to possibly go to war with Russia and deal with the consequences (possible reinstatement of the Draft, massive casualties (military & civilian), etc.?

Thank you for the clarification. My point is that, by supporting Ukraine with materiel aid now, we are reducing the chances that we would have to go to war with Russia in the near future. The UAF is bleeding the Russian military dry using Western weapons systems. A weaker Russian military reduces the threat of invasion to its neighbors. Conversely, I think allowing Putin to conquer Ukraine by withholding military aid would actually increase the chances of a war between the USA and Russia for reasons I've outlined in previous posts (some of which I will reiterate here).

Originally Posted by stilleto69

I mean look at how the world is slowly changing it's attitude regarding Israel and it's war against Hamas, first it was do what you need to do to retaliate, now it's become you need to find a ceasefire agreement ASAP.

I think this is a function of worldwide discomfort with the disproportionate civilian casualties Israel's military operations v. Hamas are generating, more than anything else. If Israel's "self-defense" operations in Gaza hadn't killed something in the neighborhood of 35,000 civilians, I don't think there would be nearly as much diplomatic pressure on them to negotiate/accept a cease-fire.

Originally Posted by stilleto69

Furthermore, the argument that the West would not fight for Latvia or Estonia is erroneous due to both members being in NATO and any hesitation/refusal to intervene would basically destroy the entire purpose of Article 5.

I don't disagree with this point. My point is about perception and how an expansionist tyrant (Putin) would perceive NATO's failure to support Ukraine after a full-scale invasion. I firmly believe that Putin would see such failure as evidence of a lack of willpower on the part of NATO to go to war to defend a former SSR (applicable to the Baltic States). I'm basing this on Putin's psych profile and past behavior (the best indicator of future actions), as well as the historical parallels- namely the consequences of Great Britain and France failing to use military force in response to Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia. As a result of this failure of resolve, the German dictator concluded that England and France would not go to war on behalf of Poland despite their public declarations to the contrary. As the infamous "Sitzkrieg" (Phony War) that followed Poland's partition showed, he was essentially correct.

Originally Posted by stilleto69

And finally, as I stated even if Putin wins in Ukraine, I don't see the Ukrainian Resistance just trowing their hands up and walking away. I see it like the Taliban/Iraqi forces that drove our (the US) "F'ing nuts" with the constant roadside attacks, etc. I see them doing just the same to any Russian "Liberators" until their military/political leadership has had enough and withdraws (even just to save face) like they did in Afghanistan 1989.

I agree with you on this point, but I don't think this scenario would make Poland and the Baltics any safer than the current status quo. A long, bloody guerilla war in Ukraine would destabilize the region even more so than it is destabilized now. For one, Eastern European NATO members would be inundated with millions more Ukrainian refugees. This would create economic, social, and political turmoil in those countries, greater than we've already seen. Furthermore, if Russia believed that Ukrainian partisans were receiving military aid (even just small arms and LAWs) from across the border with Poland et al, it would put those countries in greater danger from Russian aggression than they are in now. That is because Russian forces would presumably be at that border trying to stop said weapons shipments. Consequently, the potential for Russian military clashes with Polish forces would be much, much greater than they are now.

In conclusion, absent Putin declaring an end to his "special military operation" in Ukraine or coming to the negotiating table in good faith, I firmly believe that giving the UAF military aid that it requests (short of direct NATO intervention, of course) makes Europe safer than not aiding the UAF would.

-

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't disagree with this point. My point is about perception and how an expansionist tyrant (Putin) would perceive NATO's failure to support Ukraine after a full-scale invasion. I firmly believe that Putin would see such failure as evidence of a lack of willpower on the part of NATO to go to war to defend a former SSR (applicable to the Baltic States). I'm basing this on Putin's psych profile and past behavior (the best indicator of future actions), as well as the historical parallels- namely the consequences of Great Britain and France failing to use military force in response to Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia. As a result of this failure of resolve, the German dictator concluded that England and France would not go to war on behalf of Poland despite their public declarations to the contrary. As the infamous "Sitzkrieg" (Phony War) that followed Poland's partition showed, he was essentially correct.
-

What ever we say about Hitler's delusional mindset, due to the 1930's Germans being the first masters of Combined arms maneuver warfare, their bite was at bad as their bark. Even if Putin is delusional, he knows his own forces are limited.

I feel Putin is first and foremost a survivor and I don't see him betting his life again on the capabilities of the Russian armed forces.

Thinking that Putin will feel emboldened to risk invoking Article 5 after:

• The absolutely pitiful attempt to defeat a force literally 10 times less capable than NATO would be
• Using his own force that is, at a minimum, 50% less capable than when the war started

is folly IMHO.

Even with a decade to recover Russia would not be able to defeat just Poland (with them getting the cream of the crop equipment from the US and ROK). The reason Putin is not backing down now, is to prevent his own downfall. Even if he "wins" his current conflict, his tempting fate by attacking a Polarbear (NATO) when he just barely eked out a bloody victory against a Coyote (Ukraine) means he is in jeopardy of losing everything again with even slimmer odds of survival (the most important factor to him).

I personally think if Putin ordered his generals to move into the Baltic states while NATO still exists, the command staff would realize if NATO came back with full force their remaining lifespan could be measured with an hourglass.

Prigozhin made it over 50% of the way to Moscow. There would not be much to stop these generals for making it there.

I want Russia defeated in Ukraine. I want all NATO members to take defense seriously and spend at least the 2% "required". I particularly want Germany who is limited in the number of armed forces it can deploy due to the reunification agreement, to make a super elite force befitting of their military history. But I don't like getting there via fear of something I don't feel is likely at all.

[Targan]

I'm very much enjoying reading everyone's analyses of the situation, and the cordial nature of the conversation. I agree with the views expressed that much of Putin's decision making at the moment is focused on his political and personal survival.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australia's non-commercial, government funded media organisation) recently got a couple of journalists across the border from Ukraine and into Russia. The Ukrainian unit they were with told them they could talk to whoever they wanted and record whatever they wanted, as long as it didn't reveal Ukrainian positions. The Ukrainians also said they would not seek to censor any of the ABC's reporting. The ABC's interviews with the Russians they spoke to in the occupied zone were very interesting. Quite a few really, really didn't like Putin. And considering they were under armed occupation, they didn't seem as upset with the Ukrainians as you might expect.

Several mentioned that the Russian forces in the area made no effort to help them at all as they withdrew (apparently the Russian conscripts right at the border surrendered en masse as soon as the shooting started, and the rest left quickly), but the Ukrainians had been supplying the civilians left behind with food and medicine.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

I feel Putin is first and foremost a survivor and I don't see him betting his life again on the capabilities of the Russian armed forces.

Thinking that Putin will feel emboldened to risk invoking Article 5 after:

• The absolutely pitiful attempt to defeat a force literally 10 times less capable than NATO would be
• Using his own force that is, at a minimum, 50% less capable than when the war started

is folly IMHO.

I totally agree with this assessment. The point that I've been trying to make (not well, apparently), is that if the West had not supplied Ukraine with significant military aid in the first six months or so after the 2022 invasion, and Putin had been able to engineer the conquest of Ukraine in the next year or two, that Europe would be much less safe than it is now because Putin would have been emboldened by his success, and NATO would have painted itself as timid and weak. My second main argument is that providing Ukraine with the weapons it needs is the right call, as far as US foreign interests are concerned. From the recent uptick in European defense spending and the expansion of NATO to include two nations that had maintained non-aligned status throughout the entirety of the first Cold War, it would seem that said policy is widely seen in Europe as being in its constituents' best interests as well. To put it another way, I think failure/refusal to provide Ukraine with military aid would not have been in NATO's interests.

@Targan: That's interesting. It's really difficult, IMHO, to get an accurate sense of Russian public opinion re Putin and/or the war. In the early days of the conflict, the Western media were rather sanguine in their assessments of opposition to the regime and its military adventurism. In the last year or so, I've read a couple of credible news pieces* that suggest that public support for the war in Russia is much broader and stronger than we'd been led to believe.

*One in particular that I really wish I'd shared here at the time, and that I can't find now.

The war in Ukraine is pretty much the only ongoing news story that I follow closely any more (I find American politics to be too frustrating/depressing). Apart from my fascination with various historical military conflicts, I've never been so invested in a war [occurring during my lifetime] that doesn't directly involve US forces. Russia is clearly the bad guy here. I'm pulling for the white hats, and I think the US gov't should too (regardless of which party predominates at any given time).

Slava Ukraini!

-

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I totally agree with this assessment. The point that I've been trying to make (not well, apparently), is that if the West had not supplied Ukraine with significant military aid in the first six months or so after the 2022 invasion, and Putin had been able to engineer the conquest of Ukraine in the next year or two, that Europe would be much less safe than it is now because Putin would have been emboldened by his success, and NATO would have painted itself as timid and weak. My second main argument is that providing Ukraine with the weapons it needs is the right call, as far as US foreign interests are concerned. From the recent uptick in European defense spending and the expansion of NATO to include two nations that had maintained non-aligned status throughout the entirety of the first Cold War, it would seem that said policy is widely seen in Europe as being in its constituents' best interests as well. To put it another way, I think failure/refusal to provide Ukraine with military aid would not have been in NATO's interests.
Slava Ukraini!

-

I think we are in total agreement then. The first 6 months was totally logical for the US particularly given how much of the ordinance was sitting on shelves waiting to be destroyed as it was nearing its "Best use by" date. Now that we have depleted our stocks, while it is still the right thing to do, the costs of new production make it a little less clear.

I want the US to support Ukraine, but I want Europe to do more as even if a non Russian Ukraine is in US interests, this should be more of their fight as the refugee issue you mentioned effects them more directly.

Germany is my biggest sticking point. After hostilities began they could have moved harder into using US and Qatari supplied LNG, instead of continuing, to this day, to directly fund the Russian war effort. If this is truly a European war of survival, Germany should be more willing to make more sacrifices. I know the gas from the US can be up to 10 times more expensive than the extremely cheap Russian gas but we could cut that cash flow entirely, thus saving more Ukrainian lives.

For all of this millennium Germany (the worlds 3rd largest economy) felt it could slash its military effectiveness by coasting under the US defense umbrella and made energy deals that truly emboldened Putin (including shutting down their nuclear plants at least partially due to cheap Russian gas). It annoys me. Not so much I want to abandon the good people of Ukraine, but opening our checkbook would be easier if I felt Germany was reaping more of what they had sown.


EDIT

Getting back on topic of this thread. Who in 1984 would have thought a reunited Germany would only have three divisions in 2022, none of which would be combat effective without a 3 month ramp up, and even that timeline is debatable.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by kato13

I think we are in total agreement then. The first 6 months was totally logical for the US particularly given how much of the ordinance was sitting on shelves waiting to be destroyed as it was nearing its "Best use by" date. Now that we have depleted our stocks, while it is still the right thing to do, the costs of new production make it a little less clear.

I want the US to support Ukraine, but I want Europe to do more as even if a non Russian Ukraine is in US interests, this should be more of their fight as the refugee issue you mentioned effects them more directly.

Germany is my biggest sticking point. After hostilities began they could have moved harder into using US and Qatari supplied LNG, instead of continuing, to this day, to directly fund the Russian war effort. If this is truly a European war of survival, Germany should be more willing to make more sacrifices. I know the gas from the US can be up to 10 times more expensive than the extremely cheap Russian gas but we could cut that cash flow entirely, thus saving more Ukrainian lives.

For all of this millennium Germany (the worlds 3rd largest economy) felt it could slash its military effectiveness by coasting under the US defense umbrella and made energy deals that truly emboldened Putin (including shutting down their nuclear plants at least partially due to cheap Russian gas). It annoys me. Not so much I want to abandon the good people of Ukraine, but opening our checkbook would be easier if I felt Germany was reaping more of what they had sown.


EDIT

Getting back on topic of this thread. Who in 1984 would have thought a reunited Germany would only have three divisions in 2022, none of which would be combat effective without a 3 month ramp up, and even that timeline is debatable.

I do agree with you that Europe should support the effort more especially Germany. If Germany needs oil, maybe the Brits can offer them a deal as well for North Sea crude, I don't know, I'm not a petroleum engineer but just a thought. I'm still not quite on board with the US supporting almost everything in the Ukraine but if it has to be, we need to have the rest of NATO members pony up more. Still, a big concern is where if all members are willing and strong enough mentally as well as physically to do this. It's like the Vietnam War, the US and allies were strong enough physically but we were not as willing and without that will, gusto if I may, it does not matter how much or little stuff you have in your forces. That's why I'm am not too strong with support, I just think we have too many weaknesses right now from the leadership on down. I do believe we have enough hardware but without the "software," it would fail. You rightly pointed out that Germany is the worst, they bought into a mindset that cripples their thought processes and that really made them weak. I just don't want things to snowball out of control to the point where bad decisions end up taking us into Twilight: 2025.