The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Grant on March 12, 2022, 06:56:32 PM

Title: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 12, 2022, 06:56:32 PM
Now?

Now???

Reports of Iranian ballistic missile attack on Erbil, Iraq.  Supposedly close to the US Consulate there. 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44728/breaking-reported-ballistic-missile-attack-near-u-s-base-in-erbil-iraq

First distributed as video on Twitter.  Seems to be confirmed. 

I don't get it.  The Grandpa admin seems to be working hard to drop sanctions on Iran so they can get some more Iranian oil.  Seems to be a bad time to hit US bases. 

I've read it suggested that the attack may have been in retaliation for Israeli attacks on IRGC officers. 

Plenty not known.  Just not good timing.  Plenty going on. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 12, 2022, 09:26:33 PM
I don't know about that specifically but it's not surprising to see the same results of the Democrats' proud attacks on law and order that we see in our national crime wave manifest themselves internationally as well, first in Afghanistan, then in Ukraine, and now it's off to the races. They don't seem to get that there is real evil both among our own people as well as abroad and it isn't stopped with social workers or leaders who telegraph our weakness and unwillingness to fight.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Fenring on March 12, 2022, 10:39:14 PM
I don't know about that, cherry, but I do think there's an argument to be had that when America is extremely divided it may appear to be a prime time to make certain moves. At the moment it probably appears to the outside eye (and to the inside one) that half of America is perpetually looking to undermine the other half, at war with each other at this point. Politically, government is starting more and more to look like a gang turf conflict. The kinds of rhetoric I hear on a daily basis slamming each other...man, who wouldn't think that America or its dependents are prime targets? Half the Congress would probably use a foreign problem as a way to undermine the other half, rather than come together to solve the problem. As sad as it sounds, the Project for a New American Century (prior to and after 9/11) had this unbelievably morbid idea that nothing short of a 'new Pearl Harbor' would galvanize America (in the way they wanted, for their purposes). And it's starting to feel like it would take a ridiculous disaster to get the infighting to stop, which is a scary thing in itself for other reasons. Meanwhile maybe it does mean America looks weak.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 12, 2022, 10:51:18 PM
Yeah, a major disaster--like a pandemic--will totally bring the US together. If Pearl Harbour happened today, the GOP would refuse to support a declaration of war because winning a war would make Biden too popular.

It's worth pointing out that Putin's assessment of both Ukraine and NATO's resolve was murderously wrong. If the war continues as it began Putin will have done more to destroy the Russian army than even Stalin.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 14, 2022, 11:25:48 AM
Since this thread is loosely based on missiles, I'll hijack it to say, WTF India - launching a cruise missile at Pakistan and not alerting them or even admitting it until days later? How long until the conspiracy theorists link all this to the illuminati wanting to depopulate the earth while they are safe in their bunkers?
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDeamon on March 14, 2022, 11:12:11 PM
Oh, just wait for the food riots and populist revolts likely to be coming in the next 14 months or so.

And that is ignoring what China may get up to. Looking like the post-WW2 order led by America dies this year under Biden.

What replaces it probably won't be known for a few more years yet. Fingers crossed on it still being American led, but that isn't happening with the current President or VP.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 14, 2022, 11:23:27 PM
Oh, just wait for the food riots and populist revolts likely to be coming in the next 14 months or so.

And that is ignoring what China may get up to. Looking like the post-WW2 order led by America dies this year under Biden.

What replaces it probably won't be known for a few more years yet. Fingers crossed on it still being American led, but that isn't happening with the current President or VP.

Okay, Chicken Little.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 15, 2022, 09:06:45 AM
Quote
What replaces it probably won't be known for a few more years yet. Fingers crossed on it still being American led, but that isn't happening with the current President or VP.

I thought American withdraw from leadership was the last Administrations thing and what large percentage of the population wanted? 

How should American be leading?
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDeamon on March 15, 2022, 11:35:37 AM
Quote
What replaces it probably won't be known for a few more years yet. Fingers crossed on it still being American led, but that isn't happening with the current President or VP.

I thought American withdraw from leadership was the last Administrations thing and what large percentage of the population wanted? 

How should American be leading?

It is the long term trend. Sleepy Joe is just more of that trend. Just concerning we have the guy who has been wrong on practically every major US foreign policy initiative during his entire political career calling the shots right now.

At least his team has caught on that ambiguity is useful in the scenario where you don't want to fight.

Telling Putin he would only face sanctions in December all but assured what we're seeing now.

Subsequent declarations about what we won't do also was no help in the deterrence department.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 15, 2022, 12:11:32 PM
The only thing the US could have done to prevent the invasion would have been to send US troops to Ukraine. That would have been bad.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 15, 2022, 12:18:03 PM
I thought the Administration has done a ok job in how it parsed information about what Putin was planning/doing
Calling Putin on his crap (attempt to gas light) when he said things like the troops around Ukraine weren't a threat or prep to invasion.

And so far the Administration has been pretty working with NATO. I guess for those of a isolationist bent that would not be a positive.
I can't imagine the pervious Administration dealing with this issue very well.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 15, 2022, 01:55:25 PM
Of course we'll never know for sure but losing Afghanistan the way we did, with a humiliating defeat in which we turned tail and ran exactly like Vietnam, certainly couldn't have helped. And TheDeamon is right that Biden threatening sanctions is tantamount to promising that the only response will be sanctions, and then talking about a "minor incursion" just gave the green light. As for Chicken Little, you can't legitimately fault someone for saying the sky is falling when we already saw it fall, many times. Covid under Joe worse than under Trump even with more vaccinated, "transitory" inflation through the roof, Afghanistan lost and Ukraine invaded. Of course if Ukraine manages to defend itself that's great, but "just" it getting invaded is already a skyfall level event and the shockwaves through the markets along with the extra inflation and supply chain problems we're seeing are going to be devastating to the U.S. and the world.

For the record Biden has done a pretty good job handling the invasion and now with the U.S. not buying Russian energy, against Biden's will by the way, and all the other economic screws being put to Russia as an entire country gets canceled, Russia will lose even if it takes Ukraine, and even that is looking less and less likely. Biden's failure was in not either schmoozing Putin enough or deterring him enough to stop the invasion in the first place which whatever you want to say about Trump did not happen on his watch. If China is watching, hopefully they are seeing a serious economic deterrent here. Even if governments did nothing, you see one news story pointing out the companies that are still doing business in Russia, basically doxxing them, and within half a day half of them have done an about face and canceled contact. Of course I'm not one generally for cancel culture but in this case it's serving a purpose. It's a bit heartbreaking seeing it applied to individual Russians though and I would not go that far. Even some that have denounced the war have been canceled because they can't pass the new shibboleth standard of personally denouncing Putin. I don't think cancel culture should be applied to innocent Russian people that way but seeing it applied economically to a country by public pressure above and beyond what is required for by law is something China should note with fear before they decide to start helping Russia commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 15, 2022, 02:21:13 PM
If you leave out the partisan sound bits like - Russia getting Canceled - as cancel culture is responsible  - or a shot at it - or whatever your point is about that statement.
The ending of Afghanistan was written in 2003.  But your not wrong After 2003 Afghanistan was a failure for all following Administrations.

Your argument and or concern might be better understood if you left that crap out.

Quote
Biden's failure was in not either schmoozing Putin enough or deterring him enough to stop the invasion

So dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't - Schmoozing Putin = giving Putin what he wants???

Ukraine is a Lose Lose for everyone (it make no sense)

Your man would likely have handed Ukraine over to Putin and as for--- now we can argue if only, what if stuff for all the good that will do
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 15, 2022, 02:41:08 PM
Sorry to late to delete the above. The latest breitbart talking point/marching orders - taking actions against Russia - canceling Russia bugs me
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 15, 2022, 02:57:58 PM
Quote
Biden's failure was in not either schmoozing Putin enough or deterring him enough to stop the invasion

I think the Administration got this right. Putin would have used any pre-emptive sanctions as proof of western aggression an justification to invade. Any pre-emptive sanctions could not be too aggressive or they would make the west look bad.
Quote
Like the parent that punishes thier kid for something they haven't done yet
.  That the problem with the Pre-emptive strike, it will be used against you.

Note that Ukraine didn't call up its reserves until after Russia attracted.  Putin would have used any call up as a treat and excuse to invade.

I suspect many in America would have agreed with Putin on any Pre-emptive measures and sided with him

As for Schmoozing Putin - that hasn't worked for 20 years. Putin invitation into the G8 was a schmooze that didn't work because Putin has no regard for international laws or norms. Putin is the kind of man who if you give him a inch he will take a mile.

So if you were in charge how would you have schmoozed Putin?
What would you have done to deter him? 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: msquared on March 15, 2022, 03:00:36 PM
Well  you could have at least gotten damaging info about your political opponents, right?
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDeamon on March 15, 2022, 04:17:52 PM
If China is watching, hopefully they are seeing a serious economic deterrent here. Even if governments did nothing, you see one news story pointing out the companies that are still doing business in Russia, basically doxxing them, and within half a day half of them have done an about face and canceled contact.

The "individual corporate initiative" aspect might concern China. But I don't think the rest of it concerns them much. The Russian Oil imports drama demonstrates one of the core beliefs of many Communist Chinese Nationalists. That the western nations are going to be highly reluctant to do anything that endangers their economies in any meaningful way. China is far more connected to the economies of the US, and NATO, than Russia is. Even if Oil/Natural Gas is far more important to Germany than many of the goods China offers them--but at the same time, China has become a very important link in the "value added" chain for many German products. Germany is simply one of the worst off among the EU in total dollar value due to being one of the largest economies in the EU. They're not particularly unique otherwise.

Chinese planners had to expect sanctions at a minimum should Taiwan be invaded. Why they likewise probably expect is minimal endurance on sustaining those sanctions for what they expect/hope to be a "fait accompli" event once they move. (They remember the Iraq sanctions issues from the 1990's, although again, that's more directly relevant to Russia than China)

There also is the matter of massively debt-fueled growth that China has been pursuing for the past decade+ under very onerous interest rates. China is under a mountain of corporate and LGFV debt that makes the sub-prime crises of 2008 look like child's play by comparison. While they're also past their demographic peak for labor pool size.

The Paralympic Games just ended today, so their 3, nearly 4 month pause on industry is now at an end. Their ability to hide any lingering "economic weakness" starts to disappear quickly now. Something not helped with a global energy market that has hit highs not seen in over a decade. "Discounted Russian Oil" doesn't mean much to China either, when the physical infrastructure doesn't exist to get that "excess" Russian oil to China, and would takes years to build out if they started today. (Also not helped by the matter that Russian oil production was being bolstered by American and European technical expertise, which has not left the nation.. Russian production is likely to drop soon(tm) from that loss of expertise and support as those systems begin to need maintenance and repair/replacement)

I still hold to the premise that China's economy started tanking last summer, their situation has not improved appreciably since then. At this stage, for Xi Jingping's government, faced with a potential 3 way fight for control of the government in October, the "last refuge of scoundrels" is likely to be exercised very soon. He's going to play on nationalist sentiment, and invade Taiwan. He can then try to blame-shift the failed economy on the Western Sanctions "interfering in their internal matters(Taiwan)" and hope that he has established a sufficiently strong Cult of Personality with "Xi Jinping Thought" among other measures that win or lose on the invasion of Taiwan, he still holds power on the Mainland after everything is said and done.

It is now the 16th of March in China, now that the "Traditional Cease Fire" for the Olympic and Paralympic Games has concluded, now we get to see what China is willing to openly do. And just how evil Xi Jinping may be. If he's Putin level or worse, then Taiwan is getting invaded by May, and the preparations have been in process since before the Winter Games began.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 15, 2022, 04:19:00 PM
Quote
Biden's failure was in not either schmoozing Putin enough or deterring him enough to stop the invasion

I think the Administration got this right. Putin would have used any pre-emptive sanctions as proof of western aggression an justification to invade. Any pre-emptive sanctions could not be too aggressive or they would make the west look bad.
Quote
Like the parent that punishes thier kid for something they haven't done yet
.  That the problem with the Pre-emptive strike, it will be used against you.

Note that Ukraine didn't call up its reserves until after Russia attracted.  Putin would have used any call up as a treat and excuse to invade.

I suspect many in America would have agreed with Putin on any Pre-emptive measures and sided with him

As for Schmoozing Putin - that hasn't worked for 20 years. Putin invitation into the G8 was a schmooze that didn't work because Putin has no regard for international laws or norms. Putin is the kind of man who if you give him a inch he will take a mile.

So if you were in charge how would you have schmoozed Putin?
What would you have done to deter him?

That's an interesting question, about pre-emptive sanctions. I don't think you would have them activated, but you could draw up a specific laundry list of how bad it would be. If there had been a US law, or even a declaration of SWIFT removal, oil embargoes, yacht confiscation, et al. That might have been a more effective deterrent than the vague "bad things will happen if he invades. real bad sanctions" See, specificity can be equally as scary as vagueness - and particularly important if your adversary things you are weak. Problem was, it took a while to win over the EU. It took actual invasion to goad them into action or to generate the necessary domestic support. And you are really screwed if you claim you're going to have a specific consequence and it falls through.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 15, 2022, 04:50:34 PM
Quote
That's an interesting question, about pre-emptive sanctions. I don't think you would have them activated, but you could draw up a specific laundry list of how bad it would be. If there had been a US law, or even a declaration of SWIFT removal, oil embargoes, yacht confiscation, et al. That might have been a more effective deterrent than the vague "bad things will happen if he invades. real bad sanctions" See, specificity can be equally as scary as vagueness - and particularly important if your adversary things you are weak. Problem was, it took a while to win over the EU. It took actual invasion to goad them into action or to generate the necessary domestic support. And you are really screwed if you claim you're going to have a specific consequence and it falls through.

Good points  First thought that camas to mind is that anything you say can and will be used against you.  You lay out a red line and specific consequences and then can't deliver when the line is crossed. I don't know if you can come back from that.

I think someone in the administration has done a really good job gaming out the scenarios. My guess is that the plan was to avoid giving Putin any possible pretext where he could pretend not to be the aggressor.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 15, 2022, 07:05:01 PM
He should have threatened him with the loss of McDonalds, but I guess that didn't work because Russia is about to make China look like a stalwart defender of intellectual property rights.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 19, 2022, 01:28:44 PM

It is the long term trend.

Well, dang.  Are y'all ready to bring Dubya back?  Raise McCain from the grave?  Give Romney his due for basically being right? 

LOL.  I didn't think so. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 19, 2022, 01:31:06 PM
The only thing the US could have done to prevent the invasion would have been to send US troops to Ukraine. That would have been bad.

Why?  How could it be bad if it prevents an invasion? 

Edit: Kinda sounds like a Nobel Peace Prize moment to me.  That's why eastern NATO countries are now scrambling for American troop deployments to their countries. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 19, 2022, 01:38:13 PM
Quote
That the problem with the Pre-emptive strike, it will be used against you.

Note that Ukraine didn't call up its reserves until after Russia attracted.  Putin would have used any call up as a treat and excuse to invade.

I suspect many in America would have agreed with Putin on any Pre-emptive measures and sided with him

Pooter didn't need an excuse to invade.  He was always going to invade anyways. 

The many Americans (and Europeans) who would have agreed with Putin in the case of pre-emptive measures were wrong.  Will they learn from their error?  "Not giving Putin an excuse" didn't work and is not working.  Pooter doesn't need an excuse. 

The easiest way to have prevented the war would have been putting American or NATO troops into Ukraine.  By trying to prevent a war, NATO invited one. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2022, 08:09:48 PM

It is the long term trend.

Well, dang.  Are y'all ready to bring Dubya back?  Raise McCain from the grave?  Give Romney his due for basically being right? 

LOL.  I didn't think so.

Obama and Romney were both right, just a matter of time scale. Russia is a "has been Empire" in its death throes as it fails to realize it is effectively dead. Alternatively you could compare Russia the ethno-state to a drowning man. One nobody except other dogmatic ethno-states care to try to save.

The problem is one of those Ethno-States is China, and they're headed for serious distress as well.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 09:22:22 AM
Obama and Romney were both right, just a matter of time scale.

I have no idea what this means. 

All I know is that NATO and the United States missed every opportunity to prevent this war from happening over the last 8 years. 

I can't say if Romney being elected would have made a difference.  The United States is only part of the problem.  I'm pretty sure McCain being elected would have solved the problem, lol, but we might be still in Afghanistan and more heavily involved in Iraq too today.  And he wouldn't be President today anyways.  Likely Obama or Clinton would be President today.  I don't like dealing in a bunch of hypotheticals.  The focus needs to be on how to solve the problem now and lessons learned to prevent it from happening again. 

As for China, they are very closely monitoring how scared the American public is of nuclear war.  They're likely reevaluating their nuclear strategy. 


Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 09:37:18 AM
Pooter didn't need an excuse to invade.  He was always going to invade anyways. 

The many Americans (and Europeans) who would have agreed with Putin in the case of pre-emptive measures were wrong.  Will they learn from their error?  "Not giving Putin an excuse" didn't work and is not working.  Pooter doesn't need an excuse. 

The easiest way to have prevented the war would have been putting American or NATO troops into Ukraine.  By trying to prevent a war, NATO invited one.

Putting NATO troops in Ukraine would have drastically increased the chance of escalation, if Putin (or the people providing information to Putin) decided NATO was bluffing. It may have also spurred an invasion if Putin got enough warning to attack before the troops arrived.

It's easy to say know that the invasion was inevitable and so pre-invasion diplomacy should have been more aggressive but I don't know if it was that obvious beforehand and it certainly would have been impossible to get NATO to present a unified front. Even now NATO's not 100% together on how to respond to Russian aggression.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 09:53:49 AM

Putting NATO troops in Ukraine would have drastically increased the chance of escalation, if Putin (or the people providing information to Putin) decided NATO was bluffing. I

Escalation to what?  Pooter just nuking Brussels? 

Bluffing what?  Saying that you're moving troops into Ukraine and then not doing it?  Why would we bluff that? 

Quote
It may have also spurred an invasion if Putin got enough warning to attack before the troops arrived.

Good luck.  Not sure if the Russians could have gone in early, especially if they didn't want to piss off the Chinese, and the US can put boots on the ground in 48 hours, and could have flown fighter squadrons in within 24-48 hours. 


Quote
It's easy to say know that the invasion was inevitable and so pre-invasion diplomacy should have been more aggressive but I don't know if it was that obvious beforehand

Not obvious to whom?  Ostriches with their heads buried?  *censored*, Grandpa President was saying that the decision had been made a month out.  The intel community had some source. 

Quote
and it certainly would have been impossible to get NATO to present a unified front. Even now NATO's not 100% together on how to respond to Russian aggression.

Kind of brings back the benefits of unilateralism, yes? 

United States:  "Hey, that piano is going to fall and crush that little girl"
Germany:  "Well, that's not obvious.  Better not do anything. It could cause the piano to fall."
France: "Let me talk to the piano"
UK:  "I'm not going to do anything by myself"
Little Girl:  "Hey can somebody help me?"
Poland: "Put on a hardhat, little girl"
United States: "Well, I'm not getting involved, this is a European problem.  Sorry little girl.  It's *censored*ed up what is about to happen to you, but it's not my problem."
Italy: "Sorry little girl, but we don't have a treaty.  I know you want to sign the treaty, but we won't let you, because we don't really want to fight pianos. " 

The only relevant player in the discussion is Ukraine, which would have welcomed troops or planes.  I recognize the benefits of mulilaterialism and know it is preferable.  But the drawbacks are obvious. 



Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 10:01:02 AM
Global nuclear war and the end of human civilization is the endpoint of escalation.

Bluffing as in moving troops into Ukraine but not letting them shoot at Russians. Because of the whole 'end of human civilization' thing.

We also didn't know how bad the Russian army was so spurring Russia into acting early seemed more plausible. Disunity in NATO would be very bad in ensuring Russia believes they can't attack Poland or the Baltics without big bad booms.

ETA: Just because the decision had been made in January to invade, doesn't mean that it couldn't have been unmade. Especially since none of the usual flow down had been done until well after the invasion. It would have made far more sense (i.e. likely to serve Russia's interests) if it had been a massive bluff on Putin's part. Officially making the decision could have been part of it.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 10:07:40 AM
Global nuclear war and the end of human civilization is the endpoint of escalation.

Bluffing as in moving troops into Ukraine but not letting them shoot at Russians. Because of the whole 'end of human civilization' thing.

Y'all need to seriously get over this global nuclear war thing and the end of human civilization fear, because it is causing insidious paralysis.  According to this theory, we should not have been in West Germany during the cold war, because the Soviets could invade and then "end of civilization".  I know people were scared *censored*less back then too, but none of it came true.  Nobody was crazy enough to open the box.  Even when American ships blockaded Cuba. 

Tell me how nuclear escalation goes to "end of civilization".  Give me your scenario, all you nuclear war experts out there.  Pooter just ups and goes full release?  Hits all 2000 targets in the US, Europe, etc? 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 10:09:58 AM
ETA: Just because the decision had been made in January to invade, doesn't mean that it couldn't have been unmade. Especially since none of the usual flow down had been done until well after the invasion.

That's right.  And the best way to have the decision "unmade" would have been putting US or NATO troops or planes into Ukraine, back in January. 

Quote
It would have made far more sense (i.e. likely to serve Russia's interests) if it had been a massive bluff on Putin's part. Officially making the decision could have been part of it.

I think it's time for a bunch of people who are trying to make sense of everything to understand that they don't understand Pooter in particular, and possibly people in general. 

Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 10:35:39 AM
If you're wrong about the decision getting unmade, you've just ended human civilization. Oops.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: yossarian22c on March 21, 2022, 10:41:49 AM
If you're wrong about the decision getting unmade, you've just ended human civilization. Oops.

Not quite. As long as our troops didn't cross the boarder into Russia I think the nukes stay in the silos. But I don't know the mind of Putin to say how he would have handled the situation. But declaring war on Russia isn't something to be done lightly or without considering all the risks.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 10:42:05 AM
If you're wrong about the decision getting unmade, you've just ended human civilization. Oops.

That's not an assessment, that's just a record being stuck on "end of human civilization".  That thought process prevented this war from being stopped early on, and is threatening to prevent it from being stopped, and is threatening to lead to further escalation into eastern Europe.   
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 10:50:11 AM
Not quite. As long as our troops didn't cross the boarder into Russia I think the nukes stay in the silos. But I don't know the mind of Putin to say how he would have handled the situation. But declaring war on Russia isn't something to be done lightly or without considering all the risks.

I'm not entirely clear how the chain of decision would unfold from Russians being shot at to Washington getting nuked but given the maximum severity even minimal risk can be unacceptable.

That's not an assessment, that's just a record being stuck on "end of human civilization".  That thought process prevented this war from being stopped early on, and is threatening to prevent it from being stopped, and is threatening to lead to further escalation into eastern Europe.   

Possibly prevented this war from being stopped. Unless you're claiming that you understand Putin in particular.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 21, 2022, 11:00:04 AM
Quote
That's right.  And the best way to have the decision "unmade" would have been putting US or NATO troops or planes into Ukraine, back in January. 

That would have made NATO appear to be the aggressor. I suspect the intention was to insure the if Putin attacked he would be the aggressor with no excuses other then the ones he made up.

That said I have no idea what Putin was/is thinking. None of it makes sense.


Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 11:14:54 AM
Not quite. As long as our troops didn't cross the boarder into Russia I think the nukes stay in the silos. But I don't know the mind of Putin to say how he would have handled the situation. But declaring war on Russia isn't something to be done lightly or without considering all the risks.

I'm not sure if this is referring to putting troops in in January, or getting involved now.  Putting troops into Ukraine in January wouldn't lead automatically with war in Russia.  The point would be to prevent war with Russia.  But it's prudent to be prepared for war with Russia just in case they do.  Yes, we are prepared for war with Russia.  Much better than the rest of NATO, lol, which is part of the reason NATO sucks so much, because they depend on the United States.  Yes, that includes their nuclear armament.  We wouldn't be very good at deterring war against NATO unless we were ready for such things happening.  And deterrence has worked.  That's why Pooter is invading Ukraine and not the Baltics. 

I'm not going to sit here and say that there is no element of risk.  There is.  And that does include "end of civilization", though a bunch of stuff has to go wrong before that happens, and a bunch of people have to be convinced that the other person would not retaliate in the event of a nuclear attack.  MAD still holds.  The only question remains the risk posed by tac nucs used in Europe, or even on the United States. 

Personally, I don't think anybody is going to risk the "end of human civilization".  But they will be willing to risk turning Ukraine into a radioactive moonscape.  The Russians, not the Europeans. 

The risk is there, I will not say it is not, I just don't see it going there.  But I can't see the future.  But I can promise that as long as we are afraid of nuclear confrontation, Russia will win, because they can threaten the US and NATO.  They already are.  We just don't believe them in certain cases yet are terrified of others.  It makes zero sense.  There is a mental block somewhere.  We've convinced ourselves that the Russians would launch/escalate in these cases, but not in these cases.  Honestly, I think Pooter is already planning tactical nuclear attacks on Ukraine and possibly Poland or even Brussels.  That's Pooter's only route to getting sanctions lifted and keeping the other eastern European countries out of the war. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 11:21:00 AM
That would have made NATO appear to be the aggressor.

Appear to whom?  They would have been wrong.  I'm sure Russia and China and Iran and North Korea and Germany and whomever would have pitched a fit.  Germany and France couldn't see it.  They just couldn't.  But we knew. 

This "caring about appearances" might be part of the problem. 

That being said, I can't say that waiting for Pooter to make the first move hasn't reaped benefits.  NATO more united.  Germany paying more.  Russia sanctioned. But the fact of the matter is that the best outcome would have been deterring the war from happening in the first place.  For everyone.  For Ukraine.  For Europe.  For Russia.  For the US. 

Quote
I suspect the intention was to insure the if Putin attacked he would be the aggressor with no excuses other then the ones he made up.

Well, we got what we wanted.  What's the next step, Cap? 

I mean, was that the whole plan?  To make sure Pooter looked bad and we looked good?  Not sure if we really look good to some people.  Not sure if we do, but hindsight is 20/20. 

Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 11:42:30 AM
A lot of very serious people are taking the risk of unintentional end of the world very serious. I more or less have to assume they see a plausible chain of decisions with the worst possible results. Granted, most of the thinking on this comes out of the Cold War and assumes the Soviets are invading Germany but it remains an accepted premise that tactical nukes pose an acceptable risk of total escalation.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 11:56:46 AM
A lot of very serious people are taking the risk of unintentional end of the world very serious.

Can you link to their very serious assessments and scenarios of how the end of the world happens? 

I'm usually on the side of expertise here, but I've got other experts saying it's go time and we should have gone earlier.  General Clark.  General Joulwan.  Other "very serious people" who I wouldn't call experts though. 

The crux of the matter is that the risk of intervention was lowest in January, before Pooter had sunken costs in Ukraine.  Before, Pooter could have just bowed out and made the United States look like a nut on the world stage.  Let him.  But now many "very serious people" are saying he needs some sort of victory to maintain his position before he quits. 

I don't want to hear about "very serious people".  I think some "very serious people" got us into this.  Including many "very serious people" in Europe that can at least admit to being wrong.  I'll listen to arguments, not allusions to "very serious people". 

Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 12:08:22 PM
No one presents a full up scenario. They just assert escalating series of risks. It's frustrating.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 21, 2022, 12:14:47 PM
Quote
Appear to whom?  They would have been wrong.  I'm sure Russia and China and Iran and North Korea and Germany and whomever would have pitched a fit.  Germany and France couldn't see it.  They just couldn't.  But we knew.

Exactly the point. Any Pre-emptive action by the US or NATO would have been used against it. I can't see how it couldn't have been anything but divisive and playing into Putin's hands. Can you imagine how it would have played on Fox?

Note that Ukraine did not mobilized until after Russians forces attacked. I suspect that had Ukraine mobilized earlier it would have been used as a justification by Putin. See  Ukraine is the threat. Who would fall for that... Lots

If the US put boots on the ground in January without NATO consent, I don't see how NATO survives that. If it has NATO consent would that have meant that Ukraine for all intense and purposes was now a member. And Putin could with some evidence complain to the world.

Quote
I mean, was that the whole plan?  To make sure Pooter looked bad and we looked good?
I doubt It was the whole plan. but it is a important factor that allowed NATO and much of the world to act in a unified manor. And that's Huge. I don't see that happening if the US or NATO or even Ukraine acted pre-emptily.   

But I'm only a Cap :) Your move Gen

Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 12:30:40 PM
RNGesus, save us. 

Some people have managed to convince themselves that moving troops into a country, at their request, ostensibly to protect it, is escalation and reason for invasion. 

Some people have been drinking too much of Pooter's Kool-Aid.  You're swallowing Russian propaganda.  Spit it out. 

I honestly don't care how it plays on Fox News, and I don't see why anyone else would either. 

In order to make the US look bad, Pooter would have had to abandon his invasion, which he would have.  In return for looking bad in front of Germany and Fox News, we would have prevented the invasion of Ukraine, and it would have been better for Ukraine, Russia, eastern Europe, NATO, and the United States.  Now we're stuck. 

Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 12:43:27 PM
Pre-positioning troops can actually be a casus belli. That it wouldn't be in this case wouldn't stop the preemptive measures from utterly confusing the post-invasion response. So there was a high chance of still being at war but now there's no effective sanction regime because there's a lot more noise about who did what.

Nor is it certain that Putin wouldn't have invaded if there were American troops in Ukraine. Especially since we know Putin's goal wasn't to make the US or NATO look bad but to annex Ukraine. Moving troops was likely to have the highest chance of preventing an invasion but not a perfect chance. After all, the assumptions that make the invasion anything but an idiotic waste of lives (that neither NATO nor Ukraine will mount effective opposition) still holds even if there's a trip wire force in place. And you can't move in enough troops to have survive the expected Russian attack without making it look like you're about to invade Russia.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 01:10:34 PM
So there was a high chance of still being at war but now there's no effective sanction regime because there's a lot more noise about who did what.

I don't think there would have been a high chance of being at war at all, and you don't need a sanction regime if there is no war. 

Quote
Nor is it certain that Putin wouldn't have invaded if there were American troops in Ukraine.

Sure.  It's not certain.  But highly unlikely. And I know exactly what would happen when the Russians tangle with the US Army and USAF.  They can barely handle the Ukrainians.  They have in fact been losing to the Ukrainians and are only now figuring out the only way to make gains is to destroy the entire country. 

Quote
Moving troops was likely to have the highest chance of preventing an invasion but not a perfect chance.

Nothing ever has a "perfect chance" except death and taxes. 

Quote
After all, the assumptions that make the invasion anything but an idiotic waste of lives (that neither NATO nor Ukraine will mount effective opposition) still holds even if there's a trip wire force in place.

Ehhhh.  Depends on who the trip-wire is and how much you can get there.  Sure, I suppose Pooter could think that a brigade from the 82nd or a mechanized brigade would not put up enough of a fight.  But he'd be wrong.  So here are your outcomes:  a) war is prevented, b) war is not prevented but is won quickly, preventing the death of thousands and thousands of people from a long drawn out war, and the destruction of an entire country. 

Quote
And you can't move in enough troops to have survive the expected Russian attack without making it look like you're about to invade Russia.

Nobody wanted to invade Russia.  Nobody.  Everybody knew this.  Everybody knows this.  The only people saying that it would look like an invasion are Putinverstehen and kool-aid drinkers. 

There is a vast difference between having the troops necessary to defend something, and the troops necessary to invade something.  That's obvious to anybody with any professional education in arms.  The United States cannot defeat the entire Russian army with a single brigade.  Even with all of USAFEUR behind it.  It's ridiculous.  It's Russian propaganda. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: yossarian22c on March 21, 2022, 01:18:28 PM
...

 Moving troops was likely to have the highest chance of preventing an invasion but not a perfect chance. After all, the assumptions that make the invasion anything but an idiotic waste of lives (that neither NATO nor Ukraine will mount effective opposition) still holds even if there's a trip wire force in place. And you can't move in enough troops to have survive the expected Russian attack without making it look like you're about to invade Russia.

Based off the ineffectiveness of the Russian invasion I think a 5 to 10 thousand paratroopers and rangers would be giving the Russians hell right now and with American forces on the ground our air force would keep the skies above Ukraine clear. The invasion would be a complete disaster for the Russians but the risk of escalation would be higher because they would be getting their asses kicked so bad.



Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 01:24:26 PM
Quote
Sure.  It's not certain.  But highly unlikely. And I know exactly what would happen when the Russians tangle with the US Army and USAF.  They can barely handle the Ukrainians.  They have in fact been losing to the Ukrainians and are only now figuring out the only way to make gains is to destroy the entire country.

If they invade, they'd probably assume the American forces wouldn't engage. Why wouldn't they engage? Because there's 70 odd years of policy that says US troops don't shoot directly at Russians. And Russia wants Ukraine much more than NATO wants to defend it.

Quote
Nobody wanted to invade Russia.  Nobody.  Everybody knew this.  Everybody knows this.  The only people saying that it would look like an invasion are Putinverstehen and kool-aid drinkers.

One reason everyone knows this is because there aren't any NATO troops in Ukraine and never any possibility of NATO troops in Ukraine. Once you put NATO troops in Ukraine, after decades of promising it wouldn't happen, the narrative becomes a lot more flexible.

Based off the ineffectiveness of the Russian invasion I think a 5 to 10 thousand paratroopers and rangers would be giving the Russians hell right now and with American forces on the ground our air force would keep the skies above Ukraine clear. The invasion would be a complete disaster for the Russians but the risk of escalation would be higher because they would be getting their asses kicked so bad.

This would be a better argument if anyone expected the Russians to do so poorly.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: yossarian22c on March 21, 2022, 01:45:31 PM
...
Based off the ineffectiveness of the Russian invasion I think a 5 to 10 thousand paratroopers and rangers would be giving the Russians hell right now and with American forces on the ground our air force would keep the skies above Ukraine clear. The invasion would be a complete disaster for the Russians but the risk of escalation would be higher because they would be getting their asses kicked so bad.

This would be a better argument if anyone expected the Russians to do so poorly.

Agree, hindsight is much easier to justify putting a small but significant force in Ukraine. The effectiveness of the deterrent may not have worked because the Russians clearly overestimated the capacity of their armed forces.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 01:56:40 PM

 The invasion would be a complete disaster for the Russians but the risk of escalation would be higher because they would be getting their asses kicked so bad.

I'm not certain of this because I feel that Russia would be less likely to use tactical nukes on American troops or inside Ukraine while American troops were there, than the situation we are in now, where Pooter may feel he can get away with nuking Ukraine to make a point and to compel surrender when there is no NATO presence there.  I honestly feel that the risk of a nuclear weapon going off is higher in the situation we are in, though the chance of a nuclear exchange would be higher in the other scenario. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2022, 02:04:39 PM
I know people were scared *censored*less back then too, but none of it came true.  Nobody was crazy enough to open the box.  Even when American ships blockaded Cuba. 

It appears most of your arguments are based on this: that the nuclear fear is causing general paralysis. However since you sited this example as the ultimate case of 'it never happed and probably still won't', I thought I'd ask you whether you're aware of how it actually *did* happen in Cuba. There are a few stories like this in history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Now you can argue that these cases are not identical (one didn't originate from Moscow) but that hardly matters. When stuff starts happening stuff can happen. And once it happens that's it. Luckily these particular Russians in history did in fact fear the nuclear insanity enough to prevent it, but over the objections of others. So it's not like we can actually trust human nature on this front. These incidents were basically just dumb luck, all things considered.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 02:12:52 PM
If they invade, they'd probably assume the American forces wouldn't engage. Why wouldn't they engage? Because there's 70 odd years of policy that says US troops don't shoot directly at Russians.

RNGesus, forgive us our bad memories.

Tell that to the guys in the Berlin Brigade in 1984.  Tell it to the entire US Army garrison in West Germany. No, we never shot directly at the Russians.  Because they never invaded West Germany.  Because we were there.  If they HAD invaded West Germany, we would have shot them!  Why would the US Army or Air Force be in Ukraine if they didn't have permission to shoot at Russians if they invaded!?!?!?!?

Tell that to the guys who slaughtered 300 Russian mercenaries in Syria.  Just destroyed them with massive air power. 

Tell that to the USN ships blockading Cuba in 1962.   

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. 

Quote
And Russia wants Ukraine much more than NATO wants to defend it.

So now you're telling me it's a simple matter of will?  Pooter vs the American public?  Pooter vs NATO public?  Ukraine is destroyed because NATO just doesn't CARE ENOUGH? 

I'll buy that.  But it doesn't make it right or wise. 

Quote
One reason everyone knows this is because there aren't any NATO troops in Ukraine and never any possibility of NATO troops in Ukraine. Once you put NATO troops in Ukraine, after decades of promising it wouldn't happen, the narrative becomes a lot more flexible.

Narrative is BS. It's simple math, as I pointed out before.  You could have put enough troops into Ukraine to defend it while making clear that it wasn't enough troops to launch an attack.  I don't care what Russian propaganda wants to make the narrative.  It's lies.  I'm not interested in lies. 

Quote
This would be a better argument if anyone expected the Russians to do so poorly.

Meh.  Nobody expected the Russians to do so poorly against the Ukrainians.  I don't think anybody would have expected the Russians to do well against American troops.  Especially because they would be bringing the USAF along with them.  The boots on the ground really isn't what makes the difference.  It's American air power.  The boots on the ground are just a tripwire, though I fully expect them to be able to do some damage. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 02:14:06 PM
Agree, hindsight is much easier to justify putting a small but significant force in Ukraine. The effectiveness of the deterrent may not have worked because the Russians clearly overestimated the capacity of their armed forces.

The deterrent effect of a small force of US soldiers lies in the fact that when you start fighting them, no matter how small, more Americans will be coming, including their planes and ships. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 02:28:03 PM
It appears most of your arguments are based on this: that the nuclear fear is causing general paralysis. However since you sited this example as the ultimate case of 'it never happed and probably still won't', I thought I'd ask you whether you're aware of how it actually *did* happen in Cuba. There are a few stories like this in history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Now you can argue that these cases are not identical (one didn't originate from Moscow) but that hardly matters. When stuff starts happening stuff can happen. And once it happens that's it. Luckily these particular Russians in history did in fact fear the nuclear insanity enough to prevent it, but over the objections of others. So it's not like we can actually trust human nature on this front. These incidents were basically just dumb luck, all things considered.

1.  I'm singularly unconvinced that Kennedy would have unleashed SAC on the Soviets had a single nuclear torpedo gone off in the Carribean.  Oh, I'll admit that LeMay would have been frothing at the mouth and that SAC would have been put on alert and been circling like buzzards over the article circle.  But the most likely effect of a russian nuclear torpedo destroying an American ship in the Carribean is Kruschev *censored*ting himself and getting on the phone immediately and then pulling the Soviet flotilla away. 

So no, I'm unconvinced that this would have led to "THE END OF ALL HUMAN CIVILLIZATION". 

2.  The reason why Petrov did not confirm the launch is the same reason why the Soviet Union would probably not have launched a counterstrike before confirming an actual attack by 1 or 5 American ICBMs.  It didn't make any sense.  Even if he had reported the launches to his superiors, there were several layers of bad decisions that would have had to been made before the Soviet Union had launched a counter-strike.  Even if Petrov had made a bad decision, this does not mean that his superiors in the Russian military would have done the same or that Yuri Andropov would have made any such mistake. 

These are myths that we came "this close" to nuclear war.  They are cute and entertaining but they don't stand up against actual critical analysis.  What they do in fact show is that Soviet safeguards worked, at lower levels, to prevent mistakes.  Precisely because everybody knew that a nuclear exchange would be bad and nobody wanted it. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 02:30:26 PM
Quote
Tell that to the guys in the Berlin Brigade in 1984.  Tell it to the entire US Army garrison in West Germany. No, we never shot directly at the Russians.  Because they never invaded West Germany.  Because we were there.  If they HAD invaded West Germany, we would have shot them!  Why would the US Army or Air Force be in Ukraine if they didn't have permission to shoot at Russians if they invaded!?!?!?!?

They didn't invade West Germany because they didn't particularly want to and because they'd have gotten nuked if they tried. The cornerstone of NATO is that if Russians/Soviets shoot at NATO troops, a nuclear response is entirely possible.

So why would the US army not shoot invading Russians? So they wouldn't start a nuclear war.

Quote
Narrative is BS. It's simple math, as I pointed out before.  You could have put enough troops into Ukraine to defend it while making clear that it wasn't enough troops to launch an attack.  I don't care what Russian propaganda wants to make the narrative.  It's lies.  I'm not interested in lies.

How enlightened of you. Sadly, international diplomacy is very interested in lies. Telling them, believing them, taking advantage of them. It was difficult enough to get basically the entire world onside (including US allies) onside without giving people a reason to adopt "principled" opposition to sanctions.

So what degree of risk of the end of the world is acceptable?
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 02:53:29 PM
They didn't invade West Germany because they didn't particularly want to and because they'd have gotten nuked if they tried. The cornerstone of NATO is that if Russians/Soviets shoot at NATO troops, a nuclear response is entirely possible.

Yet NATO and the US spent trillions of dollars improving conventional combat capabilities during the 70s and 80s, specifically because they realized that if they tac nuked the Soviets, they would tac nuke back, and nobody in Europe wanted a nuclear battlefield.  NATO realized that the threat of responding to a conventional attack with nukes was insane.  It wasn't a way to win.  It was just a way to assure that both sides loosed.

The same process applies from the other side.  Russians would probably not use tac nukes on American or NATO troops because they don't want to be nuked in return. 

It's not complex.  The fallacy is in prescribing the enemy with super abilities instead of understanding your own in relation. 

Quote
It was difficult enough to get basically the entire world onside (including US allies) onside without giving people a reason to adopt "principled" opposition to sanctions.

Don't need sanctions if you prevent the war from happening in the first place.  Back to square one.  Taking action in January would have been safer than the situation we see ourselves in now. 

Quote
So what degree of risk of the end of the world is acceptable?

Ask the Russians that.  I'm not advocating using nuclear weapons against them.  You're telling me that the Russians would use them against NATO.  Why would they do that?  Why would they risk the end of the world?
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2022, 03:03:46 PM
Quote
The same process applies from the other side.  Russians would probably not use tac nukes on American or NATO troops because they don't want to be nuked in return. 

Aren't you arguing Putin is currently developing plans to use nukes?

Quote
Taking action in January would have been safer than the situation we see ourselves in now. 

Which is easy to say now but not as easy to say then.

Quote
Ask the Russians that.  I'm not advocating using nuclear weapons against them.  You're telling me that the Russians would use them against NATO.  Why would they do that?  Why would they risk the end of the world?

Because they figure that's the only way to win in Ukraine, because they figure if they don't NATO will invade Russia, because they think the US doesn't have the balls to shoot one back, because of spite. We can't control Russia's actions, we can only control ours.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 21, 2022, 03:24:28 PM
Russia might take a page from understanding Iraq's situation. US builds up in Saudi Arabia as a preventative measure. US invades to liberate Kuwait. Then crunches a bunch of Iraqi territory. With a now crippled military and damaging sanctions, slowly squeeze until the US finds the political will to finish the job and topple all the Putin statues. Rather than let that happen they might nuke.

In other news, Wax Putin has been cancelled. Putin's invasion is getting every Russian achievement and famous person inexorably erased from a place of honor in the world. You can argue that Yuri Gagarin shouldn't get his name removed from being honored (that story sold separately), but that's quite a deterrent. Cultural erasure.

Quote
The Paris Grevin Museum on Tuesday removed the wax figure of Russian President Vladimir Putin in protest against his invasion of Ukraine and after it was damaged by visitors over the weekend.

The statue, which was created in 2000, was moved to a warehouse until further notice and the museum is considering replacing it with a statue of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"Today is it no longer possible to present a character like him...for the first time in the museum's history we are withdrawing a statue because of historical events currently under way," museum director Yves Delhommeau told France Bleu radio.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 03:29:14 PM
Quote
Aren't you arguing Putin is currently developing plans to use nukes?

Yeah.  Probably inside Ukraine.  Around Keev or Lviv.  Where no NATO troops are now. 

Although I will say that Pooter may see war with NATO as inevitable now.  My nightmare scenario is Russia launching a tac nuke Kinzhal at Brussels during the NATO summit there.  Effectively decapitating NATO in one move.  Why?  Because it would scare the *censored* out of everyone and yes, NATO would be effectively headless.  But that's why I say the situation we are in now is more dangerous than the situation of putting troops into Ukraine in January.  At that point Pooter can still not invade and he gets the small victory of spreading propaganda about the US being warmongers, splitting NATO further.  BUT, the invasion is stopped and the situation is not as dangerous. 

Quote
Which is easy to say now but not as easy to say then.

Sure.  Hindsight IS 20/20.  I'm not criticizing people, even if I think they are wrong.  It's refusing to see that a mistake was made, why the mistake was made, and how to correct for it.  It seems Hindsight ISN'T 20/20 for everybody, depending on how willing they are to admit mistakes. 

Quote
Because they figure that's the only way to win in Ukraine, because they figure if they don't NATO will invade Russia, because they think the US doesn't have the balls to shoot one back, because of spite. We can't control Russia's actions, we can only control ours.

None of that makes any sense.  If they figure they cannot win in Ukraine before invading the logical move is not to invade.  Not make things more likely for them to lose by nuking NATO troops.  As I said before, nobody realistically believes that NATO was ever in a position to invade Russia except useful idiots sucking up Russian propaganda.  The Russians don't really believe that NATO ever considered invading Russia.  They may be paranoid about it, but looking at a map can see that a Brigade of American paratroopers or mech infantry cannot conquer Russia.  Jeez. 

Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 03:38:15 PM
Russia might take a page from understanding Iraq's situation. US builds up in Saudi Arabia as a preventative measure. US invades to liberate Kuwait. Then crunches a bunch of Iraqi territory. With a now crippled military and damaging sanctions, slowly squeeze until the US finds the political will to finish the job and topple all the Putin statues. Rather than let that happen they might nuke.

OK.  So this Russian military analyst sees a single brigade of American troops in Ukraine, and then extrapolates that they will do with that one brigade what took NINE! American DIVISIONS, with four allied divisions (I'm not even counting the Saudis, don't think the Iraqis did either) to do against an army, I dunno, one quarter the size that Russia can field on the border with Ukraine? 

Man, that is one powerful Brigade.  Are they made up exclusively of Dark Troopers?  Captain America clones? 

See, it's very easy to make it clear that you are taking a defensive posture with your forces, rather than an offensive posture, just with the amount of boots you are putting on the ground. 

Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 21, 2022, 03:49:00 PM
We didn't even have one brigade in Kuwait prior to the invasion. Maybe you'd like to argue that we should have put one there, that might have actually made some sense. Or maybe Hussein was so crazy that he would have attacked anyway. Or it might have gotten a brigade obliterated. Why would it have been such a massive deterrent again? I don't see how you can say, "if only there was a brigade there, Putin never would have invaded." Instead, it could have been collateral damage or targeted, but either way now you've got 200 million Americans watching coffins come home and clamoring for World War 3.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 21, 2022, 03:56:22 PM
Otherwise riddle me this. Why don't we just rent out a brigade to every country on earth and get world peace out of it? After all, nobody would dare attack us, that's the premise?
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 03:59:45 PM
Why would it have been such a massive deterrent again? I don't see how you can say, "if only there was a brigade there, Putin never would have invaded." Instead, it could have been collateral damage or targeted, but either way now you've got 200 million Americans watching coffins come home and clamoring for World War 3.

::SIGH::

I explained this.  Because the single brigade means that you actually have to deal with the entire USAFEUR.  Then you have to think that now you have killed American troops and that you are at war with America and that more Americans are coming and now you will lose.  You can't win.  The only way to win is to convince the Americans not to show up, which Pooter did.  He just didn't count of his own army being inept and the Ukrainians being that good. 

But yeah, Pooter doesn't want 200 million Americans clamoring for "WORLD WAR 3!!!!" (God I'm getting tired of that).  That's why he would most likely be DETERRED, which is the whole point.  That's why we have only a few thousand troops in Poland and the Baltics right now!  That's the plan!  That's how it works!  That's the way it's always worked!  Russia doesn't want a piece of the United States. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 04:03:10 PM
Otherwise riddle me this. Why don't we just rent out a brigade to every country on earth and get world peace out of it? After all, nobody would dare attack us, that's the premise?

That is in fact the premise and seems like a great idea. That is exactly the reason why we have American troops all over the frickin world, at those countries' requests.  But somebody is going to start complaining about having "500 bases"! or some nonsense and bring everybody back. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 21, 2022, 04:48:50 PM
That sure worked well, having a barracks in Beirut. Total immunity. From invasion, I guess. So instead of Russia invading, we get "local separatists" who drive a truck bomb into the base? There has to be a credible threat that we're going to go all out, like Japan or South Korea. Not like Somalia or Beirut. Otherwise we just get picked off by proxies.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 05:03:17 PM
So instead of Russia invading, we get "local separatists" who drive a truck bomb into the base?

If your primary mission was deterring invasion, you've still accomplished it.  If your secondary mission was force protection, you need to get better at defending against jagoffs driving truck bombs onto bases. 

Not really sure if this is a realistic scenario.  Given a bit of time, force protection from truck bombs are pretty easy.  Concertina wire.  Concrete barriers.  50 cals.  Guard towers.  Pretty simple.  The commanders in Beruit were negligent on security.  I guess incompetence is never unrealistic as a scenario. 

Quote
There has to be a credible threat that we're going to go all out, like Japan or South Korea. Not like Somalia or Beirut. Otherwise we just get picked off by proxies.

The difference is the level of insurgency you're dealing with.  Lebanon, high.  Ukraine, very low.  It helps to have something you can hit back at.  You can't hit back at insurgents, because if you knew where they were, you would be hitting them already. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 21, 2022, 05:22:16 PM
Crimea was basically picked off without regular Russian troops. Spots in the east might have been similarly knocked off. Kyiv falling wouldn't be on the table. In hindsight, we now know exactly how little support the Russian troops are getting from ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but there was at least a decent chance a priori that you're signing yourself up for a constant grind of low level US casualties that would look more like Northern Ireland for the UK than the dramatic result of a Beirut or even an Oklahoma City bombing. There wasn't any American public political will to support that. And that's really the issue, isn't it?
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 05:37:17 PM
but there was at least a decent chance a priori that you're signing yourself up for a constant grind of low level US casualties that would look more like Northern Ireland for the UK than the dramatic result of a Beirut or even an Oklahoma City bombing.

Ehhh.  Don't know. Depends on how you qualify "a decent chance".  Not everywhere is Afghanistan or Lebanon.  It being a possibility to consider?  Sure.  But again, if your primary goal is deterring an invasion like we're seeing now, then you win, even if the price is a constant grind.  The actual possibility?  I would have said 10%.  Before the invasion.  Now?  Less than 1%.  It also depends on where you set your forces up.  Near Keev?  Safer.  In the Donbass?  More dangerous.  But still pretty stable any way you look at it.

Quote
There wasn't any American public political will to support that. And that's really the issue, isn't it?

Yes.  That is the issue.  Hence the need for evaluation and reflection by the American public of how things may have been done better and learn from them.  Or we can all just absolve ourselves, say it's not our problem, not our fault, nothing we could do, not in NATO, so sad.  You're never going to make the perfect decision.  But it is important to learn from mistakes. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 21, 2022, 06:26:07 PM
RNGesus, save us. 

Some people have managed to convince themselves that moving troops into a country, at their request, ostensibly to protect it, is escalation and reason for invasion. 

Some people have been drinking too much of Pooter's Kool-Aid.  You're swallowing Russian propaganda.  Spit it out. 

I honestly don't care how it plays on Fox News, and I don't see why anyone else would either. 

In order to make the US look bad, Pooter would have had to abandon his invasion, which he would have.  In return for looking bad in front of Germany and Fox News, we would have prevented the invasion of Ukraine, and it would have been better for Ukraine, Russia, eastern Europe, NATO, and the United States.  Now we're stuck.

That's the point - People do and are swallowing Pooters kool-add including many Americans

Putting troops on the ground in January changes the narrative and creates the possibility of dissent within NATO vice the current united front.

If we have learned anything from the last 8+ years is that thier are always people and countries that want to drink the kool-aid. To dismiss that realty is to play into the hands of men like pooter.

If as you speculate putting troops on the ground forced Pooter to back down (that is a big IF) but angered some of the NATO countries (and Fox news cum in thier pants along with thier followers). How is that not a Pooter win? Even a bigger win then if he was able to walk in and just take Ukraine.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Grant on March 21, 2022, 07:01:12 PM
If as you speculate putting troops on the ground forced Pooter to back down (that is a big IF) but angered some of the NATO countries (and Fox news cum in thier pants along with thier followers). How is that not a Pooter win? Even a bigger win then if he was able to walk in and just take Ukraine.

Because Germany being pissed is not as bad as having thousands and thousands of dead people in Ukraine.  Because it means cities like Madripol are not systematically destroyed block by block.
 Because it means that MILLIONS of refugees are not fleeing their homes in Ukraine to Europe, leaving everything behind.  Because it means no sanctions which hurts everybody in Russia AND Europe.  Because it means that we're not stuck in this position now where Pooter is losing strategically and is running out of time operationally and POLAND is talking about going it alone and Pooter being desperate is more dangerous than Pooter foiled. 

Yeah.  I'll take all of that if it means the price is Germany being pissy that the United States took Ukraine up on it's invitation and Fox News can make up some more BS. 

I mean, is that your primary concern?  That Fox News makes something new up?  That Germany gets upset?  Over preventing a WAR? 

I mean, everybody seems to be so concerned about stopping "WURLD WUR THREEEEEEE", but the same people can't seem to recognize the best time to prevent it is before the spark catches fire. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 22, 2022, 08:40:52 AM
Well there's Germany being pissy, Germany withdrawing from NATO, Germany trying to form an alternate all-Euro alliance. I haven't thought too seriously about that to evaluate any likelihood, but when nations get their national interests messed with they don't normally care if it was for a good cause. Germany getting pissed enough to prevent US troops from being supported through German airspace could be a disaster, since that country is a lynchpin of American logistics in Europe.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: Fenring on March 22, 2022, 09:23:56 AM
Well there's Germany being pissy, Germany withdrawing from NATO, Germany trying to form an alternate all-Euro alliance. I haven't thought too seriously about that to evaluate any likelihood, but when nations get their national interests messed with they don't normally care if it was for a good cause. Germany getting pissed enough to prevent US troops from being supported through German airspace could be a disaster, since that country is a lynchpin of American logistics in Europe.

To say nothing of the fact that Germany is also a lynchpin of the IMF, helping to bail out countries like Greece which would otherwise create a domino of bankruptcies. Their general cooperation probably is more important than the Ukraine, sad as that is to say.
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: rightleft22 on March 22, 2022, 09:38:06 AM
I hear you Grant

Would Putin had back down if the US put boots on the Ground?
Would NATO have followed or pushed back?
How long would the US have left those troops in Place?
If Putin didn't back down and US suffered casualties would the US people support full out war with Russia? For how long?

How certain are you that your strategy puts out the fire vice putting oil on the fire? How many lives are you willing to place that bet? (A horrible calculation to have to make, but that is what War is. A absurd horrific  calculation...) 

Everything abut this situation is absurd and in my opinion a lose lose for everyone. It does not make sense.

One thing I have learned over the last few years is that Narrative matters and having the Narrative initiative its a important, maybe the most important, in the evolution of war in this new old absurd world. 
Title: Re: Law Negative Thirty-Five
Post by: TheDrake on March 22, 2022, 10:05:15 AM
When someone has truly disproportionate power, like the Organians from Star Trek, then they can make war obsolete. As it stands, thinking that Americans are mighty enough to prevent war (particularly when we're much better at starting them) is hubris of the highest order. We can prevent one kind of war, but this might invite another kind. I'm glad I don't have to make those kinds of decisions. I'm not even sure of the right decision here, but what I do know is that it isn't some kind of no-brainer, duh, we obviously should have started pointing our conventional missiles at Russian troops. Because we never had to put actual units in Ukraine, if we just declared that we were going to defend them unequivocally and fighters were fueled up and flying combat air patrols over key Ukrainian cities. What we don't know is where that ultimately leads in clandestine, cyber, and other theatres of warfare and conflict.