Author Topic: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка  (Read 53821 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2022, 04:00:07 AM »
F-15s and F-16s are designs from 40 years ago.

F-15 and F-16 with modern upgrades are pretty formidable.  Stealth isn't that important, and the larger load outs probably are more important.  Also maintenance lower and thus tempo are probably much higher with the older systems.

Yeah.  Su-27s and Mig-29s are 40 years old too.  But they're also upgraded and there are more of them.

You guys do realize many of our NATO allies in Europe are operating F35 squadrons of their own right now?

The F15 mission profile for the Americans is probably to play missile truck for NATO F35s while the US keeps theirs in reserve for contingencies re: China

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2022, 08:34:56 AM »
The US does have a squadron of F35A fighters in Germany now. People need to realize that for a fighter with tanker support, that is trivial. And for likely early conflict combat roles. They need the F35 in a "well defended" area to ensure continued operational capabilities and security. You don't park their support equipment on the front lines unless you're willing to let it be captured. The F15 and F16 logistics tail is far less of a concern in comparison, so they get to be based in the front row...

However the other piece of the puzzle to remember is a major role for the F35 planes will be to act as remote sensing and fire direction for the F15 and F16 fleet. The F35 can fly into theater. Loiter around as it gives telemetry to allow entire squadrons of F15's to unload their arsenal from a comparatively safe distance, then return to rearm.

Which is where the F15/F16 being on the front row comes very handy. Reloads are very close by for them.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2022, 09:21:23 AM »
The US does have a squadron of F35A fighters in Germany now.

I'll admit I was unaware of this.  I see the 388 FW deployed F-35s from Hill AFB to Spangelhelm. I wasn't expecting them to bring them in from Utah when they have some at Lakenheath. 

Quote
People need to realize that for a fighter with tanker support, that is trivial.

Eh.  It's not TRIVIAL, but yes they can get into the fight if needed. 

The reason why I say it is not trivial is because of what you mentioned about reloads.  If the fight is above Donesk or north of Kiev, the Russians have a much quicker turnaround.  You tangle over Donesk, the F-35s have to go back, what 300 miles to get back to Germany?  The Russians have to go back 60 miles to get back to their bases.  They have a quicker turnaround time. 

I mean, there is no way around this.  It may be a good idea to keep the F-35s in Germany rather than Poland or Romania.  Maybe to stay out of range of short range ballistic missiles or cruise missiles.  Maybe there is better air defense there.  I dunno.  It would be better to be in Poland or Romania in terms of turnaround time, but it is what it is. 

Quote
You guys do realize many of our NATO allies in Europe are operating F35 squadrons of their own right now?

Yeah, but I'm unaware of the Danes or Italians or the Dutch forward deploying any of theirs.  I suppose the Italians really don't need to forward deploy, depending on where they are based.  I don't see the Norwegians deploying theirs, they are close enough to Russia to probably want to hang on to theirs. 

Quote
However the other piece of the puzzle to remember is a major role for the F35 planes will be to act as remote sensing and fire direction for the F15 and F16 fleet. The F35 can fly into theater. Loiter around as it gives telemetry to allow entire squadrons of F15's to unload their arsenal from a comparatively safe distance, then return to rearm.

Eh.  Yes I think that is one of the great abilities of the F-35.  But I'm unsure if the F-16s or F-15s are hooked up to whatever data-link system is being used.  I suppose they could relay through Sentry AWACs.  I don't really know.  I think I could pretty well guess that even with the ability to spot, that the F-35 would have to turn on radar to guide in AMRAAMs until they go bulldog, not sure what that range is.  But having the F-35s turn on their radar somewhat defeats the purpose of their stealth capability.  I'd sooner just have the F-16s and F-15s be guided in by AWACS. 

Something that I had forgotten was that the Russians do have a squadron of Su-57s to the east of Crimea.  I don't know why they don't show up as part of SMD air forces.  But those could be very problematic for F-15s or F-16s. 


But all of this could just be interpreted as a bluff anyways.  NATO really hasn't come out to say they would give air support to Ukraine.  A bluff/threat is better than nothing, but not sure if it is going to deter Pooter.  Can only hope. 

Ukraine Defense Minister says the Russians are not in assault formations yet and says that an invasion would not happen today or tomorrow.  If an air campaign happens first, not really sure they need to be in position though. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #53 on: February 21, 2022, 10:09:31 AM »
However the other piece of the puzzle to remember is a major role for the F35 planes will be to act as remote sensing and fire direction for the F15 and F16 fleet. The F35 can fly into theater. Loiter around as it gives telemetry to allow entire squadrons of F15's to unload their arsenal from a comparatively safe distance, then return to rearm.

Eh.  Yes I think that is one of the great abilities of the F-35.  But I'm unsure if the F-16s or F-15s are hooked up to whatever data-link system is being used.  I suppose they could relay through Sentry AWACs.  I don't really know.  I think I could pretty well guess that even with the ability to spot, that the F-35 would have to turn on radar to guide in AMRAAMs until they go bulldog, not sure what that range is.  But having the F-35s turn on their radar somewhat defeats the purpose of their stealth capability.  I'd sooner just have the F-16s and F-15s be guided in by AWACS.

It uses Link-16 to my understanding. Interoperability was a big thing for the F-35 after their mea culpa with the F-22's, which could only talk to other F-22's. (The F-35 can talk to the F-22's as well, advantage of being a newer design/build)  F-22 communications with the wider aircraft fleet without an F-35 "interpreter" is still an "in progress" development not yet deployed on the F22 to my knowledge.

But the F-35 can talk to everyone else, and often replaces AWACS in the areas it is operating in.

You also need to realize that 300 miles for a plane that can "supercruise" is less about 10 minutes away. So long as the only thing they're needing is fuel(because they're using the F-15 and F-16 to field the ordnance) their flight time is potentially rather long, although total time of station could be a bit spotty as they have to eventually run back to refuel at a safe distance. But as we're talking squadrons of F-35's and not just one or two planes, you just keep rotating F-35 flight groups in and out as they need to refuel... And let everyone else deliver the actual pain, and fly back to rearm.

Edit: I'm pretty sure those cooperative scenarios are where the claims of kill ratios in excess of 20 to 1 are coming from with the F-35, as most score keepers will tend to credit the kill to the aircraft that launched the missile, rather than the one that provided the telemetry.  8)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2022, 10:16:24 AM by TheDeamon »

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2022, 10:47:51 AM »
You also need to realize that 300 miles for a plane that can "supercruise" is less about 10 minutes away. So long as the only thing they're needing is fuel(because they're using the F-15 and F-16 to field the ordnance) their flight time is potentially rather long, although total time of station could be a bit spotty as they have to eventually run back to refuel at a safe distance. But as we're talking squadrons of F-35's and not just one or two planes, you just keep rotating F-35 flight groups in and out as they need to refuel... And let everyone else deliver the actual pain, and fly back to rearm.

OK.  Actual distance from Spangdahlem to Kiev is 1000 miles.  I don't think F-35s have supercruise the way F-22s do.  They cannot reach supersonic without going to afterburner, which sucks up alot of fuel.  But they can maintain supersonic without afterburner.  If supersonic is roughly 1000mph, that's still an hour to get there and another hour to get back.  Meanwhile the Russians can get back to the battlespace in two hours counting time to refuel and rearm.  Plus the F-35 probably has to refuel over Poland before going on station, especially if using supercruise, and then refuel again over Poland to get back.  This is the exact opposite of the advantage the Brits had in 1940, where their Spits and Hurricanes could fly multiple sorties per day over Britain while the Germans had to fly all the way back to France or Germany and could only sortie once per day.  Plus the Russians are going to have S-300s and S-400s close to the border with good ranges into Ukraine.  Even if NATO provides air support other than surveillance capability, which they are already providing now, I don't think that they will authorize strikes into Belarus or Russia, the same way the Russians, even if some NATO countries like the US and UK provide air support, would not strike into Poland or Romania. 

It's just the map.  The Russian air bases are closer to the battlefield, with or without supercruise. 

Good info on the Link-16 stuff.  Thumbs up. 

Anyways, it's probably all bluff anyways.  I wouldn't bet that NATO would support Ukraine with air cover.  I would love it if they would, but my read of US and NATO is that they are hoping economic sanctions will be a deterrent, and I just don't think they will, because I don't think the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, and Finns are all going to turn off Russian gas, which would be the only deterrent that I believe could work.  If they're going to bluff I wish they'd do a better job of it.  If Pooter is bluffing, he's doing a much better job. 
« Last Edit: February 21, 2022, 10:50:36 AM by Grant »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2022, 11:06:50 AM »
Honestly I think the sanctions are more of a play to get Russia to give it back should they take it, rather than one to stop it outright, beyond being a bluff.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2022, 11:17:41 AM »
Okay, F-35 Supercruise without afterburner is limited to 10 to 12 minutes and they don't want to fly supersonic for long periods of time due to it degrading stealth coating in the tail section in addition to heat generation. The B and C variants may be limited to 1 minute at a time on afterburner.  :o

And generally speaking the speed of sound is about 767 miles per hour.

So sustained supercruise seems to be the playground of the F22

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2022, 12:10:46 PM »
"... because I don't think the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, and Finns are all going to turn off Russian gas..."

I wonder if sanctions on our allies when they buy Russian gas might be an option, an option that could be put on the table as a possible deterrent to Russia and to get those countries maybe helping diplomatically in direct talks with Russia themselves to maybe talk Russia out of doing what it looks like they're about to do.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2022, 12:26:54 PM »
I wonder if sanctions on our allies when they buy Russian gas might be an option, an option that could be put on the table as a possible deterrent to Russia and to get those countries maybe helping diplomatically in direct talks with Russia themselves to maybe talk Russia out of doing what it looks like they're about to do.

No.  That would be the wrong move IMO.  It would simply drive them closer to Russia.  Piss them off more.  I mean, the whole point is to be helping NATO countries against aggression and economic pressure by foreign countries.  I don't see how turning the United States into the one also applying economic pressure helps. 

I would consider kicking them out of NATO, if that was possible, I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if that would help either.  I don't know exactly how NATO works.  Maybe just relegate their status, so they don't have a real role at the table.  I have no idea. Downgrading trade status.  I suppose that is a kind of economic sanction. 

Honestly, the feel the best thing to do is to have a supply of gas to give them in case of emergency, and try as much as possible to turn Germany and the rest back on to nuclear power.  Not sure how that's going to work. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2022, 02:47:20 PM »
Well, Pooter, after scaring the *censored* out of his own security council, is making a speech where he's basically recognizing the separatist provinces in Ukraine.  Much of both which is still occupied by Ukrainian nationalist forces.  Says the former Soviet Republics should have never been given the opportunity to leave.  Russian humiliation.  Ukrainians getting nukes. 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/21/world/ukraine-russia-putin-biden

Quote
President Vladimir V. Putin announced Monday evening that Russia would recognize the independence of two territories in Ukraine controlled by Moscow-backed separatists, further escalating tensions in what Western nations fear could lead to one of the biggest conflicts in Europe since World War II.

Mr.  Putin gave a lengthy televised address in which he accused Ukraine of being a “puppet” of the United States and said its citizens were being brutalized by its government.

Mr. Putin made the case that Ukraine is by history and makeup an integral part of Russia. “Colleagues, comrades, close ones, relatives, those who are tied up with us in family and blood ties.”

Mr. Putin also laid out a long history of grievances since the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of the states that once made it up.

“We gave these republics the right to leave the union without any terms and conditions,” he Putin said. “This is just madness.”


Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2022, 02:56:32 PM »
People 10 years from now will be asking why Europe couldn't see this coming 8 years ago.  Could probably say the same things about certain politicians and pundits in the United States, but I don't think now is the time to hash that out. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2022, 06:57:08 PM »

I think rural Russians and hard core Putinverstehen Russians in the cities are buying it.  Maybe it was meant for them. 

I'm pretty certain now, after events today, that this was the case.  Pooter never cared about trying to fool people in NATO or the EU or the United States.  The BS was meant to rally Russians.  He doesn't care how he's going to be perceived by the West.  That should tell you something.  That should worry everyone. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #62 on: February 21, 2022, 08:35:31 PM »

I think rural Russians and hard core Putinverstehen Russians in the cities are buying it.  Maybe it was meant for them. 

I'm pretty certain now, after events today, that this was the case.  Pooter never cared about trying to fool people in NATO or the EU or the United States.  The BS was meant to rally Russians.  He doesn't care how he's going to be perceived by the West.  That should tell you something.  That should worry everyone.

Well, everyone in Europe. Not so much the United States. Western Europe is plotting a course for obscurity. (Not yet "Developed") Eastern Asia and Africa are where the new activity is going to be for much of the rest of the century. Just about every major advanced economy, or recently advanced major economy(Russia) is in a state of protracted decline right now.

Russia's just returning to older methods of trying to minimize the long-term losses on his side.

The US has been hot and cold with NATO pretty much since the end of the Cold War, and given how often the US gets blamed for things our Allies talked us into doing... The writing is on the wall for that one, either NATO cleans up its act collectively(unlikely) or the US is unlikely to still be a major player in it by 2050. Especially so in the aftermath of what Putin just did. If they revert back to prior form by 2030, we really should walk away. If they have no interest in defending themselves, why are we bothering?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #63 on: February 21, 2022, 10:07:46 PM »
Jesus, Linda Thomas-Greenfield is boring.  I can't decide if she sounds bored or if she is just boring.  I'm sure she's brilliant and knows all kinds of stuff, but we need to have the ambassadorship to the UN split into two roles.  One person who is the bureaucrat-intelligentsia, and another person who just gives good speeches.   *censored*, can't we hire Keegan Michael-Key, or Denzel Washington, for just a single speech every once in awhile?  *censored*ing represent the United States, son!  *censored*, have Ice T do it. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #64 on: February 21, 2022, 10:14:47 PM »
Dude, if I was Zelenskyy, every time somebody like France or Germany expressed "solidarity" with Ukraine, I'd just get more pissed off. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #65 on: February 21, 2022, 10:34:33 PM »
LOL.  China gives the shortest speech. 


Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #66 on: February 21, 2022, 10:45:31 PM »
Well, everyone in Europe. Not so much the United States.

Americans have been saying that about the United States and European affairs since 1793.  Has it ever worked out?  At least back then Washington could point to the fact that the United States was weak compared to the European powers.  Apparently we are back to being weak again, just not in money or power. 

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2022, 06:41:18 AM »
Strong in money and power but weak in will.

If where there's a will there is a way then we're at the point of there is no will so there is no way.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2022, 07:39:49 AM »
Well, everyone in Europe. Not so much the United States.

Americans have been saying that about the United States and European affairs since 1793.  Has it ever worked out?  At least back then Washington could point to the fact that the United States was weak compared to the European powers.  Apparently we are back to being weak again, just not in money or power.

Weak in will. Comparatively weak in terms of money and power compared to our peak in the 20th Century, but in the almost 250 years of history(in 2026) for this nation as being a nation.. The Post-WW2 Order in general was an aberration which managed to span the entire lifespan of many Americans.

What Putin is showing, and China is likely to (try to) demonstrate soon(tm), is that the Post-WW2 Order is at an end. The US does not have the resources, or inclination to sustain it alone, and its allies are largely feckless, useless, and just as lacking in will as the United States, when it comes to helping sustain that order.

The world will get what it deserves. The United States itself will be fine, North America remains the exclusive playground of the United States, and it remains the world's pre-eminent naval power with no likely credible challenger on its "home turf" for decades yet. The rest of the world will still desire to engage in trade, but the nature of those trading arrangements is likely going to change in a bad way for the developed world if Western Europe doesn't get its *censored* together and help pull its own weight on the military side.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2022, 07:54:41 AM »
Strong in money and power but weak in will.

But I'm not sure if that is actually the case.

I think America has a lot of will.  It is just focused in other areas.  Domestic political conflict.  Defending America from Guatemalan Hordes or from Racism or Assault Weapons or Poverty or Inequality or Election Fraud.  Americans by and large are some of the most belligerent people you can ever meet in the world. 

I think it has mainly to do with a new isolationism that cropped up after 1992 and 2004.  In 1992 everybody decided that it was the end of history. Surprise!  We're back to 1938.  Then we developed a case of Iraq Syndrome.  There is a lack of faith in American ability and American intelligence when it comes to foreign interventionism.  This lack of faith is translated into a lack of will.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #70 on: February 22, 2022, 08:11:47 AM »
The US does not have the resources, or inclination to sustain it alone, and its allies are largely feckless, useless, and just as lacking in will as the United States, when it comes to helping sustain that order.

The United States has plenty of resources.  It has far more resources than Russia, certainly.  We are not comparatively weak compared to Europe.  We have plenty of money.  The United States continues to have a largest GDP in the world, larger than Japan, Germany, UK, France, India, Italy, Brazil, and Canada combined. 

As to being feckless, I would simply point to the idea that Americans have a habit of being feckless as well, even while engaged in conflicts abroad.  Fecklessness isn't a particularly special European disease.  That being said I think there needs to be a scale for this when discussing.  The UK seems to be doing all it can to punch above it's weight class.  The Ukrainians are eastern Europeans such as the Poles are more than willing to do all they can.  But other economic powerhouses on the continent have pulled back from defense spending in favor of a philosophy of economic soft power.  That's not also just a problem of Germany or France.  It's become popular in certain circles in the US as well. 

Quote
The Post-WW2 Order in general was an aberration which managed to span the entire lifespan of many Americans.

It doesn't have to be.  The lessons of WW1 and WW2 can be remembered. 

Quote
The world will get what it deserves. The United States itself will be fine, North America remains the exclusive playground of the United States, and it remains the world's pre-eminent naval power with no likely credible challenger on its "home turf" for decades yet.

Turtling up never works.  A bunker mentality is not what established the post war era.  American leadership was required against the Soviet Union and it is required again.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2022, 08:31:57 AM »
Let's see, what was the Soviet/communist strategy again? Containment. We didn't launch into a war over Hungary. This strategy also led to Vietnam and the Cuban missile crisis.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #72 on: February 22, 2022, 08:37:33 AM »
The world will get what it deserves. The United States itself will be fine, North America remains the exclusive playground of the United States, and it remains the world's pre-eminent naval power with no likely credible challenger on its "home turf" for decades yet.

Turtling up never works.  A bunker mentality is not what established the post war era.  American leadership was required against the Soviet Union and it is required again.

I said nothing about "turtling up" as I fully expect the US to continue to invest in both its Navy and its capability to project power well beyond its borders. (With a likely increasing focus on space-based weapons systems going forward if Starship works out--only the nuclear ones are banned by treaty)

And you left out the operative part that should have made it clear I thought the Americans would remain "out there" they just won't be acting as the guarantee of global trade for everyone else. They'll be protecting "close friends" when able/so inclined, but the US Navy's mission will be the protection of US Trade. If China wants Chinese shipping protected? Better build a navy to make it work. Ditto for anyone else who isn't wanting to play ball with the US. Fine, protect your own interests.

The United States itself will be fine, North America remains the exclusive playground of the United States, and it remains the world's pre-eminent naval power with no likely credible challenger on its "home turf" for decades yet. The rest of the world will still desire to engage in trade, but the nature of those trading arrangements is likely going to change in a bad way for the developed world if Western Europe doesn't get its *censored* together and help pull its own weight on the military side.

There is this very common myth that is wildly incorrect that the United States has historically been isolationist. Or that it even was isolationist in the run-up to WW2. It was very internationalist from day 1. It actually managed to achieve many of the things the US Government had been talking about wanting to do since George Washington was President, but only after the post-WW2 order was established.

You can find the founding fathers writing about a future time where all nations should be able to freely engage in trade with one another without need to be concerned about of fear of interference from other parties because everyone involved realized that such arrangements were to their mutual benefit.

Well, the Post-WW2 US-led order did basically achieve the freedom to engage in trade for all nations without respect to their ability to project naval power.  Except the rest of the world seems to be having a hard time grasping the "mutual benefit" part (although the worst offender is China by a large margin), and the order has only really stood for as long as it has because the US has been globally dominant. Only now nations(again, mainly China) are developing the ability to challenge that dominance on at least regional levels. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

No matter what happens, the US will continue to engage in trade with the rest of the world, it's what we have our Navy for after all. How able the rest of the world is to trade with each other, that's another matter. The United States won't be "going turtle" it will likely be "going neutral" while retaining one of the biggest sticks in the room.

After all, we've 70 years of the entire world criticizing every foreign intervention the United States involved itself in. If we're evidently incapable of doing anything right, we'll just "let things happen" instead unless it involves a compelling national interest... Which sadly, the South China Sea qualifies as for the Western United States(and even Hawaii) being able to easily access the Indian Ocean. Great Circle trade routes are funny things that way.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #73 on: February 22, 2022, 09:11:08 AM »
Let's see, what was the Soviet/communist strategy again? Containment.

Cool.  Can we contain Russia then now by giving the Ukrainians air support?  Before they roll up the whole country and we're right back here when Russia starts threatening the Baltic states or Finland? 

Quote
We didn't launch into a war over Hungary.

There has been some criticism about the US response to Hungary in academia over the last 30 years.  Personally I think it was the right move and I don't think the situation right now is analogous to Ukraine.  Hungary was a communist country with ties to the USSR that had a rather sudden democratically bent uprising.  But the United States had no assets in Hungary, no ties to any government there, no history of aid, and the Hungarians had no army capable of withstanding the Soviet invasion in 1956.  On top of this, Khrushchev was still seen as an improvement over Stalin.  The situation in Hungary is more comparable to if there was a sudden uprising in Belarus, or if Russia and gone full bore into Ukraine in 2014 instead of just stopping at Crimea.  We have no security relationship with Belarus, no strong diplomatic ties.   

On the other hand, Ukraine is a nation that we've had strengthening ties with over the last 8 years.  They have an army that cannot fight Russia alone, but is capable of costing Russia dearly if given air support, intelligence support, money, arms, and energy.  Everything is in place now to contain Russia here, now.  All that is required is the will, and this is growing. 

Quote
This strategy also led to Vietnam and the Cuban missile crisis.

It sounds like you are giving these examples as failures of the containment strategy.  I'd say the Cuban missile crisis was a success.  I'd say that Vietnam showed the failure of the strategy of containment when your enemy is perfectly willing to maintain a hot war and insurgency for 100 years while you stay on the defensive and do not attack logistical and political centers of gravity of the enemy.  I don't think that Russia is Vietnam because Russia does not have the world communist bloc to funnel it money, arms, and encouragement indefinitely.  All it has is China, though this is food for thought if China decides it is in it's interest to keep Russia going after they begin to suffer debilitating losses to their army, navy, and air force.  But the loss of Vietnam and the subsequent loss of Laos and Cambodia showed that the domino effect theory was correct.  The one thing the brainiacs did not get right was just how fast the Soviet block, China, and the satellite communist countries would fall into infighting instead of creating a sustained cooperation between them. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #74 on: February 22, 2022, 09:29:41 AM »
After all, we've 70 years of the entire world criticizing every foreign intervention the United States involved itself in.

You forget all the domestic criticism for every foreign intervention the United States involved itself in over the last 70 years.  I don't see how tankies, peaceniks, isolationists, and Putinverstehen should alter the will of the United States to do what is in it's interests and the interests of a stable world. 

And while I love the US Navy, and support maintaining it's strength for defense and trade purposes, history has shown that you cannot protect trade from disruption with a Navy alone.  You need an army and now an air force.   

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #75 on: February 22, 2022, 10:04:06 AM »
The poop hit the fan last night in terms of public reaction after Putin's speech and the UNSC meeting, culminating in Russia rolling troop trucks into Donbass.  Maybe I'm in a bubble on social media, but I'm hearing strong support for sanctions and various levels of aid. 

I guess I'd rather too much than too little reaction to this, but my read is that the situation has not dramatically changed except that the people who said this would happen are enraged and the people that said this wouldn't happen are shocked.  But rolling infantry into eastern Ukraine already occupied by the separatists is not the sword that is hanging over Ukraine.  The real *censored* has not really hit the fan yet.  There has yet to be any air campaign.  No hard artillery attack.  No armored vehicles crossing the border on the way to Kharkiv or Kiev.  This is in line with Pooters MO of playing "just the tip", so I don't think it's over.  But the reaction last night seems to have been stronger than warranted. 

I mean, sure, if you want to hit sanctions now go for it.  It's showed that the threat wasn't deterrent enough so you may as well show that you have the political will to carry out your promises.  Pooter has wisely probed the EU and NATO to see what they will do.  If nothing happens, he will probably continue on to take everything on the west bank of the Dnieper.  But the ball is now in the EU and NATOs court, and lol, I'm sorry to say he's probably got their number.  I've been saying that it looked like Germany, Italy, and Hungary were not going to be willing to turn off the gas, which I believe would be the only thing that might deter Pooter, or at least hurt the Russian economy enough that they could not sustain those sanctions.  If they're not willing to shut off the gas they will certainly not support any actions that might lead to Pooter shutting off the gas.  The energy policy weakness of central Europe is leading to an inability to respond to Russia, and an overconfidence that mutual trade and belief that the threat of sanctions would protect Europe.  It hasn't.  Central Europe should have been getting off the Russian gas crack-pipe eight years ago. 

If the gas doesn't get shut off, I believe Pooter will take all of Ukraine, piece by piece, slowly by slowly, inch by inch, except that I am told by experts that he cannot keep his army in the field for long.  I'm unsure of this, since the whole purpose of an army is to stay in the field indefinitely. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #76 on: February 22, 2022, 10:24:03 AM »
Quote
I'd say the Cuban missile crisis was a success.

It had an acceptable outcome. But riddle me this, wouldn't it have been better to have just never put the missiles into Turkey in the first place that we eventually traded to defuse the crisis?

You just pointed out why Vietnam was dumb. Because all those countries converted to communism anyway, despite massive intervention and over a million deaths including toddler amputees. Unless your contention is that without the friction of Vietnam, Australia or some other established democracy was doomed. It sounds like you're advocating that we should have started bombing nuclear mainland China in order to save Vietnam. That sounds like a fun time.

Containment also meant overthrowing democratically elected governments friendly to the Soviets. And lets not forget arming the Taliban.

Bad, worse, worst.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #77 on: February 22, 2022, 10:25:14 AM »
Missed this this morning.  Germany put Nord Stream 2 on hold. 

https://www.ft.com/content/09fb49b9-c611-4b19-b1ee-3fd2cbdf44fc

Pretty good news.  It shows that Germany can stand up against Russia and is willing to take some pain.  Germany needs to be supported in it's decision by helping them find alternative supplies of natural gas.  The more gas we can supply Europe the better they can stand against Russia and cut them off at the knees but destroying their highest source of GDP.  This includes ramping up production in the US, Qatar, and Canada, building more LNG carriers, increasing exploration in the North Sea, increasing investment and building of nuclear power plants.  This needs to be done as fast as humanly possible to encourage Germany and Italy and Finland. 

Russians got pissed and promised to raise the price of gas on Germany. 

Criticism of UK sanctions not being tough enough.     


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #78 on: February 22, 2022, 10:34:39 AM »
After Crimea Ukraine should have gone full Israel. Everyone turning 18 serves 1-2 years in the military. Add a whole bunch of rifles and have them all in the reserves. The only thing short of NATO membership that would stop Putin is for Ukraine to be able to exact a very heavy cost on the Russian forces coming in. If all the citizens between 18-30 are going to get called up to fight it changes the invasion calculus. If the active duty military can stay organized enough to stop tanks from rolling anywhere and maintain some anti-aircraft capabilities then having enough reserves with rifles can hold a lot of ground.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #79 on: February 22, 2022, 11:23:55 AM »
After Crimea Ukraine should have gone full Israel. Everyone turning 18 serves 1-2 years in the military. Add a whole bunch of rifles and have them all in the reserves.

Since 2014 the Ukrainian Armed Forces have gone through a bunch of reform.  They did not go "full Israel", even though to do annual conscription, and the populace is available for conscription when necessary.  I think this is the right move on Ukraine and I will say way. 

The reforms of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, particularly the Ukrainian Army, since 2014 have been widespread, but not focused on creating a large conscription army and giving everyone a rifle and a clip and throwing them out there to fight Russians.  From the get-go, the Ukrainians asked for assistance from NATO in developing a reform plan.  The idea was not to create a large conscript army, but to build a larger professional army with better training, better equipment, better organization, and better leadership.  The Ukrainians agreed with this because the feeling was, even in former Soviet countries, that large poorly equipped and poorly training conscript armies could not fight against the better trained, better equipped, but smaller NATO armies.  This is even reflected in the way the Russians have reformed their military since 2014, relying much less on conscripts and building a (relatively) more professional military since the fall of the Soviet Union.  So fighting Russians isn't exactly the same as fighting conscripted Arab armies in 1967 or 1973.  I don't recall the Israelis ever being saved by mass infantry assaults or defenses anyways.  They won by heaving a better equipped and better trained professional tank corps, (including reserves), and a better equipped and better trained Air Force. They also had the advantage of terrain on their border with Syria.  The Ukrainians have no benefits of defensive terrain other than the Dnieper River and urban areas. 

Jezus.  The IAF and Israeli tankers were nearly legendary for what they did in 1973 back in the '80s.  They basically what that is was possible and became a prototype for how NATO would defend West Germany. 

So the NATO advisors focused on not just a larger army, which doubled in size since 2014, and better equipping them and giving them better tactics, but overhauling the organization and command and control system from the old Soviet model that the Ukrainians had to a more NATO style.  The idea being that the Ukrainian Army might suffer severe losses among leadership and command and control capabilities in the opening rounds of an defense against the Russian Army, and due to the Russian's cyber ability.  So the most important idea was to teach decentralization in the Ukrainian Army.  Give smaller unit commanders the training and knowledge to act on their own without orders from the Ministry of Defense of the nearest General.  Developing Colonels, Majors, and Captains were the key to the NATO reform plan.  So that surviving leadership, cut off from command, could act, survive, and fight.  The Russians make a hole and smash through.  If your remaining forces can organize and rally, they can stay in the fight and do that attrition you talked about. 

The other aspect was equipment.  You can't fight Russian T-80 tanks with rifles.  The Soviets found out how that worked by sending human wave attacks against the Germans in 1941.  So they need Javelin ATGMs to take out Russian tanks.  They need Stinger MANPADS to attrit Russian rotary air power.  (I'm having a flashback to Charlie Wilson's War).  Not only do they need the equipment, but they need to be superbly training on how to use it tactically, in small groups if needed, while on the run and cut off from support.  You can't do that with a conscript army focused on numbers.  They need the most modern secure command and control systems at the lower levels to coordinate between small units and be able to think quicker, move quicker, react quicker, than the Russians. 

So I think the Ukrainians made the best move possible, aided by NATO advisors, NATO training, and NATO equipment.  Even then, the Russian army isn't a slouch.  They still outnumber in infantry and have more artillery and armor.  But the advantage has always been for the defender.  The real weakness of Ukraine is their air power.  They cannot stand against the Russian Air Force.  Without air superiority, or at least a contested air space, no modern army can survive long.  Establishing Air Superiority has basically been the American and NATO way of war since 1944.  The Russians will have air superiority over Ukraine and can achieve it in days, if not a single day.  From there the scenario is as I've mentioned earlier in the thread.  The Russians pound the larger Ukrainian defensive positions to dust from the air or with superior artillery, then penetrate, and seize control of the rear and primary objectives. 

The Ukrainians need air support, intelligence support, and logistics support.  With that they can at least make it extremely painful for Russia.  Would that be enough?  I wonder if it is already too late.  If Pooter commits to a full invasion, then even NATO coming in at a later point may not end the war because of the idea of sunken costs.  Some people after listening to Pooter's speech last night are saying that he's unhinged, crazy.  I'm unsure.  I think a lot of people just can't understand bad men. 

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #80 on: February 22, 2022, 12:15:31 PM »
After Crimea Ukraine should have gone full Israel. Everyone turning 18 serves 1-2 years in the military. Add a whole bunch of rifles and have them all in the reserves.
...
The Ukrainians need air support, intelligence support, and logistics support.  With that they can at least make it extremely painful for Russia.  Would that be enough?  I wonder if it is already too late.  If Pooter commits to a full invasion, then even NATO coming in at a later point may not end the war because of the idea of sunken costs.  Some people after listening to Pooter's speech last night are saying that he's unhinged, crazy.  I'm unsure.  I think a lot of people just can't understand bad men.

Your analysis is good. We should have been giving them advanced SAM capabilities in addition to anti tank weapons. But without an air defense it seems like bloody fighting in every city with a bunch of riflemen might have been the better option for Ukraine.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #81 on: February 22, 2022, 12:26:55 PM »
How about a network of self-replicating cloaked mines to block out the Russian forces?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #82 on: February 22, 2022, 12:40:17 PM »
We should have been giving them advanced SAM capabilities in addition to anti tank weapons.

Maybe.  They asked for Patriots from the US and Iron Dome from Israel.  They were turned down.  I think part of the reason was not to antagonize Russia.  LOL.  It's possible that the Patriots were too expensive (can always give them for free) and there wasn't enough time to train them.  There is also a huge amount of red tape to get through for the United States to sell those kinds of weapons.

I also suspect that Patriots and Iron Dome have lots of TS capabilities that the US and Israel do not want getting out to Russia in case the weapons are captured.  Like anti-ballistic or anti-hypersonic intercept abilities.  But that's just a guess.  It may be that our air defense weapons are still more advanced than the Russians and no sense in giving them the software/hardware. It's a dilemma.  I would love for them to have either system right now. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/patriot-missiles-aren%E2%80%99t-answer-ukrainian-air-defense-197556

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43596/pentagon-team-has-returned-from-assessing-ukraines-air-defense-needs


Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #83 on: February 22, 2022, 12:41:04 PM »
How about a network of self-replicating cloaked mines to block out the Russian forces?

Good idea, Rom. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #84 on: February 22, 2022, 01:20:30 PM »
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russia-ukraine-warning-update-russian-military-operations-southeastern-ukraine-imminent

The link above is to an analysis made on how the Russians would run the ground campaign.  I saw another analysis on Twitter that said basically the same thing. 

The idea in the analyses is that Russia will conduct the ground campaign in a phased approach, unlike the "attack on all fronts", "maximum pressure for quickest campaign" that I had envisioned.  I had imagined the Russians attacking simultaneously on 2-3 axes of advance with the primary goal of taking Kiev, toppling the government, while destroying military command and control.  These guys say that the invasion will be phased.  It makes sense to me because of two reasons.  1) It's Putin's MO of "just the tip".  2) It's basically an oblique attack on a grand scale.  The Russians can concentrate their forces in the SMD while leaving just enough behind in Belarus and Belgorod to keep Ukrainian forces pinned there.  Then they systematically annihilate the Ukrainian Army a piece at a time before taking on another part. 

The more I think about it the more I think that's the way the Russians will go.  But it will take longer to hold and clear each section than it would be to simply roll over them.  But it's their best strategy. 

The air/missile campaign has to still be directed through the entire theatre though.  And the draw back to this strategy is that is really does give NATO more time to decide to step in while the Ukrainians are still fighting and there is still a government.  But the idea is that through each phase Putin will attempt to re-negotiate, keeping the EU and NATO tied up in diplomatic attempts instead of military assistance.  Pooter is betting that NATO will just not help, and he's probably right.  The only countries I see that might have the will to engage and the ability to force project would be Poland and the UK.  But they just don't have to juice to fight the Russians over Ukraine.  Only the United States does.  I don't think that Germany, Hungary, or Italy is going to back or approve of any NATO involvement because they are scared of getting the gas turned off. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #85 on: February 22, 2022, 04:45:03 PM »
President Joe made a great speech.  For a dude 79 years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPrq5GjnFcQ

Grandpa President, round two.  Speech! 

I mean, you gotta remember that the guy is 10 years older than Reagan when he was first elected.  And he was frickin OLD. 

Starting off a little better.  Not stumbling too much.  Reading teleprompter.

Stop rubbing your nose. 

Stuttering

Sanctions, good.  What sanctions? 

Go futher?  Man, just go all out now.  You can always pare it back.  Find out, right now, if you have any economic leverage on Pooter.  Stop reacting.

Jesus stop squinting, can he not see?  Change the font size on the teleprompter

Tripping

I don't trust the word "tranche" ever since The Big Short.

"Defensive assistance"?  What does that mean?  Other than Global Hawk and Joint Rivet missions? 

Don't tell people you have no intent to fight Russia.  There is nobody left to convince on the fence.  Everybody knows Russia is driving this. 

You want to send an unmistakable message?  By sending troops and planes to the Baltics?  But then say they're not there to fight Russians?  What are they there for?  To play poker?  Tourism?

This false differential between defending a NATO country and one right next door who is begging to be a NATO country but isn't, is the last barrier.  At least the United States cares about it's signature on a piece of paper.  That's what's important.  "You gotta sign, man, before I can help you".  "You gotta be part of the gang, bro.  You havn't been initiated yet."

Zelenskyy listening to this and getting a special pistol with only one bullet ready. 

I don't like "Kyiv".  It rhymes with "skeeve".  I like "Kiev" better.  Cause I like Chicken Kiev. 

Sounding smoother, more confident.  How can he be so good at debates but then have trouble on reading a teleprompter sometimes? 

Good to hear about global energy supply stabilization. 

Walks out without answering a single question.  Boss move. 

Score 7/10.  Still ok for a 79 year old. Room for improvement.   
 








Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #86 on: February 22, 2022, 05:47:52 PM »
Quote
The reason why I say it is not trivial is because of what you mentioned about reloads.  If the fight is above Donesk or north of Kiev, the Russians have a much quicker turnaround.  You tangle over Donesk, the F-35s have to go back, what 300 miles to get back to Germany?  The Russians have to go back 60 miles to get back to their bases.  They have a quicker turnaround time.

Well, it's happening.  The F-35s from Spang are being sent to "several operating locations along NATO's eastern flank".  20 Apaches to Baltics and 12 Apaches to Poland. 

I dunno, man.  If I was a Russian I'd be nervous. 

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/us-to-send-forces-to-back-natos-eastern-flank-amid-russia-aggression/2510665
« Last Edit: February 22, 2022, 05:54:12 PM by Grant »

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #87 on: February 22, 2022, 05:55:58 PM »
Cardi B declares neutrality in Ukraine crisis

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/595294-cardi-b-says-shes-not-really-on-nato-or-russias-side-amid

Quote
“I'm really not on NATO’s side. I'm really not [on] Russia’s side. I'm actually in the citizens’ side, because at the end of the day, the world is having a crisis right now.”

That's a relief.  We don't have to worry about Cardi B supporting the Russians now. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #88 on: February 22, 2022, 09:58:32 PM »
Quote
The reason why I say it is not trivial is because of what you mentioned about reloads.  If the fight is above Donesk or north of Kiev, the Russians have a much quicker turnaround.  You tangle over Donesk, the F-35s have to go back, what 300 miles to get back to Germany?  The Russians have to go back 60 miles to get back to their bases.  They have a quicker turnaround time.

Well, it's happening.  The F-35s from Spang are being sent to "several operating locations along NATO's eastern flank".  20 Apaches to Baltics and 12 Apaches to Poland. 

I dunno, man.  If I was a Russian I'd be nervous. 

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/us-to-send-forces-to-back-natos-eastern-flank-amid-russia-aggression/2510665

Alas, there are too many independent variables for us to judge your theory based on the outcome. :)

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #89 on: February 23, 2022, 02:15:56 PM »
Another round of cyber attacks underway against Ukraine, targeting banks and government websites.  Still disappointed.  Wonder if we've been overestimating Russian cyber ability, or if Ukraine had hardened certain targets like utilities. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukraine-news-war-putin-invasion-b2021232.html

Ukraine declares state of emergency and calls up the reserves.  Should have done that a month ago.  I sympathize with Zelenskyy trying to keep people calm, but sometimes it's time to freak out, and sometimes it helps to freak people out early. 

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-conscripting-18-60-year-olds/31718145.html

Calling up the "reserves" is not exactly like calling up the reserves or the nasty guard here in the states.  It actually involves conscription.  But no "general mobilization" yet, which I take would be basically conscripting everybody of fighting age. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-calls-up-reservists-launches-programme-economic-patriotism-2022-02-22/

In shocking news, very surprising, the UK announces that RT is Russian propaganda.  I'm shocked, shocked.  Johnson says he is not getting involved and there is no strong pressure to censor, so I don't understand the point. 
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/uks-truss-says-media-watchdog-looking-russias-rt-tv-channel-2022-02-23/

Quote
But the reaction last night seems to have been stronger than warranted.

After the premature ejaculatory outrage reaction on Monday night, yesterday was actually relatively calm, causing the overall conversation to eventually dissolve back into domestic political attacks.  We just can't give up the real war, ladies and gentlemen.  There are people that are heavily invested in the idea that Democrats or Republicans are much more dangerous to the United States than Pooter and Russia.  They might have some small points, but I cannot forget that these people are heavily invested in selling their product of outrage and scorn.  It's possible to be just as hooked on it as Germany is hooked on Russian gas.  I do know who is about to start a war, though, and who is primarily responsible for driving it, and it is not anybody here in the US.  You can talk about contributing culpability in the US and in Europe, but it doesn't really help anybody but partisans.  I'll admit some of it is fun, but the stuff is untimely.  It does help to point out who to cut off from your feed. 

Today the whole thing has become quiet.  A post fight calm.  More cyber attacks but no air campaign.  Still slow cooking this roast.  Is it taking longer for ground units to get into position than planned?  I would not be surprised.  Sticking to a planned schedule is difficult when you have millions of moving pieces and millions of ways fiction can be introduced.  Or is it part of the plan to slow cook? I don't know.  Even the domestic political recriminations have slowed down. 

Speaking of Germans and Russian gas, the German Economy Minister has said that Germany could do without Russian gas, proposing they could lower taxes to compensate for higher prices.  Sometimes this green/renewables energy crap doesn't work out, is all I'm saying.  No word on them deciding to bring back nuclear.  I've already stated my opinion that we should be helping the Germans in any way possible.  Cutting off the gas is the best sanction possible and the only one that I believe that could actually work.  Pooter doesn't care how much money you take away from the Oligarchs or if you take away their Monaco vacations.   

US has told Ukraine to expect an invasion in 48 hours from intel sources.  The Ukrainians don't appear impressed. 

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-us-warns-ukraine-full-scale-russian-invasion-within-48-hours-1681798?fbclid=IwAR2OkB6KeVZ9i_6gYlgeNiLSbpc2mO0kLKDZIa3Xq3StWgxGkl8iVI05rw0

Quote
A source close to Zelenskyy's government also confirmed to Newsweek that such a warning was received, but noted that this was the third time in a month Kyiv was told to prepare for imminent large-scale military action order by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Quote
"It's possible for sure," the source said. "Putin can't keep so many troops in the field much longer."

I still don't understand this crap about how the Russians can only stay in the field for so much longer.  The whole point of an army is to stay in the field indefinitely until the fight is over. 

As the world gets hooked on a new form of information high, and every moron idiot journalist in the United States heads over to the Pentagon and Ukraine to pick up some more drugs, I feel that the quality of reporting about Ukraine is going to suffer.  This is something to keep in mind. The warning seems to indicate danger for Kyiv and Kharkiv, which would be against the phased ground attack approach mentioned yesterday.  So there is a bunch of mixed signals.  Not terribly impressed with Newsweek.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-lithuania-say-ukraine-deserves-eu-candidate-status-due-current-security-2022-02-23/

Consistently impressed with Reuters.  Lithuania and Poland support giving Ukraine NATO candidate status.  Probably a bit late for that.  It's also notable that Lithuania and Poland probably wouldn't be the ones sending forces to fight for Ukraine.  I suppose it makes sense that when your house is on fire your closest neighbors are going to be the first to come help.  NATO/US air support is the only way I see this turning out where Ukraine isn't lost.  But it introduces a whole bunch of problems. 


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #90 on: February 23, 2022, 02:32:13 PM »
...
Consistently impressed with Reuters.  Lithuania and Poland support giving Ukraine NATO candidate status.  Probably a bit late for that.  It's also notable that Lithuania and Poland probably wouldn't be the ones sending forces to fight for Ukraine.  I suppose it makes sense that when your house is on fire your closest neighbors are going to be the first to come help.  NATO/US air support is the only way I see this turning out where Ukraine isn't lost.  But it introduces a whole bunch of problems.

Hot war with Russia does create a bunch of problems. Even if we are just enforcing a "no fly zone" or whatever we want to call what would likely be the biggest air battles since Vietnam. Without our air defense systems and bases on the ground we wouldn't have the advantages a defensive battle usually would have.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #91 on: February 23, 2022, 02:43:26 PM »
Hopefully Taiwan can learn from Ukraine's mistakes. Get as much military hardware and security guarantees as possible and declare independence. Slow playing with an aggressive giant next door is going to end when the giant senses an opportunity. It may be time to bite the bullet on this one and suffer the economic warfare that would ensue.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #92 on: February 23, 2022, 02:50:31 PM »

Hot war with Russia does create a bunch of problems. Even if we are just enforcing a "no fly zone" or whatever we want to call what would likely be the biggest air battles since Vietnam. Without our air defense systems and bases on the ground we wouldn't have the advantages a defensive battle usually would have.

That's only half the problems.  The other problem is that Russia can stage their S-300s and S-400s inside Russia and Belarus and their coverage will still extend quite far into Ukraine.  Does NATO agree to strike targets in Russia or Belarus in self defense? For the purpose of actually winning?  This risks widening the war.  But this disadvantage would be the most serious. 

While Russia would have the advantage of closer bases, it doesn't translate to attrition of NATO fighters.  It simply translates to their ability to hit targets in Ukraine while NATO aircraft are rearming and refueling back in Poland, Romania, Italy, or Germany.  It means that the Russians would still have air superiority over Ukraine for a long time until NATO air power could whittle away at the Russian aircraft. 

NATO has a bunch of aircraft, though.  It can match the Russians in the air and maybe even outnumber them if you throw in squadrons from the UK, France, and Germany.  Of course none of this is set up to happen, though.  You can't set up a multinational air force and air strategy overnight.  It took months before Desert Storm.  The counter argument is that NATO already has a military command structure in place and hopefully they're making plans now, even if they are never used. The logistics are not in place and as far as I know, there may not even be enough room in Poland or Romania to base all these planes.   

But my read is that NATO can and would defeat the Russians in an air war over Ukraine.  It might not even take that long as I'm imagining.  But to effectively "win", and control the airspace, you have to hit targets in Russia and Belarus. 

Here is a good analysis made after a simulation where NATO won. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIrGNeX1ch0

I didn't watch the entire simulation, which I think runs longer than 10 hours.  But I do know that the simulator is quite comprehensive and is used professionally.  The in-game simulation only ran 36 hours!  Hard to believe it could be over so quickly. 

Anyways.  I don't know it all, but my read on what the Russians have in place, that NATO can win, it just would be difficult in certain circumstances. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #93 on: February 23, 2022, 03:08:15 PM »
Hopefully Taiwan can learn from Ukraine's mistakes. Get as much military hardware and security guarantees as possible and declare independence. Slow playing with an aggressive giant next door is going to end when the giant senses an opportunity. It may be time to bite the bullet on this one and suffer the economic warfare that would ensue.

I don't think that Taiwan is being lazy here.  I think they're constantly trying to arm up as much as possible, but in the end it is impossible for them to keep up with China.  It would be like asking Cuba to stand against a serious invasion by the United States.  They just don't have the money or the space.  I think they're doing an ok job of it but they need more ABM defenses, and their present defenses need to take a page from the North Koreans and basically be capable of being bunkered during bombardment.

Getting overt security guarantees probably won't happen.  Getting under the table security guarantees have either already happened or won't happen. 

But I think the key is to fight the battle in front of you, not the one you might have tomorrow.  I personally feel the best way to defend Taiwan against China is to show that the US and UK are willing to fight.  The greatest danger recently has been from the perceived failures of the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and the growth of isolationist sympathies through the last 6 years.  Fighting Russia now, the less dangerous enemy (depends), and winning, defends Taiwan later from a more dangerous enemy. 

I don't think that is a reason to get into any fight for any reason to show resolve and ability to China.  That's crazy.  But if also stopping Russia is important to the United States, here is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and reverse the erosion of American power since 2009 (or 2003 if you are inclined) and reestablish some of that stability that was seen in the 1990s. 

But you're going to have to get beyond the "F Ukraine", "F Taiwan", and "they are not allies/we don't have a treaty/we have no obligations" crowd. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #94 on: February 23, 2022, 04:42:46 PM »
Quote
But you're going to have to get beyond the "F Ukraine", "F Taiwan", and "they are not allies/we don't have a treaty/we have no obligations" crowd.

Good luck getting by me and the hordes like me, which is a very strange set of bedfellows that include America Firsters and Communists.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #95 on: February 23, 2022, 06:39:05 PM »
Bunch of NOTAMS just popped up covering the airspace between Ukraine and Russia.  I can't read the FAA copy.  I'm not a pilot.  Don't know who issued it.  Reason seems to be to protect civilian flights. 

https://www.notams.faa.gov/dinsQueryWeb/queryRetrievalMapAction.do?reportType=Raw&retrieveLocId=urrv&actionType=notamRetrievalbyICAOs

Earlier NOTAMS closed airports in Kharkiv and Dnipro. 

https://www.avianews.com/ukraine/2022/02/23/airport_kharkiv_temporary_closed_23february/

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #96 on: February 23, 2022, 10:18:25 PM »
This is it, sportsfans. 

About two hours ago they started shutting down all the airspace in Ukraine.  Planes that had just taken off were directed to return and land.  Planes coming into Ukraine were diverted out.  No NOTAMS.  All ATC driven. 

Reports of multiple explosions in Kharkiv. 

Russian Strategic Bomber HF channel very busy.  8131 KHz USB.  Probable launch of Air to Surface cruise missile attack. 

Putin declares war.  "A couple of words for those would be tempted to intervene.  Russia will respond immediately and you will have consequences that you never have had before in your history."




Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #97 on: February 23, 2022, 10:24:43 PM »
Sounds like they're going after the airfields. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #98 on: February 23, 2022, 10:32:31 PM »
Forgot to mention, google maps showed traffic jam on the road from Belgorod to the Ukrainian border.  Lol.  What a world. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #99 on: February 23, 2022, 10:53:53 PM »
Marco Rubio of all people is apparently spilling all the intel on Twitter.

Says the main axes of attack are on Kyiv and south from Crimea to take the bridges on the Dnieper and cut off Ukrainian forces to the east.  So much for the phased ground attack if that is the case.

Says Russia making an airborne attack on the Kiev airport so they can fly follow on forces straight into the capitol.  Bold move, Cotton. 

No clue any of this is true.  Nothing else to confirm an airborne attack on Kiev Airport. 

Says the aircraft are now enroute to conduct a second wave of attacks following missile strikes.  That makes sense and is more than probably true.