No, it is the world where NATO is the new Entente Cordiale, the US and the UK are the closest allies, and whole Europe, as one, fought Nazis in WWII that's fantasy.
Ukraine is game to you? Part deux.
- Thread starter Slothur the Hasty
- Start date
No, it is the world where NATO is the new Entente Cordiale, the US and the UK are the closest allies, and whole Europe, as one, fought Nazis in WWII that's fantasy.
From my perspective, this was a big win for Putin. He got to show the EU and US just how fast he can mobilize Russian troops, and was respectably fast. That's a legit show of force in a time where people are making fun of Russian military. It bolsters his reputation with the power players in his own government, and is likely to give pause to anyone on the west who might be in a "strike first" frame of mind.
So now Putin can take his ball and go home, his internal position secured, and his borders likely stabilized, and essentially no loss of life to upset the proles.
May be a distraction for the internal consumption? There were protests in Russia.
Meh, I don't know about "big win". Putin wanted to test whether and how much his toady Trump managed to damage cross-Atlantic ties, and the answer was "not much". So instead he just firmly made his case for the status quo of a frozen conflict, while simultaneously even further alienating states that used to be in the Soviet orbit and getting the NATO/Euro alliance to seriously consider how a Donbass intervention on the behalf of Ukraine might go down, if for no other reason than to stomp on Russia's toes to discourage the idea of making the Baltic states the newest all paid vacation resort for Russian soldiers.
The ability to quickly mobilize forces opponents to expend effort to counter future mobilizations. Exercises are vital to training armed forces to co-operate with proxies. The more time Russians can shave off between the order to mobilize and readiness to fight the better they're prepared to surprise the West.
For example if China invades Taiwan, Russia might opportunistically invade Ukraine and no matter how good they are US forces can't be in two places at once. Russia knows we traded a large force for a much smaller higher tech force. The sole reason to shrink that force was to save money.
NATO and other US clients say they want freedom but they aren't seriously arming themselves. Weakness invites war.
Putin can count on a wave of (unfounded, emotionally driven) self-confidence by many in the US now Trump is gone, but he's outlasted many POTUS and knows what he can get away with under any of them.
For example if China invades Taiwan, Russia might opportunistically invade Ukraine and no matter how good they are US forces can't be in two places at once. Russia knows we traded a large force for a much smaller higher tech force. The sole reason to shrink that force was to save money.
NATO and other US clients say they want freedom but they aren't seriously arming themselves. Weakness invites war.
Putin can count on a wave of (unfounded, emotionally driven) self-confidence by many in the US now Trump is gone, but he's outlasted many POTUS and knows what he can get away with under any of them.
What are you talking about? It took months to move the troops to the Ukraine border and when they were there they realized they need at least two times as many for any chance of successful invasion.
As for the US forces being in two places, there is zero possibility the US forces will be in Ukraine in case of a Russian invasion even if the whole rest of the world is completely peaceful at that moment.
As for the US forces being in two places, there is zero possibility the US forces will be in Ukraine in case of a Russian invasion even if the whole rest of the world is completely peaceful at that moment.
The trick is not getting sucked into the vortex. As for why—it can't be for the likes or upvotes. Perhaps it's like those family holiday meal dramas that get rehashed year after year.
Its a reward system
100 shitposts gets you a bumper sticker
1,000 gets you a t-shirt (sizes Youth Large through Adult XXL)
10,0000 gets the embroidered hoodie
Well, it also didn't help that enlistments effectively became somewhat endless—aka the Back Door Draft via the much-loved Stop-Loss Policy enacted during conflicts the US was engaged in over the last three decades. It soured many to signing up—especially when faced with this prospect. That trickled over to the National Guard as well—not many people would want to jeopardize a solid civilian career by putting it aside to do battlefield service for years on end. As was mentioned upthread—it would be a tough sell to mobilize Americans to get involved in major conflicts right now.
Please stop your pathetic attempts at joking. Americans have no sense of humor.
Stop-loss was the straw that broke the camel's back, not the majority of the weight. The first and foremost pain during the early Afghanistan/Iraq years came from the duration up against what was going on. Army units were seeing twelve to eighteen months in theater. National Guard units after Jessica Lynch were "enjoying" three months in front of that time spent at an Army installation getting ready for the 1-1.5 year mission...so a tour turned into nearly two years. Couple that with a completely unknowable objective of whenever those governments would be "ready" to takeover their own country's security and a force rotation structure seeing people going either back-to-back or getting maybe a year between those long tours to recuperate or get a career school in to really brew that perfect burnout formula.
Yep. Knew veterans who were at first generally supportive of the efforts—until this type of fallout became evident—and turned more anti-war as a result. Without a clear objective, most military efforts languish.
Addition: Some of these veterans were members of the National Guard/Air National Guard for part of their careers. After seeing what was going on, became concerned that the fallout could destroy the National Guard structure overall—since people would be very reluctant to serve.
The US wants hegemony on the cheap and manning is expendable while procurement is sacred. This is business as usual and not new.
If Uncle Sam cared about manning problems they would be fixed. They are not because that's expensive, while every G.I. who separates before retirement saves DoD a considerable amount of money. The Guard and Reserves used to be (and are again now major operations have been over for some time) comfy places to rake in the bennies without frequent deployments. DoD needed the troops so they were used and those not liking that got out. They were replaced as usual. The large standing military force of the Cold War era is better for Cold Wars but will not be reinstated. It's easier to reconstitute the Guard and Reserve then expend them next time which is the point of having those forces in the first place.
Guard and Reserve forces sole reason to exist is cost savings over a large Active force.
---
Russia has left most of their equipment in place for the next time, as moving troops is much quicker when they pre-positioned their equipment. Russian efforts to professionalize their armed forces will continue to pay off. This fellow is one of the driving forces:
https://jamestown.org/program/shoigus-i ... efficient/
If Uncle Sam cared about manning problems they would be fixed. They are not because that's expensive, while every G.I. who separates before retirement saves DoD a considerable amount of money. The Guard and Reserves used to be (and are again now major operations have been over for some time) comfy places to rake in the bennies without frequent deployments. DoD needed the troops so they were used and those not liking that got out. They were replaced as usual. The large standing military force of the Cold War era is better for Cold Wars but will not be reinstated. It's easier to reconstitute the Guard and Reserve then expend them next time which is the point of having those forces in the first place.
Guard and Reserve forces sole reason to exist is cost savings over a large Active force.
---
Russia has left most of their equipment in place for the next time, as moving troops is much quicker when they pre-positioned their equipment. Russian efforts to professionalize their armed forces will continue to pay off. This fellow is one of the driving forces:
https://jamestown.org/program/shoigus-i ... efficient/
Does anyone else find it dissonant that GWB used National Guard service to avoid deployment and then later deployed National Guard units abroad?
Using the NG instead of leaving it useless at home was a reaction to the generations who hid from shooting wars. The dissonance was noted then action finally taken.
If you're not eager to get in the fight you don't belong in the military. I strongly agree with making the Guard and Reserve play with everyone else because they exist to supplement Active units, not stay home and wank. If they don't like their terms of employment they're free to separate or retire. The forces got used to repeated, long deployments and the volunteers who like that life stayed on. If it's not for you, quit when your time comes. It really is that easy and Stop Loss was never "forever", just inconvenient.
If Guard and Reserve units do not fight the taxpayer may as well quit funding them and expand the active, deployable force, but the current deal works well enough and there is no manning crisis. Current retention is high and as retention changes force shaping adapts.
If you're not eager to get in the fight you don't belong in the military. I strongly agree with making the Guard and Reserve play with everyone else because they exist to supplement Active units, not stay home and wank. If they don't like their terms of employment they're free to separate or retire. The forces got used to repeated, long deployments and the volunteers who like that life stayed on. If it's not for you, quit when your time comes. It really is that easy and Stop Loss was never "forever", just inconvenient.
If Guard and Reserve units do not fight the taxpayer may as well quit funding them and expand the active, deployable force, but the current deal works well enough and there is no manning crisis. Current retention is high and as retention changes force shaping adapts.
It was more a comment on how the role of the NG has changed markedly. Bush appears to have moved past worrying about his reelection.
Interesting the comments about the NG here. My father started out in the regulars (USA), served in Germany and Vietnam. Got out, went for training (technical school), went back in FT in the ANG. Could have been overseas at any time—his unit was airlift—so most likely would have been supporting front-line units. The parent unit is a fighter wing—and enforced the no fly zone in the Balkans and Iraq/Syria in their respective timeframes, and was also serving in the Vietnam War. As with the regular military, some Guard units were active in combat, others were not. The designations aren't as simple as they often appear.
I regard the Guard being immune from deployment for so long as an aberration.
Well, the last time it was a concern for him (assuming you mean W), it would have been about 17 years ago. One would hope he's moved past it by now.
The Guard has been there before.
https://www.stripes.com/news/specia...many of the units,men from the same hometown.
https://www.stripes.com/news/specia...many of the units,men from the same hometown.
Russia is practicing. Exercises done right professionalize the force. Units which may have never deployed with any of their current personnel have a lot to learn and that is not all in tech data. Deployment is a tactile experience. Equipment must be maintained in fit condition, packed properly, loaded safely (on everything from trucks to aircraft there are many ways to kill yourself doing it wrong), kept track of, unloaded at the right destination (FedEx, DHL and UPS keep the US global war machine running, not just Supply by a long shot), placed, tested, maintained at the deployed location, troops sustained and trained on the local operation, and that's a very short list.
The US is wonderful at deployment because we've trained on it intensively since WWII and institutional memory is precious. Knowing every inch of the receiving base before the advance team even begins is terribly valuable. Russia has a much simpler task because it can use ground transport then home station units anywhere useful within reasonable travel distance. It takes many years to get good and practice must be sustained especially with a partial conscript force (a major disadvantage of conscripts is loss rate but that didn't matter socially until the Viet Nam war era). https://warontherocks.com/2013/12/draft ... -machines/
Russia needs many more exercises to get good but not as many to get good enough. We know Russia had a large exercise. We don't yet know their lessons learned but they will and that's what matters most. Civilians don't usually think like our military planners who must plan decades ahead. They confuse short-term circumstances with permanent realities. Russia has all the time it likes to improve while the West will shortly be distracted by something else however trivial. Our armed forces will prepare but not our politicians or public. Chinese pols and government have an enormous advantage in that respect.
Russia has our examples (REFORGER, Team Spirit) and their own in Syria. Practice deploying aircraft and combined arms is incredibly valuable and dramatically different than flying daily training sorties at home station. The US make it look easy from a distance. Up close it's an incredibly complex logistic and personnel move that is very easy to fuck up. If one loadmaster puts a vehicle or object in the wrong pallet position that can kill an aircraft sure as a SAM then not only that sortie but every subsequent sortie that bird would have flown is lost. Expensive systems are not just force multipliers, they're force loss multipliers. We see road convoy and other footage on Bellingcat etc but that doesn't convey the complexity of training, maintaining then mobilizing those units. Practice shows what malfunctions in the real world catching shit simulations may miss along with their impacts down the line.
Information wants to be free and it's more useful for the West to be relatively open about how we fight so we can be better at it. OTOH Russia gets all our lessons learned along with their own via OSINT let alone espionage.
Soldiers enjoy advanced training so most Russian players likely had good military fun. Deploying units would have equipment priority and wise commanders take advantage to improve their units. Without practice deployments they'd not know what's broken, weak or becomes that way under adversity. If Russia promotes by merit exercise can expose otherwise invisible, untested talent. It will also highlight fuckups.
Well, a bit of provocative action by Russian military against the Royal Navy on a visit to the Ukraine. Perhaps an opportune time to stir the pot.
Reviving this one as Russia now has 100K troops on the border yet again. NATO is having an emergency meeting on Friday as Putin has presented a list of demands. From the local news here in Norway today, US intelligence has been quoted on saying that it's likely that Russia is capable of making a two-pronged invasion with 175K troops. Sevastopol has been heavily reinforced.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... raine-nato
Other recent demands that i have seen is that Ukraine remove troops near the Donbass region.
So what are your opinions on what is going on? I mean, deploying such military isn't cheap and it's now the second time they did this in a short while.
I think it could be a decisive thing for NATO as well as they have been quite toothless in the last decade, especially concerning Russia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... raine-nato
Other recent demands that i have seen is that Ukraine remove troops near the Donbass region.
So what are your opinions on what is going on? I mean, deploying such military isn't cheap and it's now the second time they did this in a short while.
I think it could be a decisive thing for NATO as well as they have been quite toothless in the last decade, especially concerning Russia.
Country who used the lack of military forces on Ukraine's border to fake a local insurgency to grab Ukraine's territory demands that neighboring countries remove military forces from their borders so that they can fake a local insurgency and grab their territory more easily.
That's what is going on.
All of Russia's arguments about NATO forces on Russia's borders being a threat to Russia's existence are pure unadulterated bullshit. NATO couldn't handle occupying Afghanistan, nobody with a brain would look at the prospect of invading Russia and think it makes sense. And even if it did, why the fuck would any western country want a piece of that rotting corpse of the Russian Empire in the first place? Oh... and in case anyone forgot: NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS.
I know that, NATO knows that, Putin knows that. So it's obviously just Putin threatening to invade someone if they don't disarm first so that he can invade them more easily. Fuck that guy and fuck that noise.
That's what is going on.
All of Russia's arguments about NATO forces on Russia's borders being a threat to Russia's existence are pure unadulterated bullshit. NATO couldn't handle occupying Afghanistan, nobody with a brain would look at the prospect of invading Russia and think it makes sense. And even if it did, why the fuck would any western country want a piece of that rotting corpse of the Russian Empire in the first place? Oh... and in case anyone forgot: NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS.
I know that, NATO knows that, Putin knows that. So it's obviously just Putin threatening to invade someone if they don't disarm first so that he can invade them more easily. Fuck that guy and fuck that noise.
Kazakhstan. Gees...double your populations fuel price and double your trouble.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/com...-kazakhstan-after-fuel-price-rise-2022-01-04/
I saw fist fights in a gas line in the ancient 70's but holy Mackerel.
And keeping those troops on the boarder during winter with nothing to do but ponder. Most are conscripts, badly treated in normal times.
The blooded veterans of the Ukraine are not going to go down easily. And haven't we been gifting them with Javelins and TOWs?
Putin is being a big blowhard for the internal look but going into an actual invasion?
https://www.reuters.com/markets/com...-kazakhstan-after-fuel-price-rise-2022-01-04/
I saw fist fights in a gas line in the ancient 70's but holy Mackerel.
And keeping those troops on the boarder during winter with nothing to do but ponder. Most are conscripts, badly treated in normal times.
The blooded veterans of the Ukraine are not going to go down easily. And haven't we been gifting them with Javelins and TOWs?
Putin is being a big blowhard for the internal look but going into an actual invasion?
Ukraine and NATO should offer as a compromise No-Fly Zones that will be policed by NATO, too. :devious:
You summarized my feelings in a way that i could probably never articulate in the same way. As Roscosmos and everything else inside Russia is rotting to the core, i do have a bad feeling in general about that whole country and what they are going to try to do in a way to keep the Soviet scare alive.
Whatever Putin says, prudence dictates doing the opposite. With Russia on your borders and in Ukraine's case inside them, well enough armed means having the capability to kill every Russian soldier, tank, and plane they can send, until they stop sending them.
Ukraine's military isn't the same as it was in 2014, but i have no idea if they can resist what's on the other side of the border these days. The Baltics are monitored and Poland probably has the best army in Europe currently.
Norway shares the same border as well, but our country could probably be overrun by a mob of angry Walmart shoppers on a Black Friday run, but we have NATO.
Might be time to convince the Finns that they really should join NATO, and not just sabre rattle about it.
That is also part of this conflict as Russia has warned about consequences if Finland or Sweden joins NATO very recently:
https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-wa ... den-440093
I thought that Russia would pull back on this after seeing the response they got - well, I guess they haven't.
With regard to the Ukraine stopping a Russian army invasion - I don't think they could stop an invasion, but they could probably make the price very very high.
I think if the Russians do invade, they'll come and in take a small portion, then stop and dare the Ukrainians to do something about it.
With regard to the Ukraine stopping a Russian army invasion - I don't think they could stop an invasion, but they could probably make the price very very high.
I think if the Russians do invade, they'll come and in take a small portion, then stop and dare the Ukrainians to do something about it.