View Full Version : A military strategic question
I guess you have heard about what happen in East Ukraine earlier today.
Little background to my question.
I have on several friends and friends friends wall read things like
It about time we send NATO troops to Ukraine. Here some just want the troops there as a powerful message to Putin
while some want NATO troops to engage the Russian.
Reading such things scares me.
I have posted answers on some of these walls.
I could be wrong, I only remembered what I saw, heard and read what a war between NATO/USA and Russia would lead to.
I wrote that a war would go from conventional to nuclear. If not the leaders came to common sense before a war started or ran out of control.
So was I correct from a military strategic view ?
Markus
Armistead
08-11-14, 04:14 PM
It's not going to happen regardless of the debate...
It's not going to happen regardless of the debate...
I hope you are right about that.
Markus
kraznyi_oktjabr
08-11-14, 05:19 PM
Markus, The New York Times Thomas Riedman did an interview with Obama which was published in weekend. That interview makes it very clear - although indirectly - that U.S. won't intervene if Russia decides to invade Ukraine. Without U.S. support I don't see NATO intervention either.
Dread Knot
08-11-14, 05:25 PM
Markus, The New York Times Thomas Riedman did an interview with Obama which was published in weekend. That interview makes it very clear - although indirectly - that U.S. won't intervene if Russia decides to invade Ukraine.
Not to mention that you'd need to go out to the Hyannis links with a crow bar to separate the man from his beloved golf game right now. :-?
Skybird
08-11-14, 05:25 PM
Sending NATO troops to fight Russians in Ukraine would be like sending Russian troops into Mexico.
What do you think the chances are that Russia is insane enough to send combat troops into Mexico?
Different it is with the West trying to get a united Ukraine into NATO, via EU first. They tried to increase such efforts since autumn last year.
By now even the most tired long-sleeper in Washington should have gotten Putin's answer to that attempt, I guess.
Markus, The New York Times Thomas Riedman did an interview with Obama which was published in weekend. That interview makes it very clear - although indirectly - that U.S. won't intervene if Russia decides to invade Ukraine. Without U.S. support I don't see NATO intervention either.
Glad to hear that.
We shall of course give a clear message to Putin, withdraw your forces and stop supporting the riot in East Ukraine.
As Pacifist I dislike every speech or acting of steps that could lead to war which is not good.
kraznyi_oktjabr
08-11-14, 05:34 PM
Glad to hear that.
We shall of course give a clear message to Putin, withdraw your forces and stop supporting the riot in East Ukraine.
As Pacifist I dislike every speech or acting of steps that could lead to war which is not good.Well its unlikely that there would be large scale conflict between NATO and Russia. However current signal from Obama essentially gives Russia free hands in dealing with its interests in Ukraine. Sanctions are unlikely to change Russia's plans if it sees annexation of East Ukraine or installation of puppet regime into Kiev as being within its interest. Word IF is important here as I'm still not sure what Putin's objective exactly is.
In short: no bloodshed for western countries, only for Ukrainians and perhaps Russians.
EDIT: Question for you: How would you demand Putin to essentially declare defeat if there is no serious consequences for ignoring such demands?
Well its unlikely that there would be large scale conflict between NATO and Russia. However current signal from Obama essentially gives Russia free hands in dealing with its interests in Ukraine. Sanctions are unlikely to change Russia's plans if it sees annexation of East Ukraine or installation of puppet regime into Kiev as being within its interest. Word IF is important here as I'm still not sure what Putin's objective exactly is.
In short: no bloodshed for western countries, only for Ukrainians and perhaps Russians.
EDIT: Question for you: How would you demand Putin to essentially declare defeat if there is no serious consequences for ignoring such demands?
I really don't know
As all of you wrote there will not be any NATO/US troops in Ukraine if Russia decide to invade. Mostly it wil be a raised fingers or two and some raised voices in EU and USA.
I convinced that Putin would take these sign as a "Do as you like no one will stop you"
Markus
Skybird
08-11-14, 05:58 PM
As Pacifist I dislike every speech or acting of steps that could lead to war which is not good.
There are two ways to understand pacifism.
The one means to reject using aggressive violence in a first strike to force through one's aggressive interests against another one who so far remained non-violent and did not threaten a first strike. But it reserves the right of self-defence, both passive and offensive, on behalf of oneself or other ones depending on one's own help.
The other means to not act even if that means that innocent ones gets slaughtered or become subject of atrocities, because one claims moral superiority by allowing the attacker to commit such atrocities without "lowering oneself to his levels". That is a shame, an offence, a disgrace. You can only chose that without compromsing your morality if you put only your own life and well-being at risk, and nobody else's.
The first pacifist is somebody like me. The latter is somebody who by arguing that he is a "pacifist" actively helps to create the opportunity for crime and atrocity being carried out, he does so by his passivity, and he arrogantly claims moral superiority nevertheless.
One can chose to stay out of other people's conflicts and wars, for many reasons, yes, there were wars I would or have supported, and other wars I considered to be so stupid that I refused to give them my support. But one should really be careful to not mistake the one form of pacifism with the other one. The first understanding of pacifism is wise. The latter is cynical, and despises the suffering and death of legions. If somebody choses to not wanting to enter a conflict because he has no stakes at risk and no interests in it, then he should say so - but he shopuld never claim that he stays out because he feels like a pacifist.
There are two ways to understand pacifism.
The one means to reject using aggressive violence in a first strike to force through one's aggressive interests against another one who so far remained non-violent and did not threaten a first strike. But it reserves the right of self-defence, both passive and offensive, on behalf of oneself or other ones depending on one's own help.
The other means to not act even if that means that innocent ones gets slaughtered or become subject of atrocities, because one claims moral superiority by allowing the attacker to commit such atrocities without "lowering oneself to his levels". That is a shame, an offence, a disgrace. You can only chose that without compromsing your morality if you put only your own life and well-being at risk, and nobody else's.
The first pacifist is somebody like me. The latter is somebody who by arguing that he is a "pacifist" actively helps to create the opportunity for crime and atrocity being carried out, he does so by his passivity, and he arrogantly claims moral superiority nevertheless.
One can chose to stay out of other people's conflicts and wars, for many reasons, yes, there were wars I would or have supported, and other wars I considered to be so stupid that I refused to give them my support. But one should really be careful to not mistake the one form of pacifism with the other one. The first understanding of pacifism is wise. The latter is cynical, and despises the suffering and death of legions.
Thank you for your reply
I would be 1½ absolutely number one and not nearby number 2.
Markus
If Russia went into Eastern Ukraine and stayed there, then I could see NATO forces deploying into western Ukraine at a later date, not in order to engage Russian forces, but in order to 'defend Ukraine' against Russia, in a manner not dissimilar to east and west Germany in the cold war.
Honestly though I don't see Russia deploying into eastern Ukraine in force any time soon, not unless something major changes in the meantime.
Either which way, neither NATO or Russia wants to go to war with each other and both will take as many measures as they can to avoid such a thing, however both will also do their best to outsmart the other and gain an advantage wherever they can. It's old Cold War tactics, and we didn't go to war with Russia back then. :O:
Yeah, exactly - if NATO's involvement was a given, Russia would be behaving very differently here. In fact the main reason for Russia's interference in Ukraine in the first place is to prevent those closer links with NATO and maintain their buffer. If that kind of relationship existed between NATO and the Ukraine already, then Russia's response would be different too. So talking about NATO sending troops is putting the cart before the horse.
Otherwise, the Mexico comparison Skybird made is actually very apt. Even completely ignoring the nuclear factor, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that NATO would gain fighting a conventional war against Russia in/over Ukraine. NATO has no capacity to win this kind of conflict in any meaningful strategic way.
NATO is rather overstretched, IIRC a general did warn a while back that if Russia did decide to go full retard and engage Red Storm Rising mode that there's not a great deal NATO could do for the likes of the Baltics, Poland and other bordering nations.
I strongly suspect that this is at least partially deliberate, spending land for time, hoping that the Russian supply train would overstretch itself on its way to Berlin.
But honestly, the chances of Russia doing something as monumentally stupid as that are not particularly high, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Not at the moment anyway.
Skybird
08-12-14, 05:18 AM
If Russia went into Eastern Ukraine and stayed there, then I could see NATO forces deploying into western Ukraine at a later date, not in order to engage Russian forces, but in order to 'defend Ukraine' against Russia, in a manner not dissimilar to east and west Germany in the cold war.
Honestly though I don't see Russia deploying into eastern Ukraine in force any time soon, not unless something major changes in the meantime.
Either which way, neither NATO or Russia wants to go to war with each other and both will take as many measures as they can to avoid such a thing, however both will also do their best to outsmart the other and gain an advantage wherever they can. It's old Cold War tactics, and we didn't go to war with Russia back then. :O:
As I said earlier, I still welcome a split of the Ukraine. It would sort things that currently are muddy, unstructured mess. It would bring stability ot the suffering population in the East. It would bring a clear lijne drawing between NATO and Russia in that part of the world. Further advanatge is that ti would likely cause an economic competition between East and West like it was over Germany, where both germans states served as showrooms for both systems that tried to outshine the other - and although the GDR did loose that cpompetition, it neverthelss was the richest and most well-supplied state in the Warsaw Pact. The Russian could implement law and order int heir part of the Ukraine, increasing stability. Thew west would satill need to dela with the corrupt, criminal gangs forming and owning almost all aspects of the Ukrainian politeska. Plenty of money would be poumped by both sides intoi their respective parts of the Ukraine, which nevertheless should help to improve the situation of the general population.
The Ukrainian state there is now, was a misconception and a stillbirth from day one on, imo. And it borders the description of a failed state.
If you want to anger Putin, give him the East. Its a sack of problems, costs and needed financial investments that all come at Russia'S cost. In chess it would be called a gambit, or a poisoned pawn. Accepeting the offered "advantage" and taking the pawn, comes at a cost that outweighs the material gain.
BTW, Ukraine has threatened the EU with disrupting gas deliveries from Russia to Europe that transit the Ukraine, warning it might take these for itself. And nevertheless let the West pay for it. Nice "friends" Brussels has choosen there! Still not consolidated in their new position - but already blackmailing us.
Von Tonner
08-12-14, 06:09 AM
A news report written back in 2009 provides interesting insight to the present and to Putin's thinking on what he refers to as "Little Russia"
"Putin is not known for his tact when speaking of Russia's western neighbor, which declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In April 2008, a source told Russia's Kommersant newspaper how Putin described Ukraine to George Bush at a NATO meeting in Bucharest: "You don't understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us."
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900838,00.html
Jimbuna
08-12-14, 07:00 AM
I'm of the opinion the aid convoy will be bringing humanitarian aid and is not an excuse to join or engage in military action.
There isn't much the west can do if I'm wrong though and all should be revealed in the next day or so.
Wolferz
08-12-14, 11:24 AM
If General Patton had been given his wish back in 1945 we probably wouldn't see any of this malarkey today.:hmmm:
Dread Knot
08-12-14, 11:37 AM
If General Patton had been given his wish back in 1945 we probably wouldn't see any of this malarkey today.:hmmm:
No.
Quotes by Patton on Russian troops in 1945 must be compared with what he wrote about American troops in Tunisia after Kasserine, about British troops in Sicily when in Messina, about German troops and civilians when he got command of an Army in Normandy, about Bradley when he learned that he had been bypassed by this army group commander, about black troops in combat, and about Field Marshall Montgomery on all occasions.
Patton was a very good general for armored action, but a very poor diplomat, and maybe a not so efficient manager for global operations. He benefited from a very large supply of materials, and first class divisional officers. However in one case, the stop on the Moselle, with restricted gasoline and deficient ammunition supply, he did not solve the problem in a better manner then his neighbors.
Remember also his dreams and nightmares. Obviously he was in some ways not entirely normal. Reincarnation of Napoleon and other conquerors, remembering his presence in big battles of the past, are not everyone's thoughts.
Better to remember the opinion Eisenhower expressed on his flight to Moscow immediately after the war. In his memoirs he noted at how he didn't see an intact village or town the entire trip. What were we going to take from them that they hadn't already lost?
I'm of the opinion the aid convoy will be bringing humanitarian aid and is not an excuse to join or engage in military action.
There isn't much the west can do if I'm wrong though and all should be revealed in the next day or so.
That's if the Ukrainian government let's it through:
Security council spokesman Andriy Lysenko said aid should pass through a government-controlled border post and be accompanied by Red Cross officials.
I can understand this, tbh, if I were in Kiev I'd be concerned that the convoy was being used to smuggle weapons too.
OK, no interfering in Ukraine
I have throughout the crisis in Ukraine read commentators in Swedish and Danish newspaper saying that Putin is our times Hitler/Stalin and his goal is to retake what USSR lost when it collapsed
Could be that Putin just is interested in East Ukraine and nothing more. What if some of these commentators(expert in Putin and/or Russia) are right and Crimea and Ukraine is just the first among more former countries to USSR.
Lets look very negative into it.
Let assume Putin have more countries in his mind, then I believe NATO/USA have to put a stop to his "lebensraum"
I myself believe or hope that Crimea and East Ukraine is enough for Putin.
Markus
Naah, what Putin wants is a military and economic buffer zone between Russia and NATO nations. Since 1990, NATO has crept closer and closer to the Russian border, and this is perceived (correctly or otherwise) as a threat to Russian national sovereignty, so Russia is pushing back. They can't do anything to the likes of Poland and the Baltic states without getting NATO onto them, so they'll push in the places still available, the Ukraine, Georgia and possibly later on, Belarus.
EDIT: Also, 20k! :rock::woot::yeah:
Naah, what Putin wants is a military and economic buffer zone between Russia and NATO nations. Since 1990, NATO has crept closer and closer to the Russian border, and this is perceived (correctly or otherwise) as a threat to Russian national sovereignty, so Russia is pushing back. They can't do anything to the likes of Poland and the Baltic states without getting NATO onto them, so they'll push in the places still available, the Ukraine, Georgia and possibly later on, Belarus.
EDIT: Also, 20k! :rock::woot::yeah:
Thanks for reminding me.
That what some of these commentators wrote. He will clearly stay away from former USSR countries that are a member of NATO today or EU.
As mentioned before. Let hope he's only interested in East UKraine and Crimea.
Congrats to your 20 K post(:woot::woot:)
Markus
Jimbuna
08-13-14, 08:41 AM
That's if the Ukrainian government let's it through:
Security council spokesman Andriy Lysenko said aid should pass through a government-controlled border post and be accompanied by Red Cross officials.
I can understand this, tbh, if I were in Kiev I'd be concerned that the convoy was being used to smuggle weapons too.
If the convoy picks up a Russian military escort as it nears the border I'm doubtful the Ukrainians could stop it but it would show all the world what Putins real intentions were.
He's not that brave or stupid...is he? :hmmm:
If the convoy picks up a Russian military escort as it nears the border I'm doubtful the Ukrainians could stop it but it would show all the world what Putins real intentions were.
He's not that brave or stupid...is he? :hmmm:
I doubt he'd give it an escort, more like he'll let this one get sent back and then go again with an escort.
Skybird
08-13-14, 11:28 AM
There is great relief in Kiev. The rumoured suspicious convoy of trucks from Russia that were feared to hide weapons and even fighters, when it approached the border was found to be formed not of trucks but harmless huge wooden horses for a regional culture festival.
:D
Meanwhile it gets reported that the next assembly of the Russian Duma will be held on the Crimean peninsula, with Putin attending it, too. A message to the West and Kiev.
There is great relief in Kiev. The rumoured suspicious convoy of trucks from Russia that were feared to hide weapons and even fighters, when it approached the border was found to be formed not of trucks but harmless huge wooden horses for a regional culture festival.
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2840248832/h2DEF68A5/
Earlier today I saw and heard a commentator on the Danish news channel TV2NEWS saying
That this convoy started from Moscow and that no Journalist is allowed to join/follow this convoy first hand is...
Wonder what's going to happen if Russia defuse Ukraine's demand to change from the Russians lorry to Red Cross lorry ?
Markus
Skybird
08-13-14, 03:00 PM
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2840248832/h2DEF68A5/
:har: Perfect! Obama's gesturing and the general's facial expression perfectly match!
Jimbuna
08-14-14, 07:27 AM
I doubt he'd give it an escort, more like he'll let this one get sent back and then go again with an escort.
https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/499832198355492864
It's not just white aid lorries that are heading down the highway towards Rostov: military vehicles, too.
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2840248832/h2DEF68A5/
We all know what comes next:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RQGFm9IU5SI/TP592CScnzI/AAAAAAAACpU/B6z9w0hhWIg/s1600/MP%2B2%2B4.jpg
Skybird
08-21-14, 06:30 AM
Since quite some time now there is growing indications for that the Westukrainian military is getting a terrible beating by those "inferior" separatists in the East, pieces of info, hints, tfaces and of course plenty of propaganda can be found across the web and especially on sites that are more friendly to the Russian side - well, big surprise.
But there are also indications that are not so easy to be wiped off the table as propaganda. Too much has been reported and shown about the famous case of the 72nd brigade that got almost anihilated and its survivors finally more or less completely, changed sides and turned on the Russians side after they protest over their hopeless case in the field and soldiers even went on hunger strike over protest against their own military and political leadership.
This video seems to show feedback by Ukrainian soldiers who just returned from the front. They report that the had lost three brigades, that the Russians are eating them alive, and that their losses rank in the high thousands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o77lO7KmftI
this does not fit into the propaganda claim by Kiev that they have lost just 200 or 300 soldiers, and had wiped out a Russian column of infantry carrying armour. The desperate attempt of Kiev to get military aid and weapons form NATO also speaks volumes.
The separatists recently saw the quitting of two or three of their top senior commanders. They all had one thing in common: they had Russian passports. They hjave been repalced, as far as I learnedf from web info, that are less obviously attached to the Russians. I think the Kremlin already is preparing a separate and relatively autonomous military and political leadership in the east that should make its existence to an enforced federalist Ukraine more "acceptable" by not being formally linked to Russia too obviously.
In case there are still people hesitating to call it a war, these images by a - very pro-Russian, keep that in mind! - website may make them change their minds. If this does not look like a full scale war, then I don't know what it is. And it seems to me that Kiev'S troops are receiving plenty of beating, and have little to trade back.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a2_1407852495
I wonder why such images are almost non-existent in Western media coverage?
And this soldier's testimony from a hopeless battle position surrounded by Russians/separatists also tells something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08c0GohxTDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX6e3wr34BM
There are many videos available showing the mere scale of the losses at least one side in this war is suffering.
Kiev escalated into a war that it cannot win. It seems several brigades already have been destroyed. Thousands of their own soldiers pay the price.
All for a bunch of criminal oligarchs clinging to power. :nope:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.