A military strategic question

Oberon · 08-11-14, 10:10 PM

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.

CCIP · 08-11-14, 11:38 PM

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.

Oberon · 08-12-14, 12:11 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

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.

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/a...900838,00.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.

Oberon · 08-12-14, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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.

mapuc · 08-12-14, 12:22 PM

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

Oberon · 08-12-14, 12:27 PM

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!

Jimbuna · 08-13-14, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

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?

Oberon · 08-13-14, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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?

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.

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.

Dread Knot · 08-12-14, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz

If General Patton had been given his wish back in 1945 we probably wouldn't see any of this malarkey today.

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?

08-11-14, 11:38 PM	#2
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	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. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

08-12-14, 07:00 AM	#6
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,770 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	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. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-12-14, 11:24 AM	#12
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	If General Patton had been given his wish back in 1945 we probably wouldn't see any of this malarkey today. __________________ Tomorrow never comes

08-11-14, 10:10 PM	#1
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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.

08-12-14, 12:11 AM	#3
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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.

08-12-14, 06:09 AM	#5
Von Tonner Seasoned Skipper Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Africa Posts: 711 Downloads: 44 Uploads: 0	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/a...900838,00.html

08-12-14, 12:22 PM	#8
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,543 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	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

08-12-14, 12:27 PM	#9
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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!