Russia Invades Ukraine pt XII
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
- Status
I'm afraid that the author, Kemp, with his comments about both England and France wavering is closer to the truth. The war is not very popular in either country. Macron, in particular, is in hot water over trying to raise the retirement age to 64. Of course, we're providing the bulk of the aid, but keeping NATO together is important. IDK if there's the political will in this country to provide sufficient armor, long-range rockets, aircraft, etc. to accomplish what Hodge wants...
Aiding Ukraine is not a NATO policy. It is the national policy of many NATO member states. Thus, "NATO unity" is not really at stake, but I understand what you are getting at.
I hope Kemp is right and in a few months, we can say, "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it."
That said, I am afraid Zeihan is closer to the mark. It is going to take half a million Russian dead to convince the powers that be in Moscow that the Old Man has to go.
That said, I am afraid Zeihan is closer to the mark. It is going to take half a million Russian dead to convince the powers that be in Moscow that the Old Man has to go.
Last edited:
Tycoon Deripaska Warns Russia May Run Out of Money in 2024
(Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Oleg Deripaska said Russia could find its coffers empty already next year and needs investment from “friendly” countries to break the hold of sanctions on the economy.Most Read from BloombergSorry, Twitter. Elon Found His Next Shiny Object.How to Get a Free Flight to...
A video from Peter Zeihan on what’s going on in Ukraine. This one’s longer than most — almost 30 minutes — because it’s really a two-man panel discussion. The other speaker being a native Canadian who’s lived in Ukraine for about 30 years and is now serving in the Ukrainian army.
They make an excellent case that supplying the Ukrainians is the bargain of the century — they do the fighting and dying, their country gets torn up (to put it mildly), they kill Russians, and all we have to do is give them our leftover equipment.
The alternative if Ukraine falls is the Russians attack a NATO country — most likely Poland and/or the Baltic States — and we get in it with our soldiers. Most likely ending in a nuclear exchange of undetermined size.
They make an excellent case that supplying the Ukrainians is the bargain of the century — they do the fighting and dying, their country gets torn up (to put it mildly), they kill Russians, and all we have to do is give them our leftover equipment.
The alternative if Ukraine falls is the Russians attack a NATO country — most likely Poland and/or the Baltic States — and we get in it with our soldiers. Most likely ending in a nuclear exchange of undetermined size.
I do not disagree with the initial assessment, but the latter paragraph I cannot agree with.
Even if Russia completely overruns Ukraine, and then Moldova, the Russians know the difference between a NATO country and a non-NATO country.
Mark Galeotti, a Russia commentator whom I know and respect, says his contacts amongst the siloviki know the difference.
If they do occupy Ukraine, I'd hate to be one of the occupying soldiers. It's interesting what Pudding said about the ultra-right wing group which conducted the raid in Russia. After accusing Ukraine, he said something to the effect of "these are the people who are robbing us of our traditions, history and language." IOW, just by existing, and not speaking Russian and admitting they are really Russians the Ukrainians are threatening Russians existence. He seems particularly exercised by Ukrainians who speak Russian. He regards them as traitors...
I hope you and Galeotti are right about Russia’s view of NATO.
Zeihan’s view is:
- Russia views this as an existential war because…
- There are 7 paths that foreign invaders could take into the Russian interior,
- Occupying Ukraine is the only way to close off several of them.
- The others are in Poland, the Baltics, and some whatever-stan former soviets
- Because the Russians view this as a war to exist at all, if they truly feel they’re losing, they have much less reason to refrain from going nuclear, i.e., nothing to lose.
Due to a huge advantage in numbers, and a willingness to incur almost unimaginable casualties, Zeihan feels that the war is still Russia’s to lose. He says that while the Ukrainians currently have about a 3:1 edge in casualties (3 Russian casualties for every Ukrainian casualty), they need more like 8:1 to make the numbers work.
Whether the Ukrainians can do that with the new kit is unknown.
So says Peter Zeihan now. It’s worth noting that last year he felt the Russians wouldn’t go nuclear. Now he feels differently, but not because of any new information. So I’m not clear why he changed.
I've heard Zeihan say this. I would be curious as to his source for this. It sounds like Alexander Dugan who is the Lyndon La Rouche of Russian politics: a loony geostrategist.
The invasion corridor from Georgia up the eastern shore of the Black Sea is not an invasion corridor at all. The Caucasus Mountains tumble down to within a few miles of the sea. No geostrategically viable invasion could follow that "path." The corridor up the western shore of the Caspian is much the same.
In my view, (with the exception of the Carpathians), the entire intermare from the Baltic to the Black Sea is one giant invasion corridor.
Zbigniew Brzezinski once said "Russia without Ukraine is country. Russia with Ukraine is an empire."
I think the invasion of Ukraine is an example of simple Russian imperialism. They want Ukraine because, since throwing off the Mongol yoke, Muscovy has always seen Ukraine as its playground.
The difference in interpretations between me and Zeihan is a material one. If Zeihan is right, if they can conquer Ukraine, Russia will continue to Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The last four being NATO members, and that will mean WW III.
If I am right, if they manage to conquer Ukraine, they will continue to Moldova, but will stop there.
Not that I am suggesting letting Russia have Ukraine, but I am much more willing to risk thermonuclear war for Estonia (NATO member) than for Ukraine (a friend, but non-NATO member).
Last edited:
Cooper's 3/2 take on Bakhmut. His pessimism comes through. The ammo problem is critical and Ukraine's friends are lagging as usual. I think Biden's latest package addresses the shortage. Of course, the big question is how long we can provide the quantity they need. Meanwhile Russia keeps coming up with more - and may soon to have China's as well. The report from the ZSU soldier yesterday that the Russians were coming at them not only with waves of "meat" but also with heavy artillery and aerial bombardment. Meanwhile, the ZSU can only counter with mortars. That's deeply disturbing...
TC 3/2
TC 3/2
Back in my conventional army days, the U.S. Army had two concepts called "Required Supply Rate" or RSR and "Controlled Supply Rate" or CSR. RSR means "shoot all you want, we've got plenty." CSR means "ammo is limited" and is expressed in rounded per weapon per day. A M109 155mm SP howitzer CSR of 4 means each M109 crew knows it is limited to shooting 4 rounds per day, so use them sparingly. If you have shot your four today, and you get attacked by a big enemy force, you cannot "borrow" from tomorrow's allocation. You run or you just die.
Maybe. It is also possible that the Ukrainians are not using RSR and CSR as control mechanisms, but, give that many of their advisors are American, I'd bet the Ukrainians have at least been exposed to the concept.
Also, if you know your artillery has less than 4 rounds/day, it might be best to withdraw some of them a bit, let them rest, and focus on supplying the arty you do have.
As for the infantry, "the poor bloody infantry," my advice would be, to quote Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain on Little Round Top, "We're going to have to be stubborn today."
(See, I said something nice about a Yankee).
I can't complain about their stubbornness. It's legendary. How can they be so different from Russians?
I think the Ukrainians are fighting for their homes.
The Ukrainians all know about the Holodomor (3.5 million dead). The Russian troops, if they are being honest, cannot name an incident in which the Ukrainians wantonly and cruelly killed millions of Russians.
Finally, I think the Ukrainians' mentality if more Polish, while the Russian mentality is more fourteenth century Mongol.
- Status
Latest threads
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
I'd like to hear about some actual prayer requests that have been answered the way it made sense to answer them.- Started by Labrador
- Replies: 13