Russia Invades Ukraine XVI

[TIDE-HSV]

I would bet most are cut by a submersible using something like a circular saw.
In the case of the Chinese ship cutting the cable off Estonia, It could be they were dragging their anchor to see if that worked.
The depths of the Baltic vary.
View attachment 47301
Much of it is not very deep.

I find myself sitting here, designing in my mind an "anchor" which would be very effective in severing a cable without "catching" behind the ship. For weight purposes, those cables can't be heavily armored...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

FWIW, Tom Cooper says they're both lying...

FWIW, he says it's a MRBV which Russian obsoleted long ago and hauled out for a publicity splash, which happened to serve Kyiv's purposes as well...

 

[Tidewater]

FWIW, Tom Cooper says they're both lying...

It would not surprise me one bit.

 

[TexasBama]

Discussions on sending troops to Ukraine resume in Europe - Le Monde

MSN

 

[Tidewater]

Discussions on sending troops to Ukraine resume in Europe - Le Monde

MSN

I read the article.
This sentence is key: "the French side clarified that it was not about participation in combat operations, but about other forms of support, including training missions."
So French troops running a training centre in Lviv is not the same thing as taking over a section of Ukrainian trenches.

 

[Tidewater]

LTG (Ret) Ben Hodges (former commander of the US Army Europe), interview with Times Radio.

I served at Ft. Benning while Hodges was there. I respect his views. (He is on shaky ground when it comes to the Russian economy, though.) He is absolutely right that the US objectives for US policy are " an empty bottle." I have never seen a coherent statement of what the US is trying to achieve in Ukraine. Hodges notes: "If you do not have a clear objective, it is very difficult to have good, clear, effective policy." As George Marshall said, "If you get the objectives right, a lieutenant can write the strategy."
At this point, I believe US objectives should be:
1. Attrit Russian forces so Russia has to spend resources and time rebuilding their shattered military (check).
2. A democratic non-corrupt Ukraine that is able to provide for its own defense. (Working)
3. Reassert the ideals of freedom of the seas and inviolability of international borders. (Sill in progress)

 

[crimsonaudio]

I read the article.
This sentence is key: "the French side clarified that it was not about participation in combat operations, but about other forms of support, including training missions."
So French troops running a training centre in Lviv is not the same thing as taking over a section of Ukrainian trenches.

What happens when a Russian missile kills a few of these French troops?

 

[CrimsonJazz]

He is absolutely right that the US objectives for US policy are " an empty bottle." I have never seen a coherent statement of what the US is trying to achieve in Ukraine.

Lindsey Graham has just confirmed that they are not sacrificing the Ukrainian people for "freedom" and "democracy," but for Ukraine's minerals, which are worth trillions of dollars, and the West wants them.

This is unbelievable…

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799887947363393859

I'm pretty sure this has much to do with it. There's also Putin's plan to sell energy resources to developing countries and refusing to take the USD as payment (a big no-no.) He needs Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to secure Russian commodity lines from north of Crimea to world markets. Of course, Putin says he's concerned about NATO encroachment (and I'm sure he is) but he loves to conveniently leave out his other reasons for this advancement. For both sides in this conflict, I think money is the primary motivator.

 

[Tidewater]

What happens when a Russian missile kills a few of these French troops?

That depends on what the French government decides to make of that it's probably going to be a hard sale to convince the rest of NATO countries that an attack on French troops in Ukraine helping Ukrainians fight the Russians is an attack on France itself. It might be, or they might try, but I think that's going to be a tough sell.
Or the French could just say well, that's the risk inherit and sending your troops into a combat zone.

 

[AWRTR]

That depends on what the French government decides to make of that it's probably going to be a hard sale to convince the rest of NATO countries that an attack on French troops in Ukraine helping Ukrainians fight the Russians is an attack on France itself. It might be, or they might try, but I think that's going to be a tough sell.
Or the French could just say well, that's the risk inherit and sending your troops into a combat zone.

France sending troops in to Ukraine is their problem not ours. Same if we send troops into a combat zone like that. I hope none are killed but if they are then it’s a shoulder shrug for me.

 

[TexasBama]

I read the article.
This sentence is key: "the French side clarified that it was not about participation in combat operations, but about other forms of support, including training missions."
So French troops running a training centre in Lviv is not the same thing as taking over a section of Ukrainian trenches.

I took this as more of a "what if?", i.e. what if the US cuts aid to Ukraine.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I took this as more of a "what if?", i.e. what if the US cuts aid to Ukraine.

I'm concerned about that as well.

But I also wonder if the US cut aid, can Western Europe link arms and take up the slack? Assuming they can, would they?

Arguing for stepping up: They all realize that if Ukraine falls, they're next.

The best estimates I've seen are that the Russkies have flushed about 1 million casualties, of which 300K or so are KIA. They can't replace those 18 to 34-year-olds. But they had a lot more than the Ukrainians did on February 24, 2022. So it'll be a while before they truly start to run short of cannon fodder. They're also scraping the bottom of the materiel barrel.

So the best time and place to stop the Russkies is right now, while they're in a weakened state, right where they are. Let Russia have Ukraine, and soon enough they'll be knocking on Poland.

Arguing for a stern finger-wagging but actually do nothing is that's what Western Europe has done since WW2.

We'll see.

 

[crimsonaudio]

That depends on what the French government decides to make of that it's probably going to be a hard sale to convince the rest of NATO countries that an attack on French troops in Ukraine helping Ukrainians fight the Russians is an attack on France itself. It might be, or they might try, but I think that's going to be a tough sell.
Or the French could just say well, that's the risk inherit and sending your troops into a combat zone.

I would hope it would be the latter, but it seems more and more as if many of the western countries are chomping at the bit to start a full-on war with Russia.

 

[JDCrimson]

I would like to see Russia returned to a region of tribes. With them off the world stage, North Korea and Iran become solvable. Middle East settles down. China just wants money and control the means of production worldwide. The US wants to control worldwide consumption and security and have its GDP growth stay ahead of the interest owed on its national debt. And neither of those objectives are accomplished by killing people. Russia is a bunch of thugs who just want to operate like a mafia state.

LTG (Ret) Ben Hodges (former commander of the US Army Europe), interview with Times Radio.

I served at Ft. Benning while Hodges was there. I respect his views. (He is on shaky ground when it comes to the Russian economy, though.) He is absolutely right that the US objectives for US policy are " an empty bottle." I have never seen a coherent statement of what the US is trying to achieve in Ukraine. Hodges notes: "If you do not have a clear objective, it is very difficult to have good, clear, effective policy." As George Marshall said, "If you get the objectives right, a lieutenant can write the strategy."
At this point, I believe US objectives should be:
1. Attrit Russian forces so Russia has to spend resources and time rebuilding their shattered military (check).
2. A democratic non-corrupt Ukraine that is able to provide for its own defense. (Working)
3. Reassert the ideals of freedom of the seas and inviolability of international borders. (Sill in progress)

 

[TexasBama]

I'm concerned about that as well.

But I also wonder if the US cut aid, can Western Europe link arms and take up the slack? Assuming they can, would they?

Arguing for stepping up: They all realize that if Ukraine falls, they're next.

The best estimates I've seen are that the Russkies have flushed about 1 million casualties, of which 300K or so are KIA. They can't replace those 18 to 34-year-olds. But they had a lot more than the Ukrainians did on February 24, 2022. So it'll be a while before they truly start to run short of cannon fodder. They're also scraping the bottom of the materiel barrel.

So the best time and place to stop the Russkies is right now, while they're in a weakened state, right where they are. Let Russia have Ukraine, and soon enough they'll be knocking on Poland.

Arguing for a stern finger-wagging but actually do nothing is that's what Western Europe has done since WW2.

We'll see.

Agree that we need to keep at it with Urkraine for the reasons you mentioned. I guess we will see what the will is in Europe.

I don't have the time to dig into numbers, but it would be interesting to see how much of our current DOD spending is allocated towards European security. My guess is it's a notable amount, and that's money they would have to pay if we drew back. I'm sure they would prefer to spend money on things they've been spending on to date.

 

[JDCrimson]

Resurrecting Neville Chamberlain right into WWIII...

I'm concerned about that as well.

But I also wonder if the US cut aid, can Western Europe link arms and take up the slack? Assuming they can, would they?

Arguing for stepping up: They all realize that if Ukraine falls, they're next.

The best estimates I've seen are that the Russkies have flushed about 1 million casualties, of which 300K or so are KIA. They can't replace those 18 to 34-year-olds. But they had a lot more than the Ukrainians did on February 24, 2022. So it'll be a while before they truly start to run short of cannon fodder. They're also scraping the bottom of the materiel barrel.

So the best time and place to stop the Russkies is right now, while they're in a weakened state, right where they are. Let Russia have Ukraine, and soon enough they'll be knocking on Poland.

Arguing for a stern finger-wagging but actually do nothing is that's what Western Europe has done since WW2.

We'll see.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I'm concerned about that as well.

But I also wonder if the US cut aid, can Western Europe link arms and take up the slack? Assuming they can, would they?

Arguing for stepping up: They all realize that if Ukraine falls, they're next.

The best estimates I've seen are that the Russkies have flushed about 1 million casualties, of which 300K or so are KIA. They can't replace those 18 to 34-year-olds. But they had a lot more than the Ukrainians did on February 24, 2022. So it'll be a while before they truly start to run short of cannon fodder. They're also scraping the bottom of the materiel barrel.

So the best time and place to stop the Russkies is right now, while they're in a weakened state, right where they are. Let Russia have Ukraine, and soon enough they'll be knocking on Poland.

Arguing for a stern finger-wagging but actually do nothing is that's what Western Europe has done since WW2.

We'll see.

Maybe?

I guess what I don't understand is why no one seemed too upset about Russia's invasion of Georgia. I don't recall anyone suggesting passively allowing it was akin to allowing the Germans to have Czechoslovakia.

NATO can and should stand up to Russia if it invades Poland (or any other NATO country), and I think they will.

 

[Tidewater]

I took this as more of a "what if?", i.e. what if the US cuts aid to Ukraine.

I have not heard that ground troops would be a response to changes in US aid, but maybe.
Wall Street Journal Reveals Trump's 'Peace Plan'
WSJ is behind a pay wall, but BelSat summarizes.
The outlines of the peace seem to be emerging:
Freeze the front line, establish a demilitarised zone like in Bosnia (enforced by European ground troops).
Europeans pay for this.
The US continues to provide Ukraine with military aid so Ukraine can defend itself in the future.
From the article:
"We can provide training and other support, but the gun barrel will be pointed at Europe. We are not sending the Americans to keep the peace in Ukraine. And we will not pay for it. Let the Polish people, Germans, British and French do it, the Trump team official said."

Undetermined issues:
1. Rebuilding Ukraine. (Everybody wants it, but not as many want to pay for it).
2. Ukraine's accession to NATO. (Russia definitely wants to veto this. Not sure how much appetite their is in NATO members to get Ukraine into the Alliance).
3. The status of sanctions western countries imposed on Russia. (Russia probably wants these removed.)

Maybe something else. I will let others chime in.

 

[Tidewater]

I would hope it would be the latter, but it seems more and more as if many of the western countries are chomping at the bit to start a full-on war with Russia.

France has a tradition of turning the other cheek (e.g. Mers el Kebir).
I would advise caution. Russia has swallowed whole much bigger armies than NATO can field.

 

[Tidewater]

Agree that we need to keep at it with Urkraine for the reasons you mentioned. I guess we will see what the will is in Equrope.

I don't have the time to dig into numbers, but it would be interesting to see how much of our current DOD spending is allocated towards European security. My guess is it's a notable amount, and that's money they would have to pay if we drew back. I'm sure they would prefer to spend money on things they've been spending on to date.

That is difficult to calculate.
Military assets (aircraft carriers, fighter squadrons, army divisions) are mostly based in CONUS, but can be deployed to Europe or Asia, or the Middle East, so these assets are not exclusively devoted to European securoty (or pursuing US policy objectives in th European theater).