Toggle sidebar

Russia Invades Ukraine XVI

  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg and TexasBama
crimsonaudio said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% that, in the event Russia attacked a NATO member, they would honor their obligations in full.

My hope is that they'll help Ukraine defeat Russia and avoid a direct confrontation with the bear altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg and crimsonaudio
TexasBama said:
Of course. We don't close Ramstein and Incirclik if we're not in Europe. And Sigonella is Med Fleet.

I think you could make some coarse approximations based on head count.
Click to expand...
I get you but let illustrate by a few examples.
The 101st Airborne at Ft. Campbell, KY, the 77th Fighter Squadron at Shaw AFB SC and the USS Teddy Roosevelt (aka "Big Stick") at Norfolk could be deployed to fight in Europe. Or it could be deployed to fight in Korea. Or in the Middle East. Which theater do they count against? (Okay, TR is probably not going to go to Korea because it is based in the Atlantic. It could be sent, but it is highly unlikely)
Or, any of those units could be sent to fight in Europe, and then sent to Korea or the Middle East.
You see the problem with assessing theaters by weight of effort. All our CONUS-based forces are expeditionary and (to an extent depending on the mission) tailorable.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH and crimsonaudio
Tidewater said:
I get you but let illustrate by a few examples.
The 101st Airborne at Ft. Campbell, KY, the 77th Fighter Squadron at Shaw AFB SC and the USS Teddy Roosevelt (aka "Big Stick") at Norfolk could be deployed to fight in Europe. Or it could be deployed to fight in Korea. Or in the Middle East. Which theater do they count against? (Okay, TR is probably not going to go to Korea because it is based in the Atlantic. It could be sent, but it is highly unlikely)
Or, any of those units could be sent to fight in Europe, and then sent to Korea or the Middle East.
You see the problem with assessing theaters by weight of effort. All our CONUS-based forces are expeditionary and (to an extent depending on the mission) tailorable.
Click to expand...
I understand all that. There is a measurable number of troops (100k?) that are IN Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
Tidewater said:
Yeah, EUCOM has around 100k of all services.
Click to expand...
So a broad approximation of cost could be100k divided by total active military times DOD budget (less some hardware costs that would have to be picked through, and Space Force and Coast Guard if they;re in that budget).
 
Last edited:
It seems Trump has selected Keith Kellogg (about whom I know nothing except that he is old) to head efforts aimed at ending the war.
Trump names retired general Keith Kellogg as envoy for Ukraine and Russia
Add France 24 to the list of journalistic outlets that quote a source without linking the source.
I would like to read all of what Kellogg wrote in his "research paper" but France 24 is keeping that to themselves, other than the quoted bit. Did some digging. Here is the link.
I would bet that the broad strokes of the plan are what I described above.
 
Last edited:
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: Bazza and crimsonaudio
From Kellogg's research paper:

since the beginning of the conflict, the U.S. has sent over 2,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine. Yet at the current rate of production, it will take the United States 13 years to backfill and replenish this munition stockpile. The U.S. has also sent Ukraine more than 2 million 155mm artillery rounds, but the U.S. currently produces only 14,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition per month. The Pentagon has noted that 14,000 rounds are often depleted by the Ukrainian army within 48 hours of direct fighting between Ukrainians and Russians.
Click to expand...
If you get a dump of 155mm rounds and fire them all within 48 hours, that is horrendous fire discipline by the Ukrainians. You need to have some restraining mechanism. If we give them a dump of rounds, and they shoot them all within 48 hours, and then the Russians launch a big attack on the 49th hour, that is bad.

Something to keep in mind as we discuss ceasefire or peace.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Huckleberry, AWRTR, JDCrimson and 3 others
Tidewater said:
From Kellogg's research paper:


If you get a dump of 155mm rounds and fire them all within 48 hours, that is horrendous fire discipline by the Ukrainians. You need to have some restrining mechanism. If we give them a dump of rounds, and they shoot them all within 48 hours, and then the Russians launch a big attack on the 49th hours, that is bad.

Something to keep in mind as we discuss.
Click to expand...
At what point are we handicapping our ability to defend ourselves? It doesn't say we've depleted our reserves but have we?
 
I'm sure that NATO and NATO member states are watching their stocks of various key weapons. If the politicians want to keep on giving, the military folks will tell them, "You are getting into dangerous territory."

One of the ironies is that I've heard Americans say, "Support Ukraine because it is better to have the Russians deplete their stocks and lose casualties and let the Ukrainians do the fighting." I bet the Chinese are saying to themselves, "It is good to send the Russians ammo because the Americans are depleting their stocks aiding the Ukrainians and when we invade Taiwan next year, all the ammo the Americans gave to Ukraine will not be available for the Americans to shoot at us."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
  • Wow
Reactions: Bazza, dtgreg, crimsonaudio and 2 others
This is a pretty good explanation.
Barros is, I believe, one of the analysts at the Institute for the Study of War at West Point. They are relatively conservative in their analysis. If they cannot find corroborating evidence of a combatant's claim, they do not buy it generally.
This interview addresses why the Russians have not seized Pokrovsk.
 
Last edited:
Tidewater said:
I'm sure that NATO and NATO member states are watching their stocks of various key weapons. If the politicians want to keep on giving, the military folks will tell them, "You are getting into dangerous territory."

One of the ironies is that I've heard Americans say, "Support Ukraine because it is better to have the Russians deplete their stocks and lose casualties and let the Ukrainians do the fighting." I bet the Chinese are saying to themselves, "It is good to send the Russians ammo because the Americans are depleting their stocks aiding the Ukrainians and when we invade Taiwan next year, all the ammo the Americans gave to Ukraine will not be available for the Americans to shoot at us."
Click to expand...
I don't think this is correct. The vast majority of the stocks we are giving Ukraine were/are obsolete and were slated for destruction. I have a relative who is tasked with this concern and they say it is an awesome cost saving and headache preventing way to deplete these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bama75&80, pelleas and JDCrimson
dtgreg said:
I don't think this is correct. The vast majority of the stocks we are giving Ukraine were/are obsolete and were slated for destruction. I have a relative who is tasked with this concern and they say it is an awesome cost saving and headache preventing way to deplete these.
Click to expand...
It depends on the weapon system.
Some have got to be fired or disassembled in a complicated and expensive process.
Others can just be disasssembled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
I read the Kellogg (America First Policy Institute) piece on the Ukraine-Russia war. Here are the broad planks of the peace plan (on page 16 if you want to skip ahead):

A cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict.
1. The United States would continue to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement. Future American military aid, however, will require Ukraine to participate in peace talks with Russia.
2. Put off NATO membership for Ukraine.
3. In exchange for abiding by a cease-fire, a demilitarized zone, and participating in peace talks, Russia could be offered some limited sanctions relief.
4. Ukraine would not be asked to relinquish the goal of regaining all its territory, but it would agree to use diplomacy, not force, with the understanding that this would require a future diplomatic breakthrough which probably will not occur before Putin leaves office.
5. Call for placing levies on Russian energy sales to pay for Ukrainian reconstruction.

By naming Kellogg as the US envoy, I suspect that these are the broad outlines of the peace the US will try to negotiate. It is not an ethical peace settlement but one of the hallmarks of political realism in international affairs is focusing on national interests not what is "right." This is a peace based on realism.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Bazza, AWRTR, dtgreg and 3 others
Tidewater said:
I read the Kellogg (America First Policy Institute) piece on the Ukraine-Russia war. Here are the broad planks of the peace plan (on page 16 if you want to skip ahead):

A cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict.
1. The United States would continue to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement. Future American military aid, however, will require Ukraine to participate in peace talks with Russia.
2. Put off NATO membership for Ukraine.
3. In exchange for abiding by a cease-fire, a demilitarized zone, and participating in peace talks, Russia could be offered some limited sanctions relief.
4. Ukraine would not be asked to relinquish the goal of regaining all its territory, but it would agree to use diplomacy, not force, with the understanding that this would require a future diplomatic breakthrough which probably will not occur before Putin leaves office.
5. Call for placing levies on Russian energy sales to pay for Ukrainian reconstruction.

By naming Kellogg as the US envoy, I suspect that these are the broad outlines of the peace the US will try to negotiate. It is not an ethical peace settlement but one of the hallmarks of political realism in international affairs is focusing on national interests not what is "right." This is a peace based on realism.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. Cease fire for NATO status. IOW, the war will go on until Russia collapses, I guess. Or Trump stabs Ukraine and NATO in the back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bama75&80
dtgreg said:
Yeah, no. Cease fire for NATO status. IOW, the war will go on until Russia collapses, I guess. Or Trump stabs Ukraine and NATO in the back.
Click to expand...
You do realize that NATO policy is that no applicant can have an unresolved border dispute, right?
I’d say Ukraine has one heck of an unresolved border dispute right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UAllday, T Bone and crimsonaudio
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back