Russia on the verge of Annexing the Ukraine
- Thread starter noble cane
- Start date
As soon as Obama got into the WH, there was a movement to disarm the military and retreat from our role of leaders of the free world. We cut back our nuclear force and imo that sent the message that we were not interested in world leadership anymore. So this is just a result of that imo.
One of the signs of weakness in my view is falling back on the UN to help everytime there is a crisis. We do not need the UN. We do not need NATO for that matter. A strong leader - which Obama is not - should be in control of those organizations not be controlled by them.
One of the signs of weakness in my view is falling back on the UN to help everytime there is a crisis. We do not need the UN. We do not need NATO for that matter. A strong leader - which Obama is not - should be in control of those organizations not be controlled by them.
I'm not sure how many friends we still have in NATO aside from England. Getting caught spying on Merkel was a huge blunder. Putin will gladly trade a few sanctions for the resources of the lands he's now brought back into Russia. Our influence in both Eastern Europe and the middle east has dropped dramatically in the last few years. Expect more of the same as Putin no longers fears a U.S. response as he tries to rebuild the Soviet empire.
Putin is a de facto dictator in Russia. I'm not sure what influence we have ever had in Eastern Europe. The Europeans showed us their resolve during the Balkan crisis I don't think anything has changed.
Not going to completely put this one on Obama. But "Cold War" antics by Putin hurts the Democratic brand IMHO.
GO TU!!!
Should be interesting.
Russia has about 20,000 troops (about 4 US brigade equivalents) close to the border. They have another 20,000 or so troops that are quickly deployable (airborne, air mobile, special forces) to the area. Ukraine has about 70,000 army, 30,000 national guard and 50,000 border guard forces in total. However, the Ukes have spent very little on defense over the last 20 years so their forces have limited equipment and mobility.
If I was in charge of defending the Ukraine, I'd set up demolition on all the gas pipelines, take photos of same and send them to the Germans, Polish and French. Add a little note letting them know that if the Russians got chippy the pipelines might go "boom". I'd then keep the bulk of my forces well back from the border while trying to get a few Mig-29s and SU-27s ready for combat.
Conversely, if I was a Russian general looking for a nice shiny medal I would "demonstrate" on the border using artillery and rocket attacks as well as troop movements (yeah, sounds familiar). Assuming that the Ukes responded by massing troops across the border, I would use my mobile forces to execute a dual envelopment. Then simply use my air power (Ukraine has some aircraft but very few are combat capable due to budget cuts) to force the encircled troops to surrender.
Anything else results in the modern equivalent of a bar fight with AKs. Russian "elite" troops (Black Sea Marines, Airborne or "Desant" units) are about as well trained and disciplined as our National Guard units during the post-Vietnam era. Their regular troops are conscripts who are poorly trained, poorly equipped and horribly led. The Ukrainian troops are about the same but with a smaller budget.
The thing I don't understand is that Putin has to know that any significant military action puts the gas pipelines at risk for (at a minimum) collateral damage (artillery, bombs, etc.). Given his economic dependence upon gas exports to Europe any sort of combat could well lead to a classic Pyrrhic victory for Russia (gain Ukraine and associated resources, lose major export revenue source for months or years). Maybe he thinks he can fix the infrastructure quickly or maybe he plans on cutting a deal with the Eruos to ensure that he gets he Ukraine but combat is avoided.
Thanks.
Russia has about 20,000 troops (about 4 US brigade equivalents) close to the border. They have another 20,000 or so troops that are quickly deployable (airborne, air mobile, special forces) to the area. Ukraine has about 70,000 army, 30,000 national guard and 50,000 border guard forces in total. However, the Ukes have spent very little on defense over the last 20 years so their forces have limited equipment and mobility.
If I was in charge of defending the Ukraine, I'd set up demolition on all the gas pipelines, take photos of same and send them to the Germans, Polish and French. Add a little note letting them know that if the Russians got chippy the pipelines might go "boom". I'd then keep the bulk of my forces well back from the border while trying to get a few Mig-29s and SU-27s ready for combat.
Conversely, if I was a Russian general looking for a nice shiny medal I would "demonstrate" on the border using artillery and rocket attacks as well as troop movements (yeah, sounds familiar). Assuming that the Ukes responded by massing troops across the border, I would use my mobile forces to execute a dual envelopment. Then simply use my air power (Ukraine has some aircraft but very few are combat capable due to budget cuts) to force the encircled troops to surrender.
Anything else results in the modern equivalent of a bar fight with AKs. Russian "elite" troops (Black Sea Marines, Airborne or "Desant" units) are about as well trained and disciplined as our National Guard units during the post-Vietnam era. Their regular troops are conscripts who are poorly trained, poorly equipped and horribly led. The Ukrainian troops are about the same but with a smaller budget.
The thing I don't understand is that Putin has to know that any significant military action puts the gas pipelines at risk for (at a minimum) collateral damage (artillery, bombs, etc.). Given his economic dependence upon gas exports to Europe any sort of combat could well lead to a classic Pyrrhic victory for Russia (gain Ukraine and associated resources, lose major export revenue source for months or years). Maybe he thinks he can fix the infrastructure quickly or maybe he plans on cutting a deal with the Eruos to ensure that he gets he Ukraine but combat is avoided.
Thanks.
In 1962 Kennedy made a secret deal with Kruschev to remove our obsolete Jupiter missiles from Turkey as an exchange for the removal of Russian missiles from Cuba in that "Crisis". If we had a strong leader in the WH, we might leave the threat of a missile buildup in the friendly ex-communist block nations close to Russia. That could be used as a bargaining chip to keep Putin from disrupting the entire region. Unfortunately, that is an option we will probably have to live with sooner or later but probably not under the current POTUS.. I'm pretty sure the excommunist countries in Europe don't want to go back to Russian dominance.
IMO
This post was edited on 8/7 7:49 PM by rabidTU
IMO
This post was edited on 8/7 7:49 PM by rabidTU
Rabid, we can't threaten the Russians directly (regardless of who inhabits the White House) in this situation. The Russians control the bulk of natural gas that goes to Europe. The Europeans will not allow us to use their bases to mount any sort of operation that might threaten that gas supply. While we could probably strike a deal with Poland, we would be left at the mercy of the French or Germans for resupply (use of their ports) in order to move significant forces or supplies (it takes 3 C-17 cargo aircraft to deliver one M-1A and enough supplies to keep it in combat for a couple of days). No way the Eruos let that happen.
When evaluating the military options in a geopolitical crisis, always look at what a country can do before considering what it might want to do. We do not have the local resources, basing or logistical support to directly threaten Putin or support Crimea even if we wanted to. Putin knows this. In this situation our lack of will is a secondary consideration to our lack of ability.
We could support the Ukes via supplies (beyond food) and material. However, given the complexity of our systems and the associated maintenance and logistical tails involved with deploying same (I can train you to run and maintain an AK variant in a day, would take more like a week to get you up to speed on an M-4 or M-16), that approach rarely works out.
The Euros chose to hide behind the US and our commitment to NATO for the last 60+ years. They also chose to be dependent upon Russia for natural resources. We can't fix any of that and they are the countries that have to contain Putin.
(Please note that this is a vastly different scenario that the one we face in Iraq. No logistical, basing or support issues ..... that debacle is a lack of judgement and will.)
Thanks!
When evaluating the military options in a geopolitical crisis, always look at what a country can do before considering what it might want to do. We do not have the local resources, basing or logistical support to directly threaten Putin or support Crimea even if we wanted to. Putin knows this. In this situation our lack of will is a secondary consideration to our lack of ability.
We could support the Ukes via supplies (beyond food) and material. However, given the complexity of our systems and the associated maintenance and logistical tails involved with deploying same (I can train you to run and maintain an AK variant in a day, would take more like a week to get you up to speed on an M-4 or M-16), that approach rarely works out.
The Euros chose to hide behind the US and our commitment to NATO for the last 60+ years. They also chose to be dependent upon Russia for natural resources. We can't fix any of that and they are the countries that have to contain Putin.
(Please note that this is a vastly different scenario that the one we face in Iraq. No logistical, basing or support issues ..... that debacle is a lack of judgement and will.)
Thanks!
What I fear is an "imbalance" of power. With Russia trying to recapture the old communist block, peacemeal, they will become another major threat along with the Jihadists. Having at least two threatening enemies in the world who want us eliminated and able to influence world events because of our weakness isn't a good thing long range. We used to have a motto of "peace through strength", but now it seems to be "weakness through ignnorance". These tyrants don't fear our "talk", but they do fear action and a strong adversary. We need to be that strong adversary because noone else wants to be or is able to.
We need a stronger leader. We know its not Obama and our enemies won't exactly be shaking in their boots if Hillary is next up. The weaker they perceive us, the more dangerous it gets. As much as most of us wish it wasn't so, we will either have to rearm (nuclear) or find ourselves in greater danger. The Cold War ended decades ago, but I think we're facing a Cold War part two, once again living in fear of our enemies.
What we should be concerned with in the very near future is a nuclear Iran. That wouldn't be a problem if we'd really embraced "Star Wars" technology as Reagan suggested.
We need a stronger leader. We know its not Obama and our enemies won't exactly be shaking in their boots if Hillary is next up. The weaker they perceive us, the more dangerous it gets. As much as most of us wish it wasn't so, we will either have to rearm (nuclear) or find ourselves in greater danger. The Cold War ended decades ago, but I think we're facing a Cold War part two, once again living in fear of our enemies.
What we should be concerned with in the very near future is a nuclear Iran. That wouldn't be a problem if we'd really embraced "Star Wars" technology as Reagan suggested.
I agree that the power vacuum left by our withdrawal from the world stage contributes to a host of geopolitical issues. However, in the specific case of Ukraine and Crimea my thought remains that there is little we can or could do. Putin understands this so he probably would have acted in the same fashion regardless of our leadership or actions.
Europe has made too many concessions to spending on social programs and "green" initiatives, leaving them helpless in the face of Russia's ability to manipulate their gas supplies. It would be nice if all the windmills and solar panels actually produced enough power to let them break free of fossil fuels. Conversely, it would be nice if the Euros had invested in their own natural gas exploration and production instead of caving in to the environmentalists and becoming hostage to Russia. Oh well. Maybe we can learn from their mistakes.
Europe has made too many concessions to spending on social programs and "green" initiatives, leaving them helpless in the face of Russia's ability to manipulate their gas supplies. It would be nice if all the windmills and solar panels actually produced enough power to let them break free of fossil fuels. Conversely, it would be nice if the Euros had invested in their own natural gas exploration and production instead of caving in to the environmentalists and becoming hostage to Russia. Oh well. Maybe we can learn from their mistakes.
Bingo!!!
I also think that with all the problems right now in the world, that a presidential wannabe like Rand Paul will be eliminated. His nonintervention foreign policy will definitely hurt him on down the line in 2016. What the american people want is a leader who leads from the front.
This post was edited on 8/10 11:42 AM by rabidTU
