History in the Making: Russian Invasion

02Pilot said:

 

...First, RAF C-17s were quite active into Kiev long after the reports of deliveries. Not sure what else they were bringing in, but there were several sorties that I observed, and probably more...

My guess would be a bunch of these.  Starstreak (man portable) anti-aircraft missles.  Interesting design.  Laser guided with three sub-munitions with impact fused explosives (must hit target).  Very fast missle (mach 4) but I am curious if the laser guidance will be problimatic in any kind of heavy weather.

Once clear of the canister, the motor is jettisoned. The second-stage motor ignites and accelerates the missile to a velocity greater than Mach 4. A separation system at the front end of the motor contains three darts. When the second stage motor is burnt out, the thrust triggers these darts to automatically separate.

The darts maintain high-kinetic energy as they are guided to the same single target. Each dart contains guidance and control circuitry, a thermal battery and a high-density penetrating warhead with fuse.

The separation of the darts initiates the arming of the individual warheads. Each dart is guided independently using a double laser-beam riding system. As the dart impacts the target, the inertial forces activate the delay fuse, allowing the warhead to penetrate before detonation.

In reply to 02Pilot :

"And this is what makes Russia dangerous. They are exceptionally good at this sort of thing, and have been at it for decades. And they have a patience the West cannot match."

The same can be said for China. 

stroker said:

Follow the money--er... A-10's.

I was thinking the same. If talks with Ukraine were happening, as they would be if any of us were President, and we decided to bolster the border as a quasi-alliance, a few dozen A10s, some fighters to protect them, and some M1s would probably outpower the Russian troops even at a 5:1 quantity disadvantage. That would be a good show of force and might keep more Crimea-esque issues from happening soon. Instead we get a golly-shucks slip of the tongue "minor incursion" talk. I can't tell if it's better or worse than "my button is bigger than his", but it would be nice to have an adult in the White House for a while. Really any adult.

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

"And this is what makes Russia dangerous. They are exceptionally good at this sort of thing, and have been at it for decades. And they have a patience the West cannot match."

The same can be said for China. 

To an extent that's true, though the difference is that Russia has been directly engaged in global competition with the West for more than a century, while China has really only started to do so in a consistent way in the last couple decades (regional actions during the Cold War notwithstanding). Russia's leadership and intelligence community have a deeper understanding of Western society than do China's, and are more skilled at exploiting that knowledge. China's espionage activities against the West have generally been more centered on industrial and research targets.

We have to think about desired outcomes here. In an ideal world, the US and the West want Ukraine democratic, free, and secure from Russian threat or influence. The Russians want Ukraine under control of a friendly (and likely dependent) government, and free of Western influence in all its forms. Neither of these is going to happen, so the question becomes what is acceptable to all parties, or at least to Russia and the US, since they're the only external military forces that have a chance of being used in numbers. To be perfectly blunt about it, Ukraine does not have the ability to control its own destiny, and as such, is going to be forced to accept the desires of external actors.

From the US perspective, if avoiding open conflict while maintaining a Ukrainian government that is not aligned with Russia is the first priority, then the next step is figuring out what can be given up while still achieving these objectives. If the deal that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis is any guide, perhaps the framework should be similar: a public Russian non-invasion pledge and reduction in forces on the border in exchange for a public statement that NATO will not open membership discussions with Ukraine. This will surely be less than everyone wants, but all the participants get something out of it, and the situation is stabilized. The Ukrainians will not be happy with such an arrangement (Castro was furious that the Soviets made a deal behind his back), but they frankly also have little choice in the matter.

tuna55 said:

stroker said:

Follow the money--er... A-10's.

...bolster the border as a quasi-alliance, a few dozen A10s, some fighters to protect them, and some M1s would probably outpower the Russian troops even at a 5:1 quantity disadvantage. That would be a good show of force and might keep more Crimea-esque issues from happening soon. ...

If you are talking about giving Ukrainians these things, it wouldn't help much, if at all.  Ignoring training issues, the Russians have very good anti-air defense (S-400) and it would take a rather sophisticated US effort to suppress them and M1's aren't the "all dominant" tank they used to be (others have been catching up). US manned versions would not help much for the same reason.

If you are saying station US (or UN) troops, that is the big chess move gambit.  With any US troops there, if Russia attacks, they run the risk of killing US troops which risks direct conflict with the US, which no one wants of course. No one seems to want to do this probably mostly because they don't know what they would commit to if US or UN forces where killed.

As I mentioned when I started this thread.  This whole situation gives you great perspective on how people must have thought previous to WWII, since many of the dynamics are very similar.

Sometimes the reluctance to engage in conflict creates (or realistically, allows) greater conflict.

(I must note, again, I am in NO WAY saying this situation is likely in any way to lead to anything like WWII)

A question (for 02 maybe):

The "separatists" have already carved out a portion of Ukraine.  It is already effectively controlled by Russia.

If Russia marches in and takes only that area, what is the affect?  To me, it seems to be a minimal change from the current situation. Also, I can't imagine much of any fighting happening.

I am guessing the real question is if they take over some more of the (at least partially) ethnic Russian areas?

If Russia marches in and takes over ALL of Ukraine, that of course is a huge difference, and result.  That of course would likely result in Russia having to deal with a very motivated anti-Russian population, which I would think they would realize would be a huge issue for them.

I imagine that it would change the situation quite a bit for the Ukrainian military. There is a cease fire with the separatists not the Russian military so I would think they would respond with force if the Russian marched in.

aircooled said:

tuna55 said:

stroker said:

Follow the money--er... A-10's.

...bolster the border as a quasi-alliance, a few dozen A10s, some fighters to protect them, and some M1s would probably outpower the Russian troops even at a 5:1 quantity disadvantage. That would be a good show of force and might keep more Crimea-esque issues from happening soon. ...

If you are talking about giving Ukrainians these things, it wouldn't help much, if at all.  Ignoring training issues, the Russians have very good anti-air defense (S-400) and it would take a rather sophisticated US effort to suppress them and M1's aren't the "all dominant" tank they used to be (others have been catching up). US manned versions would not help much for the same reason.

If you are saying station US (or UN) troops, that is the big chess move gambit.  With any US troops there, if Russia attacks, they run the risk of killing US troops which risks direct conflict with the US, which no one wants of course. No one seems to want to do this probably mostly because they don't know what they would commit to if US or UN forces where killed.

As I mentioned when I started this thread.  This whole situation gives you great perspective on how people must have thought previous to WWII, since many of the dynamics are very similar.

Sometimes the reluctance to engage in conflict creates (or realistically, allows) greater conflict.

(I must note, again, I am in NO WAY saying this situation is likely in any way to lead to anything like WWII)

I am speaking of US and other NATO (But not necessarily a NATO ACTION) countries on the border. I want US men there, because as you alluded to, I think that is a bit deterrant to Putin moving. Actual US troops, flags, and reporters will make this harder to fake. I don't think Putin wants an actual war, and I think even he realizes that a country which tows its only carrier around with a tugboat cannot win an actual war with the US, if the US had the actual will to fight. We would if A: Ukraine asks us to help similar to Kuwait, and B: Russia fires on us.

If Ukraine isn't interested, or doesn't want to make that declaration, than we are done. We can't inflict our will on another soverign country and then insist that they are soverign.

Difficult to say how Ukraine would react to an overt Russian move to annex already occupied areas (I'm quite sure elements of their military are already there, though perhaps they claim otherwise). If the Ukrainians could retake the territory, they would have done so already. Annexing it, as was done with Crimea, strengthens Ukraine's diplomatic position with the rest of the world. The reason I don't think Putin is interested in doing so is the same one I've mentioned earlier: the existing conflict serves his domestic policy narrative. Russian minorities being wrongly persecuted by nasty Ukrainians and the evil US plays well with the Russian audience, and distracts from pesky things like economic weakness and repression of opposition groups and the press. In short, it doesn't really gain Russia anything.

Similarly, I don't think the invasion of anything short of the entire country really does much for Russia's position either, and that seems a high-risk play that Putin is not likely to make. Carving off a chunk doesn't change the geographic calculus; even taking the whole littoral still doesn't account for the air route through Poland (which is what the RAF used to make their recent deliveries). Reports have come in that Russian troops have moved into positions in Belarus, which could threaten a new front, but that's probably just to maximize uncertainty and stretch Ukrainian forces.

On the question of the UN, there's a simple answer: it will do nothing. Any action has to go to the Security Council, and the Russians aren't going to make the mistake of boycotting it like they did with the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950.

I still think the most likely outcome here is a negotiated settlement that gives Putin something to show to his people that proves he is fighting the good fight against Russia's enemies and returning Russia to its rightful place in the hierarchy of nations. That's what he wants, not an ugly little war he then has to figure out how to get out of, especially if it doesn't go well. Soldiers returning home in boxes as the result of an offensive war does not tend to boost a leader's popularity. Putin plays a low-risk game, making sure not to lose and taking small wins where he can, rather than going for the jackpot.

02Pilot said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

"And this is what makes Russia dangerous. They are exceptionally good at this sort of thing, and have been at it for decades. And they have a patience the West cannot match."

The same can be said for China. 

To an extent that's true, though the difference is that Russia has been directly engaged in global competition with the West for more than a century, while China has really only started to do so in a consistent way in the last couple decades (regional actions during the Cold War notwithstanding). Russia's leadership and intelligence community have a deeper understanding of Western society than do China's, and are more skilled at exploiting that knowledge. China's espionage activities against the West have generally been more centered on industrial and research targets.

All excellent points.  We've been at this with Russia for something like 70 or 80 years now; China has only really been a major industrial player since the 80's or 90's.  But they're a bigger player than Russia at the current moment.  They have more people, more economic might, and more sway on the world's stage- they managed to get an Olympics held there during an ongoing pandemic that most experts are pretty sure originated there.  We can argue about whether it was intentional or accidental, or whose fault it was, but in some ways its analogous to Russia's Chernobyl. 

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp   China's economy is 10x's Russia's.  Italy has a bigger economy than Russia.  Russia and Brazil are about the same. 

During the U.S. President's press conference the other day he was getting barraged with questions about Russia.  It feels like something the news media is a lot more concerned about than anyone else.  I just don't see that its' worth the bother.  Agree that Ukraine won't join the UN (I don't think the U.S. really wants them in it, anyway) and get some concessions from Russia, and call it a day.  Not long ago Russian rockets were sending US astronauts into space.  I think we ought to get back to strengthening that relationship, or China's going to leapfrog both of us.  We clearly think space is important, both from an economic perspective and a military one. 

I think Putin is weighing a move on Ukraine (which he MUST make) against Kazakhstan blowing up.  I think he can manage one or the other but not both.  Ukraine is a sympathetic entity as they gave all the former USSR nukes up in the 90's.  I'm guessing the international community would lean to punishing Russia for an overt takeover. 

In reply to stroker :

Russia's direct action in Kazakhstan is basically over. Coup and popular revolution thwarted, friendly government secure, Russians go home.

Why Russia must take Ukraine? Perhaps you can explain your view. I'd argue they're far better off with a compliant puppet like Belarus, or as that is unlikely, a neutralized Ukraine as a buffer against continued eastward NATO/EU expansion. Ukraine certainly is not sympathetic to Russia in any case.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

Much like a Bond super villain, Putin wants more. It makes no sense. He literally owns a private island, has crazy hot girls half his age or less, and enough money to swim in it like Scrooge McDuck. Making waves in that deal makes zero sense, but there he goes blowing stuff up. 
 

In reply to tester (Forum Supporter) :

Not invading other countries is a sign of weakness.

The US just pulled their people out of the embassy and told any other Americans that they might want to leave.

I think Stroker is saying he must invade because he really must do something, and not invading seems unlikely at this point because it will be hard to look strong not invading.

I watched an analysis by someone that essentially agrees with O2.  He is in a bit of a no win situation now.  It will be hard for him to pull something off that is not a negative result for Russia.  Even just backing off means he has spend what must be a lot of money moving around keeping all these troops in the ready. 

I was also thinking the same thing as Tester yesterday.  The guy is not only in a position of power, he is obscenely wealthy (as are all his buddies), why does he want more?  These sort of people only see the win in gaining, not the having.  They see money and power as a gauge of who they are (like points in a game). The problem is, those points reset or fade regularly and will go to zero if you don't get more. 

Quick update:

The State Department has ordered families of U.S. Embassy personnel in Ukraine to begin evacuating the country as soon as Monday, U.S. 

Next week, the State Department is also expected to encourage Americans to begin leaving Ukraine by commercial flights, "while those are still available," one official said.

Clearly the State Department seems to think something is about to happen.  Likely the result of the surveillance noted above.  I have heard there are reports of tanks moving around on roads, something you normally avoid because of wear on the tanks.

In reply to aircooled :

All of his wealth comes from being in power and you better believe that if he was ever properly defeated as president, his opponent would jail him and take all that wealth. There's a reason why he poisons his enemies.

As for the Ukraine situation, there is a way to low risk win, and that's the areas of Eastern Ukraine that are Russian speaking and actually prefer being part of Russia. There won't be much if any resistance in those areas and it's seen as reuniting. 

Don't limit possible gains to territory. I think Putin is after domestic political points here, as well as advancing the reestablishment of Russia as a global player; territory alone doesn't really offer that. That's why I suggested that offering him a deal that lets him claim a diplomatic victory to his domestic audience, and provides some form of security guarantees, may very well be enough to end this.

I don't consider his personal wealth especially critical to his decision-making process. As long as he retains power he's fine, and there's not much chance of him relinquishing it. Remember that he was a dedicated and successful Soviet operative, and when the USSR collapsed, he briefly had to drive a taxi to make ends meet. He has not forgotten the humiliation, both personal and national, and wants more than anything to put Russia (and himself) in a position that will avoid such a thing ever happening again.

02Pilot said:

In reply to stroker :

Russia's direct action in Kazakhstan is basically over. Coup and popular revolution thwarted, friendly government secure, Russians go home.

Why Russia must take Ukraine? Perhaps you can explain your view. I'd argue they're far better off with a compliant puppet like Belarus, or as that is unlikely, a neutralized Ukraine as a buffer against continued eastward NATO/EU expansion. Ukraine certainly is not sympathetic to Russia in any case.

Read "The Absent Superpower" by Peter Zeihan.  I linked it in a previous post on this thread.  You can see a short explanation of that here.  You can start at 3:40 if you want.  Short version is that Russia is in a demographic decline and the only way out from a strategic military perspective is by taking Ukraine.  Zeihan argues that demographic decline is "terminal", which I'm not sure I agree with.  It might be a case of "fighting the last war" by securing that territory to prevent a military vulnerability to Russia.  Bottom line is the population of Russia is declining for the forseeable future and the projections are they simply will not have enough manpower to effectively secure their borders as they currently exist.  Russia needs to re-establish their borders to the shortest choke points they can (circa 1985).  It's too big a discussion for a message board, but a military invasion of Ukraine is going to be a bad thing all the way around...

In reply to stroker :

I don't buy Zeihan's premise. There's no threat to Russia's external borders. Demographic decline or not, the biggest concerns Russia's rulers have are internal (much like China): economic weakness, political dissent, corruption, and the threat of general public dissatisfaction. Building up, manipulating, instigating, and even creating external threats to distract from these domestic concerns and unify the population is straight out of Autocracy and Totalitarian Dictatorship 101.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Well, we'll find out eventually. I did some research on my own, so take it for what it's worth--wanna guess what country has the fourth highest immigration as a percentage of total population?  It's Russia.  Most of those immigrants are coming from someplace ending in "stan".  It wouldn't surprise me if Russia is a predominantly Muslim country soon.  The country might exist in regards to borders, but it won't be Russia as we know it.  I think that supports your position, but it also supports Zeihan's. 

tuna55 said:

Instead we get a golly-shucks slip of the tongue "minor incursion" talk. I can't tell if it's better or worse than "my button is bigger than his", but it would be nice to have an adult in the White House for a while. Really any adult.

https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/forum-rules-welcome-to-the-party/104340/page1/ 

Current Russian army deployments.  The biggest question of course is what are the 4 groups in Belarus, effectively pointed directly at Kiev, for?  Clearly not a "defensive" position or in any position to "save" ethnic Russians.  Maybe they want Chernobyl? ()  Or, maybe a way to spread Ukranian defenses to make it easier to take the areas they really want.

Just, yet another, part of the bluff to make it look like a potential full scale invasion to get what the bald kid with the temper tantrum wants?

BTW - I have heard a number of reports of Stinger missiles (as opposed to the Starstreaks shown above) are what is being sent.  Not sure if Stingers are super effective against current Soviet stuff(?).  Maybe both(?)