History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Reuters reports that Turkey is open to negotiating Finland and Sweden's entry to NATO.  Can't link the story unfortunately.. 

Turkey is playing their hand 

In reply to 02Pilot :

Ukraine has the momentum, and I don't know how Russia's going to change that. If Russia tries to hold a continuous strip of land between Donbas and Kherson, they're going to have to commit a huge amount of money and manpower - resources that are not in unlimited supply.

I'm a worryer. My two biggest concerns at this point are scenarios wherein either:

-Putin is replaced by someone even more hardliner than him, who will consider the nuclear option or alternately will grind this thing out for years.

or

-Ukraine overplays its hand. I think that they'll try and retake Crimea. But Crimea's pretty defensible.  Russian forces could mass at Armyansk and there'd be a bloodbath. 

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

I worry Putin's machismo will make him push the button. Probably at a NATO ally or one applying.

In reply to preach (dudeist priest) :

I've been assured by people whose views are pretty solid that it's pretty hard for a rogue president to get to the button by himself. Can't say I'm entirely comfortable with that, as he's been working hard at surrounding himself with yes men.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There's a big difference between playing offense and playing defense. As I said, if Russia goes defensive and starts digging in, Ukraine's costs are going to escalate. How long are both parties willing to keep fighting? Your guess is as good as mine. But if Russia stops trying to take additional ground, they can drag it out a lot longer than they way they're fighting now. If you get a chance, watch that FPRI discussion I linked earlier - there's a lot of good food for thought in there.

So, from a propaganda "The world is united against us" point of view. At what point did the Germans realize they were the "Bad Guys" in WW2

NOHOME said:

So, from a propaganda "The world is united against us" point of view. At what point did the Germans realize they were the "Bad Guys" in WW2

After the war was over and people were told the reality of what was going on.

Thing with Russia is, the populace is so used to being obviously lied to and therefore just going with what makes them feel better...

NOHOME said:

So, from a propaganda "The world is united against us" point of view. At what point did the Germans realize they were the "Bad Guys" in WW2

The more interesting question is why did they both come to that realization and accept it. With Germany, we have two lost major 20th Century wars as data points, one after which they never accepted responsibility, and the other in which they accepted it quickly and broadly. What was different?

In reply to 02Pilot :

Germany didn't start the first one, they got dragged in like everyone else on both sides.

In reply to 02Pilot :

There were crippling reparations after the first one, which led to the occupation of the Ruhr (necessary for German economic stability) and hyperinflation, which led to desperation.

Thus why it was important that Germany have a strong economy after the war... after the old leadership was swept away.

Hmm and hear it comes.  All of Russias sub fleet loaded and left port yesterday.

https://www.yahoo.com/video/russian-black-sea-fleet-submarines-183926101.html

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I don't disagree generally, though there is a paradox here. After the First War, the Germans were blamed and vilified but refused to accept; after the Second, they were blamed and vilified, but it was very different. In the West, the Nazi government was blamed, and the people largely absolved of responsibility and offered a path to prosperity, whereas in the East the people were blamed along with the government, and everyone was punished harshly. And we know how that worked out.

Edit: I'm not sure my initial statement was clear. In all cases, external factors were arguably determinative, or at least had a major role in German post-war attitudes. The paradox is that the better-treated and more accepted the German people were, the more likely they were to acknowledge and take responsibility for the actions under the prior regime.

In reply to j_tso :

That's very much up for debate. Historians are still arguing about, but Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles makes it very clear where the Allies stood in 1919:

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

There's a lot of scholarship that suggests that the "blank check" issued by Germany to the Austro-Hungarian Empire regarding the ultimatum to Serbia was critical to the transition from local to Europe-wide crisis.

In reply to 84FSP :

Submarines are far less vulnerable to Ukrainian drones and ASMs than surface ships. I suspect the Russians are not exactly pleased with how things have been going on the surface.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Very good points... 

There is also something to the matter that, at the time, a lot of the great thinkers (psychiatry, medicine, many different sciences) were German, so there was a sense of "German people are better than that, it was the Nazis' fault for everything".

In reply to 84FSP :

Gearing up for an amphibious assault on Odessa, possibly? Ukraine doesn't have a navy and I haven't heard of anyone sending naval support so the cruise missile capability seems to be the operative function. Also, potentially, a standoff weapon in the event of an attempt to retake Mariupol? 

Don't know if they could get them out of the Black Sea to try and pressure Finland/Sweden but Russia should have other assets if they want to try that approach.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

But many of them did their most notable work in the 19th Century, and that didn't stop the Germans from being lumped together as a bunch of little warmongering mini-kaisers in 1919. The approach of 1945 had a lot to do with Truman, Marshall, and Eisenhower recognizing the emerging Cold War and realizing quickly that a Western-oriented Western Germany was an asset to be cultivated, not squandered, whereas in 1919 there was no such motivation.

02Pilot said:

In reply to 84FSP :

Submarines are far less vulnerable to Ukrainian drones and ASMs than surface ships. I suspect the Russians are not exactly pleased with how things have been going on the surface.

I saw a rumor (don't think it was here) that Israel was looking to sell some very nice anti-ship missiles to Ukraine.  Ones that could reach Russian Black Sea harbors from Ukrainian territory.  This makes me wonder if there was truth to that rumor.

02Pilot said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There's a big difference between playing offense and playing defense. As I said, if Russia goes defensive and starts digging in, Ukraine's costs are going to escalate. How long are both parties willing to keep fighting? Your guess is as good as mine. But if Russia stops trying to take additional ground, they can drag it out a lot longer than they way they're fighting now. If you get a chance, watch that FPRI discussion I linked earlier - there's a lot of good food for thought in there.

One of the problems that Russia has experienced is a lack of mobility. "Digging in" means easier targeting. And it's also an acknowledgement of a lack of progress. Time would seem to favor Ukraine. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

02Pilot said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There's a big difference between playing offense and playing defense. As I said, if Russia goes defensive and starts digging in, Ukraine's costs are going to escalate. How long are both parties willing to keep fighting? Your guess is as good as mine. But if Russia stops trying to take additional ground, they can drag it out a lot longer than they way they're fighting now. If you get a chance, watch that FPRI discussion I linked earlier - there's a lot of good food for thought in there.

One of the problems that Russia has experienced is a lack of mobility. "Digging in" means easier targeting. And it's also an acknowledgement of a lack of progress. Time would seem to favor Ukraine. 

Agreed, but it's also a lot easier to spot vehicles on the move than it is when they're dug in. And you need fewer forces to defend a given area - the Ukrainians are benefiting from that now. Part of the issue would be Ukraine successfully conducting a sustained counteroffensive on an operational level (as opposed to the small local efforts they have been making lately). I'm not sure they have the logistics to sustain a combined-arms offensive on a scale needed to retake all of their lost territory.

Aside from the obvious political impediments facing Russia, based on the FPRI discussion I'm inclined to believe that their biggest weakness is a lack of infantry (which seems totally counterintuitive). Without a sufficient infantry component, their armor is vulnerable to ATGMs, it's hard to secure ground and control populations in captured areas, and even defensive and pacification operations will be difficult. The Russians are left with limited options, and they're using them: heavy bombardment, long-range PGMs, and an over-reliance on armor. It's not likely to be successful, but it can prolong things indefinitely and cause plenty of damage.

Not directly related, but it's worth noting that there's a lot of mixed messaging coming out of Western leadership. On the one hand you have some leaders talking about supporting Ukraine to victory (without fully defining what victory is, but presumably the Ukrainians have to decide that first), and on the other you hear about calls from other leaders for an immediate cease-fire (which really benefits Russia more than anyone else, and thus these statements are likely at least somewhat disingenuous). It's this sort of thing that makes me question how unified Western support remains in the long term, especially in the event of a general Ukrainian counteroffensive and a Russian offer to talk.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Dug in forces need supplies which is their weak link.  You don't need to extract dug in forces all that's required is you cut off supplies.  
Supply lines are horribly vulnerable in the Ukraine.  Trucks are vulnerable.  So armored  Vehicles escort the trucks and you've seen the pop top results of that.  
   How about airborne Re supply?  Germany couldn't succeed in doing it, not for a lack of trying. But to be successful you have to control the sir.  Oops,  those darn missiles.    It's how the Afghans took down those Hind helicopters.    Pretty easy for a couple of solders  to remain hidden until the right moment.
        Ukraine  doesn't have to do that. All they have to do is cut off Re supply.  The art of war. America did it  effectively in much of the South Pacific. 
     The "mixed" messages simply are various countries expressing what is best for them.   Turkey for example wants to use its NATO MEMBERSHIP  to solve the problems it's leader has caused.  Germany doesn't want to cut off its major supplier of raw materials and a significant customer of its finished goods.  Others joined NATO out of fear of Russia doing to them exactly what they are doing to the Ukraine.  

84FSP said:

Hmm and hear it comes.  All of Russias sub fleet loaded and left port yesterday.

https://www.yahoo.com/video/russian-black-sea-fleet-submarines-183926101.html

Does not seem nuc so that is something. They will still FSU though.

Send the 22 boat in and really berkeley some tubes up. The CT is such a damn hot rod. Hunter killer born and bred.

DarkMonohue said:

frenchyd said:

Russia is a country of only 145 million  about 40% of the United States 330 million.  
In addition their country is still in decline  due to really lousy health services,  rampant AIDS and TB. Not to mention alcoholism ( more than 1/5th of all deaths)  and drugs. 

This is the third or fourth time you've said exactly the same thing. Your point has been made. Let's move on.

I don't believe you have understood my point. Which is that Russia isn't in any shape to conduct a prolonged war.  

In reply to preach (dudeist priest) :

It would be quite the feat to get something that big through the Bosporus submerged and undetected.   Even if we did manage to it would be pretty obvious what was going on if we chose to do something and the possibility of getting back out would be even less likely than getting in.  Not to mention we’d be responsible for escalating this into WW3 and giving Putin all the “justification” he would need.   (Agreed that SSN  21 class is the E36 M3 BTW)

No easy answers and yes it’s very frustrating to watch knowing the capabilities that exist to help the people in Ukraine that we can’t risk using. 

In reply to 11GTCS :

There's two major sorts problems associated with putting a submarine through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles: political and technical.

I read an article many years ago about a British attempt to navigate a sub through during WWI. The currents are apparently diabolical. I think they made it as far as the Sea of Marmara, but that was it (I probably read this 20 years ago - the details are hazy). Modern technology could probably overcome many of the hurdles with relative ease, but it's still a very busy, shallow in places, shipping lane - the possibilities for mishaps are not insignificant.

The vastly more problematic issues are political. First, there's the question of violating the Montreux Convention and Turkish sovereign waters. If you think relations with Turkey were strained by events up to now, you ain't seen nothing yet. Kiss goodbye any sort of NATO unity going forward. It's one thing to hide a submarine on a clandestine mission; it's a lot harder when it starts sinking things or lobbing Tomahawks around. Then there's the issue of Russia, which inevitably will use such an act to reinforce the argument that is being victimized by the West, and because the US is clearly in the wrong here, it may gain traction in places like China (which is no fan of secret US submarine operations, I understand). Worse, it would give due cause for Russia to retaliate - do you want to read about US shipping being struck by Russian submarines?

Nope, this one is a non-starter.

02Pilot said:

In reply to 84FSP :

Submarines are far less vulnerable to Ukrainian drones and ASMs than surface ships. I suspect the Russians are not exactly pleased with how things have been going on the surface.

I hadn't thought of protecting the subs.  Was more concerned about pu put and the red button as they are the right safe delivery method for max force on a tactical nuke.