History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Toebra said:

Stupid Americans are going to keep poking the bear until it happens

Well, in fairness, the Russians did throw the first punch.

More seriously, this is 1) hardly one-sided, and 2) not an inevitable escalation spiral. There are risks, to be sure, and I have certainly pointed out that Russian security concerns have been willfully ignored by the US and NATO prior to war breaking out (and that they will have to be addressed in order to reach a sustainable settlement), but I don't buy the "sky is falling" argument that it's all going to devolve into a full-blown high velocity missile swap. The Russians want to win; if not all of Ukraine, then enough for Putin to claim success and to materially weaken whatever's left. Hell, the Russians could get in one good push in the spring in then offer a deal based on a forces-in-place cease fire, and there would be some Western support for it (not enough to make it viable, but still). They gain nothing by provoking a wider war. If the US wanted to poke the bear, it wouldn't have been so cautious about what it sent to Ukraine. See how quickly Biden shot down the idea of fighter aircraft? Want to bet that was because back-channel conversations with the Russians made it clear that was going to provoke Bad Things? No, this is a simple proxy war, and will probably grind on for a good long while, only ending when one side or the other decides the costs have gotten too high. The only party that's willing to fight to the death is Ukraine, because it is solely for them an existential conflict.

Russia started it with Chechnya, they started it with Georgia, they started it with Ukraine. It's time to put a stop to it. The last thing that the Nazis ruling Russia want is to stop breathing. 

In reply to Opti :

That's not escalation in the terms used by IR and defense folks, though it might seem like it to others. Escalation refers specifically to changing the mode of the conflict, not adding new systems than supplement the existing mode. Neither of those systems alters the basic nature of the fight, whereas shifting to NBC would. Neither tanks nor Patriots - employed within Ukraine's borders - is going to push the Russians to up the ante. In other words, it's still a conventional ground war whether those systems are there or not, as it has been since the first day. The only reason either side is going to escalate, either by changing the boundaries of the conflict or introducing non-conventional or strategic weapons, is if they feel that 1) the other side has done something that threatens to do the same (e.g., Western fighters or ATACMS provided to Ukraine could easily be used against strategic targets inside Russia proper to good effect), or 2) that there is an emergent existential threat, which is highly unlikely here for any country but Ukraine. This is why it is seen as risky to give the Ukrainians systems that could expand the scope of conflict - they are the only party for whom the risks of their use might be worth the reward, at least in the short term. For the US and Russia, there is no incentive for escalation, posturing notwithstanding.

Proxy wars are nothing new, it's known territory.

Russia has been threatening nukes for most of this conflict, I can't imagine why anyone would take it more seriously now than ever.  Blustering is what Russia does.

If invading Russian annexed territories was going to cause a nuke attack, that would have already happened.  The Ukrainians took a bunch of it when they did that offensive near Kharkiv.  The Russians also annexed areas that the Ukrainians have always held.  How is that supposed to work with the rule?

The threat / fear of WWIII is essentially one of Russia's primary weapons currently, and it's clearly effective, to at least some extent.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

I consider myself far from being a warmonger, but I agree 100% with this. 
 

Also, my hunch is the reasons we've not pushed harder for Ukraine are North Korea & Taiwan. Though I'm afraid we'll let China take Taiwan back without much(if any) US involvement, just so we're not strung too thin potentially involved in 3 separate conflicts(or more, depending on whether you count our current involvement in other locations).

In reply to Pete Gossett (Forum Supporter) :

Been to China. Been to Taiwan. Long enough to know that they are very different places.

China has a lot of problems on its plate nowadays. I don't see a scenario where parking an army in Taiwan is ever going to make life in China better.  Quite the contrary.

To those that think that taking over Taiwan is going to benefit by taking control of Taiwan Semiconductors and providing China with microchips, I have to point out that it would be like taking over someone's meal by E36 M3ting on it; just ain't gonna work for ya.

In reply to Opti :

It may be that it is an academic definition, but I think it remains the more useful way to understand the issue. Let me descend into history once again to illustrate the point. In Vietnam, the US fought for nine years (1964-1973), but in spite of a peak troop strength of over half a million men, bomb tonnage dropped that exceeded what was dropped in World War Two, and over 50,000 servicemen killed, there were very few instances of escalation in my terms. While the US clearly expanded the size of the commitment, both in number of troops and systems employed, it was careful to avoid actions that could have the effect of widening the scope of the conflict. LBJ was extremely cautious about this, fearing a repeat of the Korean War experience with China, as well as being careful to protect Soviet shipping delivering war materiel via Haiphong, in spite of being responsible for the explosive growth of the American commitment. By contrast, Nixon drew down US forces, but also engaged in escalatory behavior. Critically, he did so only after pursuing diplomatic measures - the 1972 visits to Peking and Moscow - that established conditions by which those actions would not be viewed as dangerous by the Soviets and the Chinese. His actions designed to push the North Vietnamese to accept a peace settlement acceptable to the US - mining Haiphong harbor, the (edit - sorry, had the wrong name in there; Rolling Thunder was 1965-1968) Linebacker campaigns - would have been much more dangerous without laying the groundwork first.

On the other side, the Soviets and the Chinese never considered providing the Vietnamese communists with anything that would have offered the opportunity to seriously threaten US forces outside of South Vietnam. Even US airbases in Thailand were off-limits. Both Communist powers understood clearly that their actions were relatively low-risk, provided the conflict stayed contained and the US itself never felt threatened. And that's coming from Brezhnev, who was reputedly a dedicated vodka enthusiast, and Mao, who was concurrently encouraging his own people into an orgy of cleansing violence (the Cultural Revolution) that probably killed a million or so Chinese.

I dont agree with your view about the non escalatory nature of the early days of the Vietnam war. The Vietnam War in itself was an escalation of the Cold War, and we used a non existent attack (Gulf of Tonkin) as the means to go from support troops to combat troops on the ground. The Cold War also had many "near misses" from the US and Russia almost launching a nuclear attack.

If you dont define the US going from aid and support to combat troops on the ground in a full out war escalation, then I dont know what you would. I would say most Americans would think US combat troops on the ground in Ukraine would be considered an escalation.

Historically the US is pretty bad about not escalating (im using pretty much everyone elses definition here) war. It looks like we are going down the exact same path here.

In reply to Opti :

If one holds to the narrow definition of escalation, then the basic test to ask the question: "Does this action materially increase the risk of all-out existential conflict with another power?" I would argue that none of the US actions in Vietnam prior to 1972 would have provided an affirmative answer. To Ukraine, remember that the roles are reversed from Vietnam (US were the directly engaged power in Vietnam, the Russians are the directly engaged power in Ukraine), so US troops in combat in Ukraine would be the functional equivalent of Soviet or Chinese troops in combat in Vietnam, which would certainly have been escalatory.

Other Cold War crises are another issue entirely.

In reply to NOHOME :

Well said.  If China does attack Taiwan on the first plane out will be those with microchip manufacturing skills. ( if  not before) 

    Then quickly China is going have to find a replacement for all the food we supply them with .  Roughly 59% of their needs .  America is still the breadbasket of the world. 
     China lacks the ability to take it to the US while we have no such problem.    The Bases in the Philippines and Japan, I'm sure Vietnam would welcome the US Naval power.  Then there is Australia too.  Plus India and China regularly are having border issues. 
  Considering how concentrated China's population is near the Pacific  they would suffer greatly  from any sort of nuclear exchange.  While America's population density is basically East of the Mississippi.  That's a long time for China  to launch a missile, cross the Pacific,  and then head towards our population concentration. Unlike Russia they don't have a short circuit over the North  Pole. 
    Finally China can get all of the resources  they need simply by going North.  That whole area is sparsely populated  except by Asians. Many of who  came from China originally. 
  Even Russia considers that area not Russian enough.    
   Would a greatly weakened Russia put up much resistance keeping it?  
 Attacking Russia  is within China's range.  And past history( well the Mongrel history )  

I think that an escalation in Vietnam would have been a US ground invasion of North Vietnam. Carpet bombing North Vietnam was just a defensive action. NATO ground troops in Ukraine, along with all of our superior weapons would not be an escalation defending from an aggressor until they push troops into Russia in a land grab. Russia can't just invade a peaceful country and then cry foul when someone comes to their defense. Putin and his gang are stupid, but they are not crazy which I was worried about at the start of all this.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

I agree with your assessment of a US invasion of North Vietnam being viewed as escalatory (just as the Chinese viewed the post-Inchon push north to the Yalu as such, as responded accordingly), but US/NATO combat troops in Ukraine would most assuredly be an escalation, just as Chinese or Soviet combat troops in South Vietnam would have been (I'm not talking about advisors/support troops/etc.); Chinese or Soviet troops in the North would have been trickier, since they were less likely to engage with US forces directly. Even so, out of an (over-)abundance of caution, LBJ put restrictions on hitting SAM sites for fear that there would be Soviet advisors or operators present, for example.

The Vietnam analogy admittedly gets considerably weaker when one considers the divided nature of the country in the context of the Cold War, as it adds a complication not present in Ukraine, but the fundamental point remains valid: in proxy wars, when one superpower is directly engaged, the other should try to avoid putting itself in a position whereby its forces come into direct hostile contact with it to avoid possible escalation. Further, the non-engaged power must not present its support for the proxy in terms that could constitute an existential threat to the engaged power.

Updates.  Looks like things are expected to get pretty kinetic rather soon.  As related to the original concept of this thread, I am sure western intelligence is very away of where the troop and material concentrations are, so the aspect of any sort of surprise seems very low.

What the expected Ukrainian response is I don't know but I suspect it involves some more targeted counter attacks.  The general quietness of the Ukrainian military I am sure has a lot to do with being prepared for this.  You can certainly expect the Russians to capitalize on their troop number advantage and you can also expect them to use many of them carelessly.

Given the likely situation, the body count could get quite large.  As noted by O2, this could be the last (!?!) gasp by the Russians to establish negotiation borders.  Depending on the Ukrainian reaction, it could also result in them loosing negotiation power...

-----------------------------------

Ukrainian officials assess that Russian forces are preparing to launch a large-scale decisive offensive in eastern Ukraine in mid-to-late February. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov stated on February 5 that the Ukrainian military is expecting Russia to start its decisive offensive around February 24 to symbolically tie the attack to the first anniversary of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine.[1] Reznikov also clarified that the Ukrainian military has not observed the formation of Russian offensive groups in the Kharkiv and Chernihiv directions or Belarus; Ukrainian Southern Operational Command Spokesperson Nataliya Humenyuk noted that Russian forces are likely concentrating on launching offensive operations in the east rather than in southern Ukraine.[2] An unnamed advisor to the Ukrainian military told Financial Times that Russia intends to launch an offensive in the next 10 days (by February 15), a timeline that would allow Russian forces to strike Ukrainian positions before the arrival of Western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.[3] Luhansk Oblast Administration Head Serhiy Haidai stated that Russian forces are continuing to deploy reserves to Luhansk Oblast to strike after February 15.[4]

Select Russian nationalist voices continued to express skepticism towards Russia’s ability to launch a successful offensive past late February. A Wagner-affiliated milblogger noted that Chief of the Russian General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov (who currently commands Russian forces in Ukraine) has a limited time window to launch a large-scale offensive operation in Ukraine before it is entirely impossible to execute.[5] Another ultra-nationalist voice, former Russian officer Igor Girkin, forecasted that the Russian decisive offensive will not be successful until Russia mobilizes more manpower, industry, and economy.[6] Girkin claimed that an attack without such mobilization would shortly culminate. Both observations highlight that the Russian military command appears to be in a rush to launch the decisive offensive, likely ahead of the arrival of Western military aid and the muddy spring season in Ukraine around April that hindered Russian mechanized maneuvers in spring 2022.

Seems like Russia is pretty scared of US and German armor being sent- perhaps the rattling about giving them F-16s, then the sudden change, is simply because they were unnecessary or tactically dubious? I still disagree, but their reactions (and propaganda) against even the German Leopards tells me they may be scared of those tanks far more than we realize. Makes sense considering all the T-72s failures in field, including how visible their IR is to even 90s-era anti-tank systems.

Toebra said:

Stupid Americans are going to keep poking the bear until it happens

Everyone claims we're "provoking" with donated weapons and equipment, but never claims otherwise when Russia is clearly pulling ammunition from North Korea or supplies and uniforms from China. Why does Russia get a monopoly on violence? Why do they get away with making nothing but escalating threats?

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Seems like Russia is pretty scared of US and German armor being sent- perhaps the rattling about giving them F-16s, then the sudden change, is simply because they were unnecessary or tactically dubious? I still disagree, but their reactions (and propaganda) against even the German Leopards tells me they may be scared of those tanks far more than we realize. Makes sense considering all the T-72s failures in field, including how visible their IR is to even 90s-era anti-tank systems.

Toebra said:

Stupid Americans are going to keep poking the bear until it happens

Everyone claims we're "provoking" with donated weapons and equipment, but never claims otherwise when Russia is clearly pulling ammunition from North Korea or supplies and uniforms from China. Why does Russia get a monopoly on violence? Why do they get away with making nothing but escalating threats?

Because it's their biggest (and possibly only) deterrent when it comes to keeping Ukraine from getting more weapons.  If they can get us to say "aaaah!  Escalation!" every time Ukraine gets something, then it's possible that enough people will say "aaaaah! Escalation!" and weapons will stop getting to Ukraine.

It's already worked here in Hungary, and was a major political talking point to get Victor Orban re-elected. 

02Pilot said:

In reply to Opti :

If one holds to the narrow definition of escalation, then the basic test to ask the question: "Does this action materially increase the risk of all-out existential conflict with another power?" I would argue that none of the US actions in Vietnam prior to 1972 would have provided an affirmative answer. To Ukraine, remember that the roles are reversed from Vietnam (US were the directly engaged power in Vietnam, the Russians are the directly engaged power in Ukraine), so US troops in combat in Ukraine would be the functional equivalent of Soviet or Chinese troops in combat in Vietnam, which would certainly have been escalatory.

Other Cold War crises are another issue entirely.

You can not talk about the Vietnam war and separate it from the Cold War. It in itself was an escalation of the Cold War. The equivalent would be if the US and Russia end up at war outside of Ukraine, saying the Ukraine invasion by Russia is another issue entirely.

At the beginning of the Vietnam war we had something like 5000 support troops and intelligence guys, after we used a false attack to justify a further incursion, we had at its peak 550,000 troops on the ground and like 2.7 million people serving in Vietnam over the course of the war. If you dont want to call that an "escalation," based on your narrow definition which is separate from how most people use the term, fine.

The Ukraine war is "accelerating." Which is a path to your definition of escalation.

In reply to Opti :

Russia has absolutely no claim to Ukraine. Their entire war is illegal. Everybody is free to help out in anyway they want, just like we were free to help out the Kurds in Syria until we abandoned them. Did you notice how the Russians didn't say poop about that?

Toebra said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

.... Good luck with that, did not work out for Neville Chamberlain.

What a bizarre reference.... considering.

I am sure you are aware that Neville Chamberlains "claim to fame" is assuming Hitler can be appeased by agreeing to one of his demands of (ancestral) land... only to result in more, and more, then... continent consuming war.

Realistically, history is complicated and we only see the one result (e.g. Western Europe had zero stomach to try and militarily challenge Hitler at the time).  But if they did? are at least postured that way?.....

Toebra said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I guess that is one way to look at it, consider the stuff that has happened in the last year without looking back any farther.

 

This has been brewing since 1946.  I guess it hurts the feelings of my fellow Americans when I state the obvious, but will do so again.  The United States has not been an honest broker in its dealings with Russia.  We made many promises to Russia and Ukraine with respect to NATO and have broken pretty much every one.  The Russians are clearly not the good guys in this deal.  Not so clear is that the Americans are not the good guys in this deal either.  Really, there are not any good guys in this, just bad guys and victims. 

I guess everyone gets butthurt if I say we screwed over the Native Americans and most of Central and South America along the way too.  Maybe if you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and shout "LA, LA, LA" at the top of your lungs it will go away.  That, or downvote opinions that make you uncomfortable so you don't have to be burdened with seeing anything contrary to your worldview.  Good luck with that, did not work out for Neville Chamberlain.

I'm not sure if all that was directed at me, but if it was, you misunderstand my position fairly significantly. I've stated repeatedly here that much of the genesis of this lies with the misguided and ill-considered expansion of NATO and suggestions that Ukraine could eventually end up on that path. Further, I have outlined in some detail a framework for a neutralized Ukraine that would address many of Russia's security concerns.

I don't do "good guys and bad guys". I do analysis.