History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Alaska? Is the implication that we should return it?

This even for real?

They also claimed that Russia still owned Poland and the DDR.

Never mind that "Russia" never had those, ever

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Alaska? Is the implication that we should return it?

This even for real?

They also claimed that Russia still owned Poland and the DDR.

Never mind that "Russia" never had those, ever

The current Russian government picks select bits of various historical periods to suit the storyline and discards the rest, unless they need them later. Nevermind that the Soviets claimed to be against Russian nationalism (except when it suited them, as in the Great Patriotic War), and that Czarist Russia went through periods of pro-Western orientation, etc., etc. It's not terribly difficult with a thinly educated populace and state-controlled media. Not that this is exclusively a Russian passtime - far from it - but they have raised it to high art.

In reply to Russian Warship, Go Berkeley Yourself :

It's related to this conflict since they are withholding aid, and Russia has visibly shown to increase and ramp up attacks each time. We cannot reject or ignore that.

02Pilot said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Alaska? Is the implication that we should return it?

This even for real?

They also claimed that Russia still owned Poland and the DDR.

Never mind that "Russia" never had those, ever

The current Russian government picks select bits of various historical periods to suit the storyline and discards the rest, unless they need them later. Nevermind that the Soviets claimed to be against Russian nationalism (except when it suited them, as in the Great Patriotic War), and that Czarist Russia went through periods of pro-Western orientation, etc., etc. It's not terribly difficult with a thinly educated populace and state-controlled media. Not that this is exclusively a Russian passtime - far from it - but they have raised it to high art.

The are also using it as pre-immenent justification for their next targets- they have repeatedly stated that Estonia and Latvia are next.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

In reply to Russian Warship, Go Berkeley Yourself :

It's related to this conflict since they are withholding aid, and Russia has visibly shown to increase and ramp up attacks each time. We cannot reject or ignore that.

There is no need to specifically point out political parties, or particular political figures in the US, thus:

"The fight to continue of funding in the US",   or  "The US foreign policy at this point",  make the same point about situations in the US rather than identifying a party, or a current (or former, or potential future) leader in the US.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

02Pilot said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Alaska? Is the implication that we should return it?

This even for real?

They also claimed that Russia still owned Poland and the DDR.

Never mind that "Russia" never had those, ever

The current Russian government picks select bits of various historical periods to suit the storyline and discards the rest, unless they need them later. Nevermind that the Soviets claimed to be against Russian nationalism (except when it suited them, as in the Great Patriotic War), and that Czarist Russia went through periods of pro-Western orientation, etc., etc. It's not terribly difficult with a thinly educated populace and state-controlled media. Not that this is exclusively a Russian passtime - far from it - but they have raised it to high art.

The are also using it as pre-immenent justification for their next targets- they have repeatedly stated that Estonia and Latvia are next.

I find it very difficult to believe that the Russian leadership sees attacking Ukraine - an independent state without pre-existing military alliances - as incurring fundamentally similar risks as attacking states that are active members of the strongest military alliance in existence. Further, given that most NATO states have provided sufficient aid to Ukraine to alter the outcome of events, and done so without any sort of prior commitment to do so, it again seems unlikely that the Russian government thinks that those same NATO states will tolerate open aggression against their fellow alliance members.

Will Russia attempt to undermine the Baltic states by use of influence operations, threats, and other forms of coercion? Sure. But it's hard to think seriously that they're plotting invasion against states backed by combined and now alerted forces that radically overmatch what Russia can currently muster, particularly conventional forces - the costs and risks to Russia would be astonishingly high.

Much like the Alaska story, this is mostly for domestic consumption.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Russia now claims the sale of Alaska to America was illegal and is illegally occupied by the US.

Well now.  That is a bit of interesting history there.  I knew that Alaska was purchased from Russia, but I never asked why Russia sold it.

It seems it was never part of Russia to sell.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

 

The are also using it as pre-immenent justification for their next targets- they have repeatedly stated that Estonia and Latvia are next.

It is interesting, that even Russia, which is essentially an authoritarian system, and can kind of do what it wants, STILL feels the need to justify it's action in some sort of (stretched) logical way.  As O2 points out, this is certainly more for internal consumption, rather than external (well, their external supporters I suppose). 

Although Russia has a lot of control of it's population, if their actions come off as absurd internally, there certainly can be backlash... and there are only so many private jets they can shoot down to put a stop to it (Prigozhin reference)...

In reply to 02Pilot :

On that point, there was a (NATO) leader recently who was talking about how Europe (NATO) would might (I think he said will at some point also) be involved in a war with Russia in the future. I mean, this seems wildly unlikely unless Russia is just fully suicidal.  They can BARELY handle Ukraine at this point (no insult intended), even when they were full strength and Ukraine was much weaker!  Against a fully modernized NATO force?!  Wow, that would get bad for them very quickly (unless they massively re-equip and re-arm, but even then...).   

Now, realistically, I suspect he is mostly saying this to motivate Europe to get off it's collective butt's and stop depending on the US to defend them(!).

West Must Be Prepared For War With Russia, NATO Official Warns Ahead Of Major Military Drills

NATO has warned that the West should step up preparations for the unexpected,including a war with Russia, as Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is nearing the two-year mark amid worries over possible political fatigue among some of Kyiv's Western allies.....

In reply to aircooled :

I think that Russian strategy in a war against NATO would hinge on how much they could cause disagreement between NATO members. There are cracks in any organization. I would not underestimate Russian, maybe or maybe not, supported by Chinese and even south Asian cyber warfare and social warfare doing some damage to NATO's ability to apply effective force against Russia. Secondly a small nuclear detonation, even a "misfire" and resulting underground detonation of a Russian ICBM would shock the citizens of many NATO countries to pressure for war to stop or not start. 

Interesting social question. There were shocking variances in reaction to the pandemic and I assume the same would be true today of NATO going full ON war.

In the end, yes if NATO held together, Russia would probably be occupied in a few months, if the PRC didn't get involved. 

Advan046 said:

In the end, yes if NATO held together, Russia would probably be occupied in a few months, if the PRC didn't get involved. 

The PRC would smell blood and would be one of the occupiers.

aircooled said:

GIRTHQUAKE said:

 

The are also using it as pre-immenent justification for their next targets- they have repeatedly stated that Estonia and Latvia are next.

It is interesting, that even Russia, which is essentially an authoritarian system, and can kind of do what it wants, STILL feels the need to justify it's action in some sort of (stretched) logical way.  As O2 points out, this is certainly more for internal consumption, rather than external (well, their external supporters I suppose). 

Although Russia has a lot of control of it's population, if their actions come off as absurd internally, there certainly can be backlash... and there are only so many private jets they can shoot down to put a stop to it (Prigozhin reference)...

To put it another way, they may be brutal authoritarians, but they can't execute everybody and still function as a country.

As far as what a future war between Russia and NATO might look like, a couple points come immediately to mind. One, as the war in Ukraine showed, Russian aggression improved NATO cohesion (much to everyone's surprise); aggression against NATO would certainly have a similar effect, but amplified. Asymmetric warfare - cyberwar, influence operations, etc. - may work to some extent, but the minute troops cross the frontier, it's all out the window. Two, there is exactly zero chance that Russia is going to be occupied by anyone. The Chinese might want to grab some territory if the opportunity presents itself, but NATO won't claim one square inch. The reason is simple: there's nothing to be gained by it. A war would involve conventional precision strikes against military and logistics assets to diminish Russia's ability to continue to fight. This self-limiting behavior will have the effect of similarly limiting Russian actions against NATO (though these will not necessarily mirror NATO's). As soon as NATO forces start acting against Russia's nuclear deterrent, or threatening to take territory or remove the government, Russia has no incentive to limit its actions, as the threat has become existential. If you question Russia's awareness of this sort of subtle posturing, look carefully at how it is managing its war in Ukraine, and specifically how it is interacting with Ukraine's external supporters. Russian actions have been a lot more carefully calibrated than many give them credit for.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:

Flynlow said:

It does make me sad that the F14 was basically wiped from existence just to deny the Iranians access to spares.  It was such a cool airplane.

I was on deployment alongside an F-14 squadron when they were retired from our air wing.  I remember one of the mechanics telling me that he was looking forward to seeing it go.  He reported that for every 1 flight-hour, it took 100 man-hours of maintenance.

A quick google tells me he was exaggerating slightly, but at the rates I'm seeing it was a very maintenance intensive plane to fly.

Still though, coolest darn plane on the carrier.

If I recall right, part of the F-35 program was also making a plane that was just flat easier to work on and not a massive pain in the ass. F-117s had to have at least one person who was below 5' 6" for certain work- I swear part of the reason for the success of the F-35 program is that the damn thing can actually be worked on easily.

I was in an EA-6B Prowler squadron, so I cant speak much to the F-35.  But I do know when they rolled out with the "Growler" variant (I still can't believe that's the name they went with) of the F-18, they invited the biggest guy in our avionics shop (Swenson, who was an 800lb gorilla of a person) and the smallest girl (Bennet, who was like 5-foot-nothin) and had them work in on and around every avionics component in the aircraft.

The idea was that those two had to be able to reach everything, and then they had to be able to fit in the areas to work on everything.  They had lots of positive things to say when they got back.

No idea how it worked out in practice (as I separated before our squadron transitioned to Growlers) but I did like the idea.

To emphasize the domestic tensions present, Russian wives demand reservist husbands return.

Some good information on Western ISR flights in the last part of 2023:

02Pilot said:

To emphasize the domestic tensions present, Russian wives demand reservist husbands return.

Time for The Lysistrata Plan to be put into motion.

Lysistrata - Wikipedia

jharry3 said:

02Pilot said:

To emphasize the domestic tensions present, Russian wives demand reservist husbands return.

Time for The Lysistrata Plan to be put into motion.

Lysistrata - Wikipedia

The opposite of that plan might be:

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Alaska? Is the implication that we should return it?

This even for real?

They once again declare some territory as their own, justifying it with either 'return' or 'protection of residents' (from what?), and begin to deploy troops, occupying territories. Russia has literally always done this. Look at Georgia, Chechnya, Moldova. The same thing they are doing now in Ukraine. A significant portion of Russia's population already claims that there was never any Ukraine and that they need to 'take back the territory', and they have no intention of stopping. Furthermore, with the same goals, they aim for Poland, the Baltic countries, and so on. It's simply an aggressive empire that wants more and more. If they had the strength, they would have already moved further.

In reply to 02Pilot :

This does a good job of showing how massive the amount of intel the West is likely transferring to Ukraine, and likely also explains some of the unique attacks they have been able to pull off (especially in Crimea, which is very well surveyed).

Along those lines, another bit of a sneaky attack by Ukraine (energy based structures seem to be blowing up at random around Russia for some reason), it's pretty clear Ukraine has managed a drone attack of some sort on the port of Ust-Luga in the Leningrad region.  This port is primary for loading gas and oil tankers (some of which are western....).  The range is pretty impressive (700 plus range), and likely the result of some of Ukraine's new drones.

This is also requiring Russia to reposition anti-air assets to protect the area.  Most of the defense in that area is certainly pointed west, rather than south.

As can be seen in the last photo, the fire is a problem, but the use of water clearly creates it's own problem in the freezing temperatures!

In reply to aircooled :

That is Smekalka at work. They are putting out the fire AND applying a fire resistant coating that will last for months! 

What if Ukraine snuck a few drone operators out to the Baltic Sea to operate from up there?  

This one is a bit more for O2 if he hasn't read it yet.  Speaks to the concept of potential negotiations (as in, none) and the current Russian perspective:

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

Russia continues to weaponize its position on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to propagate several long-standing Russian information operations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke at a UNSC meeting, which Russia convened, on January 22 and blamed the West for the lack of negotiations, claiming that Russia has always been “ready for negotiations.”[1] Lavrov clarified, however, that Russia is only interested in negotiations that result in the removal of the current Ukrainian government from power, confirming that Russia still officially seeks regime change in Ukraine.[2] Lavrov continued to deny Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty, falsely claiming that the Ukrainian people have no interests in the war against Russia and that the West has pushed Ukraine to continue the war.[3] Lavrov advised the West to understand that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ”peace formula” is a “path to nowhere,” claiming that the “sooner [the West] realizes this, the better it will be for both Ukraine and the West.”[4] Lavrov also claimed that “if Ukraine stops fighting, hundreds of thousands” of Ukrainian lives would be saved.[5] Lavrov previously made similar comments, suggesting that the Kremlin believes that Russia will be able to occupy more territory as the war continues and that this course of the war will increasingly weaken Ukraine’s negotiating position.[6]

Lavrov denied Russia’s responsibility for fears that Russia may attack NATO in the future, ignoring the recent Kremlin official statements that have prompted those fears. Lavrov falsely claimed that the West promotes the idea that Russia will attack the Baltic states, Poland, and Finland in the future as a way to “extort money” from Western states for aid to Ukraine.[7] Kremlin officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, have sustained consistent threatening rhetoric directed against NATO member states, and Kremlin-affiliated actors appear to be attempting to sow instability and set information conditions for possible future aggressive Russian actions against NATO members and other post-Soviet states.[8] Lavrov also blamed Ukrainian forces for conducting strikes on Russian-occupied territory in Ukraine, which the Kremlin used to support Russian justifications for its war of conquest in Ukraine.[9] Lavrov recently claimed that Ukrainian forces are using Western-supplied weapons to strike civilian targets, including in alleged strikes against occupied Donetsk City on January 21, for example.[10] Russian sources, including the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), made similar claims on January 21.[11] The New York Times reported on January 21 that it could not independently confirm the actors behind the strike on Donetsk City, and the press service of the Ukrainian Tavriisk Group of Forces stated on January 21 that forces under the control of the Tavriisk Group of Forces did not conduct the strikes.[12] Lavrov also attempted to downplay the various war crimes and crimes against humanity that Russian occupation forces and occupation administrators are conducting in Ukraine, claiming that Ukrainians and Russians “live in peace and harmony” in occupied Crimea and other Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories.[13] Lavrov claimed that “Russians and Ukrainians will live exactly like brothers and good neighbors” after Russia achieves its goals in the war in Ukraine — which ISW continues to assess are tantamount to full Ukrainian and Western surrender.[14] ISW has routinely documented how Russian forces and occupation administrations have been engaging in large-scale and deliberate ethnic cleansing campaigns; forcibly and illegally deport Ukrainians, including children, to Russia; and are systematically working to eliminate the Ukrainian language, culture, history, and ethnicity in areas that Russian forces occupy.[15]

ISW previously assessed that Russia aims to reinforce the primacy of the UN and to link as many international efforts to the UN as possible in order to capitalize on Russia’s permanent UNSC seat and veto power.[16] Russia’s request for the January 22 UNSC meeting to discuss arms supplies to Ukraine and Lavrov’s use of this meeting to promote various Kremlin information operations is likely an attempt to legitimize these Kremlin narratives, promote them on a global stage, and convince Ukraine’s international partners to stop sending weapons to Ukraine.

In reply to aircooled :

Nothing terribly surprising. The last bit on the UN is an explicit statement of something people in the IR world have known for years. The Russians learned in 1950 that the old Bolshevik tactic of walking out on votes to undermine their legitimacy didn't work when the other parties were able to act without their participation. Ever since the US-backed effort in Korea got UN approval, and that approval lent it credibility as an international effort, undermining the Soviet position, the Russians have weaponized the UN to their advantage, but they don't boycott it any more. Fun fact: Stalin pushed hard for the UN to be based in the US rather than Geneva (where the LoN was headquartered) so that the Americans wouldn't be able to pull out if they lost interest; he understood the opportunity it afforded weaker powers, and the ways it could be used to constrain US freedom of action.

Yeah, the UN is, well.....

...anyway, because of the way some of the assignments work there (which is, everyone gets a chance), the presidency for the Conference on Disarmament is.....  Iran.    It's only for 4 weeks, but still.   Bad look.

The conference will take place from March 18-29 and from May 13-24, and it’s charged with “negotiating nuclear disarmament treaties and a slew of other weapons agreements,”