Jump to content

Russian Games: 120,000-140,000 Russian Troops on the Ukrainian border…


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think they want to invade and are testing how the West will respond. And the West's wait and see approach, as you and many others are backing, will only encourage them to push further, hence why I want to blunt their advances right now and push back heavily. 

If that's the case then why do it in this manner?  If they were looking at a lack of response as encouragement, why aren't they having a parade in Kiev right now?  Even the fucking Tony Blinken mofos have more sense than this.

Eta:.the point behind these questions in asking you is to demonstrate that you are proposing to act from a position of gross ignorance.  And that there is no practical advantage to the course of action you are suggesting other than feeling some patriotism or power or something weird about a country on the other side of the globe.  Who have way less at stake than just about anyone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

If that's the case then why do it in this manner?  If they were looking at a lack of response as encouragement, why aren't they having a parade in Kiev right now?  Even the fucking Tony Blinken mofos have more sense than this. 

Really? Do you not get how probing a target works? Russia is very clearly testing what they can get away with, and if everyone in the West follows your approach, maybe this will be the case in a few months, maybe not. However, constantly opting to do nothing will only increase the likelihood that they'll press their chances further.

Quote

Eta:.the point behind these questions in asking you is to demonstrate that you are proposing to act from a position of gross ignorance.  And that there is no practical advantage to the course of action you are suggesting other than feeling some patriotism or power or something weird about a country on the other side of the globe.  Who have way less at stake than just about anyone. 

No, I'm saying the West needs to stop reacting from a position of weakness when several countries alone have more strength than Russia. We've seen this cycle for a decade now, and every time we give in. Enough! Russia is not a strong country and we need to stop acting like we're going up against the U.S.S.R. 

Or do you enjoy them fucking with our democracy without any serious retaliation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Really? Do you not get how probing a target works? Russia is very clearly testing what they can get away with, and if everyone in the West follows your approach, maybe this will be the case in a few months, maybe not. However, constantly opting to do nothing will only increase the likelihood that they'll press their chances further.

No, I'm saying the West needs to stop reacting from a position of weakness when several countries alone have more strength than Russia. We've seen this cycle for a decade now, and every time we give in. Enough! Russia is not a strong country and we need to stop acting like we're going up against the U.S.S.R. 

Or do you enjoy them fucking with our democracy without any serious retaliation? 

Lol you got me I love them "fucking with our democracy".  JFC.  

Is "the West" weaker than Russia?  What needs to be proven by chest bumping?  If you wanna destroy them* just nuke them into oblivion and shut the fuck up.  If not, then maybe don't escalate shit with no fucking purpose and nothing to gain. 

*And to be clear I think that's a terrible idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Larry of the Lake said:

Lol you got me I love them "fucking with our democracy".  JFC.  

Is "the West" weaker than Russia?  What needs to be proven by chest bumping?  If you wanna destroy them just nuke them into oblivion and shut the fuck up.  If not, then maybe don't escalate shit with no fucking purpose and nothing to gain.  

If you're unwilling to do anything in the face of an obvious problem, what do you stand for exactly?

This isn't about chest bumping. We constantly let things slide for decades because it would be inconvenient to do something about it. That needs to end now and no, that doesn't mean nuclear warfare. Frankly that's Russia's only threat, not the other way around, and they're not actually going to do it.

And the purpose is to stop a horrible actor on the global stage from continuing to act horribly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you're unwilling to do anything in the face of an obvious problem, what do you stand for exactly?

This isn't about chest bumping. We constantly let things slide for decades because it would be inconvenient to do something about it. That needs to end now and no, that doesn't mean nuclear warfare. Frankly that's Russia's only threat, not the other way around, and they're not actually going to do it.

And the purpose is to stop a horrible actor on the global stage from continuing to act horribly. 

Lol ok.  What did "we" constantly let slide for decades?  Why is this such an imperative for the US to be involved in?  

Edit:" unwilling to do anything in the face of an obvious problem".

Lol yeah ok buddy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Lol ok.  What did "we" constantly let slide for decades?  Why is this such an imperative for the US to be involved in?  

 

 

Russia's invasion of Georgia and Crimea for starters. Neither situation was dealt with, we doth protest and then life moved on because it didn't affect people in the West. Comfort ruled the day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Putin's goals is to drive a wedge between the states in Europe and the US. Even the current batch of sanctions are mostly shouldered by continental Europe. New sanctions again will fall mostly on this side of the Atlantic and may wreck our economy. At the same time they present an opportunity for US businesses...

I think most agree that sanctions are a given if Russia takes the next steps and moves into Ukraine (again). But if the US forces their partners into sanctions now, Putin has already achieved one of his goals.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kiko said:

One of Putin's goals is to drive a wedge between the states in Europe and the US. Even the current batch of sanctions are mostly shouldered by continental Europe. New sanctions again will fall mostly on this side of the Atlantic and may wreck our economy. At the same time they present an opportunity for US businesses...

I think most agree that sanctions are a given if Russia takes the next steps and moves into Ukraine (again). But if the US forces their partners into sanctions now, Putin has already achieved one of his goals.   

Piss off with all this ivory tower "considering the consequences" and "not playing right into Putin's hands" thinking.  Everybody knows stupidly and pointlessly doing something RIGHT NOW = strong, while waiting to do something at the appropriate time = weak.  This rationale was the natural order in grade school, so why shouldn't it be applied to international relations?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Russia's invasion of Georgia and Crimea for starters. Neither situation was dealt with, we doth protest and then life moved on because it didn't affect people in the West. Comfort ruled the day. 

If you're trying to use a punishment as a method of adjusting someone's behaviour, the punishment needs to be timely. Yes - Putin got away with those, but that's already happened and reacting now is too disconnected to work like that. If its widely understood that highly damaging sanctions are the most the west is going to do, and you impose them before he's actually done anything, then there's no further deterrent to threaten. If there was a widespread impression that the west would actually get involved in the conflict, then this would be a different story - the sanctions wouldn't be the stick of last resort, but the impression I have and I'm pretty confident the impression Putin has, is that the west isn't going to do this. So if you go ahead and impose the sanctions now, he can either 

  1. Capitulate completely and back off to the point demanded by the west to drop the sanctions
  2. Continue posturing without backing off, but also without actually going in while suffering the same international consequences he would for invading, or
  3. Decide he's already facing the worst consequences before even going in, so there's no reason not to go ahead with the invasion

Personally I think (1) rather unlikely because of the impact on his domestic situation. (2) might be sufficient to stop his domestic power base from eroding, but given the limited cost difference between that and just going all in with (3) I wouldn't want to bet which choice he'd make.

Imposing sanctions at this point would only make sense for an early round of much milder sanctions while still keeping the crippling ones as the stick of last resort, but you seem to be advocating for going all in at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

Good thread on the capabilities and the likely strategy that Russia will take in their attack.

 

Great thread, but I still don't see how Putin manages to accomplish even the limited objectives listed with the current forces at the border.

Eastern Ukraine might be flat, but it has two cities with population of 1 million + (Kharkiv and Dnipro), couple of 500k+ cities, and a bunch of 100k+ cities, where any advantages in armor and air power will be neutralized. Ukraine will have more than a million defenders fighting back, so any real invasion would require full mobilization on Russia's end. And I'm not sure the Russia's populace is in the mood for such a move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

Great thread, but I still don't see how Putin manages to accomplish even the limited objectives listed with the current forces at the border.

Eastern Ukraine might be flat, but it has two cities with population of 1 million + (Kharkiv and Dnipro), couple of 500k+ cities, and a bunch of 100k+ cities, where any advantages in armor and air power will be neutralized. Ukraine will have more than a million defenders fighting back, so any real invasion would require full mobilization on Russia's end. And I'm not sure the Russia's populace is in the mood for such a move.

Okay what is Putin’s goal, if not invasion, with the current mobilization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay what is Putin’s goal, if not invasion, with the current mobilization?

I honestly don't know. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't get the logic behind these moves at all. A miscalculation regarding NATO response that leaves them with no good options?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

I honestly don't know. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't get the logic behind these moves at all. A miscalculation regarding NATO response that leaves them with no good options?

I agree that a full on invasion of Ukraine sounds like a disaster for everyone, including Russia.  It's really hard for that to make sense unless we think that Putin is no longer a rational actor. 

I think the theory that Putin is making a big bluff to potentially get concessions and/or dilute Ukrainian forces.  Then Putin can make some limited escalation in Eastern Ukraine, and everyone in the US/EU will be thankful that it "wasn't worse".  I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, but it at least has some potential to work out well for Russia. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

Imposing sanctions at this point would only make sense for an early round of much milder sanctions while still keeping the crippling ones as the stick of last resort, but you seem to be advocating for going all in at this point?

I am advocating that we begin imposing sanctions now, but that does not mean we need to immediately apply everyone available. The West needs to show it's actually willing to do something and stop this constant dance where we make threats that are largely ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I am advocating that we begin imposing sanctions now, but that does not mean we need to immediately apply everyone available. The West needs to show it's actually willing to do something and stop this constant dance where we make threats that are largely ignored. 

Ok, I don't think that had come across very clearly given others who seemed to be interpreting your comments the same as I was. Crossed wires makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not thinking sanctions now as technically 'nothing' has happened yet are a wise move, though I must say an invasion with such an extended tell is quite insane and I'm thinking Putin's main motivation for all this posturing is gauging how much we are willing to stand up to him and how much we have made ourselves subject to blackmail.

... or rather how much Germany has allowed itself to get blackmailed. I am painfully aware of how Nord Stream 2's construction has given Putin the opportunity to attack without worrying about shutting down the pipeline through Ukraine. And yes, the US and Ukraine have warned us of this possibility since its conception... The thing is, if we didn't build that thing, I wonder whether we would be even talking about an imminent invasion. Well, probably, given that I'm fairly sure Putin's main objective is securing the water supply for Crimea, but it wouldn't drive such a wedge through German politics. It is frustrating to see Baerbock and the FDP (of all things) advocating for a clear message towards Russia that we will bury Nord Stream in case of an invasion while Scholz and Habeck prefer to engage in hand-wringing and excuses. Putin is laughing his ass off and likely betting on Scholz cowardly standing aside if pushed. And I really, really, really fear the possibility that this drags out until the approval process finishes and Nord Stream 2 commences operation... and then the next day the invasion starts, with the blood being on our hands...

So basically my safest solution would be to openly commit ourselves to sink that pipeline in case of an attack, no matter whether this will hurt us. Half of Russia's GDP is from gas exports, Putin must be assured that we won't nod everything off for the sake of that gas. Peace in Europe is more important than gas. Even if he still decides to attack, at least this way we are assured that we didn't make ourselves culpable, but right now it looks very much to me like he's betting on us not having a spine.

The other thing going through my mind is more daring. The thing is, right now we are only reacting to whatever Putin does (or rather, we are discussing whether to react at all) and while I don't think we should do something that could be construed into a direct attack on Russia, I wonder whether it may be possible to catch Putin unaware. I guess we can't just instantly declare Ukraine a member, but I wonder whether it is possible to declare it a protectorate and station NATO troops there (with a necessary clause to stay out of the contested Eastern area). I know nobody is willing to put our necks on the line like that, but I think it's a damn near certainty that Putin won't attack NATO troops and he will be forced/able to accept an agreement in which both sides withdraw from the area for the time being. Basically a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis. The thing is I am maddened that right now we are just sitting here and accept that Russia will attack Ukraine while we are given all this time and squander it instead of working towards a plan to preserve peace. Right now it doesn't look like peace is something we even care about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Toth said:

I'm not thinking sanctions now as technically 'nothing' has happened yet are a wise move, though I must say an invasion with such an extended tell is quite insane and I'm thinking Putin's main motivation for all this posturing is gauging how much we are willing to stand up to him and how much we have made ourselves subject to blackmail.

... or rather how much Germany has allowed itself to get blackmailed. I am painfully aware of how Nord Stream 2's construction has given Putin the opportunity to attack without worrying about shutting down the pipeline through Ukraine. And yes, the US and Ukraine have warned us of this possibility since its conception... The thing is, if we didn't build that thing, I wonder whether we would be even talking about an imminent invasion. Well, probably, given that I'm fairly sure Putin's main objective is securing the water supply for Crimea, but it wouldn't drive such a wedge through German politics. It is frustrating to see Baerbock and the FDP (of all things) advocating for a clear message towards Russia that we will bury Nord Stream in case of an invasion while Scholz and Habeck prefer to engage in hand-wringing and excuses. Putin is laughing his ass off and likely betting on Scholz cowardly standing aside if pushed. And I really, really, really fear the possibility that this drags out until the approval process finishes and Nord Stream 2 commences operation... and then the next day the invasion starts, with the blood being on our hands...

So basically my safest solution would be to openly commit ourselves to sink that pipeline in case of an attack, no matter whether this will hurt us. Half of Russia's GDP is from gas exports, Putin must be assured that we won't nod everything off for the sake of that gas. Peace in Europe is more important than gas. Even if he still decides to attack, at least this way we are assured that we didn't make ourselves culpable, but right now it looks very much to me like he's betting on us not having a spine.

The other thing going through my mind is more daring. The thing is, right now we are only reacting to whatever Putin does (or rather, we are discussing whether to react at all) and while I don't think we should do something that could be construed into a direct attack on Russia, I wonder whether it may be possible to catch Putin unaware. I guess we can't just instantly declare Ukraine a member, but I wonder whether it is possible to declare it a protectorate and station NATO troops there (with a necessary clause to stay out of the contested Eastern area). I know nobody is willing to put our necks on the line like that, but I think it's a damn near certainty that Putin won't attack NATO troops and he will be forced/able to accept an agreement in which both sides withdraw from the area for the time being. Basically a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis. The thing is I am maddened that right now we are just sitting here and accept that Russia will attack Ukraine while we are given all this time and squander it instead of working towards a plan to preserve peace. Right now it doesn't look like peace is something we even care about...

I’m right there with at being torn about putting troops on the ground and doing nothing militarily to directly deter Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m right there with at being torn about putting troops on the ground and doing nothing militarily to directly deter Russian aggression against Ukraine.

I really wish to have a crystal ball to look into an alternate reality where this plan is executed in utter secrecy in the middle of the night. If only to see Putin's face after being shaken out of bed at 6 am, being told by a disheveled aide that there are now NATO bases in Ukraine and that a smug Biden is on the line inviting him to a conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Toth said:

I really wish to have a crystal ball to look into an alternate reality where this plan is executed in utter secrecy in the middle of the night. If only to see Putin's face after being shaken out of bed at 6 am, being told by a disheveled aide that there are now NATO bases in Ukraine and that a smug Biden is on the line inviting him to a conference.

Considering the potential number of FSB assets in Ukraine's government and military hierarchy, I don't think it's possible to send a single handgun there without Putin knowing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...