Ukraine War: incompetence vs fecklessness

[Loge]

9 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Russia is unlikely to be in shape to invade any other country for several decades regardless of whether they win the war in Ukraine. The war has accelerated their ongoing demographic catastrophe, which combined with sanctions, an aging and incompetent leadership, and severe economic issues puts them in bad shape.

 

Actually, Russia could be ready for the next war in six years.

https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/preventing-next-war-edina-iii

[Luzifer's right hand]

The idea that Russia needs to stop advancing if Ukraine surrenders seems odd to me to be honest.

Why stop a war machine that is running?

I mean they could probably pass right through fake NATO member Hungary. Annihilate the Austrian military in a day or two when we run out of ammunition and cross into Germany at that point if they really wanted.

Although by this point a far right/right government in Austria is likely and we will just bow to Russia without any shots fired.

I know Moldova is a more realistic next target obviously and there seems to be no reason not to take it after Ukraine to be honest.

Edited February 12 by Luzifer's right hand

[Toth]

I think we shouldn't kid ourselves. The danger is not that Russia could ever beat NATO, even a NATO without the US, in any drawn-out conventional brawl. The danger is that Putin will think that a NATO without the US, too small a military and hampered by political infighting will be too gutless to defend member states for fear of nuclear retaliation. Russia doesn't need conventional parity for that kind of goal. Just enough forces to nab the Baltics and then threaten with nukes. It's a danger that comes purely from the messaging and Putin's thought processes that see Europe only as the powerless vassal of the US.

[Bironic]

14 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Now we're introducing a new twist in the narrative: Poland is under threat if the post-1945 [Western hemisphere] world order collapses. That doesn't happen automatically if Ukraine loses the war. So if the calculus for Russia as a clear and present danger to Poland means Ukraine completely loses the war and becomes totally annexed by Russia (which is a long way from happening), AND NATO disbands with every European member taking an every country for themselves stance even while most European NATO countries are in the EU, then those are some very big outcomes before Russia has a rational pathway to Poland's invasion.

That's not a new twist. I used the term post 1945 world order to summarise my previous points: such as annexation of Ukraine, US withdrawal of NATO etc. The post 1945 order at least in Europe is largely based on NATO deterrence and the agreed order that you can't just invade another country and annex their territory. So if Ukraine gets annexed or NATO collapses the post 1945 order is gone.

13 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It is not clear to me if NATO can survive effectively if the US is not a real part of it.

NATO can and probably will survive in one form or another if the US withdraws, but it won't be an effective deterrent anymore.

Look at how little France, Italy, Spain, Turkey have spent on Ukraine and those are some of the largest military powers (even with access to nukes!) in NATO after the USA... The Power of NATO largely derives from the fact that the US is willing to fight for every member country, even go nuclear if necessary.

France is not willing to do that, hey they are not even willing to support Ukraine all that much, why should they risk their butts for Estonia or Slovakia? French Nukes serve several purposes none of them is the protection of Lithuania.

The UK has turned its back on Europe these last 12 years at the very least, they see themselves as Global Britain willing to go to war in the Indopacific because that gives them the illusion that they can survive without Europe. Their Nuclear tech and a lot of their military is even more dependent on the US... They have never completely accepted the fact that the victorian age is gone, in quite a similar way to their favorite enemy France...

Germany will not enter a war for historic reasons, unless the US enters first (on their side for a change )

 

 

[Luzifer's right hand]

The time window for Germany being relevant is closing anyway.

A CDU/CSU/AFD coalition won't do anything against Russia and elections are 2025.

Edited February 12 by Luzifer's right hand

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Not wanting to turn this ito a German politics thread (which still exists btw.), however as bad as I think the next CDU lead goverment will be (Merz ), but I don't think they are going to enter a goverment with the AfD (at least not on the Federal level, no idea what they will do in the east on a state level, but that's more down to my low opinion of Saxon and Thuringia).

What I can see as a more realitic scenario. That an end of US support starts a chain reaction among some/most European allies starting to view Ukraine aid as some sorta sunk cost and deciding to follow suit (as there being no point without the US) and ending their support, too (or cutting it down significantly). That's something I can see happening, but that's not necessarily tied to Merz becoming chancellor.

Edited February 12 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Bironic]

25 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not wanting to turn this ito a German politics thread (which still exists btw.), however as bad as I think the next CDU lead goverment will be (Merz ), but I don't think they are going to enter a goverment with the AfD (at least not on the Federal level, no idea what they will do in the east on a state level, but that's more down to my low opinion of Saxon and Thuringia).

What I can see as a more realitic scenario. That an end of US support starts a chain reaction among some/most European allies starting to view Ukraine aid as some sorta sunk cost and deciding to follow suit (as there being no point without the US) and ending their support, too (or cutting it down significantly). That's something I can see happening, but that's not necessarily tied to Merz becoming chancellor.

Agreed to all of the above

One thing that I could see boost support for Ukraine is the prospect of even more Ukrainian refugees in the case of a Ukrainian collapse. I recently heard germany assumes an additional 10 million refugees in such a scenario (I don't know how they come up with that number, not having read the article)...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 2/11/2024 at 7:00 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

The point is the current non-membership of NATO and the EU were there as propaganda tools for making a move in Ukraine, plus all the crap about Ukraine being a mere province of Russia. These things don't apply to Poland.

But Poland was once part of Russia just like Ukraine was… that seems to be Putin’s go by once Russia… always Russia… no part may leave.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The annual Munich Security (conference) is kicking off at the end of the week if I am not mistaken.

I'd love to be a proverbial fly on the wall at some of those talks, the GOP politcians attending it will have to answer some serious questions behind closed doors.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But Poland was once part of Russia just like Ukraine was… that seems to be Putin’s go by once Russia… always Russia… no part may leave.

Yet Russia was ruled by Poland -- particularly was Ukraine, so Russia then, by that reasoning, is now Poland.

[maarsen]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Yet Russia was ruled by Poland -- particularly was Ukraine, so Russia then, by that reasoning, is now Poland.

Don't confuse the issue with facts. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Bironic said:

NATO can and probably will survive in one form or another if the US withdraws, but it won't be an effective deterrent anymore.

If that's the case it isn't surviving. A mutual defense treaty where the countries involved cannot defend themselves or each other is worthless, and if it isn't an effective deterrent it is equally worthless. 

As to the Poland threats I agree with Werthead that a lot of the same guesswork that was done for Ukraine is being repeated, and folks doing that are falling into the exact same fallacy of misunderstanding what Russia wants, how they think about the world and how far they're willing to go. In particular Russia sees the West as still being divided, weak and not having any real desire for war, and nothing in Ukraine is proving them wrong. If the US is not going to continue committing to Ukraine why would they commit to defending the Baltics or Poland? When the US can barely run its own government and is having military issues governing its own states, why would you worry about them mobilizing to deal with another country and risk nuclear war? In addition to all that Putin sees how easily Ukraine can go off the headlines when something else comes up, so it could just be as easy as seeing other regional wars happen and then strike - or provoke said regional wars further. 

In this Trump is yet again almost as useful in not being president as being president - his party is doing a very effective job in blocking any useful US support. 

2 hours ago, Bironic said:

Agreed to all of the above

One thing that I could see boost support for Ukraine is the prospect of even more Ukrainian refugees in the case of a Ukrainian collapse. I recently heard germany assumes an additional 10 million refugees in such a scenario (I don't know how they come up with that number, not having read the article)...

As noted I don't know that it matters in any time frame that matters; Germany and the rest of Europe is woefully behind production of munitions and other things and it will take years to ramp that up properly. They can (and given what we now know about war, should) increase that capability but it will come way too late for Ukraine. 

[Kalbear]

Also interesting - Russia is now using Starlink on the front lines:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/russian-forces-now-using-musks-starlink-on-ukraine-front-line/

Quote

GUR made its claim following multiple reports in recent days that Russian forces are using Starlink devices, including a sighting reported by news outlet Defense One of the company’s distinctive square-shaped receivers close to Russian positions.

One Russian volunteer group flaunted on social media the devices it said it had purchased for Russian forces.

SpaceX, which owns Starlink, has denied reports it has sold equipment to the Russian government or military. In a post on X on Sunday Musk, the company’s chief executive, said: “A number of false news reports claim that SpaceX is selling Starlink terminals to Russia. This is categorically false. To the best of our knowledge, no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia.

 

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Bironic said:

France is not willing to do that, hey they are not even willing to support Ukraine all that much, why should they risk their butts for Estonia or Slovakia? French Nukes serve several purposes none of them is the protection of Lithuania.

True. To be fair though, from a French perspective, our country has been pushing for a European military alliance that would not rely on US power since the 1950s, and was denied at every turn.
The "French" plan was to develop a military alliance around a strong France-Germany axis, including the development of European weaponry and combined brigades (a friend of mien served in one of these in Germany btw). But both the US and the UK were lukewarm about it, and Eastern Europeans often preferred siding with the US in both commercial and diplomatic matters ; they sought to rely on the US to defend them from a resurgent Russia - while Germany or France wanted to buy cheap fossil fuels from it.
It's the historical paradox of the US position: what the US really wants is for Europe to develop its own military... through buying American weapons. France was ok with the first part, less so with the second...
So we're here also because everyone wanted to develop their own militaro-industrial complex, and this came at the price of unity. If I wanted to paint with a thick brush, NATO was also a great marketing tool... Meanwhile, France had its own assault rifle (the famas), its own jet fighter (the rafale), its own tank (the leclerc), its own submarines ... etc, that it wanted to sell.
A military alliance that entailed sabotaging our own defense industry was not appealing.
So yeah, it is true that France and the French are unlikely to want to extend a nuclear umbrella to Eastern Europe in the near future. But a bit of historical perspective helps understand that: in recent decades, these same Eastern European states often chose to rely on the US rather than help develop an independent European military power (there was a line about "old Europe" at some point, yeah? ) , so...

PS: I'm explaining this position, not necessarily adhering to it, so don't tear me a new one for this. I'm personally no fan of any military-industrial complex...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

True. To be fair though, from a French perspective, our country has been pushing for a European military alliance that would not rely on US power since the 1950s, and was denied at every turn.
The "French" plan was to develop a military alliance around a strong France-Germany axis, including the development of European weaponry and combined brigades (a friend of mien served in one of these in Germany btw). But both the US and the UK were lukewarm about it, and Eastern Europeans often preferred siding with the US in both commercial and diplomatic matters ; they sought to rely on the US to defend them from a resurgent Russia - while Germany or France wanted to buy cheap fossil fuels from it.
It's the historical paradox of the US position: what the US really wants is for Europe to develop its own military... through buying American weapons. France was ok with the first part, less so with the second...
So we're here also because everyone wanted to develop their own militaro-industrial complex, and this came at the price of unity. If I wanted to paint with a thick brush, NATO was also a great marketing tool... Meanwhile, France had its own assault rifle (the famas), its own jet fighter (the rafale), its own tank (the leclerc), its own submarines ... etc, that it wanted to sell.
A military alliance that entailed sabotaging our own defense industry was not appealing.
So yeah, it is true that France and the French are unlikely to want to extend a nuclear umbrella to Eastern Europe in the near future. But a bit of historical perspective helps understand that: in recent decades, these same Eastern European states often chose to rely on the US rather than help develop an independent European military power (there was a line about "old Europe" at some point, yeah? ) , so...

PS: I'm explaining this position, not necessarily adhering to it, so don't tear me a new one for this. I'm personally no fan of any military-industrial complex...

There is truth here.  If Europe united militarily it would be a new axis that could act in opposition to the US.  The  US clearly wanted Europe as a fist… it controls.

Edited February 12 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[maarsen]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is truth here.  If Europe united militarily it would be a new axis that could act in opposition to the US.  The  US clearly wanted Europe as a fist… it controls.

And that is why Canada had no independent defense industry. Read up on the Avro Arrow, one of the most advanced planes of its time. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

It wasn't only the US opposed to those European army plans.

Germany was also rather lukewarm towards being a military power (ever) again. Starting and losing two world wars had for some reason the effect of, no, let's not do this again. Esp. the second World War with German Cities also being hit by bombs had been kinda educational ("Never again, should a war start from German soil"). The respect Germans felt towards their military personal in contrast to the massive boner Americans have for their veterans and active service member, let's just say there's real difference. This has lead to a German foreign policy, that focused on soft powers, with virtually no military engagement for the rest of the 20th century, and a desire to sorta stay away from laying claim to a leadership position, which would usually/naturally fall to a country of Germany's size and economic strength. A trivial example, the architect of today's EU was Valerie Giscard d'Estaing. After the end of the cold war, the rather unloved child of German politics, the military was regularly picked out for spending cuts. Combine that with Germany's love for bureaucracy, and you can see how and why the German military will (probably) not be in a shape to defend the country within this decade.

So no surprise that France did have a hard time pitching the idea of an military alliance/axis France-Germany towards Bonn.

Edited February 13 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Hmmm]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It wasn't only the US opposed to those European army plans.

Germany was also rather lukewarm towards being a military power (ever) again. Starting and losing two world wars had for some reason the effect of, no, let's not do this again. Esp. the second World War with German Cities also being hit by bombs had been kinda educational ("Never again, should a war start from German soil"). The respect Germans felt towards their military personal in contrast to the massive boner Americans have for their veterans and active service member, let's just say there's real difference. This has lead to a German foreign policy, that focused on soft powers, with virtually no military engagement for the rest of the 20th century, and a desire to sorta stay away from laying claim to a leadership position, which would usually/naturally fall to a country of Germany's size and economic strength. A trivial example, the architect of today's EU was Valerie Giscard d'Estaing. After the end of the cold war, the rather unloved child of German politics, the military was regularly picked out for spending cuts. Combine that with Germany's love for bureaucracy, and you can see how and why the Germany military will (probably) not be in a shape to defend the country within this decade.

So no surprise that France did have a hard time pitching the idea of an military alliance/axis France-Germany towward Bonn.

Fair. But West Germany also had a very strong military during the Cold War. In general I do not think one should underestimate Europe too much. At least not in the medium to long term. It is true that most countries' military forces and industries degenerated greatly after the end of the Cold War. But that was because the countries in question did not feel threatened, and because if something would happen, they were sure that the US armed forces would save them anyway.

There is no inherent block that prevents European countries from beefing up their militaries. The process is already under way. And if Trump gets elected you can bet that it will go into overdrive. 

Western European NATO countries generally spent around 3 percent of annual GDP on the military throughout the Cold War. France was more like 4 percent, and the UK 5 percent. And that was with a heavy US military presence. I do not see why we can't go back to those numbers again during Cold War 2.0

As a comparison, if the EU + UK started spending an average of 3 percent of GDP on the military again, their combined military budgets would be like 7 times larger than Russia's. 

Edited February 12 by Hmmm

[Snowy89]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

True. To be fair though, from a French perspective, our country has been pushing for a European military alliance that would not rely on US power since the 1950s, and was denied at every turn.
The "French" plan was to develop a military alliance around a strong France-Germany axis, including the development of European weaponry and combined brigades (a friend of mien served in one of these in Germany btw). But both the US and the UK were lukewarm about it, and Eastern Europeans often preferred siding with the US in both commercial and diplomatic matters ; they sought to rely on the US to defend them from a resurgent Russia - while Germany or France wanted to buy cheap fossil fuels from it.
It's the historical paradox of the US position: what the US really wants is for Europe to develop its own military... through buying American weapons. France was ok with the first part, less so with the second...
So we're here also because everyone wanted to develop their own militaro-industrial complex, and this came at the price of unity. If I wanted to paint with a thick brush, NATO was also a great marketing tool... Meanwhile, France had its own assault rifle (the famas), its own jet fighter (the rafale), its own tank (the leclerc), its own submarines ... etc, that it wanted to sell.
A military alliance that entailed sabotaging our own defense industry was not appealing.
So yeah, it is true that France and the French are unlikely to want to extend a nuclear umbrella to Eastern Europe in the near future. But a bit of historical perspective helps understand that: in recent decades, these same Eastern European states often chose to rely on the US rather than help develop an independent European military power (there was a line about "old Europe" at some point, yeah? ) , so...

PS: I'm explaining this position, not necessarily adhering to it, so don't tear me a new one for this. I'm personally no fan of any military-industrial complex...

 

France could have all of that... If they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and explicitly extend both conventional and nuclear protection to all of Eastern Europe. Right now France is talking the talk of wanting a European sovereign defense policy without actually defending the sovereignty of all of Europe. I am convinced if France (+Germany and maybe Italy) were to show real commitment to go all the way to defend the Baltic states + Poland and we were to combine this were to coincide with a Trump presidency stating Eastern Europe was on it's own it would totally convince the Eastern Europeans to hop aboard. Unfortunately I just do not see what kind of geopolitical shock would be able to cause this political shift. If the invasion of of Ukraine did not catalyze this, nothing short of an invasion of an EU member will, at which point it would already be too late.

5 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not wanting to turn this ito a German politics thread (which still exists btw.), however as bad as I think the next CDU lead goverment will be (Merz ), but I don't think they are going to enter a goverment with the AfD (at least not on the Federal level, no idea what they will do in the east on a state level, but that's more down to my low opinion of Saxon and Thuringia).

What I can see as a more realitic scenario. That an end of US support starts a chain reaction among some/most European allies starting to view Ukraine aid as some sorta sunk cost and deciding to follow suit (as there being no point without the US) and ending their support, too (or cutting it down significantly). That's something I can see happening, but that's not necessarily tied to Merz becoming chancellor.

 

 

I recently came across an interesting analysis of this situation. They perceived this situation would have two possible scenarios. One, Poland and Baltic states may choose to actively enter the war against Russia while Ukraine was still standing and able to help. Better to fight Russia with Ukraine still in the fight, than to try to built up their defenses for a couple of years while Ukraine falls and Russia rearms, only to have to face Russia on their own. They would surely loose this fight.

Alternatively they might take the route you described, in which case I do not see how this would ultimately result in any successful defense at all.

Frankly I think this scenario would cause an incredibly fast proliferation of nuclear weapons both in Poland and possibly Finland and maybe other Nordic states. Once US withdraws their nuclear protection and if the Poles cannot be convinced by France/UK that they will be protected by their nuclear weapons, there is nothing even the US can do to deter them from getting nuclear weapons. If you're not going to help us, why care at all about your opinion? They will take any sanctions if that preserves their independence. By the way, you would see the exact same behaviour play out on South Korea and Japan.

As a sidenote, I think we will see similar behaviour on the Ukrainian side if the US does not keep up its support. So far Ukraine has been relatively restrained in its attacks on Russian oil and gas export facilities/ships. If the military support were to really dry up, the US and Europe will have no leverage over Ukrainians at all to prevent them from attempting to stage mass attacks on oil facilities and Russian oil shipping worldwide. The only reason Russia is still able to finance this war is the more than 50% of the national budget this trade brings to the Russian state. As Cicero said, the sinews of war are infinite money. Imagine the impact on the world economy if suddenly every week Russian ships started sinking and/or their oil export facilities. US and European politicians would be wise to use their imagination and think ahead on the impact this would have on their economies.

Alternatively, destroying Russia's oil export capacity might actually not be such a bad idea regardless. Right now Russia still has alternative methods to sell its oil. If Ukraine were to disable all export methods EXCEPT for the still existing oil pipelines to Europe, Russia would have to choose between either selling no oil whatsoever, or using their last remaining method of oil exports to Europe at a price of Europe's choosing. This would add a pressure method on Russia unparalleled by any sanctions put on Russia so far.

 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Europe will do what it thinks it needs to do to stay safe. Old truths can go quickly down the drain once reality changes around us. The war on European soil has shaken Europe in a way that many U.S. observers may not fully comprehend. Finland and soon Sweden are now members of NATO. European countries have responded almost as one and provided massive aid to Ukraine - maybe not enough, but far more than Putin expected of the weak, degenerated West that let him take Crimea in 2014. Germany increasing its military spending to match its economical muscles isn’t hard to imagine, and if they do then they alone will be able to match Russia’s military power (they have similar GDPs).