All Things Russia & Ukraine

[DocBarrister]

The rapidly failing Putin war in Ukraine is becoming one of the most humiliating defeats in the annals of military history.

Unless Putin commits additional crimes against humanity by employing nukes or chemical weapons, he will lose his war in Ukraine.

This will be the greatest defeat Russia has experienced since the Japanese crushed them in the Russo-Japanese War.

Only seven months into the war did Putin finally order a partial mobilization, and so far it has resulted in more men fleeing the country than entering the army. Moreover, Russia has lost so many experienced officers and soldiers that it doesn’t have enough personnel to train the new conscripts.


It’s not fair to place all the blame on the Russian military for the way the Ukraine war has been going. The Ukrainians have exceeded all expectations with their inspired combat performance, and they have received far more Western weaponry than anyone expected. The Russian armed forces, for their part, have been hobbled by political interference from the top. The New York Times has reported that Putin rejected the advice of his generals to retreat from Kherson, and CNN reported he has been giving direct orders to generals in the field.


But the Russian military has also done far worse than most analysts expected in part because it was simply not prepared for the kind of war it is fighting. That’s not uncommon in military history. Even so, the best armies adapt on the fly. That’s what the U.S. Army and Marine Corps did during the Iraq War: They had not trained to fight insurgents, but they learned hard lessons and, in 2006, produced a counterinsurgency field manual that contributed to the success of “the surge” in 2007.


The Russian armed forces haven’t shown that kind of ability to improvise. They continue to stick with what isn’t working. The Russian conduct of this war is not only a moral failure but also an intellectual one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... e-ukraine/

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

Brooklyn is nothing if not predictable.

Why, fer sure. How's your search for Bush's WMD going along?

Did I say something about WMD in Iraq?
I joined LP long after that...

I will say that Saddam did a heck of PR job pretending he had more capabilities than he had...but are you disputing that he used chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq?

He used considerably more on Iranians but nobody gave a shttt.

Fair...so, yes, he'd used WMD.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, had NATO decided, or for that matter the US had decided with most of NATO's support, Turkey would have needed to acquiesce...in order to feed the starving...

Turkey decided they preferred the solution of Putin blinking, as well...

Black Sea access is closed to warships of non-Black Sea nations during this state of war.
Neither NATO nor the US can require Turkey to make an exception to the Montreux Convention.
Only the UN Security Council can do so without violating the terms of the convention.
Were Turkey to make an exception in this case, they'd undermine future enforcement of the convention, which is critical to their security.
That's why Erdogan has the power to broker the agreement. He's an asset to the UN & to NATO in that role. We're fortunate that he has a relationship with PutIn sufficient to broker this settlement.
He's keeping the grain moving while preventing a potential naval war in the Black Sea.
The Montreux Convention is doing what it was designed to do.

mmm, Turkey needs/wants the West, needs/wants to be part of NATO, so, yes, the West was going to insist upon the channel being open, including in extremis, warships from the West enforcing the safety from Russian attack.

This is of course a far better solution for Erdogan, providing Putin a face-saving way to back off. It's also better for the West, as we needn't put our people and materiel at risk nor broach this convention.

Which is the net effect of my prediction, in contrast to yours which was that Putin could successfully blackmail the world into forcing Ukraine to surrender.

But we weren't going to stand by, and Putin knew it.
He doesn't want us unleashing, he has enough problems as it is.

[Kismet]

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... tems-gmlrs

"The State Department approves a possible Foreign Military Sale to Finland of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) and related equipment for an estimated cost of $535 million"

[Brooklyn]

Fair...so, yes, he'd used WMD.

Saddam used WMD on Iran while the USA and UN applauded. Saddam invades Kuwait and only now does the UN and USA demand that he disarm (which he did according to IAEA). Traitor Bush pretends he did not comply and launches an invasion that kills a million innocents.

Double standards, much?

[PizzaSnake]

Brooklyn is nothing if not predictable.

Why, fer sure. How's your search for Bush's WMD going along?

Did I say something about WMD in Iraq?
I joined LP long after that...

I will say that Saddam did a heck of PR job pretending he had more capabilities than he had...but are you disputing that he used chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq?

He used considerably more on Iranians but nobody gave a shttt.

Saddam Hussein was a creation of the US to balance the "threat" posed by the Iranian "revolution" (which was likely a logical development given the CIA and BP presursor's removal of Mohammad Mosaddegh). Amusing how the architects of Saddam Hussein's regime, Rumsfeld and Cheney, were so hellbent on its destruction.

"Blowback" is a beetch.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40709.Blowback

[Brooklyn]

Saddam Hussein was a creation of the US to balance the "threat" posed by the Iranian "revolution" (which was likely a logical development given the CIA and BP presursor's removal of Mohammad Mosaddegh). Amusing how the architects of Saddam Hussein's regime, Rumsfeld and Cheney, were so hellbent on its destruction.

"Blowback" is a beetch.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40709.Blowback

That's a good note. A quote from your link:

The term "blowback," invented by the CIA, refers to the unintended results of American actions abroad. In this incisive and controversial book, Chalmers Johnson lays out in vivid detail the dangers faced by our overextended empire, which insists on projecting its military power to every corner of the earth and using American capital and markets to force global economic integration on its own terms. From a case of rape by U.S. servicemen in Okinawa to our role in Asia's financial crisis, from our early support for Saddam Hussein to our conduct in the Balkans, Johnson reveals the ways in which our misguided policies are planting the seeds of future disaster.


Now we see people on this forum insisting that we get involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict which only further extends our over extended empire. That will only screw things up even worse but the pro war crowd doesn't have the sense to realize it.

[old salt]

mmm, Turkey needs/wants the West, needs/wants to be part of NATO, so, yes, the West was going to insist upon the channel being open, including in extremis, warships from the West enforcing the safety from Russian attack.

You apparently do not appreciate the criticality of the Montreux Convention to Turkey's security.
NATO needs Turkey as much, or more, than Turkey needs NATO.
The EU jilted Turkey on membership. That impacts Turkey's co-operation with NATO.
Erdogan acts in Turkey's interests first. He's not afraid to buck NATO & the US => the decision to buy the S-400 air defense system from Russia, even at the expense of being excluded from the F-35 which Turkey was helping to manufacture. Or the denial of NATO or US use of Turkish bases & airspace in our various mideast wars, or Turkey's anti-terrorist attacks on the Kurdish PKK in the midst of our Kurdish allies.
Turkey consistently acts in matters critical to their own defense rather than projecting NATO power.
Given their location & neighbors, that is understandable. The way that modern Russian & Soviet legacy air defense systems, used by both sides, are determining the conduct of the war in Ukraine illustrates why Turkey chose the S-400 over the F-35. They're more interested in defending their own airspace than using stealth strike aircraft to penetrate their neighbors' airspace.

[kramerica.inc]

Aaah yes, "Blowback."

"Stringing together vaguely misleading and highly curated details into tendentious readings of history. Oh, what fun!"

How do you define "capability?"

Saddaam had bunkers and bunkers full of mustard agent and unlimited German traktor rockets. That much is true.

The know-how to use/store/handle them was a different story. The ones who knew how to use them disappeared and were neutralized early into the conflict with the US.

So what he had in short time was akin to a child "armed" with a hammer and shotgun shells.

More a risk to his own troops and public safety, rather than his foes.

[PizzaSnake]

Saddam Hussein was a creation of the US to balance the "threat" posed by the Iranian "revolution" (which was likely a logical development given the CIA and BP presursor's removal of Mohammad Mosaddegh). Amusing how the architects of Saddam Hussein's regime, Rumsfeld and Cheney, were so hellbent on its destruction.

"Blowback" is a beetch.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40709.Blowback

That's a good note. A quote from your link:

The term "blowback," invented by the CIA, refers to the unintended results of American actions abroad. In this incisive and controversial book, Chalmers Johnson lays out in vivid detail the dangers faced by our overextended empire, which insists on projecting its military power to every corner of the earth and using American capital and markets to force global economic integration on its own terms. From a case of rape by U.S. servicemen in Okinawa to our role in Asia's financial crisis, from our early support for Saddam Hussein to our conduct in the Balkans, Johnson reveals the ways in which our misguided policies are planting the seeds of future disaster.


Now we see people on this forum insisting that we get involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict which only further extends our over extended empire. That will only screw things up even worse but the pro war crowd doesn't have the sense to realize it.

Nuance, not binary thinking, is a good thing.

[MDlaxfan76]

mmm, Turkey needs/wants the West, needs/wants to be part of NATO, so, yes, the West was going to insist upon the channel being open, including in extremis, warships from the West enforcing the safety from Russian attack.

You apparently do not appreciate the criticality of the Montreux Convention to Turkey's security.
NATO needs Turkey as much, or more, than Turkey needs NATO.
The EU jilted Turkey on membership. That impacts Turkey's co-operation with NATO.
Erdogan acts in Turkey's interests first. He's not afraid to buck NATO & the US => the decision to buy the S-400 air defense system from Russia, even at the expense of being excluded from the F-35 which Turkey was helping to manufacture. Or the denial of NATO or US use of Turkish bases & airspace in our various mideast wars, or Turkey's anti-terrorist attacks on the Kurdish PKK in the midst of our Kurdish allies.
Turkey consistently acts in matters critical to their own defense rather than projecting NATO power.
Given their location & neighbors, that is understandable. The way that modern Russian & Soviet legacy air defense systems, used by both sides, are determining the conduct of the war in Ukraine illustrates why Turkey chose the S-400 over the F-35. They're more interested in defending their own airspace than using stealth strike aircraft to penetrate their neighbors' airspace.

Thank you for this patronizing 'lesson'.

Much of what you say is true. But NATO and the US in specific were not going to let the blockade happen and were willing to do what it takes to enforce the opening. Yes, that would have been super awkward for Turkey, and not something we wanted to do...but it was going to happen, if necessary. This was a better solution for Russia, because they were going to 'lose' that fight had they resisted.

Everyone breaths a sigh of relief...the point is that Russia's blackmail attempt failed.

BTW, the EU is rejecting Erdogan, not Turkey.
NATO thought that by bringing Turkey into the fold, they could gain strategic advantage...it has semi-worked...but Erdogan, personally, is naturally more aligned with authoritarians than democracy, so it is awkward. The EU is already choking on Orban... Hungary, great, but Orban is a problem. They don't need another...and now they have Meloni in Italy...hopefully she won't be too much a problem and will need to govern at least somewhat toward the middle.

[MDlaxfan76]

Aaah yes, "Blowback."

"Stringing together vaguely misleading and highly curated details into tendentious readings of history. Oh, what fun!"

How do you define "capability?"

Saddaam had bunkers and bunkers full of mustard agent and unlimited German traktor rockets. That much is true.

The know-how to use/store/handle them was a different story. The ones who knew how to use them disappeared and were neutralized early into the conflict with the US.

So what he had in short time was akin to a child "armed" with a hammer and shotgun shells.

More a risk to his own troops and public safety, rather than his foes.

Of course, what we were being told (or sold) was that there was a functioning nuclear program as well. We believed Saddam's own claims.

Mistake.

Was it an honest mistake or did the Cheney/Rumsfeld folks lie through their teeth, knowing Saddam didn't have that?
Hard to know, but it's understandable why those who think it was all a nefarious lie could get there.

[Brooklyn]

Nuance, not binary thinking, is a good thing.

Staying out of wars that don't mean a godd@mn thing to us is smart as well.

[PizzaSnake]

Nuance, not binary thinking, is a good thing.

Staying out of wars that don't mean a godd@mn thing to us is smart as well.

And which are those? And when does one know that?

[Seacoaster(1)]

This is likely the result of a coordinated effort to support Russia in this country:

Percentage of Republicans who say we're doing "too much" to support Ukraine:

March (WSJ): 6%

March (Pew): 9%

May (Pew): 17%

Sept. (Pew): 32%

Today (WSJ): 48%

Remember this when Russian adventurism recurs over and over.

[Brooklyn]

re: Staying out of wars that don't mean a godd@mn thing to us is smart as well.


And which are those? And when does one know that?

We've discussed this before but perhaps you missed it. Wars to avoid are those which take place outside of the borders. Don't arm enemies such as what the rePUKEbliCONs did when they armed Hitler, the Bolsheviks, Saddam, etc. Dissolve the Pentagon and the military industrial complex and impose a 100% excess profits tax on all war profits. It is all quite simple.

[old salt]

Much of what you say is true. But NATO and the US in specific were not going to let the blockade happen and were willing to do what it takes to enforce the opening. Yes, that would have been super awkward for Turkey, and not something we wanted to do...but it was going to happen, if necessary. This was a better solution for Russia, because they were going to 'lose' that fight had they resisted.

What were NATO & the US going to do if Erdogan would not violate the Montreux Convention & not allow their warships passage into the Black Sea?

Erdogan is very stubborn. Remember the start of Gulf War II, in 2003. He refused to allow US troops to offload in Turkey to open a N front against Iraq. A personal visit from Rumsfeld would not budge him. An entire US Army Division waited offshore Turkey in the Med, then had to transit around via Suez & the Persian Gulf to Kuwait, missing the invasion entirely & allowing Saddam & the future AQ to escape to N Iraq. In hindsight, we should have agreed to Turkey's conditions in 2003 & had them in N Iraq with us, or better yet, follow their advice to not invade.

Erdogan has an obligation, not just to Turkey but to the rest of the Black Sea nations & other signator nations to consistently enforce the Montreux Convention. If Turkey can be coerced to violate it, it will no longer be effective in the future. It's vital to Turkey's security. To Turkey & the other Black Sea nations, the Black Sea is to them what the Great Lakes are to the US & Canada.

[old salt]

A Russian retreat from Kherson city, to the E bank of the Dneiper river appears to be underway. If this allows the Ukrainians to retake all territory on the W bank of the river, without further fighting, it will be a tremendous victory for the Ukrainians & spare much death & destruction, civilian & military casualties, which would ensue in a battle for that territory.

If it works out that way, it sets the stage for a winter stalemate, with the river as a natural boundary.
Allowing time for sanity to return & negotiations for a cease fire to take place.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russ ... -rcna55501

The significance of the Hydro-electric dam at Nova Kakhovka.

https://wavellroom.com/2022/11/01/russi ... at-dnipro/

[MDlaxfan76]

Much of what you say is true. But NATO and the US in specific were not going to let the blockade happen and were willing to do what it takes to enforce the opening. Yes, that would have been super awkward for Turkey, and not something we wanted to do...but it was going to happen, if necessary. This was a better solution for Russia, because they were going to 'lose' that fight had they resisted.

What were NATO & the US going to do if Erdogan would not violate the Montreux Convention & not allow their warships passage into the Black Sea?

Erdogan is very stubborn. Remember the start of Gulf War II, in 2003. He refused to allow US troops to offload in Turkey to open a N front against Iraq. A personal visit from Rumsfeld would not budge him. An entire US Army Division waited offshore Turkey in the Med, then had to transit around via Suez & the Persian Gulf to Kuwait, missing the invasion entirely & allowing Saddam & the future AQ to escape to N Iraq. In hindsight, we should have agreed to Turkey's conditions in 2003 & had them in N Iraq with us, or better yet, follow their advice to not invade.

Erdogan has an obligation, not just to Turkey but to the rest of the Black Sea nations & other signator nations to consistently enforce the Montreux Convention. If Turkey can be coerced to violate it, it will no longer be effective in the future. It's vital to Turkey's security. To Turkey & the other Black Sea nations, the Black Sea is to them what the Great Lakes are to the US & Canada.

As I said, this resolution was important to Erdogan, much better than conflict with NATO. At the very minimum the loss of goodwill, but direct conflict if needed. No way that Turkey could stand in the way of assurance of grain ships safe passage to feed the hungry of the world.

Erdogan retains the 'face' of being in control, NATO and the US needn't be in conflict (indeed, there may well be quiet enticements or expectations that look particularly attractive in light of Putin's and Russia's military's dismal failure)...and Putin gets to save face as well.

[MDlaxfan76]

A Russian retreat from Kherson city, to the E bank of the Dneiper river appears to be underway. If this allows the Ukrainians to retake all territory on the W bank of the river, without further fighting, it will be a tremendous victory for the Ukrainians & spare much death & destruction, civilian & military casualties, which would ensue in a battle for that territory.

If it works out that way, it sets the stage for a winter stalemate, with the river as a natural boundary.
Allowing time for sanity to return & negotiations for a cease fire to take place.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russ ... -rcna55501

The significance of the Hydro-electric dam at Nova Kakhovka.

https://wavellroom.com/2022/11/01/russi ... at-dnipro/

I don't think Ukraine will or should stop at the river. They are regaining ground across the lines and the Russian military is cracking.

That doesn't mean a frontal assault across the river in Kherson city, where Russian defenses would have a tactical advantage.

When "sanity" returns to Russia, the war will end.