All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.

Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html

We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse

Just correcting the facts, as you sometimes play loose with them...I'd assumed, however, that it was an honest mistake and you'd say, oops, I got that wrong.

You want to make the argument that we really need 15, no sweat...but "law" ain't that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/

When was the law changed from 12 to 11 ? We haven't had 12 in commission since the JFK retired in 2007.

I wouldn’t want a 12th aircraft carrier strike force. The cost to build and operate such a strike group is prohibitive.

https://themaritimepost.com/2021/07/vid ... ships/amp/

There is also the often-stated risk of putting too many eggs into too few baskets. An aircraft carrier strike force is such a massive, concentrated investment of personnel and resources that losing even one such group would be a national military catastrophe.

I would rather spend the same amount of money and personnel in building and operating more guided missile cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, as well as more air defense systems.

If we want more aircraft carriers, let’s build more amphibious ships … light aircraft carriers in all but name.

It’s pretty clear now that China’s military can overwhelm the air defenses of any aircraft carrier strike group. The PLA and PLA Navy has lots of missiles. Part of the U.S. strategy should be increasing the number of potential targets and distributing the risk among a larger number of smaller naval assets.

This isn’t my idea. In military parlance, it might be called a strategy of a more broadly distributed fleet architecture.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

A larger number of smaller ships and other military platforms rather than a smaller number of large ships and other military assets.

DocBarrister

The size of our carriers are driven by how we anticipate using them. Our carriers have not had to fight a war at sea vs other ships since WW-II.
We've developed them as nuc "super carriers" that are essentially a mobile airfield that hosts the equivalent of an Air Force strike fighter wing.
We design them to operate anywhere on the globe, with the ability to stand off the coast & pound an enemy country.
They carry the strike aircraft & the support aircraft (tankers, jammers, radar intercept control aircraft) necessary to operate indefinitely, when resupplied by logistics ships. We have not had to operate them where they are vulnerable & avoid doing so.

There's always a debate to build more, smaller carriers. We do maintain 9 "lightning carriers" -- large deck amphibs capable of operating the F-35B STOVL aircraft, similar to the Brits new carriers. 2 of them, the new America & Tripoli, have their well decks replaced by a hangar deck to carry more F-35's.

We live in hope of the day when we won't need 3 carriers deployed (to Europe, WestPac, & the Middle East.)
We're only able to continuously cover 2 of 3.

[DocBarrister]

Appeasement failed to keep the peace in the years leading up to WWII. It is truly disconcerting hearing the same imbecilic and moronic arguments from modern-day appeasers and isolationists.

Why is it existentially necessary to ensure Ukraine wins the war against a malignant, imperialist Russia? Yes, it is crucial to defend a young democracy in the heart of Europe. More broadly, Ukraine’s triumph could deter an invasion of Taiwan by China.

For those of you who think an invasion of Taiwan is none of our business, you are thinking so narrowly that you are blinded by your own ignorant perspective.

If China invades Taiwan, it is virtually certain that Japan will intervene militarily.

If China were to attack Taiwan, it wouldn’t just have to face a hostile superpower. It would also likely have to confront its longstanding regional rival, Japan. For centuries, Japan and China have vied for hegemony in East Asia; at times, they have threatened each other’s survival. Today, as I found from three days of meetings with Japanese officials and analysts in Tokyo, the threat of Chinese aggression is producing a quiet revolution in Japanese statecraft — and pushing the nation to get ready for a fight.

For the US, China is a dangerous but distant challenge. For Japan, China is the existential danger next door. Years before American leaders were proclaiming the return of great-power rivalry, Japanese officials were warning that Beijing was up to no good. As China’s capabilities become more formidable and its conduct in the Taiwan Strait more menacing, Tokyo’s concerns grew more acute.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/featu ... ver-taiwan

Once Japan becomes involved militarily, it is just a matter of time before the United States gets involved, especially since the U.S. and Japan have a mutual defense treaty: the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty of 1960.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-coop ... ith-japan/

And once the United States gets involved, it’s only a matter of time before South Korea enters the conflict. There’s 28,000 U.S. troops based in South Korea, and the two nations share … yep … a mutual defense treaty.

https://www.usfk.mil/Portals/105/Docume ... y_1953.pdf

And how long before the United States invokes its rights under the greatest mutual defense treaty in history … NATO?

There you go … WWIII.

China’s dictator, Xi Jinping, is determined to take Taiwan. It’s part of his legacy, just as dictator Putin claims Ukraine for his legacy. This isn’t speculation. U.S. intelligence has information indicating that Xi Jinping has ordered the Chinese military to be ready for such an invasion by 2027, which just happens to be near the end of his current five-year term. But China’s leadership has had some doubts about whether such an invasion could succeed. The source of those doubts? Russia’s debacle in Ukraine.

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. intelligence shows that China’s President Xi Jinping has instructed his country’s military to “be ready by 2027” to invade Taiwan though he may be currently harboring doubts about his ability to do so given Russia’s experience in its war with Ukraine, CIA Director William Burns said.

Burns, in a television interview that aired Sunday, stressed that the United States must take “very seriously” Xi’s desire to ultimately control Taiwan even if military conflict is not inevitable.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 607ed15759

The stupidity of appeasement should be apparent to any student of history. Unfortunately, too many are ignorant of history’s brutal lessons, paid for by the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Ukraine must not be permitted to lose its war against Russia. A Ukrainian loss could invite an even more dangerous conflict in Taiwan, which could easily be the spark for WWIII.

Why help Ukraine? Ultimately, it may be to prevent Chinese missiles from slamming into major U.S. cities and the sinking of entire aircraft carrier strike groups.

We should all be grateful to the Ukrainians, who are showing dictators in Moscow and Beijing that military conquests are not as easy as they used to be.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.

Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html

We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse

Just correcting the facts, as you sometimes play loose with them...I'd assumed, however, that it was an honest mistake and you'd say, oops, I got that wrong.

You want to make the argument that we really need 15, no sweat...but "law" ain't that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/

When was the law changed from 12 to 11 ? We haven't had 12 in commission since the JFK retired in 2007.

I wouldn’t want a 12th aircraft carrier strike force. The cost to build and operate such a strike group is prohibitive.

https://themaritimepost.com/2021/07/vid ... ships/amp/

There is also the often-stated risk of putting too many eggs into too few baskets. An aircraft carrier strike force is such a massive, concentrated investment of personnel and resources that losing even one such group would be a national military catastrophe.

I would rather spend the same amount of money and personnel in building and operating more guided missile cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, as well as more air defense systems.

If we want more aircraft carriers, let’s build more amphibious ships … light aircraft carriers in all but name.

It’s pretty clear now that China’s military can overwhelm the air defenses of any aircraft carrier strike group. The PLA and PLA Navy has lots of missiles. Part of the U.S. strategy should be increasing the number of potential targets and distributing the risk among a larger number of smaller naval assets.

This isn’t my idea. In military parlance, it might be called a strategy of a more broadly distributed fleet architecture.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

A larger number of smaller ships and other military platforms rather than a smaller number of large ships and other military assets.

DocBarrister

The size of our carriers are driven by how we anticipate using them. Our carriers have not had to fight a war at sea vs other ships since WW-II.
We've developed them as nuc "super carriers" that are essentially a mobile airfield that hosts the equivalent of an Air Force strike fighter wing.
We design them to operate anywhere on the globe, with the ability to stand off the coast & pound an enemy country.
They carry the strike aircraft & the support aircraft (tankers, jammers, radar intercept control aircraft) necessary to operate indefinitely, when resupplied by logistics ships. We have not had to operate them where they are vulnerable & avoid doing so.

There's always a debate to build more, smaller carriers. We do maintain 9 "lightning carriers" -- large deck amphibs capable of operating the F-35B STOVL aircraft, similar to the Brits new carriers. 2 of them, the new America & Tripoli, have their well decks replaced by a hangar deck to carry more F-35's.

We live in hope of the day when we won't need 3 carriers deployed (to Europe, WestPac, & the Middle East.)
We're only able to continuously cover 2 of 3.

Every single U.S. aircraft carrier in the entire world is vulnerable to Chinese missiles, whether they are launched from land, air, surface ships, or submarines. An aircraft carrier based in San Diego is no less vulnerable than an aircraft carrier forward-deployed in Japan.

The United States has not had to fight a direct major symmetric war against a military superpower since the Korean War in the early 1950s.

China will not fight a U.S. carrier with a carrier of their own. Carrier battles are anachronistic relics that we will likely never see again. No, our aircraft carriers are threatened by land-based aircraft, ship- and submarine-launched guided missiles, and drones.

In an exchange between Chinese guided missiles and a U.S. aircraft carrier strike force, where are you wagering your money?

DocBarrister

[youthathletics]

Every single U.S. aircraft carrier in the entire world is vulnerable to Chinese missiles, whether they are launched from land, air, surface ships, or submarines. An aircraft carrier based in San Diego is no less vulnerable than an aircraft carrier forward-deployed in Japan.

The United States has not had to fight a direct major symmetric war against a military superpower since the Korean War in the early 1950s.

China will not fight a U.S. carrier with a carrier of their own. Carrier battles are anachronistic relics that we will likely never see again. No, our aircraft carriers are threatened by land-based aircraft, ship- and submarine-launched guided missiles, and drones.

In an exchange between Chinese guided missiles and a U.S. aircraft carrier strike force, where are you wagering your money?

DocBarrister

What is your argument against not having (more) fighter jets sitting on the ready? Are you simply digging in your heels that we should just say 'ah screw it, the chinse will just sink us so eff it'?

This has all has been in the works for close to 8 years now....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... impressed/

[MDlaxfan76]

mmm, has Congress authorized our support for Ukraine?
Yes, right?

Again, I'm fine with the "lean" but you made some rather absolutist statements with which I disagree.

I'm all for more debate too, but I reject the notion that we or an ally must be directly attacked in order for it be in Ameriac's interest to act.

Correction: Act MILITARILY. I'm open to all forms of economic and diplomatic recourse.

If Ukraine was important to keep safe from Russia? All we had to do is bring them into NATO. Boom, done. This whole war would NEVER have happened.

"We", if you mean the USA, did not and does not have that unilateral authority...and if you recall, there was a general dismissal of the threat Putin represented by many, whether the folks who favor the "strong man Christian nationalist" autocracy or those who think Russia is so weak as to not have to be concerned.So split 'em off, and make our own treaty with them. We already stuck our noses in it to pull their nukes away....why did we half (ss it?

You don't recall the situation nearly 30 years ago?
More importantly, was that something NATO allies were prepared to do?
"We" simply don't have such unilateral authority, nor was there a compelling rationale to admit the former Soviet states into NATO without their substantial work necessary at developing their countries into states with values common to NATO countries. Likewise, there was considerable hope that Russia itself could be substantially reformed. Our own focus and priority was on the reduction of nuclear weapons stocks, their careful control, and the establishment of an ongoing regime of reduction and care. We were super worried about nuclear materials leaking out to a broader, nefarious set of potential enemy states and non-states.

Get it? That's quite an upside, don't you think?

And we're making the same mistake with Taiwan...where we are arming them, and our leaders are saying---out loud, where XI can hear them----that we should arm them to the point where Xi can't invade.

Do you not see this is PROVOKING a response?

Nope; we know that China has an explicit unification objective that includes the subjugation of Taiwan...we've been trying to manage all this with 'strategic ambiguity' while creating economic incentives for China to not use military force re Taiwan...but Xi's moves have made this increasingly difficult to balance...I thought you think that just having a treaty is sufficient? so, you want us to have a treaty? Don't need to supply them with defensive weapons?
If we have a treaty with Taiwan? That's it, China can't invade. Period. But more to a point....why would we possibly care if China "took over" Taiwan? One of two things would happen------goods would keep flowing from Taiwan to the US, because money. Or? We'd stop trading with China, and accelerate our move away from Chinese goods. We win either way.

So, you'd accelerate and escalate the likelihood of war with China by talking about, debating and then entering into a treaty' with Taiwan, an island country that we have long acknowledged in the one China policy...ok, but a huge risk...and no, we'd then need to arm that island to the teeth, our warships would be insufficient.

Same thing happened in Ukraine. Putin was cool up until Trump started arming them..and then Biden said he was gonna arm them more.

What the heck? Putin took Georgia, then Crimea and Donbas...pre Trump. He was coming, everything he said communicated the intent, but if anything Trump's win slowed that down as it gave room for another way to dismantle the democracy movement, and to divide NATO.You can't explain why he waited. If he was "always coming", why didn't he simply take all of Ukraine when he rolled through Crimea? There's no rational answer for that. If Putin was "always" take all of Ukraine...there's no rational explanation of why he didn't do that at any point between 2014 and 2022. Plainly SOMETHING changed that spurred him to invade...what was that thing? My contention is that it's US arms, and it's obvious as heck that that's what did it.

I quite disagree...Putin has NOT wanted to expend the sort of resources he's doing now, assuming he could accomplish his objectives without doing so. He was making lots of progress towards such, step by step, without bringing the West into the conflict in ways that would be so costly. Sure, we threw some sanctions at them, but Putin was willing to absorb those...but full scale military conflict with direct Russian troops was not the gameplan, proxies and mercenaries another matter;...and then Trump won, yes a few javelins, but no big build-up...more alarming was the democracy movement taking hold, his proxy "President" (Manafort's client) ousted, however Trump's win gave another pathway for weakening NATO, creating divisions, and ultimately undermining democracy in Ukraine...it was no accident that Trump called Zelensky and threatened to withhold aid...

But Trump lost, the democracy movement continued to strengthen, it was clear that Biden was not going to be the useful idiot that Trump had been. But NATO allies, while relieved no more Trump, was not united, Europe was vulnerable to its energy dependence. Putin dramatically overestimated the capacities of his military to capture and decapitate the government swiftly and assumed the West would have little recourse but to grit their teeth, protest loudly, but ultimately accept the reality...look at our fellow posters' isolationist arguments...we did NOT dramatically increase weaponry to Ukraine in the following year, but we did do so as the intelligence celebrated as to Putin's plans to invade...

What happened next? And yes, this is all Putin's fault, but we sent a message: "hey bud, if you want to invade Ukraine, your window is closing, because the US is starting to arm them to the teeth."

No, we didn't actually start to "arm them to the teeth" materially until immediately before the invasion when we had the intelligence that the invasion was very imminent...Putin had already massed troops. We were very late in getting Ukraine what they needed other than some, not a lot, of javelins.So you're telling me that Trump arming Ukraine didn't send a single message to Putin? Not one? And the right before the ramp up to the invasion....fall of 2021.....US was under discussions to send even more arms and training to Ukraine...and you're seriously telling me that think that this was an irrelevant detail to Putin? It's a footnote?

I'm telling you that the handful of javelins sent to Ukraine were way less important to Putin than Trump's undermining of NATO, else, under your logic, the time to invade would have been when Trump did so...which was early in his Admin (releasing what the prior Congress had already authorized and the Obama Admin had slow walked)...instead, he worked Trump in those one on one meetings with no US witnesses...(you'll recall Trump standing side by side with Putin and deriding US intelligence)...The Zelensky call was no accident...but Trump's loss took away that pathway to achieve Russian objectives.

And then a terrible miscalculation and decision.

But no, we didn't accelerate arming Ukraine until our intelligence was clear that Putin was definitely going to invade and forces were massing to do so. Remember Putin's claims these were just military exercises all the way up to the days before invading?

[MDlaxfan76]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.

Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html

We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse

Just correcting the facts, as you sometimes play loose with them...I'd assumed, however, that it was an honest mistake and you'd say, oops, I got that wrong.

You want to make the argument that we really need 15, no sweat...but "law" ain't that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/

When was the law changed from 12 to 11 ? We haven't had 12 in commission since the JFK retired in 2007.

So, you agree, it's 11?
Is that an admission you were in error?

Again, I'm fine with anyone making an argument that we need much more capacity, damn the costs, but let's not falsely claim that there's a "law" that we must do so.

Seems to me that there is a reasonable argument to be made for re-thinking, in each era, what the best use of resources will be to positively influence the world in ways that are good for America and the world, and defend against serious potential threats of the future.

Hard power/soft power both.

I'm far from an 'expert' on that topic, but obviously I'd want that argument to be had in each era...looking forward, not backward.

[a fan]

I'm telling you that the handful of javelins sent to Ukraine were way less important to Putin than Trump's undermining of NATO, else, under your logic, the time to invade would have been when Trump did so...which was early in his Admin (releasing what the prior Congress had already authorized and the Obama Admin had slow walked)...instead, he worked Trump in those one on one meetings with no US witnesses...(you'll recall Trump standing side by side with Putin and deriding US intelligence)...The Zelensky call was no accident...but Trump's loss took away that pathway to achieve Russian objectives.

And then a terrible miscalculation and decision.

But no, we didn't accelerate arming Ukraine until our intelligence was clear that Putin was definitely going to invade and forces were massing to do so.

That's right! Our intel is immaterial. The question is: what message did Putin get when, as you put it....we "accelerated arming Ukraine"?

Biden signaling to Putin in late 2021 that even more arms were coming. After that? Putin starts massing at the border.

If it was NATO rumblings, Putin would have invaded at any time during Trump.

If the Trump loss was it, he CLEARLY would have massed at the border in January of 2021, when the US was in complete chaos.

Sorry man, there isn't a rational explanation as to why he waited until 2022. Other than: Biden's last straw of prepping more arms for Ukraine to defend itself. I have no clue how everyone doesn't see this. Every other explanation doesn't square with Putin waiting until 2022.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm telling you that the handful of javelins sent to Ukraine were way less important to Putin than Trump's undermining of NATO, else, under your logic, the time to invade would have been when Trump did so...which was early in his Admin (releasing what the prior Congress had already authorized and the Obama Admin had slow walked)...instead, he worked Trump in those one on one meetings with no US witnesses...(you'll recall Trump standing side by side with Putin and deriding US intelligence)...The Zelensky call was no accident...but Trump's loss took away that pathway to achieve Russian objectives.

And then a terrible miscalculation and decision.

But no, we didn't accelerate arming Ukraine until our intelligence was clear that Putin was definitely going to invade and forces were massing to do so.

That's right! Our intel is immaterial. The question is: what message did Putin get when, as you put it....we "accelerated arming Ukraine"?

Biden signaling to Putin in late 2021 that even more arms were coming. After that? Putin starts massing at the border.

If it was NATO rumblings, Putin would have invaded at any time during Trump.

If the Trump loss was it, he CLEARLY would have massed at the border in January of 2021, when the US was in complete chaos.

Sorry man, there isn't a rational explanation as to why he waited until 2022. Other than: Biden's last straw of prepping more arms for Ukraine to defend itself. I have no clue how everyone doesn't see this. Every other explanation doesn't square with Putin waiting until 2022.

sigh...I feel like you're ignoring what I wrote (I realize you didn't cut this down so as to pretend that I didn't say more...)

Putin did NOT want to expend these sorts of resources, was NOT prepared to expend these resources, as long as he thought he could accomplish his objectives with less. He did NOT invade when Trump authorized the javelins, rather he worked Trump (successfully).

He did NOT invade immediately upon Trump's loss though I suspect he was cheering the chaos, because he hadn't planned to do so, wasn't prepared to do so. Troops etc were not positioned to do so. They continued their cyber campaign against Ukraine, disrupting financial systems, business and infrastructure...undermining confidence in the Zelensky government, with the objective of a change in leadership...but cyber-defense was something the US did help with, with increasing success as 2021 rolled forward.

He also did not know how the allies would react to Biden other than with some relief; they were relieved but not confident. The Afghanistan decision created additional NATO stress.

But Russia did begin its military massing and maneuvers in the late spring of 2021 not long after the chaos; it wasn't, however, until the fall of 2021 that our IC told Biden that Putin had made his decision to actually invade rather than simply intimidate (while funding the separatists and mercenaries and covert operations in what had been 'hot' since 2014)...The IC report in the fall was when we accelerated some support and more importantly, and rather surprisingly to Putin, went public that we had this intelligence. The small hope was that he'd back off from that decision, the larger hope was that making it public would expose the Russian lies and rally the allies when it happened for the sanctions and other steps necessary to respond to a belligerent Russia...that worked, albeit, we didn't expect the Ukrainians to successfully repulse the Russians. I think the expectation was that at best, there would be a western piece of Ukraine preserved, and then a significant level of punishment for Russia...Putin likely thought so too.

[a fan]

I'm telling you that the handful of javelins sent to Ukraine were way less important to Putin than Trump's undermining of NATO, else, under your logic, the time to invade would have been when Trump did so...which was early in his Admin (releasing what the prior Congress had already authorized and the Obama Admin had slow walked)...instead, he worked Trump in those one on one meetings with no US witnesses...(you'll recall Trump standing side by side with Putin and deriding US intelligence)...The Zelensky call was no accident...but Trump's loss took away that pathway to achieve Russian objectives.

And then a terrible miscalculation and decision.

But no, we didn't accelerate arming Ukraine until our intelligence was clear that Putin was definitely going to invade and forces were massing to do so.

That's right! Our intel is immaterial. The question is: what message did Putin get when, as you put it....we "accelerated arming Ukraine"?

Biden signaling to Putin in late 2021 that even more arms were coming. After that? Putin starts massing at the border.

If it was NATO rumblings, Putin would have invaded at any time during Trump.

If the Trump loss was it, he CLEARLY would have massed at the border in January of 2021, when the US was in complete chaos.

Sorry man, there isn't a rational explanation as to why he waited until 2022. Other than: Biden's last straw of prepping more arms for Ukraine to defend itself. I have no clue how everyone doesn't see this. Every other explanation doesn't square with Putin waiting until 2022.

sigh...I feel like you're ignoring what I wrote (I realize you didn't cut this down so as to pretend that I didn't say more...)I'll do it with colors then. I read every word you write. I cut it up so I can address each of your thoughts DIRECTLY, with perfect clarity as to what I am responding to.
I don't like this color method because it's difficult for me to read.

Putin did NOT want to expend these sorts of resources, was NOT prepared to expend these resources, as long as he thought he could accomplish his objectives with less. He did NOT invade when Trump authorized the javelins, rather he worked Trump (successfully).

He did NOT invade immediatelyThis goes against your charge (and the charge of others) that Putin ALWAYS wanted to take Ukraine. Or that talk of them joining NATO (which has been happening for decades)upon Trump's loss though I suspect he was cheering the chaos, because he hadn't planned to do so, wasn't prepared to do so. Troops etc were not positioned to do so. They continued their cyber campaign against Ukraine, disrupting financial systems, business and infrastructure...undermining confidence in the Zelensky government, with the objective of a change in leadership...but cyber-defense was something the US did help with, with increasing success as 2021 rolled forward.

He also did not know how the allies would react to Biden other than with some relief; they were relieved but not confident. The Afghanistan decision created additional NATO stress.Trump had announced a pull out years before. Putin did nothing.

But Russia did begin its military massing and maneuvers in the late spring of 2021That's right. The question at hand is: WHY did he wait until the spring of 2021? not long after the chaos; it wasn't, however, until the fall of 2021 that our IC told Biden that Putin had made his decision to actually invadeThis is theory. You're pretending like everything you're writing is a fact. It's aint. You and I are offering competing theories...and I'm sorry, yours doesn't fit.

Do I need to point out how bad US intel is when it comes to....pretty much everything? This is the same intel that said Putin's army was tip top and awesome. Whoops. Missed that call by just a shade, don't you think? rather than simply intimidate (while funding the separatists and mercenaries and covert operations in what had been 'hot' since 2014)...The IC report in the fall was when we accelerated some support and more importantly, and rather surprisingly to Putin, went public that we had this intelligence. The small hope was that he'd back off from that decision, the larger hope was that making it public would expose the Russian lies and rally the allies when it happened for the sanctions and other steps necessary to respond to a belligerent Russia...that worked, albeit, we didn't expect the Ukrainians to successfully repulse the Russians. I think the expectation was that at best, there would be a western piece of Ukraine preserved, and then a significant level of punishment for Russia...Putin likely thought so too.

Understand what you're telling me. You're telling me that Putin and his Generals didn't so much as raise and eyebrow that the US was overtly arming Ukraine. That that piece of information was completely irrelevant to their plans. And you're telling me this AFTER you've seen what JUST the Trump armaments did to the Russian Army: it stopped them COLD.

What you are telling me, is that if you were in charge of invading Ukraine, and Trump had already given Ukraine some weaponry and training...and that Biden was on deck to send more....you'd wait until AFTER Biden shipped the new weapons before invading. Come on. You can't be serious about this.
OF COURSE the arming of Ukraine is what led to the invasion. What moron would wait until more arms arrived before pulling the trigger?

Without those arms? Putin can wait them out....which jives completely with the FACT that he didn't invade at any time from 2014-2021. He didn't invade when Z was elected. Or when Trump lost, and the US was a sh(tshow. Or when his troops were already in their tanks in 2014. He didn't start massing his troops until AFTER Biden signaled more arms and training was coming.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm telling you that the handful of javelins sent to Ukraine were way less important to Putin than Trump's undermining of NATO, else, under your logic, the time to invade would have been when Trump did so...which was early in his Admin (releasing what the prior Congress had already authorized and the Obama Admin had slow walked)...instead, he worked Trump in those one on one meetings with no US witnesses...(you'll recall Trump standing side by side with Putin and deriding US intelligence)...The Zelensky call was no accident...but Trump's loss took away that pathway to achieve Russian objectives.

And then a terrible miscalculation and decision.

But no, we didn't accelerate arming Ukraine until our intelligence was clear that Putin was definitely going to invade and forces were massing to do so.

That's right! Our intel is immaterial. The question is: what message did Putin get when, as you put it....we "accelerated arming Ukraine"?

Biden signaling to Putin in late 2021 that even more arms were coming. After that? Putin starts massing at the border.

If it was NATO rumblings, Putin would have invaded at any time during Trump.

If the Trump loss was it, he CLEARLY would have massed at the border in January of 2021, when the US was in complete chaos.

Sorry man, there isn't a rational explanation as to why he waited until 2022. Other than: Biden's last straw of prepping more arms for Ukraine to defend itself. I have no clue how everyone doesn't see this. Every other explanation doesn't square with Putin waiting until 2022.

sigh...I feel like you're ignoring what I wrote (I realize you didn't cut this down so as to pretend that I didn't say more...)I'll do it with colors then. I read every word you write. I cut it up so I can address each of your thoughts DIRECTLY, with perfect clarity as to what I am responding to.
I don't like this color method because it's difficult for me to read.

Yes, this was tongue in cheek, referencing your back and forth with Salty. My sigh is that I don't think I'm penetrating...one more time...

Putin did NOT want to expend these sorts of resources, was NOT prepared to expend these resources, as long as he thought he could accomplish his objectives with less. He did NOT invade when Trump authorized the javelins, rather he worked Trump (successfully).

He did NOT invade immediatelyThis goes against your charge (and the charge of others) that Putin ALWAYS wanted to take Ukraine. Or that talk of them joining NATO (which has been happening for decades)upon Trump's loss though I suspect he was cheering the chaos, because he hadn't planned to do so, wasn't prepared to do so. Troops etc were not positioned to do so. They continued their cyber campaign against Ukraine, disrupting financial systems, business and infrastructure...undermining confidence in the Zelensky government, with the objective of a change in leadership...but cyber-defense was something the US did help with, with increasing success as 2021 rolled forward.

No, the objective is to restore the Russian empire, through whatever means necessary...proxy puppets are a much less costly step than military. But military intimidation is part of that process. So, too, is cyber and disinformation campaigns, and direct corruption. Ukraine is just one piece, and each step is but a step on the path to the objective. Knocking out the government in the capitol could have accomplished all of Ukraine...or most of Ukraine...but just a step towards more than Ukraine.

He also did not know how the allies would react to Biden other than with some relief; they were relieved but not confident. The Afghanistan decision created additional NATO stress.Trump had announced a pull out years before. Putin did nothing.

Because Trump was a "useful idiot", as I described. He worked Trump, limited the arming, and accomplished much more in the weakening of NATO unity...cheaper to go that path. It wasn't that Biden left Afghanistan, it was simply that there was division in NATO, stress between allies, and that was likely to diminish with time

But Russia did begin its military massing and maneuvers in the late spring of 2021That's right. The question at hand is: WHY did he wait until the spring of 2021? Answered this multiple times, he had Trump not long after the chaos; it wasn't, however, until the fall of 2021 that our IC told Biden that Putin had made his decision to actually invadeThis is theory. You're pretending like everything you're writing is a fact. It's aint. You and I are offering competing theories...and I'm sorry, yours doesn't fit.

hmmm, well we obviously have different interpretations, but not sure what you are saying I'm claiming as fact. My info is merely public record, my interpretation, however is informed by what I've read and my own common sense in thinking about it. You're free to disagree, but I haven't seen anything in your argument that actually supports or "fits" reality better than what I'm arguing.

Do I need to point out how bad US intel is when it comes to....pretty much everything? This is the same intel that said Putin's army was tip top and awesome. Whoops. Missed that call by just a shade, don't you think? You are exaggerating for effect the analysis...the assessment was that the Russian capabilities were so much greater than the Ukrainians (and that's factual) that they would overwhelm Ukraine swiftly...that prediction underestimated Ukrainian resolve and it did not account for some massively stupid early maneuvers by Russia with the long convoys that were sitting duck...but if the Ukrainians hadn't held the air base, game over. rather than simply intimidate (while funding the separatists and mercenaries and covert operations in what had been 'hot' since 2014)...The IC report in the fall was when we accelerated some support and more importantly, and rather surprisingly to Putin, went public that we had this intelligence. The small hope was that he'd back off from that decision, the larger hope was that making it public would expose the Russian lies and rally the allies when it happened for the sanctions and other steps necessary to respond to a belligerent Russia...that worked, albeit, we didn't expect the Ukrainians to successfully repulse the Russians. I think the expectation was that at best, there would be a western piece of Ukraine preserved, and then a significant level of punishment for Russia...Putin likely thought so too.

Understand what you're telling me. You're telling me that Putin and his Generals didn't so much as raise and eyebrow that the US was overtly arming Ukraine. That that piece of information was completely irrelevant to their plans. And you're telling me this AFTER you've seen what JUST the Trump armaments did to the Russian Army: it stopped them COLD.

Of course it bothered them and of course they wouldn't want to wait years of more training and armaments...given that it was increasingly clear that they weren't going to topple Zelensky and more importantly the democracy movement and western turn through cyber and disinformation. But no, the decision had been made to invade before we amped up our support. We were late in our moves, not early. But it was the impatience in the face of not having another pathway to the real objective, not a few more arms that precipitated the invasion.

What you are telling me, is that if you were in charge of invading Ukraine, and Trump had already given Ukraine some weaponry and training...and that Biden was on deck to send more....you'd wait until AFTER Biden shipped the new weapons before invading. Come on. You can't be serious about this.
OF COURSE the arming of Ukraine is what led to the invasion. What moron would wait until more arms arrived before pulling the trigger?

Answered above...it was the realization that Ukraine wasn't going to turn east willingly, and no Trump to divide NATO, undermine democracies, etc, no no advantage in waiting, not the escalation of military aid in late fall 2021. Decision had already been made, I believe, and as outr IC reported...and Putin lied through his teeth all the way...still is...

Without those arms? Putin can wait them out....which jives completely with the FACT that he didn't invade at any time from 2014-2021. He didn't invade when Z was elected. Or when Trump lost, and the US was a sh(tshow. Or when his troops were already in their tanks in 2014. He didn't start massing his troops until AFTER Biden signaled more arms and training was coming.

When are you saying that Biden signaled such?
Immediately after taking office?

Or was it the frustration that Trump was no longer a path to dissolution of NATO and the objective wasn't going to be achieved more covertly?

Seriously, I don't think the paltry arms that we were supplying precipitated a darn thing, indeed hadn't at any prior point...but what did precipitate acts, eg Crimea and Donbas, was when the elected government was pro-western and began to combat corruption. Bad for business for Russia, and in conflict with Russian empire objectives. Putin attempted to "win" as much as he could without commitment of his main military, trying to not overly excite NATO, but his efforts met with resistance from Ukrainians who wanted freedom from Russia and more prosperous, freer future.

[cradleandshoot]

Salty,
You are indeed a complete partisan, never finding fault with the current GOP (at each point in time) and always finding fault in the Dems, at each point in time. Grossly hypocritical in your critiques.

I've been consistently critical of US policy, dating as far back as 1992 re. NATO expansion & our policy on the dismemberment of Russia & US involvement in color revolutions & regime change as far back as 2004. That includes both (R) & (D) admins. You weren't here in 2014.
I still differ with most current (R)'s on Ukraine.

You are a complete partisan, anti-any (R) who does not meet your anti-MAGA putiry litmus test.
You don't rise to the level of a RINO.

well, you are correct that I'm strongly anti-MAGA.
Anti-white nationalist Christian too.

You want to pretend you've been consistent, but in my case I've been watching/reading you for a good decade now...and major only consistency I see is anti-Dem. On everything.

But also apologist for strong man White christian nationalism, here and abroad, with isolation as the response when it comes to such autocrats abroad, but "coincidentally" a totally different response to China.

I have been watching and reading you also for a long time. I'm still waiting for the first time you say anything that identifies you as a conservative republican. I do know that you will NEVER be the featured speaker at the RNC. That is quite an accomplishment for a lifelong republican that YOUR party would never let you step foot in the building. So 98.9999999 % of your party is wrong and your the true prophet the republicans should be paying attention to.... you have to face the facts MD. You rich white FLP Rockefeller republicans just will never get any traction in your party,

[a fan]

Seriously, I don't think the paltry arms that we were supplying precipitated a darn thingThe "paltry" arms that brought the Russian army to a standstill? THOSE "paltry" arms? Come on man----you're the worst General ever if you're telling me that you'd wait until AFTER more arms arrive in Ukraine before you invade. You're not making even a lick of sense. The arms that Trump sent ALONE shut the Russian army down, my man. What the heck else do you need to see that those arms and training was anything but "paltry", indeed hadn't at any prior point...but what did precipitate acts, eg Crimea and Donbas, was when the elected government was pro-western and began to combat corruption. Bad for business for Russia, and in conflict with Russian empire objectives.Then we're back to: so if this is what did it, why didn't Putin invade Ukraine when Z was elected? You don't have an answer. Your theory is a pasta sieve. Each idea you bring up has holes in it. Putin attempted to "win" as much as he could without commitment of his main military, trying to not overly excite NATO, but his efforts met with resistance from Ukrainians who wanted freedom from Russia and more prosperous, freer future.[/color][/b]

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty,
You are indeed a complete partisan, never finding fault with the current GOP (at each point in time) and always finding fault in the Dems, at each point in time. Grossly hypocritical in your critiques.

I've been consistently critical of US policy, dating as far back as 1992 re. NATO expansion & our policy on the dismemberment of Russia & US involvement in color revolutions & regime change as far back as 2004. That includes both (R) & (D) admins. You weren't here in 2014.
I still differ with most current (R)'s on Ukraine.

You are a complete partisan, anti-any (R) who does not meet your anti-MAGA putiry litmus test.
You don't rise to the level of a RINO.

well, you are correct that I'm strongly anti-MAGA.
Anti-white nationalist Christian too.

You want to pretend you've been consistent, but in my case I've been watching/reading you for a good decade now...and major only consistency I see is anti-Dem. On everything.

But also apologist for strong man White christian nationalism, here and abroad, with isolation as the response when it comes to such autocrats abroad, but "coincidentally" a totally different response to China.

I have been watching and reading you also for a long time. I'm still waiting for the first time you say anything that identifies you as a conservative republican. I do know that you will NEVER be the featured speaker at the RNC. That is quite an accomplishment for a lifelong republican that YOUR party would never let you step foot in the building. So 98.9999999 % of your party is wrong and your the true prophet the republicans should be paying attention to.... you have to face the facts MD. You rich white FLP Rockefeller republicans just will never get any traction in your party,

I'm socially progressive/libertarian, cradle, fiscally conservative, and pro strong national defense with proactive soft power preferred over hard power.

I really don't care what you think of that, much less what you want to label it, but most of that has been ascendant, or at least well accepted, in the GOP (albeit with some hiccups) since Ike.

This MAGA stain has deep roots, including many that were once associated with southern Dems...it's really no surprise that I find that abhorrent.

[MDlaxfan76]

Seriously, I don't think the paltry arms that we were supplying precipitated a darn thingThe "paltry" arms that brought the Russian army to a standstill? THOSE "paltry" arms? Come on man----you're the worst General ever if you're telling me that you'd wait until AFTER more arms arrive in Ukraine before you invade. You're not making even a lick of sense. The arms that Trump sent ALONE shut the Russian army down, my man. What the heck else do you need to see that those arms and training was anything but "paltry", indeed hadn't at any prior point...but what did precipitate acts, eg Crimea and Donbas, was when the elected government was pro-western and began to combat corruption. Bad for business for Russia, and in conflict with Russian empire objectives.Then we're back to: so if this is what did it, why didn't Putin invade Ukraine when Z was elected? You don't have an answer. Your theory is a pasta sieve. Each idea you bring up has holes in it. Putin attempted to "win" as much as he could without commitment of his main military, trying to not overly excite NATO, but his efforts met with resistance from Ukrainians who wanted freedom from Russia and more prosperous, freer future.[/color][/b]

The arms that were used to stop the Russians at the airbase had long been in Ukraine...failing to do that and the "war" would have been over in a day or two. The javelins had been there which were used to stop tanks when sitting ducks, the drones were not anything we'd provided in recent months.

Yes, "paltry" compared to what has been necessary to stop massive troop and tank movements on a very large front, the fall back plan when the lightening strike failed.

But yes, I was clear that it made sense (to Putin and his cronies) to invade when it became obvious that they weren't going to topple the government through other measures...that certainly wasn't what they assumed when Zelensky was elected, nor when Trump was in the process of dividing NATO.

If your "existential" objective is to restore the Russian empire, which has to include Ukraine at some point, if you can't do it covertly, then you'e forced to do it militarily...they clearly begun to prepare for that in spring of 2021, and then made the decision it appears in fall of 2021 when cyber efforts were failing.

[a fan]

The arms that were used to stop the Russians at the airbase had long been in UkraineI know. But what changed? Biden announced in Nov. of 2021 that more were coming....failing to do that and the "war" would have been over in a day or two. The javelins had been there which were used to stop tanks when sitting ducks, the drones were not anything we'd provided in recent months.

Yes, "paltry" compared to what has been necessary to stop massive troop and tank movements on a very large front, the fall back plan when the lightening strike failed.

But yes, I was clear that it made sense (to Putin and his cronies) to invade when it became obvious that they weren't going to topple the government through other measures...that certainly wasn't what they assumed when Zelensky was elected, nor when Trump was in the process of dividing NATO.

If your "existential" objective is to restore the Russian empire, which has to include Ukraine at some point, if you can't do it covertly, then you'e forced to do it militarilyThat pegs the invasion in 2014, when they took Crimea militarily. It makes ZERO sense that Putin, who had ALREADY violated International law to take Crimea....wouldn't just get it over with, and take Ukraine. That tells me that no, it was NOT always in the cards to take Ukraine....they clearly begun to prepare for that in spring of 2021, and then made the decision it appears in fall of 2021 when cyber efforts were failing.Fall of 2021 was when Biden was prepping more arms.

[Kismet]

https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukrainian ... -attrition

Ukrainian Innovation in a War of Attrition

The Issue

Russia suffered more combat deaths in Ukraine in the first year of the war than in all of its wars since World War II combined, according to a new CSIS analysis of the force disposition and military operations of Russian and Ukrainian units. The average rate of Russian soldiers killed per month is at least 25 times the number killed per month in Chechnya and 35 times the number killed in Afghanistan, which highlight the stark realities of a war of attrition. The Ukrainian military has also performed remarkably well against a much larger and initially better-equipped Russian military, in part due to the innovation of its forces.
Introduction

The Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote that war is filled with unpredictability and that “in war more than anywhere else in the world things happen differently to what we had expected.”[1] Just ask Russian political and military leaders in charge of the war in Ukraine today.

One of the most interesting puzzles is how Ukraine—which has a significantly smaller military, weaker military capabilities, a limited defense industrial base, and a smaller economy—was able to blunt a Russian blitzkrieg and then conduct a series of counterattacks against dug-in Russian forces. Before its invasion in February 2022, Russia had nearly five times as many military personnel as Ukraine, a defense budget eleven times larger, an economy almost eight times larger, and significantly better military capabilities. Examples of Russian capabilities included advanced fighter aircraft (such as the Su-34 and Su-35), artillery (such as the 2S7 Pion, BM-21 Grad, and 2S4 Tulpan), main battle tanks (such as the T-72 and T-90), nuclear weapons, and one of the world’s most feared offensive cyber capabilities.[2] Yet Russia’s preponderance of power has failed to deliver it swift victory on the battlefield'........

[MDlaxfan76]

The arms that were used to stop the Russians at the airbase had long been in UkraineI know. But what changed? Biden announced in Nov. of 2021 that more were coming....failing to do that and the "war" would have been over in a day or two. The javelins had been there which were used to stop tanks when sitting ducks, the drones were not anything we'd provided in recent months.

Yes, "paltry" compared to what has been necessary to stop massive troop and tank movements on a very large front, the fall back plan when the lightening strike failed.

But yes, I was clear that it made sense (to Putin and his cronies) to invade when it became obvious that they weren't going to topple the government through other measures...that certainly wasn't what they assumed when Zelensky was elected, nor when Trump was in the process of dividing NATO.

If your "existential" objective is to restore the Russian empire, which has to include Ukraine at some point, if you can't do it covertly, then you'e forced to do it militarilyThat pegs the invasion in 2014, when they took Crimea militarily. It makes ZERO sense that Putin, who had ALREADY violated International law to take Crimea....wouldn't just get it over with, and take Ukraine. That tells me that no, it was NOT always in the cards to take Ukraine....they clearly begun to prepare for that in spring of 2021, and then made the decision it appears in fall of 2021 when cyber efforts were failing.Fall of 2021 was when Biden was prepping more arms.

I'm not sure why you are ignoring what I've said about Putin's preference to achieve his aims without huge military cost; frankly I'd think you'd embrace that rationale as you've long argued that Putin can't afford an actual war, much less a major one, given his economy...SO...as long as he thought he could get away with more covert actions and move the ball forward to achieve his aims, why "blow the budget"?

I don't think Putin is a six dimensional chess player or the like, certainly no genius, but a calculating bastard, yes.

Crimea was achieved at virtually no cost, just a few sanctions they largely sloughed off...not that they weren't annoyances, but nowhere near what an actual major military action would have cost. You'll recall, though, that getting rid of those sanctions was a big part of the whole "Russian collusion" effort, the meeting where "adoptions" were discussed, etc. Undoubtedly part of Putin's private conversations with Trump. But small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

So, they worked the cyber and disinformation game hard. Low cost, significant impact.

Weakening NATO was a much bigger prize made possible by Trump's election, with allies angry at one another...meanwhile, working those "euroburghers" Salty likes to rail about as Russia and Europe deepened their energy ties.

The success of the democracy movement and the rejection of the corruption was far from a foregone conclusion in Ukraine. There was a very real possibility that Putin could achieve his aims in dominate Ukraine without Russia officially firing a shot (covert and mercenaries not being 'official'). The "separatist" effort in the east was less successful than he'd likely hoped, as the Ukrainians fought harder than perhaps expected, so Putin increased the support there...and when he massed troops, it looked like perhaps that was going to be the first step, take and secure the eastern third of Ukraine, get that land bridge to Crimea etc...had that been able to be done without committing Russian troops directly though, that'd have been much cheaper.

But it would have starved the rest of Ukraine of key resources and been a huge black mark on the democracy movement...what you can't even hold onto our land...we need a "strong man" leader...step towards returning to the Russian fold...

But that wasn't working...so, they went for direct action, decapitation of the government...and missed. Then turned to simply taking the east by horrific force while terrorizing the Ukrainian population...they assumed that Ukraine would crumble and that the West would falter...especially given energy dependence.

These were all horrible miscalculations, but they make sense given that they ultimately recognized they could not achieve their objective of the Russian empire without force.

It probably IS "existential" for Putin to be successful, or at least perceived to be on the path to success to this this objective, as the threat from within Russia is not the democracy movement there anymore, given the successful repression, but rather from the hard liners who he convinced of his ambitions. Very hard to reverse course without him losing his head at this point.

It's entirely possible that the hard liners were pushing really hard for answers as to how Putin was going to achieve his oft-state objectives on empire without aggressive military force...so, the blitzkrieg approach...get it over quickly with a "special military action".

Uh ohh, we'll bomb the heck out of them, use winter as a weapon...

uh ohh, that didn't work either...

The reason why I think it's going to be necessary to very convincingly destroy the Russian military in Ukraine, decimate it, is that without that crushing defeat, I don't think the hard liners can be checked...they'll keep pushing as will Putin, as long as a 'path' to empire can be claimed to be still in process.

Of course, this does involve the risk of nuclear, but I think we are rightfully making clear that resorting to that option would mean complete devastation of heck of a lot more than the deployed military in Ukraine.

So, we walk this tightrope...

[youthathletics]

Assuming translation is accurate, I wonder if Biden will share this news with the American people.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/16 ... G2y_XvlDAw

[DocBarrister]

Assuming translation is accurate, I wonder if Biden will share this news with the American people.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/16 ... G2y_XvlDAw

Deterring the war criminal Putin and Russia from attacking a NATO member is one of the major purposes of supporting Ukraine.

What is there to “share?”

DocBarrister

[youthathletics]

Assuming translation is accurate, I wonder if Biden will share this news with the American people.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/16 ... G2y_XvlDAw

Deterring the war criminal Putin and Russia from attacking a NATO member is one of the major purposes of supporting Ukraine.

What is there to “share?”

DocBarrister

Did you hear his words. He wants our soldiers fighting on the ground with his people.