Ukraine Presidential Crackdown Violence. Russia Invades Ukraine

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The problem now is one of shifting priorities.

The American's since 9/11 have shifted their armed forces away from conventional cold war style battles to fighting insurgencies and fighters carrying AK-47's while riding mules through mountain passes.

Everything is about that, including the change in priorities from a blue water navy to a brown water navy.

Now the world is threatening to change again and we've moved from the guild lines of war in the 21st century as we thought it would be.

Meanwhile the Russians have continued to develop their conventional war fighting capabilities in terms of their new subs, and fighter planes and a heavier emphasis on piece meal battles. The Chinese have done very much the same as they've changed the direction of their navy from a coastal navy to a blue water navy with new deep water subs, first wave air craft carrier and deep water escort groups.

Even American training has changed.

This was a danger that I put out there a few years back when somebody bought up the idea of a specialized armed forces built around anti terror. Warfare changes rapidly and you have to be ready to defend yourself in all kinds of different environments.

If the American's wanted to be somewhat proactive, they would move equipment into Poland or Romania and commence with field exercises. They could probably start moving a MAU unit and a armored cav division over and have them there in two weeks. They could move a Airborne Division, a Light Infantry Division over there in a couple of days, and move a few squadrons of fighters and fighter bombers to Poland by the end of the week to show a commitment to their Nato Allies.

I am wildly militarily uneducated, but to me it boils down to the fact that the US have gotten used to fighting from a position of obscene strength. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more like 'Seek & Destroy' than combat.

What happens when they go up against an enemy they'd have to fight toe-to-toe?

Basically, if you go up against inferior opposition constantly then you'll be unprepared and unready against equal or superior opposition.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Doodlebug

No two nuclear powers have ever gone to war, with the possible exception of the india pakistan conflict of 1999 (fairly minor). No way either side allows a situation too develop that could potentially risk the US and Russian military's directly squaring off with one another.

Except it won't go nuclear even if both sides get into a shooting battle, unless the United States or Russia gets attacked directly.

India and Pakistan at times have been frightening because they share a border and a genetically encoded hatred of one another.

In a regional war it won't go nuclear.

[worth]

Remarks by Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at a UN Security Council Meeting on Ukraine, March 3, 2014

It is a fact that Russian military forces have taken over Ukrainian border posts. It is a fact that Russia has taken over the ferry terminal in Kerch. It is a fact that Russian ships are moving in and around Sevastapol. It is a fact that Russian forces are blocking mobile telephone services in some areas. It is a fact that Russia has surrounded or taken over practically all Ukrainian military facilities in Crimea. It is a fact that today Russian jets entered Ukrainian airspace. It is also a fact that independent journalists continue to report that there is no evidence of violence against Russian or pro-Russian communities.

...

I note that Russia has implied a right to take military action in the Crimea if invited to do so by the prime minister of Crimea. As the Government of Russia well knows, this has no legal basis. The prohibition on the use of force would be rendered moot were sub-national authorities able to unilaterally invite military intervention by a neighboring state. Under the Ukrainian constitution, only the Ukrainian Rada can approve the presence of foreign troops.

...

Tonight the OSCE will begin deploying monitors to Ukraine. These monitors can provide neutral and needed assessments of the situation on the ground. Their presence is urgently necessary in Crimea and in key cities in eastern Ukraine. The United States calls upon Russia to ensure that their access is not impeded.

...

The bottom line is that, for all of the self-serving rhetoric we have heard from Russian officials in recent days, there is nothing that justifies Russian conduct. As I said in our last session, Russia’s actions speak much louder than its words. What is happening today is not a human rights protection mission and it is not a consensual intervention. What is happening today is a dangerous military intervention in Ukraine. It is an act of aggression. It must stop. This is a choice for Russia. Diplomacy can serve Russia’s interests. The world is speaking out against the use of military threats and the use of force. Ukrainians must be allowed to determine their own destiny. Thank you Madam President.

[Doodlebug]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except it won't go nuclear even if both sides get into a shooting battle, unless the United States or Russia gets attacked directly.

India and Pakistan at times have been frightening because they share a border and a genetically encoded hatred of one another.

In a regional war it won't go nuclear.

Besides the mentioned 1999 India-pakistan war...can you recall any regional conflict where two nuclear states have had direct military combat together? Not including the proxy wars of say Korea or Vietnam. MAD has served its purpose fairly well for the last 69 plus year's.

[nik-]

How long would it really take to change trajectory again though? I mean it's not like the carriers are a change in strategy from the Cold War days, and I don't think the Americans have forgotten how to train their soldiers for conventional warfare.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

I am wildly militarily uneducated, but to me it boils down to the fact that the US have gotten used to fighting from a position of obscene strength. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more like 'Seek & Destroy' than combat.

What happens when they go up against an enemy they'd have to fight toe-to-toe?

Basically, if you go up against inferior opposition constantly then you'll be unprepared and unready against equal or superior opposition.

Correct, The American's really haven't had a "tough war" against a militarily similar enemy since Korea.

People say, but Captain what about Iraq? Iraq was powerful in a sense that they had decent equipment and numbers. But the Iraqi Soldiers were poorly trained and had cut their teeth fighting in the swamps against Iran who basically treated their soldiers like bullet shields.

While America's technology gap against Iraq was fairly significant, every American Soldier had a kill multiplier of like 10-1 because of their training.

In Vietnam, frankly America should have been able to go in their and pound the crap out of that rag tag army. But American Training prior to Vietnam was piss poor, on top of that they were pretty much a conscript army where half of their members didn't want to be there so there was low moral.

The North Vietnamese were well trained and had extremely high moral and a water tight war plan based around if you bleed them enough, you can lose every battle and the enemy will still go home and not come back.

While America is still formidable as a military and in terms of technology and training. IF they go against another Modern Military like the Russians or the resurgent Chinese it will still get bloody, and when it comes down to math in the Ukraine, the Russians can get more troops and supplies to the front faster then the American's can.

Its a war in somebodies back yard that you don't want to fight.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Doodlebug

Besides the mentioned 1999 India-pakistan war...can you recall any regional conflict where two nuclear states have had direct military combat together? Not including the proxy wars of say Korea or Vietnam. MAD has served its purpose fairly well for the last 69 plus year's.

Russia and China in the late 60[s and early 70's

[nik-]

I can't see any nuclear power ever using them unless the enemy is coming to their doorstep, which I think would also prevent their enemy from even pushing the matter too far. And even then, an honorable surrender would be pursued first.

Serious skirmishes, but I can't see nuclear, the retaliation is just too extreme.

[worth]

Ukraine's mission to the United Nations is claiming that 16,000 Russian troops have been deployed in the strategic Crimea region, while Russia's U.N. ambassador told the council Monday that Ukraine's fugitive president requested troops.

http://www.theolympian.com/2014/03/0...asked-for.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

How long would it really take to change trajectory again though? I mean it's not like the carriers are a change in strategy from the Cold War days, and I don't think the Americans have forgotten how to train their soldiers for conventional warfare.

I couldn't tell you how long it would take to refocus for a massive military like the American's.

the problem isn't as much training as exposure.

For the first time in a long time, we've had a generation (military generations are measured in 5 year terms btw) or more since we've had trainers that were truly experienced in air to air combat against a well trained enemy. Or had air to ground missions against a armored brigade.

Or a tank against tank battle field, or infantry assaults against a modern well armed and trained military.

You're talking several rotations of new soldiers and airmen and sailors.

Could the American's fight that kind of battle today? Sure, they could, but could they fight it as well as the Cold Warriors from the 70's and 80's? I'm not truly convinced.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

I can't see any nuclear power ever using them unless the enemy is coming to their doorstep, which I think would also prevent their enemy from even pushing the matter too far. And even then, an honorable surrender would be pursued first.

Serious skirmishes, but I can't see nuclear, the retaliation is just too extreme.

I think I was trying to say that.

We could still have a shooting war between Russia and the U.S. and China and the U.S. as long as the war isn't fought on either of their home soil.

And it won't go nuclear.

[undercoverbrother]

Sign me up to fight.

I claim her as my trench mate

Spoiler!

[Doodlebug]

Agreed...since the nuclear area what little we have seen as been series of limited border conflicts between two bordering nuclear states...no formal declaration of war, and limited in area.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The problem now is one of shifting priorities.

The American's since 9/11 have shifted their armed forces away from conventional cold war style battles to fighting insurgencies and fighters carrying AK-47's while riding mules through mountain passes.

Everything is about that, including the change in priorities from a blue water navy to a brown water navy.

Now the world is threatening to change again and we've moved from the guild lines of war in the 21st century as we thought it would be.

Meanwhile the Russians have continued to develop their conventional war fighting capabilities in terms of their new subs, and fighter planes and a heavier emphasis on piece meal battles. The Chinese have done very much the same as they've changed the direction of their navy from a coastal navy to a blue water navy with new deep water subs, first wave air craft carrier and deep water escort groups.

Even American training has changed.

This was a danger that I put out there a few years back when somebody bought up the idea of a specialized armed forces built around anti terror. Warfare changes rapidly and you have to be ready to defend yourself in all kinds of different environments.

If the American's wanted to be somewhat proactive, they would move equipment into Poland or Romania and commence with field exercises. They could probably start moving a MAU unit and a armored cav division over and have them there in two weeks. They could move a Airborne Division, a Light Infantry Division over there in a couple of days, and move a few squadrons of fighters and fighter bombers to Poland by the end of the week to show a commitment to their Nato Allies.

Yeah, it's not so much the reorientation that is concerning, but actually the inability to engage in conventional warfare because the ranks have been so depleted.

150, 000 cases of PTSD after a decade of terror-war really adversely affects America's combat readiness.

Even if it had been 1 tour for most of these guys instead of 3/4 or even 6/7 would have them at much more optimal readiness.

It makes me angry because now there is a real, legitimate problem and things that once were polished and ready and now tarnished and broken.

Silver lining I guess is that the US and UK have more boisterous and well equipped ground forces that have better urban training, but, this is an example of why you don't toss your armed forces into the breach for any old reason. You save them until there's fightin' to be done.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yeah, it's not so much the reorientation that is concerning, but actually the inability to engage in conventional warfare because the ranks have been so depleted.

150, 000 cases of PTSD after a decade of terror-war really adversely affects America's combat readiness.

Even if it had been 1 tour for most of these guys instead of 3/4 or even 6/7 would have them at much more optimal readiness.

It makes me angry because now there is a real, legitimate problem and things that once were polished and ready and now tarnished and broken.

Silver lining I guess is that the US and UK have more boisterous and well equipped ground forces that have better urban training, but, this is an example of why you don't toss your armed forces into the breach for any old reason. You save them until there's fightin' to be done.

I agree with your points, but I would also say, that experience can be a huge asset on the battlefield.

Having soldiers that have been unde fire before can make a huge difference.

There is still an inclination to #### yourself, it is jsut easier to control.

[burn_baby_burn]

I was just reading an article on the weekend (can't seem to find it now) how the US Military was still by far number one in the world. The only military in the world that can strike from anywhere in the world virtually overnight, and how it can be ready to launch a full scale invasion in a couple of weeks. They have thousands of military bases spread out to every corner of the globe. China on the other hand does not have active military bases outside of its own borders. They have 11 active air craft carriers, campared to one each for China and Russia. Long range nuclear warheads are more than double what China has (not sure what the Russians have, or what the number might be combined with China). I don't think any nation in the world really wants to piss them off.

[FlameOn]

BBC is claiming that Yanukovych had made the request for use of Russia force and amour in the Ukraine.

The EU and US are threatening to hit Moscow with sanctions and travel bans over its intervention in Crimea.

Meanwhile, Russia's UN envoy has said ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has asked Russia to use military force in Ukraine.

Vitaly Churkin said in a speech at the UN that Mr Yanukovych had made the request in writing to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Is this the case of Russia throwing Yanukovych under the bus? Or is it Russia using this as a pretense of restoring the president to power? Not sure yet.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe...8#TWEET1061124

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I agree with your points, but I would also say, that experience can be a huge asset on the battlefield.

Having soldiers that have been unde fire before can make a huge difference.

There is still an inclination to #### yourself, it is jsut easier to control.

That's the only thing I don't mind about mindless warmongering: experience.

It's the thousands of amputations and non-fatal casualties with the hundreds of thousands of unfit-for-duty designations that are crippling.

I really agree though about the experience part. Like I mentioned to, the US and UK are also much better prepared for any sort of theatre that might open up in the crimea than they were even 5 years ago as a result of their escapades in the middle east.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

BBC is claiming that Yanukovych had made the request for use of Russia force and amour in the Ukraine.



Is this the case of Russia throwing Yanukovych under the bus? Or is it Russia using this as a pretense of restoring the president to power? Not sure yet.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe...8#TWEET1061124

Pretense.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That's the only thing I don't mind about mindless warmongering: experience.

It's the thousands of amputations and non-fatal casualties with the hundreds of thousands of unfit-for-duty designations that are crippling.

I really agree though about the experience part. Like I mentioned to, the US and UK are also much better prepared for any sort of theatre that might open up in the crimea than they were even 5 years ago as a result of their escapades in the middle east.

A large number of countries are as well.

I think many nato countries were out and about in the Afghan country side.