Ukraine

[kallend 2,117]

11 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Of course Putin will threaten nuclear action. He has them so it is just logical to make the threat.

Some people thought Trump crazy enough to use nukes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-trump-misusing-nuclear-weapons-war-china-book-n1279187

 

[gowlerk 2,260]

53 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Of course Putin will threaten nuclear action. He has them so it is just logical to make the threat.

Yes. And for better or worse it is my belief that his bluff will be called before the end of this year.

Edited March 10, 2022 by gowlerk

[ryoder 1,590]

In 2015 a NATO member state shot down a Russian fighter, and there was no nuclear exchange:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown

[JoeWeber 2,871]

28 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes. And for better or worse it is my belief that his bluff will be called before the end of this year.

Someday this war's gonna end..... Hopefully without a nuclear exchange.

 

[jakee 1,571]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

In 2015 a NATO member state shot down a Russian fighter, and there was no nuclear exchange:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown

In NATO airspace.

[billvon 3,090]

 

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

Hopefully pack up and withdraw.

I don't think that's a possible outcome.  The only way that could happen if he can spin it as a victory i.e. "I made the Ukraine agree to not join NATO" or something like that.  He knows that if he just plain retreats from Ukraine that he is finished as a world power.

[JoeWeber 2,871]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

I don't think that's a possible outcome.  The only way that could happen if he can spin it as a victory i.e. "I made the Ukraine agree to not join NATO" or something like that.  He knows that if he just plain retreats from Ukraine that he is finished as a world power.

Absolutely. Give him the victory. No NATO membership and no further dispute in Crimea for a complete withdrawal and a useless promise to never invade again.  

[ryoder 1,590]

28 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

I don't think that's a possible outcome.  The only way that could happen if he can spin it as a victory i.e. "I made the Ukraine agree to not join NATO" or something like that.  He knows that if he just plain retreats from Ukraine that he is finished as a world power.

He could just declare that he won, and spend the next few years arguing that he was robbed of his victory.

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

The UK declared war on Germany 1100 GMT on September 3, 1939, and France a few hours later, followed by Canada, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, New Zealand. . . . . . I guess you aren't including them in "the free world".

Hi John,

IMO those 'declariations of war' were meaningless.  Britain did send some troops, ending with Dunkirk.  France, nothing; until they were attacked.

Treaties, declariations, etc are just words on paper unless followed up on.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

On 3/9/2022 at 6:01 AM, jakee said:

Well, no. Putin didn’t invade Ukraine just for a domestic message, he did it for (what he thinks are) legitimate strategic and economic objectives. Now the war is going badly he still doesn’t need a distraction for the populace because he has instead used it as cover for going Full Soviet on state control of the media. On the flip side, as the world turns against him Ukraine is even more strategically valuable as (in his paranoid fantasies) a buffer against invasion, and the huge oil and gas reserves even more crucial to their economy as the only thing left they’re able to sell.

Hi jakee,

Re:  going Full Soviet on state control of the media

I understand that Russian police/military are taking Russian people's cell phones & checking them for any contact with the outside world.  

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Yes. And for better or worse it is my belief that his bluff will be called before the end of this year.

Hi Ken,

I think it will be too late by then.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,590]

Maybe China isn't as chummy with Russia as we thought:

Russia says China refuses to supply aircraft parts after sanctions

[yoink 321]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

 

I don't think that's a possible outcome.  The only way that could happen if he can spin it as a victory i.e. "I made the Ukraine agree to not join NATO" or something like that.  He knows that if he just plain retreats from Ukraine that he is finished as a world power.

I've thought for a while that he might take Kiev then negotiate a ceasefire along with recognition of the two breakaway regions and Kiev as Russian, along with denial of membership of NATO for Ukraine which he can sell as a win, then spend the next 5 years preparing to take the rest of the country.

Edited March 10, 2022 by yoink

[Phil1111 1,149]

18 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Maybe China isn't as chummy with Russia as we thought:

Russia says China refuses to supply aircraft parts after sanctions

Every country has their Benedict Arnold. After everything the US did for the Saudis, MbS refused to increase oil output.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Absolutely. Give him the victory. No NATO membership and no further dispute in Crimea for a complete withdrawal and a useless promise to never invade again.  

Sounds like a good plan. After he withdraws he can claim that the agreement got lost in Hillary's e-mails.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

IMO those 'declariations of war' were meaningless.  Britain did send some troops, ending with Dunkirk.  France, nothing; until they were attacked.

Treaties, declariations, etc are just words on paper unless followed up on.

Jerry Baumchen

Canada (as one example) had 1.1 million people, more than 10% of its total population, serve in the military during the war.  At the start of the war the total military was less than 50,000.  During the course of the war Canada built and deployed the 4th largest air force and the 5th largest navy in the world.  Just how quickly do you think it would take to accomplish that?  Are you saying if troops aren't in theater within 24 hours they don't count?  If your position is that those countries that declared war (years before the US was dragged kicking and screaming into the conflict) were "meaningless", then I would say that the 1.1 million Canadians who served, the 55,000 who were wounded, and the 42,000 who were killed would collectively say fuck you!

[kallend 2,117]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

IMO those 'declariations of war' were meaningless.  Britain did send some troops, ending with Dunkirk.  France, nothing; until they were attacked.

Treaties, declariations, etc are just words on paper unless followed up on.

Jerry Baumchen

Oh puleeze!

Just think for more than 2 seconds about the logistics of it.  

Within the first month:

The first British army troops arrived in France (over 150,000 by mid October)

The RAF bombed the German fleet in Heligoland Bight

The RAF raided Bremen and Hamburg

The RN blockaded German ports

The French army  completely mobilized, attacked the Saar (not very successfully), followed by engagement with the Wehrmacht at the Siegfried line.

The RN sank U27

 

By the end of 1939 there had been a lot of action at sea, including the defeat of the battleship Graf Spee off South America.

Meanwhile, in the USA, anyone helping out was threatened with imprisonment and loss of citizenship.

 

 

 

 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

Oh puleeze!

Just think for more than 2 seconds about the logistics of it.  

Within the first month:

The first British army troops arrived in France (over 150,000 by mid October)

The RAF bombed the German fleet in Heligoland Bight

The RAF raided Bremen and Hamburg

The RN blockaded German ports

The French army  completely mobilized, attacked the Saar (not very successfully), followed by engagement with the Wehrmacht at the Siegfried line.

The RN sank U27

 

By the end of 1939 there had been a lot of action at sea, including the defeat of the battleship Graf Spee off South America.

Meanwhile, in the USA, anyone helping out was threatened with imprisonment and loss of citizenship.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi John,

OK, I was going to reply to GeorgiaDon, but this might be better. 

Re:  The UK declared war on Germany 1100 GMT on September 3, 1939, and France a few hours later, followed by Canada, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, New Zealand. . . . . . I guess you aren't including them in "the free world".

Other than the UK and 'RN' whoever that is, none of those other countries that 'declared war on Germany' did much of anything.

1 Sep 39)  Invasion of Poland - Wikipedia

22 Jun 41)  Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia

I think if we are going to discuss this in a rationale manner, we need to be specific about the dates that we are discussing.

There is no question that many nations helped in the defeat of the Third Reich.  However, one IMO needs to be specific about just when.

Most of the events that you list, were IMO not quite effective.  While the UK did lose a lot of military with their Expeditionary Force, they would have been nearly wiped out if not for the British civilian efforts at Dunkirk.  I think that their efforts were honorable, but not much came of it.

Jerry Baumchen

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

OK, I was going to reply to GeorgiaDon, but this might be better. 

Re:  The UK declared war on Germany 1100 GMT on September 3, 1939, and France a few hours later, followed by Canada, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, New Zealand. . . . . . I guess you aren't including them in "the free world".

Other than the UK and 'RN' whoever that is, none of those other countries that 'declared war on Germany' did much of anything.

1 Sep 39)  Invasion of Poland - Wikipedia

22 Jun 41)  Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia

I think if we are going to discuss this in a rationale manner, we need to be specific about the dates that we are discussing.

There is no question that many nations helped in the defeat of the Third Reich.  However, one IMO needs to be specific about just when.

Most of the events that you list, were IMO not quite effective.  While the UK did lose a lot of military with their Expeditionary Force, they would have been nearly wiped out if not for the British civilian efforts at Dunkirk.  I think that their efforts were honorable, but not much came of it.

Jerry Baumchen

RN would be Royal Navy. Keep in mind that Germany had several years to plan and prepare. They had updated all of their major weapons systems to the most modern in the world. Even though the US entered the European theater years later.Their failures were well documented. Showing that US forces had much to learn.

Operation Torch November 1942 "However, the Allied drive east to Tunisia ground to a halt because of inadequate transportation, logistics snarls, and the winter rains in northwest Africa, which turned roads and airfields into quagmires. Meanwhile, Germany frantically reinforced its ground and air strength in Tunisia.

Physical conditions aside, US air and ground forces did not perform well as a team during the early months of Torch. On that score, there was enough blame to go around. Both sides lacked combat experience. This was the first large-scale ground-air operation of the war for US forces.

There was another principal reason for the poor US showing: the lack of understanding or agreement between ground and air commanders about how to run the war. The ground commanders operated under a liberal interpretation of “Aviation in Support of Ground Forces,”

I'll stop now because Wendy will likely come calling.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

... He knows that if he just plain retreats from Ukraine that he is finished as a world power.

Given the absolutely stellar performance of the Russian army in Ukraine, which is the first time they've gone up against a competent and prepared opponent in an long time, Russia may well be finished as a world power anyway.

The possession of nukes is always the wild card, but the questions about the reliability of Russian nukes makes that less of an issue.

One of the reasons the 'wannabe' nuclear powers do tests of the devices is to let the world know that they have functional weapons.

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

RN would be Royal Navy. Keep in mind that Germany had several years to plan and prepare. They had updated all of their major weapons systems to the most modern in the world. Even though the US entered the European theater years later.Their failures were well documented. Showing that US forces had much to learn.

Operation Torch November 1942 "However, the Allied drive east to Tunisia ground to a halt because of inadequate transportation, logistics snarls, and the winter rains in northwest Africa, which turned roads and airfields into quagmires. Meanwhile, Germany frantically reinforced its ground and air strength in Tunisia.

Physical conditions aside, US air and ground forces did not perform well as a team during the early months of Torch. On that score, there was enough blame to go around. Both sides lacked combat experience. This was the first large-scale ground-air operation of the war for US forces.

There was another principal reason for the poor US showing: the lack of understanding or agreement between ground and air commanders about how to run the war. The ground commanders operated under a liberal interpretation of “Aviation in Support of Ground Forces,”

I'll stop now because Wendy will likely come calling.

Hi Phil,

I agree completely.  If you want to read some IMO great books about the battles with the Third Reich, I can highly recommend Rick Atkinson's trilogy.

In An Army at Dawn he writes about how the US forces were completely inadequate until they learned how to hate.  He writes that that is when they became an effective fighting force.

World War II Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson (goodreads.com)

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  By mid-1940 the bombing efforts of the UK began really taking a toll.  Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

[jakee 1,571]

8 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Other than the UK and 'RN' whoever that is, none of those other countries that 'declared war on Germany' did much of anything.

The Royal Navy. As Kallend pointed out, they were doing a lot.

8 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Most of the events that you list, were IMO not quite effective.  While the UK did lose a lot of military with their Expeditionary Force, they would have been nearly wiped out if not for the British civilian efforts at Dunkirk.  I think that their efforts were honorable, but not much came of it.

If we’re going to discuss this in a rational manner we’re going to have to distinguish between ‘doing something’ and ‘doing something that immediately worked’ because they are two very different things. You started off by saying the UKs declaration of war was meaningless because we only sent a few troops, now you’re saying it was meaningless because we couldn’t stop Hitler taking France. Sorry, you know that doesn’t make sense.

Even then, just the declaration itself matters. Hitler was absolutely convinced that the UK would sit back and let him do what he wanted. He liked us and for some reason thought we liked him. When he had to commit to the BoB, the blitz and then reparations for an invasion it delayed his turn on Russia and guaranteed that they’d be stuck in winter before they were halfway through. That was hugely consequential.

[olofscience 490]

9 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Given the absolutely stellar performance of the Russian army in Ukraine, which is the first time they've gone up against a competent and prepared opponent in an long time, Russia may well be finished as a world power anyway.

USSR got 15,000 soldiers killed in action in Afghanistan over 10 years.

Compare that with 6,000 KIA in Ukraine according to US intelligence. In 2 weeks.

(and that's not even believing the Ukrainian estimate of 12,000 KIA)

[BIGUN 1,440]

11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

There was another principal reason for the poor US showing: the lack of understanding or agreement between ground and air commanders about how to run the war. The ground commanders operated under a liberal interpretation of “Aviation in Support of Ground Forces,”

The philosophy of "Aviation in Support of Ground Forces" still exists (and is taught) to this day. Infantry courses still teach - "The Infantry is the only force that can take and hold ground."   

[kallend 2,117]

9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The philosophy of "Aviation in Support of Ground Forces" still exists (and is taught) to this day. Infantry courses still teach - "The Infantry is the only force that can take and hold ground."   

Ah, the Poor Bloody Infantry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wipers_Times