|
Post by limey² on Sept 22, 2024 11:20:06 GMT
SSBNs mean that's largely irrelevant. Kaliningead means Putin's propaganda point on the topic is hypocctisy as well as absurd. You can fit a whole lot more missiles and troops in Ukraine than in a sub. This is about maintaining an aggressive posture towards Russia. Lol @ kaliningrad. Think Moscow. I mean, Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave inside NATO territory. If Russoa can invade Ukraine because future missiles, presumably we can take Kaliningrad out because currentvmissiles? Or perhaps the Kremlin's anxiety is purely affected, aand the attack was simply a land grab.
|
|
|
Post by MojoJojo on Sept 22, 2024 11:59:20 GMT
You can fit a whole lot more missiles and troops in Ukraine than in a sub. This is about maintaining an aggressive posture towards Russia. Lol @ kaliningrad. Think Moscow. I mean, Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave inside NATO territory. If Russoa can invade Ukraine because future missiles, presumably we can take Kaliningrad out because currentvmissiles? Or perhaps the Kremlin's anxiety is purely affected, aand the attack was simply a land grab. Land grab. Land that's blessed with trapped natural gas now accessible via fracking technology.
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 22, 2024 17:06:28 GMT
You can fit a whole lot more missiles and troops in Ukraine than in a sub. This is about maintaining an aggressive posture towards Russia. Lol @ kaliningrad. Think Moscow. I mean, Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave inside NATO territory. If Russoa can invade Ukraine because future missiles, presumably we can take Kaliningrad out because currentvmissiles? Or perhaps the Kremlin's anxiety is purely affected, aand the attack was simply a land grab. You forget the whole Ukraine isn't part of NATO part of this. Kind of important. Obviously it was just a land grab, but why that piece of land isn't so simple. There are cultural, economic, and strategic military reasons.
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,501
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Sept 22, 2024 18:26:23 GMT
This seems delusional.
Why do you think once we engage in Ukraine, China, Iraq, Syria and NK would ... invade Europe? What kind of nonsense is this.
I know you're not a major player on the world stage. (badoom) But here in the US we have obligations to Israel and Taiwan that would force us to split our forces and our attention once both were invaded because we're playing games over sister slovak countries oil resources.
Queshank
The US could, with minimal help from UK (Cyprus bases) & NATO allies for logistics, amply overwhelm all militaries within a thousand miles of Israel whilst simultaneously committing the 2 or 3 SSNs required to prevent an invasion of Taiwan. Heck, the RN could do that, leave the USN to go ashore in Sydney & get laid. Seriously. China cannot invade Taiwan. The capability isn't there, militarily, not for many years. Not unless we go all in on Ukraine ....
Is this another one of those "I choose which experts to listen to" conundrums limey?
This stuff means nothing? Your observations on Ukraine have proven to be misguided for about 2 years now. Why should I trust you over these "experts" on this one?
War game suggests Chinese invasion of Taiwan would fail at a huge cost to US, Chinese and Taiwanese militaries
A war over Taiwan could leave a victorious US military in as crippled a state as the Chinese forces it defeated.
****
Those are among the conclusions the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), made after running what it claims is one of the most extensive war-game simulations ever conducted on a possible conflict over Taiwan,
Queshank
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 22, 2024 18:41:13 GMT
I mean, Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave inside NATO territory. If Russoa can invade Ukraine because future missiles, presumably we can take Kaliningrad out because currentvmissiles? Or perhaps the Kremlin's anxiety is purely affected, aand the attack was simply a land grab. Land grab. Land that's blessed with trapped natural gas now accessible via fracking technology. That too.
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 22, 2024 18:44:16 GMT
I mean, Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave inside NATO territory. If Russoa can invade Ukraine because future missiles, presumably we can take Kaliningrad out because currentvmissiles? Or perhaps the Kremlin's anxiety is purely affected, aand the attack was simply a land grab. You forget the whole Ukraine isn't part of NATO part of this. Kind of important. Obviously it was just a land grab, but why that piece of land isn't so simple. There are cultural, economic, and strategic military reasons. There was, doubtless, an unease in Moscow about yet anorher former vassal/satelllite changing "sides", & a pre-emptive aspect in case of EU/NATO acession. The idea that cultural reasons are valid in Russia's crime is, I'm afraid, Russian propaganda. The same could be said for Mexico attacking Texas, or Native Americans attacking your Senate.
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 22, 2024 18:51:26 GMT
The US could, with minimal help from UK (Cyprus bases) & NATO allies for logistics, amply overwhelm all militaries within a thousand miles of Israel whilst simultaneously committing the 2 or 3 SSNs required to prevent an invasion of Taiwan. Heck, the RN could do that, leave the USN to go ashore in Sydney & get laid. Seriously. China cannot invade Taiwan. The capability isn't there, militarily, not for many years. Not unless we go all in on Ukraine ....
Is this another one of those "I choose which experts to listen to" conundrums limey?
This stuff means nothing? Your observations on Ukraine have proven to be misguided for about 2 years now. Why should I trust you over these "experts" on this one?
War game suggests Chinese invasion of Taiwan would fail at a huge cost to US, Chinese and Taiwanese militaries
A war over Taiwan could leave a victorious US military in as crippled a state as the Chinese forces it defeated.
****
Those are among the conclusions the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), made after running what it claims is one of the most extensive war-game simulations ever conducted on a possible conflict over Taiwan,
Queshank
Meh. The brutal fact is, China would need to supply an invasion by sea and it isn't capable of finding & killing US/UK/Australian submarines. The premise of the study is that the loss of two USN carriers would "cripple" US forces.... at a time when the Chinese navy & Russian navy were inoperable. Yeah? Lol. That's what I keep telling you. China can't invade Taiwan. The whole Taiwan thing is a sideshow. Your foeces, for decades, have been designed to fight and win two major wars at global level, unconnected to each other. They're vastly overcapable of doing just that. China and Russia know it.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Sept 22, 2024 18:51:48 GMT
You forget the whole Ukraine isn't part of NATO part of this. Kind of important. Obviously it was just a land grab, but why that piece of land isn't so simple. There are cultural, economic, and strategic military reasons. There was, doubtless, an unease in Moscow about yet anorher former vassal/satelllite changing "sides", & a pre-emptive aspect in case of EU/NATO acession. The idea that cultural reasons are valid in Russia's crime is, I'm afraid, Russian propaganda. The same could be said for Mexico attacking Texas, or Native Americans attacking your Senate. Exactly. I suspect if the uk attacked Boston and ny under the rationale that they were once the uk’s some would wake up. And those people would say, but this is different.
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 22, 2024 19:49:12 GMT
You forget the whole Ukraine isn't part of NATO part of this. Kind of important. Obviously it was just a land grab, but why that piece of land isn't so simple. There are cultural, economic, and strategic military reasons. There was, doubtless, an unease in Moscow about yet anorher former vassal/satelllite changing "sides", & a pre-emptive aspect in case of EU/NATO acession. The idea that cultural reasons are valid in Russia's crime is, I'm afraid, Russian propaganda. The same could be said for Mexico attacking Texas, or Native Americans attacking your Senate. I don't really find any of their reasons as a valid pretext for war however I'm pretty confident that if we really actually cared about the Ukrainians and ending the war then we ( the US) would negotiate directly with Russia and formally agree to not make a military alliance with Ukraine and that we would not station our and weapons within it in exchange for a permanent cessation of the Russian invasion.
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 23, 2024 6:18:47 GMT
There was, doubtless, an unease in Moscow about yet anorher former vassal/satelllite changing "sides", & a pre-emptive aspect in case of EU/NATO acession. The idea that cultural reasons are valid in Russia's crime is, I'm afraid, Russian propaganda. The same could be said for Mexico attacking Texas, or Native Americans attacking your Senate. I don't really find any of their reasons as a valid pretext for war however I'm pretty confident that if we really actually cared about the Ukrainians and ending the war then we ( the US) would negotiate directly with Russia and formally agree to not make a military alliance with Ukraine and that we would not station our and weapons within it in exchange for a permanent cessation of the Russian invasion. It's hardly up to Russia who their neighbours ally with. It's up to the parties to the alliance(s).
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 23, 2024 10:28:19 GMT
I don't really find any of their reasons as a valid pretext for war however I'm pretty confident that if we really actually cared about the Ukrainians and ending the war then we ( the US) would negotiate directly with Russia and formally agree to not make a military alliance with Ukraine and that we would not station our and weapons within it in exchange for a permanent cessation of the Russian invasion. It's hardly up to Russia who their neighbours ally with.It's up to the parties to the alliance(s). It's amazing they haven't grasped this yet.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 14:33:57 GMT
It's hardly up to Russia who their neighbours ally with. It's up to the parties to the alliance(s).Indeed, and many NATO members opposed admitting Ukraine for years. Some still do. Some give lip service to it (especially the US), but are still slow playing it - most likely in the hopes of avoiding it (just gonna hold that door open a little longer).
These other states can - and get to - decide whether or not an alliance with Ukraine is in their interest, which isn't a foregone conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 24, 2024 6:14:08 GMT
I don't really find any of their reasons as a valid pretext for war however I'm pretty confident that if we really actually cared about the Ukrainians and ending the war then we ( the US) would negotiate directly with Russia and formally agree to not make a military alliance with Ukraine and that we would not station our and weapons within it in exchange for a permanent cessation of the Russian invasion. It's hardly up to Russia who their neighbours ally with. It's up to the parties to the alliance(s). Correct. I'm not sure what your point is exactly. We aren't obligated to make any alliance with Ukraine, that is our choice, and we can put that choice on the negotiation table with Russia.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 25, 2024 16:29:37 GMT
Speech probably won't be that interesting unless he reveals something about this revised doctrine.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 25, 2024 20:13:47 GMT
The doctrine discussed in post #88 has apparently been updated:
Particularly, "He said that Russia would consider such a 'possibility' of using nuclear weapons if it detected the start of a massive launch of missiles, aircraft and drones into its territory, which presented a 'critical threat' to the country's sovereignty."
Those underlined parts are important.
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 1, 2024 13:34:20 GMT
Wait a minute.. You're saying plugging the geographic gaps that have been used to invade Russia before isn't strategic? And you're saying this motivation has nothing to do with Crimea 2014? So, why haven't they done it in Georgia? If you think that's the motivating factor, that's a question you need to answer. They fought a war there in 2008 (six years before Ukraine) and nothing has happened on that front in 15 years.
My thought is that there are other strategic motives for Ukraine, which has nothing to do with plugging gaps. I guess I wasn't clear enough earlier. It's about control of resources (oil and gas), control of militarily important sites (Crimea), and keeping Ukraine out of NATO (which is tied to the former issues as well as long standing security concerns).
Hence my comparison with Poland earlier: "They don't have any resources that Russia wants. And Russia has Kaliningrad Oblast. And Poland's membership in Nato affects neither of those; unlike Ukraine." ( Post #28) Emphasize doesn't not mean only. I think he's emphasizing that at the expense of other factors (past actions, their own statements, European politics, NATO, etc) to push his predictions (and sell books).
They have! Georgia is occupied today. They set up a puppet government and created a new border. The Georgians protest but aren't responding like the Ukrainians. I don't doubt that control of resources, Crimea and concerns about NATO are part of it. But I also find Zeihan's point persuasive, especially since there is historical support for Russia being strategically interested in those gaps. It's this and that, rather than or. Is that something useful for selling books? Sure! But that doesn't mean the point isn't right, even if its not the entire story.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Oct 1, 2024 15:17:49 GMT
They have! Georgia is occupied today. They set up a puppet government and created a new border. The Georgians protest but aren't responding like the Ukrainians. I don't doubt that control of resources, Crimea and concerns about NATO are part of it. But I also find Zeihan's point persuasive, especially sense their is historical support for Russia being strategically interested in those gaps. It's this & that, rather than or. Is that something useful for selling books? Sure! But that doesn't mean the point isn't right, even if its not the entire story. Separatist regions of Georgia that had been occupied. They don't occupy the entire country, which is what Zeihan's map shows their aim to be. If that was their aim, they could've done that in 2008; there was nothing really stopping them.
And when exactly did they set up a puppet government in Georgia? Are you referring to the Dream party? That certainly didn't happen in 2008, and the history of the party is a lot more complicated than "puppet government."
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Oct 1, 2024 20:46:25 GMT
They have! Georgia is occupied today. They set up a puppet government and created a new border. The Georgians protest but aren't responding like the Ukrainians. I don't doubt that control of resources, Crimea and concerns about NATO are part of it. But I also find Zeihan's point persuasive, especially sense their is historical support for Russia being strategically interested in those gaps. It's this & that, rather than or. Is that something useful for selling books? Sure! But that doesn't mean the point isn't right, even if its not the entire story. Separatist regions of Georgia that had been occupied. They don't occupy the entire country, which is what Zeihan's map shows their aim to be. If that was their aim, they could've done that in 2008; there was nothing really stopping them.
And when exactly did they set up a puppet government in Georgia? Are you referring to the Dream party? That certainly didn't happen in 2008, and the history of the party is a lot more complicated than "puppet government."
Do you know what is going to happen to the people who were on peace-keeping duty when they get to Ukraine?
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Oct 1, 2024 21:52:15 GMT
Do you know what is going to happen to the people who were on peace-keeping duty when they get to Ukraine? Some of them are probably already dead (they started pulling troops in April).
So are a lot of the people they were supposed to be protecting in Nagorno-Karabakh.
On multiple fronts, Russia's war in Ukraine has been a strategic disaster.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 21, 2024 16:56:49 GMT
Might be seeing Putin's response to Biden lifting the restrictions:
See also:
US officials are disputing Ukraine's claim:
|
|