War in Eastern Europe, what's it good for ....

[Opportunity]

Russia's inability to maintain a long sustained operation appears to have been oversold to us.

Is this bad? Weapons manufacturers, I think, are quite satisfied. If this war lasts a few more years, I think it will ensure a comfortable old age for many of their heirs.

[dogmush]

Is this bad? Weapons manufacturers, I think, are quite satisfied. If this war lasts a few more years, I think it will ensure a comfortable old age for many of their heirs.

Our's too, man.  Our's too.

[Angel Eyes]

Anthony Blinken hard at work in Kyiv:

https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1790470009694695924

[MillCreek]

https://www.ft.com/content/71a515d9-e473-48b6-a6a0-bf839d1bb41e

Much like the PRC, South Korea, Japan, and Germany, the EU as a whole is seeing a population drop.

[Angel Eyes]

https://www.ft.com/content/71a515d9-e473-48b6-a6a0-bf839d1bb41e

Much like the PRC, South Korea, Japan, and Germany, the EU as a whole is seeing a population drop.

... with the potential to drop a lot further very quickly ...

[Angel Eyes]

Putin offering a ceasefire:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-wants-ukraine-ceasefire-current-frontlines-sources-say-2024-05-24/

[Opportunity]

Putin offering a ceasefire:

It is unlikely that anyone will listen to his proposal now.
If Ukraine were a truly independent country, perhaps it would listen... However, it is stupid to talk about it now. Here - take our weapons and go to the front, we will fight until the last Ukrainian. It's all sad...

[dogmush]

Everybody distracted by the conviction news?  Good.  We'll just slide this little bit in while no one's paying attention.

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-allows-ukraine-use-us-supplied-arms-strike-inside-russia-near-kharkiv-area-2024-05-30/

WASHINGTON/PRAGUE, May 30 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden has quietly authorized Kyiv to launch U.S.-supplied weapons at military targets inside Russia that are supporting an offensive against the northeastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, four U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The decision marks a policy shift by Biden, who had steadfastly refused to allow Ukraine to use American weaponry for strikes inside Russia.

What could go wrong? 

[Angel Eyes]

Note to self: check supply of iodine tablets.

[Ben]

Note to self: check supply of iodine tablets.

Plus There's a few ammo sales going on right now in case you want to combine this with the Trump arrest thread. 

[JTHunter]

Everybody distracted by the conviction news?  Good.  We'll just slide this little bit in while no one's paying attention.

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-allows-ukraine-use-us-supplied-arms-strike-inside-russia-near-kharkiv-area-2024-05-30/

What could go wrong?

Considering that Putin has already made "noises" about possibly using tactical nukes, who knows? 

[Ben]

Everybody distracted by the conviction news?  Good.  We'll just slide this little bit in while no one's paying attention.

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-allows-ukraine-use-us-supplied-arms-strike-inside-russia-near-kharkiv-area-2024-05-30/

What could go wrong?

Apparently now that Brandon went first, Germany and the UK are doing the same thing.

If RKL were still posting here, this would be where he posts that clip from Hunt for Red October.

[Angel Eyes]

In that same vein:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13492243/NATO-plan-troops-line-fight-RUSSIA-Alliance-prepares-rapid-deployment-American-soldiers-amid-fears-Moscow-plotting-major-war-Europe.html

NATO is drawing up plans to send American troops to the frontlines of Europe in the event of an all-out conflict with Russia, it has been revealed.

I would expect nothing less from our European brothers.

[cordex]

I would expect nothing less from our European brothers.

Hasn’t that been the battle plan since 1949 or so?  Kind of the whole point of NATO isn’t it?

I don’t think Putin has the military capacity to invade Europe, so I think this is largely irrelevant. That said, if he did invade - for instance - Poland, it would seem to be perfectly in line with long established treaties for the US and other NATO countries to deploy in response.

[Angel Eyes]

Hasn’t that been the battle plan since 1949 or so?  Kind of the whole point of NATO isn’t it?

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the "an attack on one is an attack on all" doctrine.  I was referring to the article's emphasis on getting American troops to the front lines while skipping over the matter of transporting British troops, German troops, Dutch troops, etc. 

[cordex]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the "an attack on one is an attack on all" doctrine.  I was referring to the article's emphasis on getting American troops to the front lines while skipping over the matter of transporting British troops, German troops, Dutch troops, etc.

Got it.

There may be other reasons, but the primary I can think of is that most European member state armies have fewer logistical issues than the US military when discussing combat in Europe, so a story about overcoming transportation hurdles is going to focus on the people who a) have a force large enough to comment on and b) have to boat their way in instead of the guys who are already next door.

[K Frame]

"That said, if he did invade - for instance - Poland..."

Given what I'm seeing of the state of the Polish armed forces, I'm thinking any Russian invasion through Poland would be absolutely shattered. The Poles seem to have, over the last decade or so, put together one hell of a capable (at least on paper) and effective military.

[dogmush]

I'm not thinking Russia would invade anyone.  As you are all saying it'd be kinda stupid.

If I were to put on my Borscht and Vodka hat, I would start looking at ways to disrupt the logistics of weapons coming into Ukraine.  Either the ships bringing it in from America, or ways that NATO is moving materiel east in Europe, or both.  Russia's allies (Iran mostly but also China) are good at getting small cells of people into countries and arming them and Europe's borders aren't significantly better than ours.  "Terror" attacks that happen to *expletive deleted*ck up Trail hubs would cripple logistics in Europe.  As would "organic" Anti-War demonstrators doing things like the stop oil folks but on actual logistical targets, not random roads.  As far as stuff coming from America, ships are as vulnerable as they always have been, and Russia's subs are still out there, and TU-95's, TU-26's, and TU-160's all mount hypersonic anti-ship missiles.  It's pretty easy to track which ships load up at MOTSU and when they leave.  Sure we could go back to convoys and guarding them with navel assets, but we have limited Naval capacity.

Limited strikes to interrupt the logistics of NATO supplying their proxy, and if NATO wants to invade, fall back into Russia over the winter ala 1941.  That does risk the US navy getting pissed off and ending the Red Navy, but it would also put Russia in a better position with their allies and the non-NATO portions of world opinion.  "We aren't invading NATO, we're just stopping their weapons shipments to the NAZI's in Ukraine.  If they stopped supporting the NAZI's none of this would happen." 


That's the kind of play I'd make if I were Russia, and needed to react to the West's escalation.

[cordex]

Just to be clear, as a student of history you think Russia should avoid doing something stupid like an invasion of Poland and should instead *expletive deleted*ck with America's boats?  Because that has worked so well to elicit mild and proportional responses from the US in the past?

[dogmush]

Just to be clear, as a student of history you think Russia should avoid doing something stupid like an invasion of Poland and should instead *expletive deleted*ck with America's boats?  Because that has worked so well to elicit mild and proportional responses from the US in the past?

I am aware of that.  We get touchy about the boats. 

I am saying that Russia can not win an offensive operation against NATO in Europe.  They can also not win a regional conflict with Ukraine as long as Ukraine can be resupplied with increasingly advanced weapons indefinitely.  They probably can win a defensive engagement in western Russia in the winter, or at least not lose it.

So if you're Russia, and are unwilling to give up in Ukraine and pull out with nothing, what do you do to stop the indefinite resupply of your opponent, or force NATO into an engagement where you have a chance?  You've got to stop the flow of weapons (and to a lesser extant volunteers) into Ukraine.  How do you do that?  Do the math. 

[Northwoods]

I am aware of that.  We get touchy about the boats. 

I am saying that Russia can not win an offensive operation against NATO in Europe.  They can also not win a regional conflict with Ukraine as long as Ukraine can be resupplied with increasingly advanced weapons indefinitely.  They probably can win a defensive engagement in western Russia in the winter, or at least not lose it.

So if you're Russia, and are unwilling to give up in Ukraine and pull out with nothing, what do you do to stop the indefinite resupply of your opponent, or force NATO into an engagement where you have a chance?  You've got to stop the flow of weapons (and to a lesser extant volunteers) into Ukraine.  How do you do that?  Do the math. 

If Russia can't win a conventional war, they could decide to go nuclear.  That would be dumb.  But if Russia sees it as "win or die" the risk of being annihilated in response is not a great deterent. 

[WLJ]

If Russia can't win a conventional war, they could decide to go nuclear.  That would be dumb.  But if Russia sees it as "win or die" the risk of being annihilated in response is not a great deterent.

If anyone is even even remotely thinking of invading Russia something has gone horribly wrong. Russia is fine unless something internal happens

[cordex]

So if you're Russia, and are unwilling to give up in Ukraine and pull out with nothing, what do you do to stop the indefinite resupply of your opponent, or force NATO into an engagement where you have a chance?  You've got to stop the flow of weapons (and to a lesser extant volunteers) into Ukraine.  How do you do that?  Do the math.

If there is anything that would make the US band together and double-down on supporting Ukraine it would be for Russia to perform a direct action against US vessels.

I think you were way more on track with deniable anti-war demonstrators and terror acts that are harder to link to a nation state.  A sub knocking out a US ship with a hypersonic missile is a little less subtle.

[dogmush]

If there is anything that would make the US band together and double-down on supporting Ukraine it would be for Russia to perform a direct action against US vessels.

I think you were way more on track with deniable anti-war demonstrators and terror acts that are harder to link to a nation state.  A sub knocking out a US ship with a hypersonic missile is a little less subtle.

We'll see.  I'm not saying you're incorrect.  US flagged ships disappearing or blowing up are likely to make US public opinion turn back to supporting Ukraine.  But from Russia's perspective, short of getting US Army Troops on the ground what's the difference?  We're already giving them billions of dollars and weapons, making sure Trump can't turn off the aid, and blocking all peace overtures.  More US public support of Ukraine is pretty immaterial, assuming we stop short of boots on the ground.  On the plus side (for Russia) is they need to start limiting the delivery or war materiel to Ukraine.  Materiel, I'll remind you, that is now being used to strike targets inside Russia's borders.


I'm not saying they definately WILL sink our ships.  You guys are all correct that there's very real risks to that.  It isn't subtle.  But they do definitely have the capability, and strategically they need to do something to limit the influx of weapons, or resign themselves to taking US weapons fire inside Russia.  Lockheed is currently developing HIMARS variants that could hit Moscow from inside Ukraine.

[K Frame]

One question...

How are we supplying these munitions to Ukraine? Are they on US military owned/operated ships?

Or are they going via chartered merchant vessel, given that the US has virtually no US flagged merchant ships of our own anymore.