* Our tech can kick ass. * Air superiority is still a thing. * 70yo DoD engineering geezers are still in demand as they can read blueprints. (Google Stinger replacements.) * Riding in a 60ton metal coffin wasn't sane in WWII and it ain't sane now. Not when a COTS drone with a grenade can cook you. * We probably spent too much for defense. Or you could look at as 'The Russians pulled off a nearly perfect con job for nearly 50 years'. Readers choice.
The war itself I am afraid is a zero sum for both sides. It sucks.
The advantage to w retreat, which Russia appears to be showing now, is that you can choose where to make a stand - Russia is now standing behind fortifications and natural obstacles (mostly rivers) that will be hard for Ukraine to overcome. It wouldn't be hard for the fighting to become a stalemate with the front lines staying close to where they are now - and a stalemate favors Russia in many ways.
What surprises me is NO ONE mentions the fact that since Ukies were TRAINED by russia during the Cold War, and this has been in the works for 6 years (Crimea) they speak a similar if not the same language, and what intel their brass can bring to the table. It would be more like us invading a Canada that has been trying to get away from us for 30 years. They're gonna have inside intel, sources, etc. The brass didn't forget Putin was a gangster. Probably a lot of brass he reported to still live in the Ukraine and they taught their children what Soviet life was like, and what he did. Attack a 1st world country, expect 1st world resistance.
That works both ways here; Russia has lots of Intel about and contacts in Ukraine. It appears that Russia badly misread their support in UKR and expected lots of people to support and help them that didn't.
Technically, Vietnam was not a stalemate when Congress decided to cut off the their aid & support in 1973. The stalemate had long been over by then, and the NVA were fully committed to the offensive.
The Russian Federation (RF) has conquered more than they set out to do, see Odessa for an illustration. The main goal of the RF were to put an end to the neo-Bolsheviks of Ukraine shelling the mostly Russians living in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. From 1994 about 11,000 civilians in Donetsk and Luhansk regions were killed by the talmud being permitted to run rump Ukraine.
Further, the RF will not permit what has already become rump Ukraine now that the port of Odessa is in RF hands, to enter NATO. NATO is now firmly under Rothschild control through Victoria Nuland and her merry band.
By the way, the US government left over 4,000 aircraft at various locations in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand over the 10 years they/we were operating there. There was no stalemate. My active duty began in 1967, my specialty was ELINT.
1) In what alternative universe is Odessa in RF hands?!? I believe you're possibly thinking of Sevastopol, which Ukraine has attacked multiple times successfully, making it largely unusable and untenable for Russia as long as the war persists. That's a loss, not a win.
2) When, exactly, were we "winning" in Vietnam? Last I looked, "stalemate" was the entire raison d'etre for going there, which didn't quite work out like Korea. PAVN waited until we were pre-occupied with Watergate, then conquered the entire country in a couple of months once we had lost further interest. Perhaps you read about it. Stalemates benefit no one in a war. Patton had that right, and he'd seen their cost firsthand.
In 1965, Indochina was close to being outright conquered, with Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand next on the menu. We were winning when we pushed the Reds across the border into Laos/Cambodia, and we were winning when the VC lost 45,000 men in the 1968 Tet Offensive, permanently reducing them to a secondary role (there is a reason they were last in the 1975 victory parade).
By 1972, the ARVN was capable of beating the NVA during the Easter Offensive, and had Nixon not been so eager for peace at any cost, the ARVN could have realistically smashed the NVA, even without American ground troops. Much like China in 1945-9, it required outright betrayal of our Allies before they were conquered. Ukraine is at the same risk now.
The Vietnam war was an 8-year stalemate from 1965-1973. It was designed to be so.
All that did was let the North build up for two years, and then take the entire country. Nobody wins stalemates, and once everyone in America realized that was the entire strategy, interest dropped to undetectable levels.
Letting it go in 1975 was the smartest thing we ever did. Wicked and cruel, but unstupid, and unsentimental. Short of nuking the North back to prehistoric times, we were never going to "win" there.
That's the exact situation in which Russia finds itself in Ukraine. Everyone wants to gainsay that reality, but the truth of it is being proven every day.
And the people telling everyone that Any Day Now™ Russia's going to win it all in Ukraine, are the same sorts of people that thought we could "win" Any Day Now™ in Vietnam. Or Afghanistan. Or Iraq.
Smart people don't get into punching contests with tar babies. You could look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby
The Vietnam War was much longer than the 8-year American period, and was a defensive war that ultimately turned into a retreat from victory. We didn’t have to nuke north Vietnam into the Stone Age to win, and betraying the south in 1975 was as smart as letting the Soviets encircle Berlin on all sides in 1945. Or letting the reds take over China because it “wasn’t our problem.” Until, of course, it was. Then we retreated from victory again so as to not disturb our comforts. Half-assing followed by retreats is not the same as a stalemate.
The north built up for 2 years while America was sabotaging the south by cutting off its aid. Much like with China, holding someone’s head underwater until he drowns is not a case of him being a bad swimmer. The North Vietnamese had dependable Soviet and Chinese aid, the south could not survive without the same from us.
Russia today finds itself in the same position as north Vietnam in 1972. If we treat Ukraine the same way we treated the Vietnamese, Putin will win.
Punching tar babies is an irrelevant argument. Wars are won by changing the status quo (like setting the tar baby on fire). If Putin persuades our leftists to abandon Ukraine, he will win.
Here you've hit upon a truth: "If we treat Ukraine the same way we treated the Vietnamese, Putin will win."
Once Ukraine's resistance became dependent on outside supply, this became an inevitable result.
But Putin's military adventurism wrapped in legendary Russian paranoia has done more to unite NATO and increase membership in that body than anything since Russia refusing to leave occupied Eastern Europe in 1946 did.
With that, the experiment escaped the lab, and our leftards aren't driving this bus any more. We're now mainly the ones holding back Poland and all of Eastern Europe from going all in against Russia, with or without NATO.
Putin couldn't "win" unless Ukraine declared itself non-existent, and the entire populace deserted the territory en masse overnight. That isn't happening.
Any other scenario makes Russia the French in Indochina, and the Brits in Ireland. Once everybody besides Putin in Moscow realizes that, and this jackassery ends, the hardest thing to do is going to be getting Russia to pay enough in war reparations to induce Ukraine to stop shelling Russians in actual Russia indefinitely, and shooting at their border guards 24/7/forever, just because they can.
Lets put to rest RU 'winning'. While they have tentative foothold on Eastern UA, look elsewhere --
* Sweden, Finland, the three Baltics and Denmark are in a pact independent of NATO participation in denying the RU Baltic fleet egress on anything but their terms. Swedish design anti-ship missiles have been placed through out the region. RU's naval investment essentially nullified.
* Norway has done similarly along the Western reaches of their coast.
* The Black Sea fleet is in similar situation to the Baltic fleet in that between Greece and Turkey they can be denied egress into the Med.
* Diplomatically the only thing they have going is a BRICS alignment. TMMV.
Will Schryver @imetatronink 🧵 On the Future of the Suwałki Gap
If, as appears increasingly possible, Poland and Lithuania are tricked into intervening in the Ukraine war, Belarus and Russia will act as one to defeat them. They will be relative pushovers compared to the Ukrainians.
Russia then will, at a time of its own choosing, declare a permanent sovereign land corridor to Kaliningrad, and forthwith demand that NATO immediately withdraw all its forces from the Baltics.
Putin has explicitly demanded that NATO be rolled-back to its pre-1997 borders. The Baltics will be compelled, one way or the other, to abide by that edict.
It must also be understood that the much-hyped Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty absolutely does NOT obligate ANY NATO member to support another NATO member militarily in the case of war. It is an entirely toothless provision.
And, among the US's European vassals only the British, the Poles, and the bold-talking but utterly impotent Baltic chihuahuas are damn fool enough at this juncture to form a "coalition of the willing" to make war against Russia and Belarus.
Above all, it must be soberly understood that:
THE US COULD NOT WIN AND WILL NOT FIGHT A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA TO MAINTAIN ITS IMPERIAL PRESENCE IN THE BALTICS.
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania would do well to come to grips with this reality sooner than later.
Russia or anyone else attacks Poland and/or any of the three Baltic States, Article V of the NATO Charter is triggered, and WWIII commences in earnest in something under half an hour.
At that point, whatever Russia is or used to be will be written in ashes on the wind, along with most of the northern hemisphere.
The entire Russian armed forces, at that point, will be able to hold meetings in a phone booth.
The difference is, he's shot his entire wad short of nukes, and NATO is just now waking up. And Midway (or North Africa, if you prefer) was last August.
Well the UA-RU war confirms a couple of things:
ReplyDelete* Our tech can kick ass.
* Air superiority is still a thing.
* 70yo DoD engineering geezers are still in demand as they can read blueprints. (Google Stinger replacements.)
* Riding in a 60ton metal coffin wasn't sane in WWII and it ain't sane now. Not when a COTS drone with a grenade can cook you.
* We probably spent too much for defense. Or you could look at as 'The Russians pulled off a nearly perfect con job for nearly 50 years'. Readers choice.
The war itself I am afraid is a zero sum for both sides. It sucks.
I keep on telling people both sides can lose, and Russia can't win.
ReplyDeleteThey keep jackholing that into "Ukraine is winning."
It's no such thing, as photos of France after "winning" WWI would make obvious even to retards.
What Ukraine can do is make itself so unattractive a prize that Russia finally wises up and GetsTFO, forever.
As it is, they've set back their ability to conduct military ops anywhere, even at home, back thirty years and more.
We've done the same thing to our own military with wokeism as an own goal.
Time will tell which version is harder to correct.
The advantage to w retreat, which Russia appears to be showing now, is that you can choose where to make a stand - Russia is now standing behind fortifications and natural obstacles (mostly rivers) that will be hard for Ukraine to overcome.
DeleteIt wouldn't be hard for the fighting to become a stalemate with the front lines staying close to where they are now - and a stalemate favors Russia in many ways.
What surprises me is NO ONE mentions the fact that since Ukies were TRAINED by russia during the Cold War, and this has been in the works for 6 years (Crimea) they speak a similar if not the same language, and what intel their brass can bring to the table.
ReplyDeleteIt would be more like us invading a Canada that has been trying to get away from us for 30 years. They're gonna have inside intel, sources, etc. The brass didn't forget Putin was a gangster. Probably a lot of brass he reported to still live in the Ukraine and they taught their children what Soviet life was like, and what he did.
Attack a 1st world country, expect 1st world resistance.
That works both ways here; Russia has lots of Intel about and contacts in Ukraine.
DeleteIt appears that Russia badly misread their support in UKR and expected lots of people to support and help them that didn't.
Please explain to the class how a stalemate led to our victories in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
ReplyDeletePlease show all work.
Technically, Vietnam was not a stalemate when Congress decided to cut off the their aid & support in 1973. The stalemate had long been over by then, and the NVA were fully committed to the offensive.
Delete...well, as to Vietnam,.we were winning when I left
DeleteThe Russian Federation (RF) has conquered more than they set out to do, see Odessa for an illustration. The main goal of the RF were to put an end to the neo-Bolsheviks of Ukraine shelling the mostly Russians living in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. From 1994 about 11,000 civilians in Donetsk and Luhansk regions were killed by the talmud being permitted to run rump Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the RF will not permit what has already become rump Ukraine now that the port of Odessa is in RF hands, to enter NATO. NATO is now firmly under Rothschild control through Victoria Nuland and her merry band.
By the way, the US government left over 4,000 aircraft at various locations in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand over the 10 years they/we were operating there. There was no stalemate. My active duty began in 1967, my specialty was ELINT.
Well said
Delete1) In what alternative universe is Odessa in RF hands?!?
ReplyDeleteI believe you're possibly thinking of Sevastopol, which Ukraine has attacked multiple times successfully, making it largely unusable and untenable for Russia as long as the war persists. That's a loss, not a win.
2) When, exactly, were we "winning" in Vietnam? Last I looked, "stalemate" was the entire raison d'etre for going there, which didn't quite work out like Korea.
PAVN waited until we were pre-occupied with Watergate, then conquered the entire country in a couple of months once we had lost further interest. Perhaps you read about it.
Stalemates benefit no one in a war. Patton had that right, and he'd seen their cost firsthand.
In 1965, Indochina was close to being outright conquered, with Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand next on the menu. We were winning when we pushed the Reds across the border into Laos/Cambodia, and we were winning when the VC lost 45,000 men in the 1968 Tet Offensive, permanently reducing them to a secondary role (there is a reason they were last in the 1975 victory parade).
DeleteBy 1972, the ARVN was capable of beating the NVA during the Easter Offensive, and had Nixon not been so eager for peace at any cost, the ARVN could have realistically smashed the NVA, even without American ground troops. Much like China in 1945-9, it required outright betrayal of our Allies before they were conquered. Ukraine is at the same risk now.
The Vietnam war was an 8-year stalemate from 1965-1973.
ReplyDeleteIt was designed to be so.
All that did was let the North build up for two years, and then take the entire country.
Nobody wins stalemates, and once everyone in America realized that was the entire strategy, interest dropped to undetectable levels.
Letting it go in 1975 was the smartest thing we ever did.
Wicked and cruel, but unstupid, and unsentimental.
Short of nuking the North back to prehistoric times, we were never going to "win" there.
That's the exact situation in which Russia finds itself in Ukraine.
Everyone wants to gainsay that reality, but the truth of it is being proven every day.
And the people telling everyone that Any Day Now™ Russia's going to win it all in Ukraine, are the same sorts of people that thought we could "win" Any Day Now™ in Vietnam. Or Afghanistan. Or Iraq.
Smart people don't get into punching contests with tar babies.
You could look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby
The Vietnam War was much longer than the 8-year American period, and was a defensive war that ultimately turned into a retreat from victory. We didn’t have to nuke north Vietnam into the Stone Age to win, and betraying the south in 1975 was as smart as letting the Soviets encircle Berlin on all sides in 1945. Or letting the reds take over China because it “wasn’t our problem.” Until, of course, it was. Then we retreated from victory again so as to not disturb our comforts. Half-assing followed by retreats is not the same as a stalemate.
DeleteThe north built up for 2 years while America was sabotaging the south by cutting off its aid. Much like with China, holding someone’s head underwater until he drowns is not a case of him being a bad swimmer. The North Vietnamese had dependable Soviet and Chinese aid, the south could not survive without the same from us.
Russia today finds itself in the same position as north Vietnam in 1972. If we treat Ukraine the same way we treated the Vietnamese, Putin will win.
Punching tar babies is an irrelevant argument. Wars are won by changing the status quo (like setting the tar baby on fire). If Putin persuades our leftists to abandon Ukraine, he will win.
Here you've hit upon a truth:
ReplyDelete"If we treat Ukraine the same way we treated the Vietnamese, Putin will win."
Once Ukraine's resistance became dependent on outside supply, this became an inevitable result.
But Putin's military adventurism wrapped in legendary Russian paranoia has done more to unite NATO and increase membership in that body than anything since Russia refusing to leave occupied Eastern Europe in 1946 did.
With that, the experiment escaped the lab, and our leftards aren't driving this bus any more. We're now mainly the ones holding back Poland and all of Eastern Europe from going all in against Russia, with or without NATO.
Putin couldn't "win" unless Ukraine declared itself non-existent, and the entire populace deserted the territory en masse overnight. That isn't happening.
Any other scenario makes Russia the French in Indochina, and the Brits in Ireland.
Once everybody besides Putin in Moscow realizes that, and this jackassery ends, the hardest thing to do is going to be getting Russia to pay enough in war reparations to induce Ukraine to stop shelling Russians in actual Russia indefinitely, and shooting at their border guards 24/7/forever, just because they can.
Lets put to rest RU 'winning'. While they have tentative foothold on Eastern UA, look elsewhere --
ReplyDelete* Sweden, Finland, the three Baltics and Denmark are in a pact independent of NATO participation in denying the RU Baltic fleet egress on anything but their terms. Swedish design anti-ship missiles have been placed through out the region. RU's naval investment essentially nullified.
* Norway has done similarly along the Western reaches of their coast.
* The Black Sea fleet is in similar situation to the Baltic fleet in that between Greece and Turkey they can be denied egress into the Med.
* Diplomatically the only thing they have going is a BRICS alignment. TMMV.
Listen to it all and learn.
ReplyDeleteDouglas MacGregor: https://youtu.be/J7UEX4qCO0g
Will Schryver
ReplyDelete@imetatronink
🧵 On the Future of the Suwałki Gap
If, as appears increasingly possible, Poland and Lithuania are tricked into intervening in the Ukraine war, Belarus and Russia will act as one to defeat them. They will be relative pushovers compared to the Ukrainians.
Russia then will, at a time of its own choosing, declare a permanent sovereign land corridor to Kaliningrad, and forthwith demand that NATO immediately withdraw all its forces from the Baltics.
Putin has explicitly demanded that NATO be rolled-back to its pre-1997 borders. The Baltics will be compelled, one way or the other, to abide by that edict.
It must also be understood that the much-hyped Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty absolutely does NOT obligate ANY NATO member to support another NATO member militarily in the case of war. It is an entirely toothless provision.
And, among the US's European vassals only the British, the Poles, and the bold-talking but utterly impotent Baltic chihuahuas are damn fool enough at this juncture to form a "coalition of the willing" to make war against Russia and Belarus.
Above all, it must be soberly understood that:
THE US COULD NOT WIN AND WILL NOT FIGHT A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA TO MAINTAIN ITS IMPERIAL PRESENCE IN THE BALTICS.
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania would do well to come to grips with this reality sooner than later.
Utter assgas and wishful thinking.
ReplyDeleteRussia or anyone else attacks Poland and/or any of the three Baltic States, Article V of the NATO Charter is triggered, and WWIII commences in earnest in something under half an hour.
At that point, whatever Russia is or used to be will be written in ashes on the wind, along with most of the northern hemisphere.
The entire Russian armed forces, at that point, will be able to hold meetings in a phone booth.
NATO is utterly impotent these days.
ReplyDeleteAESOP you need to come to grips with that fact.
So is Putin.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with that state of affairs.
The difference is, he's shot his entire wad short of nukes, and NATO is just now waking up.
And Midway (or North Africa, if you prefer) was last August.
This doesn't end well for Team Soviet.