If Russia invades Ukraine... global war?

Just wondering what you think. It seems like a strong possibility Russia will eventually 'invade' Ukraine. I'm not particularly interested in discussing whether this would be an actual invasion or a sort of 'police action'- many Ukrainians would welcome a Russian 'invasion' ...and many would fight it. I think the legitimacy of such an action has already been argued to death with no clear winners. I'm interested in what you all think would be the regional/international response to it.

 

I saw a headline in passing that Biden has threatened Russia with harsh consequences if they invade Ukraine.

This was President Obama's strategy when Russia invaded Crimea. If you remember he placed heavy economic sanctions on them that hurt Russia severely but didn't actually end the Russian occupation of Crimea.

I think this time around Biden doesn't actually have an option to hurt Russia economically the way that Obama did. We can't even help our own economy with the COVID thing going on. Much less go after someone elses'.

There is, of course, the military option, but that would lead to a quagmire like Afghanistan. We can't actually win a war in Ukraine, not without attacking Russia directly and cause a resulting Nuclear war! I was afraid that this would come about one day. Maybe that time is today?

Not interfering in the Ukrainian takeover, by Russia, will lead to Russia being emboldened and, perhaps, trying to re-establish the Soviet Union borders by force (Is Poland next?). However, Russia might be entering a quagmire themselves since Ukraine is an unstable mess already from their failed entry into the European Union and Russian hostility. Russia might want power but they might bite off more than they can chew there. Rumors have it that the military losses from interference in Ukraine and Crimea are staggering and are being covered up.

 

The consequence would be the total economic isolation of Russia. Putin will not risk that. He's a crime boss, but he's good at assessing risks.

 

I hope so.

I heard Russia had been mulling the idea of rolling in and splitting the nation in half, keeping the half that likes Russia and leaving the other to w/e fate it chooses. While I think this would be a good outcome if it could happen, I really dont think it could be done without a much larger regional war- too much politics at play...I could see another media blitz of the 'they took the babies out of the incubators and left them on the cold floor' variety wagging the US dog yet again into the quagmire.

 

Don't watch too much RT.

The Ukrainians would not welcome a Russian invasion. The ship of Russian patriotism has sailed a long time ago. A police action is simply an invasion by another name.

Putin just wants to make sure Ukraine doesn't become another Estonia. He'd rather have an impoverished Ukraine than a successful one.

There is no Russia. There is only Putin. I don't know Putin's mind, but I truly doubt he will invade Ukraine beyond what he has currently done because it serves no purpose for Putin.

The incubator story by a 15-year-old was wrong. But was the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam right?

 

Invasion is never 'right'. But I dont think Americans would've supported military action to stop it had we (the people) known at the time that we helped Kuwait slant-drill Iraqi oilfields to spark the whole thing off.

 

So, you're trading one propaganda for another. Think for yourself. Do you really think that Saddam invaded Kuwait because of slant drilling?

 

Biden threatens Russia? With what? Gifting them billions in military equipment? Nobody feels threatened by Biden and his woke generals. Not even the white rage they are hunting for atm.

 

Absolutely. They were drilling Iraqi oil and selling it to Iraq's clientelle at prices cheaper than Iraq could sell it. They were trying to drive Iraq to financial ruin, probably at the behest of western central banks who didn't like Iraq (or any nation) being financially independent.

 

So all the following reasons were either not important or not on Saddam's mind when he invaded Kuwait:

1. Kuwait had no military to speak of.
2. Iraq had a large military and Iraq had just made peace with Iran.
3. Iran owed $60 billion and Kuwait $12 billion which would vanish if annexed.
4. Saddam thought that the U.S. would not intervene.

None of that mattered. The one thing on Saddam's mind when he invaded Kuwait was slant drilling.

In addition, the U.S. would not have sent troops to take back Kuwait if only they had know about the unverified slant drilling . . .

Are those your beliefs and you're sticking to them?

 

The words you're trying to put in my mouth are not my beliefs. Seldom does a nation go to war for a single reason. The slant drilling was surely a primary one and surely not the only one.

 

I didn't put any words in your mouth. You decided to be unspecific, so I fleshed it out some and asked if that was you belief.

So you believe slant drilling is surely a primary reason Saddam went to war. More than or less than the following?

1. Kuwait had no military to speak of.
2. Iraq had a large military and Iraq had just made peace with Iran.
3. Iran owed $60 billion and Kuwait $12 billion which would vanish if annexed.
4. Saddam thought that the U.S. would not intervene.
5. Saddam's own ego.

Personally, I think the primary reason Saddam invaded Kuwait was #4.

Do you no longer believe that the U.S. would not have sent troops to take back Kuwait if they had known about the unverified slant drilling?

 

Oh no Im sure it still would have, just with far more public outcry from we the people, which is what I said at the beginning.

 

Wrong answer.

I forgive you for not being alive and not actually being there.

We can start with April Glaspie's vague and ambiguous statements to Saddam -- "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

You can read the rest of Glaspie's cables to the State Department.

Oh, wait....you can only read them if you're still alive in the year 2067, because all of the cables between US Embassy Mission Baghdad and the State Department were classified Top Secret Crypto Cosmic and aren't scheduled to be reviewed for declassification for 75 years, which is 1992 + 75 = 2067.

But....let's back up a bit.

In December 1988, Reagan and Gorbachev came to an agreement (an MOU) called the IFR which was a reduction of forces in Europe and which was formally signed by Bush and Gorbachev in 1989. Beginning October 1991, the US Army would be reduced from 770,000 troops to 385,000 and the Tiger Brigade, along with the entire US VII Corps in southern Germany would be withdrawn, returned to the US, disbanded and the troops released from active duty on the Early Out Program, or re-assigned as needed.

Let's test your aerial/satellite imagery skills.



What do you see?

Okay, what don't you see?

See any deserts? I don't. Unless there's some masterful conspiracy by Google Earth, there are no deserts in Central/Eastern Europe.

About 30 miles north of Bremen and 60 miles south of Bremerhaven, there was a US armored brigade based there, specifically the Tiger Brigade, which was a forward brigade of 2nd Armored Division based at Fort Hood, Texas. They arrived in 1979, because the British and Germans in NORTHAG (Northern Army Group), did not trust the Dutch or the miserable fat Belgian bastards.

In a war, the Brits and Germans thought they'd Welsh and not fight, so to allay their fears, President Jimmy Carter put an armored brigade there under British command who would fight.

In the event of war, a German division would occupy the west bank of the Weser River (yes, of Pied Piper fame) south of Bremerhaven, then the Tiger Brigade, then two British divisions, mostly II Queen's Infantry, III Queen's Infantry, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Royal Tank Brigades, Royal Scottish Dragoons, 17/15 Lancers and such. They would hold at all costs until reinforcements arrive from CONUS and pick up their vehicles at POMCUS in the Netherlands and Belgium and join the battle.

South of that was CENTAG (Central Army Group) under US command and farther south was SOUTHAG (Southern Army Group) which was the former French Zone until France militarily (but not politically) withdrew from NATO, also under US command.

SOUTHAG was the VII Corps Zone of Operations and consisted of the 1st Armored Division, 1st Infantry Division (FWD), 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), and the 2nd Armored Cavalry, plus VII Corps Artillery, which was 3 brigades, namely the 17th, 72nd, and 210th.

Again, the Tiger Brigade, plus the whole of VII Corps and VII Corps Artillery were to be withdrawn from Germany and disbanded.

The funny thing is, in October 1989, the Tiger Brigade went to Turkey to conduct desert warfare training in the desert that borders Iraq.

Then, all of the VII Corps units, including VII Corps Artillery, went to Turkey to be trained in the fine art of desert warfare.

So, those units are going to be withdrawn and disbanded, but we're going to spend tax-payer money to train them in desert warfare, in spite of the fact that there are no deserts anywhere in Central/Eastern Europe.

And the map above proves that. I have conducted a diligent search of National Geographic and have yet to find any articles on the fierce Czech and Slovak desert tribes or Polish camel herders.

Have you?

Saddam "invades" Kuwait.

Well, gosh golly, how lucky was the US to have an entire US Army corps plus a separate maneuver brigade that was all trained up in desert warfare and ready to go?

Someone either has one helluva set of Tarot cards or one really, really good Crystal Ball.

Note that none of the V Corps units (3rd Armored Division, 4th Infantry Division (FWD), 8th Infantry Division, 11th Armored Cavalry or V Corps Artillery) were trained in desert warfare.

Why train units that are going to be withdrawn and disbanded, but not train units that are going to remain in Germany?

Saddam "invaded" Kuwait at the behest, request or insistence of the US.

The whole thing was choreographed by the US.

I have no idea what Saddam was thinking, but I have to believe Desert Shield was just for show. I don't think he thought the US would actually attack.

Why did the US attack?

I have reason to believe the whole point was to destroy the Khamisiyah Depot where US chemical warheads were stored. If you can still find videos on the web, the US warheads are clearly marked. The other languages are French, although that could mean they came from Syria; Cyrillic, which is probably Czechoslovakia; and an Asian script. Because of distance/blur, you can't clearly see the script, but it's a safe bet you can rule out China and Japan. I doubt it was South Korea, but it could have very well been North Korea.

About 5 or 6 years ago, the VA finally told me I inhaled 3 tons of nerve agent and 72 burning oil wells (although I'd swear it was 75.)

So, I got that going for me.

In the end, the Tiger Brigade and VII Corp were withdrawn, they just made a little detour to Iraq first before they went back to the US.

I'm sure a non-starter will say, "They're still around!" Yes, it's called a re-flagging ceremony. The Army has a thing about unit honors, lineage and history, and the oldest/most decorated units get to live on. 3rd Armored was re-flagged as 1st Armored Division, 8th Infantry re-flagged as the 3rd Infantry Division and 11th ACR re-flagged as 2nd ACR. You look at photos of the re-flagging ceremonies in Stars & Stripes if you want.

Anyway, the other reason to invade Iraq is you need it for your Geo-Political Strategy. Since the "Coalition" wasn't big on tossing Saddam, the US and Brits promised the Kurds they'd intervene if the Kurds overthrew Saddam. When the Kurds did attempt to overthrow Saddam, the US and Brits tossed the Kurds like used toilet paper and set up the No-Fly Zone, but then that was the point, because the No-Fly Zone would allow the US and Britain to maintain a military presence until an opportunity arose to finish the job.

9-11 was that opportunity.

 

Yes, that all lines up. What Im not clear on is what point you're trying to make regarding Kuwait and slant-drilling... Seems to me we helped Kuwait work out the how of it as part of getting a war going that we could get involved with.

 

Right, ok. So, there was no reason for you mentioning slant-drilling since even if true, it would have made no difference - just a couple more anti-war protests.

You never did compare how big of a reason slant-drilling was to other reasons Saddam went to war.

 

They were all factors, I'm not interested in prioritizing them in a ranked list with you... seems like an endless discussion of subjective minutia to me.

 

Well, I agree that slant-drilling and its relation to the causes of the Iraq war is minutia as well. So why did you bring it up?

The same is true of Ukraine. Don't get bogged down in minutia like you did with slant-drilling.

The big points are.

1. Putin does not want Ukraine to develop further ties with western countries.
2. Putin will not give up Crimea because he considers it a vital military position.
3. Putin wants a partially controlled unstable portion in the East to cause instability in Ukraine.

There is only one point to take into account in whether Putin will continue his invasion - How will the western countries respond?

Everything else is minutia in Putin's decisions. They're propaganda points that shills and useful fools use to vilify the Ukrainians.

 

Yes, you can win, but not with your current force structure.

The only way to win now would be to call up both National Guard units and Army reserve units, and it would take 1-3 years.

It isn't necessary to attack Russia directly, but not doing so would prolong the conflict.

To avoid attacking Russia directly, the US would need to encircle Russian forces in the Ukraine to prevent re-supply/reinforcements.

The only other way to prevent re-supply/reinforcements is to move into Russia territory, or interdiction with air power.

It will not cause a nuclear war, in spite of the brain-washing you have suffered.

I was a NATO observer on Druzba '86. That was a Warsaw Pact military exercise similar to REFORGER and other NATO exercises.

My job was to observe Soviet nuclear weapons units operating in a field environment. Not surprisingly, they pretty much do it the same way we do it. Or maybe we do it the same way they do it. I was with a fun bunch of Soviet officers.The took all my Levi's and my both my Wranglers. I brought the Levi's for trade. I only brought 2 pair of Wranglers because I didn't think we'd have a lot of down-time, and they liked those better than the Levi's. I ended up trading the Wrangler's to them anyway (you couldn't buy blue jeans in the Soviet/East Bloc.)

Russian nuclear weapons policy is no first use.

So, unless the US nukes first, the Russians won't use nuclear weapons.

However, that only applies to targets outside of Russia.

The Russians will use nuclear weapons on their own soil, and they can do that, because they still have 3,000 or more ERWs (Enhanced Radiation Warheads) or "neutron bombs" if you prefer.

They range from 1 kt to 12 kt, and the 1 kt are mostly tube artillery and gravity bombs, and those in the 10-12 kt range are short-range missile warheads and gravity bombs.

It's not a big deal. The 1 kt ERWs have a blast effect like a 2,000 or 3,000 pound conventional bomb, and the 10-12 kt ERWs have a blast effect roughly the same as a 1 kt or 2 kt warhead.

That's because the whole point is you don't want the big bang. You wanna tease the Pu-239 to get all the neutrons from fission and it helps to use beryllium -- you know, emeralds? Yeah, that -- because it produces neutrons when bombarded by gammas from the Plutonium.

If the neutrons don't kill you, Aluminum will. Aluminum-27 will absorb to become Aluminum-28 which is radioactive and has a half-life of about 2 whole minutes. It will kick off a massive powerful gamma ray that will damn near knock you on your ass. Your house, your car and a whole lotta things are full of Aluminum

No, wrong. Russia is fighting for its survival.

US Geo-Political Strategy calls for gaining control of the eastern Russian republics.

Both the Russians and the Chinese know that.

The US needs Iraq and Afghanistan to control Iran.

The US needs Iran to gain control of the 5 Central Asian States.

The US needs control of the 5 Central Asian States to smuggle weapons, ammunition and supplies to "pro-Democracy" groups (snicker) in eastern Russia.

When Moscow moves to put down the rebellions, the US and Brits set up a No-Fly Zone.

The No-Fly Zone is enforced by US and British -- and maybe NATO -- aircraft launching from Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran, and Central Asia.

Poland is a NATO-member only because the US and Brits need airbases there. If Poland is not a NATO-member and is neutral, then the US and Britain cannot over-fly Polish air-space and violate the neutrality of Poland.

The US needs control of Ukraine or for Ukraine to be a NATO-member for the same reason.

Russia needs the Crimea.

Russian surface groups are fairly decent air defense platforms and sitting in the Black Sea, they can shoot down US aircraft launching from Romania or Bulgaria or Turkey to enforce the No-Fly Zone.

The airbases in Crimea can handle all Russian bombers, which can be launched to make cruise missile attacks on US airbases in Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey.

That's why there is conflict brewing and here is the reason why from your own government:

The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Do...gy-Summary.pdf

Having a Standard of Living and Life-Style like the US 1968-1974 doesn't bother me one bit.

Can you say the same?

That's what this is all about: Maintaining the Living Large Standard of Living and Life-Style Americans are accustomed to having.

 

Who is vilifying Ukrainians? Or, more specifically, how are they being vilified?

 

Biden has already drafted a strongly worded letter to Russia if they invade Ukraine. But he also sent the 52d Infantry Brigade Combat Team (about 3,300 American Soldiers) to Ukraine last month to join the hundreds we already have there training the Ukrainians how to use the JAVELIN anti-tank systems we sent them.
Buckle up.

 

“We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.”

― John F. Kennedy

 

The problem is that when the good guys are soft and weak that allows bad guys to walk all over them. If Putin invades we need to invade too. The only way to handle bad guys is to stand up to them.

 

What do you call an invasion? Russian troops in Ukraine? Well the US has troops in Ukraine...training Ukraine's state-sponsored Nazi battalion AZOV. Is that an invasion? Is AZOV the 'good guys'?

After training and supplying ISIS in Syria...is anyone surprised we train Nazis in Ukraine?

Hypocrisy....the thing Americans do best.