Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:11 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Sounds like a new Afghanistan-1980 type of opportunity, whereby the United States could supply the anti-Russian resistance with thousands of antitank missiles (similar to Taliban Stingers, although Stingers were anti-helicopter). Do it cheap.
How would the mines be deployed without revealing their location to prying Russian (satellite) eyes? I'm honestly asking, not implying disagreement with what you said.

Can anti-tank mines be made small enough (yet still powerful enough) and can their deployment hidden from hostile observers, without being detected from space or by some other means? Regardless, I would not expect that they can be scattered randomly and/or automatically (e.g. air-to-ground deployment).
  #52  
Old 12-05-2018, 08:18 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamaski View Post
I’m pretty sure the United States has figured out how to destroy Russian tanks with guided missiles, that’s a Cold War problem. The Russians have developed some anti-missile counter measures in recent years, but the DOD has the best scientists and engineers on the planet working for it and budget of $700B. Those guys are pretty clever. I’m sure they can make a missile that can beat anything Russia has.
.
But we aren't going to give them many of those state of the art missiles (if any) and a handful of missiles aren't going to stop an invasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamaski View Post
In this age of 21st century warfare, space war, cyber war, drones, UAVs, asymmetrical warfare, etc, etc Russia is going to need more than a massive Cold War-style tank blitzgreig.
On the contrary I'd say a cold war style tank blitzkrieg is perfectly suited to overwhelming a weaker neighbor in a conventional land war
  #53  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:45 PM
scabpicker's Avatar
scabpicker scabpicker is offline
Soy un pinche idiota
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Funkytown (Fort Worth)
Posts: 4,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Tangential question: With a lot of stealth aircraft in its inventory, could the USAF do covert airstrikes against Russian forces in Ukraine every here and there and now and then, only doing it during a major battle so as to be able to plausibly disguise the bomb explosions as being of Ukrainian origin?
Technically yes, provided you had perfect intelligence of where the enemy radar sites were. Practically, the chance of getting caught by something you didn't know about would make this very risky.

I agree that by sheer force of arms, Russia could probably conquer Ukraine. I also agree that it would eventually become either politically or economically unfeasible to hold it in any meaningful sense. They're already pretty extended in the areas that are sympathetic due to the large number of transplants. The remainder would be far less receptive, I think.

To give a terrible analogy to the question: I also think that the US could run its way over Mexico or Canada if it completely lost it's mind and decided it was a good idea. It still doesn't mean that holding either could happen in any meaningful way.
  #54  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:44 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
... Tangential question: With a lot of stealth aircraft in its inventory, could the USAF do covert airstrikes against Russian forces in Ukraine every here and there and now and then, only doing it during a major battle so as to be able to plausibly disguise the bomb explosions as being of Ukrainian origin?
Probably not without some risk of discovery. In daylight, even stealth aircraft can be seen, and "stealth" doesn't necessarily mean completely invisible to radar anyways. Plus, if Russians are even modestly-competent, they'd have spies stationed outside of American air bases in the region to monitor take-offs and landings of fighter jets. And, missiles and bombs don't exactly disintegrate upon impact. They oftentimes leave behind fragments, which would point investigators back to the USAF.

Killing a few Russians like this would not be worth the risk of triggering WW3.
  #55  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:07 AM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
There is tons of documented footage of Syrain rebels blowing Syrian regime/ISIS tanks and helicopters to bits..... the missile systems the US gave to the Syrian rebels were not even downgraded that much, and were highly effective.

Those “upgraded” T-72s were turned into burning coffins. In fact there is a lot of footage of the turrets of those T-72s being blown clean off the tanks.......

If the US is willing to give these missiles to Syrian rebels, what makes you think it won’t give them to the Ukrainian military?



Ukraine has over 200,000 men under arms and has received extensive training from US Army advisors. Plus morale is pretty high because of the historical injustice Russia has committed against Ukraine.... Russia taking on Ukraine would be no cake walk at all..... many many lives lost on both sides.


Plus Trump and Mattis have said they would give Ukraine the arms it needs to defeat Russia.

The US is the “arsenal of democracy”, remember?
  #56  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:22 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,608
[Moderating]

I think we're past "could Russia do it" to "would Russia do it." Let's move this to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #57  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:13 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
As of 2015, the majority of the Russian military is professional volunteers not conscripts. Professionals were expected to replace conscripts in all leadership positions by the end of 2015. Draft numbers have continued to dwindle although progress towards a western style professional army has it's rough spots.

The goal of their reform was 70% modern equipment by 2020. Some of their progress towards that goal might not be immediately obvious. If you see talk about T72B3s in the fighting inside Crimea it might sound like old Soviet era crap. US forces beat the hell out of T72s dring Desert Storm. We beat the hell out of mostly export variants that weren't up to top of the line T72s in Soviet service in 1991. The T72B3 is heavily upgraded. It's got a second generation thermal sight on par with the top Abrams variants...and better than some Abrams variants still in service on some US tanks. It's not simply a case of a T72 is a T72. The devil is in the details.

There are real potential issues with such massive changes. Adapting a mission oriented command philosophy based on the old Prussian reforms is hard. When you pay your troops to think it takes time to both change the culture of "just follow orders" let alone get leaders that think well. The change from conscription is hard and will tend to push up costs. Russia is not mostly conscripted troops operating Soviet era equipment, anymore. New equipment can have technical issues which is a big deal when it's mostly new equipment. Things changed pretty drastically in the last decade, though. That started after the war with Georgia in 2008 where the old weaknesses caused issues.

Of course, they still crushed Georgia. Quantity has a quality all it's own. Which probably says something about the OP.
Here is the Wiki for the Russian Ground Forces, quoting from the part on contract soldiers:

Quote:
Contract soldiers
From small beginnings in the early 1990s, employment of contract soldiers (kontraktniki) has grown greatly within the Ground Forces, though many have been of poor quality (wives of officers with no other prospective employment, for example).[8] In December 2005, Sergei Ivanov, then Minister of Defence, proposed that—in addition to the numerous enlisted contract soldiers—all sergeants should become professional, which would raise the number of professional soldiers and non-commissioned officers in the Armed Forces overall to approximately 140,000 in 2008. The current programme allows for an extra 26,000 posts for fully professional sergeants.[68]

The CIA reported in the World Factbook that 30 percent of Russian army personnel were contract servicemen at the end of 2005, and that, as of May 2006, 178,000 contract servicemen were serving in the Ground Forces and the Navy. Planning calls for volunteer servicemen to compose 70 percent of armed forces by 2010, with the remaining servicemen consisting of conscripts. At the end of 2005, the Ground Forces had 40 all-volunteer constant readiness units, with another 20 constant readiness units to be formed in 2006.[30] These CIA figures can be set against IISS data, which reports that at the end of 2004, the number of contracts being signed in the Moscow Military District was only 17 percent of the target figure; in the North Caucasus, 45 percent; and in the Volga-Ural, 25 percent.[69]

Whatever the number of contract soldiers, commentators such as Alexander Goltz are pessimistic that many more combat ready units will result, as senior officers "see no difference between professional NCOs, ... versus conscripts who have been drilled in training schools for less than six months. Such sergeants will have neither the knowledge nor the experience that can help them win authority [in] the barracks."[34] Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov underlined the in-barracks discipline situation, even after years of attempted professionalisation, when releasing the official injury figures for 2002. 531 men had died on duty as a result of accidents and crimes, and 20,000 had been wounded (the numbers apparently not including suicides). According to Ivanov, "the accident rate is not falling".[70] Two of every seven conscripts will become addicted to drugs and alcohol while serving their terms, and a further one in twenty will suffer homosexual rape, according to 2005 reports.[71]

Part of the reason is the feeling between contract servicemen, conscripts, and officers.

There is no relationship of mutual respect between leaders and led and it is difficult to see how a professional army can be created without one...at the moment [2002] officers often despise contract servicemen even more than conscripts. Contract soldiers serving in Chechnya and other "hot spots" are often called mercenaries and marauders by senior officers.

— Michael Orr[72]
Even if we think that this is overly pessimistic, they are going to need a lot more than 300k troops to take and hold Crimea...which means that they are going to have to rely heavily on conscripts for their reserves. As to your point about upgrades to the T-72 I think you are putting lipstick on a pig there. Here is a link to a page talking about it: https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...sia/t-72b3.htm

Some things to note. Basically, this is a compromise project intended to save money. It costs around 70 million Rubles for a 'new' T-90, while upgrading to the T-72B3 costs only 50 million Rubles. They allocated 6 billion Rubles for this project, and thus far have about 70-100 in service. It does have an upgraded sight, bigger gun and new engine and suspension/chassis, but it's still the same old Soviet crap tank in the end...and they don't have a lot of them. That's the thing...sure, they have programs ongoing to upgrade their old stuff, but unlike the US military, they are in the position of having to upgrade crap to slightly better crap, and they don't have the money to even do THAT all out. They just don't have the money, since their annual military budget is only around $60-70 billion US, and that money goes for a host of things. Their navy, for instance, needs a serious upgrade as well as a ton of maintenance and upgrade. They nearly sank their one carrier when their floating dry dock sank.

Anyway, as I said, I think they COULD take the Ukraine in the end, but it would be costly for them from nearly every perspective. I suppose as a way of getting rid of that old Soviet era inventory of crappy equipment it would be a bonus if they weren't going to get a hell of a lot of their soldiers killed in the process.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #58  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:34 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamaski View Post
I’m pretty sure the United States has figured out how to destroy Russian tanks with guided missiles, that’s a Cold War problem. The Russians have developed some anti-missile counter measures in recent years, but the DOD has the best scientists and engineers on the planet working for it and budget of $700B. Those guys are pretty clever. I’m sure they can make a missile that can beat anything Russia has.


In this age of 21st century warfare, space war, cyber war, drones, UAVs, asymmetrical warfare, etc, etc Russia is going to need more than a massive Cold War-style tank blitzgreig.


I suspect the leadership of the Russian military is in denial. They are old men. They still want to believe that their rapidly aging and obsolete tank fleet is supreme. They want to believe that they are still a powerful country, that the world fears them like it feared the Soviet military. They don’t want to believe that the Cold War ended 3 decades ago and Russia lost. That their tank fleet is a relic of the past. That new forms of warfare has evolved in the 21st century.
Cyber warfare can't go and hold ground. Drones and UAVs aren't really all that new either- look up the Ryan Firebee for example. Neither is asymmetrical warfare. Space war might be new, but in this context it's irrelevant. Ukraine doesn't have any space warfare capabilities or much in the way of assets either.

Ground warfare between two organized forces hasn't changed a whole lot since the 1960s/1970s with the advent of precision guided weapons like anti-tank missiles, and even those are largely countered by composite and reactive armor.

Fundamentally, it takes troops on the ground to take and hold something, and if those troops are opposed by another organized force, tanks, artillery and infantry are still what it takes.

And FWIW, a turret getting blown off a tank doesn't necessarily speak to a particularly powerful missile, but rather to lucky shot placement that causes some kind of secondary detonation within the tank (usually from stored ammunition) and blows the turret off. It also requires the tank to be buttoned up...

Here's a video (notice at about 25 seconds, that the missile detonates, then a little later, the tank blows up and the turret goes flying)

Last edited by bump; 12-06-2018 at 03:34 PM.
  #59  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:42 PM
Brayne Ded Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 203
Comparisons with Iraq and Syria are not necessarily valid; Russian pilots and tankers in home market planes and tanks are a different proposition.

Could Russia conquer the Ukraine? Yes. How long would it take? That depends on how hard the Ukrainians choose to resist and if the Russians go in hard and literally blow away any resistance, including entire urban areas. Would they do it? Most likely not.

Firstly, the possibility of getting bogged down in a campaign of sniping and IEDs, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secondly, the problem of finding enough boots on the ground to occupy the entire Ukraine. Thirdly, the economic cost of 2). Fourthly, political blowback. Everything from sanctions by the West to volunteer brigades from various countries not known for their liking of Russia. Occupying the Ukraine would blow to hell any protestations of Slavic solidarity, which they wold get back in their faces with Poles, Czechs, Yugoslavs, etc. fighting with the Ukrainians. The Russians would be faced with either a rerun of WW2 and massive reprisals, or they have to sit and take it meekly. Neither does much for Putin's PR image.

Needless to add, this is a mess that NATO, Europe and the USA should just stay out. The mere thought of the Ukraine joining NATO is, well, like the PRC offering a military mutual aid pact to Mexico.

Don't even send weapons or advisers. The Ukrainian regime is not one that deserves endless and uncritical support, and the issues for the territorial disputes are murky. Better by far to bring the two to the negotiating table.

Actually, the Ukraine could really cause problems by allowing Russia to invade the whole country, with no resistance. If Putin realized that they were doing this, he would probably just stop at the borders of the disputed territories and go no further. If the Russians got sucked in, they would then be faced with holding and running the Ukraine, and then getting out in a manner that does not look too much like a withdrawal.
  #60  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:01 PM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
Having lots of tanks is great, but tanks need something very important to important to keep them running ......GAS...... where is the gas to power the Russian tanks going to come from???


Ukraineians are not stupid, I wouldn’t be surprised if every road, bridge, tunnel, railway, pipeline, etccarry gas for tanks into Ukraine from Russia is set to be blown up. The Ukrainians know their own country well. They can stop the flow of gas from Russia to Ukraine

And without gas Russian tanks are useless........they are basically stationary targets.



Btw the Nazis found it almost impossible to occupy Ukraine, and basically had to murder half the population of a town to take it over. This basically made the other half join the insurgency and make life hell for Nazi soldiers....... Ukrainian insurgents were known for blowing up railroad tracks and roads...... making moving stuff across the country unfeasable....
For every group of insurgents the nazis killed, even more would join the cause, and blow up more railroads and bridges.....
  #61  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:14 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,722
Are we talking two different types of gas here? Do you mean natural gas or vehicle fuel? Tanks run off of vehicle fuels.
  #62  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:33 PM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
Yes. I’m talking about vehicle fuel, not natural gas. Russian tanks take a lot of it. It takes a lot of fuel to get Russian tanks moving, and if Ukraine cuts off the fuel supply (basically blowing up a fuel train or bombing a road, the the Russian tanks are immmobilized, they can’t go anywhere..... then the Russian tanks are sitting ducks, they basically sit there without gas and forced to either surrender or get destroyed (they can already be be destroyed with gas by US-provided TOW and Javelin missiles, which will likely happen.)


Anyway disrupting the fuel supply is likely priority #1 for Ukraine if Russia invades..... and could make life hell for the Russians..... it’s kind of like the insurgents of WW2, except now communications are better with cell phones and radios...... its easier for Ukraine to have an organized insurgency, operating behind enemy lines and disputing the supply train....
  #63  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:52 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamaski View Post
Yes. I’m talking about vehicle fuel, not natural gas. Russian tanks take a lot of it. It takes a lot of fuel to get Russian tanks moving, and if Ukraine cuts off the fuel supply (basically blowing up a fuel train or bombing a road, the the Russian tanks are immmobilized, they can’t go anywhere..... then the Russian tanks are sitting ducks, they basically sit there without gas and forced to either surrender or get destroyed (they can already be be destroyed with gas by US-provided TOW and Javelin missiles, which will likely happen.)


Anyway disrupting the fuel supply is likely priority #1 for Ukraine if Russia invades..... and could make life hell for the Russians..... it’s kind of like the insurgents of WW2, except now communications are better with cell phones and radios...... its easier for Ukraine to have an organized insurgency, operating behind enemy lines and disputing the supply train....
...real life isn't a game of "Command and Conquer." You can't set up a processing plant and generate infinite amounts of TOW and Javelin missiles. You seem to have rather simplistic views of how a real-world conflict between Russia and the Ukraine would play out.
  #64  
Old 12-06-2018, 06:39 PM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
The Trump admin has already approved lethal aid to Ukraine...... and the US has already sold $50 billion worth of Javelin missiles to Ukraine, what makes you think he won’t give them more???

Plus even during the Obama admin the CIA was supplying the Syrian rebels with missiles, and they were doing terrible damage to the Syrian regime..... Syrian rebels are a lot more shady than the Ukrainian military......

There are people in the pentagon seeing what Ukraine needs..... and providing a way for them to have it to stop the Russian bear.....
  #65  
Old 12-06-2018, 06:57 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamaski View Post
The Trump admin has already approved lethal aid to Ukraine...... and the US has already sold $50 billion worth of Javelin missiles to Ukraine, what makes you think he won’t give them more???

Plus even during the Obama admin the CIA was supplying the Syrian rebels with missiles, and they were doing terrible damage to the Syrian regime..... Syrian rebels are a lot more shady than the Ukrainian military......

There are people in the pentagon seeing what Ukraine needs..... and providing a way for them to have it to stop the Russian bear.....
...my understanding is that the Pentagon is sending lethal aid in the form of this person to help with the preparations to "stop the Russian bear." His instructions are to make the Ukrainian military "more shady" so that they can put those 50 BILLION dollars worth of Javelin missiles to good use.
  #66  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:03 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,461
How many Javelins does $50B buy you?
  #67  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:36 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,236
A ton, if it were accurate. But alas, off by three orders of magnitude:

A $47 million U.S. military-aid package approved last year and confirmed in March specified 210 Javelin antitank missiles and 37 Javelin launchers, two of them spares, for Kyiv.
.

Last edited by andros; 12-06-2018 at 07:38 PM. Reason: That's million with an "m." And it's Buck, ma'am...with a "B."
  #68  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:55 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,461
that's not going to be enough.
  #69  
Old 12-06-2018, 08:47 PM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
200 Javelin missiles is a lot of dead Russians..... now imagine a whole container ship filled with Javelin missiles sent to Ukraine...... Trump would love to them missiles, because it would put to bed any concerns that he’s pro-Russia.


Remember every Russian soldier has a mother, a father, girlfriend..... Putin is gonna have to explain to all these people why he got their son killed.

Last edited by Kamaski; 12-06-2018 at 08:48 PM.
  #70  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:26 PM
DinoR DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Even if we think that this is overly pessimistic, they are going to need a lot more than 300k troops to take and hold Crimea...which means that they are going to have to rely heavily on conscripts for their reserves.
I'd describe it as old not overly pessimistic. Things have been changing rapidly in the last decade. More recent data:
Quote:
According to the War Department, by the end of 2016 the armed forces personnel manning was 93% - 930,000 people. Of these, 384,000 were soldiers and sergeants on contract, 270,000 were conscripts, and 225,000 were officers. There was a shortage of at least 50,000 men. This figure accounts for soldiers and sergeants on contract, the number of which in 2017 should be 425,000.
Adding the officers with the volunteer enlisted gets us over 600k professional troops in 2016 and possibly up to 650k today. They've been stacking the professionals into their new Battalion Tactical Group (BTG) formations and leaving. Those formations have seen significant combat experience inside Ukraine giving the professional soldiers real world experience. They've also shifted to all of their leaders being professional. That's a big change from the the old Soviet model where top conscripts were sent to a short course after initial entry training and made into Sergeants.

There's real issues with making so many changes so quickly. Their old culture shifted a lot of work to officers that in the west is generally considered Sergeant's business. Changing the culture of roles is hard and it takes a long time to truly grow the kind of senior NCOs I relied upon during my career. Manning issues can leave relatively hollow units that have a hard time training well. They cheated and fully manned the early BTGs leaving the rest with more serious manning issues. I have yet to see if they've maintained that as they've begun vastly expanded transformation of their formations into BTGs. (Initially it was only one per Brigade and they appeared to get priority for everything, not just personnel.)


[qoute] It does have an upgraded sight, bigger gun and new engine and suspension/chassis, but it's still the same old Soviet crap tank in the end...and they don't have a lot of them.[/QUOTE]
Improvements in reactive armor since the end of the Cold War have improved protection against chemical energy rounds (including newer tandem warheads) while introducing the capability of greatly reducing penetration by kinetic energy rounds. The Kalina fire control system from the T14 is included and includes the ability to automatically track targets. There's a state of the art thermal sight replacing the old passive infrared with IR searchlight night capability. They've improved mobility, firepower, and protection while greatly improving night capability. As a retired armor officer, I see a much more capable combat vehicle if the upgrades actually work.

Numbers are hard to assess accurately from open source data. There's always a risk of buying into overoptimistic claims. It's not like Russia has problems with spreading disinformation. As of September 2016 the manager of the factory conducting the upgrades said they've upgraded "about 1,000" T72s to the B3 standard. A non-Russian source has about 300 fielded as of Jan 2017 along with about 350 T90 variants in service. (The major performance improvement in the T90A versus the T72 B3 is the addition of the Shtora-1 active protection system.) As a point of comparison the US Armored Brigade Combat Team has 90 tanks total. There's currently 10 ABCTs in the US Army with a total of about 900 tanks. I'd describe the Russia fielding of relatively modern main battle tanks as "a lot."
  #71  
Old 12-07-2018, 07:11 AM
BenedictusXIV BenedictusXIV is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 24
Russia is not interested in Ukraine. They are interested in the Krim because of it's strategic position and the Russian Navy base there (Black Sea control) AND because many Russian oligarchs (that's friends of the CiC) have vacation homes there. It's a really nice place to be. They didn't waste any time securing the Krim. If the rest was relevant it would already be under control.
There are some historical sentiments, since Ukraine is considered to be the origin of the tribes that went on to form Russia. There is some fear because once again "The West" is moving in to Russian territory (Imagine how you would feel if Russia and it's allies would move their influence and military closer and closer to our borders, meanwhile assimilating other countries that used to be our allies). But in general, if Russia wanted to occupy Ukraine, they would have done it by now. They are certainly capable.
  #72  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:46 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,246
Fundamentally the Ukraine is big, and has a large population and industrial base. For the Russians to conquer it militarily wouldn't be a fast or easy thing- Ukraine's military is about a quarter the size of the Russian military, but the Russian numbers include their navy, and a lot of troops that wouldn't be deployed- they're in the Far East, or in the Caucasus or elsewhere the Russians want to keep troops.

So we're probably not looking at the classic 3:1 attacker/defender ratio to assure success in attacks. While the Russians would probably locally gain that ratio, that would also open them up to artillery and air strikes, as they'd have to concentrate their forces and engage in maneuver warfare.

And finally, both sides would incur heavy casualties- we're talking about hundreds of thousands of men squaring off against each other with rough parity in equipment- this isn't a Gulf War/Gulf War II type situation where the 1991/2003 US military squared off against an Iraq with 1965 technology.
  #73  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:54 AM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
Don’t for a minute think Ukrainians are not as nationalistic as Americans. In Ukraine its extremely common for both your grandfathers to have fought in the Second World War.

For America the Second World War was an adventure, for Ukraine it was a personal tragedy.

Schools were bombed, churches were bombed, houses were burned to the ground with people still in them, Jews were told to dig their own graves.......

In Ukraine it’s extremly common to have many aunts, uncles, cousins, etc who were slayed by the Nazi killers......

Conscription in Ukraine lasted for decades, part of being a man is serving in the army at 18 years old. Many boys volunteer for the army.



Plus Ukraine suffered the Holodomer, millions were starved to death, the years of Stalin and his oppressive rule are not forgotten either......
  #74  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:09 PM
sps49sd sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
... There is some fear because once again "The West" is moving in to Russian territory (Imagine how you would feel if Russia and it's allies would move their influence and military closer and closer to our borders, meanwhile assimilating other countries that used to be our allies). But in general, if Russia wanted to occupy Ukraine, they would have done it by now. They are certainly capable.
Russia's 'allies' were allied at gunpoint. Poland was invaded by Russia fifteen days after Germany did, Russia (okay, the USSR) divided the country between them. Then executed 22,000 or so of their Polish captives.

The invasion of Hungary in 1956 and that of Czechoslovakia in 1968 does not compare with any action within NATO or other alliance except maybe the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

The former Warsaw Pact members are afraid of Russia invading them; Russia should not be worried that Georgia or Ukraine will attack them. It's simultaneous paranoia and excuse.
  #75  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:55 PM
Kropotkin Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 669
I for one would like to read Stranger on a Train on this topic. When is his suspension over? Will he come back? Is “he” really a conglomerate of experts?
  #76  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:54 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kropotkin View Post
I for one would like to read Stranger on a Train on this topic. When is his suspension over? Will he come back? Is “he” really a conglomerate of experts?
It was over, over a month ago.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 12-07-2018 at 10:54 PM.
  #77  
Old 12-08-2018, 12:12 PM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
Btw, I’m Polish. My father was in the Polish navy when Poland was under occupation by the ussr. On a goodwill visit to America, when his ship pulled into New York Harbor, he jumped off the ship and swam to America.... I live in a heavily Polish area (Greenpoint Brooklyn)...... When i grew up Polish people would scream in the streets with big signs saying “Russkie go home” ...... there was a lot of political movements at that time to free Poland from Russian rule ....... if a Russian person went up to a pole and said he was Russian, he would likely get punched in the face...... at my school there were a couple Russian kids in class with us, and they were all bullied and harassed....... a russian kid would rarely admit he was Russian because there was a ton of Polish at my school...... admitting you were ethic Russian was seen as having big balls, it rarely happened. Russia is seen as Satan to Polish people.........

Here is some things most Polish think about Russia.

A warmonger
The devil
Someone who would machine gun you in front of your own church
A thief



You will find that most Polish peope have an extremely low opinion of Russia. If a country could have an arch enemy, than Russia is Poland’s arch enemy...... a historical enemy, somebody who is hated by every generation.......


Polish people have a higher opinion of Germany than Russia.......Germany is viewed as a country trying to recover from their past crimes and admit they were wrong...... Russia on the hand is viewed as a country trying to whitewash their past crimes and that angers Polish people greatly......
  #78  
Old 12-08-2018, 03:55 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamaski View Post
You will find that most Polish people have an extremely low opinion of Russia.
I can believe it based on the level of hate that Czechs and Hungarians have for them.

Interestingly, they were both extremely happy to interact with us Americans (this was 11 years ago).
  #79  
Old 12-08-2018, 10:06 PM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
Yes, Polish people love America very much. Many Polish people dream of going to NYC. I have family in in Poland so I often send them pictures of what I’m doing and they are amazed. America is viewed as the land of opportunity, Poland is viewed as a land of tall churches, the historic home of the Polish people. Many Polish people love American tv shows, movies, American brands like Nike, etc..... many Polish peope from my area (Brooklyn) have served in the US Army and were proud. Polish people love American actors on tv and how straight and white their teeth are, nobody in Poland has teeth as white as Americans..... Polish people are also educated in world affairs and can talk intelligently, many hold degrees in law, medicine, finance............


Russians are a lot less educated in world affairs than Polish people. There have been waves of Russians that moved into my area (Brooklyn) since the ussr collapsed..... they have the worst teeth I have ever seen human beings have, a lot of times half their teeth are missing and the other half is black...... I’ve seen older Russian guys with no teeth at all, just gums...... its disgusting....... also a lot of them don’t bathe in the shower like normal people........ , they wash in the sink (mostly the older generation, but there’s a lot of them)...... also many Russian don’t get jobs (they can’t get a job) so they walk around on the street all day and beg..... you can’t have a conversation them about world affairs, they don’t know anything about politics or history..... except they all know Putin is and they love because he gives them the mentality that Russia is strong.......the ones that do know some history know the wrong stuff, they deny any Russian crimes against Poland even though massacres like Katyn are documented........... they claim that western media (fox, cnn) is bullshit but that Russian media is to be trusted.....lol......
  #80  
Old 12-09-2018, 10:27 AM
psychonaut psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,638
Wow, what fascinating insights you have into ethnicity and how it determines one's roles in life. Tell me, what do you think about the dental hygiene of the Chinese, and how it relates to their prospects for invading a neighbouring country? Are Hungarians as educated in world affairs as the nearby Slovaks? (Could the difference have something to do with the well-known preference of Hungarians for baths over showers?) What do you think about the job prospects in Brooklyn for Armenian emigrés?
  #81  
Old 12-09-2018, 12:40 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamaski View Post
200 Javelin missiles is a lot of dead Russians..... now imagine a whole container ship filled with Javelin missiles sent to Ukraine...... Trump would love to them missiles, because it would put to bed any concerns that he’s pro-Russia.


Remember every Russian soldier has a mother, a father, girlfriend..... Putin is gonna have to explain to all these people why he got their son killed.
But not that many dead Russians. I assume it is someone's job to work out what percentage of those 200 missile could realisitlcally hit a tank, are any historical numbers out there? it has to be a pretty small percentage IMo (even before considering how many would be destroyed by artillery and bombs before tanks come close)
  #82  
Old 12-10-2018, 10:18 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamaski View Post
nobody in Poland has teeth as white as Americans.....
Neither do Americans for the most part! A lot of celebrities either have them artificially whitened and straightened, or they get veneers/caps.
  #83  
Old 12-11-2018, 01:26 PM
Kamaski Kamaski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 63
by the way, do you know what happens when a country is non-religious for a long time and openly suppresses religion? people become morally bankrupt, the strong crush the weak. People don’t care about each other. That’s how Russia is today. An amoral society. Have you ever heard “onward Christian soldiers.” America is the Christian soldier, fighting the despot.

If you walk around my neighborhood today you will see a large amount of kids from Eastern Europe and Central America wearing shirts and symbols that say NASA. America is viewed as a country lifting the world up. A country that can put a man on the moon. An enlightened country of Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglas, Thomas Jefferson. Where people fight for the Justice of each other. In Russia the strong crush the weak with their boot and keep them down, nobody fights for the little guy.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017