Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Love Mountain]

There is no basis or logic for this suggestion.

Yeah there is. A number of experts who travelled to Ukraine, who assessed Russia's campaign, who assessed Russian air power have noted fratricide as a significant problem due to weakness in IFF.

Off the top of my head;

Grau, Russian Way of War (2018).

Watling... etc; Preliminary Lessons.... (2022).

Bronk; CNA; Russian Combat Air Strengths... (2023).

Of course that won't stop people from talking out of their ass without reviewing the appropriate literature and primary evidence.

To remind everyone, still no confirmation of a shot-down A-50, just like there was no confirmation of a shot-down Il-76 in February 2022. I am confident that the A-50 was indeed destroyed based on Russian reactions, but the far more likely explanation is fratricide, and not a PAC-2 shootdown which would have to be at the edge of the contact zone and at near max range for the missile.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yeah there is. A number of experts who travelled to Ukraine, who assessed Russia's campaign, who assessed Russian air power have noted fratricide as a significant problem due to weakness in IFF.
Off the top of my head;
Grau, Russian Way of War (2018).
Watling... etc; Preliminary Lessons.... (2022).
Bronk; CNA; Russian Combat Air Strengths... (2023).
Of course that won't stop people from talking out of their ass without reviewing the appropriate literature and primary evidence.
To remind everyone, still no confirmation of a shot-down A-50, just like there was no confirmation of a shot-down Il-76 in February 2022. I am confident that the A-50 was indeed destroyed based on Russian reactions, but the far more likely explanation is fratricide, and not a PAC-2 shootdown which would have to be at the edge of the contact zone and at near max range for the missile.

Fratricide being an issue at the frontlines doesn't explain in any shape or form a reconnaissance aircraft being shot down far away from the frontlines.

[Lord Thesaurian]

https://tass.com/politics/1733423

https://twitter.com/dw_russian/statu...93702047822005

As Russian prospects improve on the battlefield and western support for Ukraine recedes, the Kremlin is less shy about its revisionist ambitions. The idea that this all could have been avoided if NATO had just backed off and prioritized a Yalta-esque detente is looking less realistic as time goes on. The anticipation that invading Ukraine is step one in a war of conquest, rather than a defensive act of desperation, is becoming clearer.

Whether this will affect the credibility of anti-Ukrainian or isolationist factions in the west remains to be seen. The west has been publicly drawing Ukraine into its orbit since the second Bush Admin, but support has fallen far short of what the country needed to defend itself because, as Obama famously said, the concept of a Russian threat was considered Cold War paranoia. Russian victory will be the consequence of that.

The deepening economic and military cooperation between Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang is formidable as well, with an increasing volume of support sustaining the Russian war machine and economy in a way not unlike western support for Ukraine. Sanctions will not counter this development effectively. If the west allows Ukraine to become a rump state, a frozen conflict, or even to disappear altogether, this will constitute a Russian victory and deal a death blow to western credibility on the world stage. The Baltics may very well be the next domino to suffer the consequences of that….

….if not Taiwan.

I don’t think there’s anything western leaders can do to unspool the years of mistakes that have led to this moment, and I don’t think the social diseases and political paralysis endemic to western societies will serve us well in the wars to come. Alea iacta est.

[conon394]

The deepening economic and military cooperation between Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang is formidable as well, with an increasing volume of support sustaining the Russian war machine and economy in a way not unlike western support for Ukraine.

Possibly I suppose but you are being a bit over dramatic. China is the only real economy of note in that mix and as impressive it looks when you correct for PPP and it made up GDP numbers... Iran is a realistically not very stable geriatric regime loathed by a fair chunk of population and North Korea a hermit state supplying volume but 3rd rate quality.

Sanctions were really over sold, but I think people with a more sober vision should not underestimate their long term impact

I don’t think there’s anything western leaders can do to unspool the years of mistakes that have led to this moment, and I don’t think the social diseases and political paralysis endemic to western societies will serve us well in the wars to come. Alea iacta est.

Not entirety sure what you mean here.

That said I think The Biden admin really faces a test here. The German non transfer of the Taurus missiles is telling. With the hard 'right?' of the Republican house going full isolationist Biden needs to roll the dice to help Ukrainian. Even Europe will not act transfer what seized Russian assets the US immediately and invoke the Excess Defense Articles program to continue transferring stuff to Ukraine.

[Love Mountain]

Fratricide being an issue at the frontlines doesn't explain in any shape or form a reconnaissance aircraft being shot down far away from the frontlines.

Sigh.

Profound mis-understanding of how air defense works.

Hint: They don't line-up in a front line.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sigh.
Profound mis-understanding of how air defense works.
Hint: They don't line-up in a front line.

Again, irrelevant. The location of the incident is at a point where no target acquisition would be considered.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Possibly I suppose but you are being a bit over dramatic. China is the only real economy of note in that mix and as impressive it looks when you correct for PPP and it made up GDP numbers... Iran is a realistically not very stable geriatric regime loathed by a fair chunk of population and North Korea a hermit state supplying volume but 3rd rate quality.

I think western observers have a wealthy mentality that since we wouldn’t normally accept being worse off for the sake of a political win, our enemies wouldn’t either. The integration of the new Axis powers means they’ll be able to sustain and support each other’s war machines indefinitely with decades of experience at evading sanctions, even though they’ll be worse off economically. They all share the common goal of destroying American hegemony and subduing their respective neighborhoods under spheres of influence. That’s all the common ground they need. The USSR was poor af and a superpower.

At the very least, we can forget about “X days til Russia runs out of people and bullets” headlines. Without the full support of western MICs for years to come, that will be Ukraine’s story, not Russia’s.

Sanctions were really over sold, but I think people with a more sober vision should not underestimate their long term impact

These things are happening in spite of western sanctions, and I guess I don’t see the magic formula that could ever cripple these countries taking shape. Iran and North Korea have been under intense sanctions for decades. China is still very vulnerable to western financial systems, but that’s why they are trying to conduct more trade using their own currency, etc. I’m not one of those “dedollarization” alarmists, but that’s clearly what the new Axis is trying to cooperate to accomplish. Sanctions are not an effective strategy for dealing with our enemies in a multipolar world. True containment would require years of Cold War levels of military spending and buildup around the world, to deal with a threat an order of magnitude greater than the Soviets.

Not entirety sure what you mean here.

I mean quite alot of things, but with the Boomers retiring and Gen X not far behind, suffice to say we’re left with generations who have little more than contempt for the country and world order they would need to fight and die for to maintain. They have by far the least interest in international affairs or pride in their country or the military compared to the generations that won the Cold War, and the highest rate of isolationist beliefs, not to mention a general distaste for capitalism.

The liberal establishment has basically accomplished what decades of Soviet shenanigans could never dream of. You know it’s bad when a nation of Holocaust survivors and longtime American ally gets 9/11’d times ten, and the response from anyone under 30 is “From the river to the sea you (((Zionist))) filth!” while eulogizing the late great Osama bin Laden. Point being these are not people ready to die in a trench for the USA, let alone the Baltics or the Philippines, but they are the future. GG.

[Love Mountain]

As Russian prospects improve on the battlefield and western support for Ukraine recedes, the Kremlin is less shy about its revisionist ambitions. The idea that this all could have been avoided if NATO had just backed off and prioritized a Yalta-esque detente is looking less realistic as time goes on. The anticipation that invading Ukraine is step one in a war of conquest, rather than a defensive act of desperation, is becoming clearer.

Not really. If anything, it looks more realistic.

There wouldn't be a need for "revision" if we could come to an agreement with Russians.

I don’t think there’s anything western leaders can do to unspool the years of mistakes that have led to this moment, and I don’t think the social diseases and political paralysis endemic to western societies will serve us well in the wars to come. Alea iacta est.

We could cut our losses. The sunk cost fallacy is drowning us. That's ultimately what "deterrence" is amounting to, sunk costs.

Again, irrelevant. The location of the incident is at a point where no target acquisition would be considered.

Your word salad is incomprehensibly. Take a couple sighs and fix your syntax.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your word salad is incomprehensibly. Take a couple sighs and fix your syntax.

This time, incoherent. My syntax is just fine. It's your claim that's lacking any basis or logic at this point. By the way, not "incomprehensibly" but "incomprehensible" since you seem to be very interested in correct usage of the English language.

[Love Mountain]

This time, incoherent. My syntax is just fine. It's your claim that's lacking any basis or logic at this point.

The logic is pretty clear.

Russia has had issues with IFF and has had friendly fire incidents in the past. The claimed location of the shootdown isn't even within range of Ukrainian air defenses, possibly within PAC 2 GEM range. On the balance of evidence, fratricide is much more likely.

There, it's perfectly logical, you don't have to agree with it. If you are unable to understand this then I'm sorry.

By the way, not "incomprehensibly" but "incomprehensible" since you seem to be very interested in correct usage of the English language.

It's an obvious typo. I didn't have an issue with your spelling, just the syntax. Your statement did not convey a clear idea. I literally cannot understand what you are trying to say.

"The location of the incident is at a point where no target acquisition would be considered."

[PointOfViewGun]

The logic is pretty clear.
Russia has had issues with IFF and has had friendly fire incidents in the past. The claimed location of the shootdown isn't even within range of Ukrainian air defenses, possibly within PAC 2 GEM range. On the balance of evidence, fratricide is much more likely.
There, it's perfectly logical, you don't have to agree with it. If you are unable to understand this then I'm sorry, this must be beyond your grade level.
It's an obvious typo. I didn't have an issue with your spelling, just the syntax. Your statement did not convey a clear idea. I literally cannot understand what you are trying to say.
"The location of the incident is at a point where no target acquisition would be considered."

None of that logic is applicable to the case we have at hand, hence, fratricide for this case has no logic to it. Just because the concept of friendly fire exists in the world it does not mean it's applicable to a case in a location where no target acquisition would be considered. It's quite a simple statement with no syntax issue. If you fail to grasp what it points out its likely that nothing I can say will make a difference. I cannot make it simpler for you.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There wouldn't be a need for "revision" if we could come to an agreement with Russians.

Aside from the Kremlin publicly bragging there isn’t a deal that could change their plans anyway, we already know what they want. Putin’s explicit demands on the eve of the invasion were to effectively disband NATO and recognize his Monroe Doctrine over former soviet territory. That’s more of a worst case scenario than a “deal.”

We could cut our losses. The sunk cost fallacy is drowning us. That's ultimately what "deterrence" is amounting to, sunk costs.

Surrender is always an option, yes, but that’s what happens when you lose, not when you make a good deal. The alternative to effective deterrence is war, as we’ve seen. Having access to western capital and tech in exchange for not invading anyone is as good a deal as I would give anyone in the first place, and it didn’t work.

Sure, we could have said back in 2008 that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO instead of having the audacity to abide by Article 10, but that doesn’t guarantee anything that one could call a negotiated settlement. It’s just a concession. And a big one.

As I alluded to in my OP, I could accept a new Russian Empire if there’s something worth that much that the Kremlin could give us, but subsequent events have proven there isn’t much that’s worth the amount of surrendering required for the Kremlin to do through diplomacy what they’re now doing through war. Maybe they could have been an ally against China out of sheer appreciation for offering up Eastern Europe on a silver platter. But that’s a big bet to make considering things would look alot like they do now anyway if the Kremlin were to ever change their mind, only without NATO in the picture.

My mistake then was naiveté. I thought the Kremlin was throwing tantrums because they want a seat at the table and were denied post Cold War. 300k casualties and the loss of most of their export markets is proof they’re committed to ejecting western countries from the table altogether. It’s an indictment of the liberal “people just want nice things” worldview underpinning western policy. There is no cost the Russians aren’t willing to bear to restore their historical defense in depth, and that means negotiations would delay, rather than prevent it - as Medvedev put it this month, anywhere in “historical Russian lands.” My problem with western policy, then and now, is weakness, not overextension.

[Love Mountain]

None of that logic is applicable to the case we have at hand, hence, fratricide for this case has no logic to it.

Why is the logic not applicable?

Just because the concept of friendly fire exists in the world it does not mean it's applicable to a case in a location where no target acquisition would be considered. It's quite a simple statement with no syntax issue. If you fail to grasp what it points out its likely that nothing I can say will make a difference. I cannot make it simpler for you.

I see, you are incapable of connecting the dots. Very well then. Have a good day.

Aside from the Kremlin publicly bragging there isn’t a deal that could change their plans anyway, we already know what they want. Putin’s explicit demands on the eve of the invasion were to effectively disband NATO and recognize his Monroe Doctrine over former soviet territory. That’s more of a worst case scenario than a “deal.”

I don't recall any demand to disband NATO. Can you please provide some primay source evidence for this?

Surrender is always an option, yes, but that’s what happens when you lose, not when you make a good deal. The alternative to effective deterrence is war, as we’ve seen. Having access to western capital and tech in exchange for not invading anyone is as good a deal as I would give anyone in the first place, and it didn’t work.

Sure, we could have said back in 2008 that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO instead of having the audacity to abide by Article 10, but that doesn’t guarantee anything that one could call a negotiated settlement. It’s just a concession. And a big one.

It's not really a concession. The issue wasn't that we needed a document that said Ukraine cannot join, or whatever. The issue was that NATO explicitly invited Georgia and Ukraine.

As I alluded to in my OP, I could accept a new Russian Empire if there’s something worth that much that the Kremlin could give us, but subsequent events have proven there isn’t much that’s worth the amount of surrendering required for the Kremlin to do through diplomacy what they’re now doing through war. Maybe they could have been an ally against China out of sheer appreciation for offering up Eastern Europe on a silver platter. But that’s a big bet to make considering things would look alot like they do now anyway, only without NATO in the picture.

My mistake then was naiveté. I thought the Kremlin was throwing tantrums because they want a seat at the table and were denied post Cold War. 300k casualties and the loss of most of their export markets is proof they’re committed to ejecting western countries from the table altogether. It’s an indictment of the liberal “people just want nice things” worldview underpinning western policy. There is no cost the Russians aren’t willing to bear to restore their historical defense in depth, and that means negotiations would delay, rather than prevent it - as Medvedev put it this month, anywhere in “historical Russian lands.” My problem with western policy, then and now, is weakness, not overextension.

Well, again, the issue is that you are painting this as a "surrender" instead of what it actually is, a diplomatic agreement between two major players in European Security.

And I don't really see how this is a "tantrum". The Russians were clear about their concerns about NATO expansion. NATO refused to negotiate this issue time and time again, as I'm sure you recall, this is why I insisted that Russians were going to invade.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why is the logic not applicable?
I see, you are incapable of connecting the dots. Very well then. Have a good day.

Friendly fire is usually an issue at the front lines due to stress of the situation and incompetence of the soldiers dealing with that. The plane in question is shot down in an area where no Russian would think of seeing an enemy presence. There is no grounds for friendly fire in that location. You're merely making up dots to make connections. That's not a sound argumentation in this case.

[Love Mountain]

Friendly fire is usually an issue at the front lines due to stress of the situation and incompetence of the soldiers dealing with that. The plane in question is shot down in an area where no Russian would think of seeing an enemy presence.

Friendly fire can happen because of IFF systems not working well. Which is a well-documented issue in Russian VKS.

Additionally, enemy aerial targets do in fact fly through that area quite often.

There is no grounds for friendly fire in that location. You're merely making up dots to make connections. That's not a sound argumentation in this case.

Nobody is making anything up. I've literally provided references that detail this issue and how it happened before. You don't know anything about this subject yet insist on discussing it as if you possess some sort of expertise or knowledge.

[PointOfViewGun]

Friendly fire can happen because of IFF systems not working well. Which is a well-documented issue in Russian VKS.
Additionally, enemy aerial targets do in fact fly through that area quite often.
Nobody is making anything up. I've literally provided references that detail this issue and how it happened before. You don't know anything about this subject yet insist on discussing it as if you possess some sort of expertise or knowledge, as usual.

When was the last time Ukrainian jets flew over the sea of Azov? There is no need for IFF systems in that area. Any foe signal would be accepted as a faulty signal. Providing random categorical references that doesn't necessarily relate to the specifics of the situation at hand doesn't help much.

[Love Mountain]

When was the last time Ukrainian jets flew over the sea of Azov?

Ukrainian drones and missiles have attempted to hit the Crimean bridge over the Sea of Azov numerous times in the last few months. There is a persistent aerial threat between the Bridge and Kherson 24/7.

There is no need for IFF systems in that area. Any foe signal would be accepted as a faulty signal. Providing random categorical references that doesn't necessarily relate to the specifics of the situation at hand doesn't help much.

There is no specific "IFF system in the area". That's not how it works. An IFF system is a combination of hardware, software, and organizational procedures that helps personnel identify enemy targets from friendly ones.

But like I said before, this is clearly not something you're either capabale of, or willing to understand. So this entire conversation is pointless.

Not least because, as I've mentioned several times now, there is no confirmation of an A-50 being shot down. Not from Ukrainian sources or Russian sources or NATO sources.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ukrainian drones and missiles have attempted to hit the Crimean bridge over the Sea of Azov numerous times in the last few months. There is a persistent aerial threat between the Bridge and Kherson 24/7.

First two attacks were sea drones. Second was a truck full of explosives. Third one was also done with sea drones. The last attack used a few missiles. Not exactly your persistent aerial threat path. A fast moving missile is not a slow moving large plane either. It's a bad excuse.

There is no specific "IFF system in the area". That's not how it works. An IFF system is a combination of hardware, software, and organizational procedures that helps personnel identify enemy targets from friendly ones.
But like I said before, this is clearly not something you're either capabale of, or willing to understand. So this entire conversation is pointless.
Not least because, as I've mentioned several times now, there is no confirmation of an A-50 being shot down. Not from Ukrainian sources or Russian sources or NATO sources.

I didn't say that there was a specific IFF system in the area. I simply pointed out that your jump to an IFF system argument was moot. Not a good idea to hide behind such accusations of competency. There is simply no reason for Russians to mistake a slow moving large plane over Sea of Azov as an Ukrainian threat.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don't recall any demand to disband NATO. Can you please provide some primay source evidence for this?

The English translation of the Russian Wiki is easier to find so I hope it will suffice:

A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.

Abolishing Article 10 is already a big ask, but the rest sounds like something that happens to a country decisively defeated in war. I don’t see the incentive to give Moscow their Monroe Doctrine.

A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories of the former Soviet Union.

This is something like what would happen if NATO were decisively defeated in a world war. I don’t see the incentive. This is also what I meant by “effectively disbanding” NATO. Its purpose is “to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.” To abandon the majority of its members is to abandon that purpose.

A recognition of Russia's special interests and role in ensuring security and stability in the post-Soviet space, and a respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity, including over Crimea and Donbas.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, this is the likely outcome of Russian victory. I don’t see the incentive.

A moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, and a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control.

Potentially reasonable

A reform of the OSCE to make it more representative, inclusive, and effective in addressing the security challenges and conflicts in Europe.

I’m going to guess this isn’t relevant to the conversation.

It's not really a concession. The issue wasn't that we needed a document that said Ukraine cannot join, or whatever. The issue was that NATO explicitly invited Georgia and Ukraine.

It would be a concession in the sense that I don’t know what Russia could have possibly offered NATO or the US in return that wouldn’t be a completely separate discussion to do with China or Islamic terrorism. My point of reference is the 2008 Bucharest Summit where NATO welcomed the ambitions of Ukraine and Georgia to join and announced their applications to the Membership Action Plan were under review. To arbitrarily reject these applications would be to repudiate Article 10. Russia invaded Georgia a few months later.

And I don't really see how this is a "tantrum". The Russians were clear about their concerns about NATO expansion. NATO refused to negotiate this issue time and time again, as I'm sure you recall, this is why I insisted that Russians were going to invade.

Article 10 is a true red line, I agree, and I was mistaken to think complaints about it were more of a stratagem to exact potentially reasonable concessions Moscow might want - that is, a tantrum. Where I was wrong is, it really is about Article 10, but that still doesn’t indicate to me what Russia could offer in exchange for repudiating it.

[Love Mountain]

The English translation of the Russian Wiki is easier to find so I hope it will suffice:

Abolishing Article 10 is already a big ask, but the rest sounds like something that happens to a country decisively defeated in war. I don’t see the incentive to give Moscow their Monroe Doctrine.

This is something like what would happen if NATO were decisively defeated in a world war. I don’t see the incentive. This is also what I meant by “effectively disbanding” NATO. Its purpose is “to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.” To abandon the majority of its members is to abandon that purpose.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, this is the likely outcome of Russian victory. I don’t see the incentive.

Potentially reasonable

I’m going to guess this isn’t relevant to the conversation.

Lol, all of these are incredibly reasonable requests.

It would be a concession in the sense that I don’t know what Russia could have possibly offered NATO or the US in return that wouldn’t be a completely separate discussion to do with China or Islamic terrorism. My point of reference is the 2008 Bucharest Summit where NATO welcomed the ambitions of Ukraine and Georgia to join and announced their applications to the Membership Action Plan were under review. To arbitrarily reject these applications would be to repudiate Article 10. Russia invaded Georgia a few months later.

Article 10 is a true red line, I agree, and I was mistaken to think complaints about it were more of a stratagem to exact potentially reasonable concessions Moscow might want - that is, a tantrum. Where I was wrong is, it really is about Article 10, but that still doesn’t indicate to me what Russia could offer in exchange for repudiating it.

Pretty sure we know what Russia was offering at the time.

To not invade Ukraine.