re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

That video is a reversed video of missile launches; notice there are no explosions...

---

quote:

---

incredibly classy

---

I’d think the classy move would be not invading them in the first place

You're 100% right, I was wrong, I assumed that Russia wouldn't waste a $20M missile to fire inert warheads at a civilian non-military target.

But that's what they did. I acknowledged that in subsequent posts.

quote:

---

Your 100% right, I was wrong

---

Thats all you had to say.

Also, *you're

quote:

---

We are about to level your city and turn it into a hellscape of rubble. But you can leave now if you want."

You know that you are deeply ill, right

---

Dude Ukraine has repeatedly rebuffed peace talks.

And now Trump (whom Zelenskyyyy threw under the bus 5.5 years ago) and is going to help settle this once and for all.

quote:

---

So you think NATO countries should send troops to help?

Why?

---

the assumption/leap you made is inane...




[/quote]
We are already sending weapons and tech. So what are the "rules for thee" you're saying we should skirt?[/quote]


The "rules for thee.." quote is applicable to Putin. He accuses others of what he has already done...

quote:

---

So you think NATO countries should send troops to help?

---

If individual countries are invited by Ukraine and it is in their interest, why shouldn't they deploy troops? That is also a possible avenue for a peaceful solution, as then a targeted attack on those troops would signal an immediate escalation, which would represent a red line for the West, and one that the Russians would likely not cross. The analogous (although meaningfully different) situation would be the one that developed in Syria over the last few years.

The other side of this would be that foreign troops deployed in Ukraine would ultimately negate the direct Russian objectives, and could also force a confrontation. It would mean that there is no likelihood that the current Ukrainian regime would be replaced, and might take such a suggestion off the table in terms of peace talks.

There are scenarios where it would be in the interest of Poland, France and Germany to deploy troops, especially Germany and Poland, with the Germans preparing to deploy a brigade sized element in Lithuania until the late 20's while Poland has several new pieces of equipment in the pipeline, as well as plans for a new division (I think). France and Poland, as well as other Baltic countries, have already said they would consider deploying troops to Ukraine under certain conditions.

I don't think those foreign troops would deploy under the NATO banner (if the Ukrainians invited them individually), and possibly their might be some agreement which prevents an attack on those forces in Ukraine from triggering Article 5. But depending on your viewpoint, it could be described as an effort toward stabilization or escalation. It can also be both.

quote:

---

If individual countries are invited by Ukraine and it is in their interest, why shouldn't they deploy troops?

---

Ukraine would certainly welcome it.

quote:

---

There are scenarios where it would be in the interest of Poland, France and Germany to deploy troops, especially Germany and Poland

---

Then why haven't they already? It would certainly turn the tide in the war.

quote:

---

I don't think those foreign troops would deploy under the NATO banner (if the Ukrainians invited them individually), and possibly their might be some agreement which prevents an attack on those forces in Ukraine from triggering Article 5. But depending on your viewpoint, it could be described as an effort toward stabilization or escalation. It can also be both.

---

I think the reason US leadership doesn't want this is because if a country deploys troops to Russia, Russia should (if you're looking at it from their perspective) and likely would at least try to strike staging areas and military targets in those countries. That would trigger Article 5 even though it is kind of a gray area.

quote:

---

Ukraine would certainly welcome it.

---

Of course, but I'm suggesting there is plenty of reasons for European countries to deploy for their own benefit.

quote:

---

Then why haven't they already? It would certainly turn the tide in the war.

---

In the German case, they had no battle-ready brigades in 2022, and the investigation into the Bundeswehr's lack of readiness and the report produced was only finished in March of this year (from the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Armed Forces). Thus there began emergency meetings about both why there was the lack of personal, materiel, and infrastructure for battle-ready despite the Zeitenwende speech given by Scholz in 2022. The hope is that they can have a battle ready brigade sized element (ideally two) by 2025, but I think that timeline is too compressed to actually fix the multitude of issues.

In the Polish case, they have served as an important logistical support for the delivery of supplies to Ukraine, but the last two years they have signed upwards of 200 contracts (that I counted) for equipment and materiel to update their forces. This includes helicopters from the US, tanks from South Korea and the introduction of a new completely domestic service rifle to every infrantrymen, a process which was supposed to be completed by 2021. I don't know what the process of implementing and integrating all those elements into the armed forces will look like, but considering some of those contracts for the more expensive elements have been signed only recently, I can't imagine they are yet in a position to be battle-ready. Nor have they reached their targeted goals in terms of size, a goal which was set by the previous government in 2018 or 19 I think.

As far as the French, my personal view is that they want to use the possibility of deployment to Ukraine as a springboard for something like a federal army for the EU. At the same time, in 2022, France began a modernization program for their army called Scorpion, which goes through 2040 and is only just beginning. Part of that 2022 reorganization was to revive two expeditionary division-sized elements, which I don't think have been a feature of French military organization for some time. So while Macron works to get the support of forming the backbone of something that organizes European security into something resembling a single command (depending on how it is organized), France is also in the midst of a reorganization and rearmament.

Deployment is not an easy political task, and I haven't even mentioned the internal domestic politics which might inform such decisions. Without looking it up, I'd suggest Poland and other countries closer to Europe might find favor among the population for something like deployment, while the French and German populations may be less interested without a direct threat.

quote:

---

I think the reason US leadership doesn't want this is because if a country deploys troops to Russia, Russia should (if you're looking at it from their perspective) and likely would at least try to strike staging areas and military targets in those countries. That would trigger Article 5 even though it is kind of a gray area

---

Well it has to be something negotiated at the European level and then within the alliance first. The way alliance politics is structured requires complete coherence on actions from all members, which makes the task negotiation-sensitive. And given that there exists some wildcards within the alliance such as Turkey (who are always taking maximalist positions in order to gain an immediate benefit, such as materiel) and Hungary (whose geopolitics actions have less clarity), it would require some large concessions. The only way it progresses quickly is if Ukrainian lines collapse completely that time becomes a key factor in discussions. I think the allies feel as though Russia cannot replace its materiel losses in a heavily sanctioned enviroment, but that is a dangerous calculation to make in my view, given Russian resilience to the sanctions regime.