Official Ukraine/Georgian Thread
- Thread starter CQB
- Start date
I thought it was an appropriate response for insinuating that my posts are motivated by Hollywood heroes. And it wasn't intended to be a "dick" comment but just a mild jab towards a post that was percieved as a mild jab.
And this is a can of worms I'm not prepared to open but Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly comparable to Putin's annexation of a sovereign nation.
Iraq we don't own and Afghanistan is a clusterfuck in the end here but mostly because of the astoundingly massive failure in Washington cement the series of victories it was handed with a regional strategy. I don't know if you could successfully argue that America "owns" Afghanistan. My point is limited incursion followed by withdrawal andsupport of an indigenous government capable of self determination isn't the same thing as Crimea and S. Ossettia.
And this is a can of worms I'm not prepared to open but Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly comparable to Putin's annexation of a sovereign nation.
Iraq we don't own and Afghanistan is a clusterfuck in the end here but mostly because of the astoundingly massive failure in Washington cement the series of victories it was handed with a regional strategy. I don't know if you could successfully argue that America "owns" Afghanistan. My point is limited incursion followed by withdrawal andsupport of an indigenous government capable of self determination isn't the same thing as Crimea and S. Ossettia.
Last edited:
I mean we did not annex Iraq. Iraq was not a war of conquest and empire and expansionism. We do not today own Iraq. We did not make it a part of America or assimilate it.
Putin has unilaterally done that with Crimea; he invaded and re-drew the map and said, "this is mine".
I meant my post being a dick one. I'll reply further when I'm home and off the phone.
Re: The Cold War. It was slightly before my time in uniform having grown up under the Reagan Era, but I'm one who does indeed miss the Cold War. It was ugly at times, but it kept a lot of the world's current problems in check. The problem is the genie is out of the bottle, so Cold War Part 2 would actually be worse for us. We'd have our current threats along with a semblance of where we were in the 80s? We can't do that, we can't cover all of those bases without compromising others; global whack-a-mole as we chased fires.
So yeah, I wish the Cold War never went away, but now it would do more harm than good. If anything, the Russians would benefit from a new Cold War. I think they could be more flexible in their actions and strategy and that gives them an edge in that particular scenario.
Old Cold War = good
New Cold War = bad
I do think there are Americans who don't see that distinction. Some people (this is a generalized statement) can't change, accept change, or even grasp change. They live forever at some point in their lives, refusing to acknowledge that the world has passed them by.
So yeah, I wish the Cold War never went away, but now it would do more harm than good. If anything, the Russians would benefit from a new Cold War. I think they could be more flexible in their actions and strategy and that gives them an edge in that particular scenario.
Old Cold War = good
New Cold War = bad
I do think there are Americans who don't see that distinction. Some people (this is a generalized statement) can't change, accept change, or even grasp change. They live forever at some point in their lives, refusing to acknowledge that the world has passed them by.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
If we use that analogy, we must also consider that before the march on Maine, there have been several other marches and "assimilations" prior to Maine.
A pattern is starting to emerge.
Estonia and Latvia might be next. And that matters to us in the same general way that any democratic nation friendly to the United States matters whether it falls. And just since it's running in this thread as a secondary topic, another quaint thing about the Cold War is that invasions of free democratic nations were universally viewed as unacceptable and we (most of us) simply understood that.
I should point out that I'm not in favor of war in this scenario. But I'm definitely in favor of moving assets and much, much harsher language- with teeth.
A pattern is starting to emerge.
Estonia and Latvia might be next. And that matters to us in the same general way that any democratic nation friendly to the United States matters whether it falls. And just since it's running in this thread as a secondary topic, another quaint thing about the Cold War is that invasions of free democratic nations were universally viewed as unacceptable and we (most of us) simply understood that.
I should point out that I'm not in favor of war in this scenario. But I'm definitely in favor of moving assets and much, much harsher language- with teeth.
Last edited:
Just to be clear it wasn't directed at you so don't read it and feel insulted. It's more a case of total befuddlement reading the comments on news sites.
Russia was never going to tolerate a pro US govt in power in the same country that their black sea fleet is located. I don't think any sane nation could expect them to.
Yes they possibly rigged a referendum and took Crimea back into the fold, yes that probably pisses of the Ukrainians but it's the Ukraine's problem. If the West decides to push the point on this to far it's going to end badly. Russia isn't going to compromise it's security.
How many ops has the west conducted in the last 20 years and probably would again tomorrow to restore a pro western govt or support a referendum that instates a pro western govt. I've been on two of them.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
I used to get in fights a lot as a kid and young soldier. I didn't ever really see myself as the aggressor, just an outspoken dude who never took shit.
I realized that had to stop once I started having kids...
Here's how I look at things now- when I call a guy out for being rude to a waitress, or cutting in line at Wal Mart? Am I prepared to get into a fight over it?
The US is in a transition phase where it wants to have an opinion about everything, but isn't necessarily ready to fight. We need to stop having so many opinions.
I realized that had to stop once I started having kids...
Here's how I look at things now- when I call a guy out for being rude to a waitress, or cutting in line at Wal Mart? Am I prepared to get into a fight over it?
The US is in a transition phase where it wants to have an opinion about everything, but isn't necessarily ready to fight. We need to stop having so many opinions.
I understood that, and I'm not pro-war. My reply was with a no-homo wink.
Again, don't disagree, but what happens with Estonia? There are activists there pushing for annexation.
For one thing, it starts with our leadership.
Fundamental changes need to be made. We don't bow, and we don't seek the approval from inferiors with which we have tension. Russia- for all the talk of how great they are- would be picked apart by us in short order in an all out war. I'm prepared to fully argue that point in another thread if anyone is interested in that discussion at some point. Obama's strategy has been to kiss the ass of every dick on planet earth and it comes from trying to implement human psychology strategies as international relations policy. If an individual in a room doesn't like conflict, he laughs at the bully's jokes across the room and tries to play it cool. That might work as an individual, as the bully perceives no threat. But in international relations, it's weakness. We're not supposed to act like the intellectual weakling seeking to be "friends" with militant gangsters and thugs. Putin didn't grow up playing Chess and smoking blunts at Columbia and Harvard. The fucker grew up in the ranks of the KGB where they slammed each other in the face with boards and practiced garotting Americans in cobblestone alleyways.
So, the first thing I'd do is get a new Secretary of State, and his name would be General Cockswinger. Whoever it is, he'd have to have (a.) General in front of his name and (b.) a reputation of fucking up Russian-trained fighters back when he was a Captain. Failing that, a civilian with a few gray hairs and equivalent experience in a covert capacity. His goal would be to remind Putin that we will not tolerate him rolling up our friends.
Fundamental changes need to be made. We don't bow, and we don't seek the approval from inferiors with which we have tension. Russia- for all the talk of how great they are- would be picked apart by us in short order in an all out war. I'm prepared to fully argue that point in another thread if anyone is interested in that discussion at some point. Obama's strategy has been to kiss the ass of every dick on planet earth and it comes from trying to implement human psychology strategies as international relations policy. If an individual in a room doesn't like conflict, he laughs at the bully's jokes across the room and tries to play it cool. That might work as an individual, as the bully perceives no threat. But in international relations, it's weakness. We're not supposed to act like the intellectual weakling seeking to be "friends" with militant gangsters and thugs. Putin didn't grow up playing Chess and smoking blunts at Columbia and Harvard. The fucker grew up in the ranks of the KGB where they slammed each other in the face with boards and practiced garotting Americans in cobblestone alleyways.
So, the first thing I'd do is get a new Secretary of State, and his name would be General Cockswinger. Whoever it is, he'd have to have (a.) General in front of his name and (b.) a reputation of fucking up Russian-trained fighters back when he was a Captain. Failing that, a civilian with a few gray hairs and equivalent experience in a covert capacity. His goal would be to remind Putin that we will not tolerate him rolling up our friends.
I'm not interested in going to war over the Ukraine.
Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania, Poland; different story.
Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania, Poland; different story.
Exactly.
Young Marines who go to Security Forces school are taught that when protecting a genuine exclusion area (a 100% no go area for intruders), they're to issue a strong single verbal command for the intruder to halt. The second time, you command "halt" again, and rack a round with your shotgun. That unmistakeable sound of metal on metal ratcheting a round into the chamber projects to the intruder that you are going to proceed with your duty. If the intruder does not comply, then barring specific rules of engagement which vary from post to post, the third halt command is given along with shouldering the weapon and preparing to engage. Of course it varies depending on the sensitivity of the site but the general procedure is some variation of the above.
America needs to do the international relations equivalent of racking a round. Instead, we're doing the frustrated mall-parent equivalent of counting to ten.
An embassy isn't the kind of facility I'm talking about.
If Estonia goes it goes, I don't see it going down like the Ukraine, Russia can already project power into the Baltic and while they aren't likely to so know to a chunk of land I don't think they are going to warm up the band for Estonia.
I wouldn't discount the Russians so easliy either. Their tech is still pretty good and I'd rate the general populaces will to fight.
I wouldn't discount the Russians so easliy either. Their tech is still pretty good and I'd rate the general populaces will to fight.
Russian forces have always had a reputation for being tenacious fighters, and previous conflicts have historically shown their willingness to accept/tolerate staggering casualties while still maintaining the will to fight. But they suffer from the same challenges any military faces, including exorbitant maintenance and logistics costs for their most important assets. We deal with it, every nation deals with it. This is a different era, though, and the technology gap between Russia and the US is far wider now than it was even 20 years ago. In a large scale conflict where they attempt to decimate our military and we vice-versa, there'd be little they could do, as we still can achieve air superiority over them. Their Navy would be ended in a week and a half. Collectively on the ground we'd still own the night against them.
Where it gets murky, though, is at what point tactical (nuclear) warheads get implemented- which they eventually would. At that point, everybody loses.
That's why I argue we don't wait for Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania to fall before we make a scene. We make it an issue now, so we're not having this discussion again after the fall of other former Soviet republics.
Where it gets murky, though, is at what point tactical (nuclear) warheads get implemented- which they eventually would. At that point, everybody loses.
That's why I argue we don't wait for Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania to fall before we make a scene. We make it an issue now, so we're not having this discussion again after the fall of other former Soviet republics.
Last edited:
Similar threads
