2022/24 Russian-Ukrainian War

[kEiThZ]

The problem is that most missiles like Storm Shadow and Tomahawk just punch a relatively repairable hole in the road bed.

With this in mind, the GBU-43/B MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast) should do the trick.

Watch 'mother of all bombs' test run

In 2003, the US Department of Defense released footage of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb test (MOAB).

www.bbc.co.uk

I am thinking of something like a shaped charge.

AoD

We have better munitions. The Ukrainians aren't getting them. You don't aim for roadbed. You aim for the major support structures. And we have more than capable weapons to do that.

The Ukrainians are also massively limited by platforms leading to tactical deficiencies. If this was the US or NATO, that bridge would have been down the first week. Air defences out the first few days. Eventually a massive multi-axis attack with several fighters launching several JASSMs along with naval TLAMs, along with decoys would come in and reduce every critical support structure of that bridge to rubble. It would be an overwhelming attack and would absolutely destroy the bridge. And if for some insane reason, there aren't enough bombers available (a single US B-1 bomber can deliver two dozen JASSMs), the Americans have even made sure they can deliver via cargo aircraft.

Ukraine just doesn't have these kinds of capabilitues. But once they get the F-16, the possibilities it opens up for both American and European made ordinance is substantial. This is why you see the Russians whine so much about Ukraine getting Western aircraft. They aren't worried about 20 yr old Vipers from the desert. They are worried about what missiles DARPA might custom engineer to be on there....

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We have better munitions. The Ukrainians aren't getting them. You don't aim for roadbed. You aim for the major support structures. And we have more than capable weapons to do that.

The Ukrainians are also massively limited by platforms leading to tactical deficiencies. If this was the US or NATO, that bridge would have been down the first week. Air defences out the first few days. Eventually a massive multi-axis attack with several fighters launching several JASSMs along with naval TLAMs, along with decoys would come in and reduce every critical support structure of that bridge to rubble. It would be an overwhelming attack and would absolutely destroy the bridge. And if for some insane reason, there aren't enough bombers available (a single US B-1 bomber can deliver two dozen JASSMs), the Americans have even made sure they can deliver via cargo aircraft.

Ukraine just doesn't have these kinds of capabilitues. But once they get the F-16, the possibilities it opens up for both American and European made ordinance is substantial. This is why you see the Russians whine so much about Ukraine getting Western aircraft. They aren't worried about 20 yr old Vipers from the desert. They are worried about what missiles DARPA might custom engineer to on there....

Funny you brought up delivery via cargo aircraft:

Japan to convert cargo planes into missile carriers

Japan plans to turn transport aircraft into ad-hoc missile carriers operating from austere and remote airstrips and using a system with significant tactical, operational and strategic implications …

asiatimes.com

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

The world really ought to evolve past narrow geo-political interests and silly empire-building ego-strokes, to a more inter-connected, mutually-beneficial model.

I'm not one for kumbaya nonsense; but when the E.U. was beginning to find its feet (10-20 years back), you could really hope for that the world was moving in that direction, if not quickly, then steadily.

Regrettably, leaders around much of the globe have seen more virtue in conflict and in pot-stirring that in solving humanity's common problems.

Sigh, End Rant.

Wishful thinking cannot overcome centuries of cultural differences and indoctrination. Nor does it overcome corruption or authoritarianism. The West made three terrible mistakes with Russia:

1) Ukraine was made to give up their weapons. Not just the nukes. But the bombers and missiles too. And not just surrender them. They were forced to give them to Russia. Those same bombers are attacking Ukraine now.

2) No real cost was imposed on Russia for all the other times they invaded a country. Georgia, Crimea, Syria, etc.

3) We refused to believe the Scandinavians, Baltics and Eastern Europeans who have been warning us for decades that the Russian people haven't moved past imperialist mindsets and that they would come back again. Literally every American President since Clinton downplayed the Russian threat. Mitt Romney was famously mocked by Barrack Obama in a debate for having an 80s foreign policy. This was the Obama who then declared a red line on chemical weapons use in Syria and then simply let Putin go.

Unfortunately, while we all enjoyed the peace dividend of the 90s and declared the "End of History", our adversaries have seen that and taken it as a sign of weakness to exploit. Unpleasant and uncomfortable as it maybe, sometimes the only way to deal with a bully and to deter him is to give him a bloody nose and promise you'll do it again if needed. I wonder how many people would be alive today in Syria and Ukraine if Obama had ordered air strikes on Russian airbases and ammo dumps in Syria when his red line was crossed.

 

[kEiThZ]

Russians give Canada ultimatum due to arrested Ruslan aircraft

www.pravda.com.ua

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Arbitration court. Ha ha ha ha ha.

AoD

 

[Towered]

Wishful thinking cannot overcome centuries of cultural differences and indoctrination. Nor does it overcome corruption or authoritarianism. The West made three terrible mistakes with Russia:

1) Ukraine was made to give up their weapons. Not just the nukes. But the bombers and missiles too. And not just surrender them. They were forced to give them to Russia. Those same bombers are attacking Ukraine now.

2) No real cost was imposed on Russia for all the other times they invaded a country. Georgia, Crimea, Syria, etc.

3) We refused to believe the Scandinavians, Baltics and Eastern Europeans who have been warning us for decades that the Russian people haven't moved past imperialist mindsets and that they would come back again. Literally every American President since Clinton downplayed the Russian threat. Mitt Romney was famously mocked by Barrack Obama in a debate for having an 80s foreign policy. This was the Obama who then declared a red line on chemical weapons use in Syria and then simply let Putin go.

Unfortunately, while we all enjoyed the peace dividend of the 90s and declared the "End of History", our adversaries have seen that and taken it as a sign of weakness to exploit. Unpleasant and uncomfortable as it maybe, sometimes the only way to deal with a bully and to deter him is to give him a bloody nose and promise you'll do it again if needed. I wonder how many people would be alive today in Syria and Ukraine if Obama had ordered air strikes on Russian airbases and ammo dumps in Syria when his red line was crossed.

Agreed. It's mindboggling the extent to which the West put their blinders on with regards to Russia. It's like they thought after the Soviet Union and communism collapsed, "Hey they're good guys now! They're just like us!". They couldn't have been more wrong, and the last 30 years of aggressive Russian behaviour has shown that. Countries like Germany in particular going all-in on relying on natural gas being supplied by a historic enemy state disgusts and befuddles me to no end. How is it that no sane political leader over there asked themselves "what could go wrong here??". And Obama and the EU turning a blind eye to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, which enabled the mess we're in today? Don't even get me started on the severe impotency displayed there. Obama is still delusional today when it comes to his direct responsibility for creating the conditions of the current conflict. It's maddening.

 

[Northern Light]

Agreed. It's mindboggling the extent to which the West put their blinders on with regards to Russia. It's like they thought after the Soviet Union and communism collapsed, "Hey they're good guys now! They're just like us!". They couldn't have been more wrong, and the last 30 years of aggressive Russian behaviour has shown that. Countries like Germany in particular going all-in on relying on natural gas being supplied by a historic enemy state disgusts and befuddles me to no end. How is it that no sane political leader over there asked themselves "what could go wrong here??". And Obama and the EU turning a blind eye to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, which enabled the mess we're in today? Don't even get me started on the severe impotency displayed there. Obama is still delusional today when it comes to his direct responsibility for creating the conditions of the current conflict. It's maddening.

Russia was, of course, very behind economically when the USSR fell.

Less evident in places like Moscow and St. Petersburg, but very evident in smaller cities and rural areas.

One might wonder whether a Mashall-plan type of exercise wouldn't have led to a more successful outcome.

East Germany was largely rebuilt as a generational project by the former West Germany in the merged state; and if you read back, you'd make note that it was a very difficult project, as people from middle-age up, especially, we're very set in their ways.

This included people who had wanted the gov't there to fall and to join 'the west'; but expected it to be something akin to free money for all; and we're surprised to find, in many cases, a decline in their standard of living instead, as obsolete factories were closed; and duplicative/inefficient government operations were wound down......

Unemployment spiked, a level of hate was seen in the East, with racism and homophobia in profound evidence, even though there wasn't a vast inrush of new people in the East.

But the society wasn't ready for it.........it was very challenging despite vast sums of money thrown at it.

Today; the eastern portion of the country has come a long way, but still slightly under performs the West, and that will probably remain true for another decade or more.

Now, turn your attention back to Russia, where there was little attempt to affect structural change, beyond allowing the looting of public assets by the then and future oligarchs.

There is no scenario, in which everything problematic with the Russian worldview, at a societal level would be remediated. But perhaps a good deal more might have been done, had 'The West's' reaction to the Iron curtain falling been a bit less laissez-faire.

Though, maybe not........Poland and Hungary might be instructive comparisons, as both were brought into the E-U and given enormous aid, yet both have continued to show an authoritarian and socially conservative bent.

 

[kEiThZ]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1691695395875750124

 

[kEiThZ]

One might wonder whether a Mashall-plan type of exercise wouldn't have led to a more successful outcome.

First off, the ex-Soviet states did get aid during the turbulence of the 90s. Expecting a Marshall Plan type of program is sort of ridiculous because they were still substantially industrialized and had higher GDP and HDI than a lot of the developing world. Also, a lot of ex-Soviet states did embrace democracy and capitalism just fine. The Baltics come to mind. Russia has always been extraordinarily corrupt and imperialistic. And that is the root of the problem.

I don't see why we (as Westerners) should have responsibility for fixing Russia. Especially, given the resource wealth that Russia has and the industry it inherited. They could have easily built a prosperous country with those advantages. They chose instead to enable and enrich the oligarchs and Putin.

Though, maybe not........Poland and Hungary might be instructive comparisons, as both were brought into the E-U and given enormous aid, yet both have continued to show an authoritarian and socially conservative bent.

I'm no fan of Hungary (I've said that here a fair bit), but there's a real danger in conflating conservatism with anti-democracy, and then also throwing Poland and Hungary in the same basket. Poland is, for the most part, still a functional democracy. Hungary is far worse.

But also with both, they had to undertake massive reforms before entering the EU. They aren't stable and prosperous because of EU membership. It was a pre-requisite to be stable and moderately developed before entering the EU.

 

[DSC]

Top Russian general who previously led Putin's invasion of Ukraine is found dead - after he was purged by the Kremlin for his failure to capture Kharkiv​

Those damned Russian windows again?

 

[Northern Light]

First off, the ex-Soviet states did get aid during the turbulence of the 90s. Expecting a Marshall Plan type of program is sort of ridiculous because they were still substantially industrialized and had higher GDP and HDI than a lot of the developing world. Also, a lot of ex-Soviet states did embrace democracy and capitalism just fine. The Baltics come to mind. Russia has always been extraordinarily corrupt and imperialistic. And that is the root of the problem.

I don't see why we (as Westerners) should have responsibility for fixing Russia. Especially, given the resource wealth that Russia has and the industry it inherited. They could have easily built a prosperous country with those advantages. They chose instead to enable and enrich the oligarchs and Putin.

I'm not arguing for a moral imperative to have helped Russia; that's a debatable point, in part, for the reason's you've outlined.

But the Ukraine war has cost Ukraine's allies more than 140 Billion Euros in Aid as at January 15th, 2023, presumably substantially higher now.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-02-24/these-countries-have-sent-the-most-aid-to-ukraine

Needless to say, the cost, in Blood and Treasure to Ukraine itself is far greater.

Would a 100B bribe to behave better have resulted in a more humane, less costly outcome? I don't know the answer, to be honest; but I did afford several example countries, including East Germany, suggesting the need for embarking on purposeful, generational change. Change that is indeed costly. It certainly could not have been achieved without some measure of buy-in both from the Russian elite and Russian society. Could that have been achieved? I really don't know, but there was a window where it seemed plausible (though that may always have been an illusion)

Put simply, was it more costly not to intervene? (Again, I'm not certain, I just think its worth considering)

I'm no fan of Hungary (I've said that here a fair bit), but there's a real danger in conflating conservatism with democracy, and then also throwing Poland and Hungary in the same basket. Poland is, for the most part, still a functional democracy. Hungary is far worse.

Hungary is ranked as a 'flawed democracy' by the Economist's index, and 56th most democratic nation in the world. Poland is likewise categorized, and ranked #46

The Economist Democracy Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freedom House uses a different methodology and ranks Poland as 'free' with a score of 81 (67th most free on their list)
ranks Hungary as 'partly free' with a score of 66 (92nd free-est on their list)

Countries and Territories

Freedom House rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and territories through its annual Freedom in the World report. Individual freedoms—ranging from the right to vote to freedom of expression and equality before the law—can be affected by state or...

freedomhouse.org

No question Hungary is further down the road to de fact autocracy under Orban; but ask Poland's judiciary about their independence, I think you would get some very negative feedback.

Poland: Judicial independence remains at risk according to new report from GRECO - Portal - www.coe.int

Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) Strasbourg 27 September 2021

www.coe.int

Fareed Zakaria has made use of the term 'Illiberal Democracy' to describe these types of regimes.

That term is more fully explained here:

Illiberal democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kEiThZ]

It's mindboggling the extent to which the West put their blinders on with regards to Russia.

Vlad Vexler did a video today on exactly this and he nailed it:

 

[kEiThZ]

Would a 100B bribe to behave better have resulted in a more humane, less costly outcome? I don't know the answer, to be honest; but I did afford several example countries, including East Germany, suggesting the need for embarking on purposeful, generational change. Change that is indeed costly. It certainly could not have been achieved without some measure of buy-in both from the Russian elite and Russian society. Could that have been achieved? I really don't know, but there was a window where it seemed plausible (though that may always have been an illusion)

Russia got way more than $100B from the West. You're forgetting the absolutely massive resource trade they had, with literally tens of billions worth of oil and gas going to Europe annually. Putin took that money and instead of building infrastructure for his people, he chose to build an invasion force instead. Russia is a country where provincial highways can still be dirt roads and where a quarter of rural homes use an outhouse. And yet they keep investing billions in new nuclear weapons. Literally every criticism leveled against the US is worse in Russia.

There was a brief window where Russia was heading towards actual democracy. Yelstin's coup killed it.

We should have been a lot more careful after that. Instead we've simply been more and more naive with a lot of our political leaders from the West projecting and wishcasting what they wanted to see in Russia, instead of looking at actual reality. I think a lot of the Western left has been extremely naive about how willing Russia would have been to cooperate with the West and adopt proper democracy. See the Vlad Vexler video above for some context.

 

[Northern Light]

Russia got way more than $100B from the West. You're forgetting the absolutely massive resource trade they had, with literally tens of billions worth of oil and gas going to Europe annually. Putin took that money and instead of building infrastructure for his people, he chose to build an invasion force instead. Russia is a country where provincial highways can still be dirt roads and where a quarter of rural homes use an outhouse. And yet they keep investing billions in new nuclear weapons. Literally every criticism leveled against the US is worse in Russia.

There was a brief window where Russia was heading towards actual democracy. Yelstin's coup killed it.

We should have been a lot more careful after that. Instead we've simply been more and more naive with a lot of our political leaders from the West projecting and wishcasting what they wanted to see in Russia, instead of looking at actual reality. I think a lot of the Western left has been extremely naive about how willing Russia would have been to cooperate with the West and adopt proper democracy. See the Vlad Vexler video above for some context.

On balance, we're not in disagreement above.

Though, I would not count as aid, goods/resources/services purchased at market value.

Regardless, we would agree that Russia moved away from democratization and the west relatively early and the pillaging of public purse was obvious early on as well.

We would both concur that wasn't acceptable, and action was required.

I think you would lean on the 'be tough on' side, and beef up/don't water down military capability side, understandably. Do correct if I'm wrong on that point.

I don't disagree w/that take, except I wonder if there wasn't a 'bribe' of sorts to be made early on, before things went too far, to reel Russian back in.

And/or a combination strategy.

Which is to say, the object should not be being able to curtail Russia military, though that may end up being a necessary fact of life....

The object should be never having to do so in the first place.

The Russians themselves wear the lion's share of any blame for their own actions, I'm not their apologist in the least.

I'm just a believer in Real Politics. If it was more efficient to bribe a few people, and a society early on, we ought to have done so; if the demands were too great, we should have dropped the other shoe, fast.

In the end, I'm not convinced we did either.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm just a believer in Real Politics. If it was more efficient to bribe a few people, and a society early on, we ought to have done so;

Their parliamentary democracy lasted all of 2 years between the fall of the USSR and Yelstin's coup in '93. See the video above. Who exactly was there to bribe in that time?

I think you would lean on the 'be tough on' side, and beef up/don't water down military capability side, understandably. Do correct if I'm wrong on that point.

A bit yes. Mostly my belief is that Canada should keep its commitments. Whether that is on aid, climate change or NATO defence spending targets. I am mostly fine with the military cuts made in the 90s. We could have been smarter about them. The real issue for me is how much we underestimate the changing world now and how much we take for granted from the US, exactly at the moment as they adopt the Canadian attitude to security commitments (as being optional).

When it comes to Russia (and China), I can't say I would have been smarter than anybody else. But it boggles my mind that Western governments didn't change course on Russia immediately after the invasion of Georgia. France built two amphibs for Russia after that. Heck, Germany even approved Nordstream 2 after the invasion of Ukraine. And Angela Merkel's reasoning is very close to exactly what you're arguing for here. Ostpolitik helped with East Germany so it would bring Russia into the fold. Except, it didn't work out that way. Putin weaponized energy dependency against Europe. If he had been given $100B, the only infrastructure he would built are those that would have helped move his army faster into Ukraine.

A lot of people really struggle with the idea of Russia as an ideologically motivated mafia state. It's a scary thought having a guy who thinks he's been a God given mission, having a nuclear button in his office. But failing to acknowledge what Russia is, makes it much harder to deal with.