Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[jmm99]

Point 3 ties in with Point 2 - they both have to do with EU-NATO capabilities and will to use those capabilities. Assuming (without any evidence I can present right now) that there is a coalition of the "able and willing", from the Baltic to the Black Sea, how far are they ready to go militarily ?

That's a strategic question - recall from Luttwak's Strategy the Cold War contradictions between what the Germans wanted and the US wanted. That was in many ways a US show. If one thinks that is still the case with 2014 Ukraine, one should disabuse oneself of that notion.

Going from that position on Point 2 (EU-NATO on board for military action, or a material part of it - say, your Eastern States) to Point 3, we do unto them as they have done to us in the recent past - Iraq and Afghanistan seem good precedents to me.

BUT, LET ME MAKE THIS CRYSTAL - the US would be a secondary player; and absent material European participation (on far higher levels than US), the US would not play in any military scenario. Not even one JSOC operator.

Regards

Mike

PS: From my "Calls to escalate" link:

At a small lunch held a few days before the first phase of sanctions was imposed on Monday, one EU ambassador cautioned against moving too quickly or aggressively on Moscow.

"We don't want to end up on an escalator where we don't know where it's going," he said, arguing that once you take the first step on sanctions, there are immediate calls for more substantial measures to increase the pressure.

"What do you do when sanctions run out?" he asked, leaving hanging the inference that the EU does not want - and could not afford - a more physical confrontation with Russia.

In the end, the ambassador's country joined the rest in unanimously agreeing the measures which were less tough than sanctions imposed by the United States.

"We have done what we said we could do, but, yes, the U.S. is from Mars, we are from Venus," said Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who wanted at least four more names on the EU list but was rebuffed by other member states.

"I would suggest that we are not overly enthusiastic when it comes to introducing sanctions, because we will pay for it."

If the Poles think we are from Mars and they from Venus, an "able and willing" military Eastern Coalition seems doubtful. Hell, yes, they'd all want US divisions (not just brigades, mind), so long as the US could guarantee there'd be no damages to their countries from war, etc., etc.

[carl]

Mike:

I don't think there is any need for US military forces outside current NATO members . I don't think there is a need for any regular US ground forces in any of the front line NATO countries. They have plenty of guys who can fight and would be thrilled to have a crack at Ivan. There is a need for money, weapons and for the front line NATO countries, air cover. If Ivan goes into any part of the rest of Ukraine it may be an Unconventional Warfare jamboree. Those front line NATO nations and the Ukrainians have plenty of tough top flight guys who can handle everything in that country.

If the Poles don't act like Poles if Ivan keeps moving, I'll look for the sun to rise in the west, but they will need backup from us in the ways I've described.

[jcustis]

What worries me is the simple fact that the intel community both in the US and in Europe totally missed this thing as it was building---so much for Pearl Harbor and the creation of an intel team called Indications and Warnings.

Don't blame the analysts. Russia missed it too at the outset, and it became a really bad situation for Putin. It's not as though there weren't EUCOM analysts who weren't watching and charting the course of things.

It just happened that Putin acted decisively and quickly, while we waited for the situation to develop. Facilitating democracy seems to be a wait-and-see enterprise for the US and other democracies. It is easy to outcycle that approach.

I work at a combatant command now, and trust me when I say this: folks know what is going on and what is about to happen. It's the politicians and cabinet principals who don't act in a timely manner.

[carl]

jcustis:

What is about to happen next?

I can try anyway.

[carl]

Mike:

I wasn't talking about 10 year old Ukainians. I was talking about 10 year old Americans.

There would be no need for either one of those units to go anywhere but Shopko. They fall under 'regular US ground forces'.

[jcustis]

I don't work at EUCOM, so I dunno.

[jmm99]

then we should be considering the risk to them of directly confronting Russia.

We did that, of course, during the Cold War. The last Cold War study on that was in 1990.

Nuclear Attack Planning Base - 1990
Federal Emergency Management Agency
April 1987

The Nuclear Attack Planning Base 1990 was an official estimate of the potential physical effects of a Soviet nuclear attack on the population of the United States, including detailed county-by-county assessments of damage due to blast overpressure, fire and radiation.

A copy of the approximately 500 page publication, originally marked Limited Distribution and Not for Public Release, was released in April 2005 with the following caveat: "This publication was provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, for its academic and historical value only."

•Executive Summary
•Cover Page
•Front Matter, Table of Contents
•Part 1: Project Overview
•Part 2: Project Development
•Part 3: Risk Definitions (1.67 MB PDF file)
•Annex A: Direct Effects & Fire Risk, Statistics and Maps (4.2 MB PDF file)
•Annex B: Fallout Risk, Statistics and Maps (6.1 MB PDF file)

Is the Ukraine worth a nuclear exchange now ? - a very good question to ask Americans, I'd say. While we're at it, what about Germany, UK and France ? Should we trade the Midwest for Italy ?

Of course, we get bellicose statements from Russian politicos - anyone have the link for the local Russian politician who a few days ago promised they would incinerate us. And, we have it from Mirhond Batch #1:

Good idea from the first glance, but in the long run, when virtually all who are already considering to migrate, leave the country, Putin&Co will get society dominated with die-hard supporters. When they finally figure out that their cause is lost, the'll nuke you, and I'am only half unseriuos.

Actually, this "ultimate threat" by nutjob fanatics of the "use them or lose them" persuasion is not that "ultimate". If it seems the case, the only logical COA is to employ a massive first strike to cut down on the number of their missiles that can reply. That revisits the "ultimate" game of chicken, where the enemy shows up drunk and high, cuts his brake lines, lashes himself in the seat, lashes down the throttle and throws away the steering wheel. The obvious response is to kill the crazy SOB by any means feasible - breaking all the "rules" of that "game".

Not having been that impressed by the "Better Red than Dead" campaigns of the Cold War, that type of threat does not impress me now; but it is a risk that Americans should at least wrestle with in dealings with Russia - and China, for that matter.

Why you keep throwing this kind of bone to me:

There would be no need for either one of those units to go anywhere but Shopko ...

is beyond me - sending them into combat is not my problem - they didn't sign up to become mall ninjas.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Mike:

Ok, now that you got that off your chest.

One of these days we may have to do that, directly confront Russia; Poland after all is right next to Ukraine. To my mind, the best way to make sure that day does not come is to directly confront them economically now, if they don't go into the rest of Ukraine; and if they do contribute indirectly to the UW jamboree.

[jmm99]

just quid pro quo.

Up front, I'm not objecting to my and your sending US troops to bad places, where they will see worse situations, etc. In any event, they (not 10 yr old Ukrainian school children) are and will be my paramount priority; e.g., 278th ACR (two OIF tours; my dad's WWII unit, then 117th Inf.); 107th Engineer Combat Battalion (OIF & OEF tours; our local sappers).

If I had the say, I wouldn't do it, however, without very good reasons and without imposing conditions on "allies", "partners", etc. - which I've expressed. If you want the model, it's Jack Pershing.

Your hopes on this:

I don't think there is any need for US military forces outside current NATO members . I don't think there is a need for any regular US ground forces in any of the front line NATO countries. They have plenty of guys who can fight and would be thrilled to have a crack at Ivan. There is a need for money, weapons and for the front line NATO countries, air cover. If Ivan goes into any part of the rest of Ukraine it may be an Unconventional Warfare jamboree. Those front line NATO nations and the Ukrainians have plenty of tough top flight guys who can handle everything in that country.

If the Poles don't act like Poles if Ivan keeps moving, I'll look for the sun to rise in the west, but they will need backup from us in the ways I've described.

may or may not be justified by their future acts. Until they are, I'm not on your bandwagon.

Regards

Mike