Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Stan]

Other than all the issues brought up in the previous 80 pages, the major issue is that Russia is for the time being on the ascendent (sic) relative to the US...

What does that mean for a Washington mired in bitter political infighting, degrading military capacity, and a self-imposed fiscal crisis?

Sorry, but did not see a link to those 80 pages. You mean the 80 or so herein ? Half of that I would just delete.

Degraded military capacity ? Got a link or is this conjecture ? The Russians are better and the Americans are degrading ?

Don't get where you're going herein

[AmericanPride]

Degraded military capacity ? Got a link or is this conjecture ? The Russians are better and the Americans are degrading ?

Not conjecture. Military capacity does not equal military capability - so while absolute US military capability increases with the introduction of every new weapon system (at least that's the assumption and I'll stick to that for now), it does not necessarily mean US military capacity is improving or even sustaining. By capacity, I mean the culminative capability to wage war effectively. The F-35 and F-22 programs are perfect examples. I discussed in this thread how US purchasing power for military capabilities is actually degrading US military capacity. From that thread in 2012:

So how we measure relative combat power between, say, the 1973 aircraft and the 2012 aircraft is to find their ratio of cost-per-unit to how many units are active. The F-35 costs between 197 and 237 million dollars. One of the aircraft it will replace is the F-16, which cost 14 - 18 million dollars per unit. If we assume that the amount of combat power that a dollar can buy is fixed, then in order for the F-35 to be "worth it", it must provide at least 1,316% more combat power than the F-16. By anyone's definition of combat power, does it? The US has 2,230 F-16s, 335 A-10s, and 409 F/A-18s (the other two aircraft the F-35 will replace), for a total of 2,974 aircraft. The official plan is to buy around 2,400 aircraft. If we assume that to be the case (even though procurement has been both delayed and reduced because of cost of growth), and use the DoD/NATO definition of combat power, then even though the US intends to buy 20% less aircraft than current inventory, for now it is purchasing an equal or greater amount of combat power. For the US to replace F-16 combat power 1:1 (assuming the F-35 can provide 1,316% more combat power), the US must purchase at least 1,600 new F-35s.

The sequester has only intensified this problem because the cost per unit for weapon systems is increasing faster than the anticipated DoD budget, which means the absolute number of dollars (and therefore the purchaseable combat capacity) is decreasing. This has been partially offset by trimming personnel benefits but since operations and maintenance already consumes approximately 50% of the DoD budget and I think personnel takes about 10% in comparison (I'll have to double check), there's only so much that can be cut. And there's the added problem of increasing, not decreasing, security commitments.

The other problem is that in recent history the US has not been able to effectively tie together political aims with military means - so while it's awesome to have a handful of high powered combat systems, we don't know how to employ them in a way to achieve our political ends. We can debate if this is a political problem or military one but since some weapon systems now take upwards of 40 years to develop and field, I lean towards our inability to properly forecast threats and to synchronize long-term strategy with military development.

Are the Russians better? Depends on the metrics. If we compare conflict outcomes between 1991 - 2014, the Russians have won 7 of 11 conflicts (63.6%) with 2 on-going, and only one defeat (First Chechen War). In the same time period, the US fought in 8 conflicts with 5 clear victories (62.5%), one on-going and at least won I would argue is a defeat (Iraq). The on-going conflicts for Russia are Caucaus insurgency and eastern Ukraine insurgency, while the US conflict is Afghanistan. We know how Afghanistan is going to end, so it appears that in the near future, Russia will keep the better track record in conflict outcomes.

And here's the last problem: one of perception of relative power. Sure, there's concern about China's rapidly growing military capabilities, which implies that US military capabilities are not increasing fast enough (and they're not). Russia is also on the ascendent, flushed with confidence in the stability and limited achievements of the Putin administration. Even if Russia is a mile away in absolute capabilities, that's less important than if their relative power or growth of that power is increasing compared to the US. A survey came out today that stated a record 60%+ of Americans feel the US is headed in the wrong direction. Perceptions matter. Relative power matters. And Russia's relative power is growing. That's a problem.

[Stan]

This may have very little to do with this thread, but then, the current posts have little to do with much either

Not conjecture. Military capacity does not equal military capability - so while absolute US military capability increases with the introduction of every new weapon system (at least that's the assumption and I'll stick to that for now), it does not necessarily mean US military capacity is improving or even sustaining. By capacity, I mean the culminative capability to wage war effectively. The F-35 and F-22 programs are perfect examples. I discussed in this thread how US purchasing power for military capabilities is actually degrading US military capacity. From that thread in 2012:

Yes, I recall the posts and follow on comments. I contend that it's 80% driver and 20% vehicle and all those fancy USAF toys do not increase capacity nor capability. Even if we have some fly boys that know how to use them. I agree with you... those defense contractor toys have little to do with our effectiveness, capacity and capability. That said, I don't see the decline in our capacity and capability save the fancy aircraft.

The sequester has only intensified this problem because the cost per unit for weapon systems is increasing faster than the anticipated DoD budget, which means the absolute number of dollars (and therefore the purchaseable (sic) combat capacity) is decreasing. This has been partially offset by trimming personnel benefits but since operations and maintenance already consumes approximately 50% of the DoD budget and I think personnel takes about 10% in comparison (I'll have to double check), there's only so much that can be cut. And there's the added problem of increasing, not decreasing, security commitments.

All that tells me is Obama finally got rid of those defense contractors and flying tub toys. Here's the link and text similar to ....

The other problem is that in recent history the US has not been able to effectively tie together political aims with military means - so while it's awesome to have a handful of high powered combat systems, we don't know how to employ them in a way to achieve our political ends. We can debate if this is a political problem or military one but since some weapon systems now take upwards of 40 years to develop and field, I lean towards our inability to properly forecast threats and to synchronize long-term strategy with military development.

I love this part having served 23 years in Sierra holes.

Give me one example of when the military was effectively used to meet political aims.

You seem keen on military systems. I seem stuck on corrupt defense contractors with politicians feeding the frenzy. I guess we call it even !

Are the Russians better? Depends on the metrics. If we compare conflict outcomes between 1991 - 2014, the Russians have won 7 of 11 conflicts (63.6%) with 2 on-going, and only one defeat (First Chechen War). In the same time period, the US fought in 8 conflicts with 5 clear victories (62.5%), one on-going and at least won I would argue is a defeat (Iraq). The on-going conflicts for Russia are Caucaus insurgency and eastern Ukraine insurgency, while the US conflict is Afghanistan. We know how Afghanistan is going to end, so it appears that in the near future, Russia will keep the better track record in conflict outcomes.

Between you and outlaw, the Russkies won the war already. Metrics ? That's how we measure success these days

[AmericanPride]

Stan,

I wouldn't say the Russians have won already. They won the opening round with the seizure of Crimea (who's talking about that anymore?) but we've also seen their limits. When the people of Donetsk held their own referendum similar to Crimea's about joining Russia, Moscow said no thanks (this also calls into question the theory that Russian intelligence services have been directing the opposition from day one). I don't think they have as nearly as much control as they would like, evidenced by the collapse of the Russian supported cease-fire because of continued insurgent provocations. That said, Russia is still in a stronger position than the US (and certainly Ukraine), and now it's just a waiting game. I think there's a couple of outcomes:

- Kiev eliminates insurgent threat. What does this do for Russian perception of its international standing and obligations to Russian speaking peoples?

- Kiev forms an actual unity government that's inclusive of political players from the Russian community.

- Washington and Moscow agree to partition in Ukraine.

- Kiev offensive loses steam and Ukraine becomes de-facto partitioned, and that's eventually institutionalized through cease-fires, self-governance, etc.

[kaur]

Special tourists from Russia to Crimea.

http://translate.google.be/translate...24%26bih%3D671

[Firn]

The Moscow Times has more and a link on the incident.

A Forbes correspondent who was with a group of journalists that came under fire from a military base in eastern Ukraine has said the news crews were set up by separatists, leading to an incident in which a Russian television cameraman died.

Ahead of the Sunday night shootout that killed Channel One cameraman Anatoly Klyan, the press service of the separatist People's Republic of Donetsk called journalists and told them to assemble near the rebel administration building, Forbes correspondent Orkhan Dzhemal wrote Monday in an article posted on the magazine's Russian-language website.

A separatist rebel identified by his nom de guerre Gyurza, or Viper, addressed the gathering, telling reporters that they would travel with a group of Ukrainian women — [not]* the mothers of conscript servicemen — to a government military base whose commander had supposedly agreed to surrender to the rebels, Dzhemal wrote.

Keep in mind that heavily armed seperatists have used activists and civilians in the past to provide a cover for storming bases and buildings. In this case it is impossible to know how high up the trip organisation went and to which degree or at all the televised outcome was intended. Blunders happen in war, especially if one relies on the nice cooperation of the opponent. It is just sad how many have already died during the Russian intervention.

Overall the incident and the dead are 'just' a small facet of the current war. A political solution has of course to be found, but considering the low level of support enjoyed by the insurgents mostly set-up by the Kremlin it might be not that problematic. The difficulty of the military campaign for Ukraine depends of course to a considerable degree on the quantity and quality of Russian investment in it's war.

*A special bus was prepared for the journalists and for these women. And I must note, when I dug further into this story, the women were not the mothers of the soldiers who served on that base, as it was later announced. These were certain activists who had hung around the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers.

From the interpreter mag.

[Ulenspiegel]

Stan,

I wouldn't say the Russians have won already. They won the opening round with the seizure of Crimea (who's talking about that anymore?) but we've also seen their limits. When the people of Donetsk held their own referendum similar to Crimea's about joining Russia, Moscow said no thanks (this also calls into question the theory that Russian intelligence services have been directing the opposition from day one). I don't think they have as nearly as much control as they would like, evidenced by the collapse of the Russian supported cease-fire because of continued insurgent provocations. That said, Russia is still in a stronger position than the US (and certainly Ukraine), and now it's just a waiting game. I think there's a couple of outcomes:

- Kiev eliminates insurgent threat. What does this do for Russian perception of its international standing and obligations to Russian speaking peoples?

- Kiev forms an actual unity government that's inclusive of political players from the Russian community.

- Washington and Moscow agree to partition in Ukraine.

- Kiev offensive loses steam and Ukraine becomes de-facto partitioned, and that's eventually institutionalized through cease-fires, self-governance, etc.

The occupation of the Krim and maybe eastern parts of Ukraine is a strategic loss for Russia.

They have to spend valuable resources to get less than they had two years ago, while in contrast the opponents USA/EU have to spend from a practical point of view nothing.

We can discuss the wisdom of western governments to destabilize the Ukraine, IMHO it was a stupid move, however, the conclusion that Russia "won" is in my book funny, when Putin is obviously only minimizing losses.

[OUTLAW 09]

Seems to be a disconnect in the Russian security advisor group around Putin---since it appears that slowly but ever so slowly the Ukrainian forces are pushing the Russian irregulars backwards---now Russia cannot seem to understand it is the Ukrainians doing the fighting and now they turn loose the massive Russia paranoia statements---it has to be/got to be those nasty American military advisors or worse Blackwater or Greystone crazy types---it cannot just be the Ukrainians alone defeating the irregulars as we felt they could not nor would not resist the "motherland".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Nato-east.html

[OUTLAW 09]

kaur---there is now a total of 12 T64RVs inside eastern Ukraine---seems those civilian trucks drivers did take the wrong turn.

Well at least they are 12 less that Russia should have destroyed under OCSE disarmament agreements which they have not done---still over 2000 to be destroyed---Russia signaled their intent to destroy three years ago but for some strange reason they were never destroyed.

Maybe three years ago they started the planning for the Crimea?

[Stan]

RB,
Honestly, with your background you certainly realize that Putin has been doing this for over a decade

Checked out those defunct defense contractors lately ?

---it has to be/got to be those nasty American military advisors or worse Blackwater or Greystone crazy types---it cannot just be the Ukrainians alone defeating the irregulars as we felt they could not nor would not resist the "motherland".