Ukraine proxy war?

[Natural Citizen]

These days it is impolite to declare war on a near peer enemy. Proxy wars are back in vogue, baby!

Perfide Albion!

Heh heh...

 

[Open Bolt]

If this was a NATO proxy war, NATO would have been providing heavy weapons and training up Ukrainian crews before the invasion even happened. It's taken 2 months to get the ball rolling, and a lot of Ukrainian lives have been lost in that time.
The author is right that now we see a possible defeat for Russia, and are emboldened by that. The US and NATO are providing a lot more help now. So opportunism on the part of NATO- yes, definitely.

It was not a proxy war then. It is becoming a proxy war now. This is an opportunity to gut Russia.


---------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, he did a real bang up job of opposing the Islamic State, other than when it expanded into Iraq, Libya, Syria & even Africa. If that was Obama "opposing" them, the entire region would've been better off if he minded his own business.

Obama set up the coalition between the US and the Kurds that ultimately defeated Islamic State.

Do you really believe that BS about Russia & the US were simply fighting against ISIS together?

No.

Russia was backing Assad while we were backing the anti-Assad rebels.

Russia backed Assad. They didn't oppose Islamic State. We opposed Islamic State. We didn't oppose Assad.

We were looking for regime change & they wanted status quo.
Both countries supplying & supporting separate sides.
Sounds suspiciously like a covert proxy war to me

We didn't try to topple Assad.


---------------------------------------------------------

How can you say that? Assad is Shiite; ISIS is Sunni. It was a three-way war, with both mortal enemies being against the Arab Springers.

I say it because it's true. Bashar al-Assad created Islamic State and supported them.

If ISIS had been successful, they would have brought their psychotic bloodbath into Iran, which is Shiite. There they would link up with the Taliban, who are also Sunni.
Muzzies killing Muzzies. That's all good. We should encourage it.

I probably would have left Islamic State alone so long as they didn't invade Israel or Europe.

But it wasn't my call.

 

[para bellum]

From the mid-January to the mid-Februsry there were 15 planes that delivered weapons to Ukraine through Boryspol Airport.

That is the first link I found (in Ukrainian)

В Україну зі США прибуло ще 130 тонн оборонної зброї – Резніков

Очікуються ще постачання

mind.ua

That was 300 Javelins, body armor, MRE's, and several hundred thousand rounds of small arms ammunition in various calibers. There were some AT-4's in there too, and maybe the Carl-G's from Canada.

 

[para bellum]

It was not a proxy war then. It is becoming a proxy war now. This is an opportunity to gut Russia.

It's getting more proxyish as it goes, I grant you that.

Wondering what has to be going through Putin's mind right now.

 

[Silver Cat]

"John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago: Well, I think, initially, the Biden administration thought the best we could do in Ukraine was to stymie the Russian offensive by assisting the Ukrainians.

But when it became clear that the Ukrainians were doing very well on the battlefield against the Russians, we escalated and eventually greatly escalated our goals. And we are now bent on inflicting a decisive defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, in other words, beating them decisively on the battlefield, and, in addition, wrecking the Russian economy with sanctions.

And all of this is designed to greatly weaken Russian power. Secretary of Defense Austin has made this very clear. And, in fact, one could argue what he and his colleagues in the Biden administration are interested in doing is knocking Russia out of the great power ranks."

As I said earlier - miscalculation and wishful thinking is something pretty dangerous.

 

[gipper]

It seems Putin sees this as a proxy war with America and NATO. How far could it go? Could it get to the point America gets directly involved?

After all the failed wars Americans have been involved in you’d think they’d know better.

 

[gipper]

NOT VERY FAR , WITH HIS 1 % OF THE WORLD gdp

View attachment 641700

SOON >
View attachment 641698

Why do fear Russia then Adolf?

 

[Open Bolt]

As I said earlier - miscalculation and wishful thinking is something pretty dangerous.

It's no problem. If Russia goes nuclear, Biden will wipe Russia out. There will never again be a Russia after that.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[para bellum]

It's no problem. If Russia goes nuclear, Biden will wipe Russia out. There will never again be a Russia after that.

Maybe after he's done wiping something else...

 

[Silver Cat]

It's no problem. If Russia goes nuclear, Biden will wipe Russia out. There will never again be a Russia after that.

Actually, the USA can't wipe Russia out (even in the worst for Russia scenarios). What is even more important - there is a pretty good chance that the USA won't be able properly retaliate after the first Russian counter-force strike and in the case of post-attack blackmail.

 

[Batcat]

"John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago: Well, I think, initially, the Biden administration thought the best we could do in Ukraine was to stymie the Russian offensive by assisting the Ukrainians.

But when it became clear that the Ukrainians were doing very well on the battlefield against the Russians, we escalated and eventually greatly escalated our goals. And we are now bent on inflicting a decisive defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, in other words, beating them decisively on the battlefield, and, in addition, wrecking the Russian economy with sanctions.

And all of this is designed to greatly weaken Russian power. Secretary of Defense Austin has made this very clear. And, in fact, one could argue what he and his colleagues in the Biden administration are interested in doing is knocking Russia out of the great power ranks."

When a nation has as many nukes as Russia it is hard to knock them out of the Great Power ranks.

 

[Open Bolt]

Actually, the USA can't wipe Russia out (even in the worst for Russia scenarios). What is even more important - there is a pretty good chance that the USA won't be able properly retaliate after the first Russian counter-force strike and in the case of post-attack blackmail.

That is incorrect. Even if Russia massively attacks the US from out of the blue before we can raise our alert status or upload our hedge stockpile, we will still have a minimum of 1100 warheads to destroy Russia with (400 ICBMs plus another 700 warheads at sea).

1100 warheads is enough to wipe Russia out in any scenario.

Once our forces are fully on alert and the hedge warheads are added back to active weapons systems, we'll have 3500 nukes ready to rain down on Russia.


-----------------------------------------------

When a nation has as many nukes as Russia it is hard to knock them out of the Great Power ranks.

We have nukes too. If Russia starts a nuclear war with NATO, we will end them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It seems Putin sees this as a proxy war with America and NATO. How far could it go? Could it get to the point America gets directly involved?

Probably not. The US knows this will be a bloody war, after Vietnam they've kept away from bloody wars, only picking on weak countries.

 

[Silver Cat]

That is incorrect. Even if Russia massively attacks the US from out of the blue before we can raise our alert status or upload our hedge stockpile, we will still have a minimum of 1100 warheads to destroy Russia with (400 ICBMs plus another 700 warheads at sea).

No. The Russia's first counter-force strike, say, 1120 warheads at SLBMs of their Northern Fleet, going at suppressed ballistic trajectory, will totally annihilate the whole 500-points nuclear target system, including all 400 ICBMs, SSBN bases, strategic Air Force bases, nuclear weapon depots and some other targets. Same time, their Poseidons, Klavesins, Cephalopods will sunk the few Ohio's at hard duty in the Northern Atlantic.

So, at the end of the stage one (15 minutes after start of the Russian attack), you still have few Ohio's in Pacific (but it will take days before they will be able to attack Moscow or St. Petersburg) and, say, sixty B-61 in Europe which you hardly can deliver to Moscow or St. Petersburg, and Russian nuclear forces are still intact. Five millions of Americans are already dead, and most of other are in panic. The Russian population is intact, and they had started evacuation and sheltering.
Then, the Russian president calls the POTUS and suggest peace negotiations. Their terms are quite generous: the USA must dismiss NATO and return all their forces back in the USA. The USA can keep their survived nuclear weapons, but won't buy new one for ten years. The USA return Alaska to Russia, and their Federal Government don't fight any potential separatist states.
While the USA don't accept these terms - Russia continue to nuke American military targets with the limited, but unavoidable collateral damage.
If the USA launch counter-value (against the Russian cities) strike by their remaining nuclear forces (may be few occasionally survived Minutemen, few Pacific Ohio's, few suicide bombers from Europe):
1) The Russian ABD will defend Moscow region. The Russian ersatz-ABD have a good chance to defend large cities and important military sites from a limited nuclear attack.
2) The Russian population is evacuated and sheltered, and double-weakened retaliation strike won't cause "unacceptable damage".
3) In that case, the Russian nuclear forces will kill at least 200 millions of Americans and destroy the USA.

So, the POTUS has face the choice:
1) Do not retaliate, accept defeat, lost NATO, Alaska but save the USA (as a minor nuclear power) and American people and wait for the better opportunity.
2) Retaliate, destroy, say, Vladivostok and Khabarovsk, kill less than 100 thousands of the Russians, but then lost the USA and 200 millions of the Americans.

The Russian Military analists consider that there is 75% chance, that Biden will choose the first option. But even the second option may be more acceptable (under some circumstances) for them than uncontrollable escalation.

 

[ESay]

That was 300 Javelins, body armor, MRE's, and several hundred thousand rounds of small arms ammunition in various calibers. There were some AT-4's in there too, and maybe the Carl-G's from Canada.

Not sure where you got the number 300, because neither side disclosed precise number and volume of weapons being delivered. What was emphasized is weight, maybe to make more impression. What is interesting, when American officials were claiming that Russian invasion is 'imminent', the Zelensky administration till February made claims they didn't see signs that actual invasion might happen.

Anyway, getting NATO membership and heavy weapons from the West was the policy officially declared first in 2005 or so (when Yushchenko was the president). But many people in the West, especially in Western Europe, wanted to see Russia as a trading partner and Ukraine with its wishes were just an obstacle in doing so.

I have a feeling that leading Western strategists had plan A which included giving up Ukraine and allowing Russia to have their sphere of influence in some post-Soviet states. Crazy Russian demands and more crazy expectations in Moscow that they would be implemented in full led to switching of strategy. Maybe what we see now is something like plan C.

 

[Open Bolt]

No. The Russia's first counter-force strike, say, 1120 warheads at SLBMs of their Northern Fleet, going at suppressed ballistic trajectory, will totally annihilate the whole 500-points nuclear target system, including all 400 ICBMs, SSBN bases, strategic Air Force bases, nuclear weapon depots and some other targets.

All 400 ICBMs will be launched as soon as it is apparent that Russia is attacking.

Same time, their Poseidons, Klavesins, Cephalopods will sunk the few Ohio's at hard duty in the Northern Atlantic.

The Ohios that are on hard alert for a rapid counterforce attack have enough range to stay far back from any Russian weapons. All of their missiles will join with the 400 ICBMs in a massive counterforce attack.

So, at the end of the stage one (15 minutes after start of the Russian attack), you still have few Ohio's in Pacific (but it will take days before they will be able to attack Moscow or St. Petersburg) and, say, sixty B-61 in Europe which you hardly can deliver to Moscow or St. Petersburg, and Russian nuclear forces are still intact. Five millions of Americans are already dead, and most of other are in panic. The Russian population is intact, and they had started evacuation and sheltering.
Then, the Russian president calls the POTUS and suggest peace negotiations. Their terms are quite generous: the USA must dismiss NATO and return all their forces back in the USA. The USA can keep their survived nuclear weapons, but won't buy new one for ten years. The USA return Alaska to Russia, and their Federal Government don't fight any potential separatist states.
While the USA don't accept these terms - Russia continue to nuke American military targets with the limited, but unavoidable collateral damage.
If the USA launch counter-value (against the Russian cities) strike by their remaining nuclear forces (may be few occasionally survived Minutemen, few Pacific Ohio's, few suicide bombers from Europe):

A minimum of four Ohios will be on a strictly countervalue mission. And they won't be the subs on hard alert for a rapid counterforce attack. They will be the ones traveling to or returning from hard alert patrol. So they will be even further-yet from Russian weapons.

1) The Russian ABD will defend Moscow region. The Russian ersatz-ABD have a good chance to defend large cities and important military sites from a limited nuclear attack.

All of Russia's missile defenses will have been eliminated by our counterforce strike.

2) The Russian population is evacuated and sheltered, and double-weakened retaliation strike won't cause "unacceptable damage".

Four Ohios on a strictly countervalue mission (and with Russia's missiles defenses having already been wiped out) will be able to wipe Russia off the face of the earth forever.

Any Russian population hiding out in shelters had better be prepared to wait at least 500 years before emerging.

3) In that case, the Russian nuclear forces will kill at least 200 millions of Americans and destroy the USA.

Don't care. Russia will be gone too.

So, the POTUS has face the choice:
1) Do not retaliate, accept defeat, lost NATO, Alaska but save the USA (as a minor nuclear power) and American people and wait for the better opportunity.
2) Retaliate, destroy, say, Vladivostok and Khabarovsk, kill less than 100 thousands of the Russians, but then lost the USA and 200 millions of the Americans.

Our counterforce retaliation will have already struck Russia.

We will still have the four Ohios that are on a strictly countervalue mission if Russia wants to continue the war.

The Russian Military analists consider that there is 75% chance, that Biden will choose the first option. But even the second option may be more acceptable (under some circumstances) for them than uncontrollable escalation.

Boy will they be in for a surprise.

 

[para bellum]

Not sure where you got the number 300, because neither side disclosed precise number and volume of weapons being delivered.

Not True. Every weapons transfer is documented. In addition to the 480 I listed, There were 210 Javelins in 2018 and 150 more in 2020. No heavy weapons, no stingers until after the invasion.

SIPRI Arms Transfers Database

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains information on all transfers of major conventional arms from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year. It is a unique resource for researchers, policymakers and analysts, the media and civil society interested in monitoring and measuring the...

armstrade.sipri.org

The 300 Javelins was not a secret.

National Airlines delivers US-made Javelin missiles to Ukraine

A commercial cargo carrier is at the forefront of U.S. efforts to supply Ukraine with weapons ahead of a possible Russian invasion.

www.freightwaves.com

Anyway, getting NATO membership and heavy weapons from the West was the policy officially declared first in 2005 or so (when Yushchenko was the president).

We never provided heavy weapons or announced an intent to so that. The first lethal aid from the US was the 210 Javelins from Trump in 2018.

Ukraine first said they wanted to be in NATO in 2004, after the Orange Revolution- yes. No one was talking about giving them western heavy weapons.

After the invasion, weapons first started flowing in from the former WarPac countries in Europe. The focus was on systems that Ukraine already knew how to operate. We provided some Mi-17's, there was the chatter about the MiG-29's etc.

Everyone understood the Western systems would take time to get trained up on, and some sort of log infrastructure would be needed. NATO heavy weapons were not going to have an immediate impact. The immediate need was for 122 and 152 mm ammunition, T-72's and towed arty from the cold war era. That was a stopgap measure- to buy time to transition Ukraine to NATO standard.

 

[ESay]

Not True. Every weapons transfer is documented. In addition to the 480 I listed, There were 210 Javelins in 2018 and 150 more in 2020. No heavy weapons, no stingers until after the invasion.

SIPRI Arms Transfers Database

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains information on all transfers of major conventional arms from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year. It is a unique resource for researchers, policymakers and analysts, the media and civil society interested in monitoring and measuring the...

armstrade.sipri.org

The 300 Javelins was not a secret.

National Airlines delivers US-made Javelin missiles to Ukraine

A commercial cargo carrier is at the forefront of U.S. efforts to supply Ukraine with weapons ahead of a possible Russian invasion.

www.freightwaves.com

We never provided heavy weapons or announced an intent to so that. The first lethal aid from the US was the 210 Javelins from Trump in 2018.

Ukraine first said they wanted to be in NATO in 2004, after the Orange Revolution- yes. No one was talking about giving them western heavy weapons.

After the invasion, weapons first started flowing in from the former WarPac countries in Europe. The focus was on systems that Ukraine already knew how to operate. We provided some Mi-17's, there was the chatter about the MiG-29's etc.

Everyone understood the Western systems would take time to get trained up on, and some sort of log infrastructure would be needed. NATO heavy weapons were not going to have an immediate impact. The immediate need was for 122 and 152 mm ammunition, T-72's and towed arty from the cold war era. That was a stopgap measure- to buy time to transition Ukraine to NATO standard.

About the weapons provided since January, I seem to have to halt this argument. From those sources I read then I couldn't draw a conclusion about what weapons were delivered. And now I don't want to indulge in that, because it hardly has significance now. So, I will take your word on it.

Of course, it was Ukraine who wanted to join NATO and got NATO weapons back then (specifically it was defense minister Grytsenko who was pushing the idea of switching to NATO standards, iirc). But NATO wasn't too eager about that, and this resulted in refusal to give Ukraine MAP in the 2008 Bucharest summit, with France and Germany being focal opponents of this status for Ukraine.

Yes, it is quite understandable why at the first stage of the war Ukraine was supplied with Soviet weapons. There is no point in discussing that.

 

[para bellum]

Yes, it is quite understandable why at the first stage of the war Ukraine was supplied with Soviet weapons. There is no point in discussing that.

Which is why I said this is not a NATO proxy war.

NATO wasn't giving Ukraine any odds of success. 72 to 96 hours was the expectation.

If NATO's intent was to use Ukraine to fight a war with Russia, there would have been some preparation.