SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,264
|
Ukraine
Feb 26, 2022 17:50:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by SSHoya on Feb 26, 2022 17:50:53 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the Ukrainians do not have the history of tribal sectarian militias as in Afghanistan (who set aside internecine differences to fight the Soviets). Those militias successfully bogged the Soviets down in an assymetric insurgency against it and its puppet government. Hopefully, an OGA is also present in Ukraine to render some assistance. www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-militias/I hope Mr. London is correct (and he should know). DOUGLAS LONDON was a Senior Operations Officer in the CIA Clandestine Service for over 34 years, assigned to the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, and Central Eurasia. He is the author of The Recruiter: Spying and the Lost Art of American Intelligence. "The Coming Ukrainian Insurgency" Foreign Affairs, by Douglas London, Feb. 25, 2022. Russia can likely seize as much of Ukraine’s territory as it chooses. But plans to pacify Ukraine will require far more than the reserve forces Putin has suggested might occupy the territory as “peacekeepers” after initial combat objectives are met. Thanks to Putin’s aggression, anti-Russian fervor and homegrown nationalism have surged in Ukraine. Ukrainians have spent the last eight years planning, training, and equipping themselves for resisting a Russian occupation. Ukraine understands that no U.S. or NATO forces will come to its rescue on the battlefield. Its strategy doesn’t depend on turning back a Russian invasion, but rather in bleeding Moscow so as to make occupation untenable. The United States will invariably be a major and essential source of backing for a Ukrainian insurgency. During the Obama and Trump administrations, the United States acted with restraint in responding to Russian cyberattacks, disinformation, and military expansionism. Washington did not want to unleash a spiral of escalation it could not control, risking Russian reprisals against U.S. banks, businesses, and infrastructure. The Biden administration, however, has so far been less tentative in its dealings with Russia. To counter Russian moves, it has exposed Russia-associated hackers and recovered funds stolen through cyberattack ransoms, extradited Russian oligarchs to stand trial in the United States, and declassified intelligence on Russian plans in Ukraine to unify support among allies and shape the media narrative. U.S. and Ukrainian officials have long planned for this day. In all likelihood, a covert program to help organize the resistance to Russia already has communications infrastructure, intelligence collection capabilities, and operational plans in place. And the tactics developed to support defensive operations against an invader can transition to those aimed at hobbling an occupying force. An insurgency against Russian forces in Ukraine will take time to gather steam and achieve its goals. Resistance movements can take years—not months—to mature, organize, and achieve a meaningful offensive tempo. Even as an American, I could have easily walked the streets or dined in the cafes of Kabul in 2002 and Baghdad in 2003 without a care in the world. But a year or two later, I had to wear body armor and be accompanied by a protective security detail that ferried me around in heavily armored vehicles, hoping to avoid ambushes and improvised explosive device strikes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2022 19:49:53 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,515
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 26, 2022 21:39:26 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Feb 26, 2022 23:14:35 GMT -5
There are so many clips and examples of the Ukranian people standing up and voicing their anger at being attacked as one might expect. Obviously, they're wildly overmatched but they are certainly not laying down. It's both encouraging and exceedingly sad.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,515
Member is Online
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 0:20:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 27, 2022 0:20:54 GMT -5
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,854
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 27, 2022 7:29:20 GMT -5
The elephant in the room: would the American leadership and public actually support war against Russia if, in the future, it invaded Latvia (to cite one example) ? A week ago, I would have said “no way.” Now I think the answer is “maybe.”
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,515
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 27, 2022 8:35:53 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,515
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 27, 2022 8:38:45 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,264
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 27, 2022 8:51:19 GMT -5
The elephant in the room: would the American leadership and public actually support war against Russia if, in the future, it invaded Latvia (to cite one example) ? A week ago, I would have said “no way.” Now I think the answer is “maybe.” The answer should be an unequivocal "yes" under the principle of collective defense under Article 5 of NATO if the United States is to honor its obligations to an Ally. The question becomes what actions are "deemed necessary." NATO and the US have set up a tripwire: "Adazi Military Base, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The presence of U.S. and other NATO troops in Latvia sends a message to Vladimir Putin that Russia should stay away, Latvian Defence Minister Artis Pabriks said on Friday as he greeted a small deployment of U.S. soldiers. The group of some forty U.S. service members arrived from Italy early on Thursday - before hostilities in Ukraine began. The deployment is expected to grow to more than 300 soldiers. Latvia has been a member of NATO since March 29, 2004." Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States and NATO assisted the United States in Afghanistan under Article 5. "By the evening of September 12, less than twenty-four hours after al Qaeda terrorists hijacked and crashed commercial airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, the allies invoked Article 5 in an act of solidarity with the United States. Then NATO Secretary General George Robertson informed United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the Alliance’s decision." www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/strongerwithallies-the-day-nato-stood-with-the-united-states/www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,515
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 27, 2022 9:49:36 GMT -5
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,854
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 10:30:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 27, 2022 10:30:00 GMT -5
A week ago, I would have said “no way.” Now I think the answer is “maybe.” The answer should be an unequivocal "yes" under the principle of collective defense under Article 5 of NATO if the United States is to honor its obligations to an Ally. The question becomes what actions are "deemed necessary." NATO has set up a tripwire: "Adazi Military Base, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The presence of U.S. and other NATO troops in Latvia sends a message to Vladimir Putin that Russia should stay away, Latvian Defence Minister Artis Pabriks said on Friday as he greeted a small deployment of U.S. soldiers. The group of some forty U.S. service members arrived from Italy early on Thursday - before hostilities in Ukraine began. The deployment is expected to grow to more than 300 soldiers. Latvia has been a member of NATO since March 29, 2004." Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States and NATO assisted the United States in Afghanistan under Article 5. "By the evening of September 12, less than twenty-four hours after al Qaeda terrorists hijacked and crashed commercial airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, the allies invoked Article 5 in an act of solidarity with the United States. Then NATO Secretary General George Robertson informed United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the Alliance’s decision." www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/strongerwithallies-the-day-nato-stood-with-the-united-states/www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htmI’m not saying that my answer wouldn’t be yes. But I think that a lot of Americans would respond with “What or where is Latvia?” or “Why did we let countries like Latvia into NATO? It’s one thing to fight for Britain or France, but Latvia?” I think that the response we’ve seen to this invasion suggests that people are more open to US/NATO intervention than I would have thought. To be clear, I’m not advocating for the US getting involved in Ukraine in an overt, kinetic way. At least not based on the current situation. I do hope (and believe) that we’re giving Ukraine lots of just short of that (intel, arms supplies, CIA).
|
|
hoya73
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by hoya73 on Feb 27, 2022 11:11:13 GMT -5
The answer should be an unequivocal "yes" under the principle of collective defense under Article 5 of NATO if the United States is to honor its obligations to an Ally. The question becomes what actions are "deemed necessary." NATO has set up a tripwire: "Adazi Military Base, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The presence of U.S. and other NATO troops in Latvia sends a message to Vladimir Putin that Russia should stay away, Latvian Defence Minister Artis Pabriks said on Friday as he greeted a small deployment of U.S. soldiers. The group of some forty U.S. service members arrived from Italy early on Thursday - before hostilities in Ukraine began. The deployment is expected to grow to more than 300 soldiers. Latvia has been a member of NATO since March 29, 2004." Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States and NATO assisted the United States in Afghanistan under Article 5. "By the evening of September 12, less than twenty-four hours after al Qaeda terrorists hijacked and crashed commercial airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, the allies invoked Article 5 in an act of solidarity with the United States. Then NATO Secretary General George Robertson informed United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the Alliance’s decision." www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/strongerwithallies-the-day-nato-stood-with-the-united-states/www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htmI’m not saying that my answer wouldn’t be yes. But I think that a lot of Americans would respond with “What or where is Latvia?” or “Why did we let countries like Latvia into NATO? It’s one thing to fight for Britain or France, but Latvia?” I think that the response we’ve seen to this invasion suggests that people are more open to US/NATO intervention than I would have thought. To be clear, I’m not advocating for the US getting involved in Ukraine in an overt, kinetic way. At least not based on the current situation. I do hope (and believe) that we’re giving Ukraine lots of just short of that (intel, arms supplies, CIA). Unfortunately, we are now so polarized that reaction would be partisan. President Biden would honor NATO obligations. the public who belong to the Democratic Party would back him, by say, 80% The other 20% would be divided between real pacifists and people like those SS describes, who would balk at Latvia. Trump would follow Putin's script. The public who belong to the Republican Party would back him, by, say 80%. The other 20% would be O.G. cold warriors, but would be called RINOs. That script would include weasel words on how to dishonor our NATO commitment. It would also include calling out Biden as weak, because, well...big lie habits are habitual. I guess the real question is what about so-called independents. I fear too many are susceptible to the big lie.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,515
Member is Online
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 12:01:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 27, 2022 12:01:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 13:12:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by badgerhoya on Feb 27, 2022 13:12:09 GMT -5
A week ago, I would have said “no way.” Now I think the answer is “maybe.” The answer should be an unequivocal "yes" under the principle of collective defense under Article 5 of NATO if the United States is to honor its obligations to an Ally. The question becomes what actions are "deemed necessary." NATO and the US have set up a tripwire: "Adazi Military Base, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The presence of U.S. and other NATO troops in Latvia sends a message to Vladimir Putin that Russia should stay away, Latvian Defence Minister Artis Pabriks said on Friday as he greeted a small deployment of U.S. soldiers. The group of some forty U.S. service members arrived from Italy early on Thursday - before hostilities in Ukraine began. The deployment is expected to grow to more than 300 soldiers. Latvia has been a member of NATO since March 29, 2004." Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States and NATO assisted the United States in Afghanistan under Article 5. "By the evening of September 12, less than twenty-four hours after al Qaeda terrorists hijacked and crashed commercial airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, the allies invoked Article 5 in an act of solidarity with the United States. Then NATO Secretary General George Robertson informed United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the Alliance’s decision." www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/strongerwithallies-the-day-nato-stood-with-the-united-states/www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htmIsn’t the question more fundamental? Replace Latvia with Poland or even Taiwan and doesn’t the same conversation play itself out? Put another way, in the era of “America First,” do we stand by commitments that our govt (over multiple admins of both parties) has made? If the answer, to your point, isn’t an unequivocal yes, it doesn’t matter which country is attacked.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,264
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 15:17:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by SSHoya on Feb 27, 2022 15:17:15 GMT -5
The answer should be an unequivocal "yes" under the principle of collective defense under Article 5 of NATO if the United States is to honor its obligations to an Ally. The question becomes what actions are "deemed necessary." NATO and the US have set up a tripwire: "Adazi Military Base, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The presence of U.S. and other NATO troops in Latvia sends a message to Vladimir Putin that Russia should stay away, Latvian Defence Minister Artis Pabriks said on Friday as he greeted a small deployment of U.S. soldiers. The group of some forty U.S. service members arrived from Italy early on Thursday - before hostilities in Ukraine began. The deployment is expected to grow to more than 300 soldiers. Latvia has been a member of NATO since March 29, 2004." Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States and NATO assisted the United States in Afghanistan under Article 5. "By the evening of September 12, less than twenty-four hours after al Qaeda terrorists hijacked and crashed commercial airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, the allies invoked Article 5 in an act of solidarity with the United States. Then NATO Secretary General George Robertson informed United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the Alliance’s decision." www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/strongerwithallies-the-day-nato-stood-with-the-united-states/www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htmIsn’t the question more fundamental? Replace Latvia with Poland or even Taiwan and doesn’t the same conversation play itself out? Put another way, in the era of “America First,” do we stand by commitments that our govt (over multiple admins of both parties) has made? If the answer, to your point, isn’t an unequivocal yes, it doesn’t matter which country is attacked. Agreed. It is a larger principle at play but for domestic purposes the American public might (I emphasize might) be more supportive of a defense of the ROC over a Latvia. At minimum, more Americans are likely familiar with Taiwan than Eastern European countries.
|
|
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 20:00:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by badgerhoya on Feb 27, 2022 20:00:05 GMT -5
Isn’t the question more fundamental? Replace Latvia with Poland or even Taiwan and doesn’t the same conversation play itself out? Put another way, in the era of “America First,” do we stand by commitments that our govt (over multiple admins of both parties) has made? If the answer, to your point, isn’t an unequivocal yes, it doesn’t matter which country is attacked. Agreed. It is a larger principle at play but for domestic purposes the American public might (I emphasize might) be more supportive of a defense of the ROC over a Latvia. At minimum, more Americans are likely familiar with Taiwan than Eastern European countries. Maybe? I dunno though. I think we’ve entered an era where in spite of our interconnectedness, people have become way too insular and way too selfish for our own good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 21:28:27 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2022 21:28:27 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,515
Member is Online
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 21:31:47 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 27, 2022 21:31:47 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,264
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 27, 2022 21:54:52 GMT -5
The war in Ukraine isn’t going Russia’s way. Videos posted on social media show whole columns of tanks and armored vehicles have been wiped out. Others have been stopped in their tracks by ordinary Ukrainians standing on the street to block their advance. What is clear, however, is that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s gamble on a swift and decisive takeover of Ukraine has not paid off. The relative limits on the resources thrown at the fight so far suggest the Russians were expecting little or no resistance, and the Russians appear to be stunned, the U.S. defense official said, by the ferocity of the fight put up by the Ukrainians and the defiance of ordinary civilians, who have been seen swearing contemptuously at Russian soldiers. www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/27/ukraine-russia-invasion-tactics/
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Ukraine
Feb 27, 2022 22:56:44 GMT -5
Post by tashoya on Feb 27, 2022 22:56:44 GMT -5
The war in Ukraine isn’t going Russia’s way. Videos posted on social media show whole columns of tanks and armored vehicles have been wiped out. Others have been stopped in their tracks by ordinary Ukrainians standing on the street to block their advance. What is clear, however, is that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s gamble on a swift and decisive takeover of Ukraine has not paid off. The relative limits on the resources thrown at the fight so far suggest the Russians were expecting little or no resistance, and the Russians appear to be stunned, the U.S. defense official said, by the ferocity of the fight put up by the Ukrainians and the defiance of ordinary civilians, who have been seen swearing contemptuously at Russian soldiers. www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/27/ukraine-russia-invasion-tactics/Admirable, to say the very least. The defiance demonstrated by regular citizens is particularly stunning. Being on high alert for the better part of a decade is, so far, paying dividends. Pretty incredible.
|
|