All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Pratyush wrote:If you listen to what the US is saying. Then NATO was training 5 batallion of Ukrainian forces per year to NATO standards.
This is not a small force by any stretch of imagination.
The will to fight is a factor that is most important.
The Ukrainians have an interest not being Russia's puppet. They will go to any lengths to protect themselves from Russia.
US/NATO training amounts to nothing, if there is no will to fight. The US Army trained and equipped the Afghanistan Army as well. Failed miserably. The US Army is not too far off either. Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam are all examples of the poor soldiering qualities of the US Army. They more than make up for it with the technological dominance that their Navy and Air Force have. They can destroy infrastructure/bases from tens or hundreds of kilometers away and insulate themselves from counter retaliation. The US has done that to devastating effect. But get boots on the ground and the invincibility of the US military falls down like a deck of cards. The PLA is another example of poor soldiering.
I do question some Russian tactics for example I agree with Russian decision to pull back and regroup some of forces in North but doing it without any air cover is puzzling not sure why their fixed wing and helicopters are attacking targets in cities rather than providing close air support . You are letting Ukranian forces and artillery openly harass the retreating convoys turning this into mini highway of hell. It shows some degree of lack of coordination between the various branches. Russia’s main advantage is its air superiority but seem to be not properly utilizing it.
Rakesh wrote: They more than make up for it with the technological dominance that their Navy and Air Force have. They can destroy infrastructure/bases from tens or hundreds of kilometers away and insulate themselves from counter retaliation. The US has done that to devastating effect. But get boots on the ground and the invincibility of the US military falls down like a deck of cards.
The combined arms campaigns involving US ground forces in the last 30 years have been executed largely to expectations and without significant combat losses by most historic standards. As a fighting force they have done what has been asked of then and have been battle tested. Expeditionary counter insurgency and nation building has been the area where one can point to failures but those have been long ended endless and foolish nation building endeavors with politics trumping military capability and abilities. What your seeing in Ukraine is a typical armor, artillery, air power and infantry focused mil on mil battle like what you saw in the Gulf war 1 & 2 etc. This has not yet advanced to the insurgency -counter insurgency phase yet.
brar_w wrote:The combined arms campaigns involving US ground forces in the last 30 years have been executed largely to expectations and without significant combat losses by most historic standards. As a fighting force they have done what has been asked of then and have been battle tested. Expeditionary counter insurgency and nation building has been the area where one can point to failures but those have been long ended endless and foolish nation building endeavors with politics trumping military capability and abilities.
That is my point Brar. These foolish and thoughtless expeditionary counter insurgency and nation building military adventures have been dismal failures for the US Army. No one ponders the fact the US Army is battle tested. But everyone is well aware of their failures.
20 years in Afghanistan and what exactly was achieved? Nothing, other than thousands of maimed young American farm boys from Iowa and other states. And the Taliban is right back where it was 20 years ago. To add further insult to injury, the US Army trained and equipped the Afghanistan Army to fight the Taliban. President Biden came on national TV and said that the AA will prevail. But yet when push came to shove, they ran.
This is the same US Army that thoroughly prevailed over the Germans in World War II. It cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of German civilians, but they broke the German will to fight. Can the same be said of the US Army today? The current lot of young American men are an emasculated lot and operate on some false sense (as conveyed to them by their superiors) of moral equivalency with the enemy. Killing unarmed combatants in a zone of conflict today could result in court martial and end of their career. Televising war was the biggest blunder to ever occur. But war is not supposed to be morally correct. It is brutal and one has to prevail. One has to go scorched earth as in WW2.
With this attitude and after the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, where would the US Army like to try their luck next? The will to fight has to be there and the Ukrainians are proving that daily. Whether they eventually prevail over Russia remains to be seen, but they are definitely giving the Russian Army sleepless nights. If what I am reading on this thread and on the news is true, it is not looking good for Russia.
The distinction between mission and political will and not ground force capability, tactics, doctrine or ability to integrate. No one will take the 2 decades of counter insurgency in Afghanistan as a proxy of their ability to do combined arms maneuver warfare in a NATO a-5 situation or against another combat force elsewhere (which is what they are built to do). There are examples of force on force employment and performance in the last thirty that can speak to that including in Iraq and elsewhere. Can’t conflate the two. US armor brigades, BCTs, ADA and FA have had plenty of experience to test their tactics and equipment in real force on force situation and they’ve lived up to expectations or as much as you could given uncertainties involved and nowhere have they fallen like a pack or cards.
brar_w wrote:The distinction between mission and political will and not ground force capability, tactics, doctrine or ability to integrate. No one will take the 2 decades of counter insurgency in Afghanistan as a proxy of their ability to do combined arms maneuver warfare in a NATO a-5 situation or against another combat force elsewhere. There are examples of force on force employment and performance in the last thirty that can speak to that including in Iraq and elsewhere.
But that is exactly where the US Army suffers. The mission and political will that hamstrings the US Army's ability to prevail.
As I said earlier, not a soul reflects or ponders upon the fact that the US Army is battle tested. Even the Pakistan Army is battle tested. Can the Pakistan Army prevail? Because at the end of the day, that is all that matters. That is the larger picture that people look at. No one cares that the US Army won battle X, Y or Z against the Taliban in 2003, 2007 or 2015. The only thing that people remember is the American exit in 2021. They lost. That is the plain and simple truth. Billions were spent in Afghanistan. For what end?
We are conflating between the two situations here. The Rus-Ukr war is a force on force engagement and not yet a drawn out counter insurgency. So focusing on they you have clear campaigns and examples of such use of US ground forces in the last three decades. Mostly in Iraq (where they met their objectives both or the times) but to some degree even in Afghanistan. Combat losses in both those campaign have been far lower then traditionally expected given direct force on force and even CI involved. If you’re a Russian or Chinese planner trying to defend against the US Army’s combined arms maneuver capability, you’re most definitely not looking at examples of CI or nation building as they judge the capability of the US army or MC in a direct force on force right in Europe or Pacific.
So far as results go, Rus Soviath has blocked the Black Sea access, Luhansk/Donetsk and other places are firmly under the control of Rus forces. The Uki army is scattered and have no real victory anywhere, just some bragging rights here and there, some of their weapon depots are burnt to the ground. The Ukr country side and cities have emptied a substantial portion of their citizens as refugees into Europe and US. Rus rouble is back where it was, Rus is still selling oil and gas (no effect of sanctions), Europe is shivering from the cold, all foreign forces are demoralized, radical AZOV types are into mayhem on unsuspecting people. That is the current picture. Some back door chai-biscoot sessions are going on.
brar_w wrote:We are conflating between the two situations here. The Rus-Ukr war is a force on force engagement and not yet a drawn out counter insurgency. So focusing on they you have clear campaigns and examples of such use of US ground forces in the last three decades. Mostly in Iraq (where they met their objectives both or the times) but to some degree even in Afghanistan. Combat losses in both those campaign have been far lower then traditionally expected given direct force on force and even CI involved. If you’re a Russian or Chinese planner trying to defend against the US Army’s combined arms maneuver capability, you’re most definitely not looking at examples of CI or nation building as they judge the capability of the US army or MC in a direct force on force right in Europe or Pacific.
Brar, did those successful campaigns change the end result in Afghanistan? Why exit the country in 2021 if these campaigns were successful?
Repeated successful military campaigns will eventually result in winning the war, which in turn will result in regime change. Which was the end goal in Afghanistan. Did that happen?
I guess we’ll just end up going in circles here so I suppose I’ll concede that if a major war breaks out involving direct force on force employment in Europe or pacific the us ground forces, it’s armor, F/ADA will fold like a pack of cards. I’m not sure planners in Russia or China are drawing that conclusion when looking at the armor or other capabilities assembled in those regions.
Last edited by brar_w on 01 Apr 2022 00:31, edited 2 times in total.
Rakesh wrote:
The Ukrainians have an interest not being Russia's puppet. They will go to any lengths to protect themselves from Russia.
This and the never ending pipeline to sustain themselves with NATO equipment, and intel is proving to be a major obstacle to the ill motivated Russian campaign.
brar_w wrote:I guess we’ll just end up going in circles here so I suppose I’ll concede that if a major war breaks out involving direct force on force employment in Europe or pacific the us ground forces, it’s armor, F/ADA will fold like a pack of cards.
Well there won't be any Russian armor left for the US ground forces to defeat, with the way the Ukrainians are dealing with the Russian Army.
bala wrote:So far as results go, Rus Soviath has blocked the Black Sea access, Luhansk/Donetsk and other places are firmly under the control of Rus forces. The Uki army is scattered and have no real victory anywhere, just some bragging rights here and there, some of their weapon depots are burnt to the ground. The Ukr country side and cities have emptied a substantial portion of their citizens as refugees into Europe and US. Rus rouble is back where it was, Rus is still selling oil and gas (no effect of sanctions), Europe is shivering from the cold, all foreign forces are demoralized, radical AZOV types are into mayhem on unsuspecting people. That is the current picture. Some back door chai-biscoot sessions are going on.
I wouldn’t say Ukr hasn’t achieved any real victory anywhere both sides seems to have stalled for two weeks but Ukr seems to be on offensive to take back territory in past 72 hrs whether it is because of Russian regrouping for eastern offensive is up for debate.
There will be no Ukrainian victory in the traditional sense given their capability and shortcomings relative to Russian firepower. Politically, regime survival and keeping the larger cities in a negotiated settlement is a victory for them. To be able to do that they have to militarily keep this at a stalemate which is an attrition fight and not an easy talk by any means given Russia can bring in new forces while they as defenders can’t really replenish force structure, armor, large SAMs or even aircraft. From the US and NATO they will get intel and portable weapons and this must maintain the attrition fight using that which is an uphill task.
X-posting from StratForum Ukraine thread:
<<<
How would the US react if Russia was training and arming (hypothetically) separatist factions in California, Mexico, Quebec etc. I wonder...
Russia has tried some ambitious gambles at the start, which didn't work. I'd be critical if they didn't try such tricks. They got bogged down, reassessed and rectified and made significant gains. They underestimated the progress Ukrainian forces made over the past decade, got shafted in multiple contact points and pulled back, changed tactics. They may be spinning such readjustments as if that was the plan all along, but any sensible army would do the same to keep the morale of its forces and people up, and that of its adversary down. There is enough evidence and more to substantiate their claims of gains on the ground - no doubt made possible precisely because RA was willing and able to change strategy & adapt tactics when faced with inevitable surprises that are the reality of war. Like cede space to Chechen battalions when faced with hard core well trained Azov militias in Mariupol for example. I don't see RA acting on bravado or arrogance, I see that they are actually _prosecuting_ this war like a professional force led by intelligent and competent military leadership, which is not infallible but recognises its mistakes and corrects them quickly.
One top of all this, despite unprecedented and superior info war by Ukraine & Nato, they haven't been able to blame RA for excesses and war crimes, none of their accusations were backed by hard evidence, on the contrary the cases of opera hall, hospital bombings etc in which they accused RA for targeting civilians were debunked as legitimate targets since those places were clearly taken over and used by UkrA forces and militia attracting attacks by RA. Gives lot of credence to Putin and his general's statements that avoiding civilian casualties is high priority for RA, though I'd think numerous mistakes leading to civilian deaths would have happened despite the intent.
In fact, gruesome videos have emerged of Azov battalions etc committing horrible war crimes - knee capping prisoners, torturing and killing them afterwards, torturing civilians and drawing hakenkreuz (dont call its swastika, ever) on their dead bodies, shooting civilians who want to evacuate, using them as human shields while sheltering in and attacking from urban areas...
UkrA despite years of training, significant arming, realtime Intelligence and what I believe is US C&C has never laid out any strong defensive strategy, lost their AF and Navy, failed to create a network of canals/trenches in the plains opposite Donbas to slow expected enemy advances, or force RA columns into specific corridors that could have been mined, or equipped with defensive structures etc. but they keep whining for more arms, tanks, planes and more NNATO soldiers. They haven't won a single tactical battle decisively or made a single incursion into enemy territory, nor captured a significant number of RA POWs so far. What exactly will they have to negotiate with, except a uber victim card and surrender of surviving war criminals?
Despite all the bravado, I wonder how many Ukrainian soldiers prefer winning this war and staying back to rebuild their destroyed country _or_ get a US/EU passport for services rendered. Hard to say.
Many already have sent families into EU and they are being given residence permits pronto (at least in France - my neighbours have recently taken in a Ukr family of a mother & 2 teenage sons, for how long they don't know, I've volunteered to help them learn French twice a week, our kids to play with them etc...) and EU Govt financial support, full medical aid etc. I won't blame them if they prefer to stay here - heck I'd do the same in their place.
I seriously doubt if elenskiy (since Z is to be dropped now) will survive this war irrespective of the outcome. When the full truth comes out he won't be a hero. Ukraine's future is going to be sweat, blood and tears for foreseeable future. Just like so many small countries that got greedy or duped and sided with America.
>>>
Cyrano wrote:X-posting from StratForum Ukraine thread:
<<<
How would the US react if Russia was training and arming (hypothetically) separatist factions in California, Mexico, Quebec etc. I wonder...
Which separatist faction in Russia is the US, Mexico or Canada arming ?
I would concur with brar_w ji,
Russia is fighting a NATOised Ukrainian Army, not a full US army. The latter would perform very differently if they bring the right formations with the right orbat and skills to this theatre against the RA. Of course they will have to unlearn some habits and practices from previous wars and adapt. The process will cost some significant losses surely, but I don't see why USA will fail to adapt and resist/counter RA way more effectively than UkrA at present.
In any case a frontal US-RU war will concentrate so much destructive power that its better for the world if we dont ever come to that.
Cyrano wrote:X-posting from StratForum Ukraine thread:
<<<
How would the US react if Russia was training and arming (hypothetically) separatist factions in California, Mexico, Quebec etc. I wonder...
Which separatist faction in Russia is the US, Mexico or Canada arming ?
Just imagine onlee Saar I believe he used the word IF.
Similar to how Russia interfered in the 2016 US Presidential Elections. Not my words, but from Democrats. Which spawned CAATSA.
Cyrano wrote:X-posting from StratForum Ukraine thread:
<<<
How would the US react if Russia was training and arming (hypothetically) separatist factions in California, Mexico, Quebec etc. I wonder...
Which separatist faction in Russia is the US, Mexico or Canada arming ?
Apologies, I should have been clearer - what I meant to say hypothetically is : "if Russia caused regime changes and then trained and armed military forces in US' immediate neighbourhood against US, how would US react ?"
Cyrano wrote:
Apologies, I should have been clearer - what I meant to say hypothetically is : "if Russia caused regime changes and then trained and armed military forces in US' immediate neighbourhood against US, how would US react ?"
Sirjee, well said again! +108 to you!
The reaction would be swift and severe. We will then be forced to listen to lectures on threat to world peace, threat to the free world, etc.
This will never occur. It is an unwritten rule that big guys don't confront each directly because nuclear weapons will be used and that will be the end of the world. MAD does work. Most wars are fought in weak unsuspecting nations who are clueless about the costs of openly siding with one and taking on another.
The same will happen if China forcibly occupies Taiwan. The US will slink away from direct confrontation.
brar_w wrote:
Which separatist faction in Russia is the US, Mexico or Canada arming ?
Apologies, I should have been clearer - what I meant to say hypothetically is : "if Russia caused regime changes and then trained and armed military forces in US' immediate neighbourhood against US, how would US react ?"
If they were able to flip a North American government and them turn a free trade zone into one that is at conflict with one another? No idea but I’d love to see them try.
brar_w wrote:No idea but I’d love to see them try.
You love to watch countries try and introduce conflict to far off regions?
The point was that the hypothetical scenario was too far fetched for it to be a meaningful example. Ukraine isn’t a breakaway region or a Russian state or territory (like Kaliningrad) It is a sovereign country recognized by the entire world.
brar_w wrote:There will be no Ukrainian victory in the traditional sense given their capability and shortcomings relative to Russian firepower. Politically, regime survival and keeping the larger cities in a negotiated settlement is a victory for them. To be able to do that they have to militarily keep this at a stalemate which is an attrition fight and not an easy talk by any means given Russia can bring in new forces while they as defenders can’t really replenish force structure, armor, large SAMs or even aircraft. From the US and NATO they will get intel and portable weapons and this must maintain the attrition fight using that which is an uphill task.
Can’t speak for what happens in the war but in individual battles I am interested in seeing if Ukraine attempts to launch an offensive to recapture Kherson or Russia does attempt another northern offensive after its forces regroup.
brar_w wrote: Ukraine isn’t a breakaway region or a Russian state or territory (like Kaliningrad) It is a sovereign country recognized by the entire world.
This isn't relevant. OP already clarified that they meant "if Russia caused regime changes and then trained and armed military forces in US' immediate neighbourhood against US, how would US react ?"
The hypothetical scenario isn't "too far-fetched", especially since Americans themselves have established that Russia interfered in US elections.
It is a far fetched and unrealistic scenario. Topple a government in Canada and then flip them to be hostile to the US and then begin to arm them against the US. But YMMV.
I used examples mentioned in the post. But let’s take Cuba. It’s a Russian ally and user of Russian military systems and sometimes receives it on favorable terms. So what’s the point?
That if Russia "trained and armed military forces in US' immediate neighbourhood Cuba against US, how would US react ?" But apparently this is too unrealistic despite them being allies, Russian military systems already in use in Cuba and the Biden administration being labeled as "tougher than Donald Trump on the island's government."
It is unrealistic because Cuba isn’t arming or being armed to confront the US militarily or anything of that sort. So unless you are implying that the Russians are arming Cuba so that it can be hostile to the US and possibly lead to a military confrontation then I’d say that is not realistic leave aside California , Montreal and other examples cited.
Guys, let's drop this line of inquiry in this thread. I said that as a reflection and to hopefully get fellow forumites reflect on it as per to their capacity to do so.
We all know the actual answer to it, don't we?!
brar_w wrote:...because Cuba isn’t arming or being armed to confront the US militarily or anything of that sort.
I thought this is what made the scenario, hypothetical. A hypothetical scenario could be both realistic and unrealistic as in my hypothetical trip to Spain or my hypothetical chance of being a trillionaire.
brar_w wrote:...because Cuba isn’t arming or being armed to confront the US militarily or anything of that sort.
I thought this is what made the scenario, hypothetical. A hypothetical scenario could be both realistic and unrealistic as in my hypothetical trip to Spain or my hypothetical chance of being a trillionaire.
Yes absolutely. I prefer the one where California breaks away and Russia supplies it arms to capture additional territory.
brar_w wrote:...because Cuba isn’t arming or being armed to confront the US militarily or anything of that sort.
I thought this is what made the scenario, hypothetical. A hypothetical scenario could be both realistic and unrealistic as in my hypothetical trip to Spain or my hypothetical chance of being a trillionaire.
I see that France and Billionaire aren't hypothetical for you, so do come here and invite me over saini saab
Cyrano wrote:I see that France and Billionaire aren't hypothetical for you, so do come here and invite me over saini saab
Nil chance of a billionaire saar, zero .
Anyway, I do agree with what Brar-sir were saying. No chance it happens but in a sandbox world would love to see how Americans deal with such shenanigans in their own backyard but likely they'll just nip it in the bud and stop it from ever even being a shenanigan.
I believe he used the word IF.
.