Russia/Ukraine conflict

[nativewolf]

Yesterday Russians were conspicuously deploying some of their nuclear war command & control assets to dispersal locations

https://twitter.com/x/status/1504481723429490694

and

https://twitter.com/x/status/1504374496358187014

An old paper on non-strategic nuclear weapons. Remember that these can be both 'tactical' in purpose, and also strategic in the 'signalling' sense. Furthermore the classification is somewhat academic if you are in the city that is within range of ~50kt devices, as is most of Europe.

The art of negotiating non-strategic nuclear weapons | Brookings

Steven Pifer writes that Washington develops its negotiating approach for non-strategic nuclear weapons with Moscow, it should consult closely with its allies.

www.brookings.edu

I don't think it is a coincidence that Russia has been using some of its Iskander ballistic missiles already, which can cary both a conventional or a nuclear warhead. How do you know which is inbound ? Things like this certainly concentrated minds in Germany, hence them announcing the buy of 35 x F35 for the nuclear dual key role.
Germany to buy 35 Lockheed F-35 fighter jets from U.S. amid Ukraine crisis

A concern has to be that Russia tries to bait-and-switch in peace talks and ceasefires, all the while trying to attrite the Ukraine air force to the point where they become non-viable. At which time Russia could switch back to the offensive. The West needs to figure out a way to close that path down. Options would include: resupply of the same types of aircraft to Ukraine; enabling tools for a Ukraine counter-offensive; supply of other airspace denial tools. Nothing is easy.

Sensible sitrep here

Thread by @HoansSolo on Thread Reader App

@HoansSolo: Short summary of the military situation in Ukraine (March 18) Little change to overall operational picture: -pace of 🇷🇺 ops has slowed down/stalled -slow/stalled 🇷🇺 advances in North to encircle Kyiv; sl...…

threadreaderapp.com

Latest Ukraine report re Russian losses to date

"
Total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02 to 18.03 oríêntovno kaly / The total combat losses of the enemies from 24.02 To 18.03 were approximate:
personal warehouse / personnel - about / 14200 people,
tanks / tanks ‒ 450 od,
combat armored machines / APV ‒ 1448 od,
artillery systems / artillery systems - 205 od,
RSZV / MLRS - 72 of,
PPO / Anti-aircraft warfare systems - 43 of,
planes / aircraft - 93 od,
helicopters / helicopters - 112 od,
car equipment / vehicles - 879 od,
ships /boats / cutters - 3 pieces,
tank with PMM / fuel tanks - 60.
UAV operational-tactical level - 12.
Special equipment / special equipment - 11.
The data is getting more precise. The calculation is complicated by the high intensity of combat. / Data are being updated. The calculation is complicated by the high intensity of hostilities.
Beat the occupant! Together we will win!
Strike the occupier! Let's win together!
"

Міністерство оборони України

Міністерство оборони України. 797,840 likes · 3,612 talking about this.

www.facebook.com

I think airspace protection is best done via sophisticated air defense guns & missiles. Slovenia was reported to be transferring a system. They need more intelligence on when aircraft are inbound and to where, even that is enough to enable the stingers to be in position. The soviets planes are so maint intensive that parts inventory and upkeep would be difficult thus I question the usefulness in the field, not the fact that it would be helpful to intercept.

Just rambling there. What I would like to know is why is flight tracking info still enabled in Moscow?

 

[nativewolf]

India‘s technical challenge has been that they can’t make a good fighter plane power plant. They have an indigenous Light Combat Aircfraft which is a lightweight F-16 competitor. With GE 404 engine, though. Not much to do with Modi.

They have been working on a stealth fighter to rival those from China, but the success is not guaranteed.

India doesn’t want Russia to be pissed off at it, thus befriending Pakistan more, to India’s detriment.

My, how the tables have turned. Russia, which used to be an Indian ally, might side with Pakistan in any future war with Pakistan!

I think the real nexus there is China. Which is an ally of Pakistan. India's hopeless "non aligned" participation meant lukewarm support for Russia, which was strategic for Russia when Russia was in serious conflict with China in the 60's and 70s. India and the USA both blew it from my perspective and it is taking a long time to repair a rift that should never have existed. Today yes, I could see China and Russia aiding Pakistan. I also see Pakistan as just so useless corrupt and badly organized as to be a non issue. However, technologies like the switchblade could dramatically shift balance of powers. @EVNow was quite right that these need to be field tested in a war to asses. Sadly, it has come to be.

India should be paying attention, lots of Russian companies outsource IT services and development to India but if Russia can't pay...there really is no tactical or strategic value there. Strategically Russia and China are aligned with China driving things after this conflict is over. That means India can no longer use Russia as a counter weight and by necessity must turn to Europe and the USA. These are the natural partners of a multi ethnic democracy so it is sad Modi is not moving faster to build connections. He's a bit of a disaster for India.

 

[nativewolf]

Putin Has Finally Ended Two Centuries of German Exceptionalism

Germany has long been on a “special path” — a Sonderweg — of messianic naivete. Russia’s attack on Ukraine put an end to that.

www.bloomberg.com

An interesting opinion piece on what the Ukraine invasion and war means for Germany. This is what it took to pull the head from the arse...and it was stuck quite far up if I may say so...quite far.

 

[wdolson]

In stalins day they actual did battlefield executions for a general failing to reach objectives. Many...many executions. Didn't mean the plan was any good or that anyone could have achieved the objective. I mean the guys have been calling on cell phones for petes sake.

This guy was one of the senior generals in the Kremlin, not a combat commander.

Stalin did purge the officer corps in the late 30s, but I think he realized he needed to keep as many officers as possible when he first lost the Winter War followed by the debacle at Barbarossa. I've never heard of any generals getting executed on the battlefield, but I wouldn't be completely surprised. The Russians have always relied more on the stick for motivation than the carrot.

Yesterday Russians were conspicuously deploying some of their nuclear war command & control assets to dispersal locations

https://twitter.com/x/status/1504481723429490694

and

https://twitter.com/x/status/1504374496358187014

An old paper on non-strategic nuclear weapons. Remember that these can be both 'tactical' in purpose, and also strategic in the 'signalling' sense. Furthermore the classification is somewhat academic if you are in the city that is within range of ~50kt devices, as is most of Europe.

The art of negotiating non-strategic nuclear weapons | Brookings

Steven Pifer writes that Washington develops its negotiating approach for non-strategic nuclear weapons with Moscow, it should consult closely with its allies.

www.brookings.edu

This is disturbing, but could mean many things. I hope they don't use any nukes because that could start a cascade of dominoes.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Russia has been using some of its Iskander ballistic missiles already, which can cary both a conventional or a nuclear warhead. How do you know which is inbound ? Things like this certainly concentrated minds in Germany, hence them announcing the buy of 35 x F35 for the nuclear dual key role.
Germany to buy 35 Lockheed F-35 fighter jets from U.S. amid Ukraine crisis

A concern has to be that Russia tries to bait-and-switch in peace talks and ceasefires, all the while trying to attrite the Ukraine air force to the point where they become non-viable. At which time Russia could switch back to the offensive. The West needs to figure out a way to close that path down. Options would include: resupply of the same types of aircraft to Ukraine; enabling tools for a Ukraine counter-offensive; supply of other airspace denial tools. Nothing is easy.

I don't quite understand this line of reasoning. The Ukrainian air force is still in the fight, but they are not a major factor in the war. The Ukrainian ground forces with an array of portable rockets are doing tremendous damage to Russian ground forces and combat drones are hitting many targets behind the lines. The primary reason the Russians have not been able to get air superiority is because they are flying low altitude missions with lots of Stingers around. AA fire is what's taking out most of their air losses.

And even if the Russians did try to use a cease fire to prepare for an assault, their forces are degraded from what they were at the start of the invasion. They don't have enough troops to do the job and they seem to be depending on Belarus and Syria to make up their losses. It's pretty clear the Belarusian people have no interest in fighting Ukraine and I'll believe they have raised 40,000 Syrian mercenaries when I see some evidence of it. Plus I doubt the Syrians are going to be all that good. They may have fought decently in the civil war, but they had a motive. Their only motive in fighting for Russia now is to get paid and where is Russia is both running out of money and mercenaries don't fight hopeless battles.

The Russians have a lot of military equipment in reserve, but from what I've read, the way the Russians store their unused military hardware, it's going to take a lot of maintenance to make it run again. I saw pictures of one storage facility around 2000 and it looked more like a tank graveyard than a storage lot. The Russians are going to have some struggles to replace their lost equipment. The list is getting pretty large at this point.

Their most critical losses is in cargo trucks. They have always put more emphasis on offensive firepower than support vehicles and their truck fleet was thin at the beginning of the war. And they have lost a lot of them. That's affecting their ability to move supply to the front lines.

Another issue any army has as it takes ground, it needs to position some troops behind to hold that ground. As the Russians take Ukrainian locations, their combat force gets diluted just holding onto the gains they already have. This is especially critical with the insurgency tactics the Ukrainians are deploying. Leave a key village unguarded and the Ukrainians will just move in and take it back, thus cutting supply lines.

Given 6 months the Russians could probably raise a large force of extremely green, even worse led, and poorly equipped troops, but by then the Russian forces in Ukraine will have been whittled away to nothing. It's doubtful that any cease fire is going to last more than a couple of days. Any cease fire would also favor the Ukrainians. They would be able to bring in reinforcements, move supply up to the front lines and prepare defensive positions even more than they have now.

It would be like the Battle of Kursk. Hitler held off the assault for several critical weeks to allow some new "wonder" weapons to be made available. Those weapons were only available in small quantities when the battle did kick off. Meanwhile Zhukov spent the time turning his defense into an impenetrable fortress. In the battle the Germans made some mild gains the first couple of days, but the Russian defenses ate them up and spit them out. The Germans lost in a decisive defeat. They never had the forces to go on any kind of serious offensive again.

The only way Russia can win this war is make Ukraine uninhabitable. Genocide. If that doesn't trigger a full scale nuclear war, it will trigger an economic war that would leave Russia a pauper state.

Sensible sitrep here

Thread by @HoansSolo on Thread Reader App

@HoansSolo: Short summary of the military situation in Ukraine (March 18) Little change to overall operational picture: -pace of 🇷🇺 ops has slowed down/stalled -slow/stalled 🇷🇺 advances in North to encircle Kyiv; sl...…

threadreaderapp.com

Latest Ukraine report re Russian losses to date

"
Total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02 to 18.03 oríêntovno kaly / The total combat losses of the enemies from 24.02 To 18.03 were approximate:
personal warehouse / personnel - about / 14200 people,
tanks / tanks ‒ 450 od,
combat armored machines / APV ‒ 1448 od,
artillery systems / artillery systems - 205 od,
RSZV / MLRS - 72 of,
PPO / Anti-aircraft warfare systems - 43 of,
planes / aircraft - 93 od,
helicopters / helicopters - 112 od,
car equipment / vehicles - 879 od,
ships /boats / cutters - 3 pieces,
tank with PMM / fuel tanks - 60.
UAV operational-tactical level - 12.
Special equipment / special equipment - 11.
The data is getting more precise. The calculation is complicated by the high intensity of combat. / Data are being updated. The calculation is complicated by the high intensity of hostilities.
Beat the occupant! Together we will win!
Strike the occupier! Let's win together!
"

Міністерство оборони України

Міністерство оборони України. 797,840 likes · 3,612 talking about this.

www.facebook.com

The Russians are taking staggering losses in machines, personnel and officers. They can replace the bodies with even greener troops, they can send at least some officers in to replace the lost, and they can scrounge reserve equipment from their bone yards to replace some of the equipment losses and replace the trucks with civilian trucks. But that just replaces a totally inept force with one that is even worse.

I sincerely hope that the Russians don't use nukes or chemical weapons, but they are getting to a point where that's all they have left.

 

[CHGolferJim]

Putin Has Finally Ended Two Centuries of German Exceptionalism

Germany has long been on a “special path” — a Sonderweg — of messianic naivete. Russia’s attack on Ukraine put an end to that.

www.bloomberg.com

An interesting opinion piece on what the Ukraine invasion and war means for Germany. This is what it took to pull the head from the arse...and it was stuck quite far up if I may say so...quite far.

National exceptionalism is the root of many of our worldwide problems. Simplistic nationalism dressed up with rhetorical flourishes.

 

[mars_or_bust]

Specialist Ukrainian drone unit picks off invading Russian forces as they sleep

An elite Ukrainian drone unit has destroyed dozens of “priority targets” by attacking Russian forces as they sleep, The Times can reveal.Aerorozvidka, a specialist air reconnaissance unit within the army, has been picking off tanks, command trucks and vehicles carrying electronic equipment since the

www.thetimes.co.uk

Paywalled: TheTimes article mentions how Starlink is the key for the Ukranian forces' extremely successful Russian tank-and-other_expensive-equipment busting operations using small armed drones at night.

 

[nativewolf]

National exceptionalism is the root of many of our worldwide problems. Simplistic nationalism dressed up with rhetorical flourishes.

For someone deliberately choosing to live next to a satanic factory you are remarkably sane. You could move a few miles north or even east to escape the miasma that hangs over much of chapel hell.

 

[JRP3]

Paywalled: TheTimes article mentions how Starlink is the key for the Ukranian forces' extremely successful Russian tank-and-other_expensive-equipment busting operations using small armed drones at night.

Twitter feed provides some info for the paywalled:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1504724698499854336

 

[Artful Dodger]

Replying here in the appropriate thread...

Helpful thanks. FYI.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1504724723627876352

WRT those drones and Starlink: there is ZERO chance that the drone itself has starlink onboard. The dish required has certain minimum dimensions for the phased array antenna to work with the starlink satellites.

This is NOT to say that they could not use Starlink base stations as hubs for the 'spokes' however, with a wireless connection setup as a repeater from the drone operator to the base station.

This would be extremely valuable for command and control, and may be in fact what the UA army is doing (tho Reporters wouldn't recognize it if kicked them in the nads).

Cheers!

 

[petit_bateau]

This is disturbing, but could mean many things. I hope they don't use any nukes because that could start a cascade of dominoes.

I don't quite understand this line of reasoning. The Ukrainian air force is still in the fight, but they are not a major factor in the war. The Ukrainian ground forces with an array of portable rockets are doing tremendous damage to Russian ground forces and combat drones are hitting many targets behind the lines. The primary reason the Russians have not been able to get air superiority is because they are flying low altitude missions with lots of Stingers around. AA fire is what's taking out most of their air losses.

I sincerely hope that the Russians don't use nukes or chemical weapons, but they are getting to a point where that's all they have left.

Russian military doctrine is not organised like Western military doctrine. The Russians don't separate the military and political domains as clearly as the West does, in this respect they are more Clausewitz than Clausewitz. As a result they do not have the same level of inhibitions about nuclear use that the West does. Also this conflict is a game that is being played on many levels between multiple actors, and over various timescales.

So amongst other things the Russians are signalling,
- "NATO, don't get involved, or we will go nuclear";
- "NATO, don't make us lose, or we will go nuclear";
- "NATO, let us win, or we will go nuclear";
- other recipients of these signals are of course individual states such as (esp) Hungary, Moldova, Georgia, Finland, Sweden in their own ways; and also of course the other four UN P5 members;
The mechanisms through which this signalling takes place are varied, but have included political speeches; the raising of their nuclear alert level; the use of the Iskanders; the targetting of Iskanders to western half of Ukraine (I think, not 100% sure on this, but er gulp); the deliberate physical location of Putin; and the deployment/dispersion of those nuclear command & control aircraft and associated personnel, etc.

In respect of the German F35 buy there are some more specific issues/observations .

That F35 buy is actually a switch from a buy of F18. The reason a buy is needed at all is because the nuclear-capable Tornados are nearing the end of their service life and that production line shut down a long time ago. (Note : in NATO terminology, nuclear is called a "strike" role). The Typhoon is not cleared for nuclear carriage and considerable doubt exists as to whether a) it could become technically nuclear-cleared as it was not designed for it; and b) whether US would co-operate in enabling nuclear clearance (of what are US nuclear weapons) on a European-design/manufacture aircraft at this time; and c) whether the European partners would grant the US the design access to Typhoon code/systems. For similar reasons Rafale (which is nuclear cleared, by the French for French nuclear weapons) would not offer up its secrets for close scrutiny to enable carriage of US nuclear devices. So the Germans have been slowly backing themselves into a corner where they needed a shorter term replacement for Tornado in the nuclear role, but it shouldn't be too expensive, and nor should it threaten the longer term replacement which is a Franco-German thing called FCAS*. Setting aside some real wild cards, the only two remaining solutions seemed to be for the Germans to buy either F18 or F35, and they had gone with the F18 as being the cheapest thing, and one that least threatens the longer provision of FCAS.

But the initial analysis of results in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is that a Gen 4 aircraft such as F18 cannot any longer be considered a viable nuclear strike aircraft for assured delivery in an S300/S400 environment. That is obvious to any knowledgeable observer of the last 3-weeks. So for the Germans to have a credible strike aircraft they needed to shift to F35, and they have done so. That in turn is them signalling to both their NATO partners that they will remain in the nuclear game and be a firm ally; signalling to Russia the same; and (en passant) signalling to France that they will not be a walkover in the FCAS industrial/commercial/defence dialogue that is ongoing*.

Remember that Gorshkov was always very clear that for the Russians the strategic nuclear deterrent was how the (Russian) navy would dictate (and win) the terms of the peace. This is a very long term game we are observing, and this is merely the latest cycle.

All imho.

* FCAS warplane program stalls, as Dassault and Airbus fail to reach key industry deal

 

[Open Interest]

Russian military doctrine is not organised like Western military doctrine. The Russians don't separate the military and political domains as clearly as the West does, in this respect they are more Clausewitz than Clausewitz. As a result they do not have the same level of inhibitions about nuclear use that the West does. Also this conflict is a game that is being played on many levels between multiple actors, and over various timescales.

So amongst other things the Russians are signalling,
- "NATO, don't get involved, or we will go nuclear";
- "NATO, don't make us lose, or we will go nuclear";
- "NATO, let us win, or we will go nuclear";
- other recipients of these signals are of course individual states such as (esp) Hungary, Moldova, Georgia, Finland, Sweden in their own ways; and also of course the other four UN P5 members;
The mechanisms through which this signalling takes place are varied, but have included political speeches; the raising of their nuclear alert level; the use of the Iskanders; the targetting of Iskanders to western half of Ukraine (I think, not 100% sure on this, but er gulp); the deliberate physical location of Putin; and the deployment/dispersion of those nuclear command & control aircraft and associated personnel, etc.

In respect of the German F35 buy there are some more specific issues/observations .

That F35 buy is actually a switch from a buy of F18. The reason a buy is needed at all is because the nuclear-capable Tornados are nearing the end of their service life and that production line shut down a long time ago. (Note : in NATO terminology, nuclear is called a "strike" role). The Typhoon is not cleared for nuclear carriage and considerable doubt exists as to whether a) it could become technically nuclear-cleared as it was not designed for it; and b) whether US would co-operate in enabling nuclear clearance (of what are US nuclear weapons) on a European-design/manufacture aircraft at this time; and c) whether the European partners would grant the US the design access to Typhoon code/systems. For similar reasons Rafale (which is nuclear cleared, by the French for French nuclear weapons) would not offer up its secrets for close scrutiny to enable carriage of US nuclear devices. So the Germans have been slowly backing themselves into a corner where they needed a shorter term replacement for Tornado in the nuclear role, but it shouldn't be too expensive, and nor should it threaten the longer term replacement which is a Franco-German thing called FCAS*. Setting aside some real wild cards, the only two remaining solutions seemed to be for the Germans to buy either F18 or F35, and they had gone with the F18 as being the cheapest thing, and one that least threatens the longer provision of FCAS.

But the initial analysis of results in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is that a Gen 4 aircraft such as F18 cannot any longer be considered a viable nuclear strike aircraft for assured delivery in an S300/S400 environment. That is obvious to any knowledgeable observer of the last 3-weeks. So for the Germans to have a credible strike aircraft they needed to shift to F35, and they have done so. That in turn is them signalling to both their NATO partners that they will remain in the nuclear game and be a firm ally; signalling to Russia the same; and (en passant) signalling to France that they will not be a walkover in the FCAS industrial/commercial/defence dialogue that is ongoing*.

Remember that Gorshkov was always very clear that for the Russians the strategic nuclear deterrent was how the (Russian) navy would dictate (and win) the terms of the peace. This is a very long term game we are observing, and this is merely the latest cycle.

All imho.

* FCAS warplane program stalls, as Dassault and Airbus fail to reach key industry deal

What does “NATO, let us win” look like?

 

[Skipdd]

Russian military doctrine is not organised like Western military doctrine. The Russians don't separate the military and political domains as clearly as the West does, in this respect they are more Clausewitz than Clausewitz. As a result they do not have the same level of inhibitions about nuclear use that the West does. Also this conflict is a game that is being played on many levels between multiple actors, and over various timescales.

So amongst other things the Russians are signalling,
- "NATO, don't get involved, or we will go nuclear";
- "NATO, don't make us lose, or we will go nuclear";
- "NATO, let us win, or we will go nuclear";
- other recipients of these signals are of course individual states such as (esp) Hungary, Moldova, Georgia, Finland, Sweden in their own ways; and also of course the other four UN P5 members;
The mechanisms through which this signalling takes place are varied, but have included political speeches; the raising of their nuclear alert level; the use of the Iskanders; the targetting of Iskanders to western half of Ukraine (I think, not 100% sure on this, but er gulp); the deliberate physical location of Putin; and the deployment/dispersion of those nuclear command & control aircraft and associated personnel, etc.

In respect of the German F35 buy there are some more specific issues/observations .

That F35 buy is actually a switch from a buy of F18. The reason a buy is needed at all is because the nuclear-capable Tornados are nearing the end of their service life and that production line shut down a long time ago. (Note : in NATO terminology, nuclear is called a "strike" role). The Typhoon is not cleared for nuclear carriage and considerable doubt exists as to whether a) it could become technically nuclear-cleared as it was not designed for it; and b) whether US would co-operate in enabling nuclear clearance (of what are US nuclear weapons) on a European-design/manufacture aircraft at this time; and c) whether the European partners would grant the US the design access to Typhoon code/systems. For similar reasons Rafale (which is nuclear cleared, by the French for French nuclear weapons) would not offer up its secrets for close scrutiny to enable carriage of US nuclear devices. So the Germans have been slowly backing themselves into a corner where they needed a shorter term replacement for Tornado in the nuclear role, but it shouldn't be too expensive, and nor should it threaten the longer term replacement which is a Franco-German thing called FCAS*. Setting aside some real wild cards, the only two remaining solutions seemed to be for the Germans to buy either F18 or F35, and they had gone with the F18 as being the cheapest thing, and one that least threatens the longer provision of FCAS.

But the initial analysis of results in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is that a Gen 4 aircraft such as F18 cannot any longer be considered a viable nuclear strike aircraft for assured delivery in an S300/S400 environment. That is obvious to any knowledgeable observer of the last 3-weeks. So for the Germans to have a credible strike aircraft they needed to shift to F35, and they have done so. That in turn is them signalling to both their NATO partners that they will remain in the nuclear game and be a firm ally; signalling to Russia the same; and (en passant) signalling to France that they will not be a walkover in the FCAS industrial/commercial/defence dialogue that is ongoing*.

Remember that Gorshkov was always very clear that for the Russians the strategic nuclear deterrent was how the (Russian) navy would dictate (and win) the terms of the peace. This is a very long term game we are observing, and this is merely the latest cycle.

All imho.

* FCAS warplane program stalls, as Dassault and Airbus fail to reach key industry deal

Since we can’t agree to “NATO #2 and#3” what is your thought on what comes next. Perhaps rhetorical.

 

[_Redshift_]

I think the real nexus there is China. Which is an ally of Pakistan. India's hopeless "non aligned" participation meant lukewarm support for Russia, which was strategic for Russia when Russia was in serious conflict with China in the 60's and 70s. India and the USA both blew it from my perspective and it is taking a long time to repair a rift that should never have existed. Today yes, I could see China and Russia aiding Pakistan. I also see Pakistan as just so useless corrupt and badly organized as to be a non issue. However, technologies like the switchblade could dramatically shift balance of powers. @EVNow was quite right that these need to be field tested in a war to asses. Sadly, it has come to be.

India should be paying attention, lots of Russian companies outsource IT services and development to India but if Russia can't pay...there really is no tactical or strategic value there. Strategically Russia and China are aligned with China driving things after this conflict is over. That means India can no longer use Russia as a counter weight and by necessity must turn to Europe and the USA. These are the natural partners of a multi ethnic democracy so it is sad Modi is not moving faster to build connections. He's a bit of a disaster for India.

I agree, Modi should have moved fast to align himself with America. That would mean an immediate end to Russian spares for the sprawling military hardware. Like 50% of the military hardware would start to become obsolete? I guess?

No leader could overlook that.

For this reason,
My guess is Indias would increasingly shift away from Russia in the next few years, may be 1-2 decades. That’s all but guaranteed to happen. However Indias would prefer it to be on its own gradual timeline.

 

[petit_bateau]

What does “NATO, let us win” look like?

Georgia.

For clarity, this is not my preferred outcome. I have always been of the opinion that we hung Georgia out to dry (Abkahazia, South Ossetia, fall of Saakashvili); ditto Moldova (Transniestria); and then we did the same again with Ukraine (Crimea, Donbass). *And that now is the time to stop this.

But we also need to clean up our own act in the liberal-democratic West, which includes tackling free-riders (Austria, Malta, etc**); and 'quisling-splittists-neo-fascistic-shills' (Hungary/Orban; Poland; US/Trumpism; UK/Brexiters; etc) and that it is incredibly difficult to find ways to do this whilst still remaining the liberal-democratic West that we wish to be.

* Was it inevitable? A short history of Russia’s war on Ukraine | Keith Gessen

** Ambiguous alliance: Neutrality, opt-outs, and European defence

 

[nativewolf]

I agree, Modi should have moved fast to align himself with America. That would mean an immediate end to Russian spares for the sprawling military hardware. Like 50% of the military hardware would start to become obsolete? I guess?

No leader could overlook that.

For this reason,
My guess is Indias would increasingly shift away from Russia in the next few years, may be 1-2 decades. That’s all but guaranteed to happen. However Indias would prefer it to be on its own gradual timeline.

Egypt did. They relied on Russia for everything. Switched overnight. Haven't lost a battle since.

 

[nativewolf]

Georgia.

For clarity, this is not my preferred outcome. I have always been of the opinion that we hung Georgia out to dry (Abkahazia, South Ossetia, fall of Saakashvili); ditto Moldova (Transniestria); and then we did the same again with Ukraine (Crimea, Donbass). *And that now is the time to stop this.

But we also need to clean up our own act in the liberal-democratic West, which includes tackling free-riders (Austria, Malta, etc**); and 'quisling-splittists-neo-fascistic-shills' (Hungary/Orban; Poland; US/Trumpism; UK/Brexiters; etc) and that it is incredibly difficult to find ways to do this whilst still remaining the liberal-democratic West that we wish to be.

* Was it inevitable? A short history of Russia’s war on Ukraine | Keith Gessen

** Ambiguous alliance: Neutrality, opt-outs, and European defence

Bravo, well said.

 

[_Redshift_]

Egypt did. They relied on Russia for everything. Switched overnight. Haven't lost a battle since.

I don’t know about what Egypt did, but India is much bigger, and has nuclear armed hostile nations on each side.

Plus, a significant portion of airplanes, missiles, tanks, not to mention the recently acquired missile systems like the S-400 cannot and will not be replaced by the US overnight. That is, assuming India could pay for all of that in a hurry.

 

[rk20]

These are the natural partners of a multi ethnic democracy so it is sad Modi is not moving faster to build connections. He's a bit of a disaster for India.

Yes, but as usual for political matters the alternatives could be much worse. A nationalist, semi-authoritarian leader vs a fractured corrupt opposition.

 

[nativewolf]

@wdolson Just realized I had my blinders on...actually the gold standard in collapse should be the 1967 and 1973 Israel wars. Shouldn't have, feel I let the thread down by omission.

 

[nativewolf]

I don’t know about what Egypt did, but India is much bigger, and has nuclear armed hostile nations on each side.

Plus, a significant portion of airplanes, missiles, tanks, not to mention the recently acquired missile systems like the S-400 cannot and will not be replaced by the US overnight. That is, assuming India could pay for all of that in a hurry.

Oh Egypt is fascinating. They had been beaten in three wars against Israel. A long long drawn out peace negotiation ended up handing the Sinai back to them in return for peace brokered by Carter, Egypt made peace with Israel. USSR became incensed , put out a contract on Sadat's life. Some Libyan killers finally took it. Anyway, as part of the break from the USSR they kicked all the advisors out, thousands, they probably had, on paper, the most advanced military outside of the security council members and India. They brought in Americans and Brits and modernized the army, sort of. Mostly, they just stopped going to war and the Egyptian army knew, after 1973, that even if they could not win they could kick Israel in the teeth pretty well, a bit of national pride. That helped the peace process. That and lots of money.

Pakistan has yet to win back its national pride, it has been one disaster after another. India made its choices when nuclear weapons were not held by Pakistan or in mass by China. The time for rapprochement was with Reagan but India would have had to shift.