Is The US Ready For An Invasion Of Eastern Europe?

[ishtat]

Ukraine is an excellent war for the USA. No direct fighting but a massive expansion in the market for American weaponry. The Ukranians should get enough support to keep it going for as long as possible to maximize arms sales to Europe. Crippling the Russian economy is a bonus.

Expect Right guide to be along shortly to congratulate messers Biden and Blinken!

 

[Rightguide]

Ukraine is an excellent war for the USA. No direct fighting but a massive expansion in the market for American weaponry. The Ukranians should get enough support to keep it going for as long as possible to maximize arms sales to Europe. Crippling the Russian economy is a bonus.

Expect Right guide to be along shortly to congratulate messers Biden and Blinken!

Actually dipshit, much of the weaponry going to Ukraine is coming from Europe itself. It is true that Joe Biden has given them 2 billion worth of our existing weaponry since being in office, possibly endangering our own capability. It's also true your Democrat Congress has given them $13.6 billion in direct aid which will have to be printed and you'll pay for with higher inflation prices on goods and services. That said, sometimes great sacrifice must be made in the never-ending war against evil.

 

[pecksniff]

That's BS. It's quite clear now that Biden does not want Zelensky to push Putin out of Ukraine altogether. It's because Joe is compromised.

That is quite incredibly stupid even for you.

 

[ishtat]

Actually dipshit, much of the weaponry going to Ukraine is coming from Europe itself. It is true that Joe Biden has given them 2 billion worth of our existing weaponry since being in office, possibly endangering our own capability. It's also true your Democrat Congress has given them $13.6 billion in direct aid which will have to be printed and you'll pay for with higher inflation prices on goods and services. That said, sometimes great sacrifice must be made in the never-ending war against evil.

Much of what Biden gave Ukraine was the more elderly American equipment, but plenty good enough to deal with Russians. The major opportunity for the USA, which you ignored, is in profitable arms sales to the whole of eastern and central Europe, from Finland to the former Yugoslav states and including major sales to the big payers, Germany, Turkey and Poland. The Brits have done well selling their anti-tank missiles + training services, largely because they are cheaper and easier to train with than the equally good US product. $2 Billion in gifted weapons is a drop in the bucket compared with the profits the US arms industry will make in the next few years. Biden and Blinken are managing this war much better than previous administrations did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lessons learned?

The USA's best interests will be served by a reasonably prolonged conflict which will unite Europe against Russia, terrify the other European states into re-arming and make a fortune for the US and allied arms suppliers. China is significantly sidelined for the moment, and whatever the rhetoric from Beijing, they know that it is much more costly to piss off Washington than Moscow. And not a single American life at risk.

And it's your Congress RG, not mine, I made a strategic decision 20+ years ago to leave after 8 years in the US.

Despite Pecksmith's views in post 228 the blunt reality is that Ukraine is a pawn, significant parts of which in the east can be sacrificed, but not yet. It has absolutely nothing to do with your absurd allegation that Biden is compromised; he isn't, and your obsession on that issue impairs your judgement of fundamental US and western interests.

 

[mayfly13]

Great post. As usual, a better vantage point backed by facts.

I read that it's not just in terms of future projections: the shares and valuations of major arms producers have already soared.

I read somewhere that England, apparently is also projected to make a hit out of arns sales?? Altho Wikipedia doesn't list it as a top World manufacturer.

 

[mayfly13]

The losers in all this seem to be Germany, Hungary, Denmark and Spain who'd invested in Russian gas supply.
W.t.f. were they thinking?

And why did the US try to stop the Nordstrom 2 pipeline?
-Noble reasons like the William Burns guy who was always worried about Putin's and Russia's imperial ambitions?
- Competition for it's own gas? Related to money making as they foresaw the war?


=======

Also:

While much more speculative than the facts re US'post-war profit,

It would also be interesting to do a longitudinal anamnesis.

The war, of course was 90% a combo of Russia's ambitions plus chance or miscalculations,
but did the US --unintentionally or not-- stoke the flames too?

 

[KeithD]

Russia is running out of supplies and soldiers to be invading anything again for a very long time.

 

[pecksniff]

The war, of course was 90% a combo of Russia's ambitions plus chance or miscalculations,
but did the US --unintentionally or not-- stoke the flames too?

You seem to suspect somebody over here did that to enrich the American military-industrial complex. That is not a serious possibility.

 

[mayfly13]

You seem to suspect somebody over here did that to enrich the American military-industrial complex. That is not a serious possibility.

no, I'm not going to such extremes.
Í am however on the team that believes that America isn't the fire extinguisher type, once they see smalk sparks.

 

[Rightguide]

Much of what Biden gave Ukraine was the more elderly American equipment, but plenty good enough to deal with Russians. The major opportunity for the USA, which you ignored, is in profitable arms sales to the whole of eastern and central Europe, from Finland to the former Yugoslav states and including major sales to the big payers, Germany, Turkey and Poland. The Brits have done well selling their anti-tank missiles + training services, largely because they are cheaper and easier to train with than the equally good US product. $2 Billion in gifted weapons is a drop in the bucket compared with the profits the US arms industry will make in the next few years. Biden and Blinken are managing this war much better than previous administrations did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lessons learned?

The USA's best interests will be served by a reasonably prolonged conflict which will unite Europe against Russia, terrify the other European states into re-arming and make a fortune for the US and allied arms suppliers. China is significantly sidelined for the moment, and whatever the rhetoric from Beijing, they know that it is much more costly to piss off Washington than Moscow. And not a single American life at risk.

And it's your Congress RG, not mine, I made a strategic decision 20+ years ago to leave after 8 years in the US.

Despite Pecksmith's views in post 228 the blunt reality is that Ukraine is a pawn, significant parts of which in the east can be sacrificed, but not yet. It has absolutely nothing to do with your absurd allegation that Biden is compromised; he isn't, and your obsession on that issue impairs your judgement of fundamental US and western interests.

Like to see you prove that statement.

Those "profitable arms sales" you speak of in the US will still be paid for by the US Taxpayer.

 

[anarchoMando]

Like to see you prove that statement.

Those "profitable arms sales" you speak of in the US will still be paid for by the US Taxpayer.

Oh look at you sounding like a communist, you don't like those american-made Raytheon sold weapons go ahead argue that

I

 

[pecksniff]

Like to see you prove that statement.

Those "profitable arms sales" you speak of in the US will still be paid for by the US Taxpayer.

That is, the taxpayers will pay the arms manufacturers, as we have been doing at all times ever since FDR started gearing up for war. Was this ever objectionable to you before?

 

[LupusDei]

no, I'm not going to such extremes.
Í am however on the team that believes that America isn't the fire extinguisher type, once they see smalk sparks.

The rational behind your feelings is what I call the "Russia's last war" theory

The victory in Cold War was only partial, deeper regime change in Russia itself failed, if anything, it became more perverse. The window to destroy it was wasted.

Why, a long story, but the soft power, integration, economic warfare even backfired. Germany was taken over by Schroeder and his gang (SPD, including Scholz), America got Trump, France's barely escaping Le Pen, there's Orban, Balsonanaro and others. The kleptocratic anti-intellectualism of tyranny won the disinformation war, to the point it's quite likely becomes existential issue. Because feudalism won't likely get us through the great self-destruction filter we're facing as a cosmic civilization.

Is Putin a source or symptom might be fun discussion, but it's immaterial, he's running openly colonial feudal empire that's a cornerstone of the system threatening world order and must be liquidated.

The worst thing to happen to any Russian government is to lose a war, it's the surest way a regime or dynasty change can happen in Russia.

Russia cannot be invaded or defeated in defensive war it didn't start.

However, despite lack of real power and ability for force projection (Russian current army is by doctrine purely defensive and can't function away from its railways), Russia, as any feudal empire, also cannot survive without constant expansion. Moreover, it had a clear desire to reacquire the lost territories. War of agression was only matter of time.

Ukraine, for many interlinked reasons was the perfect battlefield, but it was important to manage the forces so that Russia would expect easy victory while walking into a trap. It looks increasingly likely it was achieved excellently.

Now, this of course read like a grand conspiracy theory. It is. Only it doesn't exist, there was no plan, no grandmasters or secret handlers. To believe otherwise would diminish the agency of the people involved and make the fight itself meaningless.

 

[oggbashan]

Like to see you prove that statement.

Those "profitable arms sales" you speak of in the US will still be paid for by the US Taxpayer.

Except those sold to other NATO nations. The UK will be paying for military equipment from the US (and our own manufacturers) for years.

 

[pecksniff]

The rational behind your feelings is what I call the "Russia's last war" theory

The victory in Cold War was only partial, deeper regime change in Russia itself failed, if anything, it became more perverse. The window to destroy it was wasted.

Why, a long story, but the soft power, integration, economic warfare even backfired. Germany was taken over by Schroeder and his gang (SPD, including Scholz), America got Trump, France's barely escaping Le Pen, there's Orban, Balsonanaro and others. The kleptocratic anti-intellectualism of tyranny won the disinformation war, to the point it's quite likely becomes existential issue. Because feudalism won't likely get us through the great self-destruction filter we're facing as a cosmic civilization.

Is Putin a source or symptom might be fun discussion, but it's immaterial, he's running openly colonial feudal empire that's a cornerstone of the system threatening world order and must be liquidated.

The worst thing to happen to any Russian government is to lose a war, it's the surest way a regime or dynasty change can happen in Russia.

Russia cannot be invaded or defeated in defensive war it didn't start.

However, despite lack of real power and ability for force projection (Russian current army is by doctrine purely defensive and can't function away from its railways), Russia, as any feudal empire, also cannot survive without constant expansion. Moreover, it had a clear desire to reacquire the lost territories. War of agression was only matter of time.

Ukraine, for many interlinked reasons was the perfect battlefield, but it was important to manage the forces so that Russia would expect easy victory while walking into a trap. It looks increasingly likely it was achieved excellently.

Now, this of course read like a grand conspiracy theory. It is. Only it doesn't exist, there was no plan, no grandmasters or secret handlers. To believe otherwise would diminish the agency of the people involved and make the fight itself meaningless.

Does that analysis suggest anything about how the Western nations should handle this situation? What we're doing now is sending Ukraine weapons and money and food and, perhaps most importantly, intel. Is there anything more we could do, without risking nuclear escalation?

 

[LupusDei]

Does that analysis suggest anything about how the Western nations should handle this situation? What we're doing now is sending Ukraine weapons and money and food and, perhaps most importantly, intel. Is there anything more we could do, without risking nuclear escalation?

Not much, actually, nor it's necessary for now, frankly. Especially U.S. have handled this quite well (not ideal, though) so far. There's a lot of anger on Germany, perhaps even more they deserve, given their current culture and circumstances, but then, they are responsible for said circumstances themselves too. Overall less fear and more open ridicule of Russians would be good. No weapons are as dangerous for them as dismissal and ridicule. Putin started the war to gain attention, don't give him the pleasure to be taken seriously.

Yes, one might want more and better weapons sent to Ukraine much faster, but as Pentagon representative said today in a press conference, there's also limits of how much of it Ukrainians can absorb at any given time, given they are in fact in active fighting. You can't effectively retrain an entire army -- no matter how savvy, talented and motivated (and Ukrainians are very on all counts) -- in the middle of a firefight.

So the pace may be at times be frustrating for reasons it shouldn't be (like that epic blunder with the Polish fighter jets, or the German borderline sabotages), but there's also objective limits, and intricate timings (beyond the philosophical-esoteric). Those same planes, it's possible to argue they would have been premature then, even tactically. As later they arrive, as less chance of them to be destroyed before making a difference, but that difference making time may well be within next 90 days already, and they would be much needed... and just about now.

The ideal scenario is Ukraine's unquestionable winning by itself, even alone, with as little help as possible. As more help there is, as less humiliating the defeat for Russia, and it must be as humiliating as possible for necessary after effects. We talk about driving an empire to suicide levels of humiliating, and that's the goal. Defeat against Putin's arch nemesis NATO wouldn't do that, and that's why actually Putin might be desperate to pick direct fight with NATO at some point, just to be saved by justified defeat, but he won't do it out being too much a coward.

I personally think the risk of nuclear escalation is way overblown. Putin isn't that irrational, and there's a theory that claim any his attempt to use nukes is guaranteed to fail out of disobedience down the chain, and he may be believing in it too. So there's multiple risks for him, all embarrassing (from the expired warheads to sizzle, to disobedience or even immediate court coup, to Western special operations or massive response). Sure, nobody wants to actually test it. So same of the seeming slowness is in my opinion an attempt of "frog boiling" so to say, even so gradually increasing pressure and testing/demonstrating there's in fact no escalatory response.

Of course, we can't afford to lose Ukraine altogether (and any partition would be just a pause for Russia to build upon), if Ukraine starts indeed losing there should be no real limits to assistance. If Putin wins he will go further, and inevitably pick a fight with a NATO country anyway.

The schedule I see is for Ukraine to retake all it's pre-2014 territory before end of September. I would expect the conflict to freeze (almost literally, including) sometime next winter. By then, Ukrainian loses may accumulate to levels of real war weariness, and simultaneously that's about how long it takes for Russia to provide usable results of any possible mobilization. After then, whatever the frontline will be, may see some sporadic continuous artillery exchange and possibly even small movements for years or decades until Russia disintegrate and beyond...

(Oleksiy Arestovych had said that the war as a whole will last for another decade, with hot episodes roughly every other year, but only one or two large enough to move frontlines. Right now that seems rather pessimistic.)

The ideal eventual outcome is gang warfare, devastating multiparty civil war within Russia, disbanding the country as we know it for good. There's up to 30 countries it may disintegrate to, several of those extremely resource rich but almost uninhabited, like Saha Republic (Yakutia) with diamonds, uranium, almost any other metal imaginable, hydrocarbons, but just over one million citizens.