The future of NATO, Russia, and Ukraine (HERE BE CLANCYCHAT!)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The future of NATO, Russia, and Ukraine (HERE BE CLANCYCHAT!)

«‹›34 »

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Didn't Iraqi T-72s go up against Iranian M-60s and held its own, or was slightly better? I remember reading that some where on these forums, maybe in one of the iterations of the Wargame thread in Games.

# ? Sep 17, 2014 22:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 04:55

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

KomradeX posted:

Didn't Iraqi T-72s go up against Iranian M-60s and held its own, or was slightly better? I remember reading that some where on these forums, maybe in one of the iterations of the Wargame thread in Games.

Yeah. Keep in mind that the generation of tanks represented by the T-72 and T-64 scared the US and West Germans into crash-diving into the MBT-70 project which ended up failing. While the M-60 could be upgraded with fire control and better ammunition, those tanks were much more scalable and had significantly better armor protection. A little bit of the MBT/Kpz-70 ended up in the M1 and Leo2, though.

# ? Sep 17, 2014 22:26

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Back to dronechat, I do understand contracting costs. What I'm wondering is whether shematics could be produced and distributed to less-than-official and slightly poor allies for use against Russian and Chinese systems.

# ? Sep 17, 2014 22:31

GoLambo: Apr 11, 2006

What part of "you cannot make a cheap airplane (drone) in any realistic capacity" do you not understand? While I believe there is a lot of industry bloat, the fact of the matter is that these systems are just not that cheap to produce and operate, and if they where we'd be using that very strategy right now. Cheap autonomous weapons systems are still a long way off. You hear the quadrotor bomb squad idea nearly every day from a different source like they're the first person to think of it and everyone else is stupid for not figuring it out a long time ago.

# ? Sep 18, 2014 02:24

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Majorian posted:

Not all potential strategic NATO targets are located in North America.

This is a vacuous statement, because there is no scenario in which a nuclear exchange remains limited to NATO strategic targets in Europe.

quote:

The reason why they don't is because they've adhered to the arms control agreements that we've made with them on the topic. It would be really, really nice if we wouldn't provoke them into, you know. Not adhering to those agreements�

Yes, Russia did violate the INF Treaty - after a decade of the U.S. letting bilateral arms control languish. Pulling out of the ABM Treaty, planting the ABM sites in Eastern Europe, supporting anti-Moscow regimes on Russia's borders, and only bringing a joke of a treaty like SORT to the table? None of these moves by the US exactly helped the situation. Russia fears that the US will be able to unbalance the strategic parity that exists, through a combination of missile defense and maintaining a breakout capability (ie: the ability of a state to dramatically increase its nuclear complement in a relatively short period of time). They understandably don't like the fact that the US could, in a few years' time, upend the nuclear balance that has been painstakingly maintained for decades. Obviously their treaty violation needs to be dealt with (which it is), but it's just stupid to pretend that bad US policies didn't contribute to this. It also underlines why the Russians don't see the US as placing nukes on Russia's border as inconceivable.

First off, the US has been scrupulous about adhering to our nuclear arms treaty obligations. Between disclosing the size and state of our arsenal, and Obama�s openly stated desire to reduce the size of our arsenal, the Russians have had ample opportunity to go in on arms control, assuming they gave a poo poo. Speaking of the state of our arsenal, it�s in dire need of a refurb, we�re going to have fewer warheads next decade no matter what, and �break out capability� does not exist in any realistic sense. This is all open source, the Russians know it too.

All of your scholarly sources describe the logic behind putting the treaties in place originally, they do not describe a coherent theory of Russian foreign policy. Maybe concerns about strategic arms control could be interpreted as the source of Russian anxieties if taken in a vacuum, but two points stand against this: First, the Russians have accepted American BMD development at sea and land based systems outside of Europe, not to mention operating their own ABM system. Second, considering their history of bullying neighboring countries that break from obedience to Moscow, it makes sense to view the entire AMB episode in light of Moscow�s policy of ensuring its neighbors weak and unable to resist Russian pressure.

# ? Sep 18, 2014 04:58

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

My Imaginary GF posted:

Can Russian SAMs shoot down drones well? How much does a Russian SAM cost to produce?

I'm wondering whether a sufficient quantity of autonomous aerial vehicles could be produced to overwhelm Russian SAM capacity. If cost of SAM-decoy is less than cost of SAM, radar-based SAM should be considered nullified in effectiveness.

My Imaginary GF posted:

AAA usually requires LOS for firing, doesn't it? So all you'd do is hide slightly out of LOS, and send in a suicide squadron of IED drones whenever AAA is detected. Much more of a soft target than an over-horizon SAM system, I assume.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Trying to think of the best way to overwhelm a defense system with money. The purpose is to knock out over the horizon capacity; anything that is close enough to fire from LOS, is close enough for counter-fire.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Back to dronechat, I do understand contracting costs. What I'm wondering is whether shematics could be produced and distributed to less-than-official and slightly poor allies for use against Russian and Chinese systems.

I honestly don�t think you understand anything about or have put any thought into what you are describing. When you�re talking about a system with propulsion, guidance, and a warhead, that�s basically a missile. It is unlikely to be cheaper to produce than a missile, especially because the concept you have described requires it to be longer ranged than the system it is supposed to attack. (If it isn�t then the SAM can shoot down the presumably more expensive launch platform.) It also still requires you find and fix enemy SAM systems. If you want the drones to do this autonomously, that makes them larger, heavier and more expensive. If not, your proposal is pointless, because the United States already has a crushing ability to destroy fixed targets. This is why Russia and China no longer build fixed SAM systems. It�s also worth considering that a functioning IADS is likely to include ELINT and signal processing systems that would reject the decoy tracks. Countering this is going to, again, make your drones larger and heavier.

Mobile AAA systems are actually harder targets than long range SAM systems. In fact, Russia has a lot of SHORAD systems specifically for point defense of high value targets (like strategic SAM systems) against things like drones, cruise missiles, and low flying aircraft.

Finally, I don�t understand how you can think that a country that is poor is going to be sophisticated enough to build a system capable of defeating SAMs made by Russia and China. If it was possible for developing nations to defeat modern SAMs with inferior technology, not only would they already be doing that, but Russia and China wouldn�t bother fielding the systems in the first place.

Warcabbit posted:

I've actually been toying with the idea of drones. A Predator, I am told, costs 1.6m. What would it cost to make something incredibly cheap, with slow speed, high loiter, that was capable of being out of the range of a MANPAD, and had a camera or three on it? I'd guess each would carry one missile, which would be cold-launched and ignite after being dropped, to avoid stress on the frame.

Under 20k is the same as free, for all intents and purposes. Could you slave a flock of five or ten together to one operator, and just saturate SAMs and have them loiter and kill?

Just walk a few hundred of them across a country and drop things on them. Sure, more expensive planes could take them out, but that's what our more expensive planes are for countering with.

So you want a system with low speed, high loiter, higher altitude than a Pred, with sensors, networking capabilities, autonomous operation, the ability to employ weapons with a standoff range longer than all ground based SAM systems� and you want it to cost less than a Pred? I hate to break it to you, but reusability is not a significant fraction of the Predator's cost. Just to calibrate your expectations, the tailkit that turns a Mk82 or Mk84 bomb into a JDAM costs about $20,000. It is one of the cheapest guided weapons in the inventory and has limited standoff capability. So the weapon system alone is going to break your budget. And, as a general rule, surface-to-air missiles have better performance than air-to-surface missiles, because they have much less restrictive weight requirements.

LurkingAsian posted:

On the topic of decoy drones, the US has actually managed to crank out 1000 of these without much public fanfare, for $120k a pop.
Since these can be mass dropped out of the back of transport aircraft, it seems that saturating SAM defenses in any given area would be pretty straightforward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2565

No, they cannot be dropped out of the back of cargo aircraft, because cargo aircraft lack the requisite data bus. It also would not make sense to have cargo aircraft go in to contested airspace on a SEAD mission.

# ? Sep 18, 2014 06:02

Warcabbit: Apr 26, 2008; Wedge Regret

Dead Reckoning posted:

So you want a system with low speed, high loiter, higher altitude than a Pred, with sensors, networking capabilities, autonomous operation, the ability to employ weapons with a standoff range longer than all ground based SAM systems� and you want it to cost less than a Pred? I hate to break it to you, but reusability is not a significant fraction of the Predator's cost. Just to calibrate your expectations, the tailkit that turns a Mk82 or Mk84 bomb into a JDAM costs about $20,000. It is one of the cheapest guided weapons in the inventory and has limited standoff capability. So the weapon system alone is going to break your budget. And, as a general rule, surface-to-air missiles have better performance than air-to-surface missiles, because they have much less restrictive weight requirements.
No, they cannot be dropped out of the back of cargo aircraft, because cargo aircraft lack the requisite data bus. It also would not make sense to have cargo aircraft go in to contested airspace on a SEAD mission.

Well, it doesn't need a standoff range longer than ground based SAM systems. I did say MANPAD for a reason. Other than that, yes, accurate description. I knew 20k was too little, it was simply a random cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Persistent_Munition_Technology_Demonstrator
The JITSA seems to be a variant of the concept.
though I was really thinking of a project design more like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Soaring_Concepts_Apex

# ? Sep 18, 2014 11:29

OhYeah: Jan 20, 2007; 1. Currently the most prevalent form of decision-making in the western world

2. While you are correct in saying that the society owns

3. You have not for a second demonstrated here why

4. I love the way that you equate "state" with "bureaucracy". Is that how you really feel about the state

Cliff Racer posted:

They're combat ready to be pushed to the floor and raped by Russia if thats what it comes down to. Its not so much a matter of combat readiness as it is that Russia is militarily advanced and so much bigger than them that they wouldn't stand a chance at defending themselves or even really slowing Russia down for long. Poland and Romania should be relatively easy for NATO to defend but I still can't figure out a way to defend the Baltics from a hypothetical invasion without having actual bases there to assemble troops in before it gets to that point.

I will very quickly reply to this post from the first page and then go back to reading page three.

Anyways, the situation isn't really that simple. The airspace is guarded by NATO countries and if Russia start their invasion, Denmark and Norway which are NATO members are very close by with very modern and capable fleets. You can be sure that Sweden and Finland will be on high alert and possibly ready to assist their Scandinavian allies if they ask for help.

On the ground, you have to think about the geography/landscape of Estonia for example. The land is very flat, yes that's true, and there are good roads going from Russian border straight to our capital, but they can be blocked off very easily by 5-ton granite blocks (which was done during the breakup of the Soviet Union when there was a real possibility that poo poo's going to hit the fan HARD). There are no alternative routes as our country is 2/3 composed of thick forests and swamps. Can you drive a tank through a swamp?

Once they get into to the major cities, they are looking at bloody urban guerrilla warfare. Estonia has a pretty decent paramilitary system with around 13k active members if I remember correctly, most of whom live within a short drive from their local base and many keep equipment and arms at home. They can mobilized *within hours*, not days. Many of them can go into the woods because we know the terrain and the surroundings, that's what we actually did in the 1940s as well. The silent defeat which resulted in our occupation for half a century is a bitter pill that everyone still remembers and rest assured, many would rather die than live another half a century under Russian rule. Now multiply those feelings by a factor of 10 and you understand how the average Polish person feels about the perspective of Russian occupation. And the Poles got quite an army...

Furthermore, don't forget that the leader of the most powerful military empire in the history of mankind just publicly vowed to protect this region from Russian aggression and promised we will not lose our independence. That's got to count for something.

# ? Sep 18, 2014 12:47

jonnypeh: Nov 5, 2006

OhYeah posted:

I will very quickly reply to this post from the first page and then go back to reading page three.

Anyways, the situation isn't really that simple. The airspace is guarded by NATO countries and if Russia start their invasion, Denmark and Norway which are NATO members are very close by with very modern and capable fleets. You can be sure that Sweden and Finland will be on high alert and possibly ready to assist their Scandinavian allies if they ask for help.

On the ground, you have to think about the geography/landscape of Estonia for example. The land is very flat, yes that's true, and there are good roads going from Russian border straight to our capital, but they can be blocked off very easily by 5-ton granite blocks (which was done during the breakup of the Soviet Union when there was a real possibility that poo poo's going to hit the fan HARD). There are no alternative routes as our country is 2/3 composed of thick forests and swamps. Can you drive a tank through a swamp?

Once they get into to the major cities, they are looking at bloody urban guerrilla warfare. Estonia has a pretty decent paramilitary system with around 13k active members if I remember correctly, most of whom live within a short drive from their local base and many keep equipment and arms at home. They can mobilized *within hours*, not days. Many of them can go into the woods because we know the terrain and the surroundings, that's what we actually did in the 1940s as well. The silent defeat which resulted in our occupation for half a century is a bitter pill that everyone still remembers and rest assured, many would rather die than live another half a century under Russian rule. Now multiply those feelings by a factor of 10 and you understand how the average Polish person feels about the perspective of Russian occupation. And the Poles got quite an army...

Furthermore, don't forget that the leader of the most powerful military empire in the history of mankind just publicly vowed to protect this region from Russian aggression and promised we will not lose our independence. That's got to count for something.

Not to ruin our Estonian party but....
Russia has been holding drills that involve dropping 3500 airborne troops at once, of course dropping them near our capital out of the blue would require a lot of balls in their part. And we lack mid-range air defenses. One wonders if NATO fighters guarding our airspace would start shooting at IL-76 transports if a bunch of them show up or would they need authorization from whichever politician. Mistrals would be another source of danger though they do have a number of chopper carriers and landing ships already. They also have about 70 Su-27 fighters stationed across the border, several helicopter brigades (~100 attack and transport helicopters), several motorized infantry regiments (one with modernized T-72B3 tanks), artillery brigade, several S-300/S-400 anti-air brigades, and 2nd spetsnaz brigade. And probably some more should the need arise. And of course the airborne regiment. Their annual exercises across the border involve about 70 000 soldiers.

Arms depots must be protected first for mobilization to happen and we must not give away Tallinn. If we can get those 60 000 together then we might stand a chance for some time. I myself could go to the nearest depot in 15 minutes on foot, my own equipment is at home. I wouldn't put that much hope on our roads or granite blocks, threat of annihilation would be the thing that would make them slow down.

If it's any consolation they have to handle all three Baltic states at once, but other two lack trained manpower.

Looking at Norwegian and Danish navies, they do have modern frigates with decent weaponry. Those could pose a problem for Ivan. But again political will and distance are factors here. Recently Danish PM pledged to help us if a need arises and will send about 300 soldiers here. That's nice.

Naturally walking around waiting to step on a mine or something equally nasty is not my idea of a good time so it'd be better if no war came.

# ? Sep 18, 2014 13:42

OhYeah: Jan 20, 2007; 1. Currently the most prevalent form of decision-making in the western world

2. While you are correct in saying that the society owns

3. You have not for a second demonstrated here why

4. I love the way that you equate "state" with "bureaucracy". Is that how you really feel about the state

Dropping 3500 Russian paratroopers is some :freep:

level of insane, pretty much straight out declaring war on NATO. I think it's going to be a little hard explaining 3500 fully armed paratroopers as "volunteers".

# ? Sep 18, 2014 15:58

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

OhYeah posted:

Dropping 3500 Russian paratroopers is some level of insane, pretty much straight out declaring war on NATO. I think it's going to be a little hard explaining 3500 fully armed paratroopers as "volunteers".

"Angels"

# ? Sep 18, 2014 16:17

A GIANT PARSNIP: Apr 13, 2010; Too much fuckin' eggnog

Orthodox Jesus himself wants Estonia to return to its rightful place at the feet of Great Mother Russia.

# ? Sep 18, 2014 17:11

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

Dead Reckoning posted:

This is a vacuous statement, because there is no scenario in which a nuclear exchange remains limited to NATO strategic targets in Europe.

Now you're just being obtuse. If Russia is able to launch a second strike against North American targets, but isn't able to launch a second strike against strategic NATO targets in Europe due to functional ABM systems, then its second strike capability is weakened. That's not parity. So it should be pretty obvious why they would object to that.

quote:

First off, the US has been scrupulous about adhering to our nuclear arms treaty obligations.

Yes, we have - when we've been interested in participating in the bilateral arms control regime at all. During the Bush years, though, it really didn't seem like we were. In fact, it seemed like the signal we were trying to send to the Russians was, "We don't need arms control treaties anymore. We're just going to do what we want, and if that means we end up claiming nuclear superiority over you, well, tough poo poo." Which is an extremely dumb strategy to take when you're trying to get another state to not build more nukes and not point them at you or your allies.

quote:

All of your scholarly sources describe the logic behind putting the treaties in place originally, they do not describe a coherent theory of Russian foreign policy.

Except that's not what we're arguing. Right now you are arguing that Russia is not objecting to NATO expansion and the placement of ABMs because it has legitimate security interests, but rather because they only care about subjugating neighboring states. The pieces I posted in the OP suggest otherwise.

Jack Mendelsohn posted:

Although the initial 10 interceptors obviously pose no danger to a deterrent force the size of Russia�s,[2] Moscow is certainly not convinced that this will be the end of the story. Despite the fact that there are no stated plans to go beyond these deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic, the Russians have to assume that they are only the first sites in a series of missile defense bases.[3] Ostensibly aimed at �rogue� states such as North Korea and Iran and potentially for use against rising �peer competitors� such as China, they could be augmented and eventually add up to a genuine threat to Russian strategic missile forces. Russian political and military figures have already deemed the deployments �destabilizing,� coded language implying that U.S. missile defense deployments in Europe could lead to a potential increase in Russian offensive forces, higher alert rates, and/or a launch-on-warning policy.

quote:

First, the Russians have accepted American BMD development at sea and land based systems outside of Europe, not to mention operating their own ABM system.

Can you really not see a difference between these types of placements on the one hand, and land-based systems really, really close to Russia's borders on the other?

e:

I mean, Lordy, you really did not read these articles:

quote:

Secondly, Moscow does not believe the system itself is as technologically benign as the United States maintains. As George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol discuss in their article in this issue, the system could have the capability to intercept Russian ICBMs launched on over-the-pole paths from missile fields west of the Urals. In a September 19 Associated Press report the chief of staff of the Russian military, General Yuri Baluyevsky, said, �The missile defense system being created today in Europe is specifically aimed against Russia. I am prepared to prove this with figures and diagrams.�

From Lewis' blog post:

quote:

Some existing missile defense interceptors exceed MTCR thresholds. Some planned versions may exceed INF treaty thresholds, which is bad news for a treaty that doesn�t need more bad news. A while back, I asked David Wright to do a basic calculation and he concluded that alow-speed SM-3 Block II (4.5 km/s burnout) could reach Moscow from Poland with a 200 kg payload, and the high-speed Block II (5.5 km/s burnout) could reach Moscow from either Poland or Romania with a 200 kg payload. A ban on nuclear-armed ABM interceptors, combined with some confidence-building measures, might make the difference in preserving INF.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Sep 18, 2014

# ? Sep 18, 2014 17:43

T___A: Jan 18, 2014; Nothing would go right until we had a dictator, and the sooner the better.

Panzeh posted:

Yeah. Keep in mind that the generation of tanks represented by the T-72 and T-64 scared the US and West Germans into crash-diving into the MBT-70 project which ended up failing. While the M-60 could be upgraded with fire control and better ammunition, those tanks were much more scalable and had significantly better armor protection. A little bit of the MBT/Kpz-70 ended up in the M1 and Leo2, though.

The west pretty much ignored the T-64 and assumed it was a monkey model T-72.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 05:32

Warcabbit: Apr 26, 2008; Wedge Regret

So, it's November, Russia shuts off the gas, and re-invades Ukraine. Or just threatens to do either. What happens then?

# ? Sep 19, 2014 15:01

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Warcabbit posted:

So, it's November, Russia shuts off the gas, and re-invades Ukraine. Or just threatens to do either. What happens then?

More or less back to the same unless Russia dramatically ups the amount of troops they put in. I doubt the Ukrainians will straight up freeze to death, they will likely get at least emergency supplies from the West although their reserves might be used up.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 15:07

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Warcabbit posted:

So, it's November, Russia shuts off the gas, and re-invades Ukraine. Or just threatens to do either. What happens then?

Hasn't Russia already cut it off?

# ? Sep 19, 2014 15:40

Warcabbit: Apr 26, 2008; Wedge Regret

I meant to Europe.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 18:32

GaussianCopula: Jun 5, 2011; Jews fleeing the Holocaust are not in any way comparable to North Africans, who don't flee genocide but want to enjoy the social welfare systems of Northern Europe.

Warcabbit posted:

I meant to Europe.

Russia would be in big economic trouble because they are heavily reliant on energy exports. I dont think Europeans would freeze to death, rather we would see rationing, the shutdown of a few natural gas power plants and some other ways to deal with it while Russia becomes an international pariah/a chinese puppet.

This would basicly be Russia using their economic nuke, which means they have nothing left to threaten the west with (except their real nukes). You dont do that, because it loses all it's power the second you use it. There is no way Europe/the US would give in to Russian demands at this point.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 18:59

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

GaussianCopula posted:

Russia would be in big economic trouble because they are heavily reliant on energy exports. I dont think Europeans would freeze to death, rather we would see rationing, the shutdown of a few natural gas power plants and some other ways to deal with it while Russia becomes an international pariah/a chinese puppet.

This would basicly be Russia using their economic nuke, which means they have nothing left to threaten the west with (except their real nukes). You dont do that, because it loses all it's power the second you use it. There is no way Europe/the US would give in to Russian demands at this point.

Exactly. Plus the Kremlin knows that by restarting the fight, Western leaders who have opposed taking a hard line towards Russia would wind up with egg on their faces. They would have to double down on sanctions and possibly support the Ukrainian government in a more tangible fashion. It would be counterproductive to their aims. I honestly think Putin's government is taking its victory lap now.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 19:39

Fabulous Knight: Nov 11, 2011

Oh dear, wrong thread really. Sorry.

Fabulous Knight fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Sep 19, 2014

# ? Sep 19, 2014 20:04

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Majorian posted:

Exactly. Plus the Kremlin knows that by restarting the fight, Western leaders who have opposed taking a hard line towards Russia would wind up with egg on their faces. They would have to double down on sanctions and possibly support the Ukrainian government in a more tangible fashion. It would be counterproductive to their aims. I honestly think Putin's government is taking its victory lap now.

Ultimately, shutting off the gas (to Europe) is necessary for its goals, and to be honest, I think Putin knows this enough not to seriously impact Western Europe.

That said, Europe has self-harmed itself to such an extent though austerity, it wouldn't take much to hurt them. European growth has already flatlined, and much of Europe may go into recession on its own.

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Sep 19, 2014

# ? Sep 19, 2014 20:10

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

Ardennes posted:

Ultimately, shutting off the gas (to Europe) is necessary for its goals

How so?

# ? Sep 19, 2014 20:31

Warcabbit: Apr 26, 2008; Wedge Regret

I've been thinking that the threats to kick Russia off Swift were the counterpoint to 'we'll shut down the gas'.
Man, Clancychatting is fun.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 20:46

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

Yeah, I think those two things are the economic "nuclear options" of this situation, ie: never to be seriously considered unless the situation has gotten much, much worse.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 20:54

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

How quickly would Russia start hurting with no gas money and no SWIFT?

# ? Sep 19, 2014 21:45

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Majorian posted:

How so?

Eh, I meant it was "not" necessary, a goof.

quote:

How quickly would Russia start hurting with no gas money and no SWIFT?

Obvious it would have a large impact, that said, Russia exports far more oil than it does gas. 54% of their exports come from oil and "only" 9% come from gas. Obviously, though it would be a major loss of income for Gazprom but I don't know if Russian society itself would collapse.

Now Swift would be disastrous because Russian banking relies on it, but that would be basically assaulting the Russian population directly.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 21:51

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

A Buttery Pastry posted:

How quickly would Russia start hurting with no gas money and no SWIFT?

Immediately, pretty much.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 21:52

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Nintendo Kid posted:

Immediately, pretty much.

Ardennes posted:

Now Swift would be disastrous because Russian banking relies on it, but that would be basically assaulting the Russian population directly.

Let's do it!

# ? Sep 19, 2014 22:00

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Let's do it!

This will have no negative consequences for anyone. :waycool:

# ? Sep 20, 2014 00:23

Broken Cog: Dec 29, 2009; We're all friends here

Majorian posted:

This will have no negative consequences for anyone.

Well, it's not like they're shelling them or anything like that.

# ? Sep 20, 2014 03:42

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Let's do it!

Counteroption: Issue American passports to all Ukranians in West Ukraine, protest the killing of innocent American civilians with innocent American assets.

# ? Sep 20, 2014 05:19

Berke Negri: Feb 15, 2012; Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao

My Imaginary GF posted:

Counteroption: Issue American passports to all Ukranians in West Ukraine, protest the killing of innocent American civilians with innocent American assets.

Now, now, if we all operated like Russia nothing would work.

# ? Sep 20, 2014 05:50

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Majorian posted:

This will have no negative consequences for anyone.

Are you serious? :pwn:

My Imaginary GF posted:

Counteroption: Issue American passports to all Ukranians in West Ukraine, protest the killing of innocent American civilians with innocent American assets.

I'm now imagining every Ukrainian given an American passport immediately immigrating to the US, leaving Ukraine with a largely ethnic Russian population and the US with 30 million+ new unemployed citizens. Alternatively, these new American citizens becoming a major voting bloc which ensures any person winning the presidency has a near-direct confrontation with Russia as one of their top priorities.

# ? Sep 20, 2014 07:24

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Are you serious?

I'm now imagining every Ukrainian given an American passport immediately immigrating to the US, leaving Ukraine with a largely ethnic Russian population and the US with 30 million+ new unemployed citizens. Alternatively, these new American citizens becoming a major voting bloc which ensures any person winning the presidency has a near-direct confrontation with Russia as one of their top priorities.

A sudden influx of 30,000,000 white, Republican-leaning individuals who vote as a bloc for anyone opposed to Russia? Well now, I'm certain Newt has proposed this to someone by now.

# ? Sep 20, 2014 07:28

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Are you serious?

I'm not sure on which level you're asking me that - I was being sarcastic, if that's what you're asking. I do think kicking Russia off of SWIFT would probably be a bad move, since A, we want it to be an economic war on Putin, not the Russian people; and B, like I said, that's our economic nuclear option. It would be wise to save it for if Russia decides to invade directly again.

# ? Sep 20, 2014 09:43

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Majorian posted:

I'm not sure on which level you're asking me that - I was being sarcastic, if that's what you're asking. I do think kicking Russia off of SWIFT would probably be a bad move, since A, we want it to be an economic war on Putin, not the Russian people; and B, like I said, that's our economic nuclear option. It would be wise to save it for if Russia decides to invade directly again.

I was obviously not being serious when I bolded the part about targeting the Russian population directly and posted like that was what convinced me we needed to kick Russia off of SWITF.

e: Like, I'm the one that's been arguing the Russian population is being manipulated toward supporting adventures such as this to distract them from Putin and Pals robbing their country, while you portray him as merely responding to the nationalist ambitions of Russians. Why would I then argue for them being targeted, since it would be neither moral nor useful?

Replying to your post from the other thread:

Majorian posted:

This is the crux of your argument, and it's where you're the most wrong. The US and NATO getting directly involved in this crisis would provoke a greater response from Russia, which would make most Ukrainian lives a lot worse. The reason why I oppose NATO intervention isn't because I don't empathize with the Ukrainian people; it's because I know that the US' and its allies' capacity to make this situation better is limited. Working indirectly, through sanctions and diplomacy, has a greater chance of saving Ukrainian lives and getting them partially out from under the Russian boot.

No, but maybe it will change yours, because I do empathize with the Ukrainian people, more than you know. It's precisely for that reason that I don't want to turn the country into a battleground for a proxy war.

e: Let's take this to the other thread, if you want to continue it.

I'm not just talking about Ukraine, which I've admitted is a sticky situation which will require some skillful politicking from the West to at least partially unfuck, but your entire perspective on NATO-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Sep 20, 2014

# ? Sep 20, 2014 15:40

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Are you serious?

I'm now imagining every Ukrainian given an American passport immediately immigrating to the US, leaving Ukraine with a largely ethnic Russian population and the US with 30 million+ new unemployed citizens. Alternatively, these new American citizens becoming a major voting bloc which ensures any person winning the presidency has a near-direct confrontation with Russia as one of their top priorities.

You know, the UK does this thing where there's a lot of people that are UK citizens but do not have the legal right to just show up in main island territory and live there permanently. Making something similar with American citizenship would not be without precedent.

# ? Sep 20, 2014 16:16

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I was obviously not being serious when I bolded the part about targeting the Russian population directly and posted like that was what convinced me we needed to kick Russia off of SWITF.

e: Like, I'm the one that's been arguing the Russian population is being manipulated toward supporting adventures such as this to distract them from Putin and Pals robbing their country, while you portray him as merely responding to the nationalist ambitions of Russians. Why would I then argue for them being targeted, since it would be neither moral nor useful?

Granted, there has been an argument made that the Russian population needs to be made to suffer as a whole before they get rid of Putin, but to be very honest, I don't think what you would get as a result would be a liberal democracy after that. If anything I could see it being a dream for far-right radicals, and Russia still has the ability to impact a significant portion of the globe even without using nukes. Russia as a heavy armed pariah state with a chip on its shoulder is not in the interests of the West to be honest although Putin certainly is pushing it.

As for as Majorian's argument, I actually don't think Putin would quit unless he at least had an amount of control of Ukraine he had previously. Putin wouldn't accept Ukrainian neutrality if they were in the direction of joining the EU, and the whole rejection of association was based on that.

I think Putin handled it poorly since Ukraine could have had kept on the path of association but silently limited some points of cooperation without setting off same degree of protests. They pushed way too hard and refuse to moderate their stance to pretty much the end and lost the country as a result. That said, it looks like Putin is going to get a lot of what he wanted anyway.

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Sep 20, 2014

# ? Sep 20, 2014 16:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 04:55

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Nintendo Kid posted:

You know, the UK does this thing where there's a lot of people that are UK citizens but do not have the legal right to just show up in main island territory and live there permanently. Making something similar with American citizenship would not be without precedent.

Honorary-American as a special ethnicity meant to expand American dominance would certainly be interesting.

Ardennes posted:

Putin and Russia.

A bit boring I know, but I basically agree with all this.

# ? Sep 20, 2014 16:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The future of NATO, Russia, and Ukraine (HERE BE CLANCYCHAT!)

«‹›34 »