Europe at War

[MusicTurner]

There's a video interview with a Ukrainian presidential adviser from 2019 predicting a likely major Russian invasion in 2020-22, including their advances along the 4 axis they actually choose, and saying that this would probably be the occasion for Ukraine to join NATO.

There's no doubt Ukraine had NATO ambitions back then, and that they were at least to some extent well-prepared for the current scenario. But they often seem to be too ambitious as regards NATO. I didn't check the video date, but Zelensky was elected in May 2019.

[Florestan]

Florestan -

I usually avoid these types of threads because they tend to get contentious and provide fertile troll-ground. But I do read this one regularly – not for the arguments and posted links that are among thousands available on line, but for the personal viewpoints and observations of those closer (both personally and geographically) to the conflict. In particular, I'm interested in your perspective based on your past and current experiences living where you are. Thanks for your insights.

Thank you.

[Florestan]

     Some guy in the notorious country of Romania found a Russian drone. The authorities are not pleased.

Romanian Defence Minister Vasile Dincu said on Monday evening that the drone that crashed near a village in Bistrita County in northern Romania was a reconnaissance UAV that did not have any explosives on board.

"It's not a very big drone. It's a drone toy, a metre and a bit wide. It is a search-information drone and did not carry explosives," Dincu said.

This incident came only a few days after a drone carrying explosive stuff crashed in Zagreb, Croatia.

I don't know what to make of it.

[Mandryka]

Yes.

If that way of reasoning is representative, then it's hard to imagine the US ever supporting a European government with real measures. Imagine a GOP president in 2024 . . . who reduces US NATO commitments  . . .

[Que]

If that way of reasoning is representative, then it's hard to imagine the US ever supporting a European government with real measures. Imagine a GOP president in 2024 . . . who reduces US NATO commitments  . . .

I think the reasoning against an airbattle between NATO and Russian over Ukraine is sound and convincing.

Can Europe afford to be dependent on the US for its defence for much longer? No.
The EU needs its own robust defence structure ASAP. We need that European "army" I have been advocating before.
Hopefully the UK will be willing to some form of cooperation on this.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Fourth Russian general killed

BBC

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky says another Russian general has been killed during fighting.
He didn't name the officer, but an adviser to Ukraine's interior ministry said Maj Gen Oleg Mityaev had been killed by the far-right Azov regiment.
Gen Mityaev was killed near Mariupol, Ukrainian media said.
He is the fourth general reportedly killed, leading some to ask why such senior members of the Russian military are so close to the front line.
Analysts believe that around 20 generals are leading Russian operations in Ukraine, meaning that if all the reported deaths are confirmed, one fifth of Russia's generals have been killed in action.
With such high losses, some experts believe that the generals have not simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that Ukraine is likely to be targeting top-level Russian officers.
"I don't think this is an accident. One is an accident, but this many is targeted", Rita Konaev of Georgetown University told the BBC.

Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, a person within President Zelensky's inner circle said Ukraine had a military intelligence team dedicated to targeting Russia's officer class.

There's more of the story here (article by Ben Tobias):  Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, a person within President Zelensky's inner circle said Ukraine had a military intelligence team dedicated to targeting Russia's officer class.

PD

[Mandryka]

I think the reasoning against an airbattle between NATO and Russian over Ukraine is sound and convincing.

Can Europe afford to be dependent on the US for its defence for much longer? No.
The EU needs its own robust defence structure ASAP. We need that European "army" I have been advocating before.
Hopefully the UK will be willing to some form of cooperation on this.

Yes, I agree with this

[Todd]

Imagine a GOP president in 2024 . . . who reduces US NATO commitments  . . .

That would be wonderful.  It is less likely now, though, no matter who wins, though additional expansion might be a harder sell.

The EU needs its own robust defence structure ASAP. We need that European "army" I have been advocating before.

Remember the words of Lord Ismay, that the purpose of NATO was to "[k]eep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down[,]" and one can see how a remilitarized Germany might pose some issues.  I suppose one might believe that European thinking has moved on, and that the French and British might very well accept a very powerful Germany at the core of defense.  Maybe. 

Turns out it is hard to not keep referring to the past, to old WWII.  Why, just yesterday Zelenskyy beseeched Americans to remember Pearl Harbor.

[Florestan]

Can Europe afford to be dependent on the US for its defence for much longer? No.
The EU needs its own robust defence structure ASAP. We need that European "army" I have been advocating before.
Hopefully the UK will be willing to some form of cooperation on this.

This is wishful thinking. For a multitude of reasons it's not going to happen.

[Gurn Blanston]

If that way of reasoning is representative, then it's hard to imagine the US ever supporting a European government with real measures. Imagine a GOP president in 2024 . . . who reduces US NATO commitments  . . .

Easy to say when you don't bear any responsibility yourself. 

One should always consider the possibility that just because a no fly zone is what they want, it doesn't follow that it's the best thing for them. Actual military people who aren't former comic actors and also aren't constrained in their world view due to being confined in a war zone, are nearly unanimous in their assessment that a no fly zone is a waste of time, lives and materiel. Trying to attach this pragmatic conclusion to future American political events, which are speculative at best, suggests that nothing that happens between elections has any independent value beyond how it might affect the next one. Pretty cynical...

🤠😎

[Florestan]

Three Panama-flagged ships hit by missiles in Black Sea

[drogulus]

I was wondering why Ukraine keeps insisting on a "no fly" zone?
As we discussed, Russia is not dominating the skies. The main problem seems to be Russian artillery bombardments.
I don't see how you counter that with empty skies, or rather: an air battle between NATO and Russia...
Ukraine needs more aircrafts or more surface-to-surface missile installations.

Is the demand for a "no fly" zone part of an Ukrainian tactic to directly involve NATO into the conflict?  Or perhaps it is to create leverage to get something else?

    Ukraine wants as much as it can get, and that requires that it demand even more.

    Ukrainian cities are being bombarded by artillery, missiles and unguided rockets.

    The Russians have a military that can destroy targets that don't move and don't fire back. For a number of reasons Russia isn't capable of fighting a well armed opponent force that can move and hide. One problem is the lack of coordination between air and ground operations, another is the lack of precision guided weaponry. Without effective air support Russian ground forces are vulnerable.

     I think a no fly zone is too much risk. The alternative "some fly zone", which is what we have, is effective. Russians don't want to get shot down, and they will be shot down if they fly low enough to hit targets with the kind of weapons they have.

[Mandryka]

Easy to say when you don't bear any responsibility yourself. 

One should always consider the possibility that just because a no fly zone is what they want, it doesn't follow that it's the best thing for them. Actual military people who aren't former comic actors and also aren't constrained in their world view due to being confined in a war zone, are nearly unanimous in their assessment that a no fly zone is a waste of time, lives and materiel. Trying to attach this pragmatic conclusion to future American political events, which are speculative at best, suggests that nothing that happens between elections has any independent value beyond how it might affect the next one. Pretty cynical...

🤠😎

I want to get something clear. I wasn't arguing for a no fly zone at all. What I was struck by was the logic of the argument in that article. He was basically saying that they shouldn't do it because (1) Russia would resist and that would mean that the US was involved in a hot war with them. And (2) the USA may have to bear the brunt of economic sanctions. He dismissed humanitarian considerations -- saying that they were heart and not head.

So it looks to me that the argument which Andrei was agreeing with was based on a calculation of what lies in America's best interests, and that calculation would be the same whatever the European country being attacked, and whatever the extent of the suffering.

There are no values in his argument. His actions are guided by a utilitarian calculation limited to a single nation. Self interested nationalism.

[BasilValentine]

Incorrect.

I did not ask you to post thousands of links, I asked you for a reason or two.

But honestly, just never mind anymore. I'm really over and done.

The article Todd posted did suggest at least two possible reasons why there have been no large scale air operations supporting the invasion of Ukraine, to wit:

"Operational commanders have very little practical experience of how to plan, brief and coordinate complex air operations involving tens or hundreds of assets in a high-threat air environment," he wrote, adding that Russia, unlike Western militaries, doesn't rely on combined air operations centers to run that process."

Granted, there wasn't much specificity, but I read this to mean there are deficiencies in command and control infrastructure (the US has AWACs(?), flying command centers to coordinate air assets, Russia doesn't). The author further noted that recent Russian air adventures in Syria have involved only small formations of planes requiring no such large-scale coordination, meaning there is no recent experience among commanders in running such large operations. Just speculation on my part, but air operations in Syria also involved barrel bombs, cluster munitions, and other instruments of indiscriminate slaughter that would look horrible used on white people we currently care about. A few uses of cluster bombs in Mariupol involving civilians hit the internet last week. I have no idea if there is official concern about the optics of such terror weapons on the part of the Russians. 

Oh, I see drogulus did a better job of it two posts back.

[Florestan]

So it looks to me that the argument which Andrei was agreeing with

Actually, I agreed with the idea that a no-fly zone would run a high risk of turning into a direct NATO-Russia war, ie WW3. Nobody wants that.

[Mandryka]

Actually, I agreed with the idea that a no-fly zone would run a high risk of turning into a direct NATO-Russia war, ie WW3. Nobody wants that.

Ah yes, that makes sense to me!

[Florestan]

The article Todd posted did suggest at least two possible reasons why there have been no large scale air operations supporting the invasion of Ukraine, to wit:

"Operational commanders have very little practical experience of how to plan, brief and coordinate complex air operations involving tens or hundreds of assets in a high-threat air environment," he wrote, adding that Russia, unlike Western militaries, doesn't rely on combined air operations centers to run that process."

Granted, there wasn't much specificity, but I read this to mean there are deficiencies in command and control infrastructure (the US has AWACs(?), flying command centers to coordinate air assets, Russia doesn't). The author further noted that recent Russian air adventures in Syria have involved only small formations of planes requiring no such large-scale coordination, meaning there is no recent experience among commanders in running such large operations. Just speculation on my part, but air operations in Syria also involved barrel bombs, cluster munitions, and other instruments of indiscriminate slaughter that would look horrible used on white people we currently care about. A few uses of cluster bombs in Mariupol involving civilians hit the internet last week. I have no idea if there is official concern about the optics of such terror weapons on the part of the Russians. 

Oh, I see drogulus did a better job of it two posts back.

This war actually shows with each passing day that Russian Army is weak and ineffective. In a conventional war NATO would mop the floor with them.

[Que]

This is wishful thinking. For a multitude of reasons it's not going to happen.

It used to be. In the present time frame it has become a necessity without alternatives.

Remember the words of Lord Ismay, that the purpose of NATO was to "[k]eep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down[,]" and one can see how a remilitarized Germany might pose some issues.  I suppose one might believe that European thinking has moved on, and that the French and British might very well accept a very powerful Germany at the core of defense.  Maybe. 

We agree Germany is key here. I think Germany has turned over a new leaf, and so will the rest of Europe.  We'll have to...
We can't remain stuck in the previous century if we are to survive as free and democratic nations.

[Que]

Did the invasion of Ukraine safe Hungarian democacy in the nick of time?

Orbán treads fine line as Hungarian opinion swings against Russia

[Todd]

This war actually shows with each passing day that Russian Army is weak and ineffective. In a conventional war NATO would mop the floor with them.

Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens, and Syrians would all disagree with the first sentence.  The second sentence is suspect and definitely not something Europeans or the world should want to see. 

And any deficiencies Russia may have in conventional forces when compared to NATO are offset by nuclear weapons.  By design.

I think Germany has turned over a new leaf

But do French and British leaders think the same thing?  And really, it comes down to whether the French think the same thing.  The British can break away from the continent on security matters and build an even stronger relationship with the US if need be.