Ukraine

[Arlo]

No Arlo but apparently Russians are also crossing illegally... so lets see,
should we wait for their numbers to increase?

Which border are you talking about? Are you trying to steer the thread off topic?

[RotBaron]

violator read article 6 of the constitution. that should explain it all.


semp

How so?

Article Six of the United States Constitution:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[Busher]

Which border are you talking about? Are you trying to steer the thread off topic?

Now Arlo, how can you kwestion this? Have you forgotten all the warnings to "17" from Air Farce One?

[potsNpans]

American worry less about a 30 trillion nat' debt, than corrupt communist bull$^!#. Maybe another Ukraine genocide from mother russ'

[Busher]

American worry less about a 30 trillion nat' debt, than corrupt communist bull$^!#. Maybe another Ukraine genocide from mother russ'

The USA National Debt per capita is slightly more than $60,000. The UK is $127,000... France- $87,000.... Switzerland- $213,000.... Germany- $94,000.
There are many more countries far deeper in borrowed bucks than the USA. Little need to panic yet.

[Ramesis]

Which border are you talking about? Are you trying to steer the thread off topic?

No Arlo.. not switching topics... just making an analogy... and yes I forgot to mention
its the U.S. Southern border
 

[Arlo]

No Arlo.. not switching topics... just making an analogy... and yes I forgot to mention
its the U.S. Southern border
 

Poor analogy ... and you're taking opportunity to parade your politics in an AH thread. But the thread is on its last legs I reckon, anyhoo. Take it by the reins and finish running it into the ground.

[Volron]

No.  I don't think they want to do that.  That would be much bloodier.  An enemy is always going to fight to the last to protect their capital.  I think for now they are just pinning enemy troops up there.  And they are digging in expecting a frontal attack, if the rooskies side slip them they won't be mobile enough in their burrows to catch them..

The way I was proposing was to achieve the strategic goal (effective control of Ukraine) with minimal deaths.  A quick a fait accompli with minimal deaths will weaken US calls for sanctions compared to a bloodbath meat-grinder of grinding straight at the capital. 

This would be more like Vlad to flip around and get them in a chock-hold like a judo maneuverer, rather than simply pummeling them to death with his fists.

But who knows. 

I'm more interested first in your "if" estimate percentage wise?

I'm curious as to what is fielded by each army group in terms of equipment.  I'm not inclined be believe that they are all equipped with the "best of the best", but I'm certain they do have quite a bit of the "top tier" equipment at their disposal.  I'd be willing to guess that almost all of the equipment will be "top tier", seeing as those troops are along the western boarder.  Example: It is a reasonable guess that at least 90% of their T-80's and T-90's will be the Western side of Russia as a whole.

If Russia is serious enough, they might pull stuff from other groups that are unlikely to be participating, like units from their Eastern District.  I doubt this will be the case, as they have a huge number of equipment and men on reserve.  They'll want to keep their Eastern units intact, as a "show of force" to the US, Japan and even China, though to the world as a whole.  If anything they might bolster their Eastern units a little.  Not so much as to be presumed a threatening gesture, but enough to say, "Nothing to see here, move along.".  It's not like the lack the reserves to do it.  Also, you may wonder why I included China; reason is simple, they wouldn't want to appear weak in any way to their neighbor.  Pulling anything from their Eastern units will likely be presumed as "Russia is weak" in China's eyes.

I agree, Russia will use a blitzkrieg to avoid any prolong fighting.  The question is, for example, will they lead with their T-90's or will they lead with their older tanks like the T-72?  While you'd think the T-90 is an obvious choice, they are more expensive and they have far fewer of them as opposed to the T-72's.  But leading with older, more "well known" tanks will have obvious drawbacks as well.  Again, it'll depend on how serious Russia is if they go through with it.  Dead serious, and it's a very good bet that all of lead units will be equipped with the "best of the best".

[Brooke]

The USA National Debt per capita is slightly more than $60,000. The UK is $127,000... France- $87,000.... Switzerland- $213,000.... Germany- $94,000.
There are many more countries far deeper in borrowed bucks than the USA. Little need to panic yet.

US National Debt is right now $30 trillion.  Population is 330 million.  National Debt per capita is $90k.

Those numbers depend a lot from where you are getting data, how specifically they calculate "national debt" (as there are variations), and how current that data is.

To make the comparison all the same and about as current as one can get, I used https://data.oecd.org/ and looked at "government debt" per capita (similar calculation to national debt).

Government debt per capita:
US, $100k
Switzerland, $31k
UK, $69k
And so on.

However, debt per capita is not all that meaningful.  If you have debt of $500k as a person, but your income is $100k/year, it is way different than having that debt and an income of $30k/year.

That's why folks generally look at debt/GDP as being more meaningful.

On debt/GDP, also from https://data.oecd.org/
US, 161%
Switzerland, 44%
UK, 149%

and so on

The US has *very* high levels of debt.  The fact that many other countries do as well doesn't mean there is nothing to worry about.  It means there is more to worry about.

[Vulcan]

If Russia is serious enough, they might pull stuff from other groups that are unlikely to be participating, like units from their Eastern District.  I doubt this will be the case, as they have a huge number of equipment and men on reserve.

I thought the units currently exercising in Belarus were from the east?

[CptTrips]

I agree, Russia will use a blitzkrieg to avoid any prolong fighting.  The question is, for example, will they lead with their T-90's or will they lead with their older tanks like the T-72?  While you'd think the T-90 is an obvious choice, they are more expensive and they have far fewer of them as opposed to the T-72's.  But leading with older, more "well known" tanks will have obvious drawbacks as well.  Again, it'll depend on how serious Russia is if they go through with it.  Dead serious, and it's a very good bet that all of lead units will be equipped with the "best of the best".

I would image that the tip of the spear will always be the best of the best. 

The units that back-fill and dig in to hold might be second tier, but they will then have prepared defense in depth to make up the difference with some Best-of-Best as a ready-reserve not too far away but not on the line.

But Blitzkrieg is all about speed and momentum and you don't want to risk that by putting Moe, Larry, and Curly upfront where they can gum stuff up. 

$0.02.

[Volron]

I would image that the tip of the spear will always be the best of the best. 

The units that back-fill and dig in to hold might be second tier, but they will then have prepared defense in depth to make up the difference with some Best-of-Best as a ready-reserve not too far away but not on the line.

But Blitzkrieg is all about speed and momentum and you don't want to risk that by putting Moe, Larry, and Curly upfront where they can gum stuff up. 

$0.02.

I'll have to correct myself:

Russia could easily underestimate Ukrainian forces, and in a way I'd expect that.  After all when you compare both sides, Russia has a very clear advantage over them.  The thing is, I expect them to set aside "top tier" assets just in-case other nations get involved, and not so much as reserves for the invasion.  To purely use their best would leave a vulnerability should others get involved; don't put all your eggs in one basket, if you will.  It's a decent bet that the nations likely to get involved will have better trained troops and equipment vs the Ukrainians.  I very much doubt they are dealing with Soviet style troops and that current Russia has better trained troops.  Might not be much better, but it would be foolish to think they are the same overall.

I'd think the Ukrainians would prioritize "high value" targets.  T-90's would be at the top of the list, if you will.  It'll come down to how well trained Ukraine troops are in recognizing and eliminating these high value targets, which I'm inclined to believe Ukraine are more "rag-tag" though not to be underestimated.  While T-72's are older, there are a lot of them and it's a reasonable bet they are very much "up-to-par" in training with units using the best stuff.  So I'm not inclined to believe they'll be a hindrance in a blitzkrieg.  Hell, it's plausible that Russia might see this as a "training opportunity", though unlikely.

Air is going to be a big factor here though, and it's reasonable to think Ukraine will not be able to deal with it.  I'd harbor a guess that Russia will use special forces to neutralize Ukrainian air power in combination of an air attack, though Russia could muscle through if they wanted too.

Then there is the Navy.  It's not unlikely that a few submarines will be involved, utilizing cruise missile strikes.  What could Ukraine possibly use against them?  Because I don't think Russia will not deploy a task force of surface ships, if one isn't active already.  Though they might not utilize a surface fleet at all, seeing as it could be perceived as a threat to the bordering nations for the Black Sea.  So maybe they'll avoid any the use of any Naval assets unless absolutely necessary.

[CptTrips]

I very much doubt they are dealing with Soviet style troops and that current Russia has better trained troops.  Might not be much better, but it would be foolish to think they are the same overall.

I image you are dealing with a higher quality of troops now.  Certainly I expect their command and control to be better.  I expect the current command structures are modernized and better able to respond to fast moving conditions and operating with more independence than old Soviet versions. 

As far as the Naval risk?  <Shrug>  They would be operating a stones throw away from the Russian's main warm-water base on the Crimea.  I doubt that would be seen as a shocking presence.  It's not like they were showing up in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Ramesis]

Poor analogy ... and you're taking opportunity to parade your politics in an AH thread. But the thread is on its last legs I reckon, anyhoo. Take it by the reins and finish running it into the ground.

Actually Arlo, I am not trying to abscond with this thread... what I am trying to say is the U.S. should not send troops in response
to Russia's build up at the Ukrainian border...
That is Europe's job...our obligation is to NATO... if Russia invades a NATO country then we are obligated by treaty to join in...
My analogy is/was just as Russia INVADED Crimea, Russians, Ukrainians, Middle Easterners, etc. are crossing our borders illegally
and possibly building up to destroy the U.S... in my opinion,  call me paranoid but that is my thinking and, if I am correct,
those who don't wake up and recognize this will regret their opinions in the not too distant future
 

[Busher]

Actually Arlo, I am not trying to abscond with this thread... what I am trying to say is the U.S. should not send troops in response
to Russia's build up at the Ukrainian border...

 

I found this supposed opinion poll alleged to be historical.

https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941

Seems had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, all of western Europe would likely being still speaking German.