sherpa

That is simply never going to happen. Russia has nowhere near the economic, military or domestic political strength to undo 30 years of change.

And in my view, that is what sets them up for "the bridge too far" scenario. Two points. First, they have to hold the territory. If you have a culture that does not want that, given the magnitude of failures that regime has authored in the past, it is a very tough sell to convince an informed population that the Russian system is desirable. The only people who would want that are those that are direct beneficiaries. Reminds me of Hugo Chavez. The guy went around South America spouting about his Bolivarian Revolution. Initially, he got some traction and did his grand tour. Quickly, the South American continent realized that he was pushing nothing more than Cuban economic policy and after his oil card was played out he couldn't get an audience anywhere and faded into oblivion. Like South America, the Poles, and everyone else once under the Soviet system will never listen to that bull.... again. Second, if he were to try NATO resolve, he would be destroyed. US and NATO air power would demolish his ability to supply his offensive forces as supply lines were stretched. There is simply no way that as presently constituted the Russian Air Force could successfully defend supply lines over hundred of miles, and he doesn't have those resources anyway, nor the ability to rejuvenate them. If he's smart, he takes the part of the Ukraine that has a large separatist population. If he's not, he does the bridge too far thing, and gets his ass handed to him.

Evidently, they have just seized Chernobyl. Bet the line for that mission was long.

If they are, they're pretty stupid. They run straight at a tank at the exact time it is getting wacked. May not be much to this group after all.

I have no idea where that video came from, but from a guy who has dropped a lot of ordnance, it looks like friendly foces would have been morted by the hit. You generally don't blow up a vehicle at the same time your forces surround it.

I think you greatly overstate Putin's capability. I don't think there's a chance he invades a NATO country like Poland. The line will be drawn, and it would be Russian suicide to redo the Hitler thing.

There's always a "reason," however ill conceived, negligent and just plain stupid. It was a massive Washington blunder that cost thousands of US lives. The NVA was getting 80% of its war making material through Haiphong Harbor. Without disturbing Soviet ships, those supplies could have been easily interdicted once they were off loaded, but US forces were not to fly north of the 20th parallel, which included Hanoi and Haiphong. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had pleaded for years to get this restriction removed. Finally in 1972 they mined the harbor and stopped the shipping. It was a disastrously managed war, and the US fought it with its hands tied for, yet another, regime that could not care less and failed at the first opportunity. The point is that there is little that can be done for the Ukraine if the people there don't aggressively resist this Russian punk. That is where turning this thing around starts, just as id did for the Soviets in Afghanistan. Late addition. If you think air strikes were called in with little though of collateral damage, per your claim, you are grossly misinformed.

Haiphong Harbor for one. That was the location where anti air defense weapons were being imported from the Soviet Union. Hanoi as well. There was a ten mile no entry limit, and a thirty mile circumference that had to be approved by Johnson. Many SAM sites were off limits unless they actively shot SAMS. Further, target lists down to specific attack headings were sent from Washington, and these were struck over and over. Operation "Rolling Thunder," schemed and controlled from Washington, was known to carrier aviators as Rolling Blunder. All McNamara cared about was sortie counts, which had to be reported, not actual tactical success.

It is imprudent to compare Vietnam to WWII. During Vietnam, the target list was controlled by Washington, not the military. As the result, valuable military targets were off limits. The same targets assigned, day after day, with absolutely no military importance were bombed, while targets with military significance had to be avoided. It was a joke to those who served and they have never forgotten. Johnson and specifically McNamara had no strategic capability and subjected those airmen to unnecessary peril. The US military demolished the Iraqi military, in two of the greatest routes in military history. What happened after is not on the military, it is on a nation that had been so beaten up by it's regime that it had no interest in establishing a nation. Shock and Awe was never used. It was a phrase used to convince the regime that it was senseless to challenge, and more importantly, to convince it's rank and file military that anything other than surrender was pointless, and they did just that. The point is that if you are going to commit to war, you bring everything you have. You let the military leaders handle it, and when they do, there better be something left to fill the void.

In October 2002, the US Congress passed PUBLIC LAW 107–243, authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.

Is this a joke? In the visionary strike planner Field Marshall Tiberious', proposal, there are a number of omissions. First and most obvious, what the hell happened to Russian air defenses or indeed their Air Force? Do they simply no longer exist? Second, this huge deployment would take quite a bit of time. All of these Russian ground forces would be integrated in Ukrainian villages or in some way hidden. Think this proposed, (though undefined), coalition is going to start launching weapons into Ukrainian villages? Third, does the proposal have any understanding of the weaknesses of drones? They are relatively low payload vehicles, generate an incredibly easy radar and heat signature, so are easily detected, especially when carrying weapons, have no defensive maneuverability are very slow, and proven to be jammable. One fighter could probably take down eight of them on a single sortie if they were closely positioned. Oh ya. Wait. The Russian Air Force and extremely sophisticated integrated ground based, highly mobile air defense system isn't in the fight. They simply don't show up. In the business, this is called "near peer" warfare, and to be successful, you have to bring every capability you have, and they have to be in place and ready. To simply disregard the other side's capability is pure irrationality. I've got a better idea, equally realistic. Why not just rope drop Seal Team Six into the Kremlin and have them get Putin and his supporters? By the way, there is no way the US would have a carrier in the Black Sea if hostilities broke out against Russia. There is simply not enough room to do what carriers do.

Why do you habitually post nonsense like this? You don't have the ability to irritate me. What you do is post views on things you have no knowledge of, and while babysitting my 11 month old granddaughter who has just learned to walk and requires constant supervision, I can do that and read your stuff with little effort. Otherwise I wouldn't read it and wouldn't respond.

Of course the first Gulf War wasn't wrong. Why don't you, in you ignorant, sanctimonious, "personally," (to use your term), pick the 100,000 or so who would be killed. Not even Biden is stupid enough for that. By the way. Refresh my memory so that I can understand your false equivalence. Was there a large number of Kuwaiti separatists who wanted to be part of Iraq? 'Cause I don't remember that. Maybe like you don't remember the attempt to avoid war between 1991 and 2003.

I'm willing to abide by signed treaties. Yep. Otherwise, what's the point of them?

Of course. If we, (not me by the way), weren't willing to sign the NATO agreement we shouldn't have. We did as did about 30 other countries. You do not strike me as a guy who has any knowledge of this stuff, but for the class, let me post Article 5: " The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." My view is that we abide by that agreement. My view is that we not send our troops into a death sentence. The Ukraine has separatists who want to be Russian. Those separatists should have been allowed to be part of their motherland without tying the rest of the world up in the dispute. This should have been worked out years ago.

No. I'm not "writing off the Ukraine." It is up to Ukraine to not write off Ukraine. It would depend on where NATO drew the line, and that would depend, most importantly, on Ukraine resistance to the Russians and their support of NATO. Those are unknowns, and we have been bitten twice. The thought of Joe Biden, who has never done anything, and his political team, leading this makes me think of the catastrophe of Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara in Vietnam. What I am saying is that you have suggested nothing approaching reality, display no evidence of understanding, and I didn't even mention ground troops in my missive. It would take tens of thousands. Air power has made the battlefield easy and a done deal for our ground troops in Desert Storm and the second Gulf War. The ground guys went at full speed with no resistance. That wouldn't happen against the Russians. Tell you what. Send me your email and I'll send you copies of my logbook and a Kitty Hawk cruise book which identifies me and has pics. Frankly, I don't give a rat's what you believe.

Cowardly? Your answer is that you'd somehow involve the US Air Force and you think that is a valid response? There is no military solution that the US could apply. It would be absolutely crazy to commit US forces to that area under these circumstances. Suicide, and would undoubtedly result in a massive compromise of our abilities. Here's what it would take, and this is not a complete list. The entire US Air Force in Europe, including F-35's, F-22's. Where do we base them? Where do we base the Command and Control assets, ie., AWACS. If we don't base them in the Ukraine, which we would never do, we would need massive tanker assets to support them. We would need takers in the Ukraine even if we did base them there. F-35's and F-22's are stealth. That stealth is completely lost if you strap external fuel tanks on them, thus the need for a massive tanker support force. Naval Air would require incredibly long missions, probably six hour and needing to tank three times per sortie. The Russians have very capable air defense. We would certainly lose a number of aircraft, requiring a significant search and rescue capability, We would need huge electronic jamming and countermeasure assets to combat the air defense system. This is, after all, right on their border. I could go on and on, but I doubt you have any background in any of this that would cause you to think differently. As far as the "coward" thing, I flew hundreds of sorties off the USS Kitty Hawk, and most of that in the South China Sea, which you mentioned earlier as Biden's "new" bold deployment. Over three hundred landings on carriers. You questioning my level of "coward" isn't going to bother me. You want a solution? Get NATO to draw a line in the sand regarding Putin's westward expansion. It would take four months to set up for a proper chance of success, but a unified NATO could do it. Understand though, depending on how resolute he is, and I doubt he would go that far, it would be WWIII. '

Great solution. Involve the "USAF in this somehow." I don't think you have any idea of what would be involved here, but I'm pretty sure what you seem to think, but not elucidate, would start WWIII, and I'm quite certain you don't have a bit of knowledge of capability or realistic strategy.

Good Lord. Biden isn't doing anything different re the South China Sea that hasn't been going on since the 40's. It's simply that people like you either don't know it, or grasp the rhetoric the administration spews out and think its "something." And ya....The UN was conceived as an international body that prevents aggression. All of its other offices/missions were created after that, are ancillary, and are primarily jobs programs "service" renders. Total failure, with the one single exception of being the most dense spy population on US soil. For the third time, what is your military proposal?

China being "upset" is a non event. We have been operating in the South China Sea forever. Regarding the UN, I brought it up to point out another example of it's historical uselessness in fulfilling its primary goal. You are the one who threw the red herring UNICEF into it. Humanitarian offices have nothing to do with this. The Security Council does. Again, what do you propose that the US and/or NATO do, militarily, to solve this?

No. On and on for decades. It's Seventh Fleet's main area of operation. We have had a carrier permanently based in Japan since Oct 1973 to handle this area, and other west coast based carriers augment it. Been going on since the end of WWII. That bit of reality aside, I have no idea what you think would be a good idea re US military response to this, knowing the reality of the situation. The only thing I have seen you post that suggested anything was a deployment of two squadrons to Ukraine territory, which is an insane idea. UNICEF and other corrupt aid functions of the UN have nothing to do with this. They got this thing called the Security Council. They had their usual debate meeting yesterday and did nothing in the face of blind aggression------again.

US carrier battle groups have been operating in the South China Sea since the 40's.

I would bet that contacts have already been made to acquire some. Ever wonder what the CIA was doing in Benghazi prior to the embassy attack?

I don't think you are interpreting what he said correctly. Putin is very shrewd and savvy, and he knows how to play the game. What h also is is a mischief maker trying to forge a legacy as time runs out, and he has never gotten over the gross failure of the insanely incompetent regime he worked for.

Thank goodness for the strength and resolve of the UN to prevent these situations.