Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[celedhring]

I'm under the impression that Denmark has contributed assets to every NATO action in the last several decades, as well as Iraq, and been involved in, actual fighting. Not as much as the US, obviously, and probably replaceable if push came to shove, but it is a country of only a little more than 5.5 million people.

From a quick search, Denmark did run out of bombs during the Libya thing, but we bummed extra ones from the Netherlands, not the US: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110609/DEFSECT01/106090302/Danish-Planes-Libya-Running-Out-Bombs-Report

Tellingly, the only news I can find about the planes we sent to Libya are when we withdrew them.

We participate in a lot of sea-based missions though, particularly in the Horn of Africa. The Navy is in decent shape.

[Razgovory]

I'd like to think that as well.  I do remember the UK was bumming off fuel and bombs of the US during the Libyan thingy though.  Don't know about Denmark.

I'm under the impression that Denmark has contributed assets to every NATO action in the last several decades, as well as Iraq, and been involved in, actual fighting. Not as much as the US, obviously, and probably replaceable if push came to shove, but it is a country of only a little more than 5.5 million people.

From a quick search, Denmark did run out of bombs during the Libya thing, but we bummed extra ones from the Netherlands, not the US: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110609/DEFSECT01/106090302/Danish-Planes-Libya-Running-Out-Bombs-Report

Denmark is a fairly small country, nobody expects them to have a carrier group or anything.  Britain on the other hand, is expected do something like that.  Canada did have a carrier in the cold war it was a small one, so small that everyone seemed to think the Canadians were crazy to land jets on it.  Worked though.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Denmark is a fairly small country, nobody expects them to have a carrier group or anything.  Britain on the other hand, is expected do something like that.  Canada did have a carrier in the cold war it was a small one, so small that everyone seemed to think the Canadians were crazy to land jets on it.  Worked though.

Yes, but apparently the Danish Air Force has more operational combat aircraft than the Luftwaffe.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

SO, does Obama have a plan yet? Cause by the time the european leaders have extracted their heads from their arses they'll find their necks annexed by Putin.

[Barrister]

I'd like to think that as well.  I do remember the UK was bumming off fuel and bombs of the US during the Libyan thingy though.  Don't know about Denmark.

I'm under the impression that Denmark has contributed assets to every NATO action in the last several decades, as well as Iraq, and been involved in, actual fighting. Not as much as the US, obviously, and probably replaceable if push came to shove, but it is a country of only a little more than 5.5 million people.

From a quick search, Denmark did run out of bombs during the Libya thing, but we bummed extra ones from the Netherlands, not the US: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110609/DEFSECT01/106090302/Danish-Planes-Libya-Running-Out-Bombs-Report

Denmark is a fairly small country, nobody expects them to have a carrier group or anything.  Britain on the other hand, is expected do something like that.  Canada did have a carrier in the cold war it was a small one, so small that everyone seemed to think the Canadians were crazy to land jets on it.  Worked though.

HMCS Bonaventure! 

Trouble is that military development costs have increased dramatically, if not exponentially.  Back in the 506 and 60s we could develop our own fighter aircraft too.  Now unless the US wanted to build one for us there'd be no way we could build an aircraft carrier, never mind how we'd afford to pay for it.

[Razgovory]

SO, does Obama have a plan yet? Cause by the time the european leaders have extracted their heads from their arses they'll find their necks annexed by Putin.

I doubt it.

[Berkut]

It's kind of scary how completely leaderless NATO seems. There doesn't seem to be any actual idea or plan from anyone.

Obama certainly is not leading anything. Is anyone?

[Barrister]

It's kind of scary how completely leaderless NATO seems. There doesn't seem to be any actual idea or plan from anyone.

Obama certainly is not leading anything. Is anyone?

I wouldn't say there's "no actual plan".  In fact Obama and NATO seem to be handling the situation about as well as you can.

Their plan seems to be:

A - to try not to increase the tension.  Don't make it US vs Russia, so as to give Russia room to back down and save face.
B - give training and support to the new Ukrainian government and to the Ukrainian military, including some intelligence.
C - re-inforce the bright line of NATO membership
D - have a series in gradually increasing sanctions imposed on Russia.

In the end, if Putin wants to roll tanks into Kiev he can and will, and the West will not risk world War III over Ukraine and will not militarily intervene.  But even now Russia is NOT rolling tanks into Kiev, because he also knows what the consequences of that will be.

[derspiess]

It's kind of scary how completely leaderless NATO seems. There doesn't seem to be any actual idea or plan from anyone.

Obama certainly is not leading anything. Is anyone?

So are you saying... we don't have a strategy yet?

[DGuller]

I'm sure we have a secret strategy all worked out.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I'm sure we have a secret strategy all worked out.

It involves Zombie Manstein.

[The Brain]

Obama will give Putin a backhanded compliment.

[Jacob]

Those of you wondering about our strategy, what are you looking for? What are the goals that should be pursued? What are actions that would facilitate those goals?

Personally, I'm not super keen on going all-out to the mat against Russia over the Ukraine. So along those lines, I'm not really in favour of blustery rhetoric. Bright red lines are only worth something if there's muscular action ready to go behind it, and much as I loathe Putin I don't think the possible upsides of muscular action is worth the potential downsides.

I also think that if Putin wants to turn Russia into some version of a totalitarian propaganda driven state then that's what he's going to do, whatever the West does. Influencing that is pretty outside our range of actions at this point; the end to that will come, if it comes at all, as a result of internal Russian conditions.

It seems to me that the way to play this is to try to bleed Putin out rather than give him a big confrontation. So yeah, economic sanctions that hurt and proxy war in the Ukraine, escalating from soft to medium firm or even hard over time. Right now, Putin is all tough and winning and oh so macho, but how long is this going to last? What are the achievable exit strategies for Putin? It seems to me that he runs a real risk of this turning into another Afghanistan or Iraq occupation and those aren't that fun.

So yeah, I don't know enough about the particulars of every given response, and I find the mealy mouthed wishing things were different or straight up Putin appreciation out of certain quarters pretty annoying, but it seems to me that what's happening now is more or less what we should be doing - ratcheting up the consequences and laying the rhetorical groundwork for funnelling in support to the Ukraine.

What should we be doing?

[DGuller]

Something! 

[mongers]

Something! 

Politicians need to be gesturing wildly, that's what they do.