Ukraine

[jclay]

A short ditty worth reading for those who won't; unnecessary for most who will; funny, the universality of that MO.

https://tomdispatch.com/americas-dis...s-60-year-war/

William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and professor of history, is a TomDispatch regular and a senior fellow at the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN), an organization of critical veteran military and national security professionals. His personal blog is Bracing Views.

[j44ke]

That's a quote from President Biden so if that qualifies as a conspiracy theory then it's one within his administration.

I'm all ears (or eyes) to your knowledge of the inner workings of the West Wing. Biden and his team won't answer the question of how he would "end Nord Stream 2," or he hasn't yet to my knowledge.

The announcement was made during his visit with the German chancellor, who concurred. There was very likely a promise to fill any loss of supply with American natural gas and fund any legal costs associated with breaking contracts plus loss of transport revenue if Germany agreed to step away from their agreement with Russia on Nord Stream 2. So I don’t think there was any plan to destroy the pipeline, which as far as I know is not complete, but to rescind right of way agreements and transport agreements (or whatever the correct terms are) that created the collaboration between the countries and allowed Russian gas into cross German territory.

My wife worked on various legal aspects on one of the major pipelines running across Georgia and through Turkey to the Mediterranean. It was pretty intense work and had a Russian peacekeeping invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the middle of it. But she’d be able to explain the legal leverage of sovereign countries over pipelines that run through their territories. I doubt there would be any need to destroy the pipeline to stop its function. It would cost Germany not just the loss of gas supply but money from right of way access and transport of fuel over German territory (which would not be insignificant) plus any resulting arbitration cases, which is why I expect there would be guarantees from the US to soften the financial blow.

Edit: The pipeline is functioning. Two branches were finished last year.

[9tubes]

I suppose it is possible that there would be that kind of conspiracy theory. That Germany, as one of the countries (of four or five?) along the route of the pipeline would conspire to break its transit agreements, break supply agreements, break agreements with various contractors for installation and maintenance and so forth of the pipeline, plus break its downstream contracts, etc. Then in the process deprive the rest of the EU of natural gas and force them to break their contracts internally and externally. And above all to unilaterally force everyone to pay higher prices for natural gas.

I watched the press conference and I am not so sure that from the words and body language of the German chancellor that he was in on this scheme as you say. After all, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one side he faces the tremendous arm twisting power of the United States. On the other side he has to face the German people and his fellow EU leaders, and it is going to be difficult to explain to them why their natural gas bills are going to be much higher in the future because he chose to break all those agreements in order to help America's goals of putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine and selling more natural gas. I'm no expert on German and EU politics but that doesn't seem like a very popular move. Most important, would the German legislature approve?

If Biden paid the Saudis to hire some of their pet terrorists to blow up the pipeline in the name of say, Chechen independence, it would be a lot easier. If we think about it, he would be doing the German Chancellor a favor. But hey, you and I are both engaging in rank speculation with no basis at all. Let's just get a batch of popcorn and see what happens.

[bigbill]

As a retired navy guy, I follow the strategic positioning of ships when the mood hits me. The United States Naval Institute (USNI) makes an interesting point concerning the deployment of ALL the remaining former Soviet Union large surface combatants. These are the large cruisers that bristle with weapons meant to intimidate during the Cold War. In the past decades, they have spent almost all of their time tied to a pier. They are old, outdated, and largely held together by 40 years of paint. It is curious why the Russians put them all to sea.

This is a short but good read. https://blog.usni.org/posts/2022/02/...-of-the-giants

[9tubes]

I don't see it as curious why Russia would put their ships to sea. This is their Cuban Missile Crisis moment. They have watched as the U.S. put missiles in Poland and Romania recently. They know those missile silos are designed to hold and fire nuclear tipped missiles just as easily as non-nuclear. Russia doesn't want missiles on its southern border. It also doesn't want the U.S. located between its southern (and eastern) borders to be able to block the supply routes to the Russian navy base in Crimea. Simple as that.

Just as in 1962 when Nikita Khrushchev put a military base in Cuba, America put its navy to sea.

[bigbill]

I don't see it as curious why Russia would put their ships to sea. This is their Cuban Missile Crisis moment. They have watched as the U.S. put missiles in Poland and Romania recently. They know those missile silos are designed to hold and fire nuclear tipped missiles just as easily as non-nuclear. Russia doesn't want missiles on its southern border. It also doesn't want the U.S. located between its southern (and eastern) borders to be able to block the supply routes to the Russian navy base in Crimea. Simple as that.

Just as in 1962 when Nikita Khrushchev put a military base in Cuba, America put its navy to sea.

Read the article, it's their last hurrah. A blaze of glory if you will. We deployed our navy around Cuba as a blockade with no intention of losing them. The missile system in Poland is defensive, it will shoot SM-3s which are three stage interceptor missiles. There are no nuclear warheads for them. NATO supposedly keeps a cache of air dropped nukes in Germany, no missiles. The US and Russia don't need to put nuke weapons on anyone's border, both nations have the ability to hit land based targets with submarine launched ICBMs.

[ElvisMerckx]

...This is their Cuban Missile Crisis moment. They have watched as the U.S. put missiles in Poland and Romania recently...

So Russia invading Ukraine is about a defensive missile system negotiated 12 years ago and installed 8 years ago in countries that don't happen to be Ukraine? Okay.

And, no, you can't just plug different missile systems with unique kinematics and varying payloads into any silo.

[Mabouya]

That's a quote from President Biden so if that qualifies as a conspiracy theory then it's one within his administration.

I'm all ears (or eyes) to your knowledge of the inner workings of the West Wing. Biden and his team won't answer the question of how he would "end Nord Stream 2," or he hasn't yet to my knowledge.

Joe Biden said that they were going to destroy the pipeline? That would be news.

He said they would end it, he did not say they would destroy it. You said that, and that's what I'm calling you out for. Don't be silly.

[9tubes]

The missile system in Poland is defensive, it will shoot SM-3s which are three stage interceptor missiles. There are no nuclear warheads for them. NATO supposedly keeps a cache of air dropped nukes in Germany, no missiles. The US and Russia don't need to put nuke weapons on anyone's border, both nations have the ability to hit land based targets with submarine launched ICBMs.

The claim of defensive missiles is that the U.S. is protecting Europe from a missile attack from Iran. Iran has no beef with Europe, no reason to attack. Plus, Iran has no missiles that can go that far. An analogy would be if you were John Kennedy in 1962 and Nikita Khrushchev claimed that his missiles in Cuba were to protect Brazil from attack by Canada. Would you believe him?

There are very few people with the security clearances and positions to have actual knowledge of what weapons are on those closed military bases. Are you one of them?

Yes, the U.S. has the ability to hit land based targets with submarines. But shorter distances equals less reaction time.

[bigbill]

The claim of defensive missiles is that the U.S. is protecting Europe from a missile attack from Iran. Iran has no beef with Europe, no reason to attack. Plus, Iran has no missiles that can go that far. An analogy would be if you were John Kennedy in 1962 and Nikita Khrushchev claimed that his missiles in Cuba were to protect Brazil from attack by Canada. Would you believe him?

There are very few people with the security clearances and positions to have actual knowledge of what weapons are on those closed military bases. Are you one of them?

Yes, the U.S. has the ability to hit land based targets with submarines. But shorter distances equals less reaction time.

I guess your background isn't in history.

You seem to want to sell fear by making unsubstantiated assumptions about weapons systems. I was a surface warfare officer and had a good working knowledge of the SM3 missile which is what was placed in Poland. It is a surface to air missile with the SM3 version being able to reach suborbital altitudes to take out ballistic missiles. It's been tested over the Pacific.

For your unfounded assumption about using theater tactical nukes, the only NATO weapons possibly still in Europe exist to slow a Russian invasion until reinforcements can be moved into the battlefield. That strategy has existed since the beginning of the Cold War. Google Fulda Gap.

[vertical_doug]

I guess your background isn't in history.

You seem to want to sell fear by making unsubstantiated assumptions about weapons systems. I was a surface warfare officer and had a good working knowledge of the SM3 missile which is what was placed in Poland. It is a surface to air missile with the SM3 version being able to reach suborbital altitudes to take out ballistic missiles. It's been tested over the Pacific.

For your unfounded assumption about using theater tactical nukes, the only NATO weapons possibly still in Europe exist to slow a Russian invasion until reinforcements can be moved into the battlefield. That strategy has existed since the beginning of the Cold War. Google Fulda Gap.

But isn't the end game still the D5 with MIRVs. Is the SM3 effective against a SLBM? And is it effective enough when you have 14 Ohio Class with 24 missiles each... I hope our strategy is still MAD.

I've been to Hiroshima and to Nagasaki in the 1980's. I did the calcs for a Ohio Class in number of Hiroshimas, and it is miind numbing.

(I assume the Russians have an equivalent to the SM3)

[bigbill]

But isn't the end game still the D5 with MIRVs. Is the SM3 effective against a SLBM? And is it effective enough when you have 14 Ohio Class with 24 missiles each... I hope our strategy is still MAD.

I've been to Hiroshima and to Nagasaki in the 1980's. I did the calcs for a Ohio Class in number of Hiroshimas, and it is miind numbing.

(I assume the Russians have an equivalent to the SM3)

SLBM's are deterrents, in theory. The complexity is what requires a response. SM3s are designed to intercept ballistic missiles, the sub launched ones can come from just about anywhere so that adds a degree of difficulty in the intercept. We keep cruisers (CGs) in the western Pacific to shoot down missiles coming from the Korean Peninsula that aren't MIRV. I did 8 strategic deterrent patrols on a Trident sub from 87-92. That was during the C4 days. During the first gulf war, we were constantly going on alert in the event Saddam went unconventional.

MIRV means wider coverage with smaller warheads, but I don't think any of that comes into play in Ukraine. My original point several posts ago was from the USNI article. The Russians sortied every capital ship they have. Ships that haven't deployed since the fall of the Soviet Union. This fits into the Russian model of wars of attrition. As long as these ships fire their missiles, it doesn't matter if the ships are damaged or destroyed afterwards. They really don't want them back anyway.

[choke]

The missile system in Poland is defensive, it will shoot SM-3s which are three stage interceptor missiles. There are no nuclear warheads for them.

My understanding is that the Aegis Ashore systems in Poland and Romania use the Mark 41 VLS. Even though the intent is to arm them with the SM-3 missle, the Mk 41 is also used to fire Tomahawk missles which can be equipped with nuclear warheads. Therefore, it wouldn't be a huge challenge to replace the SM-3 missles with Tomahawks if the situation warrents.

[jclay]

The important questions don't revolve around who has the biggest, baddest nail gun and tough guy posing; they're more along the lines of "why are we building yet another unnecessary house out of wood in wild fire country?"

Over and out.

[bigbill]

My understanding is that the Aegis Ashore systems in Poland and Romania use the Mark 41 VLS. Even though the intent is to arm them with the SM-3 missle, the Mk 41 is also used to fire Tomahawk missles which can be equipped with nuclear warheads. Therefore, it wouldn't be a huge challenge to replace the SM-3 missles with Tomahawks if the situation warrents.

No. The nuclear-tipped Tomahawk, which has been out of service for a decade, is sea-launched from submarines. It would be a huge and impractical undertaking to put vertically launched cruise missiles in Poland, even conventional ones. Tomahawks are subsonic and rely upon mobile platforms to be effective. Launching one from a known location would easily be shot down by anyone with a decent surface to air missile capability, like Russia. The nuclear tomahawks were originally meant to increase the potential US nuclear response by supplementing the capacity from submarine launched ICBMs. Here's a good link. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...lear-tomahawks

[9tubes]

I was a surface warfare officer and had a good working knowledge of the SM3 missile which is what was placed in Poland. It is a surface to air missile with the SM3 version being able to reach suborbital altitudes to take out ballistic missiles. It's been tested over the Pacific.

Thanks for confirming that you are not in a position to know what is there now and have no way to know the future. I find it discomforting that a former military officer would be so sure that technologies don't or won't change, that plans don't or won't change, and that the U.S. military would be transparent to you and me of the general populace.

If you were in the position of Kennedy in 1962, you would have taken the USSR's word for what was on those military bases or what might be on them in the future?

[jclay]

Posted in Moon over Alabama

Jack Matlock, the last U.S. ambassador to the USSR, has one answer:

Maybe I am wrong – tragically wrong – but I cannot dismiss the suspicion that we are witnessing an elaborate charade, grossly magnified by prominent elements of the American media, to serve a domestic political end. Facing rising inflation, the ravages of Omicron, blame (for the most part unfair) for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, plus the failure to get the full support of his own party for the Build Back Better legislation, the Biden administration is staggering under sagging approval ratings just as it gears up for this year’s congressional elections.

Since clear "victories" on the domestic woes seem increasingly unlikely, why not fabricate one by posing as if he prevented the invasion of Ukraine by "standing up to Vladimir Putin"?

Actually, it seems most likely that President Putin’s goals are what he says they are – and as he has been saying since his speech in Munich in 2007. To simplify and paraphrase, I would sum them up as: "Treat us with at least a modicum of respect. We do not threaten you or your allies, why do you refuse us the security you insist for yourself?"

More here:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/0...sion-scam.html

And wrt Cuba: We put missile batteries in Turkey first....so exactly who precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis?

And something upon which I agree with the American Conservative mag: https://www.theamericanconservative....ne-government/

[bigbill]

Thanks for confirming that you are not in a position to know what is there now and have no way to know the future. I find it discomforting that a former military officer would be so sure that technologies don't or won't change, that plans don't or won't change, and that the U.S. military would be transparent to you and me of the general populace.

If you were in the position of Kennedy in 1962, you would have taken the USSR's word for what was on those military bases or what might be on them in the future?

Wow, what a response. I am humbled by your superior reasoning and intellect. Your grasp of history is unique.

[jclay]

In related news, an interesting article "What If the U.S. Hadn’t Gone to War After 9/11?" https://theintercept.com/2022/02/08/...-alternatives/

Organisms, including humans and corporations, do what they're incentivized to do....so I reckon General Dynamics et al. won't be opining that maybe we ought to be thinking of ways to address global problems that don't consume as much gunpowder or high explosives as our last 20 years. I think I'm on solid ground there.

[choke]

The important questions don't revolve around who has the biggest, baddest nail gun and tough guy posing; they're more along the lines of "why are we building yet another unnecessary house out of wood in wild fire country?"

Over and out.

A house with a gasoline filled moat around it.

No. The nuclear-tipped Tomahawk, which has been out of service for a decade, is sea-launched from submarines. It would be a huge and impractical undertaking to put vertically launched cruise missiles in Poland, even conventional ones. Tomahawks are subsonic and rely upon mobile platforms to be effective. Launching one from a known location would easily be shot down by anyone with a decent surface to air missile capability, like Russia. The nuclear tomahawks were originally meant to increase the potential US nuclear response by supplementing the capacity from submarine launched ICBMs. Here's a good link. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...lear-tomahawks

That's nice info, but I wasn't commenting on whether or not it makes sense to fire cruise missiles from the Aegis Ashore, rather on whether it is possible since that is one of Russia's concerns with those facilities. Everything that I have found says that it is indeed possible.

With regard to your USNI link, the INF Treaty is no longer valid.

The offer for a “transparency mechanism” to ensure there are no Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles at the two Aegis Ashore sites in Romania and Poland is contingent upon Moscow also offering similar transparency for two ground-launched missiles bases that the U.S. chooses, according to a leaked U.S. document published by Spanish newspaper El País and confirmed by U.S. officials.

The two sites have the same air-search radar and Mk-41 vertical launch system as U.S. destroyers and can technically field a variety of missiles. However, the U.S. has insisted that the Aegis Ashore sites only field Standard Missile 3 ballistic missile interceptors for a BMD defense capability against Iranian missiles. Moscow has said the sites threaten Russian security

. https://news.usni.org/2022/02/02/u-s...aded-to-europe