Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-24-2024

It's possible that the flares and chaff both deploy at same time as a countermeasure on the A-50, we're only able to see the flares. But the operators knew something was lighting them up in any case. Another possibility would be a shorter range takedown by some sort of commando force behind enemy lines with a IR missile. The Ukrainian Air Force and Intelligence Department jointly claimed credit.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 02-25-2024

(02-24-2024, 09:57 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Another possibility would be a shorter range takedown by some sort of commando force behind enemy lines with a IR missile. The Ukrainian Air Force and Intelligence Department jointly claimed credit.

If that, then two missiles.  I don't know how much harder it would be to smuggle 2 missiles in.


Generals falling out of windows is still ahead of A-50s falling out of the sky.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-25-2024

(02-24-2024, 09:57 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  It's possible that the flares and chaff both deploy at same time as a countermeasure on the A-50, we're only able to see the flares.

Could be. If the target A-50 detected the missile but held no missile guidance radar, using both makes sense. It may be an infrared missile, in which case the flares are the only countermeasure. It could also be a radar guided missile that for unknown reasons was not detected by the RWR/ESM system. In that case chaff would make sense, but since you don't know, you use both. Some countermeasures systems do indeed take the "do both" approach unconditionally. I would expect an A-50 to have a better capability. Certainly if it was a Patriot missile the A-50 should have detected it with their own active radar early enough to know what it was and not bother with flares. They may not have passively detected it's guidance radar (though they should have), but they would know by it's long flight profile it was radar guided. If it was infrared they should have detected it with their radar before it hit them, but not by too much. That kind of matches what we see in the video.

Quote:But the operators knew something was lighting them up in any case.

Not necessarily. The active radar on the A-50 is the primary sensor. The A-50 also has RWR/ECM capability, but that is a secondary sensor. Infrared Missile Approach Warning (MAW) basically doesn't work very well. It is OK if the rocket motor is still burning (or you detect the launch), but after that it isn't very sensitive. The front view of the missile doesn't radiate much heat.

Quote:Another possibility would be a shorter range takedown by some sort of commando force behind enemy lines with a IR missile. The Ukrainian Air Force and Intelligence Department jointly claimed credit.

IMO that scenario fits the known data much better. I am not sure of the location/geometry, but it appeared to that the A-50 was operating at a relatively low altitude, as if it was just starting or ending it's mission. Most IR missiles are relatively short range, which seems to match what happened.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-25-2024

https://armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/breaking_news_russia_deploys_a-50_aewc_aircraft_for_enhanced_s-400_sa-21_missile_guidance_in_ukraine.html#google_vignette

This is somewhat "old news", and it is unclear if we can trust it. The A-50 was always advertised to have this capability, but AFAIK there were no known examples of it's use. That is still true, as these press reports aren't exactly loaded with verifiable real-time data. However, this capability could be REALLY bad news for both the F-16 deployment and US air and cruise missile strikes against targets overwatched by A-50 aircraft and cooperating S-400 sites. 

The Russian S-400 SAMs have a very long range. This capability was initially provided to shoot down NATO AWACS aircraft and any B-1/B-52 aircraft stupid enough to be approaching at high altitude. However, this very long range is only very seldom useful in practice. No airstrike is going to approach an area containing S-400s at high altitude. They will just "tickle" the underside of the radar horizon on their flight inbound. Eventually the S-400 will "see" them, but only when they are relatively close to the S-400 and possibly within HARM range. In any case, the long range is wasted. You have a big, expensive missile with no place to go.

Most of the S-400 missiles (even to day) are SARAH, that is the target must be illuminated by the launcher. This is also true of the Patriot. While TVM may reduce the power level required of the illuminator, you still need one. Recognizing that the illuminator makes it easy for the target to know it is being attacked, the US developed "fire and forget" missiles for the Patriot and other anti-aircraft systems. The PAC-2 (and earlier) missiles are SARAH. The PAC-3/PAC-3 MSE are true radar homing (fire and forget). The Patriot doesn't need to "illuminate" the target. The Patriot uses the tracking radar to steer the PAC-3 "close enough" to the target. The missile then is commanded to "go active" and steers itself the rest of the way. The AMRAAM is of course the current "poster child" of this technology, but it is present in many other missile systems. The equivalent S-400 missiles are the 48N6E3 (SARAH) and the subsequent 9M96/9M96E2 (active radar homing). It appears that the vast majority of the S-400 missiles in the Russian inventory are 48N6E3.

The common limitation in both these missiles is that the tracking radar has to be able to "see" the target to be able to launch anything at all. If the tracking radar can see it, the illuminator can illuminate it. The advantage of not requiring an illuminator is very real, but what you can hit is not different. Aircraft and cruise missiles that stay below the radar horizon until the "last minute" are relatively safe from the S-400 (and Patriot). The US has the capability for an AWACS (and F-35) to command launch and guide a Patriot to the target using their ability to greatly increase their radar horizon by operating at 30,000 ft or more. The Patriot need not even be operating it's radar at all. The AWACS gets the PAC-3 "close enough" and lets the PAC-3 do the rest. Flying low doesn't help you if the AWACS can still see you (and it can :-). Obviously, this won't work with SARAH missiles.

The "big deal" in the cited article is that possibly Russia can do the same thing. Much worse, their missiles have significantly greater range than the Patriots. The mitigating circumstances are that 1) we don't know if it is true, 2) supposedly Russia didn't make many 9M96 missiles, and 3) we don't know if the data transfer to the missile was "automated". It may have required a voice transfer of data that somebody had to manually enter into the S-400 system. IOW, was it a demonstration of feasibility or an exercise of an existing capability.  No matter how one looks at it, this isn't "good".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-26-2024

(02-25-2024, 03:47 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/breaking_news_russia_deploys_a-50_aewc_aircraft_for_enhanced_s-400_sa-21_missile_guidance_in_ukraine.html#google_vignette

This is somewhat "old news", and it is unclear if we can trust it. The A-50 was always advertised to have this capability, but AFAIK there were no known examples of it's use. That is still true, as these press reports aren't exactly loaded with verifiable real-time data. However, this capability could be REALLY bad news for both the F-16 deployment and US air and cruise missile strikes against targets overwatched by A-50 aircraft and cooperating S-400 sites. 

The Russian S-400 SAMs have a very long range. This capability was initially provided to shoot down NATO AWACS aircraft and any B-1/B-52 aircraft stupid enough to be approaching at high altitude. However, this very long range is only very seldom useful in practice. No airstrike is going to approach an area containing S-400s at high altitude. They will just "tickle" the underside of the radar horizon on their flight inbound. Eventually the S-400 will "see" them, but only when they are relatively close to the S-400 and possibly within HARM range. In any case, the long range is wasted. You have a big, expensive missile with no place to go.

Most of the S-400 missiles (even to day) are SARAH, that is the target must be illuminated by the launcher. This is also true of the Patriot. While TVM may reduce the power level required of the illuminator, you still need one. Recognizing that the illuminator makes it easy for the target to know it is being attacked, the US developed "fire and forget" missiles for the Patriot and other anti-aircraft systems. The PAC-2 (and earlier) missiles are SARAH. The PAC-3/PAC-3 MSE are true radar homing (fire and forget). The Patriot doesn't need to "illuminate" the target. The Patriot uses the tracking radar to steer the PAC-3 "close enough" to the target. The missile then is commanded to "go active" and steers itself the rest of the way. The AMRAAM is of course the current "poster child" of this technology, but it is present in many other missile systems. The equivalent S-400 missiles are the 48N6E3 (SARAH) and the subsequent 9M96/9M96E2 (active radar homing). It appears that the vast majority of the S-400 missiles in the Russian inventory are 48N6E3.

The common limitation in both these missiles is that the tracking radar has to be able to "see" the target to be able to launch anything at all. If the tracking radar can see it, the illuminator can illuminate it. The advantage of not requiring an illuminator is very real, but what you can hit is not different. Aircraft and cruise missiles that stay below the radar horizon until the "last minute" are relatively safe from the S-400 (and Patriot). The US has the capability for an AWACS (and F-35) to command launch and guide a Patriot to the target using their ability to greatly increase their radar horizon by operating at 30,000 ft or more. The Patriot need not even be operating it's radar at all. The AWACS gets the PAC-3 "close enough" and lets the PAC-3 do the rest. Flying low doesn't help you if the AWACS can still see you (and it can :-). Obviously, this won't work with SARAH missiles.

The "big deal" in the cited article is that possibly Russia can do the same thing. Much worse, their missiles have significantly greater range than the Patriots. The mitigating circumstances are that 1) we don't know if it is true, 2) supposedly Russia didn't make many 9M96 missiles, and 3) we don't know if the data transfer to the missile was "automated". It may have required a voice transfer of data that somebody had to manually enter into the S-400 system. IOW, was it a demonstration of feasibility or an exercise of an existing capability.  No matter how one looks at it, this isn't "good".

Going off on a different tangent, I found this article which I find very interesting.  Strikes me as having a fair amount of truth in it.  I wonder what others think?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-26-2024

Hungary has approved Sweden's accession. The Baltic Sea is now "NATO Lake".

https://x.com/JackDetsch/status/1762205387304886601?s=20

Interesting thread here on what Sweden's accession means for NATO in the Baltic.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-26-2024

(02-26-2024, 06:57 AM)GK3 Wrote:  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html

Unfortunately it is behind a paywall. However https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28664 supposedly give a summary of the NYT article. Most of what is being said is unsurprising. However, you can be sure "CIA" is a collective term for groups that are not at all part of the CIA. It is also probable that the "bases" referred to in the article are staffed wholly by Ukrainians. They may have US "visitors" but they don't stay long. MI6 was referenced, but I would suspect the BND and the VZ have tentacles in Ukraine too. It is often the case what one reads in the paper about intelligence activities is there for a reason.  In this case I think it is obvious that Ukraine wanted to make very clear they are providing valuable intelligence as a "partial payment" for the help they are getting. That doesn't make it false, but it often makes it only partially true :-).

Another interesting article is the following:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-winning-gen-petraeus-ukraine-084759611.html

As a disclaimer I don't much respect Petraeus. He was a "Jedi Knight" who for a while became a low grade Darth Vader. However, he does "know some things" and expresses them quite well at times. The one I really like from the above:

Quote:BERGEN: The Biden administration and Congress have already sent around $75 billion in aid to Ukraine. Why should Americans spend more on funding the Ukrainians?
PETRAEUS: Because it’s in our fundamental national security interest. It’s in the interest of our prosperity and the rules-based international order that we and our allies and partners in the wake of World War II established, which, for all of its imperfections, generally furthered our interests and those of our allies and partners.

Other countries – Russia and its various confederates around the world – are trying to make the world safe for autocracy, not safe for democracy, and our interests and those of our NATO allies and the free world are defended now at the Ukraine-Russia border.

This is not charity. What we do around the world is not out of the goodness of our heart. It’s out of a cold calculation. It is in our national interest to do so, and that if we do not do so, conditions in the world will change in ways that will not be positive for either our national security or our national prosperity.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-26-2024

(02-26-2024, 01:07 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Hungary has approved Sweden's accession. The Baltic Sea is now "NATO Lake".

https://x.com/JackDetsch/status/1762205387304886601?s=20

Interesting thread here on what Sweden's accession means for NATO in the Baltic.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine lit a fire under some countries.  Sweden was happily neutral and not a big spender on defense relative to GDP for many years.  Now it's a NATO member and over the 2% of GDP target.  Finland and Poland also changed course as a result of the invasion.  And of course the Baltics are panicking.  All of that has significantly strengthened NATO's position.  But can we light a fire under some of the big economic powers in Europe to follow suit?  And is that a good idea?  I throw up in my mouth when I think of Germany entering an arms race.   But maybe I need to reorient my thinking to the modern world and recognize that Germany truly is a force for good in Europe.  It is, right?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 02-26-2024

(02-26-2024, 02:56 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(02-26-2024, 01:07 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Hungary has approved Sweden's accession. The Baltic Sea is now "NATO Lake".

https://x.com/JackDetsch/status/1762205387304886601?s=20

Interesting thread here on what Sweden's accession means for NATO in the Baltic.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine lit a fire under some countries.  Sweden was happily neutral and not a big spender on defense relative to GDP for many years.  Now it's a NATO member and over the 2% of GDP target.  Finland and Poland also changed course as a result of the invasion.  And of course the Baltics are panicking.  All of that has significantly strengthened NATO's position.  But can we light a fire under some of the big economic powers in Europe to follow suit?  And is that a good idea?  I throw up in my mouth when I think of Germany entering an arms race.   But maybe I need to reorient my thinking to the modern world and recognize that Germany truly is a force for good in Europe.  It is, right?

Sure. It's not like they're warlike or anything...

List of wars involving Germany

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-26-2024

(02-26-2024, 02:56 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  Russia's invasion of Ukraine lit a fire under some countries.  Sweden was happily neutral and not a big spender on defense relative to GDP for many years.  Now it's a NATO member and over the 2% of GDP target.  Finland and Poland also changed course as a result of the invasion.  And of course the Baltics are panicking.  All of that has significantly strengthened NATO's position.  But can we light a fire under some of the big economic powers in Europe to follow suit?  And is that a good idea?  I throw up in my mouth when I think of Germany entering an arms race.   But maybe I need to reorient my thinking to the modern world and recognize that Germany truly is a force for good in Europe.  It is, right?

Sure it is, as long as it is in NATO and the US is there to "babysit" all will remain "peaceful" between the EU neighbors. FWIW I don't think today's young Germans want anything to do with the military. That is part of the problem, because Germany does need an military defense. However, as history shows things can change quite quickly. Germany has been the "banker" for the EU because they have the largest economy. At some point, they may not want to do that any more, especially if their economy is weakening.Things can happen. That is a very underappreciated benefit of NATO. It keeps the peace in Europe.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-26-2024

(02-26-2024, 01:07 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Hungary has approved Sweden's accession. The Baltic Sea is now "NATO Lake".

https://x.com/JackDetsch/status/1762205387304886601?s=20

Interesting thread here on what Sweden's accession means for NATO in the Baltic.

Jack Detsch is only half right about Sweden's defense spending. Sweden spent over 2.0% of it's GDP on defense every year until 1997. Like most European countries, it's defense spending declined after the end of the cold war, as did that of the US.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=SE

Having Sweden in NATO is a "big deal" from an intelligence point of view. It is a "big deal" because it denies Russia the ability to "hide" in "neutral" waters, assuming they could get ships/submarines that far. Russia has been probing Sweden for years. It was always assumed that in the event of war Russia would take advantage of Sweden trying to be "neutral". Not anymore!

NATO was already in pretty good shape in the Baltic. The route from St. Petersburg is NATO on both sides, so nothing is coming that way. That is why the Baltic Fleet base is in Kaliningrad. However, any ships/submarines leaving there are totally out in the open. They wouldn't last long in any case. The Gdańsk-Klaipėda line will be mined immediately. Also, the presence of a Russian nuclear submarine in the Baltic Sea to attend "Navy Day" in St. Petersburg is about the only time one would see them. The Baltic is no place for a nuclear submarine. Foxtrots are another matter however.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-26-2024

(02-26-2024, 05:10 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-26-2024, 02:56 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  Russia's invasion of Ukraine lit a fire under some countries.  Sweden was happily neutral and not a big spender on defense relative to GDP for many years.  Now it's a NATO member and over the 2% of GDP target.  Finland and Poland also changed course as a result of the invasion.  And of course the Baltics are panicking.  All of that has significantly strengthened NATO's position.  But can we light a fire under some of the big economic powers in Europe to follow suit?  And is that a good idea?  I throw up in my mouth when I think of Germany entering an arms race.   But maybe I need to reorient my thinking to the modern world and recognize that Germany truly is a force for good in Europe.  It is, right?

Sure it is, as long as it is in NATO and the US is there to "babysit" all will remain "peaceful" between the EU neighbors. FWIW I don't think today's young Germans want anything to do with the military. That is part of the problem, because Germany does need an military defense. However, as history shows things can change quite quickly. Germany has been the "banker" for the EU because they have the largest economy. At some point, they may not want to do that any more, especially if their economy is weakening.Things can happen. That is a very underappreciated benefit of NATO. It keeps the peace in Europe.

Western Europe has a larger population than Russia and probably a much larger economic engine.  The Mark, Franc etc. are gone and we have had the Euro for some time. Unfortunately, getting the disparate members of "Western Europe" to think as a common country has yet to happen but I think it is getting closer. The world has changed if you are a smaller country, you need to be part of a larger entity if you want to survive when the balloon goes up. I believe that as time goes on, Western Europe will become more of a country with states like France, Germany, the UK etc.  A 100 years ago the world was a different place.  Time has shown that relying on the USA could be a mistake.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-26-2024

(02-26-2024, 07:36 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Western Europe has a larger population than Russia and probably a much larger economic engine.  The Mark, Franc etc. are gone and we have had the Euro for some time. Unfortunately, getting the disparate members of "Western Europe" to think as a common country has yet to happen but I think it is getting closer.

Fair enough. FWIW, I think the opposite is happening. The economic benefits of the EU and the Euro have concentrated themselves in Germany and the Netherlands, with France kind of tagging along. Virtually everybody else believes (with good reason in most cases) that they were better off with their own currency. When your goods became noncompetitive, you devalued your currency. Now you can't do that, leaving you in a permanent state of financial imbalance and dependence on loans (that you can't pay). The argument has been made that the Deutschmark was rising in value and that would have slowed down Germany's economic success, but the creation of the Euro created a currency that was the "average" of all the countries, including lots of countries that in fact had to lie to qualify for the Euro. That works great for Germany, because it keeps their currency weaker than it would be if they were on their own. Unfortunately it creates a currency that is too strong for most everybody else.

These more "have not" states also believe that "Brussels is taking over" and they don't like it much. Agricultural regulations that result in Italy importing oranges from Israel while at the same time destroying 20% of the domestic orange crop doesn't sit well. The Spanish like it because it protects their orange growers. Most of these "have not" nations would leave the Euro if they could, but they have borrowed so much Euro-denominated money they can't afford to leave either. Their credit would collapse. It certainly isn't a "boy, this is better" consensus, in fact the opposite. I run into this type of reasoning quite frequently. It might be that if all the EU nations actually believed they were "one people" that some of these issues could be worked out. They don't believe that, and IMO that isn't the trend.

Quote:The world has changed if you are a smaller country, you need to be part of a larger entity if you want to survive when the balloon goes up.

That has always been true. It is one of the reason there were so many wars. The larger countries would invade the smaller ones, so the smaller (or just weaker) ones had to form alliances to survive. If anything, NATO and "respect for the rule of law" has reduced this effect. That is one reason that Ukraine is such a critical issue. If Putin gets away with this, it is back to the "bad old days".

Quote:I believe that as time goes on, Western Europe will become more of a country with states like France, Germany, the UK etc.  A 100 years ago the world was a different place.

You may be correct. There are lots of bureaucrats in Brussels that claim this will be the case. They also often behave as if it is the case, which, since it is not (yet perhaps) the case creates lots of friction.

Quote:Time has shown that relying on the USA could be a mistake.

Up until very recently, that hasn't been an issue. The US has provided a "stable reference" to Europe for a long time. If it chooses to no longer do that, IMO Europe is in big trouble. We got away with it because we were clearly the "first among equals" and we were an "outsider" who at least in theory had no European ax to grind. I don't see any European nation that can step in and be the "adult". Anybody who tries will be considered as aggressive and somebody to fear. I hope we don't get to find out.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 82 Card - 02-26-2024

(02-26-2024, 04:41 PM)Mick Wrote:  Sure. It's not like they're warlike or anything...

List of wars involving Germany

Peace loving like US:
List of wars involving the United States

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 02-27-2024

Whether the product of a serious PR campaign or the realization of the NATO countries that support now is urgently needed, there are things happening. For instance, this BBC report has a strong statement by Macron with a somewhat vague promise of mid to long range weapons.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-27-2024

(02-26-2024, 08:12 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-26-2024, 07:36 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Western Europe has a larger population than Russia and probably a much larger economic engine.  The Mark, Franc etc. are gone and we have had the Euro for some time. Unfortunately, getting the disparate members of "Western Europe" to think as a common country has yet to happen but I think it is getting closer.

Fair enough. FWIW, I think the opposite is happening. The economic benefits of the EU and the Euro have concentrated themselves in Germany and the Netherlands, with France kind of tagging along. Virtually everybody else believes (with good reason in most cases) that they were better off with their own currency. When your goods became noncompetitive, you devalued your currency. Now you can't do that, leaving you in a permanent state of financial imbalance and dependence on loans (that you can't pay). The argument has been made that the Deutschmark was rising in value and that would have slowed down Germany's economic success, but the creation of the Euro created a currency that was the "average" of all the countries, including lots of countries that in fact had to lie to qualify for the Euro. That works great for Germany, because it keeps their currency weaker than it would be if they were on their own. Unfortunately it creates a currency that is too strong for most everybody else.

These more "have not" states also believe that "Brussels is taking over" and they don't like it much. Agricultural regulations that result in Italy importing oranges from Israel while at the same time destroying 20% of the domestic orange crop doesn't sit well. The Spanish like it because it protects their orange growers. Most of these "have not" nations would leave the Euro if they could, but they have borrowed so much Euro-denominated money they can't afford to leave either. Their credit would collapse. It certainly isn't a "boy, this is better" consensus, in fact the opposite. I run into this type of reasoning quite frequently. It might be that if all the EU nations actually believed they were "one people" that some of these issues could be worked out. They don't believe that, and IMO that isn't the trend.

Quote:The world has changed if you are a smaller country, you need to be part of a larger entity if you want to survive when the balloon goes up.

That has always been true. It is one of the reason there were so many wars. The larger countries would invade the smaller ones, so the smaller (or just weaker) ones had to form alliances to survive. If anything, NATO and "respect for the rule of law" has reduced this effect. That is one reason that Ukraine is such a critical issue. If Putin gets away with this, it is back to the "bad old days".

Quote:I believe that as time goes on, Western Europe will become more of a country with states like France, Germany, the UK etc.  A 100 years ago the world was a different place.

You may be correct. There are lots of bureaucrats in Brussels that claim this will be the case. They also often behave as if it is the case, which, since it is not (yet perhaps) the case creates lots of friction.

Quote:Time has shown that relying on the USA could be a mistake.

Up until very recently, that hasn't been an issue. The US has provided a "stable reference" to Europe for a long time. If it chooses to no longer do that, IMO Europe is in big trouble. We got away with it because we were clearly the "first among equals" and we were an "outsider" who at least in theory had no European ax to grind. I don't see any European nation that can step in and be the "adult". Anybody who tries will be considered as aggressive and somebody to fear. I hope we don't get to find out.

While this may be the wish of a fool, I still believe that Western Europe, maybe even including everything West of the current Russian Border, will have to learn to abide by Benjamin Franklins famous comment, "Either we hang together or we hang separately".  I am not sure that the dysfunctional relationships of many European Nations is any more messed up than our own political disfunction. I believe size matters going forward.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-27-2024

(02-27-2024, 05:25 AM)GK3 Wrote:  While this  may be the wish of a fool, I still believe that Western Europe, maybe even including everything West of the current Russian Border, will have to learn to abide by Benjamin Franklins famous comment, "Either we hang together or we hang separately".  I am not sure that the dysfunctional relationships of many European Nations is any more messed up than our own political disfunction. I believe size matters going forward.

It is IMO indeed an interesting subject. I actually agree that everything West of the current Russian border does need to "hang together". The question is what form should/must this take? The government brought forth by Franklin et. al. was not the one described by the constitution we have now, but rather the Articles of Confederation. I would argue that the government envisioned when the Constitution was enacted was quite different than the government we have today. Arguably, the US could have made different organizational choices (as we originally did).

For the past 70 years or so "Europe" had an overall protective umbrella of NATO. Most (but not all) of Europe joined into a common market. For 45 years the eastern part of Europe was part of the Warsaw Pact for "defense" and all the Russian satellite nations were in their own "customs union". This actually worked pretty well in most cases. When Russia divested itself of the Warsaw Pact, the eastern European nations joined NATO. From a military point of view, these nations were "hanging together" and arguably NATO met (and meets) their external security needs.

The issues in the EU are IMO mostly based on the requirements of a common currency without a common government and a common identity. The US had problems with the Articles of Confederation, and at that point we didn't even have a common currency. We had a somewhat nebulous identity, where most people just wanted to deal with local issues and "government" wasn't that important. When that was deemed unworkable, we were able to create (with difficulty) a federal system mostly because regional differences were minimal. State government had always been democratic and fairly non-invasive. The nations of Europe OTOH have generated very strong national loyalties and have been anything but democratic (like say monarchies or dictatorships :-) and anything but non invasive.

The EU is trying to "evolve" to a federal structure (in some cases utilizing "stealth" :-). The common currency was a big first step, although many EU nations did not and do not "qualify". I don't think that will work. They will go through all the problems without enough of a "central government authority" to solve them. There is no consensus that this central authority should exist and even those who are willing to believe a more powerful "EU" is needed, they all disagree on what form it should take. I have a friend in Australia who argues that you cannot have a "truly democratic" government if your population exceeds about 20 million people. After that, elements of authoritarianism from the federal bureaucracy are increasingly necessary to make things "work". Thus, Australia ceased to be a "democracy" after 2004 :-). Of course, California did also after 1971.

While "size" does indeed matter, both in military security and economic well being, IMO strength matters at least as much and arguably more. A country that is large but economically weak is in double trouble. It is so big it can't afford to defend it's entire land area and therefore is "ripe for the plucking" by other states who want the land. However even a "strong" state like Israel has a problem if it is "too small". Inadequate strategic depth means it can be overwhelmed by superior numbers. There is little room to retreat but holding the ground everywhere simultaneously against superior numbers is almost impossible. Israel must therefore remain permanently in a "state of defense", and even that may not be enough.

In the past, military alliances have allowed states to obtain security without the necessity of political union (or even having the same political system). There are many viable ways forward for Europe that don't require a closer political union. There are also many ways forward that requires varying degrees of closer political union.  IMO in the "near term", Europe should concentrate on the former. The latter, if it ever comes, is far enough in the future that an alternative must be adopted in the present to ensure the "closer union" option even exists in the future.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 02-27-2024

(05-30-2023, 11:46 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Note:  For those who have any interest in the past history of Lake Tulare, this makes interesting reading. https://californiawaterblog.com/2023/04/16/lake-tulare-and-its-fishes-shall-rise-again/#:~:text=The%20lake%20usually%20covered%20about,to%2025%2D35%20feet%20deep.

Aaaaaaand...it's gone.

California's Phantom Lake Tulare Has Disappeared

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Genuine Realist - 02-28-2024

(02-26-2024, 04:41 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(02-26-2024, 02:56 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(02-26-2024, 01:07 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Hungary has approved Sweden's accession. The Baltic Sea is now "NATO Lake".

https://x.com/JackDetsch/status/1762205387304886601?s=20

Interesting thread here on what Sweden's accession means for NATO in the Baltic.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine lit a fire under some countries.  Sweden was happily neutral and not a big spender on defense relative to GDP for many years.  Now it's a NATO member and over the 2% of GDP target.  Finland and Poland also changed course as a result of the invasion.  And of course the Baltics are panicking.  All of that has significantly strengthened NATO's position.  But can we light a fire under some of the big economic powers in Europe to follow suit?  And is that a good idea?  I throw up in my mouth when I think of Germany entering an arms race.   But maybe I need to reorient my thinking to the modern world and recognize that Germany truly is a force for good in Europe.  It is, right?

Sure. It's not like they're warlike or anything...

List of wars involving Germany

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j20voPS0gI

---

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 02-28-2024

Thank you, GR. Lehrer did it much better than I could have.

---