If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Found this guy's channel today. He seems to know what he's talking about (but you military guys can feel free to dispute that). His videos are brief and interesting. I have been wondering the question presented in this video myself in the past couple weeks
This is sobering. As I rage about the sheer brutality and senselessness of "Russia's Special Military Operation" and advocate for a no-fly zone to stop the horrendous bombardment, this is a brass knuckled description of the Russian Army's history with these brutal tactics ....... Colonel Patrick J. Sullivan is the director of the Modern War Institute at West Point, a military college in America. This piece reflects his personal views and not those of either the US Army or of West Point.
THE INCREASING brutality of Russia’s armed forces in Ukraine has prompted alarm in the West. That is understandable. But keep a sobering historical lesson in mind: brutality can be militarily effective. As such, it is premature, if not a mistake outright, to dismiss Russian savagery as indicative of operational desperation—however upsetting such an idea might be. It is a savagery consistent with Russia’s successful military operations in Chechnya and Syria.
I have little doubt that memories of these campaigns influenced Russia’s decision to employ brutal tactics in Ukraine. Viewed strictly through the lens of military usefulness, the tactics support Vladimir Putin’s stated goals for his “special military operation”: to demilitarise Ukraine and to protect Russian speakers in the Donbas region. The tactics are a form of terrorism which, in its simplest definition, is the application of violence against civilians to pursue political aims. In this case, Russia’s tactics may eventually present Ukraine’s political leadership with an impossible choice between concession and genocide.
Cont.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.
Just because a tactic works, though, does not mean that a military commander should use it. Assuming there are alternatives, tactics should also strike the right balance between risk, cost and anticipated outcome. In other words, balancing these three considerations should distinguish tactics that are feasible—such as deliberately killing civilians—from those that are acceptable.
As a colonel in the US Army, I imagine that most professional military commanders would deem Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine to be unacceptable, tactically, because of their costs. But what are the costs of brutality, militarily speaking?
First and foremost, such tactics are a gross violation of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). These violations are more commonly called “war crimes”. Although unscrupulous commanders can attempt to justify anything under the guise of military necessity—one of the LOAC’s basic tenets—principles concerning distinction and proportionality limit options on what targets can be struck, how and when. Adherence to the LOAC is a sacred covenant within professional military ethics and is drummed into us officers throughout our careers. Collateral damage sometimes occurs, unfortunately, but the LOAC could never justify Russia’s armed forces indiscriminately targeting civilian areas with air strikes and artillery fire, as well as taking reprisals on the Ukrainian population through extra-judicial killings and sexual violence.
One of the challenges in the norms-based international order is that adherence to the LOAC and its constitutive principles results from agreement in good faith rather than strict enforcement. Other than through direct intervention by another country, there is no way to compel the Russians not to commit atrocities in Ukraine. However, just because there are no enforcement mechanisms does not mean that there are no costs.
Cont.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.
Russia risks becoming a pariah state. The political and economic limitations that result from this will almost certainly translate into military problems. Pariah states are dysfunctional, and dysfunctional states tend to not do anything well. Russia will retain its status as a nuclear power come what may in Ukraine, and will continue to employ nuclear brinkmanship in pursuit of political ends. But a revanchist country cannot realise its aggressive political ambitions without credible land-based armed forces. I am hard pressed to see how Russia can renew its armed forces—for example, by making capital investments in new weapons systems—after what has happened in Ukraine. The fact that Russian conventional military capability is apparently not as good as observers had assessed before the war makes the recovery gap even greater.
Once atrocities have been committed, it is very difficult to walk back from them. A “sunk-cost” mindset can take hold. Russia’s particular method of brutalisation is self-limiting. Its armed forces appear primarily to be reducing areas to rubble with long-range firing to either kill Ukrainian civilians or force them to flee. (The refugees could have the ancillary effect of destabilising proximate NATO countries.) Once you have decimated an area and displaced the population, what more benign tactic can you then revert to? Alternatively, what other means are at your disposal to achieve the same military effect?
Terrorising civilians would seem to be at odds with occupation and pacification. But recall that these are not stated Russian operational goals. It seems that the Russians are not interested in “clear, hold, and build” (ie, the American counterinsurgency method) to consolidate gains in Ukraine, but rather just “clear”—as in Grozny and Aleppo, cities destroyed by Russian bombardment. Regardless of operational goals and the supporting tactics, it is the individual Russian soldier who brings the tactics to bear. He is thus very much complicit in any brutalisation. Every war crime in history has been abetted by the rank and file, after all, and Nuremberg proved that “just following orders” is no excuse. But there are opportunity costs that come with complicity, too.
Military effectiveness results from the compliance or commitment of soldiers, backed up by sound military discipline. A prudent commander wants commitment but can minimally force compliance; this is the essence of control. An army that is capable of the cruelty we are witnessing in Ukraine cannot be understood within this taxonomy. It would be more akin to a gang or a criminal mob, not an army. Sure, they may be “controlled” towards the commission of atrocities and undertake those atrocities with discipline. But it is not a form of discipline that the commander can apply to other military purposes. The tactic may have military utility, but its agents will not.
How, then, should we assess Russia’s adoption of brutalisation tactics in Ukraine? There are only two answers: either Mr Putin has no alternatives, or his cost calculations fundamentally differ from those presented here. Sobering, indeed.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.
and you wonder why people are skeptical about 1/6/21 or 11/3/20
Restricting comment to just this one.
If you want to believe that Trump attempting to extort personal political favors from a foreign leader in exchange for weapons to protect his country, the same one currently trying to survive an invasion, does not rise to the level of impeachment, that's fine. I disagree but I think that's at least a defensible position given that ultimately the aid went through. Even if he held it up for no reason and mysteriously released the hold only when Congress began asking questions. Whatever.
If, on the other hand, you believe that no such blackmail/threats/extortion took place and that Trump did absolutely nothing sketchy during that whole episode and has just always had a deep commitment to cleaning up corruption in Ukraine, you are living in a fantasy universe.
If the 1/6 "insurrection" investigations were truly fair instead of 100% political, they'd have the same result as the "whitmerkidnap" trial in Michigan.
If the 1/6 "insurrection" investigations were truly fair instead of 100% political, they'd have the same result as the "whitmerkidnap" trial in Michigan.
Bullshit
I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it on
If, on the other hand, you believe that no such blackmail/threats/extortion took place and that Trump did absolutely nothing sketchy during that whole episode and has just always had a deep commitment to cleaning up corruption in Ukraine, you are living in a fantasy universe.
And that universe would be no more of a fantasy than the one where the Clintons, Obamas and Bidens were bastions of virtue.
So the we're all in agreement that the last 4 administrations are absolute pieces of shit where the fault lies SOLEY with voters who have, through the primary process, installed said pieces of shit because zero IQ hyper partisan soundbite candidates are more representative than citizens that care about this country? If so, then both the underlying problem and the solution becomes clear.
I don't watch Fox News for the same reason I don't eat out of a toilet.
So the we're all in agreement that the last 4 administrations are absolute pieces of shit where the fault lies SOLEY with voters who have, through the primary process, installed said pieces of shit because zero IQ hyper partisan soundbite candidates are more representative than citizens that care about this country? If so, then both the underlying problem and the solution becomes clear.
SMH.. Not even close. It's just that earning merit badges for sainthood, or demonology, aren't requirements for being President.
Yeah, my own view is that Government, and especially the Federal Government, should be a "do no harm" institution. My view is that Government, especially the Federal Government, is an absolute last resort to "fix" problems.. IMO, Government (all government) is obviously self-interested and way more likely to do harm than good with any particular enactment. These are people, like anyone else. They are fundamentally self-interested. The hope is that if they do enact something that the greater good and their own self-interest overlap. The far more realistic hope is that don't do anything. And, to be clear, I do think that every level of Government has justifiable roles to play, but I want to see the action justified both in terms of the alleged problem and the proposed solution. I approach every government action with skepticism. I've seen these people work.
That said, the President's job, IMO, has a significant "leadership" or "messaging" component (his foremost job is to preside over and direct and ginormous largely unaccountable (C'mon Gorsuch, pull the trigger) administrative apparatus). To that end, DJT was not good and The Chairman is not good (for very different reasons). Kamala may be the worst of the three, but that's like sorting out the differences between UConn, UMass and Akron football.
I have lots of complaints as to the current political environment. But, I very much think the primary system is a huge problem. I also think the way folks are drawing districts is tough. Both encourage less moderate candidates. But, you know, there's not much to be done about either. Nor is there much to be done about social media up-filtering and giving an outsized voice to less moderate folks.
Nor is there is much to done about the lack of any sort of neutral news. The legacy media is in the tank for the Ds on a number of issues. The 2nd generation media -- the talkshows, FOX/MSM, some of the reactionary newspapers are explicitly tailored to an audience and the 3rd generation media (YT, blogs, Substack, etc) doesn't really do any sort of hard news. For mostly apolitical issues we're reminded of what the legacy media can be -- e.g., Ukraine. But, that's the exception to their general approach.
Finally, and this is, I guess, a digression, but I firmly believe the parties are involved in a slow-motion re-sorting where the rprofessional elites are moving en masse to the Ds and the working class is moving toward the new piopulism of the R party. Corporations, e.g., have definitively thrown in with the Ds. That's a huge shift. Blue collar workers have firmly thrown in the Rs. Another huge shift. Meanwhile, the "do no harm" conservativism that I would be very inclined to embrace is as dead and overcooked as a North Platte drummette.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
You understand that police officers died?” That was a question that federal prosecutor Michael Romano put to defendant Matthew Martin, who was being tried for his nonviolent protest on January 6 at the Capitol — when and where, in fact, no police officers died.
Heh. The nuts and bolts:
Martin refused to go along with the program. He maintained his innocence from the start, including in waiving his privilege against self-incrimination in order to submit to an interview by FBI agents. He told them the same thing he told the court while testifying in his own defense at trial: He entered the facility, along with a group of peaceful pro-Trump demonstrators, because they were waved in by Capitol Police. “If the cops were not letting people in, I would not have gone in,” Martin averred.
Martin’s lawyer did not rest the case on his client’s word. The defense displayed video and photographic evidence of police officers allowing Trump supporters to come inside. You may have a hard time finding it in American media accounts, but Britain’s Daily Mail embeds relevant video clips and still shots in its report.
Prosecutors fulminated that Martin’s testimony was “nonsense.” You can tell they knew it wasn’t, though: Their principal contention was that, notwithstanding how he might reasonably have interpreted his interaction with the police, he should have known it was wrong to enter the facility.
This was a sound argument, technically speaking. The indicia of lawlessness were all around Martin, including tear gas and alarms. Moreover, most people in his position would probably have figured that the police, who were outmanned and overmatched in the early stages of the rioting, simply decided at a certain point, after the real aggressors had breached the barricades, that it would be safer for all concerned if they allowed apparently nonthreatening people to mill around the Rotunda. That was probably the best way to restore a semblance of order. A reasonable person would realize that, while he could enter, he still shouldn’t enter.
But this was a criminal trial. Prosecutors can’t win by establishing what most reasonable people would do under the circumstances. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had criminal intent, that he understood the wrongfulness of his actions. That’s hard to do when the police can fairly be described as allowing entry, and perhaps even inviting it. As Judge McFadden observed, this was a close call, on top of the facts that Martin’s testimony was “largely credible,” and his conduct on January 6 was “minimal and nonserious.” In other words, in this case, unlike the many truly serious Capitol riot cases, prosecutors did not deserve to get the close call.
Tweet
Comment