Russia mobilizes

188,458 Views | 4259 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by sombear
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


I am not sure what one RDF Brigade would do, especially Air Mobil against Armor.

So, this is old guy speculation for discussion..



Exactly


Agreed. I am 67 enjoying the best part of my life . Travel , grandsons, and the best wife in the world .

Merely venting my frustration with the dumbest / most dangerous administration I have ever witnessed .

Regardless, it's past time for me to drop it .

Events are in other peoples hands .




FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


I am not sure what one RDF Brigade would do, especially Air Mobil against Armor.

So, this is old guy speculation for discussion..



Exactly


Agreed. I am 67 enjoying the best part of my life . Travel , grandsons, and the best wife in the world .

Merely venting my frustration with the dumbest / most dangerous administration I have ever witnessed .

Regardless, it's past time for me to drop it .

Events are in other peoples hands .





We are good. Like all good discussions, heat up, cool down, some reasonable, some not. As long as it does not turn into personal, all good.

Believe it or not, I respect your position on Ukraine. And do not disagree that it could take a wrong turn, just as easy as working. I do agree with Whiterock on how this has to play out versus someone like Putin. If we were talking about Merckel or Trudeau or Macron or even Saudi & Xi people we may not agree with on policy. I believe you are right that we could negotiate this out. Putin, Assad, Jung-on no way. They only recognize force that they cannot win before negotiating.

I also agree with the Biden-crap. He and the Dems are dangerous. They moved from just differing on opinion to outright extreme.

So, we may disagree here, but not a big deal because no one on this Board can do anything but commentate! If we could, we sure as hell wouldn't be on here talking about it!
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


I am not sure what one RDF Brigade would do, especially Air Mobil against Armor.

So, this is old guy speculation for discussion..



Exactly


Agreed. I am 67 enjoying the best part of my life . Travel , grandsons, and the best wife in the world .

Merely venting my frustration with the dumbest / most dangerous administration I have ever witnessed .

Regardless, it's past time for me to drop it .

Events are in other peoples hands .





We are good. Like all good discussions, heat up, cool down, some reasonable, some not. As long as it does not turn into personal, all good.

Believe it or not, I respect your position on Ukraine. And do not disagree that it could take a wrong turn, just as easy as working. I do agree with Whiterock on how this has to play out versus someone like Putin. If we were talking about Merckel or Trudeau or Macron or even Saudi & Xi people we may not agree with on policy. I believe you are right that we could negotiate this out. Putin, Assad, Jung-on no way. They only recognize force that they cannot win before negotiating.

I also agree with the Biden-crap. He and the Dems are dangerous. They moved from just differing on opinion to outright extreme.

So, we may disagree here, but not a big deal because no one on this Board can do anything but commentate! If we could, we sure as hell wouldn't be on here talking about it!


We just returned from a week in Dallas visiting son # 2.

Planning a road trip to Arizona November 5th . Back to Maui in February.

Grandson # 3 just turned 2 months old and we are escorting all 3 grandsons Trick or Treating next week .

Life is good .

And we all live 50 miles south of Warren Air Force Base .

90+ underground missile silos which stretch from Cheyenne Wyoming to Sterling Colorado .

I have been in them……..amazing engineering . Built to withstand the worst imaginable shock waves .
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


I am not sure what one RDF Brigade would do, especially Air Mobil against Armor.

So, this is old guy speculation for discussion..



Exactly


Agreed. I am 67 enjoying the best part of my life . Travel , grandsons, and the best wife in the world .

Merely venting my frustration with the dumbest / most dangerous administration I have ever witnessed .

Regardless, it's past time for me to drop it .

Events are in other peoples hands .





We are good. Like all good discussions, heat up, cool down, some reasonable, some not. As long as it does not turn into personal, all good.

Believe it or not, I respect your position on Ukraine. And do not disagree that it could take a wrong turn, just as easy as working. I do agree with Whiterock on how this has to play out versus someone like Putin. If we were talking about Merckel or Trudeau or Macron or even Saudi & Xi people we may not agree with on policy. I believe you are right that we could negotiate this out. Putin, Assad, Jung-on no way. They only recognize force that they cannot win before negotiating.

I also agree with the Biden-crap. He and the Dems are dangerous. They moved from just differing on opinion to outright extreme.

So, we may disagree here, but not a big deal because no one on this Board can do anything but commentate! If we could, we sure as hell wouldn't be on here talking about it!


We just returned from a week in Dallas visiting son # 2.

Planning a November road trip to Arizona November 5th .

Grandson # 3 just turned 2 months old and we are escorting all 3 grandsons Trick or Treating next week .

Life is good .

And we all live 50 miles south of Warren Air Force Base .

90+ underground missile silos which stretch from Cheyenne Wyoming to Sterling Colorado .

I have been in them……..amazing engineering . Built to withstand the worst imaginable shock waves .
I can see your concern with Russia and China...

I live by MacDill, we were big targets for terror due to Central Command and SOCOM. Russia and China, probably not so much...
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!





LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .



LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .





Korea didn't have smart munitions

Vietnam had limited smart munitions, a jungle canopy and a >>>motivated adversary<<<.

Iraq we dominated their forces on both the ground and air.

Afghanistan had no mechanized adversary unless you want to count a Toyota T100 with a mounted weapon.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .





Korea didn't have smart munitions

Vietnam had limited smart munitions, a jungle canopy and a >>>motivated adversary<<<.

Iraq we dominated their forces on both the ground and air.

Afghanistan had no mechanized adversary unless you want to count a Toyota T100 with a mounted weapon.


Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq had less than adequate allies.

Ukraine I do not believe that problem exists. A superior forces cannot win independence, only help. The people have to step up. We did what we could, our allies couldn't hold it. Sucks, but true. They have to want it. Ukraine wants no part of Russia and will fight.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .





Korea didn't have smart munitions

Vietnam had limited smart munitions, a jungle canopy and a >>>motivated adversary<<<.

Iraq we dominated their forces on both the ground and air.

Afghanistan had no mechanized adversary unless you want to count a Toyota T100 with a mounted weapon.
Agreed....... we will do much better this 5th time around because Russia has a no air force, no smart munitions , no 4000 nukes , no large nuclear sub fleet, and a population who has been raised since childhood to love the woke values of the West and particularly those of the United States ,

Should easily be able to keep American casualties under those of the Iraq War ( 4200 killed in action and 32,000 wounded ); Afghanistan ( 3754 dead and 20,752 wounded ), Korea ( 37,000 dead and 103,000 wounded ) , and Vietnam ( 58,000 dead and 150,000 wounded )

Let's blow up a few natural gas pipelines and light this candle !


whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .





Korea didn't have smart munitions

Vietnam had limited smart munitions, a jungle canopy and a >>>motivated adversary<<<.

Iraq we dominated their forces on both the ground and air.

Afghanistan had no mechanized adversary unless you want to count a Toyota T100 with a mounted weapon.
And we will own the air if the Russo-Ukrainian War expands westward. Russia cannot possibly establish air superiority over Nato territory, and cannot prevent us from establishing air superiority over Belarus and Ukraine. They have not the tactics, the equipment, nor the supply chain to compete with Nato. They have limited ability to even do CAP over Ukraine.

The bulk of our forces in Europe are in UK Germany, Greece, Turkey. Very limited numbers in Eastern Europe members. No bases of any size or strategic significance. We have largely retained the Cold War footprint - downsizing in face of reduced threat and increased strategic depth (via eastward expansion), but overall still essentially positioned for the CW scenarios in the Fulda Gap. This is of significance in the current situation.

Airborne units are typically assault units...to seize and hold bridges and airfields for limited periods of time until ground pounding units can catch up (think the movie "A Bridge Too Far"). They are also logical units to make friendly advances into new territory....like to establish a new base somewhere improved or not. Moreover, look at the link I posted above - the 101st units assigned to Poland and Romania are the logistics units....establishing the bases from which the assault units will operate. So there really is no threat to Russia YET. But establishing base camps to set up command posts is a sign of intent....that the most famed airborne division in the world is en route. And when they arrive, they would serve two purposes: to be that speed-bump - to position US troops where Russia could not plausibly invade without encountering them. And, yes, having the 101st within a few hundred miles of something important to you is cause for you to be concerned. The 101st could easily take Sebastopol. Or the Kerch Bridge. Or the ports & airfields in Kaliningrad. In the chess game of war, even though we are not involved, the movement of the 101st is something Russia cannot ignore....it changes their calculations, to force them to think about defending, if not actually defending, something terribly important to them. For a power in Russia's current position, that is a zero-sum exercise. They will have to leave something undefended to deal with this new threat.

So Russia can do bugger all about any of that. They can't stop the Ukrainian Army. They're in retreat from the Ukrainian Army, with shattered communication and supply lines. They don't have a tiger by the tail....the tiger has THEM by the tail.

And that's the point. Yes, we expanded Nato eastwards. But that was just membership. We never expanded much other than token and temporary unit deployments eastwards. Yet, Russia claimed that even the mere mention of Ukraine as a member of Nato is a threat to Russia so severe as to justify invading Ukraine. Ok. FIne, Vlad. So you contrive a Nato pretext to invade a neutral neighbor. We will respond by ACTUALLY deploying combat units into Nato countries closer to you. You see, Vlad, we didn't do that up to now because....well, we thought you could be trusted. And we didn't want to alarm you. But now we see that you cannot be trusted, so we don't give a **** about alarming you. We are going to do what we should have done 20 years ago and deploy combat units to Romania and Poland.

And if you don't knock it off in Ukraine, we might just move our military bases in Germany to Poland and Romania. Both governments have been begging us to do it, Vlad. And frankly, the Germans would be glad to be rid of all that American testosterone roaming German streets every Friday and Saturday night. But we held off. And then you went & done it....tsk tsk tsk.....

That's what's going on, gentlemen. Russia engages in unacceptable adventure on pretext of preventing deterioration of their security position.....so we are going to actually do something that deteriorates their security position. You don't like that, Vlad? Well, then pull your units back to Crimea and start negotiating. We'd be favorably inclined to bring the 101st back home. But if you keep pressing in Ukraine.....well.....we might have to make those infantry bases in Poland and Romania permanent. And bring in some M-1 Abrahms. And while we're at it, it's along way from Ramstein and Spangdahlem all the way to the Ukrainian border, quite a burden to keep those KC-130s in the air to fuel our F-16 CAPs a thousand miles from base. Sure would be easier to just close Spangdahlem and move it to Romania. We were planning to move it to Italy a couple years ago, but....you know....the security situation has changed and we need those assets closer to Ukraine. Or, you could withdraw your army from Ukraine.

Your choice, Vlad.....
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/world/2022/10/29/russia-wagner-group-leader-confronts-putin-ukraine-war-bell-pkg-ebof-vpx.cnn
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .





Korea didn't have smart munitions

Vietnam had limited smart munitions, a jungle canopy and a >>>motivated adversary<<<.

Iraq we dominated their forces on both the ground and air.

Afghanistan had no mechanized adversary unless you want to count a Toyota T100 with a mounted weapon.
The guy who invented "the technical" was my suite-mate in basic. A more unassuming fellow one could hardly meet.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .





Korea didn't have smart munitions

Vietnam had limited smart munitions, a jungle canopy and a >>>motivated adversary<<<.

Iraq we dominated their forces on both the ground and air.

Afghanistan had no mechanized adversary unless you want to count a Toyota T100 with a mounted weapon.
The guy who invented "the technical" was my suite-mate in basic. A more unassuming fellow one could hardly meet.


Ha! We're y'all chewing khat ?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

whiterock said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .





Korea didn't have smart munitions

Vietnam had limited smart munitions, a jungle canopy and a >>>motivated adversary<<<.

Iraq we dominated their forces on both the ground and air.

Afghanistan had no mechanized adversary unless you want to count a Toyota T100 with a mounted weapon.
The guy who invented "the technical" was my suite-mate in basic. A more unassuming fellow one could hardly meet.


Ha! We're y'all chewing khat ?
HA! One puff was a disqualifier back in this days.

I asked him how good the Chadians were. He told me about a commander who had a cracked front tooth. Infected. Ooozed stuff. So every few minutes or so , he'd suck air inward between his teeth to pull the ooze into his mouth & swallow. Tom offered to get air asset to fly him to the capital & get the tooth pulled. He refused. Said he'd go after the Libyans were gone. Maybe it would fall out on it's own. In the meantime...work to do. That was Tom's way of saying "yeah, they were pretty tough."
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?


I read story. The story has two Russian officials saying what they want from the West in negotiations. I thought you might call those terms. But I guess I dunno.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?


I read story. The story has two Russian officials saying what they want from the West in negotiations. I thought you might call those terms. But I guess I dunno.


Read statements.

They were so broad it would be unreasonable to shoot down the possibility of negotiations without even making an effort .

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?
Suicide (noun) To deliberately bring about the end of one's own life. Example: Any Russian diplomat willing to negotiate the removal of Russian invaders from Ukraine.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?


I read story. The story has two Russian officials saying what they want from the West in negotiations. I thought you might call those terms. But I guess I dunno.


Read statements.

They were so broad it would be unreasonable to shoot down the possibility of negotiations without even making an effort .


Issue here is if hostilities stop now, does Russia just regroup? Ukraine may not want to seize operations to let Russia catch their breath only to have Russia come back harder.

Any negotiated settlement would have to include Ukraine inclusion in NATO for defense. Or, is 5 years Russia comes back with better weapons and more troops..Ukraine fell for the non-binding agreement once, they would be foolish to do it again.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?


I read story. The story has two Russian officials saying what they want from the West in negotiations. I thought you might call those terms. But I guess I dunno.


Read statements.

They were so broad it would be unreasonable to shoot down the possibility of negotiations without even making an effort .


Issue here is if hostilities stop now, does Russia just regroup? Ukraine may not want to seize operations to let Russia catch their breath only to have Russia come back harder.

Any negotiated settlement would have to include Ukraine inclusion in NATO for defense. Or, is 5 years Russia comes back with better weapons and more troops..Ukraine fell for the non-binding agreement once, they would be foolish to do it again.
Seems obvious to me that Russia wants negotiations to be between the US and Russia, and only those 2 nations.

US should make clear no negotiation will happen without including Ukraine.

That point alone would make a big difference.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?


I read story. The story has two Russian officials saying what they want from the West in negotiations. I thought you might call those terms. But I guess I dunno.


Read statements.

They were so broad it would be unreasonable to shoot down the possibility of negotiations without even making an effort .


Issue here is if hostilities stop now, does Russia just regroup? Ukraine may not want to seize operations to let Russia catch their breath only to have Russia come back harder.

Any negotiated settlement would have to include Ukraine inclusion in NATO for defense. Or, is 5 years Russia comes back with better weapons and more troops..Ukraine fell for the non-binding agreement once, they would be foolish to do it again.
Seems obvious to me that Russia wants negotiations to be between the US and Russia, and only those 2 nations.

US should make clear no negotiation will happen without including Ukraine.

That point alone would make a big difference.
I agree. It has to also have some assurance that this will not happen again.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?

"Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov also said on Oct. 30 that Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden could "discuss Russia's security guarantees," but such talks would require the U.S. willingness to return to "the state of December-January."

Peskov said that such negotiations would mean discussing the agreements that the Kremlin drafted in December and sent to NATO and the U.S. In the documents, Moscow demanded that NATO would not expand further, including to Ukraine and other countries, as well as abandon any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, other states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia."
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?

"Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov also said on Oct. 30 that Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden could "discuss Russia's security guarantees," but such talks would require the U.S. willingness to return to "the state of December-January."

Peskov said that such negotiations would mean discussing the agreements that the Kremlin drafted in December and sent to NATO and the U.S. In the documents, Moscow demanded that NATO would not expand further, including to Ukraine and other countries, as well as abandon any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, other states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia."


In other words, ignore the aggression and reward Putin's behavior. Nah. Push down harder on the gas.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?

"Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov also said on Oct. 30 that Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden could "discuss Russia's security guarantees," but such talks would require the U.S. willingness to return to "the state of December-January."

Peskov said that such negotiations would mean discussing the agreements that the Kremlin drafted in December and sent to NATO and the U.S. In the documents, Moscow demanded that NATO would not expand further, including to Ukraine and other countries, as well as abandon any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, other states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia."


Russia: "Please pause the conflict while we pretend to negotiate and try and strengthen our lines and offensives."
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?

"Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov also said on Oct. 30 that Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden could "discuss Russia's security guarantees," but such talks would require the U.S. willingness to return to "the state of December-January."

Peskov said that such negotiations would mean discussing the agreements that the Kremlin drafted in December and sent to NATO and the U.S. In the documents, Moscow demanded that NATO would not expand further, including to Ukraine and other countries, as well as abandon any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, other states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia."


In other words, ignore the aggression and reward Putin's behavior. Nah. Push down harder on the gas.
Russia ignored a non-binding agreement so, another non-binding agreement should be off the table. That means any negotiated settlement should bring about a >>>binding<<< agreement.

So, what do binding agreements look like that do not sellout the Ukrainians and do not reward the Russians?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?

"Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov also said on Oct. 30 that Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden could "discuss Russia's security guarantees," but such talks would require the U.S. willingness to return to "the state of December-January."

Peskov said that such negotiations would mean discussing the agreements that the Kremlin drafted in December and sent to NATO and the U.S. In the documents, Moscow demanded that NATO would not expand further, including to Ukraine and other countries, as well as abandon any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, other states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia."
So, basically set things back to 1990. Send Joe Biden in by himself. and we keep what we took in Ukraine. For that, I have these magic beans...

Joe would take that deal. Saying, do you understand what we can do with these magic beans...
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

He Hate Me said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:




Tough to see how Russia's terms would be acceptable at this point.


Has anyone actually seen Russia's terms ?

"Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov also said on Oct. 30 that Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden could "discuss Russia's security guarantees," but such talks would require the U.S. willingness to return to "the state of December-January."

Peskov said that such negotiations would mean discussing the agreements that the Kremlin drafted in December and sent to NATO and the U.S. In the documents, Moscow demanded that NATO would not expand further, including to Ukraine and other countries, as well as abandon any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, other states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia."
So, basically set things back to 1990. Send Joe Biden in by himself. and we keep what we took in Ukraine. For that, I have these magic beans...

Joe would take that deal. Saying, do you understand what we can do with these magic beans...


Joe would eat those beans, after the Russians told him they were 'magic sprinkles' for his ice cream ...
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:







The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?



Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?
How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a smart guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.






Personally, I think the professionals at the Pentagon learned their lesson in Afghanistan. They seem to have things tightened down on this one. Not gonna let that happen again.


Ok....fair enough....based on exactly what do you have this new found faith in Pentagon professionalism ?

Blowing up natural gas pipelines in international waters ?

Placing 4700 light infantry troops with limited armor and artillery support within striking distance of an
'incident' ?

That brigade is INSIDE a NATO country. We station and move troops around inside Nato all the time. We would be obligated to respond to an attack even if our troops weren't there.

This redeployment poses negligible elevated risk to US troops.
But it does elevate the risk for Russia.
And they know it.
Not according to my old buddy ...retired colonel US Army.....who's son is currently a major at Fort Carson .

According to Jan this is the first time an entire brigade of the 101st has been sent to Europe since the end of WW2. If you really think this is a coincidence I have some Enron stock to sell you .

It 'elevates' the risk to all of us. And again we should all be asking


WHY NOW ? After over 80 years of official US indifference.
WHY? Because Putin is out of control. And Russia is under stress. Russia has escalated. Attacking purely civilian targets. Bringing in Iranian advisors. Making wild verbal statements. This is the time when desperate measures might happen. That means it is time for us to remind Russia to be very, very, very careful.

We're not involved because these things happened. These things happened because we're involved.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Canada2017 said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:







The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?



Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?
How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a smart guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.






Personally, I think the professionals at the Pentagon learned their lesson in Afghanistan. They seem to have things tightened down on this one. Not gonna let that happen again.


Ok....fair enough....based on exactly what do you have this new found faith in Pentagon professionalism ?

Blowing up natural gas pipelines in international waters ?

Placing 4700 light infantry troops with limited armor and artillery support within striking distance of an
'incident' ?

That brigade is INSIDE a NATO country. We station and move troops around inside Nato all the time. We would be obligated to respond to an attack even if our troops weren't there.

This redeployment poses negligible elevated risk to US troops.
But it does elevate the risk for Russia.
And they know it.
Not according to my old buddy ...retired colonel US Army.....who's son is currently a major at Fort Carson .

According to Jan this is the first time an entire brigade of the 101st has been sent to Europe since the end of WW2. If you really think this is a coincidence I have some Enron stock to sell you .

It 'elevates' the risk to all of us. And again we should all be asking


WHY NOW ? After over 80 years of official US indifference.
WHY? Because Putin is out of control. And Russia is under stress. Russia has escalated. Attacking purely civilian targets. Bringing in Iranian advisors. Making wild verbal statements. This is the time when desperate measures might happen. That means it is time for us to remind Russia to be very, very, very careful.

We're not involved because these things happened. These things happened because we're involved.
Really? So, ask Georgia about that. Map sure shows a lot of areas of expansion.


"Russia's border doesn't end anywhere," as Putin once said. There's only a horizon in Russia."

The difference. Let's put in easy visual terms since written language seems to be difficult for some.


cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

RMF5630 said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Canada2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

Canada,

Totally agree with every thing you said. 101st is a top notch unit. "Dope on a Rope" are one of the best in the world. : ) (Used to have a Baylor/Aggie relationship with them when I was in the 82nd... Nothing but playful respect.)

I was curious if his view of the Air Mobil (101st) capabilities versus straight Airborne (82nd), Mech Infantry (24th), Shock Troops (Ranger), Cav (6th) or straight Infantry (9th) played into the decision. My info is dated, but I think those are the Rapid Deployment Units we have or if we even think about them that way anymore. Been a long time since I have had this type of conversation. You probably guessed I am a logistics, infrastructure and mission wonk.

I know you find it distasteful that non-infantry types play a role in these decisions, so I thank you for your patience with us logistic/support infrastructure types. My heroes from WW2 were not Patton, but Marshall and Eisenhower, the people that understood how to bring the right resources, including people, to bear on a problem.


The colonel , myself and our wives rarely get that deep into such discussions.

However after over 30 years of friendship…. I have come to admire and trust the man. His opinions carry weight with me .

Bottom line….

Jan believes the 101st is a crack combat unit . Placed near the Ukrainian border to effectively enter the battle if ordered . That this is no 'training ' mission .

We didn't discuss the ramifications of such deployments as I have long known Jan is all about following orders from upper echelons.

And I have too much respect for the man to ruin a pleasant evening.

BTW your work is appreciated.

I simply have attended enough military funerals.

Don't want our dementia stricken commander in chief to bring on still more…….especially when our strategic national interests are not remotely involved.


From my non-military point of view: For decades, we have had mechanized forces in Europe because the threat came from overwhelming numbers of Soviet mechanized forces coming over the border. Today,, the threat is different so the response would need to be different and that is where the 101st would come into play if needed.

My uneducated self is fully confident that the 101st is fully equipped to be a tank killing/artillery killing machine with highly-advanced, lightweight weapons.

In the unlikely event the US sees action in this conflict, it will not be as an occupying force but as a force that kills the advance of the aggressor.

Putin should understand that, should he do anything to draw the US in, his forces will be rapidly cut down.
We are talking a Brigade here. Only so much impact on a several hundred mile front facing 200k with Armor. I am sure they are capable of anti-armor operations, but if it were me and my totally talking out the ass opinion, I would say point protection for strategic locations, maybe even Airports to secure forward re-supply.

You may be right, we still have heavy armor? (1st Armor and Cav) I am sure we still have Air and Cav, but heavy I am not sure. Below is my timeframe, we are a far cry from that!






You are probably right about securing key points. Also, we would own the air.
We owned the air in Korea, Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .





Korea didn't have smart munitions

Vietnam had limited smart munitions, a jungle canopy and a >>>motivated adversary<<<.

Iraq we dominated their forces on both the ground and air.

Afghanistan had no mechanized adversary unless you want to count a Toyota T100 with a mounted weapon.
The guy who invented "the technical" was my suite-mate in basic. A more unassuming fellow one could hardly meet.
Not trying to argue with you but would like clarification on your statement please.

What do you mean by invented the technical? Like the name or the idea of putting a gun in the back of a truck?

Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.
First Page Last Page
Page 41 of 122
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.