Ukraine Watch...

[clv101]

This conflict goes way beyond fossil fuels. Ukraine has immense mineral wealth, especially in the contested eastern regions. Globally significant quantities of iron ore, titanium, copper, graphite, cobalt, vanadium, molybdenum, zinc etc...

[johnny]

the UK could barely stop Argentina all those years ago

What planet are you living on?

The one where the Brits took 255 casualties to grab back some postage stamp island from a 4th rate miltary power. Versus, as another example, the US led coalition that wiped out the Iraqi's with their 650,000 soldiers with only 147 soldiers killed by enemy action.

At least during WWII the Brits were still useful as a military force, although in America you still hear beefs about the usefulness of Monte.

[johnny]

Guess his figures for total fossil fuel reserves would need much closer inspection, but if he's anywhere near right (and I'm sure RGR/Johnny will have a view), we're not going to 'peak' any time soon...

The best answer from the most qualified person I am aware of seems to be "depending on price, there is no requirement based on resources available for a global peak in the first half of this century". A bit vague with that price caveat, but still. I'm counting on ES&G and people finally learning that oil and gas are bad, and should be run out of town on a rail as soon as possible. I've got EVs to do my part!

[mr brightside]

I find the prospect of never again getting a whiff of two-stroke coming out the back of a Lambretta to be quite frightening, and the idea of never smelling a set of DCOE40s overtaking you strapped to the side of an Escort...unacceptable!

[BritDownUnder]

the UK could barely stop Argentina all those years ago

What planet are you living on?

The one where the Brits took 255 casualties to grab back some postage stamp island from a 4th rate miltary power. Versus, as another example, the US led coalition that wiped out the Iraqi's with their 650,000 soldiers with only 147 soldiers killed by enemy action.

At least during WWII the Brits were still useful as a military force, although in America you still hear beefs about the usefulness of Monte.

Not sure you are comparing apples with apples there. The Falklands was fought around 4000 miles from the nearest land base at Ascension Island with all air support, landings and logistics coming from ships, terrain unsuitable for mechanised warfare. The Gulf war was somewhat different with all logistics being a short truck ride away from the next country. The Falklands war saw the British side make some horrendous bungles like carrying all the transport helicopters on one ship - that got attacked - various naval bungles resulting in the loss of ships but outfought the Argentines comprehensively in infantry battles. If it had gone on one more month the UK would have probably had to withdraw due to deterioration of equipment.

I have heard it said that if the UK had not scrapped its carrier that could launch F-4 Phantoms the previous year they would have had full air superiority from the day their carriers got there and won much more quickly. Something the Argentines were probably very aware of.

As Ike said...
"Generals win battles. Logistics wins wars".

[johnny]

What planet are you living on?

The one where the Brits took 255 casualties to grab back some postage stamp island from a 4th rate miltary power. Versus, as another example, the US led coalition that wiped out the Iraqi's with their 650,000 soldiers with only 147 soldiers killed by enemy action.

At least during WWII the Brits were still useful as a military force, although in America you still hear beefs about the usefulness of Monte.

Not sure you are comparing apples with apples there. The Falklands was fought around 4000 miles from the nearest land base at Ascension Island with all air support, landings and logistics coming from ships, terrain unsuitable for mechanised warfare.

All true. And I agree. The US would have sunk every Argentinian ship larger than a canoe while they were in port, destroyed every plane before they ever left the runway, and sent in new Marine raw recruits ( no need for like the Army or any forces of size to be involved) for live fire practice against a small island that contained some 10,000 conscripts that apparently were greener than green and not to thrilled to be there in the first place.

I'm guessing they would have been surrendering to helicopters and surveillance balloons like the Iraqi's were after they heard about what had happened on the mainland.

And this would have just as easily happened 4000 miles away as 8000. The US doesn't do big blue water navy for nuttin.

The Gulf war was somewhat different with all logistics being a short truck ride away from the next country. The Falklands war saw the British side make some horrendous bungles like carrying all the transport helicopters on one ship - that got attacked - various naval bungles resulting in the loss of ships but outfought the Argentines comprehensively in infantry battles. If it had gone on one more month the UK would have probably had to withdraw due to deterioration of equipment.

Sounds like a fair description. Except that the pre-positioned equipment in any neighboring country certainly wasn't enough to commit to Desert Storm later. But once the entire logistics were complete, yup... attacked probably moved 100 yards and was in an enemy combatants country.

I have heard it said that if the UK had not scrapped its carrier that could launch F-4 Phantoms the previous year they would have had full air superiority from the day their carriers got there and won much more quickly.

Seems reasonable even with older American aircraft they probably could have done just that.

Something the Argentines were probably very aware of.
As Ike said...
"Generals win battles. Logistics wins wars".

Good thing Americans make sure to have experts in both. And then a WHOLE bunch of cool hardware for those guys to deploy.

[Vortex2]

The Brits are geniuses.

We retired our 20 Hercules transports last Wednesday.

After 56 years of reliable service in the RAF.

We now have to use the crappy European A400s.

[BritDownUnder]

The one where the Brits took 255 casualties to grab back some postage stamp island from a 4th rate miltary power. Versus, as another example, the US led coalition that wiped out the Iraqi's with their 650,000 soldiers with only 147 soldiers killed by enemy action.

At least during WWII the Brits were still useful as a military force, although in America you still hear beefs about the usefulness of Monte.

Not sure you are comparing apples with apples there. The Falklands was fought around 4000 miles from the nearest land base at Ascension Island with all air support, landings and logistics coming from ships, terrain unsuitable for mechanised warfare.

All true. And I agree. The US would have sunk every Argentinian ship larger than a canoe while they were in port, destroyed every plane before they ever left the runway, and sent in new Marine raw recruits ( no need for like the Army or any forces of size to be involved) for live fire practice against a small island that contained some 10,000 conscripts that apparently were greener than green and not to thrilled to be there in the first place.

I'm guessing they would have been surrendering to helicopters and surveillance balloons like the Iraqi's were after they heard about what had happened on the mainland.

And this would have just as easily happened 4000 miles away as 8000. The US doesn't do big blue water navy for nuttin.

The Gulf war was somewhat different with all logistics being a short truck ride away from the next country. The Falklands war saw the British side make some horrendous bungles like carrying all the transport helicopters on one ship - that got attacked - various naval bungles resulting in the loss of ships but outfought the Argentines comprehensively in infantry battles. If it had gone on one more month the UK would have probably had to withdraw due to deterioration of equipment.

Sounds like a fair description. Except that the pre-positioned equipment in any neighboring country certainly wasn't enough to commit to Desert Storm later. But once the entire logistics were complete, yup... attacked probably moved 100 yards and was in an enemy combatants country.

I have heard it said that if the UK had not scrapped its carrier that could launch F-4 Phantoms the previous year they would have had full air superiority from the day their carriers got there and won much more quickly.

Seems reasonable even with older American aircraft they probably could have done just that.

Something the Argentines were probably very aware of.
As Ike said...
"Generals win battles. Logistics wins wars".

Good thing Americans make sure to have experts in both. And then a WHOLE bunch of cool hardware for those guys to deploy.

Good points but the UK accomplished the mission with the forces they had, not the forces they wanted. It took less than three months for the UK to assemble a rag tag fleet, sail there, defeat the Argentines and have the Union Jack back flying over Stanley where it flies still. The forces against Iraq were still building up at that time. Gulf War 1 was a good win but as far as I know the aims of the 2003 Iraq War and Afghanistan War were not met. Pro-Western governments are not in power in either country nowadays.

It would have been interesting to see how the US would have fought the Falklands War and where they would have landed and captured Stanley etc. Real world US experience in littoral operations have not been as rosy as you would suggest in your hypothetical US-Argentine operation. Lebanon 1982 had a lot of Marines (not sure if they were raw recruits or not) come back in body bags and the US then leaving. Somalia resulted in a few US soldiers bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and the US then leaving. Before I start accusing the US of not being too good at amphibious operations I will credit you a win in Grenada against an army of 1200 less than 1000 miles from the US.

The US Navy blue water fleet may have some deterrent effect but at a cost and has not played any part in winning any war since WW2. It has helped China export its goods for zero cost to China across well patrolled seas free of pirates. It hasn't helped patrol the US-Mexico border. It didn't win the Vietnam War. Not a lot of use in Afghanistan. Or Cuba for that matter. Not a lot of help in the Ukraine War being effectively barred from the Black Sea.

Taiwan will be the test of the US blue water navy and I personally think it will be found wanting. Thing is, war is not a predictable thing and you often need to improvise, like the UK did. Quite often you prepare to fight the last war and end up in a totally different thing.

[invalid]

So Putin still safely ensconced in power, a Ukrainian 'counteroffensive' going nowhere, and multiple premature predictions of a Russian military collapse on here... Not much changed. Maybe if Trump gets in we can actually get some kind of peace deal sorted.

[kenneal - lagger]

Did someone or even something say something?

[invalid]

Did someone or even something say something?

It's deafening out here... Might need to take the blinds off your eyes.

[invalid]

I think it is possible this war might be over sooner than anybody thought.

It's possible... Bu that's not really saying much?

[PS_RalphW]

Early reports of a major Ukrainian offensive in Luhansk, the northern end of the Donbas front. Russian bloggers claim six brigades, which would make this the major push of the counter offensive, and I would say that it is the least expected point on the front line, at least from Western analysts.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think it is possible this war might be over sooner than anybody thought.

It's possible... Bu that's not really saying much?

Not really saying much to leave it this long to reply to that particular post.

[johnny]

Good thing Americans make sure to have experts in both. And then a WHOLE bunch of cool hardware for those guys to deploy.

Good points but the UK accomplished the mission with the forces they had, not the forces they wanted.

Quite true. At the end of the day, winning is the answer desired and if achieved, most of the rest of it is learning experience for how to do it better next time. The good news being in this case, the mission didn't require much.

It took less than three months for the UK to assemble a rag tag fleet, sail there, defeat the Argentines and have the Union Jack back flying over Stanley where it flies still. The forces against Iraq were still building up at that time. Gulf War 1 was a good win but as far as I know the aims of the 2003 Iraq War and Afghanistan War were not met.

Quite true about forays into nation building. Nation building is a bit different than just reversing a land grab, and in my opinion sucks and is a waste of money in certain circumstances, like when religious zealots are involved.

It would have been interesting to see how the US would have fought the Falklands War and where they would have landed and captured Stanley etc.

It would. At that point in time the US hadn't quite achieved its "lets knock over random countries in succession and do great at that but YIKES zealots don't make for wanna be westerners" techniques.

The US Navy blue water fleet may have some deterrent effect but at a cost and has not played any part in winning any war since WW2.

Depends on whether or not you consider it a deterrent effect, the ability to deposit a world class military force on your doorstep with the world's 2nd largest air force (US Naval Aviation) on overwatch? And then, should the 2nd largest air force in the world not be sufficient, some enterprising Admiral picks up the phone and the world's largest air force shows up to help out?

Isn't the best deterrent the one that isn't needed because folks know better than to try? In which case the US Navy has been a GREAT deterrent...since WWII.

It has helped China export its goods for zero cost to China across well patrolled seas free of pirates. It hasn't helped patrol the US-Mexico border. It didn't win the Vietnam War. Not a lot of use in Afghanistan. Or Cuba for that matter. Not a lot of help in the Ukraine War being effectively barred from the Black Sea.

The USN's job is to defend the freedom of the seas, certainly. Sounds like it does its job just fine. As far as the Mexican border, that certainly isn't any military issue at all. Vietnam was great, in that it taught America to not fight unless it was allowed to properly. Ukraine shouldn't need US help, it has all its Old World breathern to put some lead in its pencil. Interestingly, the Old World requires the US to put lead in its pencil. That one is called NATO.

Taiwan will be the test of the US blue water navy and I personally think it will be found wanting. Thing is, war is not a predictable thing and you often need to improvise, like the UK did. Quite often you prepare to fight the last war and end up in a totally different thing.

Taiwan will indeed be a reasonable test. As far as being found wanting, it'll depend on how well the Chinese preplan, and their ability to get to Taiwain in quantity while fighting only nearby US forces, and before the best navy in the world and 2nd largest air force in the world show up and begin causing...problems.