Now the Long Knives are poised right in the back of Ukraine:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26400035

Fucking brilliant approach, this. First the attempt to play divide and conquer in Ukraine pretty transparently crashed and burned with the retun of Ukraine's Benazir Bhutto to political influence. Then, the Russians decide evidently that they really did move in Russian Army soldiers into the Crimea. Because the proper instinct when a risky gamble fails is to raise the stakes. This is not going to end well by any means. Now I'm wondering how long Lucashenko will have a country to rule as dictator, and what might happen with Round II with Georgia. If Tsar Vladimir I of the House of Putin succeeds in this kind of thing, that will only encourage him to expand his wars of aggression further because Ukraine is rather larger than Georgia, and this would permit Russia to begin aspiring to regain aspects of the old Tsarist boundaries. I sincerely expected Russia would use Central Asia for this kind of thing, not Ukraine.

The EU wouldn't give a damn about invading Muslims in Kazakhstan, but invading an EU state? That's not going to lead Russia to do anything but decide to engage in still-larger wars of aggression in the long term.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

And one of the chambers of the Russian legislature just approved this request. Hoo, boy.

Shit got real-er:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26403996

The Ukrainian Army is now on full combat alert. The prospect that the centennial year of the First World War will see the first large-scale conventional European war in decades has risen exponentially.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, actually. Because African states have armies too expensive to actually use them, so any such force would be playing outside its weight class. As to French Guiana, who would bother? Goa this is not.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The identity of the would-be attacker is not relevant to the discussion.

If the French military has it's hands full dealing with untrained militias less than 6 hours from their own border what makes you think that they'd be able to fight and win in a combined arms campaign where the transit times and logistics train are going to be many times longer?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What says the US Army can fight something that hasn't been softened up for it and isn't willing to surrender en masse because it might have to do some fighting? This isn't Iraq, this isn't fighting Saddam's army that went under when others shot at it. This is the kind of scenario that leads to a general nuclear exchange when put into the hands of human beings. Going into this expecting either 1991 or 2003 is a good way for the Yellowstone Supervolcano to be pre-empted in wiping out a significant portion of North America.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Who says they can't?

Your dodging the question and moving the goalposts.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Objectively we have no clue what'd happen if the USA sends light infantry and they get attacked by enemy air power and heavy artillery and tanks. That hasn't happened, and Saddam never did try to move when he had the chance to do that. The USA is used to easy-peasy attacks on third-rate countries barely able to stand up to martyrdom-seeking teenagers with chemical warfare. This isn't that kind of war.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Why the fuck would we be sending light infantry anywhere they'd be facing combined forces unsupported? Most likely unit of deployment would be an MEU or CTF both of which include organic air and anti-armor assets.

...and you're still dodging.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because those are our actually readily deployable assets and it takes months to deploy a genuine armored division. Months that Russia, unlike Iraq, won't give us? I mean let's be frank here, Saddam was a target because it was transparent he was incapable of fighting a war. Russia is not Iraq, and acting like this is 1991 or 2003 is a recipe for a general nuclear exchange.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You don't need a full armored division if you aren't going on the attack. Our actual, readily deployable assets include at least 2 MEUs, 3 if we recall the first and call up the reserves. They have enough in the way of organic air and anti-tank assets to make things interesting and can be deployed in days rather than months. They are also very hard to mess with in transit unless the Russians feel like fighting a blue-water air or sub war, an scenario that would be playing to the US's strengths.

ETA:
...and you're still dodging.

Fact remains that despite being a bit busted up the US still has options when it comes to slinging our weight around in the wider world. Meanwhile France is having trouble with rebels who are less than 6 hours outside Paris as the C-130 A-400 flies.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually, no we don't in this scenario. Again I remind you that in the real world the rest of us live in it took months to build up to beat third-rate Iraq when Iraq could do nothing. Russia is not Iraq, and we won't have the luxury of building up while the Russians politely wait for us to hit them and permit us to strike them at will. The only one dodging anything is you in your desire to ignore reality when convenient.

[404.livejournal.com]

Again I remind you that in the real world the rest of us live in it took months to build up to beat third-rate Iraq when Iraq could do nothing.

It only took months because of the the diplomatic front dragging along, the military and policy makers implementation of new technology systems in the Middle East and the concern over a perceived Vietnam Syndrome.

2014's US military isn't that same one from 1991. I'm concerned that you weren't aware of this.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, it took months in 2003 and 2014 because it takes a long time to build up for an offensive. Logistics, my friend, are not determined by mere politics. There's a word for starting a war on the cheap and ignoring logistics: idiocy.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

First off, you're still dodging the question AND moving the goal posts.

Secondly, I don't think you really understand the sort of logistical capability that US military actually has, or how unique that capability is.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I understand it just fine. But then again I'm not the one alluding to board games in these discussions. *pats you on the head.*