Somewhere in the E. Ukraine.  Someplace strategic. Would this be enough to give Putin reservations and just pull out of this mess?

Hypothetically, what would happen if your shit turned purple and smelled like rainbow sherbet?

 

Wellthatescalatedquickly.jpeg

SHENANIGANS

You can always tell the people who don't know squat about military operations. "Full logistical support" isn't something you blithely assume into existence, just because it would be convenient. I seriously doubt that we could support 50,000 troops in Eastern Ukraine without turning them into a liability of massive proportions. Something like that would imply a full combat division with support troops, and that simply isn't enough of a force to matter. Supporting it, from Europe? We'd be at the mercy of every state in between the eastern terminus of the nearest NATO rail line, and the idea of doing it by sea? Ludicrous.

The same situation was true during the Georgian debacle. We simply do not have the option of putting men on the ground, unless you want to watch them evaporate like water dumped on a hot Texas road in the middle of summer.

Logistics is the main issue. You can't just dump men into a situation, and expect them to subsist off the local resources, which are largely non-existent. It's like the situation with Rwanda--It looks horrible on the news, but there's effectively nothing we can do, with our own troops. Had we tried to intervene in Rwanda, by dropping the 82nd Airborne on top of the main massacre sites, we'd have kissed goodbye to the entire division inside of a few short weeks. There was no way to get in sufficient food, fuel, or water to try to support them, let alone intervene on behalf of the victims. About all we would have accomplished was adding the divisional roster to the list of casualties. That's the reality; the sad fact is that it takes years and months to build up a logistical footprint that is capable of supporting combat operations, something we've carefully avoided doing in Eastern Europe to avoid provoking the Russians.

Trying to support US combat troops in the Ukraine? Not even an option, until and unless a massive footprint of logistics and transportation is in place, and that ain't something that's likely to happen overnight. Look at how long it took to build up for the invasion of Iraq, or the recovery of Kuwait. And, both of those efforts took place in a mature theater with massive logistics assets already in place, which would not be true of anything done in the Ukraine.

I doubt he would turn back, especially with Barry Ofucknut in the White House.

Hypothetically... we really don't have a dog in the fight!


Maybe Putin should send troops to the Nevada Ranch standoff.

GREAT QUESTION!!!

Does it taste like rainbow sherbet?

Ya know, I have often wondered what the social impact of colored fart gas would be.

Say, a light brownish green for instance.

Would civilization exist as we know it?
Would farts be as funny and as stigmatized?

Pondering these things is good for the soul.

 

Agreed.  Aside from having an infrastructure in place, it takes something like 4 support personnel for every combat troop.  Once you've committed to 250,000 troops in the area, you're pretty much all in.

You know some assholes would be trying to blow out smoke rings.  Experimenting with various food combinations to see the effects on color, that sort of thing.

I see what you did there.

Leave Crimea? No. Best case it would turn into Berlin.

 

OP, do you know what "full logistical support" actually means?

Exactly!!!

There might even be a kinky side of farting for cinema, or Fart music artisticly combined with colors and odors.
Possibly a "No farting" section in theatres and a whole new ettiquette surrounding flatulence..the world would be different.

Hell no.   Nor should he have any reservations.

The guy in the whitehouse is impotent and everyone knows it, and even if he wasn't the Dems would throw a wrench in any military effort the moment they saw some way to benefit from it.

20 MEU's?

True. Putin would call the bluff and it may even be on like Donkey Kong having that many US soldiers on Russia's border.

No.

You don't need 50k troops in Eastern Ukraine. Putting the 173rd in Kyiv would stop this. If BHO hadn't said, "We are not going to get into a military excursion in Ukraine" we probably wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

In 50 years textbooks may very well look back on this fuck up as the one memorable thing about the Obama administration.

Listen to this man.

The Ukrainians have a long history in Partisan/Guerrilla warfare, the best thing we can do is supply them with small arms, light artillery, anti tank, and anti aircraft weapons, let Putin attack, and let him turn his tail in run like the soviets did when they invaded Afghanistan, it would make him look like a punk, and failure. Public opinion would turn against him, and he can retreat into hiding as the failure he is. Of course this is after Russia's economy implodes. Plus this would strengthen the Ukrainian people as a nation, and force the dissidents and Russian sympathizers back into Russia where they belong.


If Putin was stupid enough to attack a NATO country, NATO would come down on him like a sledge hammer, the American Navy would decimate his air and navel forces. Which would leave a bunch of unorganized troops and tanks that would be leveled from the air. Not to mention the France, Poland, Canada, and the UK would be there to help out too. Among other NATO allies.

The Ukrainians should start the insurgency now. Plant informants and sleepers in with the Russian sympathizers cause mass confusion and locate Russian leadership communication and logistics points. Slow down the reds from the inside. Sabotage and ambush the little green men, not with uniformed Ukranian troops but with insurgents, and "locals" play the same game the Russians are playing.

in reality.. it probably could make putin think twice.  why?  because russians respect strength. they are opportunistic mother fuckers when you show weakness.  considering the amount of support troops required to actually have a 50k combat force.. logistics would be the largest issue.  

I see it now Lesbian Fart bukkake. Some young tart on her knees mouth open tounge out catching farts of various colors. I smell money!


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

You can also tell who's a stick in the mud when it comes to thought exercises...



 

You'd spend a few hours in an emergency room until the bath salts wore off. Then they would tell you that the straps were because you wouldn't stop playing with your shit.

Beyond this....the ability to elegantly use your fart smoke rings would create an evolutionary competitive advantage. Those with the best looking fart rings of the longest duration would win the girl and pass on their genetics. Not sure how this ties into 50K troops in the Ukraine but seems to make more sense.

Well, maybe.  I'd rely more on experimenting with various food mixtures and just knock her ass out.    As for the 50k troops well, with the right food, we could probably bypass the need for chemical weapons delivered by artillery or air.  And, since our troops would be used to it, there would be no need for MOPP gear.

lol

If we had the means of instantly projecting and sustaining a corps-sized element like that, we wouldn't have this problem.

Might as well ask if we can magic away the Russian forces, of that would make a difference. What if we move the Ukrainian border a few hundred miles awy from Russia's?

Yes!  More war to help people that hate us.  We should use the draft.

 














 

I would argue the situation today is far more analogous to what was happening in Greece, which led to this landmark decision:

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/march-12-1947-truman-doctrine-announced/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

It's a lot like Syria, there are Bad guys and worst guys who side do you want to be on?
The Nazi's or the Commies?

No, it's not like that at all.

Putin doesn't need the Russian Army.  He shuts off the oil and gas to NATO or he demands the Euro-dollar instead of dollars for his oil/gas.  Europe will gladly switch over since they'll realize instant  savings by avoiding SWIFT.  The Saudis may follow since they have been burned again by the U.S. (that and they have been unseated as the largest petroleum producing nation in the world) when the U. S. consented to Iran becoming a nuclear power and its failure to invade Syria. Once the petro-dollar dies, excess dollars flood home from foreign nations and investors with the result being the U. S. implodes under hyper-inflation (thank you Osama Bin Ber Nank and Felon Yellen).

50,000, I assume combat troops, with the logistical support needed to adequately support them would give pause for sure.  The problem lies with Russia's logistical support.  Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union, as we all know, and the infrastructure / support is on their side.

I'm reminded of "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

We had about 300,00 US troops on the Chinese border when they decided we got too close. Look it up - 1 Nov 1950. See what happened then. Look up what happened to the 8th Cav of the 1st Cavalry Div. Look up the battle of the Chosin Reservoir. Look at the length of Russian's logistics versus ours. We'd be a speed bump, and not a very big one at that.

Wouldn't it be less expensive to have some low-level daytime B2 training flights around Poland?    Close enough to Ukraine, but not too close.

two girls will eat it

 

Harry Truman's foreign policy was as muscular as Reagan's, and more so in some ways.

Logistical support ?

I believe the Germans had problems with logistical support when they tried heading east

In Putin's back yard and dependent on Europe's help,  It would be over for them.

Uh............YES!!

In a permissive environment the military is well within its capability to deploy and support 50k troops if leadership was willing to accept a lower quality of life than we experienced in Iraq or the larger bases in Afghanistan