Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Kallisto]

Not sure but I would ask Japan about this idea circa Aug. 1945 and how that worked out.

It's a mix of that, the fact they were trying to use the Soviets as a go-between for a conditional surrender from mid 44 and the Soviets DoW basically making enough of the cabinet to see reason to allow Hirohito to surrender on terms the allies were fine with.

[Azadina]

It is obvious that Ukraine has limits it sets to itself and set by the partners.

And it's nothing to even do with the usual nuclear ooga-booga, Ukraine and the West much rather have Russia keep its "special operation" pretense and not go full out war, mass conscriptions and full-blown war effort, because that would be a whole different bucket of cancer to deal with then.

A very aggressive cancer that should have never been allowed to fester and grow into terminal one. All the tools were in place to deal with it back in 1945, when there was still ample time.

But no, people tried to pray the cancer away. Clearly still do to this very day. It doesn't work, and never has. About time for people to figure that one out.

[Cynical Asshole]

A very aggressive cancer that should have never been allowed to fester and grow into terminal one. All the tools were in place to deal with it back in 1945, when there was still ample time.

But no, people tried to pray the cancer away. Clearly still do to this very day. It doesn't work, and never has. About time for people to figure that one out.

Russia can't be defeated from the outside. The territory is way too vast first and foremost, and there are environmental hazards as well. Any invader would be hard pressed to keep such a vast land, as many invaders learned the hard way.

[enigma77]

Russia can't be defeated from the outside. The territory is way too vast first and foremost, and there are environmental hazards as well. Any invader would be hard pressed to keep such a vast land, as many invaders learned the hard way.

Most Russians live huddled along the European border, so yeah no.

[Kaleredar]

Russia can't be defeated from the outside. The territory is way too vast first and foremost, and there are environmental hazards as well. Any invader would be hard pressed to keep such a vast land, as many invaders learned the hard way.

Russia should’ve applied that lesson to their little charade of an invasion in Ukraine.

[YUPPIE]

While it could always be a trap of course - to lull us into a sense of security -, it's weird Prigozhin came out with approximately five different statements today that make Putin look bad. It's probably not worth citing all of them, but it amounted to saying he's not going to win at the rate it's going and that he's "foolish."

For ref: Putin once had one of his cronies' family knifed to death in front of him before having him executed for talking back to him.

And if Prigozhin is expendable and Wagner is indeed really not his to claim, I don't see how he still lives.

[Canpinter]

A very aggressive cancer that should have never been allowed to fester and grow into terminal one. All the tools were in place to deal with it back in 1945, when there was still ample time.

But no, people tried to pray the cancer away. Clearly still do to this very day. It doesn't work, and never has. About time for people to figure that one out.

Ya I can't imagine why people in 1945 didn't wana keep the war going.

[Elder Millennial]

you defeated your own point. Targeting civilians serves no strategic purpose.

It does. If your purpose is terrorizing the civilian population...or "awakening them to the fact that the war is real".

You misunderstand what "strategic objectives" are.

For example, from a military perspective the Holocaust made absolutely no sense. It was a massive drain on the already limited industrial and logistical and manpower base of Nazi Germany. But, it made complete strategic sense IF your strategic objective is the complete annihilation of the Jewish people. In that warped world it makes sense.

The same way, the Hamas missile barrages launched at Israel (they aren't targeting any specific military objectives as they simply do not have the capability to do so) make absolutely no military sense, especially considering the brutality of the Israeli reprisals. But if your strategic objective is to make the Israeli civilian population "feel" a least a fraction of the insecurity the Palestinian people do, and in the process demonstrated a continued willingness and ability to resist the Israeli state, then it makes complete strategic sense.

- - - Updated - - -

I think nr.1 depends entirely on nr.2. Ukraine would not able to do it without western support. So I'm pretty sure these objectives are reversed.

Debatable. The Taliban did a pretty good job at ejecting the US without international aid. The difference here is that the nature of the conflict would change fundamentally from "conventional war" to "unconventional war".

- - - Updated - - -

yeah, so I was in the right.

No you weren't.

You have extremely simplistic and maximalist takes on everything.

[Canpinter]

Debatable. The Taliban did a pretty good job at ejecting the US without international aid. The difference here is that the nature of the conflict would change fundamentally from "conventional war" to "unconventional war".
.

A Taliban type insurgency isn't going to work nearly as well on a Russian force as it didn't on the US. The whole point of an insurgency is to slowly erode the political will of the occupying nation.

Think about how every us death in Afghanistan made the nightly news even if just in passing, and how the party not in power at any given time capitalized on the war to attack the current president.

None of these things would be a real issues for Russia given it's dictatorial political system.


It also to 20 years to even get the US decide to leave.

[Elder Millennial]

Not sure but I would ask Japan about this idea circa Aug. 1945 and how that worked out.

I REALLY don't want to go into this, but the Japanese weren't defeated by nuclear weapons (although undoubtedly eventually they would have been), by that point of the war they were beaten plain and simply by conventional means. By that point in the war, they had no navy left, no merchantmen, no oil, no industry etc. It was a done deal.

And perhaps more importantly, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan too and they have completely swept across China and Korea. If there was one thing the Japanese were more scared of than nuclear weapons was the Soviets. They understood that a Soviet occupation would have meant the utter obliteration of everything they thought that made them "Japanese". Their Emperor, their culture, religions, traditions, class system etc.

[Cynical Asshole]

Debatable. The Taliban did a pretty good job at ejecting the US without international aid. The difference here is that the nature of the conflict would change fundamentally from "conventional war" to "unconventional war".

The Taliban are supported by other Arabic nations, namely Iran who supports anyone and anything that fights against America and Israel, not to mention various other factions.

[Elder Millennial]

A Taliban type insurgency isn't going to work nearly as well on a Russian force as it didn't on the US. The whole point of an insurgency is to slowly erode the political will of the occupying nation.

Think about how every us death in Afghanistan made the nightly news even if just in passing, and how the party not in power at any given time capitalized on the war to attack the current president.

None of these things would be a real issues for Russia given it's dictatorial political system.


It also to 20 years to even get the US decide to leave.

The thing is...the exact same type of insurgency DID WORK on the Russians too. People tend to forget about the Soviet-Afghan War. Tho that "only" lasted 10 years.

The Afghan insurgency was less lethal than the Russo-Ukrainian war and even less financially unsustainable, but it did demonstrate that even Russian dictatorships aren't completely immune to war weariness. The question is, when will that weariness kick-in in Russia this time around. The risk is, that it might happen faster in the West (which let's be honest has kinda already been fed up with the whole 20 years of "War on Terror") than it would happen in Russia.

Which is why I was explaining earlier to Johnnysensible that an actual logical argument can be made for the strategic value of targeting Russian cities and civilian infrastructure (and maybe even the population itself) from a Ukrainian perspective, that "Taking the war to Russia" might accelerate the process of this war weariness kicking-in in Russia.

The reasons why Ukraine doesn't engage in those things isn't really humanitarian. It's because the political cost with its western supporters is too high. They don't do it, because WE wouldn't like it.

[Milchshake]

The Taliban are supported by other Arabic nations, namely Iran who supports anyone and anything that fights against America and Israel, not to mention various other factions.

This post is so categorially dumb, almost like it was born from the laziness that comes from casual bigotry.

• Iran is not an Arabic nation.
• Not understanding the hostility between Sunni and Shia factions after 20+ fucking years in Iraq and Afganistan.

[Elder Millennial]

The Taliban are supported by other Arabic nations, namely Iran who supports anyone and anything that fights against America and Israel, not to mention various other factions.

That's relevant how? A Ukrainian insurgency would receive unofficial support too, especially from other Eastern European countries.

There's a huge difference between a few million dollars here and there and some clandestine small arms and explosives shipments and the type of state and military support Ukraine is currently receiving.

[Azadina]

Ya I can't imagine why people in 1945 didn't wana keep the war going.

And so they didn't. They threw up the mission accomplished banners all over, while watching the world ending threat emerge. The one that was already at that time occupying and oppressing half a continent.

Nice job.

[Jastall]

A Taliban type insurgency isn't going to work nearly as well on a Russian force as it didn't on the US. The whole point of an insurgency is to slowly erode the political will of the occupying nation.

Think about how every us death in Afghanistan made the nightly news even if just in passing, and how the party not in power at any given time capitalized on the war to attack the current president.

None of these things would be a real issues for Russia given it's dictatorial political system.


It also to 20 years to even get the US decide to leave.

I mean the Afghans did the literal same thing to the Russians themselves. Constant insurrection leading to the occupation being more trouble than it's worth so they left.

Now Ukraine is not the same as Afghanistan, being far closer to Russia's population centers and nowhere near as treacherous in terms of terrain, so a resistance would have a harder time hiding out. But on the plus side they would definitely get a bunch of Western aid which also helped the Afghans so they'd still be a huge thorn on the Russian side.

[Cynical Asshole]

That's relevant how? A Ukrainian insurgency would receive unofficial support too, especially from other Eastern European countries.

There's a huge difference between a few million dollars here and there and some clandestine small arms and explosives shipments and the type of state and military support Ukraine is currently receiving.

You think fucking Romania would give any relevant help to Ukraine? Hungary? Hungary kisses Putin's ass, and so does Serbia and Austria. Poland? Ok, yeah. Slovakia? Bro.

[Kallisto]

You think fucking Romania would give any relevant help to Ukraine? Hungary? Hungary kisses Putin's ass, and so does Serbia and Austria. Poland? Ok, yeah. Slovakia? Bro.

Serbia is pissed with Russia and have been since around Xmas time when Wagner was trying to advertise over there.

[Elder Millennial]

You think fucking Romania would give any relevant help to Ukraine? Hungary? Hungary kisses Putin's ass, and so does Serbia and Austria. Poland? Ok, yeah. Slovakia? Bro.

Serbia is irrelevant.

Poland, Baltics, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and likely both Norway and Sweden and the Czechs absolutely would.

But again, this is a 100% moot conversation.

[Cynical Asshole]

Serbia is irrelevant.

Poland, Baltics, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and likely both Norway and Sweden and the Czechs absolutely would.

But again, this is a 100% moot conversation.

Romania ain't got shit to give away. I would know that.