Russian invasion of Ukraine

[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.

[AntiFascistVoter]

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.

[Elder Millennial]

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

Don't project your personal traumas and opinions onto geopolitics.

[Corvus]

The Prig says the Wankers suffered 20,000 dead taking Bakhmut, 10K convicts and 10k mercenaries.

[jonnysensible]

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.

No. Bombing civilians only hardens a peoples resolve. It would absolutely not accelerate the process of war weariness. Your Hamas example for instance : does Israel have war weariness? no. Did the firebombings in ww2 cause it? no. Did the blitz cause it? no.

Again the only reason to target civ infrastructure is to deplete air defense so you can use air assets in the future, everything else is nihilistic and pointless.

[YUPPIE]

Will the West support the Kremlin should these seemingly unaffiliated partisans make incursions into Russia like they vow to?

Anti-Putin paramilitary group says there will be more incursions into Russia

The leader of the Russian Volunteer Corps says the group's plans include more incursions into Russia, adding: "You should be just a little bit patient and wait a couple of days."

A group claiming to be behind a recent strike in the Russian border region of Belgorod have said they will launch more incursions in future.

Denis Kapustin (also known as Denis Nikitin), the commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps, was speaking on the Ukrainian side of the border with Russia a day after his group claimed to have been behind an armed raid on the Belgorod area.

He said: "I think you will see us again on that side.

"I cannot reveal those upcoming things, I cannot even reveal the direction.

"The... border is pretty long, yet again there will be a spot where things will get hot."

He said his anti-Putin fighters had held "around 42 square kilometres" of Russian territory "for quite a while", adding: "We're fighting for freedom, we're fighting against injustice, so we're fighting against torture, we're fighting against terrible acts of police brutality."

Russia initially blamed Ukraine for the incursion, and alleged that 70 of the attackers were killed or pushed back.

[Elder Millennial]

No. Bombing civilians only hardens a peoples resolve. It would absolutely not accelerate the process of war weariness. Your Hamas example for instance : does Israel have war weariness? no. Did the firebombings in ww2 cause it? no. Did the blitz cause it? no.

Again the only reason to target civ infrastructure is to deplete air defense so you can use air assets in the future, everything else is nihilistic and pointless.

Yet, Hamas keeps firing rockets and the allies spent an unholy amount of effort on "strategic bombing" of the civilian population.

What you think someone's strategic objectives are or what makes strategic sense for them, is not the same as what they think.

You keep missing the point.

"War is politics by other means". There's no universal truth or sense to politics. What makes sense to you, might not make sense to someone else. You are projecting your value and political priority system onto others and call theirs "pointless", ignoring how it COULD make sense to them.

It's basically another version of "They hate us because they hate us" type of blindness.

Not to mention, the US and Russia has a long history of successfully exploiting internal political strife in third party countries to destabilize unfriendly regimes. What we are seeing right now, is the Ukrainians doing the same. And sometimes both Russia and the US have successfully slipped in a couple of bombings and whatnot to accelerate the process. The Ukrainians could point at those past incidents to logically justify their own actions.

This is a way too complicated topic I'm not in the mood of getting into, I'm hoping to get you to understand that "strategic sense" is a mutable thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Will the West support the Kremlin should these seemingly unaffiliated partisans make incursions into Russia like they vow to?

No./10char

[jonnysensible]

snip

yea you can just admit you are wrong and talking nonsense. Ukraine is not bombing Russian civilians because it doesn't make any strategic sense for them that's it, not complicated at all.

[Elder Millennial]

yea you can just admit you are wrong and talking nonsense. Ukraine is not bombing Russian civilians because it doesn't make any strategic sense for them that's it, not complicated at all.

Jesus fucking Christ dude. Read this exchange again from the beginning.

I started with explaining why it doesn't make sense for them to do so now, and that they are in fact acting with restraint, but those things are contingent on the current circumstances of the conflict, which could change. You also keep saying xyz doesn't make sense and I keep pointing out that people in the real world keep disagreeing with you.

You either have the memory of a goldfish, or you have reading comprehension problems.

[jonnysensible]

Jesus fucking Christ dude. Read this exchange again from the beginning.

I started with explaining why it doesn't make sense for them to do so now, and that they are in fact acting with restraint, but those things are contingent on the current circumstances of the conflict, which could change. You also keep saying xyz doesn't make sense and I keep pointing out that people in the real world keep disagreeing with you.

You either have the memory of a goldfish, or you have reading comprehension problems.

yuppie : both sides are holding back
me : no they are not
you : hmmm let me pontificate on targeting civilians as a logic game that has no substance in the reality of the situation, here are some dumb examples and some phrases i'm really smart you see
me : no

yea i got the gist of it

[Xyonai]

Will the West support the Kremlin should these seemingly unaffiliated partisans make incursions into Russia like they vow to?

Short answer? Lmao, no.

Long answer: No, but if this new partisan group somehow manages to roll into the Kremlin - we meme about their army but the partisans are still hilariously outnumbered and outgunned in the long run - and catches Putin before he can scuttle into a bunker somewhere, the west will probably only get involved if the new 'ruling' party wants to swing their new nuclear dick around.

Otherwise I think the west would be fine with letting them burn out in a Civil war while focusing on getting Ukraine back up and running.