Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Jessicka]

I was referring to UK and France allegedly giving permission for the Storm Shadows. It was reported in Kyiv Independent but nowhere else.

What is it with Biden waiting too long to do the right thing...

Britain and France have been lobbying for since they handed them over, its inevitable.

[Calfredd]

Dems are playing their final card, long range missiles inside Russia. They won't go down without triggering ww3 first.

Have some decency Aizen and zip it up, your ignorance is showing.

[Iphie]

It's cute you think any country would side with Russia enough to cause a World War.

Eh...maybe DPRK, but China might pull their leash, Iran, no. I suppose you're right.

Merriam-Webster defines World War as such:

a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world
especially, World War

Interestingly that would mean if the US, UK, France, China and some other European and larger countries stay out it could never be called a World War.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/world%20war

[Draco-Onis]

If only Biden had allowed them to do this last year, this might potentially have been over by now. Still find it sad we were willing to pussyfoot around with Russia because they have nukes. We know where appeasement and brinksmanship gets people and knew how this needed to go.

I think it's over optimistic to think that this alone would have changed the entire war it's been going on for years now. You can say that Russia may not have taken as much territory but they wouldn't have been defeated even if this was allowed right out of the gate.

[PhaelixWW]

Interestingly that would mean if the US, UK, France, China and some other European and larger countries stay out it could never be called a World War.

Or the definition of "World War" could change. That does happen, too.

You know, since "literally" literally means "figuratively" now, it's all topsy-turvy

[Iphie]

Or the definition of "World War" could change. That does happen, too.

You know, since "literally" literally means "figuratively" now, it's all topsy-turvy

Fair, and honestly I was taught a different definition anyway: "a world war is a war where combatants from all, or most, continents participate in hostilities". The treshold is lower for that definition.

[Endus]

Fair, and honestly I was taught a different definition anyway: "a world war is a war where combatants from all, or most, continents participate in hostilities". The treshold is lower for that definition.

Was the Iraq War a "world war"? Participants from 4 separate continents; Europe, Asia, North America, and Australia. That's 2/3 of the continents, minus South America and Africa, if we agree we can ignore Antarctica since there is no landed population there. The War in Afghanistan includes even more participants. Was that a "world war"?

Even if NATO jumped in with Ukraine directly (meaning troops and materiel directly operated by said troops on the ground in Ukraine and, presumably, Russia, not just in advisory capacities), it'd still be less of a "world war" than either of those conflicts.

[Fugus]

I think it's over optimistic to think that this alone would have changed the entire war it's been going on for years now. You can say that Russia may not have taken as much territory but they wouldn't have been defeated even if this was allowed right out of the gate.

Can't say for certain, but their death count would have been significantly higher as well as its munitions lowered as well which would have also been a massive hit to Russia's already certainly low support for the conflict.

While a single attack can help galvanize a group to join a conflict, the constant fear of the conflict hitting home can kill the support just as fast. It would also have forced Russia to keep more of their people at home to help deal with the potential attacks.

Not saying Russia would have collapsed by now, I am just saying that there is a chance their war effort might have and almost guaranteed Russia would be much worse for wear at this point if they had.

[Draco-Onis]

Can't say for certain, but their death count would have been significantly higher as well as its munitions lowered as well which would have also been a massive hit to Russia's already certainly low support for the conflict.

While a single attack can help galvanize a group to join a conflict, the constant fear of the conflict hitting home can kill the support just as fast. It would also have forced Russia to keep more of their people at home to help deal with the potential attacks.

Not saying Russia would have collapsed by now, I am just saying that there is a chance their war effort might have and almost guaranteed Russia would be much worse for wear at this point if they had.

Or it could have given Putin enough of a popularity boost through propaganda to do a nationwide mobilization.

[Kaleredar]

Or it could have given Putin enough of a popularity boost through propaganda to do a nationwide mobilization.

The Russian people's entire involvement in this seems to be a very simple matter of "eh what can you do, better to stay silent than risk persecution. What's it to us if some Ukrainians die? And after all, none of the Russians dying are ones I know." Which is apathy, not patriotism. "Liking" Putin isn't a factor, here. It's whether they fear him or Ukraine more. Right now, that fear for most of them is still Putin.

[Fugus]

Or it could have given Putin enough of a popularity boost through propaganda to do a nationwide mobilization.

Don't they already have a nationwide mobilization? They have like 60 year olds and prisoners as their troops and cutting disabled benefits to get the troops and funding. Taking the fight to Russia would hurt them far more than it would mobilize them.

And Ukraine striking military installations and supplies within Russia's borders would have degraded them far faster far sooner.

And here is another one, 1 attack got the US to attack a nation that didn't actually attack us for 20 years. If those people were actually able to stand up to us and hold their own and actually started attacking our military bases here and showing footage of our troops committing atrocities in a way state sponsored media couldn't hide, the fighting would have likely been over FAR sooner. It's easy to feel tough when you feel untouchable but when the fighting is at your front door, you are more willing to think twice at the guys trying to talk you into it, especially when you know that they are only at your doorstep because you won't leave theirs alone.

[PhaelixWW]

Don't they already have a nationwide mobilization? They have like 60 year olds and prisoners as their troops and cutting disabled benefits to get the troops and funding.

No. They have 60-year-olds and prisoners as their troops precisely because they don't have full mobilization. Those are volunteer soldiers who signed up for money.

[Tyris Flare]

Absolute insanity to approve missile strikes from a lame duck president, a pointless escalation that cannot change the outcome of a lost war.

People actively hoping for armageddon here have completely lost their minds.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's over optimistic to think that this alone would have changed the entire war it's been going on for years now. You can say that Russia may not have taken as much territory but they wouldn't have been defeated even if this was allowed right out of the gate.

Of course it wouldn't have, this is completely detached from reality.

The only saving grace here is that there just aren't that many missiles to fire because western stockpiles are nearly exhausted.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't they already have a nationwide mobilization? They have like 60 year olds and prisoners as their troops and cutting disabled benefits to get the troops and funding. Taking the fight to Russia would hurt them far more than it would mobilize them.

And Ukraine striking military installations and supplies within Russia's borders would have degraded them far faster far sooner.

And here is another one, 1 attack got the US to attack a nation that didn't actually attack us for 20 years. If those people were actually able to stand up to us and hold their own and actually started attacking our military bases here and showing footage of our troops committing atrocities in a way state sponsored media couldn't hide, the fighting would have likely been over FAR sooner. It's easy to feel tough when you feel untouchable but when the fighting is at your front door, you are more willing to think twice at the guys trying to talk you into it, especially when you know that they are only at your doorstep because you won't leave theirs alone.

They are offering huge contracts (paying soldiers far more than western countries, comparatively) to avoid mobilization. Volunteers have been eclipsing casualties/desertions.

[Fugus]

No. They have 60-year-olds and prisoners as their troops precisely because they don't have full mobilization. Those are volunteer soldiers who signed up for money.

From what I have read, Russia conscripts about 130,000 a year. And even raised the minimum age that can be conscripted just because of Ukraine.

[Dontrike]

Absolute insanity to approve missile strikes from a lame duck president, a pointless escalation that cannot change the outcome of a lost war.

People actively hoping for armageddon here have completely lost their minds.

You can practically hear the copy/paste from InfoWars.

[Kaleredar]

Absolute insanity to approve missile strikes from a lame duck president, a pointless escalation that cannot change the outcome of a lost war.

Maybe the threat of complete destruction will get the Russian people off their asses to protest Putin continuing his invasion and butchering, seeing as the wanton slaughter of Ukrainian men, women and children obviously wasn't enough.

You know how we absolutely avoid any escalation in the conflict? Putin surrendering. Tomorrow. All occupied lands returned to Ukraine. There, problem solved.

Why isn't this the solution you're pushing for? That seems like the quickest, most expeditious, least lethal outcome possible for all parties.

You can practically hear the copy/paste from InfoWars.

I would agree, especially considering infowars is now owned by the Onion and what they said is such utter inanity it has to be satire.

[Azadina]

Absolute insanity to approve missile strikes from a lame duck president, a pointless escalation that cannot change the outcome of a lost war.

People actively hoping for armageddon here have completely lost their minds.

Isn't there a speZial military operation going on komrade? Shouldn't you be there doing your duty for da mudderland. Or are you part of the internet propaganda wing, exempt from the operation?

[Flarelaine]

Let's go?
Will I be infracted for hoping to see Moscow in flames this week?

Yes, there's a decent chance you will. Even if it is the capital of the aggressor, Moscow is still fundamentally made up of millions of noncombatants. Regardless of what Russia has been doing, we expect posters not to cheer for war crimes.

[Santti]

Yes, there's a decent chance you will. Even if it is the capital of the aggressor, Moscow is still fundamentally made up of millions of noncombatants. Regardless of what Russia has been doing, we expect posters not to cheer for war crimes.

I'll keep that in mind for the Israel/Palestine thread.

[Iphie]

Was the Iraq War a "world war"? Participants from 4 separate continents; Europe, Asia, North America, and Australia. That's 2/3 of the continents, minus South America and Africa, if we agree we can ignore Antarctica since there is no landed population there. The War in Afghanistan includes even more participants. Was that a "world war"?

Even if NATO jumped in with Ukraine directly (meaning troops and materiel directly operated by said troops on the ground in Ukraine and, presumably, Russia, not just in advisory capacities), it'd still be less of a "world war" than either of those conflicts.

Endus, I know you are a smart man, but did you really ignore the part where I said: "the treshold is lower for that definition"? It is implied that this definition would make a lot of conflicts World Wars, and yes, back in the day we did say "WWIII has started" in my neck of the woods when referring to these conflicts, we were young and naive.