War in Ukraine

Your friend Duggar did not know that Patriot missiles could hit things, so he needed to be educated. Case closed.

 

He may give you a totally different answer, but I would agree that the West and Ukraine were well aware of the minefields and such, but to delay the counteroffensive would give Russia even more time to fortify defensive positions and create an impregnable wall. Generally speaking, a good counteroffensive will need three men for each enemy kill. By waiting, you give Russia more time to mobilize, ramp up their war machine, dig in their trenches and lay their mines.

There was a certain arrogance to it as well. I'm sure you'll deny it, but the prevailing thought is they had the Russians on the run and so why would you stop and allow the Russians to regroup? They've been known to do that before.

The U.S. knows the Donbass is gone. They want to make the Russians bleed on the battlefield. The goal is not victory.

 

I have to admit, this is one of your more logical posts. However, it is wrong.

Of course the goal is victory. The goal is not simply making the Russians bleed on the battlefield. Russia has been reduced to a semi-professional army, so it really does little good to maximize the death of unskilled Russian troops. That does little to limit the ability of Russia to invade other countries. Damaging Russian military equipment is a secondary goal, but that is more because it damages the Russian economy as it forces Russia to make more weapons systems to replace what they lost. One possible path to victory is through a Russian economic collapse and the unrest that goes with that. Hungry people become willing to overthrow their government. This happened in Russia in 1917. Another path to victory could be asymmetric warfare to invade Crimea, after eliminating the Russian navy in the Black Sea. This may be possible once Ukraine gets F-16's. The only unknown is whether Ukraine has knocked out enough SAM systems for the F-16's to be successful. Russia is very nervous about the Ukraine units across the Dnipro River. Are they a distraction, or could they become the tip of the spear?

There is no question that this war is upsetting the "standard" logic of warfare. Drone warfare in particular is an innovation which has taken over the battlefield in many ways. Ukraine does have the better equipment compared to Russia, they do have home field advantage. They are lacking in manpower (and, at the moment, ammunition). Hopefully, Europe can pick up the slack caused by the treasonous mental defectives (i.e., republicans) in the U.S. Congress, and hopefully Ukraine can survive until November, and hopefully America will be wise enough to vote out the traitors.

 

There is a lot of truth in your post, but I want to challenge your assumption in bold. There is a lot of good in maximizing the deaths of Russians in Ukraine’s strategy. And it is not about “bleeding Russia” to please the West. Each one of those unskilled Russian soldiers has a family who cares about his well being. Families such as these (known colloquially as “the mothers”) were instrumental in pressuring the Soviet government to end the war in Afghanistan. Presently, Ukraine lacks the physical ability to decisively defeat Russia in the field, and Russia lacks the will (though, its ability is also in question, frankly) to do the same. Therefore, both sides are engaged in strategies of erosion instead of annihilation. Ukraine is targeting Russia’s weakening will by maximizing casualties among other things, such as Russia’s expensive ships and planes. Russia is targeting Ukraine’s ability by trying to cut off Western aid, largely with an information campaign that is surprisingly effective for those who wish to believe their BS.

Here’s where we have the current friction between Zelensky and his generals. The generals are militarily correct that the terrain is not of supreme importance, and they want to give ground, such as in Avdiivka, when it preserves their force and maximizes Russian casualties. Zelensky has a political problem, though. The Western world, minus the military professionals, is obsessed with a scoreboard of ground lost and won, and the detractors would like to translate this into cutting aid to Ukraine, intentionally or not in support of Putin’s strategy. Zelensky, therefore, with a politician’s problems, is pushing his military to engage in suboptimal tactics for strategic gain: keeping the West engaged.

So while I agree that killing Russian conscripts does little to directly make NATO stronger in a future war, I argue again that it’s essential to Ukraine strategically defeating Russia. I also see it as a critical factor in deterring China from trying a land grab of its own, which could lead to a bloody, disastrous war for both sides that none of us, Republican or Democrat, should want.

 

You write these propaganda essays, regurgitating talking points from god knows where. I agree it does little good to maximize Russian soldier death. No argument there. In terms of crippling Russia's war machine, the current effort seems to be actually enhancing Russia's war machine, not degrading it. The only way you'd actually hurt Russia's ability to mint armored vehicles, drones and jets would be to hit Russia proper, deep inside Russia proper aka that ain't ever gonna happen.

On the one hand you're telling us you "hope Ukraine can survive until November," which is actually a pretty bleak assessment of the situation and on the other, you're attempting to make a case for full victory. (ie eradicating Russia from every pre-2014 Ukrainian crevice) If Ukraine are on life support and we gotta hope they'll make it until November, they're not going to push Russia out of the Donbass or Crimea. That's a come on, man if there ever was one.

Russia's replacement rate continues to intensify. You guys need to understand this isn't merely an adventurous Russian empire looking to annex shiny new property. Ukraine is a red line for Russia for reasons you and I will never fully understand. But, we should at least seek to understand, as it will help us a great deal in evaluating our options moving forward.

 

The Western world is correct to look at the scoreboard in this case, because breaking Russia's will has been a historical loser. They could kill a million Russian sons in the next year and Russia will still be fighting. Russia is not like the West. Most Russians have imbedded nationalistic pride and stand behind their leader. They are not divided onto two sides of a spectrum as people are here. Sure, there are outliers and occasional protests, but on the whole, most Russians toe the line. Probably out of fear in many cases, but also out of a sense of deep national pride.

 

There is no evidence that Ukraine is a red line for Russia. If it was, Putin would have mentioned it at the outset. He did not. He claimed to be ridding the world of Nazis in Ukraine, which was fairly absurd. Why would he use an absurd reason to cover for a somewhat reasonable (if misguided) reason? In fact, it would only be a valid red line for Russia if Russia had future intentions of invading Ukraine. No European country (or group of countries) had any designs or ability to invade Russia (and has not had designs or ability since WWII). Thus, the only real reasons for invading Ukraine are (1) to protect Russia's future "right" to invade Ukraine whenever it feels like it, and (2) to seize valuable assets of Ukraine, including metals production, agriculture, and valuable real estate on the Black Sea. Given the fact that Putin's previous speeches from decades ago indicate a longing to re-establish the territory of the Soviet Union, we have to assume it is the second reason. Make your first invasion a country that can provide natural resources to help you invade other countries.

The truth is, we don't know how this war will play out, and we only know small amounts of "the truth" about the war right now. The actual and detailed truth about a war is always written after the war. We don't know how low Ukraine's supply of ammunition is, or what Europe's ability to supply them might be. We don't know how much longer they will have the willpower to keep fighting. We don't know when Russia will have had enough of this war either. Something could come out of the blue, like Prigo's near-revolt, or Putin's health problems, which could end the war overnight. Wars never go according to the script, for either side.

 

LMAO. This has been known for years. How else do you explain Angela Merkel's comments in 2008 when Germany voted against Ukraine NATO ascension? And...lemme get this straight. You expect Vladimir Putin, ex-KGB spy, to telegraph his red line to the world before the war starts? Did your mom drop you a few dozen times when you were a baby?

 

Your history is incomplete. You are examining only the cases where a bonafide existential threat existed to Russia, such as during the Napoleonic Russian Campaign or WWII. There is no danger to Russia in this case, and no amount of spinning can make that so. The preponderance of historical evidence is in cases, such as this one, where Russia’s reach exceeded its grasp and it was forced to accept strategic defeat couched in a face-saving settlement (which is want Putin wants here; the face-saving settlement, not the strategic defeat) before the domestic turmoil reaches a boiling point. You might want to consider the Russo-Japanese War, its failed invasion of Poland in 1920, the Winter War of 1939-1940, Afghanistan in the 1980s, or the First Chechnya War in the early 1990s before concluding that the Russian people will never start pressuring their government — no matter how harsh or brutal that government is — when they realize the casualties simply aren’t worth it.

 

How many years have you lived in Russia? Do you have a degree in Russian history or culture? You talk as if you are an expert in Russian history, culture and mindsets.

The scoreboard is 1-1 for Russia during World Wars, by the way. They did kill their leaders during WWI. It was only during WWII that Russia showed determination to fight back against Germany. And that determination was bolstered by supplies, equipment, and technology from world manufacturing leader United States (not to mention idiocy by Germany's leaders). Right now, Ukraine has better technology than Russia in many areas (SAMs, artillery, HIMARS, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, night vision, etc.). And guess what? People from almost every country have a sense of "deep national pride". (You sound like someone who has never been outside of the U.S. when you say things like that.) And "toeing the line" while someone is pointing a gun at you and when you have freedom to act are two totally different things. The Bolsheviks toed the line when guns were pointed at them as well. When they weren't, they pointed guns at their nation's chief executives and pulled the trigger. Maybe assassination is a part of their culture. Makes you think, huh?

Add in Afghanistan, which was Russia's (or the Soviets', if you prefer) attempt to (eventually) take a warm-water port, and the scoreboard becomes 1-2 with Russia losing more than they succeed. Their economy was in trouble in the late-1980's (like it is now), and, as Taipan pointed out, the mothers did not like having their children killed in an unnecessary war.

Russia's biggest problem may be that, with the internet and Russia's incomplete control of the internet, most younger Russian people know the truth about what's going on in Ukraine. They know its not an existential or even a necessary war. It will take longer for older people to hear and believe the truth, but it will happen.

 

You are only quoting one leader of one European country. And that country has, in recent decades, been the most fearful one about getting involved in a war with Russia (not to mention upsetting their supply of fuel). Does England feel the same way? How about Finland?

Do you know nothing about global politics? Have you learned nothing from this thread? No, a world leader does not hide his valid reasons for taking military action against another nation. He wants all other nations to believe and understand that the action is justified, so they do not oppose the action or intervene. If the reason is absurd, then that makes it easier for other countries to help the targeted country, and harder to motivate your own population to continue with the fight. Russia has clearly been unmotivated in this fight.

What a country's leader does not announce before starting a war is when, where, and how they will attack. They do need to announce why.

 

I know, that's why I included the word "eventually". The general consensus was that Pakistan (small, backwards country, likely unable to defend itself at the time) was next.

 

Pakistan's first (and last) successful nuclear weapons test was May, 1998. The Afghanistan War was 1979-1989. By the way, we are coming up on the "surrender" date of Russia in Afghanistan: Feb. 15, 1989. Wonder if that's a national holiday in Russia . . .

 

I see a Russian leader such as Putin to be a lot less interested in what dead soldiers' wives and mothers have to say about the war than Gorbachev was in 1989. Gorbachev was a more civilized human being and leader, and, maybe more importantly, he did not start the war in Afghanistan. His head would not be on the chopping block for starting a war that Russia did not win. Furthermore, there is no Russian Politburo around to second guess a leader's decisions and remove him from office if he fails at something important. An "election" decides if the dictator stays or goes, and the dictator is free to rig the election, choose his opposition, control the media, etc. That's how Russia does free elections, as you know. In short, Putin has a lot more power and control (not to mention motivation to win the war) than Gorbachev did, and a lot less heart.

 

They didn’t at the time, but I’m not sure that’s a complete explanation in any case. The Soviet Union did not want to conquer Afghanistan in the sense that it did Ukraine. It wanted a friendly communist country on its borders and couldn’t let that communist government just fall. If it could further its interests through friendly governments with access to warm water ports, such as Iran and Pakistan, then that would have been welcome. But I don’t think the intent was ever to conquer them outright. They would have preferred a vassal-state arrangement similar to what Belarus is in the present day to Russia, with Belarus having nominal independence but Russia very much in the lead with the right to move military forces through its territory.

 

You are very correct there. Putin is not Gorbachev. The elections are not real elections. Still, Putin, like any leader, only has the power the people allow him to have. And he rightly fears his people, which is why he has been reluctant to mobilize any further, despite the military telling him it is the only way to gain a decisive advantage over Ukraine. Like his rival Zelensky, Putin is making political decisions that are suboptimal militarily. And the only conclusion I can draw is that he has a far better sense than we do about how much more the Russian people will tolerate this war. Because, as you suggest, this election is a sham that would never allow for a peaceful transition of power. So what’s he afraid of?