8 ms·

The count of soldiers doesn't matter; you can only fit so many on a battle line anyway and a war in which you run through a full battle line of infantry is so c

The count of soldiers doesn't matter; you can only fit so many on a battle line anyway and a war in which you run through a full battle line of infantry is so costly that even that insane regime wouldn't go for it. The red army required millions of soldiers because it ran through them so quickly due to their battle doctrine. This conflict will be nothing like World War 2. The size of the economy doesn't so much matter, either - there's a limit to how much aid economic power can provide to a nation at war, especially one with such deep connections to illicit markets like Russia. It's really anyone's game if war breaks out over central Europe.

adventured 5y ago
It matters at least in the sense that Russia's modest forces are so hyper exposed right now. The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. They're entirely unprepared for it and they're going to be operating far from their optimal protection (embedded in Russia where defenses are far greater). The question is, when would Putin throw the nuclear card on the table. I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure, including assassinating Lukashenko and pushing a revolution there by any means necessary. Russia is weak militarily outside of their borders and the US could trivially defeat them. It would take most of 2022 for Russia to regroup for a full force projection into Ukraine if they're under attack from the US while doing it, and I doubt they have the manufacturing capabilities right now to sustain (that would take time to enhance).
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Basically the problem is any action the US takes might prompt nuclear war, and Putin is gambling the US won't pull that card. It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power, and Putin doesn't have to worry about the votes.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power... The war's already started. It could also a be a slower kind of suicide to let that nuclear power invade and take territory piece by piece, unmolested.
    - bun_at_work 5y ago
      The war started between Russia and Ukraine, not the US and Russia.
    - tharne 5y ago
      > It could also a be a slower kind of suicide to let that nuclear power invade and take territory piece by piece, unmolested. If this is how you feel, you should enlist. Otherwise, you're just demanding that other people's sons and daughters should be sent to die fighting for someone else's country.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > If this is how you feel, you should enlist. Not that tired trope again. > Otherwise, you're just demanding that other people's sons and daughters should be sent to die fighting for someone else's country. That's how democracies work, and they can't work any other way. I mean think it through: if what you say must be avoided, then no country could go to war, even to defend others, unless more than half the population was enlisted in a ponderously oversized military.
        tharne 5y ago
        Why is it a "tired trope" to say that you should not be asking other people to do things that you yourself would not?
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > Why is it a "tired trope" to say that you should not be asking other people to do things that you yourself would not? Because it's a superficially appealing idea that actually makes no sense. In a democracy, anyone gets to ask its government to do anything. Putting extra conditions who can ask is just muzzling democracy. Should the decision to go to war only be up to only the members of the military? No, since that would be clearly undemocratic. And your idea can be applied to so many different questions, to equal nonsense: Are you a member of the police? Then you better not express any opinion that high crime rates should be lowered, since you're not willing to be the guy to stop them. Don't like trash on the street? Better not complain unless you're willing to quit your job and become a garbageman.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Right, it might. We should press forward and see how far he's willing to go and encourage his leadership to kill him to save their families and save themselves from potential nuclear disaster. Russia is exceptionally weak compared to their prime Soviet days. Both militarily in terms of bulk and economically. The rest of the world has gotten a lot bigger, stronger militarily and economically since those days. We should press on Russia and reveal their weakness. They would be obliterated exposed in the field as they are right now by NATO's forces. Are the Russian people all willing to die for Ukrainian territory? Let's find out what Putin's answer is and what the consequences are for him, when the people (including those around Putin that can assassinate him) in Russia realize what he's leading them to. Putin's expansion doesn't end until there are very severe consequences; some other nation in Europe is next after Ukraine. If Putin threatens to kill everyone with nuclear war, then we'll deal with that as it happens. It's important to understand what you're really dealing with, and with Putin we need to go further to find whatever his lines really are. So far Putin has almost never faced a real push back from NATO / the West, we have no idea where he'll go or not, and we need to figure it out one way or another. Putin made clear his return to Empire plans, we already know what he wants.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > Are the Russian people all willing to die for Ukrainian territory? Are the NATO people?
  - tharne 5y ago
    I think the other thing Putin is betting on, is that after 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public is not going to support another significant foreign war. Additionally one important thing that came out of the Trump presidency, is that the hawkish "Team America: World Police" wing of the republican party has been knocked from the dominant position they've held at least since Reagan. The Trumpish base of the party is now much more nativist and not all that interested in providing military support to other countries.
  - DamnYuppie 5y ago
    No one wants nuclear war. It has long been believed that those are mostly threats against countries that don't have them as for combat between nuclear powers it will probably stay conventional as there is absolutely no winner if it starts.
    - politician 5y ago
      Indeed, if Ukraine hadn't given up its nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR, it wouldn't be in this position. This attack is another reminder to Iran, North Korea, etc, that if you don't maintain a nuclear arsenal your nation is a colony.
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      > there is absolutely no winner if it starts. your notion of winning might be different to Putin's. If you haven't heard him saying "Aggressors Will Be Annihilated, We Will Go to Heaven as Martyrs" [1], then you don't know your opponent. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/19/aggressors-will-be-annihilated-we-will-go-to-heaven-as-martyrs-putin-says-a63235 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/19/aggressors-will-be...
      - kjkjadksj 5y ago
        Putin can say what he wants to the press, but hes ultimately beholden to oligarchs who would prefer to invest in a radiation free global economy.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Just sensible climate policy at a global level would be enough to crush Russia economically. I feel like this recent drama effectively stems from trying to distract the Russian people from this looming fact while the oligarchs get as much money as possible out the country.
- VictorPath 5y ago
- tharne 5y ago
  > I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure As an American, I'll support another foreign engagement when I see the sons and daughters of presidents and congressmen shipping off the the Ukraine. Until then, I can't support sending American boys and girls to die in yet another foreign war. Any talk of U.S. involvement should cease until the American public sees AOC, Hunter Biden, and Donald Trump Jr. (or maybe Baron) in uniform and on the ground in the Ukraine.
  - golemotron 5y ago
    Hunter has been on the ground in Ukraine.
    - tremon 5y ago
      Was he armed with a rifle or a briefcase?
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Not so much "armed" as "sleeping off a binge". He's also been "on the ground" in NYC, DC, Delaware, Nashville, etc.
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    Yep. I'm just waiting for our own border to be recognized before I'll support any foreign conflict. But we'll continue exploiting our neighboring southern countries for cheap wage cutting labor. We're promising a generation of people citizenship, but they'll be held in limbo and exploited.
  - nonameiguess 5y ago
    Hunter Biden and Donald Trump Jr. are above the maximum enlistment age for every service (though exceptions might be made for direct commission physicians if they happened to be licensed physicians). Barron is still a minor. I guess that leaves AOC, but it might be worth remembering a fair number of Congressional reps and Senators actually have served or even continue to serve in the Guard and Reserve. A much higher rate than the population at large. It's currently 19% for Congress and 7% for American adults in general.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  >>The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. The USA has not fought an symmetric war since WW2. Russian has some of the most advanced surface to air missile technology in the world, capable of denying NATO air power from operating effectively. Russians S400 missiles can detect and take out even F35s. A direct air assault like you saw in 1990s Iraq war would be suicide. You would be looking at defeating 100,000+ soldiers equipped with armored vehicles and tanks with primarily ground forces. This is not the kind of scenario we want to see.
  - RF_Savage 5y ago
    I wonder if S-400 is as hyped as S-300 that has been less than performant in Armenia and Syria. Pantsir-S1 has also shown limited success in Libya, Syria and Armenia. Granted, it was the export variant. So we'll see how the "full fat" version fares in Ukraine.
hajile 5y ago
That economy means we can pump out more ranged weapons than the Russians can. We could literally keep shooting missiles until they ran out of things to block them with and keep shooting until there's nothing left.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tapland 5y ago
  We? Dollars are poor defense against nukes.
  - politician 5y ago
    Nuclear hot war is unlikely.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      It is far less unlikely than it is was month ago
      - Qub3d 5y ago
        And I'm about to get shot by dog with a handgun[0]. Of course nuclear is a concern to be aware of -- but that is why NATO et. al. aren't responding with boots on the ground. In our current situation, where that has been unequivocally ruled out by the NATO leadership, the risk is still tiny, and we have plenty of other more pressing systemic risks to deal with first. [0]:https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/
  - tetsusaiga 5y ago
    True, but dollars can be converted into ICBM interceptor missiles.
    - gruez 5y ago
      ICBM interceptor missiles are far more expensive and less reliable than warheads.

adventured 5y ago

It matters at least in the sense that Russia's modest forces are so hyper exposed right now. The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. They're entirely unprepared for it and they're going to be operating far from their optimal protection (embedded in Russia where defenses are far greater). The question is, when would Putin throw the nuclear card on the table. I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure, including assassinating Lukashenko and pushing a revolution there by any means necessary. Russia is weak militarily outside of their borders and the US could trivially defeat them. It would take most of 2022 for Russia to regroup for a full force projection into Ukraine if they're under attack from the US while doing it, and I doubt they have the manufacturing capabilities right now to sustain (that would take time to enhance).

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Basically the problem is any action the US takes might prompt nuclear war, and Putin is gambling the US won't pull that card. It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power, and Putin doesn't have to worry about the votes.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power... The war's already started. It could also a be a slower kind of suicide to let that nuclear power invade and take territory piece by piece, unmolested.
  - bun_at_work 5y ago
    The war started between Russia and Ukraine, not the US and Russia.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > It could also a be a slower kind of suicide to let that nuclear power invade and take territory piece by piece, unmolested. If this is how you feel, you should enlist. Otherwise, you're just demanding that other people's sons and daughters should be sent to die fighting for someone else's country.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > If this is how you feel, you should enlist. Not that tired trope again. > Otherwise, you're just demanding that other people's sons and daughters should be sent to die fighting for someone else's country. That's how democracies work, and they can't work any other way. I mean think it through: if what you say must be avoided, then no country could go to war, even to defend others, unless more than half the population was enlisted in a ponderously oversized military.
      - tharne 5y ago
        Why is it a "tired trope" to say that you should not be asking other people to do things that you yourself would not?
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > Why is it a "tired trope" to say that you should not be asking other people to do things that you yourself would not? Because it's a superficially appealing idea that actually makes no sense. In a democracy, anyone gets to ask its government to do anything. Putting extra conditions who can ask is just muzzling democracy. Should the decision to go to war only be up to only the members of the military? No, since that would be clearly undemocratic. And your idea can be applied to so many different questions, to equal nonsense: Are you a member of the police? Then you better not express any opinion that high crime rates should be lowered, since you're not willing to be the guy to stop them. Don't like trash on the street? Better not complain unless you're willing to quit your job and become a garbageman.
- adventured 5y ago
  Right, it might. We should press forward and see how far he's willing to go and encourage his leadership to kill him to save their families and save themselves from potential nuclear disaster. Russia is exceptionally weak compared to their prime Soviet days. Both militarily in terms of bulk and economically. The rest of the world has gotten a lot bigger, stronger militarily and economically since those days. We should press on Russia and reveal their weakness. They would be obliterated exposed in the field as they are right now by NATO's forces. Are the Russian people all willing to die for Ukrainian territory? Let's find out what Putin's answer is and what the consequences are for him, when the people (including those around Putin that can assassinate him) in Russia realize what he's leading them to. Putin's expansion doesn't end until there are very severe consequences; some other nation in Europe is next after Ukraine. If Putin threatens to kill everyone with nuclear war, then we'll deal with that as it happens. It's important to understand what you're really dealing with, and with Putin we need to go further to find whatever his lines really are. So far Putin has almost never faced a real push back from NATO / the West, we have no idea where he'll go or not, and we need to figure it out one way or another. Putin made clear his return to Empire plans, we already know what he wants.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > Are the Russian people all willing to die for Ukrainian territory? Are the NATO people?
- tharne 5y ago
  I think the other thing Putin is betting on, is that after 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public is not going to support another significant foreign war. Additionally one important thing that came out of the Trump presidency, is that the hawkish "Team America: World Police" wing of the republican party has been knocked from the dominant position they've held at least since Reagan. The Trumpish base of the party is now much more nativist and not all that interested in providing military support to other countries.
- DamnYuppie 5y ago
  No one wants nuclear war. It has long been believed that those are mostly threats against countries that don't have them as for combat between nuclear powers it will probably stay conventional as there is absolutely no winner if it starts.
  - politician 5y ago
    Indeed, if Ukraine hadn't given up its nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR, it wouldn't be in this position. This attack is another reminder to Iran, North Korea, etc, that if you don't maintain a nuclear arsenal your nation is a colony.
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    > there is absolutely no winner if it starts. your notion of winning might be different to Putin's. If you haven't heard him saying "Aggressors Will Be Annihilated, We Will Go to Heaven as Martyrs" [1], then you don't know your opponent. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/19/aggressors-will-be-annihilated-we-will-go-to-heaven-as-martyrs-putin-says-a63235 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/10/19/aggressors-will-be...
    - kjkjadksj 5y ago
      Putin can say what he wants to the press, but hes ultimately beholden to oligarchs who would prefer to invest in a radiation free global economy.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Just sensible climate policy at a global level would be enough to crush Russia economically. I feel like this recent drama effectively stems from trying to distract the Russian people from this looming fact while the oligarchs get as much money as possible out the country.
VictorPath 5y ago
tharne 5y ago
> I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure As an American, I'll support another foreign engagement when I see the sons and daughters of presidents and congressmen shipping off the the Ukraine. Until then, I can't support sending American boys and girls to die in yet another foreign war. Any talk of U.S. involvement should cease until the American public sees AOC, Hunter Biden, and Donald Trump Jr. (or maybe Baron) in uniform and on the ground in the Ukraine.
- golemotron 5y ago
  Hunter has been on the ground in Ukraine.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Was he armed with a rifle or a briefcase?
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Not so much "armed" as "sleeping off a binge". He's also been "on the ground" in NYC, DC, Delaware, Nashville, etc.
- yonaguska 5y ago
  Yep. I'm just waiting for our own border to be recognized before I'll support any foreign conflict. But we'll continue exploiting our neighboring southern countries for cheap wage cutting labor. We're promising a generation of people citizenship, but they'll be held in limbo and exploited.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  Hunter Biden and Donald Trump Jr. are above the maximum enlistment age for every service (though exceptions might be made for direct commission physicians if they happened to be licensed physicians). Barron is still a minor. I guess that leaves AOC, but it might be worth remembering a fair number of Congressional reps and Senators actually have served or even continue to serve in the Guard and Reserve. A much higher rate than the population at large. It's currently 19% for Congress and 7% for American adults in general.
barbacoa 5y ago
>>The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. The USA has not fought an symmetric war since WW2. Russian has some of the most advanced surface to air missile technology in the world, capable of denying NATO air power from operating effectively. Russians S400 missiles can detect and take out even F35s. A direct air assault like you saw in 1990s Iraq war would be suicide. You would be looking at defeating 100,000+ soldiers equipped with armored vehicles and tanks with primarily ground forces. This is not the kind of scenario we want to see.
- RF_Savage 5y ago
  I wonder if S-400 is as hyped as S-300 that has been less than performant in Armenia and Syria. Pantsir-S1 has also shown limited success in Libya, Syria and Armenia. Granted, it was the export variant. So we'll see how the "full fat" version fares in Ukraine.

hajile 5y ago

That economy means we can pump out more ranged weapons than the Russians can. We could literally keep shooting missiles until they ran out of things to block them with and keep shooting until there's nothing left.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tapland 5y ago
We? Dollars are poor defense against nukes.
- politician 5y ago
  Nuclear hot war is unlikely.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    It is far less unlikely than it is was month ago
    - Qub3d 5y ago
      And I'm about to get shot by dog with a handgun[0]. Of course nuclear is a concern to be aware of -- but that is why NATO et. al. aren't responding with boots on the ground. In our current situation, where that has been unequivocally ruled out by the NATO leadership, the risk is still tiny, and we have plenty of other more pressing systemic risks to deal with first. [0]:https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/
- tetsusaiga 5y ago
  True, but dollars can be converted into ICBM interceptor missiles.
  - gruez 5y ago
    ICBM interceptor missiles are far more expensive and less reliable than warheads.