4 ms·
Your take is very surface level, its like you are looking for faults. Assaults on massive countries are not won overnight. USA had a quick win of a month in Ir
by godmode2019 5y ago
Your take is very surface level, its like you are looking for faults.
Assaults on massive countries are not won overnight. USA had a quick win of a month in Iraq by using shock and awe. Blowing everything up and killing any civilian who got in the way.
This created a massive insurgency, which was fine because they didn't plan on occupying only destabilising.
Russia plans on occupying, to reduce NATOs ability to out flank them over the European plane.
So it takes longer.
Secondly, the young soldiers. Its called training, they are battle hardening the next generation in a 'easy' war, for if they ever need to use them in the future.
Russia is clearly taking the slow and careful approach, he wants these people to be part of the union eventually.
- hef19898 5y agoFor a country not planning to occupy, the US lead coalition sure stayed for quite some time.
- b112 5y agoI think maybe parent is maybe combining info from the first and second invasion into one.
- hef19898 5y agoCould be yes, didn't think about it. But didn't they create a Shiit uprising in the south during the first one? An uprising they allowed Sadam to shoot down with whatever limited forces he was left with?
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoThat would have been outside the boundaries of the UN mandate and Bush Sr. wouldn't violate it.
- hef19898 5y agoAh, yes. The good old days when UN mandates still mattered.
- godmode2019 5y agoThe 2003 war lasted 1 month, 1 week and 4 days (Wikipedia) The invasion tactic was shock and awe. They didn't plan to occupy, they thought it would be easier to setup a puppet government than it was. They couldn't leave until Iraq was in a state to balance Iran's regional influence. USA wanted to use Iraq for a oil/gas pipeline to Europe from Saudi/Qatar. They realised that was not possible due to the USA lack of state building abilities. So they turned their attention on Syria for the pipeline. Jordan agreed but Syria was a under the Russian sphere of influence, so they needed to topple this government for the pipeline. The pipeline would have challenged Russian oil/gas monopoly in Europe.
- andy_ppp 5y agoHow does one outflank a country with thousands of nuclear weapons?
- godmode2019 5y agoMany countries have nuclear weapons, doesn't you stop wanting to have basic strategic advantages on your side. Why have a navy if you have nukes, why build tanks when you already have nukes, why not let your adversary encircle you if you have nukes. Nukes are typically tactical weapons, you will still have a deal with a ground force once all the nukes have been used.