4 ms·

The mujahideen also had the mountains of Afghanistan. Anyone who is under the illusion that Ukraine can mount a similar insurgency to the afghans has not studie

The mujahideen also had the mountains of Afghanistan. Anyone who is under the illusion that Ukraine can mount a similar insurgency to the afghans has not studied much history.

jacquesm 5y ago
There are also other factors at play, such as that there are a lot more funds available.
outside1234 5y ago
They have skyscrapers. I would be terrified as a Russian soldier to walk in Kyiv. Only a matter of time until you get sniped, cocktail'ed -- or worse.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Or drive there, the number of Javelins and RPGs in circulation handily outnumbers the number of tanks and armored vehicles. It would be like driving into a meatgrinder.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    Or fly for that matter, with all the Stingers. I can't imagine flying some expensive attack helicopter, and at any time some Volodymyr can pop out behind a corner with a Stinger and a finger on the trigger.
- FuckButtons 5y ago
  Skyscrapers can be flattened with enough artillery. The Hindu Kush cannot.
bouvin 5y ago
After WW2, Ukrainian partisans fought on until the late forties – without the foreign aid that be expected this time.
alamortsubite 5y ago
Interesting. Do you think Soviets soldiers had a lot in common with the Afghan mujahideen? What comparisons would you make with the Russians now fighting Ukrainians?
birdyrooster 5y ago
Yes, I agree. It really is a shame that Ukraine doesn’t have an 8,700ft, 1,100 mile long mountain range cutting through the western side of the country. Oh wait, never mind, it does.
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  As much as I wish that were true, you are plain wrong. Ukraine's highest peak is 6,700, and the Carpathians are at the very western edge of Ukraine - if resistance merely survives in the Carpathians then the Russians have comprehensively won.
insickness 5y ago
"Russia would need significantly more ground forces to conquer Ukraine — far more than the current 3.4 Russian soldiers per 1,000 Ukrainian citizens. The force ratios in successful operations are astronomically higher, such as 89.3 troops per 1,000 inhabitants in Germany (1945), 17.5 in Bosnia (1995), 9.8 in East Timor (2000), and 19.3 in Kosovo (2000). High numbers of troops and police are critical to establish basic law & order. In fact, the number of Russian soldiers in Ukraine aren’t even enough to hold any major cities for long. They will be in serious danger of being picked apart by Ukrainian insurgents. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/28/russian-forces-overextended-risk-being-picked-apar/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/28/russian-for...
niyikiza 5y ago
Birthrate may play a role too, turns out. https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/russia-as-the-great-satan-in-the https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/russia-as-the-great-sa...

The mujahideen also had the mountains of Afghanistan. Anyone who is under the illusion that Ukraine can mount a similar insurgency to the afghans has not studied much history.

jacquesm 5y ago

There are also other factors at play, such as that there are a lot more funds available.

outside1234 5y ago

They have skyscrapers. I would be terrified as a Russian soldier to walk in Kyiv. Only a matter of time until you get sniped, cocktail'ed -- or worse.

jacquesm 5y ago
Or drive there, the number of Javelins and RPGs in circulation handily outnumbers the number of tanks and armored vehicles. It would be like driving into a meatgrinder.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  Or fly for that matter, with all the Stingers. I can't imagine flying some expensive attack helicopter, and at any time some Volodymyr can pop out behind a corner with a Stinger and a finger on the trigger.
FuckButtons 5y ago
Skyscrapers can be flattened with enough artillery. The Hindu Kush cannot.

bouvin 5y ago

After WW2, Ukrainian partisans fought on until the late forties – without the foreign aid that be expected this time.

alamortsubite 5y ago

Interesting. Do you think Soviets soldiers had a lot in common with the Afghan mujahideen? What comparisons would you make with the Russians now fighting Ukrainians?

birdyrooster 5y ago

Yes, I agree. It really is a shame that Ukraine doesn’t have an 8,700ft, 1,100 mile long mountain range cutting through the western side of the country. Oh wait, never mind, it does.

MagnumOpus 5y ago
As much as I wish that were true, you are plain wrong. Ukraine's highest peak is 6,700, and the Carpathians are at the very western edge of Ukraine - if resistance merely survives in the Carpathians then the Russians have comprehensively won.

insickness 5y ago

"Russia would need significantly more ground forces to conquer Ukraine — far more than the current 3.4 Russian soldiers per 1,000 Ukrainian citizens. The force ratios in successful operations are astronomically higher, such as 89.3 troops per 1,000 inhabitants in Germany (1945), 17.5 in Bosnia (1995), 9.8 in East Timor (2000), and 19.3 in Kosovo (2000). High numbers of troops and police are critical to establish basic law & order. In fact, the number of Russian soldiers in Ukraine aren’t even enough to hold any major cities for long. They will be in serious danger of being picked apart by Ukrainian insurgents. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/28/russian-forces-overextended-risk-being-picked-apar/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/28/russian-for...

niyikiza 5y ago

Birthrate may play a role too, turns out. https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/russia-as-the-great-satan-in-the https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/russia-as-the-great-sa...