7 ms·

I don't even see how (b) is going to work at this point--with the massive flow of weapons and money that is coming from the West, and NATO safe havens on the bo

I don't even see how (b) is going to work at this point--with the massive flow of weapons and money that is coming from the West, and NATO safe havens on the borders, Russia will be playing whack-a-mole against insurgency forever no matter how much force they use. Imagine if the Iraq or Afghanistan insurgencies had had access to an endless supply of top-of-the-line weapons, orders of magnitude more funding, and 'safe zones' where they could operate without the US attacking them... as far as I can tell, Russia is all but guaranteed a bloody and expensive quagmire until they withdraw. It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
google234123 5y ago
Yo be fair, those insurgencies did kind of have access to safe zones (Pakistan is next to Afghanistan) and a good supply of weapons which definitely helped them.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  It was, however, nothing close to the levels of support Ukraine is getting. And those insurgencies faced a vastly superior US armed forces.
  - killjoywashere 5y ago
    Those American forces also had vastly longer supply lines to sustain. What the Russians lack in financing and capability, the make up a lot with proximate borders, time zones, etc.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      It’s interesting because the U.S. has an order of magnitude more military funding and was trying to secure a supply line an order of magnitude longer. I wonder if this ratio makes it approximately as difficult?
    - pixl97 5y ago
      There are plenty of sayings along the lines of "America doesn't have military, they have a logistics corporation" Supplying enough "X" is rarely an issue for the USM except in the cases where it is something new they didn't realize they needed.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      American supply lines were vastly superior to what Russia’s doing with its clown convoy however
    - jker 5y ago
      The US has established bases all over the globe and has basically created a worldwide supply chain for its military, so that isn’t really a factor. (Please note, this isn’t being said in an anti-American way.)
    - akimball 5y ago
      Russian military morale is so low it's almost a non-force. You see them unloading into chicken farms and monuments rather than fighting. They are running out of fuel all over the place - probably because they sold it. The corruption in the Russian military is vast and intense.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
littlestymaar 5y ago
Russia doesn't have a big track military track record in recent years, but there's one thing that they have proven to do really well: leveling a city to the ground while slaughtering the civilians who didn't flee. Having the Ukrainian legitimate government agree to surrender to save Kiev (or “just” Khariv) from such a fate isn't completely impossible to imagine. And giving infantry weapons isn't going to be enough to stop Putin from doing so if he wanted. I don't know how many FОАВ[1] the Russian air force has at its disposal, but Javelin aren't gonna help against that… And after this hypothetical surrender from the Ukrainian government, setting up a bloody dictatorship with a special police arresting, torturing and executing whoever is suspected to belong to the insurgency, relying on pro-russian locals to provide intelligence is not an impossible feat unfortunately… [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs
- simonh 5y ago
  That thing is only really useful against static, or near static high value targets. Against insurgents dispersed across the countryside with Javelins the weapon itself is effectively useless while the aircraft delivering it is still vulnerable.
  - senko 5y ago
    I think the implication is it might be used against civilian population in a city.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    > That thing is only really useful against static, or near static high value targets. Exactly, like the the capital of your country for instance. Noting that I'm not talking about defeating an insurgency with it, just overthrow the legitimate government and put a pro-russian dictatorship in charge. Exterminating the insurgents would then be the job of the local dictator. Obviously it's not guaranteed, but torture, kidnapping, and assassination have proven an effective mean of counter-insurgency… In real life the bad guy sometimes win…
caycep 5y ago
An additional worry is that these things never end well. I have to dig up this book on the downstream costs to all these countries that were allied w/ the west or USSR during the cold war...they all pay the price economically, socially etc for being part of the global great game. Central America, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa all took a huge hit, if you think about it. Say Ukraine survives or becomes an Afghanistan-like insurgency power. But now they are rife with guns, warlords, and no national institution or government to organize everything....
- oblio 5y ago
  > Say Ukraine survives or becomes an Afghanistan-like insurgency power. But now they are rife with guns, warlords, and no national institution or government to organize everything.... Nature abhors vacuums. Especially if those vacuums are easy to fill. What do you think will happen if Russia backs down? Ukraine already borders 4 EU members (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland).
brimble 5y ago
> It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this. At least destabilizing Ukraine is necessary to prevent near-term, rapid decline for the Russian Federation. Ukraine's energy production potential and proximity to Europe make them a likely serious competitor, at a time when renewables are already putting pressure on petrostates like Russia. Russia made Ukrainian resources in the East difficult to exploit with their fomenting or fabricating a persistent rebellion out that way, and seized most of Ukraine's substantial resources in the Black Sea when they took Crimea outright—but Crimea's dependent on Ukrainian fresh water, which has quite literally dried up for obvious reasons, and Russia's having a hell of a time (that is, spending huge amounts of money to limited effect) supporting Crimea without holding some of the mainland. This is part of a series of actions aimed at creating short- and mid-term economic stability for Russia, while also improving their strategic situation. I would guess that an acceptable, if not perfect, outcome for them would be bringing the Eastern ~1/3 to 1/2 of Ukraine under Russian control, and it looks like they may yet manage to play their hand to effect such a partition, despite their bizarrely-inept invasion. It does appear that they've blundered, overall, and not just though military fuck-ups—the sanctions are likely causing a ton of pain, NATO and the EU are more united against them than they've been in a long time and are re-arming (as in Germany), and they managed to bump energy independence way up the priority list for the EU. However, there are good reasons for them to (have tried to) do what they're doing.
- trashtester 5y ago
  I suppose this was a huge miscalculation. As far as I can see, the effect will be as follows: - EU countries are re-arming (Germany in particular). If they go through with that, they will be able to surpass Russia in terms of conventional force strength in a few years, even without US support. - The EU will remove their dependency on Russian oil&gas, removing Russian leverage and profits at the same time. - Even if Russia is able to gain military control of the Ukrain, it will take decades of suppression for them to derive any net economic benefit. And by doing this, they will continously remind the world that they are the "bad guys", ensuring continues isolation.
- antisthenes 5y ago
  > This is part of a series of actions aimed at creating short- and mid-term economic stability for Russia, while also improving their strategic situation I don't know if you're fully aware of what effect the sanctions are having or going to have on Russia, but anything resembling economic stability is absolutely NOT it. Russia will face a humanitarian crisis, perhaps almost as severe as Ukraine itself, especially in its poorer regions, with anything resembling a tech industry evaporating nearly overnight, and massive unemployment following. These effects will not dissipate in the short or mid-term. At least I don't see them being resolved unless they massively pivot to selling petro-chemicals to China instead.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this. It can only be because they think that it's essential to strike now; they think that if they leave it, terminal decline is inevitable. This is a military operation that's been planned for years; by 'now', I mean 'this decade'. I imagine they saw the European gas crisis as an opportunity, and one that would slip away quickly if they didn't seize it. That's why it's happened this spring. That long column: that's mostly logistics for the planned long siege of Kiev. I think those guys have barely begun.
- trashtester 5y ago
  Hmm, I think another reason for this to happen now, is that the border between Belorussia and the Ukraine is covered by the Pripet Marches, that are neary impassible by heavy equipment when not frozen. Without access that way, Russia would have to fight their way from the east, and forced to cross the Dneipr river, which forms a very significant obstacle. This could delay an invasion by a month or more.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Yes; there seems to be a Russian column abandoned near the Belarus border, due to getting bogged down in mud, i.e. it's not actually frozen (a couple of days ago it was reported that Kiev was warmer than Manchester, England).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

google234123 5y ago

Yo be fair, those insurgencies did kind of have access to safe zones (Pakistan is next to Afghanistan) and a good supply of weapons which definitely helped them.

kspacewalk2 5y ago
It was, however, nothing close to the levels of support Ukraine is getting. And those insurgencies faced a vastly superior US armed forces.
- killjoywashere 5y ago
  Those American forces also had vastly longer supply lines to sustain. What the Russians lack in financing and capability, the make up a lot with proximate borders, time zones, etc.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    It’s interesting because the U.S. has an order of magnitude more military funding and was trying to secure a supply line an order of magnitude longer. I wonder if this ratio makes it approximately as difficult?
  - pixl97 5y ago
    There are plenty of sayings along the lines of "America doesn't have military, they have a logistics corporation" Supplying enough "X" is rarely an issue for the USM except in the cases where it is something new they didn't realize they needed.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    American supply lines were vastly superior to what Russia’s doing with its clown convoy however
  - jker 5y ago
    The US has established bases all over the globe and has basically created a worldwide supply chain for its military, so that isn’t really a factor. (Please note, this isn’t being said in an anti-American way.)
  - akimball 5y ago
    Russian military morale is so low it's almost a non-force. You see them unloading into chicken farms and monuments rather than fighting. They are running out of fuel all over the place - probably because they sold it. The corruption in the Russian military is vast and intense.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

littlestymaar 5y ago

Russia doesn't have a big track military track record in recent years, but there's one thing that they have proven to do really well: leveling a city to the ground while slaughtering the civilians who didn't flee. Having the Ukrainian legitimate government agree to surrender to save Kiev (or “just” Khariv) from such a fate isn't completely impossible to imagine. And giving infantry weapons isn't going to be enough to stop Putin from doing so if he wanted. I don't know how many FОАВ[1] the Russian air force has at its disposal, but Javelin aren't gonna help against that… And after this hypothetical surrender from the Ukrainian government, setting up a bloody dictatorship with a special police arresting, torturing and executing whoever is suspected to belong to the insurgency, relying on pro-russian locals to provide intelligence is not an impossible feat unfortunately… [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs

simonh 5y ago
That thing is only really useful against static, or near static high value targets. Against insurgents dispersed across the countryside with Javelins the weapon itself is effectively useless while the aircraft delivering it is still vulnerable.
- senko 5y ago
  I think the implication is it might be used against civilian population in a city.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  > That thing is only really useful against static, or near static high value targets. Exactly, like the the capital of your country for instance. Noting that I'm not talking about defeating an insurgency with it, just overthrow the legitimate government and put a pro-russian dictatorship in charge. Exterminating the insurgents would then be the job of the local dictator. Obviously it's not guaranteed, but torture, kidnapping, and assassination have proven an effective mean of counter-insurgency… In real life the bad guy sometimes win…

caycep 5y ago

An additional worry is that these things never end well. I have to dig up this book on the downstream costs to all these countries that were allied w/ the west or USSR during the cold war...they all pay the price economically, socially etc for being part of the global great game. Central America, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa all took a huge hit, if you think about it. Say Ukraine survives or becomes an Afghanistan-like insurgency power. But now they are rife with guns, warlords, and no national institution or government to organize everything....

oblio 5y ago
> Say Ukraine survives or becomes an Afghanistan-like insurgency power. But now they are rife with guns, warlords, and no national institution or government to organize everything.... Nature abhors vacuums. Especially if those vacuums are easy to fill. What do you think will happen if Russia backs down? Ukraine already borders 4 EU members (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland).

brimble 5y ago

> It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this. At least destabilizing Ukraine is necessary to prevent near-term, rapid decline for the Russian Federation. Ukraine's energy production potential and proximity to Europe make them a likely serious competitor, at a time when renewables are already putting pressure on petrostates like Russia. Russia made Ukrainian resources in the East difficult to exploit with their fomenting or fabricating a persistent rebellion out that way, and seized most of Ukraine's substantial resources in the Black Sea when they took Crimea outright—but Crimea's dependent on Ukrainian fresh water, which has quite literally dried up for obvious reasons, and Russia's having a hell of a time (that is, spending huge amounts of money to limited effect) supporting Crimea without holding some of the mainland. This is part of a series of actions aimed at creating short- and mid-term economic stability for Russia, while also improving their strategic situation. I would guess that an acceptable, if not perfect, outcome for them would be bringing the Eastern ~1/3 to 1/2 of Ukraine under Russian control, and it looks like they may yet manage to play their hand to effect such a partition, despite their bizarrely-inept invasion. It does appear that they've blundered, overall, and not just though military fuck-ups—the sanctions are likely causing a ton of pain, NATO and the EU are more united against them than they've been in a long time and are re-arming (as in Germany), and they managed to bump energy independence way up the priority list for the EU. However, there are good reasons for them to (have tried to) do what they're doing.

trashtester 5y ago
I suppose this was a huge miscalculation. As far as I can see, the effect will be as follows: - EU countries are re-arming (Germany in particular). If they go through with that, they will be able to surpass Russia in terms of conventional force strength in a few years, even without US support. - The EU will remove their dependency on Russian oil&gas, removing Russian leverage and profits at the same time. - Even if Russia is able to gain military control of the Ukrain, it will take decades of suppression for them to derive any net economic benefit. And by doing this, they will continously remind the world that they are the "bad guys", ensuring continues isolation.
antisthenes 5y ago
> This is part of a series of actions aimed at creating short- and mid-term economic stability for Russia, while also improving their strategic situation I don't know if you're fully aware of what effect the sanctions are having or going to have on Russia, but anything resembling economic stability is absolutely NOT it. Russia will face a humanitarian crisis, perhaps almost as severe as Ukraine itself, especially in its poorer regions, with anything resembling a tech industry evaporating nearly overnight, and massive unemployment following. These effects will not dissipate in the short or mid-term. At least I don't see them being resolved unless they massively pivot to selling petro-chemicals to China instead.

denton-scratch 5y ago

> It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this. It can only be because they think that it's essential to strike now; they think that if they leave it, terminal decline is inevitable. This is a military operation that's been planned for years; by 'now', I mean 'this decade'. I imagine they saw the European gas crisis as an opportunity, and one that would slip away quickly if they didn't seize it. That's why it's happened this spring. That long column: that's mostly logistics for the planned long siege of Kiev. I think those guys have barely begun.

trashtester 5y ago
Hmm, I think another reason for this to happen now, is that the border between Belorussia and the Ukraine is covered by the Pripet Marches, that are neary impassible by heavy equipment when not frozen. Without access that way, Russia would have to fight their way from the east, and forced to cross the Dneipr river, which forms a very significant obstacle. This could delay an invasion by a month or more.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Yes; there seems to be a Russian column abandoned near the Belarus border, due to getting bogged down in mud, i.e. it's not actually frozen (a couple of days ago it was reported that Kiev was warmer than Manchester, England).