5 ms·

There is absolutely no justification for Putin's war here. None. But Putin can be wrong AND the US can be wrong AND Ukraine can be ill-prepared all at the same

by jmyeet 5y ago

There is absolutely no justification for Putin's war here. None. But Putin can be wrong AND the US can be wrong AND Ukraine can be ill-prepared all at the same time. These aren't muttually exclusive. Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, here's what should've happened: 1. The US should've formally and explicitly abandoned the effort to bring Ukraine into NATO; 2. Ukraine should've adopted a policy of official neutrality; 3. Ukraine should've abandoned efforts against minority language rights, a particularly sensitive issue with primarily-Russian speaking people in eastern Ukraine; 4. Ukraine should've restructured its military into a defensive army, which is to say that it should be largely decentralized and trained in insurgency tactics. The idea of this is to make the cost of invasion so high as to dissuade anyone from trying. This is essentially the Swiss model [1]. This would mean acquiring appropriate weapons: small arms, mobile artillery, Stringer missiles, that sort of thing. An advantage of this is that a defensive army is relatively cheap; and 5. Just like Russia performed military exercises every year on Ukraine's borders (as an aside, the media never mentioned that Russia in fact did this every 12-15 months for years), Ukraine should've planned for a Russian invasion with their own exercises. This means training for and practicing things taking out key bridges; 6. Ukraine should've fortified chokepoints that Russia could use to invade. This would particularly include the narrow land bridge to Crimea. This is part of the sheer recklessness of US foreign policy as we egged Ukraine on with empty promises of standing behind them when there was absolutely no possibility we'd put boots on the ground in the case of a Russian invasion. We didn't start the fire but we sure left a lot of fuel lying around. And Ukraine is paying a bloody price. The best thing Ukraine could've done post-annexation is brought in Hezbollah as consultants on military organization and insurgency tactics. And no, I'm not even joking when I say that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book)

EthanHeilman 5y ago
> 4. Ukraine should've restructured its military into a defensive army, which is to say that it should be largely decentralized and trained in insurgency tactics. The idea of this is to make the cost of invasion so high as to dissuade anyone from trying. This is essentially the Swiss model. This would mean acquiring appropriate weapons: small arms, mobile artillery, Stringer missiles, that sort of thing; The Swiss model worked because the mountains act as both a defensive fortification and because Switzerland is of limited strategic value (low benefit, high cost). An effective defensive model for a nation like Ukraine would be Israel. Nuclear weapons to ensure escalation dominance. A strong air force with the ability delete any air or ground forces preemptively before they even cross the border. A heavy investment in strategic level area denial and air defense: cruise missiles, missile shields, patriot missile batteries. You want to maximize the range to ensure that an invader has no areas of safety. An insurgency with small arms and MANPADs can be effective but only because the insurgents are willing to pay a much higher cost than the invaders. Soldiers in insurgencies expect to die at a ratio of 10:1 and that is considered winning. Insurgencies are what you do when your conventional strategy fails. Starting an insurgency is choosing a horrific sacrifice for your nation. Insurgencies don't prevent invaders from destroying your cities, from killing your family and burning everything of value. Even with that terrible cost many insurgencies still fail. You know what is better? Advanced tanks and attack helicopters operating under SAM umbrellas that allow you to win a conventional war at your borders. The best deterrent is conventional military dominance backed up by the US nuclear arsenal. The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is NATO membership. This war is a result of Ukraine not being given NATO membership.
- jmyeet 5y ago
  > The Swiss model worked because the mountains act as both a defensive fortification I've seen this claim a lot. IMHO it's overblown. Switzerland is mountainous in parts. Here's a topographical map [1]. You'll see that it has a lot of flat parts. The border between Geneva and France isn't a natural border of any kind. Also looking a population map [2] and you'll see those mountainous areas are largely uninhabited. But Ukraine isn't free from geography either. It has a giant river running through the middle of it. What an insurgency needs to bloody an invader isn't mountains, it's cover. Cities are a given here. Urban warfare is a nightmare for invaders. And forests have played a significant role in warfare since ancient times. > A strong air force Ukraine cannot possibly hope to have an air force to defeat Russia's. Airplanes are expensive. Infrastructure such as fuel tanks, airports and landing strips are easy to bomb. You know what's cheap and effective? Anti-aircraft weapons and SAMs (particularly mobile SAMs), the kind of thing Russia can't effectively order air strikes or artillery fire against like they can against fixed installations. > Insurgencies are what you do when your conventional strategy fails. If you're facing Russia, your conventional strategy is going to fail. As good as it is that Ukraine has denied Russia thier wildlly optimistic quick victory and that Russia has suffered casulaties likely in the thousands, we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing Ukraine can defeat the Russian Army conventionally. > The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is NATO membership. That's the quickest way to World War Three. One shocking thing to me about this this whole crisis (beyond the actual invasion of course) is how many Ameribrained people there even on HN. The US would never accept Chinese or Russian military bases in Canada or Mexico (and nearly started a nuclear war about Russian missiles in Cuba) but can't see how Russia might have the exact same strategic concerns. Or people who raise the idea of self-determination but have no answer as to why that shouldn't apply to Palestine or Cyrpus. Or they cannot conceive of a world where another country doesn't view the US as benign even though that's clearly how China, Russia, the Middle East and possibly even India at this point see the US. It just goes to show how pervasive American exceptionalism is. [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Switzerland_topographic.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Switzerland_topograp... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland#/media/File:Population_density_in_Switzerland.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland#/m...

by jmyeet 5y ago

EthanHeilman 5y ago

> 4. Ukraine should've restructured its military into a defensive army, which is to say that it should be largely decentralized and trained in insurgency tactics. The idea of this is to make the cost of invasion so high as to dissuade anyone from trying. This is essentially the Swiss model. This would mean acquiring appropriate weapons: small arms, mobile artillery, Stringer missiles, that sort of thing; The Swiss model worked because the mountains act as both a defensive fortification and because Switzerland is of limited strategic value (low benefit, high cost). An effective defensive model for a nation like Ukraine would be Israel. Nuclear weapons to ensure escalation dominance. A strong air force with the ability delete any air or ground forces preemptively before they even cross the border. A heavy investment in strategic level area denial and air defense: cruise missiles, missile shields, patriot missile batteries. You want to maximize the range to ensure that an invader has no areas of safety. An insurgency with small arms and MANPADs can be effective but only because the insurgents are willing to pay a much higher cost than the invaders. Soldiers in insurgencies expect to die at a ratio of 10:1 and that is considered winning. Insurgencies are what you do when your conventional strategy fails. Starting an insurgency is choosing a horrific sacrifice for your nation. Insurgencies don't prevent invaders from destroying your cities, from killing your family and burning everything of value. Even with that terrible cost many insurgencies still fail. You know what is better? Advanced tanks and attack helicopters operating under SAM umbrellas that allow you to win a conventional war at your borders. The best deterrent is conventional military dominance backed up by the US nuclear arsenal. The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is NATO membership. This war is a result of Ukraine not being given NATO membership.

jmyeet 5y ago
> The Swiss model worked because the mountains act as both a defensive fortification I've seen this claim a lot. IMHO it's overblown. Switzerland is mountainous in parts. Here's a topographical map [1]. You'll see that it has a lot of flat parts. The border between Geneva and France isn't a natural border of any kind. Also looking a population map [2] and you'll see those mountainous areas are largely uninhabited. But Ukraine isn't free from geography either. It has a giant river running through the middle of it. What an insurgency needs to bloody an invader isn't mountains, it's cover. Cities are a given here. Urban warfare is a nightmare for invaders. And forests have played a significant role in warfare since ancient times. > A strong air force Ukraine cannot possibly hope to have an air force to defeat Russia's. Airplanes are expensive. Infrastructure such as fuel tanks, airports and landing strips are easy to bomb. You know what's cheap and effective? Anti-aircraft weapons and SAMs (particularly mobile SAMs), the kind of thing Russia can't effectively order air strikes or artillery fire against like they can against fixed installations. > Insurgencies are what you do when your conventional strategy fails. If you're facing Russia, your conventional strategy is going to fail. As good as it is that Ukraine has denied Russia thier wildlly optimistic quick victory and that Russia has suffered casulaties likely in the thousands, we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing Ukraine can defeat the Russian Army conventionally. > The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is NATO membership. That's the quickest way to World War Three. One shocking thing to me about this this whole crisis (beyond the actual invasion of course) is how many Ameribrained people there even on HN. The US would never accept Chinese or Russian military bases in Canada or Mexico (and nearly started a nuclear war about Russian missiles in Cuba) but can't see how Russia might have the exact same strategic concerns. Or people who raise the idea of self-determination but have no answer as to why that shouldn't apply to Palestine or Cyrpus. Or they cannot conceive of a world where another country doesn't view the US as benign even though that's clearly how China, Russia, the Middle East and possibly even India at this point see the US. It just goes to show how pervasive American exceptionalism is. [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Switzerland_topographic.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Switzerland_topograp... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland#/media/File:Population_density_in_Switzerland.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland#/m...