4 ms·

> 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 tactic

> 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...
- roca 5y ago
  The idea that Canada or Mexico would want Russian or Chinese bases is so counterfactual it doesn't make sense at all. The USA doesn't interfere in Mexican elections. Some of Mexico's governments are quite anti-American. None of them are crazy enough to want to become a satellite of Russia or China. Cuba's an interesting case. Note that the USA didn't invade and subjugate Cuba. (There was the Bay of Pigs, but that wasn't the US military and isn't comparable to Russia in Ukraine.) And NATO hasn't positioned nukes in the newer NATO members. The argument that Ukrainians can't have self-determination because, say, some parts of Cyprus don't have it, is simply ludicrous.
  - jmyeet 5y ago
    > The idea that Canada or Mexico would want Russian or Chinese bases is so counterfactual it doesn't make sense at all. So this is the Ameribrain in action. I've asked this same question many times and this is one of the common responses: not to answer the question but to reject it as being so ridiculous it's not worth discussing. In doing so, such responders admit the obvious: the US would never accept it. But this isn't just theory. We have direct historical precedent in Cuba where the US almost started World War Three over the USSR doing the exact same thing the US had already done in Turkey. > The USA doesn't interfere in Mexican elections. This is so laughably untrue. The US has long influenced Mexico's elections and domestic policy over things like the drug trade, foreign aid and such. Beyond elections, Texas used to be part of Mexico.
    - EthanHeilman 5y ago
      > We have direct historical precedent in Cuba where the US almost started World War Three over the USSR doing the exact same thing the US had already done in Turkey. Yet the US did not invade Cuba and the US choose a blockade over an invasion during the Cuba missile crisis. Even with the bay of pigs the US choose against direct military intervention and merely armed and supported Cuban rebels. This is direct contradiction of your claim. This war has nothing to do with bases and everything to do with Putin's dream of a slavic ethno-nationalist super state. The Russia government has said as much, as had Putin in the past. Note that Ukraine doesn't even have US bases on its territory and was not even going have bases for the foreseeable future. Your argument here has no legs to stand on. > This is so laughably untrue. The US has long influenced Mexico's elections and domestic policy over things like the drug trade, foreign aid and such. You are moving the goal posts. Not one saying the US does not use diplomacy and soft power to attempt to influence the policies of other nations. We are talking about a war of aggression waged against a democracy by means of total war including the indiscriminate shelling of cities and population centers. Total war is very different from Russia merely supporting a coup, backing a candidate in an election, or arming rebel forces. Saying "What about the US" is not the trump card you think it is. Attempting to wash away the blood Russia is spilling by saying the US would do that same is admitting Russia's guilt. Terrible crimes like this are not excused because someone else did them as well. Not one would accept the murder defense that sure Alice murdered Bob, but Eve also murdered Carol. If the US launched a total war against Mexico because Mexico was going to sign an economic agreement with China or offered a China a military base, I, and I suspect you as well, would be strongly against such a war. Finally what the US does or does not do is not at issue here because Russia is not invading the US, Russia is invading Ukraine! Would Ukraine invade Belarus if Belarus had Russian military bases? No, because Belarus has Russian bases and Ukraine did not invade Belarus. > So this is the Ameribrain in action. Using insulting terminology like this both harms your ability to communicate your argument and harms this forum. Please don't do that here.

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...

roca 5y ago
The idea that Canada or Mexico would want Russian or Chinese bases is so counterfactual it doesn't make sense at all. The USA doesn't interfere in Mexican elections. Some of Mexico's governments are quite anti-American. None of them are crazy enough to want to become a satellite of Russia or China. Cuba's an interesting case. Note that the USA didn't invade and subjugate Cuba. (There was the Bay of Pigs, but that wasn't the US military and isn't comparable to Russia in Ukraine.) And NATO hasn't positioned nukes in the newer NATO members. The argument that Ukrainians can't have self-determination because, say, some parts of Cyprus don't have it, is simply ludicrous.
- jmyeet 5y ago
  > The idea that Canada or Mexico would want Russian or Chinese bases is so counterfactual it doesn't make sense at all. So this is the Ameribrain in action. I've asked this same question many times and this is one of the common responses: not to answer the question but to reject it as being so ridiculous it's not worth discussing. In doing so, such responders admit the obvious: the US would never accept it. But this isn't just theory. We have direct historical precedent in Cuba where the US almost started World War Three over the USSR doing the exact same thing the US had already done in Turkey. > The USA doesn't interfere in Mexican elections. This is so laughably untrue. The US has long influenced Mexico's elections and domestic policy over things like the drug trade, foreign aid and such. Beyond elections, Texas used to be part of Mexico.
  - EthanHeilman 5y ago
    > We have direct historical precedent in Cuba where the US almost started World War Three over the USSR doing the exact same thing the US had already done in Turkey. Yet the US did not invade Cuba and the US choose a blockade over an invasion during the Cuba missile crisis. Even with the bay of pigs the US choose against direct military intervention and merely armed and supported Cuban rebels. This is direct contradiction of your claim. This war has nothing to do with bases and everything to do with Putin's dream of a slavic ethno-nationalist super state. The Russia government has said as much, as had Putin in the past. Note that Ukraine doesn't even have US bases on its territory and was not even going have bases for the foreseeable future. Your argument here has no legs to stand on. > This is so laughably untrue. The US has long influenced Mexico's elections and domestic policy over things like the drug trade, foreign aid and such. You are moving the goal posts. Not one saying the US does not use diplomacy and soft power to attempt to influence the policies of other nations. We are talking about a war of aggression waged against a democracy by means of total war including the indiscriminate shelling of cities and population centers. Total war is very different from Russia merely supporting a coup, backing a candidate in an election, or arming rebel forces. Saying "What about the US" is not the trump card you think it is. Attempting to wash away the blood Russia is spilling by saying the US would do that same is admitting Russia's guilt. Terrible crimes like this are not excused because someone else did them as well. Not one would accept the murder defense that sure Alice murdered Bob, but Eve also murdered Carol. If the US launched a total war against Mexico because Mexico was going to sign an economic agreement with China or offered a China a military base, I, and I suspect you as well, would be strongly against such a war. Finally what the US does or does not do is not at issue here because Russia is not invading the US, Russia is invading Ukraine! Would Ukraine invade Belarus if Belarus had Russian military bases? No, because Belarus has Russian bases and Ukraine did not invade Belarus. > So this is the Ameribrain in action. Using insulting terminology like this both harms your ability to communicate your argument and harms this forum. Please don't do that here.