4 ms·

> This is genuinely not an attempt at flamewar but why can't civilians just leave? They are. I think the count is up to two million or something. > Russia is

> This is genuinely not an attempt at flamewar but why can't civilians just leave? They are. I think the count is up to two million or something. > Russia is obviously going to win. That's not so obvious. For instance: the US failed to win against much weaker opponents than the Ukrainians. > The logical thing to do is to leave, suffer but be sure that your kids will have it better. But I reckon this isn't about logic? Or it is about logic, but your "logic" is too shallow of an analysis.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>That's not so obvious. For instance: the US failed to win against much weaker opponents than the Ukrainians. Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles. Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. If they take out their vital infrastructure like hospitals, water, power, schools, they're done for. When their cities are reduced to rubble from the shelling, there will be nothing left fighting for, as you can't live and raise kids in wasteland that's been reduced to rubble.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Guerillas, and partisans, were quite successful in places like Yugoslavia (WW2), Afghanistan (against the USSR and NATO), Ireland (against the British), Belarus (WW2), Poland (WW2), the Finish used some Guerilla style tactics (WW2 against the USSR). Ukraine was less a Guerilla hot bed in WW2 (it was early on, and then again after Stalingrad). None of those places were tribal societies (exception: Afghanistan to a degree) or desert. Nor was the Elephant in the room, Vietnam (they won twice, once against France and once against the US). The only desert based guerilla campaigns in recent history I can think of right now were Algeria (in the 60s) and Arabia (against the Ottomans in WW1). Ukraine is a huge country, cities are a great environment for insurgents. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an option Ukraine's planning. That they didn't have to resort to that kind of warfare yet is quite surprising if you ask me.
  - grujicd 5y ago
    Partisans in WW2 Yugoslavia were successful in mountainous parts of country, where you can hide after guerilla actions. Flatlands and big cities were liberated only when Red Army came along on its way to Berlin. We’re not talking about fighting only. There has to be a local support for guerilla to eat and sleep. That might work in primarily agricultural countriside but not in cities built around industry.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Ok, I assume that's why Bagdad was considered to be such a safe city outside the green zone then? Due to a lack of insurgents? Insurgents need a place to hide, whether that is the country side or among the population doesn't matter. Another, if somewhat less successful, urban insurgent group is the IRA. The Troubles were almost exclusively urban fighting.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Infrastructure can be rebuilt with a new Marshall plan later. Ukrainians have very good weapons from the West and are getting more. Putin can't hold such a huge country against them. Destroyed infrastructure works against the occupiers, too. Sometimes even more, because the locals have some local knowledge, e.g. which water sources deep in the forest are safe to drink.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >Infrastructure can be rebuilt with a new Marshall plan later. The Marshall plan types work when there is guaranteed political and economical stability in the countries where there are implemented, and it worked in destroyed countries like West Germany and Japan because those countries had guaranteed stability and protection from internal and external threats post-WW2 by the US military bases hosted in those countries which made Marshall plan investments very safe bets that they would be paid off. Not NATO, nor the US military is willing to protect Ukraine and go to war with Russia to guarantee Ukraine's political and economical stability, and as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it, no bank or country will make any significant investments in Ukraine.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      "as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it" They don't seem to be pulling it off now. Their capabilites will only degrade once the sanctions bite fully.
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        >They don't seem to be pulling it off now. Their capabilites will only degrade once the sanctions bite fully. I'd like Ukraine to win, but if you listen to the former head of Mi6 and US military experts, they don't give Ukraine much chance of actually winning, as they're severely outgunned and outnumbered vs Russia, despite aid from the west. Despite taking heavy losses, Russia's use of tried and tested WW2 style of encircle the big cities and slowly pummle them into submission with artilerie, and endless cannon fodder plus ruthless trained killers form Chechnya, seems to be working for them slowly but surely. And the sanctions are mostly affecting the average Russian who can't buy iPhones, Ikea furniture anymore or use Paypal, but it has no effect on Putin's war machine or on his grasp of political power in Russia. Banned western goods will still come into Russia through Serbia and Kazakhstan anyway, as they're not sanctioned countries and have liberal trade policies with Russia.
- oblio 5y ago
  > Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles. > Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. A developed country is 1 bombing campaign away from becoming a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare...

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

>That's not so obvious. For instance: the US failed to win against much weaker opponents than the Ukrainians. Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles. Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. If they take out their vital infrastructure like hospitals, water, power, schools, they're done for. When their cities are reduced to rubble from the shelling, there will be nothing left fighting for, as you can't live and raise kids in wasteland that's been reduced to rubble.

hef19898 5y ago
Guerillas, and partisans, were quite successful in places like Yugoslavia (WW2), Afghanistan (against the USSR and NATO), Ireland (against the British), Belarus (WW2), Poland (WW2), the Finish used some Guerilla style tactics (WW2 against the USSR). Ukraine was less a Guerilla hot bed in WW2 (it was early on, and then again after Stalingrad). None of those places were tribal societies (exception: Afghanistan to a degree) or desert. Nor was the Elephant in the room, Vietnam (they won twice, once against France and once against the US). The only desert based guerilla campaigns in recent history I can think of right now were Algeria (in the 60s) and Arabia (against the Ottomans in WW1). Ukraine is a huge country, cities are a great environment for insurgents. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an option Ukraine's planning. That they didn't have to resort to that kind of warfare yet is quite surprising if you ask me.
- grujicd 5y ago
  Partisans in WW2 Yugoslavia were successful in mountainous parts of country, where you can hide after guerilla actions. Flatlands and big cities were liberated only when Red Army came along on its way to Berlin. We’re not talking about fighting only. There has to be a local support for guerilla to eat and sleep. That might work in primarily agricultural countriside but not in cities built around industry.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Ok, I assume that's why Bagdad was considered to be such a safe city outside the green zone then? Due to a lack of insurgents? Insurgents need a place to hide, whether that is the country side or among the population doesn't matter. Another, if somewhat less successful, urban insurgent group is the IRA. The Troubles were almost exclusively urban fighting.
inglor_cz 5y ago
Infrastructure can be rebuilt with a new Marshall plan later. Ukrainians have very good weapons from the West and are getting more. Putin can't hold such a huge country against them. Destroyed infrastructure works against the occupiers, too. Sometimes even more, because the locals have some local knowledge, e.g. which water sources deep in the forest are safe to drink.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >Infrastructure can be rebuilt with a new Marshall plan later. The Marshall plan types work when there is guaranteed political and economical stability in the countries where there are implemented, and it worked in destroyed countries like West Germany and Japan because those countries had guaranteed stability and protection from internal and external threats post-WW2 by the US military bases hosted in those countries which made Marshall plan investments very safe bets that they would be paid off. Not NATO, nor the US military is willing to protect Ukraine and go to war with Russia to guarantee Ukraine's political and economical stability, and as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it, no bank or country will make any significant investments in Ukraine.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    "as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it" They don't seem to be pulling it off now. Their capabilites will only degrade once the sanctions bite fully.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >They don't seem to be pulling it off now. Their capabilites will only degrade once the sanctions bite fully. I'd like Ukraine to win, but if you listen to the former head of Mi6 and US military experts, they don't give Ukraine much chance of actually winning, as they're severely outgunned and outnumbered vs Russia, despite aid from the west. Despite taking heavy losses, Russia's use of tried and tested WW2 style of encircle the big cities and slowly pummle them into submission with artilerie, and endless cannon fodder plus ruthless trained killers form Chechnya, seems to be working for them slowly but surely. And the sanctions are mostly affecting the average Russian who can't buy iPhones, Ikea furniture anymore or use Paypal, but it has no effect on Putin's war machine or on his grasp of political power in Russia. Banned western goods will still come into Russia through Serbia and Kazakhstan anyway, as they're not sanctioned countries and have liberal trade policies with Russia.
oblio 5y ago
> Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles. > Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. A developed country is 1 bombing campaign away from becoming a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare...