8 ms·

The war in Ukraine is the strangest war history has ever seen. A much, much larger opponent with shockingly incompetent leadership and preparation invades a sma

The war in Ukraine is the strangest war history has ever seen. A much, much larger opponent with shockingly incompetent leadership and preparation invades a smaller country that has been aggressively preparing for exactly this outcome, armed with the support of many of the world’s strongest economic and military suppliers’ middle tier gear and top tier intelligence.

dragontamer 5y ago
I'm getting Russo-Japanese vibes from this war. Tsar Nicholas starts an imperial war of aggression with Japan to obtain a warm-water port, while the Japanese Navy (supplied with last-generation ships from the British Navy) surprises the world and proves to be able to fight the Russians on the world stage. Turns out that those old British ships were still pretty good, and the Japanese have learned how to use Western guns and tactics by the early 1900s (despite being a Samurai/Sword society just 40 years prior).
- dnlbyl 5y ago
  Didn't Japan start that war?
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Hmmm. Politics of the 1800s are weird. Both sides were imperialists, expanding their domains far beyond their historical norms. Russia expanded eastward. Japan expanded westward. You're right that Japan ultimately was the one who started the attack though. But I'm also looking at Russia's expansion to seek a warm-water port on the Pacific Ocean and connect it up with the Tran-Siberian railway. Russia definitely was encroaching upon the East. But Japan also was encroaching upon the West, with the 1890s Sino-Japanese War. Soooooo... both are kind of imperialistic assholes on this event, now that I think of it.
  - etrevino 5y ago
    Japan started the war with a surprise attack, but Russia intended to go to war with Japan and everyone knew it. Japan just figured that, as the smaller country, it ought to try to seize what advantages it could
    - jjfoooo5 5y ago
      The Russian navy was not in the neighborhood on a casual trip!
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Even on paper the match between Japan and Russia was much more evenly matched. Japan was balls deep in their whole "speed run European history" phase at that time. Russia didn't care about the territory in question nearly as much and it was more of a "fisticuffs between two people who already are predisposed to fight each other" war. Ukraine isn't that big and isn't developing like that right now and the Russian motivation is very different.
ProjectArcturis 5y ago
Indeed. And Ukraine doing absolutely amazing propaganda work to pull the entire developed world firmly onto its side. I don't mean to take anything away from the suffering Ukraine is experiencing, or the justness of its cause. I mean, they're presenting all that in an incredibly persuasive way, across essentially all media. For example, early on in the invasion, we saw pictures of new highway signs, where the directions to different cities had been replaced with (in Russian), "Fuck Off", "Also Fuck Off", and "Fuck Off Back to Russia." Or, when a brewery switched to creating Molotov cocktails, they had already printed labels, with fun graphic design, an the title "Putin is a dickhead." That wasn't spontaneous. They had an entire portfolio of stuff like that, which they'd been planning for years. Absolutely genius preparation by Ukraine.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  - vogre 5y ago
    > The real winner is the West. The real winner is US. Europe will pay for this war by its' economy.
    - legalcorrection 5y ago
      Yes, good point. The truth is Europe is utterly helpless militarily. They can't defend against Russian action in Eastern Europe without American military power. So they have to accept these sanctions as the cost of that protection. This is no doubt part of the why the United States has lobbied so strongly against the development of an integrated EU army, which is the probably the only way Europe can by itself deter aggression on its periphery.
      - creato 5y ago
        I don’t know about an integrated EU army, but the US has been lobbying for Europe to expand its defense capabilities for years, that wasn’t just Trump.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
WJW 5y ago
What is so weird about that? Proxy wars have been a thing since the Roman empire. It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time, but NATO certainly seems to be regarding it as such.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Most proxy wars aren't fought with really up to date technology wielded by professional soldiers. Weirdest? Don't know, but it certainly is remarkable.
- topspin 5y ago
  "It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time" Russia has been conducting a proxy war in Ukraine for years, trying to inspire ethnic Russians to revolt against their supposed Ukrainian oppressors. That ploy turned into a quagmire because even ethic Russians in Ukraine don't want to live under Russian control. Russia is doomed in this fight. They've only secured about 20% of Eastern Ukraine, exposing the rot in the heart of the Russian military in the process. If they ever get as far as Western Ukraine, where they will face desperate ethnic Ukrainians armed to the teeth with advanced weapons, supported by supply lines to the Western world and informed by real time surveillance the Russians can only dream of, the Russian body count will be staggering; far beyond any level Putin can conceal or survive politically. The awful truth is that this ends only after enough Russian men have been fed into the meat grinder and Putin is deposed. For Putin it's win or fall, and winning clearly isn't feasible.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I want to believe that. But then I think about how desperation could just lead to missile attacks / high level bombing of still-populous western Ukrainian urban centers and I'm not so sure.
    - topspin 5y ago
      Rubblization hasn't worked yet, and so far Russia has only assaulted the easy side of Ukraine. Western Ukraine will be the equivalent of a dozen Mariupols. Putin would have to mobilize all of Russia in the attempt.
dmix 5y ago
I'm really curious if Ukraines years of preparation was a big factor in Russia's hesitation to use the airforce (besides helicopters) in the initial days of the war. That plus not getting strong air supremacy.
- motoboi 5y ago
  Anti air batteries. Ukraine has several. You can avoid them flying low, but then you fall into the killing envelope of shoulder mounted anti-air weapons, which Ukraine also happens to have many.
andrewmd5 5y ago
Afghanistan?
nigerian1981 5y ago
We’ve been here before with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That didn’t work out too well for them either
- dylan604 5y ago
  Nor for the US
- oneoff786 5y ago
  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a slow guerilla war against an insurgency. Russia has lost more troops in Ukraine in a few weeks than in 9 years of Afghanistan. It’s not an insurgency either. Ukraine is outright fielding a proper army with armor and air support and what not. Hell they’ve got a sizeable amount of the western front of Russia’s army surrounded and set for a strategic rout.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Surrounded == encirclement (ie: mass capture). Rout == uncoordinated retreat, which seems to be happening on a regular basis right now. Russian morale is really, really bad. Surrounded / Encirclement might really be happening. Its hard to tell for sure due to the fog of war, it could just be Ukrainian propaganda, but there's so much discussion about a Ukrainian counter-push in various parts of the country. Rout == enemy escapes, with heavy losses due to disorganization. Its a win, but not as much of a win as "Surrounded/Encirlcement", which basically is a "surrender or die" situation. Its clear that the Russians were trying to encircle Kyiv (and Mariupol with more success). But there seems to be whispers that the Ukrainians are successfully surrounding / encircling some Russian troops.
dirtyid 5y ago
Seems like a gross exaggeration. Larger RU experiencing some difficulties annexing one her smaller neighbours with foreign support is history rhyming, down to both sides thoroughly entrenched in their own propaganda. This is regression towards mean in terms of typicalness of peer war. Note scale, paper deals with insurgencies.

dragontamer 5y ago

I'm getting Russo-Japanese vibes from this war. Tsar Nicholas starts an imperial war of aggression with Japan to obtain a warm-water port, while the Japanese Navy (supplied with last-generation ships from the British Navy) surprises the world and proves to be able to fight the Russians on the world stage. Turns out that those old British ships were still pretty good, and the Japanese have learned how to use Western guns and tactics by the early 1900s (despite being a Samurai/Sword society just 40 years prior).

dnlbyl 5y ago
Didn't Japan start that war?
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Hmmm. Politics of the 1800s are weird. Both sides were imperialists, expanding their domains far beyond their historical norms. Russia expanded eastward. Japan expanded westward. You're right that Japan ultimately was the one who started the attack though. But I'm also looking at Russia's expansion to seek a warm-water port on the Pacific Ocean and connect it up with the Tran-Siberian railway. Russia definitely was encroaching upon the East. But Japan also was encroaching upon the West, with the 1890s Sino-Japanese War. Soooooo... both are kind of imperialistic assholes on this event, now that I think of it.
- etrevino 5y ago
  Japan started the war with a surprise attack, but Russia intended to go to war with Japan and everyone knew it. Japan just figured that, as the smaller country, it ought to try to seize what advantages it could
  - jjfoooo5 5y ago
    The Russian navy was not in the neighborhood on a casual trip!
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Even on paper the match between Japan and Russia was much more evenly matched. Japan was balls deep in their whole "speed run European history" phase at that time. Russia didn't care about the territory in question nearly as much and it was more of a "fisticuffs between two people who already are predisposed to fight each other" war. Ukraine isn't that big and isn't developing like that right now and the Russian motivation is very different.

ProjectArcturis 5y ago

Indeed. And Ukraine doing absolutely amazing propaganda work to pull the entire developed world firmly onto its side. I don't mean to take anything away from the suffering Ukraine is experiencing, or the justness of its cause. I mean, they're presenting all that in an incredibly persuasive way, across essentially all media. For example, early on in the invasion, we saw pictures of new highway signs, where the directions to different cities had been replaced with (in Russian), "Fuck Off", "Also Fuck Off", and "Fuck Off Back to Russia." Or, when a brewery switched to creating Molotov cocktails, they had already printed labels, with fun graphic design, an the title "Putin is a dickhead." That wasn't spontaneous. They had an entire portfolio of stuff like that, which they'd been planning for years. Absolutely genius preparation by Ukraine.

legalcorrection 5y ago
- vogre 5y ago
  > The real winner is the West. The real winner is US. Europe will pay for this war by its' economy.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    Yes, good point. The truth is Europe is utterly helpless militarily. They can't defend against Russian action in Eastern Europe without American military power. So they have to accept these sanctions as the cost of that protection. This is no doubt part of the why the United States has lobbied so strongly against the development of an integrated EU army, which is the probably the only way Europe can by itself deter aggression on its periphery.
    - creato 5y ago
      I don’t know about an integrated EU army, but the US has been lobbying for Europe to expand its defense capabilities for years, that wasn’t just Trump.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

WJW 5y ago

What is so weird about that? Proxy wars have been a thing since the Roman empire. It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time, but NATO certainly seems to be regarding it as such.

mhh__ 5y ago
Most proxy wars aren't fought with really up to date technology wielded by professional soldiers. Weirdest? Don't know, but it certainly is remarkable.
topspin 5y ago
"It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time" Russia has been conducting a proxy war in Ukraine for years, trying to inspire ethnic Russians to revolt against their supposed Ukrainian oppressors. That ploy turned into a quagmire because even ethic Russians in Ukraine don't want to live under Russian control. Russia is doomed in this fight. They've only secured about 20% of Eastern Ukraine, exposing the rot in the heart of the Russian military in the process. If they ever get as far as Western Ukraine, where they will face desperate ethnic Ukrainians armed to the teeth with advanced weapons, supported by supply lines to the Western world and informed by real time surveillance the Russians can only dream of, the Russian body count will be staggering; far beyond any level Putin can conceal or survive politically. The awful truth is that this ends only after enough Russian men have been fed into the meat grinder and Putin is deposed. For Putin it's win or fall, and winning clearly isn't feasible.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I want to believe that. But then I think about how desperation could just lead to missile attacks / high level bombing of still-populous western Ukrainian urban centers and I'm not so sure.
  - topspin 5y ago
    Rubblization hasn't worked yet, and so far Russia has only assaulted the easy side of Ukraine. Western Ukraine will be the equivalent of a dozen Mariupols. Putin would have to mobilize all of Russia in the attempt.

dmix 5y ago

I'm really curious if Ukraines years of preparation was a big factor in Russia's hesitation to use the airforce (besides helicopters) in the initial days of the war. That plus not getting strong air supremacy.

motoboi 5y ago
Anti air batteries. Ukraine has several. You can avoid them flying low, but then you fall into the killing envelope of shoulder mounted anti-air weapons, which Ukraine also happens to have many.

andrewmd5 5y ago

Afghanistan?

nigerian1981 5y ago

We’ve been here before with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That didn’t work out too well for them either

dylan604 5y ago
Nor for the US
oneoff786 5y ago
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a slow guerilla war against an insurgency. Russia has lost more troops in Ukraine in a few weeks than in 9 years of Afghanistan. It’s not an insurgency either. Ukraine is outright fielding a proper army with armor and air support and what not. Hell they’ve got a sizeable amount of the western front of Russia’s army surrounded and set for a strategic rout.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Surrounded == encirclement (ie: mass capture). Rout == uncoordinated retreat, which seems to be happening on a regular basis right now. Russian morale is really, really bad. Surrounded / Encirclement might really be happening. Its hard to tell for sure due to the fog of war, it could just be Ukrainian propaganda, but there's so much discussion about a Ukrainian counter-push in various parts of the country. Rout == enemy escapes, with heavy losses due to disorganization. Its a win, but not as much of a win as "Surrounded/Encirlcement", which basically is a "surrender or die" situation. Its clear that the Russians were trying to encircle Kyiv (and Mariupol with more success). But there seems to be whispers that the Ukrainians are successfully surrounding / encircling some Russian troops.

dirtyid 5y ago

Seems like a gross exaggeration. Larger RU experiencing some difficulties annexing one her smaller neighbours with foreign support is history rhyming, down to both sides thoroughly entrenched in their own propaganda. This is regression towards mean in terms of typicalness of peer war. Note scale, paper deals with insurgencies.