4 ms·

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 s

by 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.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Cruise missiles are too expensive for Russia to keep using (and are among the cheapest of long-range missiles). To destroy large swaths of Ukraine, Russia needs to march its artillery, be it MLRS systems or 162mm Howitzers, within firing range of city areas. The Ukrainian forces have largely repelled these advances. MLRS systems and 162mm Howitzers "only" have 30km range or so. Sure, Russia has longer-range systems, but they're clearly trying to get these cheaper artillery systems within firing range of Kyiv (and other cities). The Ukrainians have pushed back and have stalled the progress. Keeping those systems at least 50km away from the Kyiv center will prevent the worst of attacks that Russia can afford to launch. -------- Given what Russia is doing to Mariupol, its clear that they don't mind razing entire cities to the ground with these kinds of artillery strikes. The key for the Ukrainians moving forward are to keep the Russian line away from artillery strike range.
    - topspin 5y ago
      "Cruise missiles are too expensive for Russia to keep using (and are among the cheapest of long-range missiles)." A NATO assessment last week concluded that Russia has already expended nearly all of the missiles (Kalibr cruise missiles and Iskander ballistic missiles) they had staged for the invasion. Since then they've used a couple hypersonic missiles, but those are fabulously expensive and thus not available in quantity. Russia won't be blowing up Soviet era apartment blocks with hundreds of those. So yes, I think you are correct; if they're going to continue the missile attacks they'll need to use up Russia's reserve munitions. Otherwise, as you say, they have to turn to artillery. Turns out Ukraine is pretty effective at artillery duels. The blasted Russian armor we see isn't all down to Javelins and NLAWs; they're directing artillery with UAVs to great effect. Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties. They just don't have the munitions.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties. While estimates vary, I’ve seen none that indicates Russia isn't experiencing mind-boggling casualties for the major power in a modern major-power-on-one-side war as it is. The US estimate put it at a large fraction of the total official Soviet losses over the whole decade-long campaign in Afghanistan that was sometimes referred to as the USSR’s Afghanistan and major contributor to the collapse of the regime, the Ukraine MOD estimates put it well over the Soviet Afghanistan toll.)
oneoff786 5y ago
I can think of no proxy war that has played out like this. The scale of Russian incompetence is difficult to understand.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  To me, it kind of feels like the coup attempt against Gorbachev, where a bunch of the coup leaders were drunk, and the whole thing quickly fell apart. It's the same level of incompetence.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  Learn some history. This is about par for Russian performance for large scale wars for past 100s of years. They're a huge land power with chronically underfunded military where corruption cause initial stumbling but they tend to hammer through and win.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    I’m familiar with Russia’s military past. This war is notably different in character imo.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 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. Many things described as modern “proxy wars” between major powers have been direct wars between a major power and an ally of an opposed major power (and many have involved direct conflict between major powers, though usually with at least one major power having deniability.) This was true of several of the major USA/USSR “proxy” conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan).

by 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.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Cruise missiles are too expensive for Russia to keep using (and are among the cheapest of long-range missiles). To destroy large swaths of Ukraine, Russia needs to march its artillery, be it MLRS systems or 162mm Howitzers, within firing range of city areas. The Ukrainian forces have largely repelled these advances. MLRS systems and 162mm Howitzers "only" have 30km range or so. Sure, Russia has longer-range systems, but they're clearly trying to get these cheaper artillery systems within firing range of Kyiv (and other cities). The Ukrainians have pushed back and have stalled the progress. Keeping those systems at least 50km away from the Kyiv center will prevent the worst of attacks that Russia can afford to launch. -------- Given what Russia is doing to Mariupol, its clear that they don't mind razing entire cities to the ground with these kinds of artillery strikes. The key for the Ukrainians moving forward are to keep the Russian line away from artillery strike range.
  - topspin 5y ago
    "Cruise missiles are too expensive for Russia to keep using (and are among the cheapest of long-range missiles)." A NATO assessment last week concluded that Russia has already expended nearly all of the missiles (Kalibr cruise missiles and Iskander ballistic missiles) they had staged for the invasion. Since then they've used a couple hypersonic missiles, but those are fabulously expensive and thus not available in quantity. Russia won't be blowing up Soviet era apartment blocks with hundreds of those. So yes, I think you are correct; if they're going to continue the missile attacks they'll need to use up Russia's reserve munitions. Otherwise, as you say, they have to turn to artillery. Turns out Ukraine is pretty effective at artillery duels. The blasted Russian armor we see isn't all down to Javelins and NLAWs; they're directing artillery with UAVs to great effect. Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties. They just don't have the munitions.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties. While estimates vary, I’ve seen none that indicates Russia isn't experiencing mind-boggling casualties for the major power in a modern major-power-on-one-side war as it is. The US estimate put it at a large fraction of the total official Soviet losses over the whole decade-long campaign in Afghanistan that was sometimes referred to as the USSR’s Afghanistan and major contributor to the collapse of the regime, the Ukraine MOD estimates put it well over the Soviet Afghanistan toll.)

oneoff786 5y ago

I can think of no proxy war that has played out like this. The scale of Russian incompetence is difficult to understand.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
To me, it kind of feels like the coup attempt against Gorbachev, where a bunch of the coup leaders were drunk, and the whole thing quickly fell apart. It's the same level of incompetence.
dirtyid 5y ago
Learn some history. This is about par for Russian performance for large scale wars for past 100s of years. They're a huge land power with chronically underfunded military where corruption cause initial stumbling but they tend to hammer through and win.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  I’m familiar with Russia’s military past. This war is notably different in character imo.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> 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. Many things described as modern “proxy wars” between major powers have been direct wars between a major power and an ally of an opposed major power (and many have involved direct conflict between major powers, though usually with at least one major power having deniability.) This was true of several of the major USA/USSR “proxy” conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan).