4 ms·

The US didn’t “conquer” Afghanistan. It was fighting a nonstop insurgency that obviously we couldn’t sustain for another 20+ years as evidenced by the fact we d

The US didn’t “conquer” Afghanistan. It was fighting a nonstop insurgency that obviously we couldn’t sustain for another 20+ years as evidenced by the fact we didn’t sustain it for another 20+ years. Losing political will is quite literally “losing,” and we left and the Taliban now gets to (actually) rule their country how they want to.

Clubber 3y ago
>The US didn’t “conquer” Afghanistan It certainly did. It took the Taliban out of power and installed our own government. Also, all conquered countries have insurgencies. France, Poland, Belgium, Holland all had insurgencies and they were certainly conquered by Germany in WW2. Insurgencies by conquered people have been happening since before Alexander. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer >Losing political will is quite literally “losing,” Maybe. Did Britain lose to India because they lost the political will to occupy them? Canada? Australia? Maybe. Did the US lose to the Philippines because we no longer colonized them? Doesn't seem like it. I'd be hard pressed to find any rational historian to say the US lost to the Philippines. >It was fighting a nonstop insurgency that obviously we couldn’t sustain for another 20+ years as evidenced by the fact we didn’t sustain it for another 20+ years. Afghanistan didn't force us out. We could have kept doing what we did for another 20 years. It would have been as stupid as the last 20 years, but we certainly had the financial and military means. Anyhow this is a tangent. If we go to war with Russia, there will be a draft and millions will likely die. This has been a known for the last 80 years. I'm amazed people don't think this would be true. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it I guess. Better start getting in shape.
- llamaimperative 3y ago
  No one is disagreeing with “if we go to war with Russia there will be a draft and millions will die.” They’re disagreeing with your suggestion that the way to avoid war with Russia is by not supporting Ukraine now or that Ukraine is necessarily doomed because of a 3:1 difference in manpower. If you want to talk about repeating history, maybe look up how well appeasement worked with the Nazis, another lying autocratic regime wallowing in delusions about its own greatness.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >your suggestion that the way to avoid war with Russia is by not supporting Ukraine now Show me where I said that.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      > People calling for the US to do more against Russia, be careful what you wish for I suppose it’s ambiguous who you’re referring to “doing more”? But you unambiguously said a 3:1 advantage -> Ukraine will run out of troops.
      - Clubber 3y ago
        >I suppose it’s ambiguous who you’re referring to “doing more”? But you unambiguously said a 3:1 advantage -> Ukraine will run out of troops. Ah I see, yes I meant "do more" as in escalating by putting boots on the ground or getting US or NATO troops officially in the war before Russia invades a NATO country, or giving Ukraine weaponry where it can invade Russia. Right now we're in a proxy war with Russia like Vietnam or Afghanistan (1979-1989). The national interest for us is to make Russia look bad and drain Russia to the point where they can't invade a NATO country at the expense of Ukraine, unfortunately. The war has devolved into trench warfare and a war of attrition, which will ultimately lead to Ukraine running out of troops if nothing significant changes. During peace talks Ukraine has stated they want all the captured territory including Crimea back, which Russia will never agree to because they have the upper hand. Russia just has to sit there and defend like Germany did in the Western front in WWI. Furthermore, Russia can fight a war of attrition much longer than Ukraine can. That's where the 3:1 ratio is important. I don't see a path to Russia "giving up," and relinquishing all captured territory outside of Putin getting removed and a magical NATO friendly leader taking his place, which is highly unlikely. Had Prigozhin toppled Putin, he would have likely been even more aggressive. A coup in Russia would likely make things worse, too. Nobody wants the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world to become unstable, except maybe Iran. What else can happen? Ukraine invades Russia? We haven't been giving Ukraine long rage weapons because we don't want this to happen. If Ukraine invades Russia in earnest and makes a lot of progress, Russia will likely lob some nukes, which is very bad. Ukraine can take over the territory Russia has taken, but they haven't been able to do it and have been repelled from Bakhmut and recently from Avdiivka. It's not looking good. How many more counter-offensives can Ukraine sustain? I don't know, but it's fewer than Russia can repel. Something needs to happen that isn't happening now, but I have no idea what that is. I just don't see a path that doesn't involve lots of Ukrainians dying and ultimately give up most of the land Russia currently occupies, except a peace treaty, which Ukraine currently isn't being realistic about. Furthermore a peace treaty is no guarantee Russia will not invade a NATO country. We're walking a tightrope. We want Ukraine to repel Russia, but not threaten Russia's existence. When a non-nuclear power fights a nuclear power, the one with nukes has the upper hand. So that's the path we're currently on. Ukraine can only commit to so many counter offensives and rebuff Russian offensives before they are drained. Russia hasn't even fully committed to the war yet. What do we do once Ukraine has ultimately "bled out?" Ukraine is a powder keg waiting to explode. It's pretty scary.

Clubber 3y ago

>The US didn’t “conquer” Afghanistan It certainly did. It took the Taliban out of power and installed our own government. Also, all conquered countries have insurgencies. France, Poland, Belgium, Holland all had insurgencies and they were certainly conquered by Germany in WW2. Insurgencies by conquered people have been happening since before Alexander. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer >Losing political will is quite literally “losing,” Maybe. Did Britain lose to India because they lost the political will to occupy them? Canada? Australia? Maybe. Did the US lose to the Philippines because we no longer colonized them? Doesn't seem like it. I'd be hard pressed to find any rational historian to say the US lost to the Philippines. >It was fighting a nonstop insurgency that obviously we couldn’t sustain for another 20+ years as evidenced by the fact we didn’t sustain it for another 20+ years. Afghanistan didn't force us out. We could have kept doing what we did for another 20 years. It would have been as stupid as the last 20 years, but we certainly had the financial and military means. Anyhow this is a tangent. If we go to war with Russia, there will be a draft and millions will likely die. This has been a known for the last 80 years. I'm amazed people don't think this would be true. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it I guess. Better start getting in shape.

llamaimperative 3y ago
No one is disagreeing with “if we go to war with Russia there will be a draft and millions will die.” They’re disagreeing with your suggestion that the way to avoid war with Russia is by not supporting Ukraine now or that Ukraine is necessarily doomed because of a 3:1 difference in manpower. If you want to talk about repeating history, maybe look up how well appeasement worked with the Nazis, another lying autocratic regime wallowing in delusions about its own greatness.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >your suggestion that the way to avoid war with Russia is by not supporting Ukraine now Show me where I said that.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    > People calling for the US to do more against Russia, be careful what you wish for I suppose it’s ambiguous who you’re referring to “doing more”? But you unambiguously said a 3:1 advantage -> Ukraine will run out of troops.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >I suppose it’s ambiguous who you’re referring to “doing more”? But you unambiguously said a 3:1 advantage -> Ukraine will run out of troops. Ah I see, yes I meant "do more" as in escalating by putting boots on the ground or getting US or NATO troops officially in the war before Russia invades a NATO country, or giving Ukraine weaponry where it can invade Russia. Right now we're in a proxy war with Russia like Vietnam or Afghanistan (1979-1989). The national interest for us is to make Russia look bad and drain Russia to the point where they can't invade a NATO country at the expense of Ukraine, unfortunately. The war has devolved into trench warfare and a war of attrition, which will ultimately lead to Ukraine running out of troops if nothing significant changes. During peace talks Ukraine has stated they want all the captured territory including Crimea back, which Russia will never agree to because they have the upper hand. Russia just has to sit there and defend like Germany did in the Western front in WWI. Furthermore, Russia can fight a war of attrition much longer than Ukraine can. That's where the 3:1 ratio is important. I don't see a path to Russia "giving up," and relinquishing all captured territory outside of Putin getting removed and a magical NATO friendly leader taking his place, which is highly unlikely. Had Prigozhin toppled Putin, he would have likely been even more aggressive. A coup in Russia would likely make things worse, too. Nobody wants the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world to become unstable, except maybe Iran. What else can happen? Ukraine invades Russia? We haven't been giving Ukraine long rage weapons because we don't want this to happen. If Ukraine invades Russia in earnest and makes a lot of progress, Russia will likely lob some nukes, which is very bad. Ukraine can take over the territory Russia has taken, but they haven't been able to do it and have been repelled from Bakhmut and recently from Avdiivka. It's not looking good. How many more counter-offensives can Ukraine sustain? I don't know, but it's fewer than Russia can repel. Something needs to happen that isn't happening now, but I have no idea what that is. I just don't see a path that doesn't involve lots of Ukrainians dying and ultimately give up most of the land Russia currently occupies, except a peace treaty, which Ukraine currently isn't being realistic about. Furthermore a peace treaty is no guarantee Russia will not invade a NATO country. We're walking a tightrope. We want Ukraine to repel Russia, but not threaten Russia's existence. When a non-nuclear power fights a nuclear power, the one with nukes has the upper hand. So that's the path we're currently on. Ukraine can only commit to so many counter offensives and rebuff Russian offensives before they are drained. Russia hasn't even fully committed to the war yet. What do we do once Ukraine has ultimately "bled out?" Ukraine is a powder keg waiting to explode. It's pretty scary.