4 ms·

> Surrender is an option, none of those things is worse than death Being tortured, raped and beaten until you die is not worse than death? Beg to disagree. >

by sofixa 2y ago

> Surrender is an option, none of those things is worse than death Being tortured, raped and beaten until you die is not worse than death? Beg to disagree. > And it looks like they will lose the war anyway Highly unlikely. Russia is bleeding men they can afford to lose for now, but don't in the long term. Russia has absolutely no way of achieving victory, so by definition Ukraine can't lose. It can't really win either, because Russia as it is today cannot accept defeat.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
Those with that concern can commit suicide instead of surrendering, maintaining a lower bound for how bad things get for them. We disagree on the framing and likely outcomes. I doubt I could your mind so I won’t even try.
- sofixa 2y ago
  Russia has been trying to conquer Ukraine for 2 years now, and has had very limited success. Things are looking so good for them they're importing North Korean troops and artillery shells. They have shown no serious improvement in military tactics or armaments. Meanwhile Ukraine is being armed by half the world, and has shown crazy advancements in unmanned tech (like hitting Russian ships with underwater unmanned vehicles hundreds of km from Ukrainian ports). Russia cannot win. Even if they somehow manage to conquer the whole of Ukraine which will not happen easily or soon, it will still be at best a Pyrrhic conquest at the expense of guerilla warfare.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    Schrodinger's Russia, the Upper Volta with missiles simultaneously can't take Ukraine yet also at risk of taking half of Europe. Ignoring the details of your statement I will instead focus on the inherent contradiction of using the slow pace of advancement as evidence of lack of prowess at the same time as confidently stating that gorilla warfare would render such actions a Pyrrhic victory. I would suggest that maybe Russia knows that, they dealt with a serious insurgency in Chechnya. I would also suggest that the slow progress is in part intentional in order to maintain defined battlefield lines and avoid such insurgencies. They know it costs more in Russian lives but that is price they are willing to pay. People who want to fight them can go out and meet them on the battlefield.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      > I would suggest that maybe Russia knows that, they dealt with a serious insurgency in Chechnya. I would also suggest that the slow progress is in part intentional in order to maintain defined battlefield lines and avoid such insurgencies. They know it costs more in Russian lives but that is price they are willing to pay. People who want to fight them can go out and meet them on the battlefield. Oh, you're either very naive, very stupid, or Russian. You mean to tell me that when Putin announced a 3 day special military operation, it was on purpose that it's taking 2 years of a meatgrinder with hundreds of thousands of Russian casualties to take barely any land? Cool, makes sense if you're braindead.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        They also said they would not invade and then they did. You don't tell people what you're actually going to do for a whole raft of reasons and it would be foolish to do so. Also, did they say they would take it in 3 days? That was General Milley (US) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39155605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39155605. That's the problem with trusting Western media. The West ascribes these metrics and then judges the Russian results by the same metrics using it as an opportunity to call them fools. Russia has been planning for this war since before 2008 it is ridiculous to think that they thought it would only take 3 days, if they did they would have started the war much sooner. They knew there were in for the long haul and had already made steps to prepare their economy for long term sanctions. There were not completely prepared but prepared enough. Additionally, this conflict sits within a broader US/China conflict and a long drawn out conflict with Russia benefits China to which Russia is largely a vassal state, now more so than ever. China is prepping for a great powers war and understandably would like to undermine the west substantially before that happens. Bogging the west down in a series of regional conflicts is an effective way to do that. China would much rather their adversaries economically implode than to fight a massively destructive WWIII.
        sofixa 2y ago
        > Russia has been planning for this war since before 2008 it is ridiculous to think that they thought it would only take 3 days, if they did they would have started the war much sooner. They knew there were in for the long haul and had already made steps to prepare their economy for long term sanctions. There were not completely prepared but prepared enough. I know you're probably Russsian or identify strongly with Russia, so it doesn't matter what I say, but think about it... Why would Russia get themselves involved into a protracted multi-year war meatgrinder? They know what happened in Afghanistan. Also, if they were planning a long war, why would they throw paratroopers at Hostomel airport right outside of Kyiv? Why would they throw multiple brigades attacking Kyiv and getting stuck in a traffic jam? Look at a map, Kyiv is not far from the Belarus border, and the capital, but any such attack would be extremely isolated and risk being cut off. Also, the Ukrainian government could just run away to Lviv and coordinate the fight from there, so Kyiv would be little more than a symbolic victory if they managed to capture it. It's obvious they were hoping to capture Kyiv quickly and have Ukraine fall apart. They weren't ready for a prolonged fight. > They also said they would not invade and then they did > That's the problem with trusting Western media The same western media that called it that Russia will invade?

by sofixa 2y ago

cjbgkagh 2y ago

Those with that concern can commit suicide instead of surrendering, maintaining a lower bound for how bad things get for them. We disagree on the framing and likely outcomes. I doubt I could your mind so I won’t even try.

sofixa 2y ago
Russia has been trying to conquer Ukraine for 2 years now, and has had very limited success. Things are looking so good for them they're importing North Korean troops and artillery shells. They have shown no serious improvement in military tactics or armaments. Meanwhile Ukraine is being armed by half the world, and has shown crazy advancements in unmanned tech (like hitting Russian ships with underwater unmanned vehicles hundreds of km from Ukrainian ports). Russia cannot win. Even if they somehow manage to conquer the whole of Ukraine which will not happen easily or soon, it will still be at best a Pyrrhic conquest at the expense of guerilla warfare.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Schrodinger's Russia, the Upper Volta with missiles simultaneously can't take Ukraine yet also at risk of taking half of Europe. Ignoring the details of your statement I will instead focus on the inherent contradiction of using the slow pace of advancement as evidence of lack of prowess at the same time as confidently stating that gorilla warfare would render such actions a Pyrrhic victory. I would suggest that maybe Russia knows that, they dealt with a serious insurgency in Chechnya. I would also suggest that the slow progress is in part intentional in order to maintain defined battlefield lines and avoid such insurgencies. They know it costs more in Russian lives but that is price they are willing to pay. People who want to fight them can go out and meet them on the battlefield.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > I would suggest that maybe Russia knows that, they dealt with a serious insurgency in Chechnya. I would also suggest that the slow progress is in part intentional in order to maintain defined battlefield lines and avoid such insurgencies. They know it costs more in Russian lives but that is price they are willing to pay. People who want to fight them can go out and meet them on the battlefield. Oh, you're either very naive, very stupid, or Russian. You mean to tell me that when Putin announced a 3 day special military operation, it was on purpose that it's taking 2 years of a meatgrinder with hundreds of thousands of Russian casualties to take barely any land? Cool, makes sense if you're braindead.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      They also said they would not invade and then they did. You don't tell people what you're actually going to do for a whole raft of reasons and it would be foolish to do so. Also, did they say they would take it in 3 days? That was General Milley (US) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39155605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39155605. That's the problem with trusting Western media. The West ascribes these metrics and then judges the Russian results by the same metrics using it as an opportunity to call them fools. Russia has been planning for this war since before 2008 it is ridiculous to think that they thought it would only take 3 days, if they did they would have started the war much sooner. They knew there were in for the long haul and had already made steps to prepare their economy for long term sanctions. There were not completely prepared but prepared enough. Additionally, this conflict sits within a broader US/China conflict and a long drawn out conflict with Russia benefits China to which Russia is largely a vassal state, now more so than ever. China is prepping for a great powers war and understandably would like to undermine the west substantially before that happens. Bogging the west down in a series of regional conflicts is an effective way to do that. China would much rather their adversaries economically implode than to fight a massively destructive WWIII.
      - sofixa 2y ago
        > Russia has been planning for this war since before 2008 it is ridiculous to think that they thought it would only take 3 days, if they did they would have started the war much sooner. They knew there were in for the long haul and had already made steps to prepare their economy for long term sanctions. There were not completely prepared but prepared enough. I know you're probably Russsian or identify strongly with Russia, so it doesn't matter what I say, but think about it... Why would Russia get themselves involved into a protracted multi-year war meatgrinder? They know what happened in Afghanistan. Also, if they were planning a long war, why would they throw paratroopers at Hostomel airport right outside of Kyiv? Why would they throw multiple brigades attacking Kyiv and getting stuck in a traffic jam? Look at a map, Kyiv is not far from the Belarus border, and the capital, but any such attack would be extremely isolated and risk being cut off. Also, the Ukrainian government could just run away to Lviv and coordinate the fight from there, so Kyiv would be little more than a symbolic victory if they managed to capture it. It's obvious they were hoping to capture Kyiv quickly and have Ukraine fall apart. They weren't ready for a prolonged fight. > They also said they would not invade and then they did > That's the problem with trusting Western media The same western media that called it that Russia will invade?