6 ms·

Sounds like this is the main victory plan of the West. But wait: what if Russia doesn't do that? Are there plans for that (highly unlikely) course of events?

martin_a 2y ago
"the West" has just lifted restrictions on (at this point American) weapon systems in reaction to continued aggression, and involvement of further countries, from Russia. I think even more could and will be done if Russia doesn't get the memo. And seeing that a "special military operation" takes 300 times as long as expected would for sane people be a hint to reevaluate what they're doing.
- sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
  Hm. But what if Russia doesn't give up even now? Do you have a plan for that? The "3 day" meme actually originates from the USA. Russia didn't say anything about the terms (ever). How long did your war in Afghanistan take, by the way?
  - mcphage 2y ago
    You mean the one we spent 20 years at and lost, having to do exactly what OP is suggesting? On the other hand, 20 years in Afghanistan led to less than 2,000 US soldiers dead, and I think Russian passed that many many times over already.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      to put a finer point on it, 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan saw about ~60000 casualties. a little less then 1/3 of those casualties returned to duty. about ~6000 were killed, or roughly 1/10. by comparison Russia is on track to hit a million (1000000), by Summer 2025, with estimates of about 1/4 to 1/3 being "Cargo 200" (aka KIA). It's on track to exceed Iran-Iraq as most brutal conflict of the last 50 years -- and Iran-Iraq lasted most of the 1980s; this hasn't even been 3 full years yet.
      - sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
        It's really interesting: what are your estimations of Ukrainian losses? Of course, Afghanistan wasn't being armed and funded by 50 countries - and yet you failed there..
        red-iron-pine 2y ago
        There is no "you failed there" in this, I'm not in the US. I can read statistics though. The ad hominim + terrible karma and post history suggests that sedan_baklazhan is a shill. But I'll bite. Afghanistan was absolutely being funded and armed by Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan -- the Russians basically pushed as many angry Chechens to head there, both to hammer the US, but also to get them out of RUS and killed or captured. There was the infamous shipment of .50 cal sniper rifles from China to the AFG that only got stopped because Dutch intelligence decided to doublecheck a few trivial details. 20 years of such incidents. On the subject of being able to read OSINT tier speculations and statistics, credible-ish sources suggest that Ukraine has been taking 50% or less casualties -- at one point even as low as 1:6 as they were getting pushed out of Bakhmut. Still, I'd be willing to guess as high as 400k, maybe even 500k casualties. WIA to KIA ratio is probably better than the Russians, too, but nowhere near US numbers of 10%.
        mcphage 2y ago
        > Afghanistan wasn't being armed and funded by 50 countries - and yet you failed there.. Exactly—so now imagine how much worse it would have gone for the US had the Taliban been armed and funded by 50 countries. Of course, the Taliban were being armed and funded by other countries. But probably not 50.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan saw about ~60000 casualties. a little less then 1/3 of those casualties returned to duty. about ~6000 were killed, or roughly 1/10. by comparison Russia is on track to hit a million (1000000), by Summer 2025, with estimates of about 1/4 to 1/3 being "Cargo 200" (aka KIA). It's on track to exceed Iran-Iraq as most brutal conflict of the last 50 years -- and Iran-Iraq lasted most of the 1980s; this hasn't even been 3 full years yet.
- GrayShade 2y ago
  There's speculation that they're still restricting them to a certain area. And even if they're not, Russia had ample time to move their assets out of reach. It's not like back when the US blocked strikes on dozens of military jets because it was escalatory. And anyway, Germany still doesn't want to provide their long-distance missiles. The US is still blocking other countries from supplying planes (like the Swedish AWACS). The West is barely doing the minimum. More could be done, of course, just give it another year maybe. And in the meantime insist that the weapons aren't going to make a difference anyway. It will come true if you say it for long enough.
  - martin_a 2y ago
    > that they're still restricting them to a certain area Yes, that's what's being reported and I can understand that you want some more steps to escalate and not remove all limitations at once.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  Without direct involvement of NATO military there’s nothing more that can be done. NATO simply doesn’t have production capacity or speed to get things done.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Without direct involvement of NATO military there’s nothing more that can be done. People keep saying that, and more keeps being done without direct involvement of NATO military. Among the things that Ukraine has asked for that have not yet occurred that do not involve direct involvement of NATO military is transfer of Tomahawk missiles, with about 5 times the range of ATACMS. There’s a whole lot of reasons that hasn’t happened, and its probably not going to, but it is certainly illustrative that there are unused options that do not involve direct NATO involvement.
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      If an option cannot be used it is not an option. Neither ATACMS nor Tomahawks aren‘t going to change anything if it is not a strike with full NATO arsenal.
- znpy 2y ago
  > And seeing that a "special military operation" takes 300 times as long as expected would for sane people be a hint to reevaluate what they're doing. That's what would happen in a democratic nation where "power" and the decisions it's made can be challenged and re-evaluated. But that's not what happens in totalitarian states, like Russia is right now.
ta988 2y ago
Of course there are plans. There are plans for a lot of much less probable scenarios, that's what defense is about.
- sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
  So you still think that Russia just giving up and surrendering (even when her army keeps advancing) is the most likely outcome, right?
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    What point are you trying to make here? It'd help the conversation if you just said what you're thinking, rather than these leading questions.
    - sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
      Russia will not give up and surrender. If you really have such hopes as your main plan, you will fail.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        > If you really have such hopes as your main plan, you will fail. Nobody in this thread has said or implied that that is anybody's main plan.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Russia will not give up and surrender. That's just its propaganda. In fact it has given up, surrendered and gone home with its tail between its legs in countless wars which, like the current one, were not in the least existential to it and were in fact completely optional.
      - polotics 2y ago
        Maybe study Germany 1917? A variant of the "stab in the back" story that ended WW1 may be the main myth of 21st's century Подмосковье-land.
noworld 2y ago
Yep, https://apnews.com/article/russia-nuclear-doctrine-putin-91f20e0c9b0f9e5eaa3ed97c35789898 https://apnews.com/article/russia-nuclear-doctrine-putin-91f...
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
This is an absurd question. For them to not give up and walk away, it would mean that their cultural values are different, even that Putin himself does not value human life or liberty. In such a case as that, he might do anything, like constantly steal a few tens of meters of a sovereign state like Georgia/Sakartvelo every week for years on end, knowing that they are far too small to defend and take that back, especially after losing a war to Russia in 2009. What if he were to start using hundreds of active espionage agents and saboteurs against Europe who hide within the tens of thousands of Russian emigrants that everyone welcomed into their countries? Such things are unthinkable. None of that will happen.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  You really dislike '/S', do you. If you are aware that we meet all kind of unrefined opinions every day...
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Sounds like this is the main victory plan of the West. But wait: what if Russia doesn't do that? Then eventually they will run out of Kim Jong Un’s munitions as soldiers.
- sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
  Don't you see a possibility of Ukraine running out of soldiers and/or munitions?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    Abstractly? Yes. Concretely, with the West maintaining its existing approach, given the current material trajectory on both sides, and not assuming radical changes in political orientation in any major Western country? No, not likely. Concretely, given the actual recent US election results and the likely impact on US and NATO-qua-NATO policy, assuming no other changes? Yes, again. Concretely, given that outher regional states have agency and their likely response to NATO faltering at US direction, when they were already displeased with NATO not being more supportive given their perceived individual risk from Russian expansionism… Well, that’s really the key thing and, frankly, I think that the there are lots of directions things could go that could be very surprising to people whose view off the situation has been that the only entities with agency in this situation are the US, Russia, and maybe Ukraine.
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      And if China fully casts their lot with Russia, how does that change your assessment?
      - mcphage 2y ago
        What would that do to China’s economy, given how much of it is selling high tech equipment to the west?
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
agumonkey 2y ago
Even then, it's highly important to give a cost to any action. Being too mellow will (and probably already did) create a bad precedent and give them confidence to pursue their behavior.
myrmidon 2y ago
Say Russia wins decisively tomorrow. Ukrainians are tired of this, they all just give up. Russia annexes all of it. Then what? From the perspective of "Europe", what actually changed, compared to 2015? Sure, Russia gained some territory, ressources, potential conscripts. Their army gained valuable combat experience. But have they actually become more threatening to other European nations? I'd argue: Absolutely not. Russia is not only weakened by their losses of soldiers and materiel, but their non-military options are also greatly degraded-- instead of freely shopping for South Korean battle tanks (=> Poland), they have to make do with North Korean conscripts... They basically played their whole hand to gain control of another country, but that control comes at a price; Even when the armed conflict is completely stopped, the price for the Ukraine is not yet paid-- switching out from a war-economy will hurt Russia, keeping the Ukraine under control is gonna be another constant drain and their may be significant obligations toward the allies that probably did not help solely out of their belief in the cause (North Korea, Iran). Meanwhile, European powers got to observe everything as it played out, even got their own weapon systems battle tested "for free". They are forewarned, and arming up accordingly. I'm honestly fairly confident that if Russia picked an actual battle with Poland alone (no help from any other European nation) in the next decade, that they would walk away with a bloody nose... So, cynically talking-- "the Wests" plans are affected very little, no matter how this whole disaster plays out...
- aguaviva 2y ago
  But have they actually become more threatening to other European nations? Russia's regime has already made statements threatening or questioning the borders of Poland and the Baltic states, in addition to numerous other threatening moves it has made in recent years -- including Medvedev's recent threat to turn Kyiv into a "lump of lead", which would no doubt have direct consequences for Europe. For more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41588834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41588834 So to answer your question: "Yes".
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    While of course many of the utterings that came from some side are stirrers of concern, one should also remember they have a piece of doctrine called "escalate to de-escalate" - which also involves a strange framework for the interpretation of statements. This also makes the trolling confusing to the decrypter.

martin_a 2y ago

"the West" has just lifted restrictions on (at this point American) weapon systems in reaction to continued aggression, and involvement of further countries, from Russia. I think even more could and will be done if Russia doesn't get the memo. And seeing that a "special military operation" takes 300 times as long as expected would for sane people be a hint to reevaluate what they're doing.

sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
Hm. But what if Russia doesn't give up even now? Do you have a plan for that? The "3 day" meme actually originates from the USA. Russia didn't say anything about the terms (ever). How long did your war in Afghanistan take, by the way?
- mcphage 2y ago
  You mean the one we spent 20 years at and lost, having to do exactly what OP is suggesting? On the other hand, 20 years in Afghanistan led to less than 2,000 US soldiers dead, and I think Russian passed that many many times over already.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    to put a finer point on it, 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan saw about ~60000 casualties. a little less then 1/3 of those casualties returned to duty. about ~6000 were killed, or roughly 1/10. by comparison Russia is on track to hit a million (1000000), by Summer 2025, with estimates of about 1/4 to 1/3 being "Cargo 200" (aka KIA). It's on track to exceed Iran-Iraq as most brutal conflict of the last 50 years -- and Iran-Iraq lasted most of the 1980s; this hasn't even been 3 full years yet.
    - sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
      It's really interesting: what are your estimations of Ukrainian losses? Of course, Afghanistan wasn't being armed and funded by 50 countries - and yet you failed there..
      - red-iron-pine 2y ago
        There is no "you failed there" in this, I'm not in the US. I can read statistics though. The ad hominim + terrible karma and post history suggests that sedan_baklazhan is a shill. But I'll bite. Afghanistan was absolutely being funded and armed by Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan -- the Russians basically pushed as many angry Chechens to head there, both to hammer the US, but also to get them out of RUS and killed or captured. There was the infamous shipment of .50 cal sniper rifles from China to the AFG that only got stopped because Dutch intelligence decided to doublecheck a few trivial details. 20 years of such incidents. On the subject of being able to read OSINT tier speculations and statistics, credible-ish sources suggest that Ukraine has been taking 50% or less casualties -- at one point even as low as 1:6 as they were getting pushed out of Bakhmut. Still, I'd be willing to guess as high as 400k, maybe even 500k casualties. WIA to KIA ratio is probably better than the Russians, too, but nowhere near US numbers of 10%.
      - mcphage 2y ago
        > Afghanistan wasn't being armed and funded by 50 countries - and yet you failed there.. Exactly—so now imagine how much worse it would have gone for the US had the Taliban been armed and funded by 50 countries. Of course, the Taliban were being armed and funded by other countries. But probably not 50.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan saw about ~60000 casualties. a little less then 1/3 of those casualties returned to duty. about ~6000 were killed, or roughly 1/10. by comparison Russia is on track to hit a million (1000000), by Summer 2025, with estimates of about 1/4 to 1/3 being "Cargo 200" (aka KIA). It's on track to exceed Iran-Iraq as most brutal conflict of the last 50 years -- and Iran-Iraq lasted most of the 1980s; this hasn't even been 3 full years yet.
GrayShade 2y ago
There's speculation that they're still restricting them to a certain area. And even if they're not, Russia had ample time to move their assets out of reach. It's not like back when the US blocked strikes on dozens of military jets because it was escalatory. And anyway, Germany still doesn't want to provide their long-distance missiles. The US is still blocking other countries from supplying planes (like the Swedish AWACS). The West is barely doing the minimum. More could be done, of course, just give it another year maybe. And in the meantime insist that the weapons aren't going to make a difference anyway. It will come true if you say it for long enough.
- martin_a 2y ago
  > that they're still restricting them to a certain area Yes, that's what's being reported and I can understand that you want some more steps to escalate and not remove all limitations at once.
ivan_gammel 2y ago
Without direct involvement of NATO military there’s nothing more that can be done. NATO simply doesn’t have production capacity or speed to get things done.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Without direct involvement of NATO military there’s nothing more that can be done. People keep saying that, and more keeps being done without direct involvement of NATO military. Among the things that Ukraine has asked for that have not yet occurred that do not involve direct involvement of NATO military is transfer of Tomahawk missiles, with about 5 times the range of ATACMS. There’s a whole lot of reasons that hasn’t happened, and its probably not going to, but it is certainly illustrative that there are unused options that do not involve direct NATO involvement.
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    If an option cannot be used it is not an option. Neither ATACMS nor Tomahawks aren‘t going to change anything if it is not a strike with full NATO arsenal.
znpy 2y ago
> And seeing that a "special military operation" takes 300 times as long as expected would for sane people be a hint to reevaluate what they're doing. That's what would happen in a democratic nation where "power" and the decisions it's made can be challenged and re-evaluated. But that's not what happens in totalitarian states, like Russia is right now.

ta988 2y ago

Of course there are plans. There are plans for a lot of much less probable scenarios, that's what defense is about.

sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
So you still think that Russia just giving up and surrendering (even when her army keeps advancing) is the most likely outcome, right?
- ziddoap 2y ago
  What point are you trying to make here? It'd help the conversation if you just said what you're thinking, rather than these leading questions.
  - sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
    Russia will not give up and surrender. If you really have such hopes as your main plan, you will fail.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      > If you really have such hopes as your main plan, you will fail. Nobody in this thread has said or implied that that is anybody's main plan.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Russia will not give up and surrender. That's just its propaganda. In fact it has given up, surrendered and gone home with its tail between its legs in countless wars which, like the current one, were not in the least existential to it and were in fact completely optional.
    - polotics 2y ago
      Maybe study Germany 1917? A variant of the "stab in the back" story that ended WW1 may be the main myth of 21st's century Подмосковье-land.

noworld 2y ago

Yep, https://apnews.com/article/russia-nuclear-doctrine-putin-91f20e0c9b0f9e5eaa3ed97c35789898 https://apnews.com/article/russia-nuclear-doctrine-putin-91f...

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

This is an absurd question. For them to not give up and walk away, it would mean that their cultural values are different, even that Putin himself does not value human life or liberty. In such a case as that, he might do anything, like constantly steal a few tens of meters of a sovereign state like Georgia/Sakartvelo every week for years on end, knowing that they are far too small to defend and take that back, especially after losing a war to Russia in 2009. What if he were to start using hundreds of active espionage agents and saboteurs against Europe who hide within the tens of thousands of Russian emigrants that everyone welcomed into their countries? Such things are unthinkable. None of that will happen.

mdp2021 2y ago
You really dislike '/S', do you. If you are aware that we meet all kind of unrefined opinions every day...

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Sounds like this is the main victory plan of the West. But wait: what if Russia doesn't do that? Then eventually they will run out of Kim Jong Un’s munitions as soldiers.

sedan_baklazhan 2y ago
Don't you see a possibility of Ukraine running out of soldiers and/or munitions?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  Abstractly? Yes. Concretely, with the West maintaining its existing approach, given the current material trajectory on both sides, and not assuming radical changes in political orientation in any major Western country? No, not likely. Concretely, given the actual recent US election results and the likely impact on US and NATO-qua-NATO policy, assuming no other changes? Yes, again. Concretely, given that outher regional states have agency and their likely response to NATO faltering at US direction, when they were already displeased with NATO not being more supportive given their perceived individual risk from Russian expansionism… Well, that’s really the key thing and, frankly, I think that the there are lots of directions things could go that could be very surprising to people whose view off the situation has been that the only entities with agency in this situation are the US, Russia, and maybe Ukraine.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    And if China fully casts their lot with Russia, how does that change your assessment?
    - mcphage 2y ago
      What would that do to China’s economy, given how much of it is selling high tech equipment to the west?
    - dragonwriter 2y ago

agumonkey 2y ago

Even then, it's highly important to give a cost to any action. Being too mellow will (and probably already did) create a bad precedent and give them confidence to pursue their behavior.

myrmidon 2y ago

Say Russia wins decisively tomorrow. Ukrainians are tired of this, they all just give up. Russia annexes all of it. Then what? From the perspective of "Europe", what actually changed, compared to 2015? Sure, Russia gained some territory, ressources, potential conscripts. Their army gained valuable combat experience. But have they actually become more threatening to other European nations? I'd argue: Absolutely not. Russia is not only weakened by their losses of soldiers and materiel, but their non-military options are also greatly degraded-- instead of freely shopping for South Korean battle tanks (=> Poland), they have to make do with North Korean conscripts... They basically played their whole hand to gain control of another country, but that control comes at a price; Even when the armed conflict is completely stopped, the price for the Ukraine is not yet paid-- switching out from a war-economy will hurt Russia, keeping the Ukraine under control is gonna be another constant drain and their may be significant obligations toward the allies that probably did not help solely out of their belief in the cause (North Korea, Iran). Meanwhile, European powers got to observe everything as it played out, even got their own weapon systems battle tested "for free". They are forewarned, and arming up accordingly. I'm honestly fairly confident that if Russia picked an actual battle with Poland alone (no help from any other European nation) in the next decade, that they would walk away with a bloody nose... So, cynically talking-- "the Wests" plans are affected very little, no matter how this whole disaster plays out...

aguaviva 2y ago
But have they actually become more threatening to other European nations? Russia's regime has already made statements threatening or questioning the borders of Poland and the Baltic states, in addition to numerous other threatening moves it has made in recent years -- including Medvedev's recent threat to turn Kyiv into a "lump of lead", which would no doubt have direct consequences for Europe. For more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41588834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41588834 So to answer your question: "Yes".
- mdp2021 2y ago
  While of course many of the utterings that came from some side are stirrers of concern, one should also remember they have a piece of doctrine called "escalate to de-escalate" - which also involves a strange framework for the interpretation of statements. This also makes the trolling confusing to the decrypter.