4 ms·

The west could have kept the Soviet Union alive. The Soviets were poor and an easy adversary to plan for. After witnessing what occurred in the 1991 Gulf War, t

by Hilift 2y ago

The west could have kept the Soviet Union alive. The Soviets were poor and an easy adversary to plan for. After witnessing what occurred in the 1991 Gulf War, they realized the writing was on the wall. The Soviet or Russian military would never be able to match what their "main adversary" had just demonstrated, a major ground incursion that took only a few days. 30 years on and over a trillion dollars of military spending, and Russia is still not capable of defeating one country in a three year struggle, and in the process destroyed most of its incompetent force.

chii 2y ago
> Russia is still not capable of defeating one country in a three year struggle the counter-factual is that ukraine survived primarily due to western aid, without which they'd be defeated already and is more likely to have to adapt a gorilla war against russian occupation.
- wat10000 2y ago
  A Desert Storm equivalent would have won the war before any substantial aid could arrive. The fact that the US could carry out such an operation on the other side of the planet, and Russia can’t even do it on its own border, really casts doubt on this idea of Russia as the world’s second military power.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    You must be thinking of the Iraq War (2003), which Putin tried to imitate but failed. The Gulf War (1991) was a slow invasion that started with several weeks of aerial bombardment. A similar operation would have given foreign aid more time to arrive in Ukraine. By the time the coalition started the ground invasion in the Gulf War, Ukraine had already received substantial military aid and won the Battle of Kyiv.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      Desert Storm was about six weeks from start to finish. That’s not enough time for outside aid to make much of a difference.
      - jltsiren 2y ago
        Battle of Kyiv lasted about as long, and Ukraine definitely received enough aid to make a difference. On April 7, 2022 (43 days into the invasion), it was reported that Ukraine had received 25k anti-aircraft weapons systems and 60k anti-tank systems.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Things like Desert Storm involve 1,000s of casualties. It seems more likely that it wasn't an operational failure as such but more that the Russians didn't expect resistance and were aiming for a repeat of their Georgian invasion [0] with direct casualties around the low hundreds mark. It seems probable that the spirited resistance the Ukrainians offered and the level of western intervention that has been observed were what threw the Russians off and they are more strategic factors. When it became clear that there was going to be a real conflict they immediately started mobilising a much bigger force than they started with. There isn't really that much evidence of Russia's military power either way yet, the fog of war is too thick. There were catastrophic mistakes in their planning assumptions though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
    - wat10000 2y ago
      The actual Desert Storm had about 1,000 casualties on the coalition side, of which about 350 were killed. Lots on the other side, of course. But Russia barely seems concerned about casualties on its own side, let alone among the enemy. Even if your theory is true, that they didn’t anticipate a “real conflict” and so didn’t bring the necessary forces, that’s still a catastrophic military failure that speaks poorly of their martial prowess. That stuff is part of military power too. A big army you can’t apply effectively doesn’t win any prizes.
      - lostmsu 2y ago
        > Russia barely seems concerned about casualties on its own side I think this is because they boiled the frog slowly. They could not have started the draft right away.
    - foobarian 2y ago
      I wonder if even the Georgia invasion would have been possible in modern times with everybody wielding a phone and connected to the internet. I feel like they used to get away with it a lot more easily when it was less visible. E.g. also all the other previous interventions in the eastern bloc.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > The fact that the US could carry out such an operation on the other side of the planet, and Russia can’t even do it on its own border, really casts doubt on this idea of Russia as the world’s second military power. Russia can claim that title (or at lest 3rd place) solely based on its nuclear weapons program.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      We’re getting a vivid and ongoing demonstration of just how limited that power really is. For anything short of a threat to the existence of the nation, they don’t do much for you. But if you’re trying to throw your weight around, “don’t get in my way or I’ll end the world” just isn’t a practical threat.
      - tivert 2y ago
        I think you're mistaken. If Russia didn't have nukes, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have been driven out of Ukraine by now through direct Western military intervention. They're the only reason they can throw any weight around in the way they have. And realistically, they're probably going to end their adventure with a big chunk of conquered Ukrainian territory permanently in their hands.
        wat10000 2y ago
        I totally agree with this. I just think this is a very weak result. You have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, and all it does for you is limit (not even prevent!) the intervention of foreign powers so that you can engage in a slow, grinding war of conquest that might end up giving you a small bit of additional territory after years of bloodshed. That’s certainly something, but hardly seems worthy of being considered the second strongest military power. M
        tivert 2y ago
        > That’s certainly something, but hardly seems worthy of being considered the second strongest military power. It's that conclusion I disagree with. Their relative ranking has nothing to do with their absolute capability. Russia being able to do what they've already done in the face of the opponents they have probably makes them 2nd or 3rd strongest military power in the world. I think few other countries could manage to do even that. Sure, maybe in an alternate universe a totally politically unrestrained US military could conquer a Ukraine (receiving a similar level of foreign material assistance) from halfway around the world, but that just means the gap between 1st and 2nd/3rd is large.

by Hilift 2y ago

chii 2y ago

> Russia is still not capable of defeating one country in a three year struggle the counter-factual is that ukraine survived primarily due to western aid, without which they'd be defeated already and is more likely to have to adapt a gorilla war against russian occupation.

wat10000 2y ago
A Desert Storm equivalent would have won the war before any substantial aid could arrive. The fact that the US could carry out such an operation on the other side of the planet, and Russia can’t even do it on its own border, really casts doubt on this idea of Russia as the world’s second military power.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  You must be thinking of the Iraq War (2003), which Putin tried to imitate but failed. The Gulf War (1991) was a slow invasion that started with several weeks of aerial bombardment. A similar operation would have given foreign aid more time to arrive in Ukraine. By the time the coalition started the ground invasion in the Gulf War, Ukraine had already received substantial military aid and won the Battle of Kyiv.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Desert Storm was about six weeks from start to finish. That’s not enough time for outside aid to make much of a difference.
    - jltsiren 2y ago
      Battle of Kyiv lasted about as long, and Ukraine definitely received enough aid to make a difference. On April 7, 2022 (43 days into the invasion), it was reported that Ukraine had received 25k anti-aircraft weapons systems and 60k anti-tank systems.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Things like Desert Storm involve 1,000s of casualties. It seems more likely that it wasn't an operational failure as such but more that the Russians didn't expect resistance and were aiming for a repeat of their Georgian invasion [0] with direct casualties around the low hundreds mark. It seems probable that the spirited resistance the Ukrainians offered and the level of western intervention that has been observed were what threw the Russians off and they are more strategic factors. When it became clear that there was going to be a real conflict they immediately started mobilising a much bigger force than they started with. There isn't really that much evidence of Russia's military power either way yet, the fog of war is too thick. There were catastrophic mistakes in their planning assumptions though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
  - wat10000 2y ago
    The actual Desert Storm had about 1,000 casualties on the coalition side, of which about 350 were killed. Lots on the other side, of course. But Russia barely seems concerned about casualties on its own side, let alone among the enemy. Even if your theory is true, that they didn’t anticipate a “real conflict” and so didn’t bring the necessary forces, that’s still a catastrophic military failure that speaks poorly of their martial prowess. That stuff is part of military power too. A big army you can’t apply effectively doesn’t win any prizes.
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      > Russia barely seems concerned about casualties on its own side I think this is because they boiled the frog slowly. They could not have started the draft right away.
  - foobarian 2y ago
    I wonder if even the Georgia invasion would have been possible in modern times with everybody wielding a phone and connected to the internet. I feel like they used to get away with it a lot more easily when it was less visible. E.g. also all the other previous interventions in the eastern bloc.
- tivert 2y ago
  > The fact that the US could carry out such an operation on the other side of the planet, and Russia can’t even do it on its own border, really casts doubt on this idea of Russia as the world’s second military power. Russia can claim that title (or at lest 3rd place) solely based on its nuclear weapons program.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    We’re getting a vivid and ongoing demonstration of just how limited that power really is. For anything short of a threat to the existence of the nation, they don’t do much for you. But if you’re trying to throw your weight around, “don’t get in my way or I’ll end the world” just isn’t a practical threat.
    - tivert 2y ago
      I think you're mistaken. If Russia didn't have nukes, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have been driven out of Ukraine by now through direct Western military intervention. They're the only reason they can throw any weight around in the way they have. And realistically, they're probably going to end their adventure with a big chunk of conquered Ukrainian territory permanently in their hands.
      - wat10000 2y ago
        I totally agree with this. I just think this is a very weak result. You have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, and all it does for you is limit (not even prevent!) the intervention of foreign powers so that you can engage in a slow, grinding war of conquest that might end up giving you a small bit of additional territory after years of bloodshed. That’s certainly something, but hardly seems worthy of being considered the second strongest military power. M
        tivert 2y ago
        > That’s certainly something, but hardly seems worthy of being considered the second strongest military power. It's that conclusion I disagree with. Their relative ranking has nothing to do with their absolute capability. Russia being able to do what they've already done in the face of the opponents they have probably makes them 2nd or 3rd strongest military power in the world. I think few other countries could manage to do even that. Sure, maybe in an alternate universe a totally politically unrestrained US military could conquer a Ukraine (receiving a similar level of foreign material assistance) from halfway around the world, but that just means the gap between 1st and 2nd/3rd is large.