7 ms·

> Unfortunately, Putin is likely going to keep invading up to Germany’s Fulda Gap Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. They have zero chance offe

by sofixa 2y ago

> Unfortunately, Putin is likely going to keep invading up to Germany’s Fulda Gap Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. They have zero chance offensively against Poland and the Baltics, let alone the full blown might of the EU+UK (which also have independent nuclear weapons in France and to an extent the UK). That doesn't mean that a Polish offensive can march into Moscow, but it doesn't have to for Putin to lose power. He's showing his strongman strong army bullshit to be little more than a paper tiger, and at some point even the nihilistic to death Russians will get tired of the meat grinder for literally no reason.

varjag 2y ago
> Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight. And all these economy size comparisons are mostly meaningless. Sure Russia may have a GDP of Italy but by the same logic Ukraine (which is a fraction of Russian GDP) should have lost long ago. > They have zero chance against Poland and the Baltics Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. And for Putin it's a proposition with no downside: at worst he loses another few hundred thousand subjects.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight While Ukraine unquestionably put up a hell of a fight, the fact that the numerically superior army with the better and more numerical equipment, backed by the multiple times bigger and richer country failed is a failure. Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance. > Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. Russia has no chance of having a war against the Baltics only. Any aggression against them will be met with a swift reaction from Poland, which has a better equipped army than Ukraine. If Ukraine can destroy the best Russian units and hold to a stalemate the majority of the remainder for years, Poland will wipe the floor with the war criminals.
  - alxlaz 2y ago
    > While Ukraine unquestionably put up a hell of a fight, the fact that the numerically superior army with the better and more numerical equipment, backed by the multiple times bigger and richer country failed is a failure. Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance. That's certainly true, but much of this failure can be ascribed to: 1. Lack of co-ordination (both inter-force and within each unit) and basic best-practices in terms of logistics. The Russian armed forces are still far from anything NATO has in this regard but are also a lot better than when the war began. 2. Poor mobilisation and insufficient initial forces. Most of this was based on the obviously misguided notion that Russian forces would be welcome as liberators (which, haha, no, 40+ years of Soviet or Soviet-backed regimes in Eastern Europe have ensured this would not happen for generations), and is unlikely to be repeated. 3. Considerable strategic depth, which further compounded #1 and #2, which the Baltics don't have. 4. Considerable development of expertise on the Ukrainian side, which has been fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk since the first Russian invasion in 2014, whereas neither Poland nor the Baltics armed forces have had much exposure to real-life war outside the GWOT. 5. A smaller mismatch in terms of equipment than media coverage makes it sound, certainly far smaller than that of the Baltics. The odds varjag puts forward aren't at all outlandish, especially with NATO commitment so uncertain at this time.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      While US commitment to NATO is uncertain, the rest of NATO still seems certain. Russia might be able to take the Baltic and/or Poland - but they won't be able to keep it. Soon as they cross the border (or more likely start building up) the rest of Europe will start building up their army to attack back.
      - pmontra 2y ago
        A country attacks another one only if it doesn't have political control of it feels that never will. For example Russia doesn't have to attack Belarus and won't have to attack Hungary, and probably not Slovakia. They'll be part of the next Warsaw Pact without any bullet flying if their leaders will get guarantees that they can be leaders forever. Poland looked like it was going that way before the current administration. Ukraine itself have been pro Russia or pro NATO at different times in the last 25 years. No need to attack it when it was pro Russia. So let's see who that "rest of Europe" will be if and when there will be the need to defend some country in the East.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  > it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight. I would like to add that, yes, with a lot of money and weapons from the US and other countries, they would not have been able to do it without their help. Am I wrong about the aid's significance, or did it not happen?
  - sofixa 2y ago
    Yes, but the initial stopping of the Russian advance happened before the vast majority of that help arrived. In a way, Russia lost the war the moment it didn't finish it in a few days - it ensured Ukraine could be supplied, and that the resistance will be remembered and kept on.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      Where can I read more about this, is Wikipedia accurate?
      - pmontra 2y ago
        The Wikipedia page about the Battle of Kyiv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022) is what I remember from the news of 3 years ago.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  >Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. And for Putin it's a proposition with no downside: at worst he loses another few hundred thousand subjects. Article 5 is still in effect, even if America won’t take its part. Attack of Baltics will trigger response from all neighbors including Finland, Sweden and Poland. Kaliningrad won’t last long, St.Petersburg will be within reach of artillery etc. It will be suicidal to do that. One thing that Westerners do not understand is that people in small towns or rural areas of Russia may be expendable, but population of St.Petersburg and Moscow is a protected class. If they suffer, the regime may actually collapse before reaching military goals. For this reason Russian mobilization barely touched both capitals.
  - pmontra 2y ago
    If I were Putin I'd attack some very minor NATO state to check if NATO will really send soldiers to defend it. Example: is really somebody willing to die for Estonia? (Sorry HNers from Estonia, but you are just in the worst possible place of all of NATO.) If not, NATO will crumble into pieces. If yes, let's see who's sending soldiers and who won't, and how they will react to the first week of casualties. Keep going or fold? Maybe before getting there, if I end up controlling the next parliament of Ukraine I'd take over Moldova, and before that let's teach a lesson to Armenia. That's to keep the army busy and not let soldiers back home where they could cause troubles or, god forbids, create a pacifist movement like after the Afghan war (the Russian one.)
    - sofixa 2y ago
      > If I were Putin I'd attack some very minor NATO state to check if NATO will really send soldiers to defend it. Example: is really somebody willing to die for Estonia Even if nobody else, the other Baltic states and Poland will defend them. Very decent chance of Finland, Sweden, UK, France joining as well.
      - pmontra 2y ago
        Finland and Sweden yes, because they are the next ones in line on that front. UK probably but not 100%. France, it depends who'll be the president, who controls the parliament and what they'll have to say to get the votes to win the next elections.
Braxton1980 2y ago
So if a direct military conflict is difficult for Putin wouldn't it be best to attack the US by manipulating it's population?

by sofixa 2y ago

varjag 2y ago

> Russia can barely handle a stalemate with Ukraine. See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight. And all these economy size comparisons are mostly meaningless. Sure Russia may have a GDP of Italy but by the same logic Ukraine (which is a fraction of Russian GDP) should have lost long ago. > They have zero chance against Poland and the Baltics Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. And for Putin it's a proposition with no downside: at worst he loses another few hundred thousand subjects.

sofixa 2y ago
> See, people look at the stalemate and often draw false conclusions. It's not that Russia was too weak militarily, it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight While Ukraine unquestionably put up a hell of a fight, the fact that the numerically superior army with the better and more numerical equipment, backed by the multiple times bigger and richer country failed is a failure. Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance. > Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. Russia has no chance of having a war against the Baltics only. Any aggression against them will be met with a swift reaction from Poland, which has a better equipped army than Ukraine. If Ukraine can destroy the best Russian units and hold to a stalemate the majority of the remainder for years, Poland will wipe the floor with the war criminals.
- alxlaz 2y ago
  > While Ukraine unquestionably put up a hell of a fight, the fact that the numerically superior army with the better and more numerical equipment, backed by the multiple times bigger and richer country failed is a failure. Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance. That's certainly true, but much of this failure can be ascribed to: 1. Lack of co-ordination (both inter-force and within each unit) and basic best-practices in terms of logistics. The Russian armed forces are still far from anything NATO has in this regard but are also a lot better than when the war began. 2. Poor mobilisation and insufficient initial forces. Most of this was based on the obviously misguided notion that Russian forces would be welcome as liberators (which, haha, no, 40+ years of Soviet or Soviet-backed regimes in Eastern Europe have ensured this would not happen for generations), and is unlikely to be repeated. 3. Considerable strategic depth, which further compounded #1 and #2, which the Baltics don't have. 4. Considerable development of expertise on the Ukrainian side, which has been fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk since the first Russian invasion in 2014, whereas neither Poland nor the Baltics armed forces have had much exposure to real-life war outside the GWOT. 5. A smaller mismatch in terms of equipment than media coverage makes it sound, certainly far smaller than that of the Baltics. The odds varjag puts forward aren't at all outlandish, especially with NATO commitment so uncertain at this time.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    While US commitment to NATO is uncertain, the rest of NATO still seems certain. Russia might be able to take the Baltic and/or Poland - but they won't be able to keep it. Soon as they cross the border (or more likely start building up) the rest of Europe will start building up their army to attack back.
    - pmontra 2y ago
      A country attacks another one only if it doesn't have political control of it feels that never will. For example Russia doesn't have to attack Belarus and won't have to attack Hungary, and probably not Slovakia. They'll be part of the next Warsaw Pact without any bullet flying if their leaders will get guarantees that they can be leaders forever. Poland looked like it was going that way before the current administration. Ukraine itself have been pro Russia or pro NATO at different times in the last 25 years. No need to attack it when it was pro Russia. So let's see who that "rest of Europe" will be if and when there will be the need to defend some country in the East.
johnisgood 2y ago
> it's that Ukraine put up one hell of a fight. I would like to add that, yes, with a lot of money and weapons from the US and other countries, they would not have been able to do it without their help. Am I wrong about the aid's significance, or did it not happen?
- sofixa 2y ago
  Yes, but the initial stopping of the Russian advance happened before the vast majority of that help arrived. In a way, Russia lost the war the moment it didn't finish it in a few days - it ensured Ukraine could be supplied, and that the resistance will be remembered and kept on.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    Where can I read more about this, is Wikipedia accurate?
    - pmontra 2y ago
      The Wikipedia page about the Battle of Kyiv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022) is what I remember from the news of 3 years ago.
ivan_gammel 2y ago
>Russia's chances against the Baltics are pretty good, I would say 1 in 3. And for Putin it's a proposition with no downside: at worst he loses another few hundred thousand subjects. Article 5 is still in effect, even if America won’t take its part. Attack of Baltics will trigger response from all neighbors including Finland, Sweden and Poland. Kaliningrad won’t last long, St.Petersburg will be within reach of artillery etc. It will be suicidal to do that. One thing that Westerners do not understand is that people in small towns or rural areas of Russia may be expendable, but population of St.Petersburg and Moscow is a protected class. If they suffer, the regime may actually collapse before reaching military goals. For this reason Russian mobilization barely touched both capitals.
- pmontra 2y ago
  If I were Putin I'd attack some very minor NATO state to check if NATO will really send soldiers to defend it. Example: is really somebody willing to die for Estonia? (Sorry HNers from Estonia, but you are just in the worst possible place of all of NATO.) If not, NATO will crumble into pieces. If yes, let's see who's sending soldiers and who won't, and how they will react to the first week of casualties. Keep going or fold? Maybe before getting there, if I end up controlling the next parliament of Ukraine I'd take over Moldova, and before that let's teach a lesson to Armenia. That's to keep the army busy and not let soldiers back home where they could cause troubles or, god forbids, create a pacifist movement like after the Afghan war (the Russian one.)
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > If I were Putin I'd attack some very minor NATO state to check if NATO will really send soldiers to defend it. Example: is really somebody willing to die for Estonia Even if nobody else, the other Baltic states and Poland will defend them. Very decent chance of Finland, Sweden, UK, France joining as well.
    - pmontra 2y ago
      Finland and Sweden yes, because they are the next ones in line on that front. UK probably but not 100%. France, it depends who'll be the president, who controls the parliament and what they'll have to say to get the votes to win the next elections.

Braxton1980 2y ago

So if a direct military conflict is difficult for Putin wouldn't it be best to attack the US by manipulating it's population?