4 ms·

History shows that the best way to resist, in these circumstances, might be to let them in, and then blow them up in the streets and countryside until they leav

History shows that the best way to resist, in these circumstances, might be to let them in, and then blow them up in the streets and countryside until they leave. It's cheaper and (morbidly enough) probably has a lower human cost.

Hackbraten 10mo ago
Wouldn't that require military training, too?
- frmersdog 10mo ago
  Sure, but it doesn't require throwing young people who don't care to fight into pitched battle meat grinders. Obviously, either path is undesirable. It would be nice if we could use some of those "undermining and overthrowing regimes we don't like" expertise on actual threats instead of countries that just want to nationalize their resources.
fifilura 10mo ago
What history shows that?
- frmersdog 10mo ago
  Russia in Afghanistan. America in Afghanistan. America in Iraq. America and France in Vietnam. France in Algeria. France in Haiti. Britain in Ireland. Honorable mention to Britain in America and Germany in France, where guerilla/resistance forces were instrumental in the eventual allied victories, even though the invaders were eventually toppled by outside armies. I dunno, maybe Berliners would prefer becoming Ukrainian War-era Kyiv instead of WWII-era Paris after all.
  - fifilura 10mo ago
    No. That is really bloody and a last resort. And horrible for civilians. Bucha and Irpin are counter-examples. Russians should only be treated with a very long stick. Guerilla warfare is not winning, it is making things a huge mess.
    - frmersdog 10mo ago
      War makes things a huge mess. It makes things an even bigger mess than resistance, by inuring the public to its devastation via distance from the front line, and by offering soldiers a respite when they're able to rotate out. The violence of occupation comes anyway, AFTER an initial bloody pitched battle. Might as well skip the traditional fighting and hash out the civil war that's inevitable once tanks start moving.
      - fifilura 10mo ago
        2-3% of Ukraine's population are at the front lines. While the others are maintaining a reasonably functional society. There are so many counter examples to your proposal so I think you are just guessing. Where did the Civil War end up when Soviet invaded Hungary in 1956 or Prague 1967? Or Poland? Should the Finns have invited the Soviets into their country in 1939 instead of defending it? Would the British have been better of fighting Germany of the streets of London? And what about the preventive force a regular army has? Would you want to be without that and simply leave the doors to your country unlocked?

Hackbraten 10mo ago

Wouldn't that require military training, too?

frmersdog 10mo ago
Sure, but it doesn't require throwing young people who don't care to fight into pitched battle meat grinders. Obviously, either path is undesirable. It would be nice if we could use some of those "undermining and overthrowing regimes we don't like" expertise on actual threats instead of countries that just want to nationalize their resources.

fifilura 10mo ago

What history shows that?

frmersdog 10mo ago
Russia in Afghanistan. America in Afghanistan. America in Iraq. America and France in Vietnam. France in Algeria. France in Haiti. Britain in Ireland. Honorable mention to Britain in America and Germany in France, where guerilla/resistance forces were instrumental in the eventual allied victories, even though the invaders were eventually toppled by outside armies. I dunno, maybe Berliners would prefer becoming Ukrainian War-era Kyiv instead of WWII-era Paris after all.
- fifilura 10mo ago
  No. That is really bloody and a last resort. And horrible for civilians. Bucha and Irpin are counter-examples. Russians should only be treated with a very long stick. Guerilla warfare is not winning, it is making things a huge mess.
  - frmersdog 10mo ago
    War makes things a huge mess. It makes things an even bigger mess than resistance, by inuring the public to its devastation via distance from the front line, and by offering soldiers a respite when they're able to rotate out. The violence of occupation comes anyway, AFTER an initial bloody pitched battle. Might as well skip the traditional fighting and hash out the civil war that's inevitable once tanks start moving.
    - fifilura 10mo ago
      2-3% of Ukraine's population are at the front lines. While the others are maintaining a reasonably functional society. There are so many counter examples to your proposal so I think you are just guessing. Where did the Civil War end up when Soviet invaded Hungary in 1956 or Prague 1967? Or Poland? Should the Finns have invited the Soviets into their country in 1939 instead of defending it? Would the British have been better of fighting Germany of the streets of London? And what about the preventive force a regular army has? Would you want to be without that and simply leave the doors to your country unlocked?