Ukraine 20: We’re not bluffing and you can tell we aren’t by how we say we aren’t bluffing…

[Conflicting Thought]

32 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

Could the tankie please take their discussion somewhere else?

tankie? james arryn? do you even know what tankie means?

[Arakasi]

Well yes I know the pages of derail of US = bad is yes a pretty typical talking point. (Not that I disagree that the US is bad but not really the thread for it here)

 

edit: Anyway sorry for the labelling but I’ve seen enough well meant intentions of deflection these last months. As Werthead said it’s pretty clear Russia would do what Russia has done with or without US actions in Iraq. (Which was a bad idea and wrong) I’d just prefer to read about what’s actually happening here now. Who knows we’ll probably be arguing five years from now with China and Taiwan about who’s to blame there.

[Which Tyler]

It's been 5 pages since "not to derail, but..." During which there's been approximately 5 posts actually relevant to the title of this thread, and a new thread set up for the derail.

Could we please move the derailing conversation to that thread?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I come in to the war-in-Ukraine threads to read about the war in UUkrain, not about America, China, Iraq, Taiwan, the British Empire or Spanish colonisation of South America...

 

[karaddin]

I'm pretty sure the comparison to "The US invading to annex Canado or Mexico" isn't talking about historical conflicts, but that what Russia is doing now is equivalent to if the US did that right now/the last 20 years - not equivalent to the Iraq war. I say this only to try head off another derail as I'm in agreement that this whole conversation belongs in that other thread, regardless of any justifications (be they propaganda or genuine) this war is now currently in progress with one country defending itself against annexation by another country and the invading country is causing mass civilian casualties and using fairly widespread torture solely for reign of terror purposes. 

I don't really give a fuck what your justifications are at that point, you're acting in an evil manner and you deserve to get your ass kicked.

[DireWolfSpirit]

About once a month I go through this nightmare scenario of "what if", over Putin using nukes.

[James Arryn]

Forgetting the syllogistic tankie accusations, tautological declarations that Ukraine =/= Iraq because reasons, and now being branded evil for being detrimental to the defense of Ukraine by posting different ideas on a ASOIAF general chatter board, all of which make absolutely perfect sense to me and don’t require any kind of like actual supporting argument or reasoning, can I pause before the cigarette and blindfold long enough to suggest that the war seems to be clearly entering a stage where the will of the Russian people to keep fighting is becoming increasingly determinant, and that just maybe trying to understand the bases, legit or otherwise, for that will might be kinda, you know, germane? 
 

Just a thought. But do carry on doing your bit to help the defense of Ukraine by strictly posting updates about firefights now that the other posts won’t be somehow preventing those from being posted anymore. 

[Alarich II]

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Darzin -- why highlight the US invasions of Mexico and Canada as examples? Unless you were using them obliquely to demonstrate US aggressiveness ... the US actually invaded both locations with the intent to annex / conquer.

Obviously context matters. In 1812 (when the US invaded Canada), Russia had just begun its southward push towards the Black Sea and the Caucasus. Crimea had been annexed in 1783 and where England, France and the US began colonizing Africa, America and India, Russia started to subjugate and colonize central/northern Asia. 

Today, Russia wants back to a 19th century style world order, where everything is up for grabs as long as you have the military power to take and hold it. This order ended in a catastrophic crisis and two world wars, so the good old war of colonial conquest is not a good reference anymore, except to say that these time are long over (or so we thought).

[Wade1865]

58 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm pretty sure the comparison to "The US invading to annex Canado or Mexico" isn't talking about historical conflicts, but that what Russia is doing now is equivalent to if the US did that right now/the last 20 years - not equivalent to the Iraq war.

karaddin -- nah, it sounded like he wasn't tracking those conflicts. Although he could have been making a point obliquely, the rest of his post would have contradicted it; but we should let him speak for himself. In any case, he was (unintentionally / intentionally) correct in pointing out the US wars as they do have some bearing on what we see in UKR right now. After all, historical wars inform current wars. To deny this would be myopic especially considering this war is as close as we've been to global war since 1945.

I've only been back for two or three iterations of this thread, and it's one of the most useful and insightful thus far. But I don't follow it because it's just a series of news reports -- but because of the thoughtfulness behind the analyses (Werthead, Maithanet, et al.) of said new reports as well as tangential discussions including the most recent on how the Russian population justifies (Darzin, James Arryn, et al.) Vladimir's actions.

[Alarich II]

30 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

About once a month I go through this nightmare scenario of "what if", over Putin using nukes.

I am afraid the "what if" scenario should also include an accident in of the nuclear power plants. Tbh, I ordered potassium iodite pills just in case there is a nuclear accident in Ukraine and the weather is unfavorable. Its not a big deal just to have a few packs at home - I have two kids and I prefer to be prepared rather than queue at the pharmacy in an emergency. 

[Wade1865]

6 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

Obviously context matters. In 1812 (when the US invaded Canada), Russia had just begun its southward push towards the Black Sea and the Caucasus. Crimea had been annexed in 1783 and where England, France and the US began colonizing Africa, America and India, Russia started to subjugate and colonize central/northern Asia. 

Today, Russia wants back to a 19th century style world order, where everything is up for grabs as long as you have the military power to take and hold it. This order ended in a catastrophic crisis and two world wars, so the good old war of colonial conquest is not a good reference anymore, except to say that these time are long over (or so we thought).

Alarich II -- phenomenal breakdown and very relevant, thank you.

[Wade1865]

48 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

About once a month I go through this nightmare scenario of "what if", over Putin using nukes.

DireWolfSpirit -- until recently I would have told you not to worry, because its use on the offense would have been irrational. Now, worry is justified (however unlikely) because Vladimir is shaping the situation where tactical nuclear weapons, used on the defense, could be employed rationally.

I hope this doesn't worry you more ...

[Which Tyler]

This is a bit earlier than I was expecting - I guess I was basing things on seasons in the UK (October equinox-ish through November), rather than actually looking up when the heavy rains fall in Ukraine - my bad. It's going to slow things, and make transport hubs ever more important - which has to favour Ukraine with HIMARS and apparently, far superior special forces operations.

 

[Darzin]

4 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Darzin -- why highlight the US invasions of Mexico and Canada as examples? Unless you were using them obliquely to demonstrate US aggressiveness ... the US actually invaded both locations with the intent to annex / conquer.

***

This is America; and this is America.

I wasn't going to respond to this but sonce you called me out by name. I don't think conflicts that took place two hundred years ago when blatant wars of conquest were common and Napoleon was on the throne of France have any relevance to a modern context.

[Wade1865]

5 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

This is a bit earlier than I was expecting - I guess I was basing things on seasons in the UK, rather than actually looking up when the heavy rains fall in Ukraine - my bad. It's going to slow things, and make transport hubs ever more important - which has to favour Ukraine with HIMARS and apparently, far superior special forces operations.

[MEDIA=twitter]1574209231661711363[/MEDIA]

Which Tyler -- Ukrainians call it bezdorizhzhia, or roadlessness; Russians, rasputitsa. General Mud, to be followed by General Winter. Now that the Russians are effectively on the defense, conditions should favor them, though their incompetence most likely would deny them this advantage. Worse, General Winter may not be as severe this year, limiting Vladimir's utility on the weaponization of winter.

[Wade1865]

10 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I wasn't going to respond to this but sonce you called me out by name. I don't think conflicts that took place two hundred years ago when blatant wars of conquest were common and Napoleon was on the throne of France have any relevance to a modern context.

Darzin -- to be clear, I wasn't "calling you out" in any hostile manner. I quote posts and spell out names out of respect (and to limit confusion). If you don't want to engage, there's no shame in ignoring me.

On comparing the US wars of the past with the war in Ukraine now, it's decisively relevant. All three wars were / are matters of blatant conquest regardless of time and leadership -- useful in understanding the current players and what motivates them, giving insight on how the war will develop and be resolved.

Technology changes over the course of 200 years but human psychology does not; hence, the utility of looking to the past for enlightenment. Before my deployments, I studied dozens! of books documenting historical (small) wars, thousands of years past (comprising different states and different players), to great effect. In fact, I credit those histories for my personal survival and battlefield successes. There's no reason why we should limit this thread only to the current war given the value that those lessons learned provide us spectators.

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Wade1865 said:

Which Tyler -- Ukrainians call it bezdorizhzhia, or roadlessness; Russians, rasputitsa. General Mud, to be followed by General Winter. Now that the Russians are effectively on the defense, conditions should favor them, though their incompetence most likely would deny them this advantage. Worse, General Winter may not be as severe this year, limiting Vladimir's utility on the weaponization of winter.

I'm aware - what I got wrong is the timing of it.

As for favouring the defender vs the attacker - positives and negatives to all things.

In this case, for example, the defending is also the occupier, without a friendly citizenry; with long, poor supply lines, and limited supplies to travel along those supply lines; whilst the attacker has the friendly citizenry, shorter, more varied supply lines, more and higher quality supplies; and a much greater ability to hit the defender's supply lines with surgical strikes - be they HIMARS, special forces, or drones.

It may not be enough to overturn the defender's intrinsic advantage - but that advantage is mostly about logistics at this point (harsh winter is a different matter, where it's about sitting in shelter vs walking across a field). Logistically, Ukraine has Russia completely outmatched (whilst Western support holds).

 

ETA: Of course, there's also the difference between whether you're trying to take ground, or to disrupt the enemy's logistics.

 

 

As ever though, the above comes with the proviso that I have no military or logistical training - but I read those who do.

[Wade1865]

4 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

In this case, for example, the defending is also the occupier, without a friendly citizenry; with long, poor supply lines, and limited supplies to travel along those supply lines; whilst the attacker has the friendly citizenry, shorter, more varied supply lines, more and higher quality supplies; and a much greater ability to hit the defender's supply lines with surgical strikes - be they HIMARS, special forces, or drones.

As ever though, the above comes with the proviso that I have no military or logistical training - but I read those who do.

Which Tyler -- you make an interesting point on the local citizenry. I had asked this thread for news on insurgent activity, but was provided mostly just partisan warfare or special forces operations. I haven't actively sought evidence, but I haven't come across any significant insurgency actions beyond distributing information.

On military or logisitical training, I've no direct experience outside of small wars, which is very different from what we're seeing in Ukraine now; so we're on fairly equal footing. Like you, I'm subject to past and current readings on what's going on in Ukraine now. Moreover, this leads me to think about how / why the Russians miscalculated so poorly. Although the Russians have had significant wartime experiences (Chechnya, Syria, et al.), they seem to have applied the wrong lessons learned in their execution of conventional war right now (which concerns me in case the US has to take on the PRC in Chaiwan, conventionally).

[broken one]

10 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Which Tyler -- you make an interesting point on the local citizenry. I had asked this thread for news on insurgent activity, but was provided mostly just partisan warfare or special forces operations. I haven't actively sought evidence, but I haven't come across any significant insurgency actions beyond distributing information.

 

Ukrainian govt appeals to citizens in occupied territories to stay away from troubles. "The partisans" seem to be professionalists, and that's good. Imho civilian insurgency (on example of WWII Poland) is nothing but suicidal folly.

[a free shadow]

 

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Forgetting the syllogistic tankie accusations, tautological declarations that Ukraine =/= Iraq because reasons, and now being branded evil for being detrimental to the defense of Ukraine by posting different ideas on a ASOIAF general chatter board, all of which make absolutely perfect sense to me and don’t require any kind of like actual supporting argument or reasoning, can I pause before the cigarette and blindfold long enough to suggest that the war seems to be clearly entering a stage where the will of the Russian people to keep fighting is becoming increasingly determinant, and that just maybe trying to understand the bases, legit or otherwise, for that will might be kinda, you know, germane? 
 

Just a thought. But do carry on doing your bit to help the defense of Ukraine by strictly posting updates about firefights now that the other posts won’t be somehow preventing those from being posted anymore.

Ah, yes, someone being persecuted here by people not willing to take a bit of nonsense for a valuable contribution.

Let us not forget that all this started with your willingness to engage with the argument that Russia has every right to invade Ukraine, stating the point of view that the war in Ukraine is more legitimate/historically accepted and based on less ludicrous/specious grounds than war in Iraq. If it is "more legitimate" then it is at least slightly legitimate, to move the needle, isn't it?

Your further contribution is to retroactively delete parts of posts that have been proven to be extra inaccurate, cry that nobody is really reading your arguments despite plenty detailed replies on point, weirdly misread arguments made by others just to make them convenient to respond to, etc.

Your opinion might be close to your heart, but it should get closer to the brain.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Apparently not even Kazakhstan will acknowledge Russia's referendums in Ukraine. 

Edit: Nor Serbia.