[flagged]
It's called making fun of oneself. I know I know, incomprehensible for Americans. But do try.
One Year into the War in Ukraine
51–60 of 190 posts
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#52"Urban warfare is brutally difficult and has in the past not been a particular strength of the Russian Federation.” Ahem, Stalingrad Cough, splutter, gurgling blood..
FWIW the sheer concentration of artillery firepower at hot spots in Ukraine exceeds anything seen in Stalingrad. Mariupol was one prominent example, and the ongoing battle for Bakhmut is another.
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#53[flagged]
He mostly does history education through the lens of pop culture. He's a bit outside his expertise on this subject, but uses it as a launching off point for educational content rather than trying to be a "military strategist". He even says as much at the outset.
> keeping in mind that I am largely reliant here on the expertise of others and so am operating from my ‘professional thing explainer’ role, rather than as the expert
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
putin literally said in his speech at the beginning that the goal is to overthrow "drug addict government". How could they do it without taking over country?
They don't have to occupy the whole of Ukraine to do that, they only have to defeat Ukraine's military and destroy NATO's materiel on the battlefield. If they intended to occupy the entire country they would need several million troops as well as legions of administrators ready to go, which would be visible. They most likely only plan to long-term occupy the parts of Ukraine where the majority of the population still…
The column that was rushing towards Kyiv consisted in large part of the Russian National Guard units - those are the guys whose primary purpose is to beat up people in opposition protests. And they had the anti-riot gear packed, as Ukrainians have found out when going through the wrecks. So, yes, they were absolutely planning to suppress civilian opposition to the occupation.
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#55[flagged]
The guy is a military historian, so armchair military strategizing is literally a part of the job. Unlike the rest of us, though, he actually studied for it.
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#56Business Insider says 97% of the Russian army is now committed to Ukraine.[1] That leaves the central Russian government very vulnerable to its own internal separatist movements, of which there are rather a lot.[2]. Some of those movements are in areas landlocked or not economically viable, but the Free Ingria movement (Leningrad oblast, including St. Petersburg) has potential. That area is bordered by Finland, Eston…
Last time I checked there was more than 1 million in internal forces (militia, rosgvardia, troops, probably some others). They are armed, trained specifically to suppress and loyal. I (looking from the inside) highly doubt that they will change sides unless they stop receiving paycheck. Of course, some regions are a bit special in this respect but they are not in the central Russia.
What is the mood regarding the war in your social circle? How often do they support it?
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appeasing the aggressors by giving up territories is not going to stop the war long term until there is nothing to give up. Not only history shows it again and again, but the basic psychology behind this is clear after a first encounter with a bully which many people do as soon as kindergarten. The only outcome of this faux pacifism is the destruction of Ukrainian state with the following butchering of Ukrainian cult…
No appeasement has been the reason for fighting wars since WW2. This shows a misunderstanding of the wars. In Vietnam, it was called the domino theory, except Vietnam was a war of independence. The war on terror - invade Iraq so the terrorist don't come here. The Russians are not going to invade NATO countries.
If anything your examples show that aggressors don't care about diplomatic compromises as long as they believe in their total military victory.
> The Russians are not going to invade NATO countries.
Depending on how US elections go, NATO can be no longer a meaningful project anyway. So yes, they are absolutely going to invade if encouraged to do so. Eastern Europeans clearly understand that.
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free Ingria […] has potential No, it's a toy movement. > There's no part of Russia bordering Ukraine that Ukraine could take as a bargaining chip Transnistria could play precisely that role.
Isn't Transnistria legally part of Moldova? Russia can't trade that away against Moldova's wishes, and even if it was to try , it would be against the international law that made the invasion of Ukraine and annexing its territory illegal in the first place.
International law is for client states.
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#59Business Insider says 97% of the Russian army is now committed to Ukraine.[1] That leaves the central Russian government very vulnerable to its own internal separatist movements, of which there are rather a lot.[2]. Some of those movements are in areas landlocked or not economically viable, but the Free Ingria movement (Leningrad oblast, including St. Petersburg) has potential. That area is bordered by Finland, Eston…
I would be more worried about the Caucasus's. Chechnya is run by a dictator with Putin's backing. I have a feeling that Ramzan Kadyrov will have the be very careful moving forward. I can't imagine he's well liked in Chechnya.
Re: One Year into the War in Ukraine
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia is a military state. They have about a million of police and other military forces inside the country. And internal separatist movements are so tiny you can handle them with 1/1000 of the force they have.
What does that mean? Is the US a military state?
Yes, quite obviously yes, I would have thought. All imperial states are military states aren’t they?