701–710 of 791 posts
Could the potential fallout from high losses in this demographic lead to risk averse deployment of these assets?
If Russia performs a blitzkrieg like attack they would level Ukraine to the ground or destroy major infrastructure. Russia would have to pay to rebuild everything with a pissed off international community. That would cost a hell of a lot more than what they would gain. I don't see why they are surprised, after you realize Russia/Putin isn't trying to destroy, just conquer.
It appears like Russia just wants to take over the land, make it a puppet state, and benefit from its resources. Even the damage to civilian buildings look more of a scare tactic to get Ukrainians to surrender than to win by destruction. Countless sources have said that Russia didn't expect the pushback.
This whole thing is because Ukrainians have shown amazing resistance. If you look at military battles: Battle of Thermopylae. Battle of Thermopylae explains the advantages/current success of Ukrainians, hopefully with a better outcome The unknown is how Putin is going to save face after all of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think we are now seeing a clearer picture of what happens when there is a conflict in an urban area Now? Have you heard of Stalingrad?
I don't speak for GP but I think they mean "clearer picture" as in: literally live-streaming the frontline, in HD, worldwide.
We have to understand this before we can cope with what is happening? Asking a bit much, in my opinion.
And have you perhaps heard: Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are the States of the US suzerains of the Federal government?
>> Are the States of the US suzerains of the Federal government? This word was new to me, but looking it up I wanted to say "Yes" but have since changed to "no". Definition: Suzerainty (American accent: soo-zer-en-tee) happens when a country X has its own government but cannot act independently because of a more powerful country Y. This more powerful country Y is called the suzerain and can usually control the foreig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's their entire strategy, or lack of strategy that is in question. So, bearing mind that I'm just shitposting on the Internet and have no military expertise, I do think that they had a strategy; based on the automated release of articles 4 days after the start of the invasion which declared that Putin had provided the "final solution to the Ukrainian problem", they really expected it to be over in four days. Bear…
As another shitposter, I agree. I think they started to believe their own lies. Like a feedback loop from Putin to below, and then the same things going up again. Putin gets advised in a world created by his own lies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have this sad, but likely true, theory that the U.S. needs to always be involved in a war to stay in practice and iron out the kinks for bigger wars. I say this as a medium-big supporter of the US military.
I think this too. We're really the only big power in the world that has battlehardened soldiers.
Projects the power that the military will show up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have this sad, but likely true, theory that the U.S. needs to always be involved in a war to stay in practice and iron out the kinks for bigger wars. I say this as a medium-big supporter of the US military.
The reason US army is always fighting is economic. US dollar is reserve currency of the world and thus US has almost unlimited credit. But one important element of dollar stability is that carrier group shows up on the doorstep of those getting out of line and shows them errors of their ways. Thus there is a constant need for some pretext to deploy military somewhere.
Securing oil fields and the Persian Gulf is more than money and oil, it’s about securing trade via maritime traffic in the gulf for liberal capitalist democracies worldwide.
And keeping oil access secure is about pure security but also keeping prices low to not disrupt economies.
At least that’s how I understand it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's basic vocabulary in poli-sci or international relations studies or circles. Less obscure (in the context of those fields) than much of the engineering, math, and computer nerd jargon that gets thrown around on here regularly. Likely to be encountered in adjacent fields, notably history. It's about one small notch more obscure than the term "hegemony".
I've never heard it before and I watch Rick and Morty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, saying "shoot here" then having a tank round go through the wall 5 seconds later wouldn't benefit from encryption Of course it would. Otherwise: * the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse: * the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch There's no excuse for unencrypted military communication…
> the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse Encryption won't encrypt the shell going through the wall, which could just as easily be analyzed with the constellation of spy satellites focused on the region. > the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch This would be uncoded communications that would put the…
it was not a critique of intelligence, if anything it was a critique pointing out the failure of high-level RU military planners. what kind of competent general staff lets [at least some] of their battalion-and-below radio comms go out into open frequencies that are easily listened to, transmitted on and also easily jammed by consumer-grade cheap chinese radios?
that is madness. it is incompetent.
(edit: for grammar)