Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Megadeath

Well-known member
Compared with the after-killing part - AKA stabilizing the country you invaded, yes, the killing part is the easier of the two.
Oh jeez! Well then, to discuss the actual thread topic, Russia presumably have no chance in Ukraine in the long run huh? If their military are too corrupt and incompetent to even handle the easy part, I imagine you must have a pretty dim view of their chances for overall success.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
Oh jeez! Well then, to discuss the actual thread topic, Russia presumably have no chance in Ukraine in the long run huh? If their military are too corrupt and incompetent to even handle the easy part, I imagine you must have a pretty dim view of their chances for overall success.
That depends on a lot of factors.
Remember, Russia is fighting Ukraine heavily supported by NATO, not Ukraine alone. Without the years of training (at least from 2017, probably before), billions in hardware and real-time ELINT/SIGINT, and untold billions of dollars and Euros, that sustain the Ukrainian economy, this war is very different. But, about the second phase, aka stabilizing the parts that Russia in theory capture? For starters that depend of what these areas are, and more importantly, what is the population living there.
In true, at this time, nobody knows, so everything is speculation.
But, best possible (not probable, possible) case for Russia - they capture everything east of the Dnieper, and expel all population not Russian friendly. Or alternatively, they only get the Dombass + Crimea (aka situation like before the war).

In both these cases yes, Russia has a very good chance. Almost all other situations? No, is a nightmare for Russia.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
True, but that doesn't change the fact that US commanders had been saying that the war will be over soon, and then the offensive proved them wrong. Now, it is possible that being allowed to hit North Vietnam would have allowed the US to destroy the Viet Cong and NVA before the Tet Offensive and thus prevent it from ever happening, but fact still remains that the offensive was basically the moment NVA won the war.
Except it basically destroyed the VC and has allowed the US to wipe out a large part of the NVA as well....
But yeah if we were allowed to hold ground and push them all the way back
You are coming at this of the dichotomy of just a 'complete and utter removal of opposition in power is victory, anything less is defeat', while not realizing that there are other...orthogonal options besides just 'Left or Right political victory'.

'Coexistence around the center, depowering of both fringes' is what the best outcome is for everyone. It won't be perfect and social/political conflict will occur, but we may be able to rein in the worst of both sides and set new ground rules for social discussions/actions going forward.

Now that might seem like a total defeat to you, but it's a reality most of humanity could tolerate.
You shouldn't be desiring total war just because you have the ability to unleash it.

For one thing, completely removing the civie question and the cost in US lives question, the environmental destruction brought on by total war can take a long to fix, if ever, particularly in a jungle environment with thin soils, and would have effects on all the downstream ecology in the South China Sea.

As well, ok, we go total war on Vietnam, and do so before we open up China. You think the CCP and USSR would have allowed the US a victory in Vietnam without exacting a massive toll or expanding the conflict elsewhere?
The CCCP amd the CCP were not on good terms.
It would have also never allowed China to invade Vietnam. Which means even less experience for them.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Can we stop arguing about definitions? It's a waste of everyone's time. We all basically agree on the facts here, just not the definitions. America has lost wars for political reasons. America has not been "on the battlefield" but instead by attrition. While it could handle attrition militarily, it's populace and leadership could not support it to a completion.

Basically, given a non-nuclear war, America can turn any nation it wants into a shithole country while losing very little. It rarely can keep control of the country afterwards, and only then with a willing populace.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Can we stop arguing about definitions? It's a waste of everyone's time. We all basically agree on the facts here, just not the definitions. America has lost wars for political reasons. America has not been "on the battlefield" but instead by attrition. While it could handle attrition militarily, it's populace and leadership could not support it to a completion.

Basically, given a non-nuclear war, America can turn any nation it wants into a shithole country while losing very little. It rarely can keep control of the country afterwards, and only then with a willing populace.
Also, things like Mai Lai, the way Captain McVeigh of the Indianaipolis was scapegoated, Abu Ghrab, MK-Ultra, the Tuskegee Experiments, and the IC possibly using Epstein.
Military defeats. As in "armies defeated in the field" not "packed bags and went home because politicians."
You've said yourself war is politics by other means.

You do not need to defeat an army in the field if you can simply attrite it at a rate the domestic scene will not accept. It's the same thing Ukraine is hoping to do to Russia now it seems, though the Moldova stuff that came out today complicates that.

We cannot be blind or unwilling to face our own nations fuck-ups if we want to recover the unity needed to face the possible fight with the CCP and/or actual fight with Russia down the line.

If the US military leadership and DC has not been so stupid, greedy, petty, and wasteful will their military adventures, and if the military actually lived up to the image recruiters and PR people pitch, and if we could trust our elections anymore, we could have had unity like never before in the face of Putin going full retard.

Instead, well, DC has squandered many lives, a lot of time, a lot of good PR, and a shit load of money on fights we never should have fought, like Vietnam and Iraq.

Now, none of that takes away from the fact Russia should not have invaded, and that any good PR the Donbas rebels had died with MH17. At this point the only thing that might stop Russia and get them to rein themselves in is to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Kuril's aren't vital to the survival of the Russian state; is Moscow willing to get vaporized for a few islands they should have returned to Japan after WW2?
 

King Arts

Well-known member
We are still in Iraq.
We left Astan.
We didn't lose A Stan except because we pulled out.
We were winning everything about it.
Well if that was winning I'd hate to see you losing.
Like honestly what was winning, the corrupt shithole with the disloyal locals? The terror attacks, actually pulling out and leaving? What was a victory to you in Afghanistan?
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
We are still in Iraq.
We left Astan.
We didn't lose A Stan except because we pulled out.
We were winning everything about it.
We were only "winning" in Afghanistan if your standard of victory includes permanent intensive American support. That government was a brain dead coma patient, only alive because of constant support, with no prospects for improvement down the line, and inevitably dying as soon as that support was withdrawn.

I believe there was a time when there was a real chance to set up a stable and functional government in Afghanistan but that opportunity was long gone when we pulled out.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Well if that was winning I'd hate to see you losing.
Like honestly what was winning, the corrupt shithole with the disloyal locals? The terror attacks, actually pulling out and leaving? What was a victory to you in Afghanistan?
We were only "winning" in Afghanistan if your standard of victory includes permanent intensive American support. That government was a brain dead coma patient, only alive because of constant support, with no prospects for improvement down the line, and inevitably dying as soon as that support was withdrawn.

I believe there was a time when there was a real chance to set up a stable and functional government in Afghanistan but that opportunity was long gone when we pulled out.
Winning is beating back the Taliban to Pakistam every year after they try a new offensive only to get thier asses obliterated by overwhelming fire power.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Winning is beating back the Taliban to Pakistam every year after they try a new offensive only to get thier asses obliterated by overwhelming fire power.
Do you agree that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't think of permanent occupation of Afghanistan as a victorious outcome?
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Do you agree that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't think of permanent occupation of Afghanistan as a victorious outcome?
A victory would be considered by people if Trump did it without a horrible pullout...

No. That wouldn't be victory. Pulling out in 11 after Osama was killed would have been victory
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
A victory would be considered by people if Trump did it without a horrible pullout...

No. That wouldn't be victory. Pulling out in 11 after Osama was killed would have been victory
There is no pullout so good that it stops the Afghan government from immediately collapsing without vast amounts of American support. So sure, the pullout goes perfectly, zero casualties, teleporters leave no equipment behind, etc. The Taliban takes over. Why is this situation best described as "victory"?
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
There is no pullout so good that it stops the Afghan government from immediately collapsing without vast amounts of American support. So sure, the pullout goes perfectly, zero casualties, teleporters leave no equipment behind, etc. The Taliban takes over. Why is this situation best described as "victory"?
If we are going to continue discussing this, what would constitute a victory, and how might that goal have been achieved through purely military means?
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
If we are going to continue discussing this, what would constitute a victory, and how might that goal have been achieved through purely military means?
Victory is defined by the objectives. If the objective was that Afghanistan does not intentionally harbor terrorists bent on targeting America, then perhaps the events that transpired are a victory from that perspective. But I think it's clear that other objectives were being pursued over the past decade that were not achieved, thus no victory there.

If one takes the position that the objectives being pursued were not particularly helpful to American national security, then the withdrawal, with or without its problems, was simply the cessation of throwing good money (and lives) after bad. This would be a good thing, considering the alternative (not stopping), but I don't think "victory" is a word I'd really apply here outside the context of it being a victory for the supporters of ending the pointless misadventure and a defeat of the supporters of continuing it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top