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

[History Learner]

Intriguing.

Anyway, you predict that the Russians are eventually going to conquer all of Ukraine, right? Up to Lviv? In several years?

FWIW, it strikes me as a rather foolish strategy for Russia to severely and indefinitely piss off a billion-strong Western bloc in the hopes of boosting its own population by 10% at the very most. (It almost certainly won't be boosted by more than 10% even in the best-case scenario due to mass emigration from Ukraine.)

The ultimate extent of Russia's goals I've not hazard to guess beyond a general idea, nor have I generally put a timeframe on it. Suffice to say, however, I do not see this war lasting longer than about this time next year; Ukraine lacks the industry, manpower and finances for such a conflict. Most likely they will break this winter and by the end of Spring some agreement will be hammered out.

As to Russia, Chicken or the Egg: Did Russia randomly wake up one day and decide to invade Ukraine, or was it the culmination of two decades of aggressive expansion by NATO? Cold War era diplomats and scholars were under no delusions in the 1990s:

 

[WolfBear]

The ultimate extent of Russia's goals I've not hazard to guess beyond a general idea, nor have I generally put a timeframe on it. Suffice to say, however, I do not see this war lasting longer than about this time next year; Ukraine lacks the industry, manpower and finances for such a conflict. Most likely they will break this winter and by the end of Spring some agreement will be hammered out.

As to Russia, Chicken or the Egg: Did Russia randomly wake up one day and decide to invade Ukraine, or was it the culmination of two decades of aggressive expansion by NATO? Cold War era diplomats and scholars were under no delusions in the 1990s:

FWIW, there's a credible case that NATO should have disbanded back in 1991-1992. I'm just not sure that it would have prevented the current conflict since the West would have still supported color revolutions in the ex-USSR space, the EU would have still expanded into the ex-USSR space, the Maidan Revolution would have probably still occurred, and the West would have still been engaged in military cooperation with Ukraine. None of these things would have been likely to change had NATO no longer existed, I think. Heck, even the Kosovo intervention in 1999 could have still been done without NATO as a multilateral mission, similar to Iraq in 2003 but with many more countries cooperating in this. That, of course, would have also pissed Russia off.

And did you ever take a look at any of the opinion polling that has come out of Ukraine since this war began? They're not very willing to compromise so far.

 

[History Learner]

FWIW, there's a credible case that NATO should have disbanded back in 1991-1992. I'm just not sure that it would have prevented the current conflict since the West would have still supported color revolutions in the ex-USSR space, the EU would have still expanded into the ex-USSR space, the Maidan Revolution would have probably still occurred, and the West would have still been engaged in military cooperation with Ukraine. None of these things would have been likely to change had NATO no longer existed, I think. Heck, even the Kosovo intervention in 1999 could have still been done without NATO as a multilateral mission, similar to Iraq in 2003 but with many more countries cooperating in this. That, of course, would have also pissed Russia off.

In other words, explaining exactly why Russia went in.

And did you ever take a look at any of the opinion polling that has come out of Ukraine since this war began? They're not very willing to compromise so far.

And I'm sure if you asked the average Japanese or German in 1941 the same question, you would have received an equal response. Four years later, the lessons of the battlefield resulted in an alternate answer. Between the Ukrainian Army getting slaughtered and the mass self deportations of Ukrainians from the unoccupied areas, this is definitely going to resolve itself within the next year or so.

 

[WolfBear]

In other words, explaining exactly why Russia went in.



And I'm sure if you asked the average Japanese or German in 1941 the same question, you would have received an equal response. Four years later, the lessons of the battlefield resulted in an alternate answer. Between the Ukrainian Army getting slaughtered and the mass self deportations of Ukrainians from the unoccupied areas, this is definitely going to resolve itself within the next year or so.

Yes, but also explaining that NATO might not have been the decisive factor here. Get rid of NATO, but keep everything else, and Russia might still eventually go into Ukraine.

Yeah, well, let's see what will happen, shall we? I'll be willing to wait, of course.

 

[History Learner]

Yes, but also explaining that NATO might not have been the decisive factor here. Get rid of NATO, but keep everything else, and Russia might still eventually go into Ukraine.

I disagree with that general point, but regardless you've explained exactly why Russia did go in, NATO or not. It wasn't sudden aggression out of nowhere, but the end result of 20 years of aggressive actions by NATO countries.

Yeah, well, let's see what will happen, shall we? I'll be willing to wait, of course.

Useful heuristic to judge the war's eventual results: who controls (most of) the Black Sea coast of Ukraine after the end of this.

 

[WolfBear]

I disagree with that general point, but regardless you've explained exactly why Russia did go in, NATO or not. It wasn't sudden aggression out of nowhere, but the end result of 20 years of aggressive actions by NATO countries.



Useful heuristic to judge the war's eventual results: who controls (most of) the Black Sea coast of Ukraine after the end of this.

What Russia considers aggressive and what the West considers aggressive are two different things. Hence the problem. It's similar to Russia building strategic railroads in Poland before WWI; Germany considered this a threat, but Russia itself did not view this as being threatening to Germany.

This black sea coast will be of limited value to Russia if it will be largely depopulated, though.

 

[History Learner]

What Russia considers aggressive and what the West considers aggressive are two different things. Hence the problem. It's similar to Russia building strategic railroads in Poland before WWI; Germany considered this a threat, but Russia itself did not view this as being threatening to Germany.

Hence why I cited American strategic thinkers specifically saying American/European actions were aggressive.

This black sea coast will be of limited value to Russia if it will be largely depopulated, though.

It's the geography that makes it important; most of Ukraine's Pre-2014 GDP is already in Russian hands. Control over the Black Sea coast of Ukraine gives Russia the dominating position on the Black Sea.

 

[Arch Dornan]

If it's true the sunk cost is real.

 

[WolfBear]

Hence why I cited American strategic thinkers specifically saying American/European actions were aggressive.



It's the geography that makes it important; most of Ukraine's Pre-2014 GDP is already in Russian hands. Control over the Black Sea coast of Ukraine gives Russia the dominating position on the Black Sea.

But not everyone actually agrees with them. That's the thing. It's their own opinion. Well, theirs and Russia's. Interestingly enough, Mearsheimer actually believed that Ukraine should keep its nukes:

The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent on JSTOR

John J. Mearsheimer, The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 50-66

www.jstor.org

Quite interesting that one specific expert who is anti-NATO expansion also adopted a position on Ukrainian nukes that Russia will not like.

As for Ukraine's pre-2014 GDP, it doesn't matter as much due to the huge economic decline in the Donbass since 2014 and due to the economic growth that has occurred in the rest of Ukraine over the last decade. And FWIW, sometimes factories and whatnot are being evacuated from eastern Ukraine and sent over to western Ukraine:

To Escape the War, Ukraine’s Factories Are Moving West (Published 2022)

The government is working to save hundreds of businesses from Russian bombs, remaking western Ukraine into the country’s new economic heartland.

www.nytimes.com

So, Ukraine isn't losing all of the productive capacities in the territories that it loses. Rather, it's following the Soviet Union's 1941-1942 playbook in regards to this.

 

[History Learner]

But not everyone actually agrees with them. That's the thing. It's their own opinion. Well, theirs and Russia's. Interestingly enough, Mearsheimer actually believed that Ukraine should keep its nukes:

The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent on JSTOR

John J. Mearsheimer, The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 50-66

www.jstor.org

Quite interesting that one specific expert who is anti-NATO expansion also adopted a position on Ukrainian nukes that Russia will not like.

And none of them hold the credentials or experience of George Kennan or, as much as I hate the fucker, Kissinger. In an multipolar world, leaning on the experiences of those who operated in the bipolar world over those who have solely had their career during the unipolar moment, is key.

As for Ukraine's pre-2014 GDP, it doesn't matter as much due to the huge economic decline in the Donbass since 2014 and due to the economic growth that has occurred in the rest of Ukraine over the last decade. And FWIW, sometimes factories and whatnot are being evacuated from eastern Ukraine and sent over to western Ukraine:

To Escape the War, Ukraine’s Factories Are Moving West (Published 2022)

The government is working to save hundreds of businesses from Russian bombs, remaking western Ukraine into the country’s new economic heartland.

www.nytimes.com

So, Ukraine isn't losing all of the productive capacities in the territories that it loses. Rather, it's following the Soviet Union's 1941-1942 playbook in regards to this.

You can't move agricultural land in a direct sense and you can't move the Dnieper. It's why I was talking about in general instead of specifically saying Donbass; Russian gains extend along most of the Black Sea coast now.

 

[WolfBear]

And none of them hold the credentials or experience of George Kennan or, as much as I hate the fucker, Kissinger. In an multipolar world, leaning on the experiences of those who operated in the bipolar world over those who have solely had their career during the unipolar moment, is key.



You can't move agricultural land in a direct sense and you can't move the Dnieper. It's why I was talking about in general instead of specifically saying Donbass; Russian gains extend along most of the Black Sea coast now.

But the people who were responsible for NATO expansion in the 1990s and 2000s were often highly politically aware and sometimes politically involved even during the Cold War, no?

Just how much value will agricultural land be for Russia when a lot of the people on this land have already fled?

 

[History Learner]

But the people who were responsible for NATO expansion in the 1990s and 2000s were often highly politically aware and sometimes politically involved even during the Cold War, no?

No one in a senior position today was in a senior position when Kissinger was.

Just how much value will agricultural land be for Russia when a lot of the people on this land have already fled?

They just move more people there; there's three million Ukrainians in Russian right now for example.

 

[WolfBear]

No one in a senior position today was in a senior position when Kissinger was.



They just move more people there; there's three million Ukrainians in Russian right now for example.

And should we trust his judgment in regards to Russia when it has failed us in both Cambodia and Bangladesh?

But repopulating Ukraine would mean depopulating Russia since Russia's own population is already declining!

 

[LordsFire]

As for Russian ammunition:



Shells generally have a 20 year shelf life, so shells made since 2002 are fine. Ukraine thus, between 2002 and 2014, provided Russia with 24 million shells. Since June 1st, Russia has been expending about 50,000 shells a day, which comes out to 4,200,000. In other words, Russia has not even had to tap domestic production since this war started in theory. As for other kids of munitions, the last two days of constant bombardment should be telling.

Ah yes, cite the same singular reference as before, which has no actual known connection to actual production numbers, and treat it as indisputable proof of your position.

So, what plant producing two million shells a year was this? What percentage of the annual Russian defense budget was spent just paying for those shells?

Where's a reference for Russia supposedly producing 50k shells a day? I sure haven't seen any sourcing on numbers like that, and before we start, no 'the Kremlin says so' or Russian state media says so isn't a reliable source.

 

[Zachowon]

If it's true the sunk cost is real.

The US is getting new ones and taking obsolete Ines off the line.

Soldiers are officially getting their hands on the most advanced Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle yet

Swedish manufacturer Saab has signed an $87 million multi-year contract with the Army to furnish soldiers with the new and improved 85mm M3E1 Carl Gustaf recoilless rifles in the coming years

taskandpurpose.com

 

[ATP]

Or, you know, the Anti-Putin Liberal faction operating from Ukraine that took credit for it and directly said they had Ukrainian help?

There is no factions in kgbstan,only kgb mafias.And one of them killed Dugina - if she is really killed.

The ultimate extent of Russia's goals I've not hazard to guess beyond a general idea, nor have I generally put a timeframe on it. Suffice to say, however, I do not see this war lasting longer than about this time next year; Ukraine lacks the industry, manpower and finances for such a conflict. Most likely they will break this winter and by the end of Spring some agreement will be hammered out.

As to Russia, Chicken or the Egg: Did Russia randomly wake up one day and decide to invade Ukraine, or was it the culmination of two decades of aggressive expansion by NATO? Cold War era diplomats and scholars were under no delusions in the 1990s:

Kissinger is dude what saved China from soviet attack after 1969.And never predicted soviets fall.In others world,idiot or agent.

Mearsheimer is dude who belive that empires are eternal and have their eternal spheres of influence,in which all others nations should live for eternity.
Another idiot - if that was true,polish empire would still ruled.Or roman.Or Sassanid.Or british.
postsoviet empire is just another falling empire which is falling,and those idiots try to save dying monster to made their theories look good.

And George Kennan was another idiot if he belived that postsoviets are russians.

 

[Arch Dornan]

The US is getting new ones and taking obsolete Ines off the line.

Soldiers are officially getting their hands on the most advanced Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle yet

Swedish manufacturer Saab has signed an $87 million multi-year contract with the Army to furnish soldiers with the new and improved 85mm M3E1 Carl Gustaf recoilless rifles in the coming years

taskandpurpose.com

You're using a 2020 article when supposed military anons are bitching about their equipment being taken away now.

 

[Husky_Khan]

You're using a 2020 article when supposed military anons are bitching about their equipment being taken away now.

Because as the article states, the Carl Gustav's are to be replaced in the coming years by newer models... And these weapons are basically only used by Special Forces in an ad hoc manner.

Hence it would imply the older Carl Gustav's are being sent to Ukraine as newer ones come in. I understand the text message screenshot says otherwise but it's just speculation at this juncture.

 

[ATP]

In other words, explaining exactly why Russia went in.



And I'm sure if you asked the average Japanese or German in 1941 the same question, you would have received an equal response. Four years later, the lessons of the battlefield resulted in an alternate answer. Between the Ukrainian Army getting slaughtered and the mass self deportations of Ukrainians from the unoccupied areas, this is definitely going to resolve itself within the next year or so.

1.postsoviets,not Russia.And they would go elsywhere where they could,till somebody stop them.Good,that it done by Ukraine,not us.

2.In case you forget - Japan and Germany started war,just like postsoviets now.And soviets win only thanks to USA support.
Now,postsoviet fight AGAINST USA.
Only reason why they still stand is becouse Biden want Moscov as ally.Good,that Putin do not share his viev,or not only Ukraine,but Poand would be arleady genocided/denazified for naive westerners as you/

 

[Arch Dornan]

Because as the article states, the Carl Gustav's are to be replaced in the coming years by newer models... And these weapons are basically only used by Special Forces in an ad hoc manner.

Hence it would imply the older Carl Gustav's are being sent to Ukraine as newer ones come in. I understand the text message screenshot says otherwise but it's just speculation at this juncture.

2 years isn't enough?

Or has covid fucked the procurement for the new shit?