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

[The Original Sixth]

I'm not sure about that. The idea that NATO forces in Ukraine would be meaningfully dangerous in a way that ones in Poland aren't isn't well supported, and conquering Ukraine means those forces would them be on the russuan border. And they're likely to get more now that Finland has been talking about joining.

Because a Ukraine that is allied with NATO is a threat, just not at present. If you recall in my last post, Russia is in decline. Best case scenario is that Russia goes through 1-2 generations of extreme weakness as it tries to regenerate its population and institutions. A more likely case is that Russia is racked with internal civil wars, ethnic cleansing, and uprisings. Worst case is complete disintegration of the Russian Federation. Regardless of which happens, a strong and independent Ukraine or NATO-controlled Ukraine is a threat to Moscow.

Ukraine is too large, too close to NATO, and too independent to be allowed to continue. Because when Moscow becomes weak, it will be Kiev that will feel the need to create stability within its region. What happens if Belarus goes rogue? Ukraine could and would deal with that. What happens if Russian oligarchs launch a price war against Ukraine? Kiev might decide to boot a weak Russia from Crimea. What happens if Russia explodes into a violent civil war and Kiev decides it doesn't want this conflict on its border? What happens when Kiev decides to back someone? What happens when Russia's aged and poorly maintained SAM network in 10-20 years is no longer able to compete with F-35 or next gen weapon systems?

There is simply no choice here. Russia has to act while it is stronger and absorb Ukraine before it becomes a peer competitor.

Yes and no. They have value if someone will buy them, something that is less likely now due to Russia's invasion. Furthermore, while Ukraine has valuable resources, it doesn't apppear to have any uniquely value resources to Russia, rather there's just more of what they already have.

While that isn't really the motivation behind the invasion (as the motivation is security), that is also something that is a concern to Russia. They don't want to have a NATO controlled Ukraine competing with them in economics. In addition, they could draw upon Ukraine's economic strength once it has been incorporated into the Russian Federation as either a puppet state or a member.

For now, yes. There's a good chance they decide to fix that by moving be more self sufficient,which will both cut into Russia's cash flows and allow Europe to levy heavier sanctions.

Europe can't really afford to cut Russia off like this, not without inflicting heavy damage upon themselves and creating further global instability that will force Europe to expend its own strength elsewhere.

Ok, let me rephrase that more clearly. Why should I believe you, some random dude on the internet, have any clue what you're talking about when you go on about how the Russian military doctrine is a 1930s era system + twitter.

I can't say that he's entirely wrong. Most probably Russian military thought has evolved from Soviet military thought. It's far more complicated than that, but there does seem to be some correlation between what he says and what we see in how the Russians have advanced.

I know next to nothing about the military and even I know launching a surprise attack with unprepared, 2nd rate troops is a stupid idea. The fact that you're seeing this as someone kind of genius maneuver by Russia makes me trust your judgement even less.

I can't speak to if that is actually what happened, but it makes sense. Russia sacrificing those troops early on, in order to draw out an unprepared UKA and then smash them with more capable troops could in the end, lower total Russian casualties, especially if Russia still practices aggressive advances. It also has the double effect of demoralizing Ukraine (in theory) and breaking apart Ukraine's command structure. In practice, it seems that Russia has not executed that correctly. There should have been greater aggression in air strikes, in taking out enemy SAM systems, and taking out Ukraine's communication network.

This shows either Putin and his generals underestimated the Ukrainian will to fight or they simply failed to properly execute their strategy. I'd lean more towards the former, but it could just as easily have been the latter.

Yes, which is why invading Ukraine is stupid, because they don't have anything to gain. Ukraine has no vital strategic resources, only more of what Russia already has, and anything Russia gains in the invasion can't be used, because no one will buy it from them because of the invasion, and it might push the west to divest their economies from Russia.

That's simply not true. Taking Ukraine from the West is valuable simply for strategic reasons. As for its resources, Ukraine adds in more ethnic Russians and Slavs, allowing Russia the opportunity to incorporate them into their national identity (if such a thing can be done) and allows them to access them as a market. Russia and Ukraine are also major exporters of wheat (as well as other commodities) and that is going to have global implications. From spiking energy prices in Europe (and thus across the world) to spiking prices in wheat in the Middle East and Africa and Europe, and not to mention other things like stainless steel.

If the West maintains its sanctions on Russia, then it needs to be ready for a second Arab Spring in the Middle East/Africa, as well as swarms of people trying to get into Europe. And after the clown show that the entire EU and twitter has put on about welcoming Ukrainians with open arms, a lot of other migrants are going to demand the same treatment--and twitter will encourage it.

And this all boils back to the West going too far in drawing Ukraine into its orbit. Russia might have tolerated a weak, corrupt, and incompetent Ukraine that was heavily reliant upon it. What it could not accept was a NATO Ukraine. And that has forced Moscow to take a more aggressive stance. Now it must choose to either expand or die. That's the rules of the Horde lands; either you control all of Russia or you control nothing.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Having Ukraine under possible enemy influence allows for daggers to be placed at three key weak points in Russian geography.

Russia has nuclear weapons, a NATO lead invasion of Russia is not on the table and never has been, and they ought to know that.

Do you expect that Biden is going to continue to force Americans to suffer high gas prices in 2024? Or that if he does, the Republicans won't promise to ban gas exports to save people at the pump?

I expect the Republicans will use this mess as another bludgeon to try and crush the greens and thier stupid "solar and wind or nothing" policies, and push for increased domestic production and nuclear power. Dunno if it will work, but it's got a decent chance of happening.

Simply that I'm being proved right by the hour as UkA's 'victories' get closer and closer to the Dnieper and Moldova Border.

Predicting that Russia will win gets you no credit, everyone, include those experts you dismissed, has been saying that. The specifics of how they're winning is the point of contention, and why your analysis should be trusted.

I say the Russians will win because Putin is well known to be a huge Jurassic Park fan and is clearly taking notes from the new movies by using specially trained units of clone velociraptors to disrupt the Ukrainian forces, and if you disagree with me, then how do you explain this?

Okay genius, how high do you think the causalities would be on both sides if the UkA had mobilized in response to an obvious build up of Russian Elite troops with full assets? Answer is in the hundreds of thousands with heavy civilian causalities.

There are more opitions than "send in totally unprepared troops" and "obviously mass elite units on the border".

The surprise factor of using the 2nd rate troops was a good and calculated risk that enabled the initial penetrations and destruction of the bulk of the UkA SOF Teams frittered away in local counter-attacks.

And your evidence that Ukrainian special forces have been mostly wiped out is.....? Because I can't find any other analysis or news article saying so, it looks to be just more of your RUSSIA STRONK fanfiction.

All the losses in those first attacks enabled Russia to dictate the flow of battle and open up more avenues of attack while leaving the UkA with no good options because all their mobile reserves were wiped out or pocketed and they are now reduced to putting hastily cobbled together scratch forces of civilians and second line troops unable to properly form strong counter-attack groups. As the Russians tighten the encirclement, UkA can form fewer and fewer counter-attacks.

Fanfiction.

44 million people, the majority of whom will quietly go about their lives. A large percentage will gladly be the new elite, and a minority that will resist and promptly be hunted down to where most in that group leave or die.

Just having more people isn't advantageous in and of itself.

The most productive farmlands in Europe

That would be great, if this was the middle ages and productive farmlands was incredibly valuable. In the 21st century, Russia is already self sufficient agriculturally and was a rapidly growing exporter. They don't need more farmland.

along with critical resources that are now denied to Europe and can flow into the Russian economy tariff free.

Critical resources such as?

This will render any sanctions useless, the tax revenue will increase, and all debts Russia owes to the west along with Ukraine's can be declared null and void. Causing a cascade of bank failures in the West which can only be stopped by massive supplies of money into the system which in turn will cause hyper-inflation. Starting a vicious cycle that will cause internal breakups of the 'West.'

And we're back to the fanfiction.

I seriously doubt that you know better than Putin in this matter. He has a decades-long history of getting his way in geopolitics, starting from a lousy post-CCP-collapse position. The western "experts" who think they know better are the next generation of McNamara's shitwits, specialized in pyrrhic victories that achieve strategic defeats.

Your Putin bootlicking here is completely irrelevant to the actual point I was making. As I said, Russia has nuclear weapons, a NATO lead invasion of Russia is off the table and has in fact never been on the table, NATO is a defensive alliance and Putin knows that.

What they already have is working for them, and the less their strategic competitors have, the better it will continue to work for them.

If this invasion had any chance of actually giving Russia a controlling supply of those resources, allowing them to derive their rivals of them, then maybe that would be a good idea (or maybe really stupid, as it would force Russia's enemies to actively contest the invasion rather then merely supporting Ukraine). As that's not the case, this does nothing, Europe can just get titanium ore elsewhere.

Oil, ores, and food are fine resources to have more of.

In the abstract, sure. In this specific case, it's probably not a good idea to piss off the entire world in order to get more of something you already have plenty of.

That is quite the assumption. Many among the next generation of potential soldiers in Russia care about such things. It's not about achieving moral superiority or some other vapid western good guy goal, it's about showing that if Russia indicates that they will fight for someone, they fight for them. Unlike the effeminate west, full of big mouths promising the world and delivering only arms sales to their own military-industrial complex.

Russia has offered powerful proofs of this in several regions now.

Ok, can you rephrase that with less bootlicking? Please explain how conquering another country in way relates to "fighting for someone because you said you would", because that doesn't even line up with Russia's excuse for thier invasion, which was securing the independence of thier puppet separatists, separatists on the other side on the country from Kyiv, which they're trying to conquer for....why exactly?

It matters a lot less who started it than who finished it. Victors write the history books.

That is again completely irrelevant to my point. Can you maybe spend less time admiring your collection of Putin's ridiculous shirtless pictures and more time reading what I'm actually saying?

It is ridiculous to claim Russia benefits from ending a separatist movement they sponsor in another country by invading the entire country. The fighting in Donbas has killed about 500 Russian soldiers in 8 years, by thier own admission they've lost that many man this week, not mention tanks, IVFs, jets, helicopters, artillery pieces, etc. By Ukrainian estimates, the Russians have lost more soldiers this week then the entire separatists movement has lost in total.

 

[Chiron]

I can't say that he's entirely wrong. Most probably Russian military thought has evolved from Soviet military thought. It's far more complicated than that, but there does seem to be some correlation between what he says and what we see in how the Russians have advanced.

I can't speak to if that is actually what happened, but it makes sense. Russia sacrificing those troops early on, in order to draw out an unprepared UKA and then smash them with more capable troops could in the end, lower total Russian casualties, especially if Russia still practices aggressive advances. It also has the double effect of demoralizing Ukraine (in theory) and breaking apart Ukraine's command structure. In practice, it seems that Russia has not executed that correctly. There should have been greater aggression in air strikes, in taking out enemy SAM systems, and taking out Ukraine's communication network.

This shows either Putin and his generals underestimated the Ukrainian will to fight or they simply failed to properly execute their strategy. I'd lean more towards the former, but it could just as easily have been the latter.

Or you are forgetting UkA isn't a 3rd world militia force and has the same base doctrine on their shelves.

Do give them some credit.

The issue for UkA's commanders is they got caught flat-footed and have no good options. They may very well realized the play from the start but the initial strikes disrupted their communications for long enough that they couldn't stop local commanders from launching local Counter-Attacks. By which point those forces largely got pocketed and the Generals had to prevent the Capital from falling which would have been a catastrophe, so they couldn't send forces to open escape corridors for the pocketed forces, nor could they form a reserve to stop the Kherson Offensive.

They could sting and delay the Russian Advance, but they can't form a Corps Level Formations or higher to deliver a decisive counter-attack that can stop the Russian's operational encirclement of their forces and enable them to hold on long enough to draw the Russians into a mutually ruinous attrition war.

In theory they could pull the Donbas forces back and form a solid Corps Level Formation, but they would be out in the open and either direction they turned, they faced being hit in the flank and rear. So the only real option is to pull back across the Dnieper via bridges the Russians would bomb, leaving them strung out in columns across just a few express ways.

But the last problem is they can't concede Eastern Ukraine without an ok from Zelensky.

 

[The Original Sixth]

And the alternative was what, wait for a better time and potentially give away the game plan? Again we see handfuls of Russian Equipment here and there abandoned for one reason or another, but it is not however affecting the overall advance. In fact the US in 2003 had dozens of tanks and other vehicles fall out of the formations due to a variety of mechanical issues. Many units outran their supplies, and other units had large traffic jams occur due to clearing Iraqi Forces from a road junction or due to lack of MPs doing traffic control.

What you think of as mistakes, are actually normal in a chaotic battlespace, and good commanders plan around it. Because no matter the army, you will have corrupt officers who are good at evading detection, cowards who run at the first gunshot, and those who are bad in the barracks but prove effective on the battlefields, and a wild mix and match in-between. And then there are the lucky idiots who roll up to a command post with just a belt of machine gun ammo and bluff it into surrendering.

Hence the wildly disparate results of the 1st echelon units. Some clearly got routed, some led by hard charging officers excelled and got reinforced and if those officers survive they will be promoted, but overall they were not meant to seize the country in 72 hours. Even Putin wasn't counting on that, they were meant to goad the UkA into tactically successful local counter-attacks that were operationally futile. As those counter-attacks occurred the 2nd echelon went in and took them in flank and did the pocketing of the SOF Teams and border cities. Only Kharkiv was able to avoid an operational encirclement due to being a major military hub supporting the Donbas War.

It's mostly the twitter-sphere that is hyperfocused on the Russians losing a few vehicles or farmers swiping military vehicles left to rust. I am saying that it is an operational failure that they didn't take better care of their trucks. Now, they could not have known that beforehand and even if the did, it was too late to do anything about it. And yes, the US military also had similar problems when they conducted a major invasion in the Middle East. Vehicles without proper armor, ect.

And while that is embarrassing and undercuts the image of a strong Russian military, you're right--it hasn't changed the math. The Russians are still advancing, the Ukrainians are still going to lose. I don't think anyone apart from foolish liberals on twitter and youtube have managed to delude themselves into thinking that holding hands and cheering Ukraine on from the sidelines has done any actual Ukrainians any favors.

Whether you think Putin did a splendid job or not is irrelevant.

Execution on the initial invasion? No. Then again, if it's true that the West had exposed his plans and he had to throw something together, it doesn't really surprise me that he's facing hiccups. Especially with some older vehicles and lots of untested troops. And it is a large military operation. Nor does it speak to Putin being incompetent--it is merely as I said, the execution was not splendid or masterful, but it was certainly competent.

Putin had to fool only one person: Zelensky, who alone has the authority to mobilize the UkA's reserves.

Putin also only needs to beat one opponent: Ukraine, all the others took themselves out of the equation.

That's worth considering and I do not doubt that Putin had hoped to catch Zelensky unawares and had planned to do so, but I think you overemphasize this, because it does not seem likely to me that Putin would have relied on such. There are plenty of people across the world who told Zelensky that Russia was preparing to invade. The fact that Zelensky chose to ignore them shows me that he is a fool.

In this Putin unlike the US for the past few decades, is controlling the fight to his ends rather than letting it get out of control with mission creep.

Oh, I don't believe Putin would allow for mission creep. I think he has a clear objective in mind and he has a clear idea of what he's doing. The US's mission creep came from the Bush Admin not considering the implications of toppling a government and replacing it with a democratic one--then not having an exit strategy when he did. And everyone after was stuck with his fuck-up.

At the end of the day, Putin will be the one drinking Zelensky's tea, partying in his house, and screwing his mistresses, plus most likely comforting his widow as well.

That's rather vulgar and really does you no favors in this discussion. It's not like this forum is cheering Zelensky on.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Russia has nuclear weapons, a NATO lead invasion of Russia is not on the table and never has been, and they ought to know that.

That's simply not true.

First, having nuclear weapons does not mean you're immune to invasion. Especially if there is some doubt as to those nuclear weapons being functional. Which they may be the case, when all their most skilled engineers and scientists are going to be dead within 5-10 years.

Second, nuclear escalation is not always going to be possible. Especially if it's presented as a peacekeeping force or there's some doubt as to what the actual motivation is. If Russia were to remain a strong and healthy state, that is not an issue. But Russia is not a healthy state and it is reaching the end of its strength.

I expect the Republicans will use this mess as another bludgeon to try and crush the greens and thier stupid "solar and wind or nothing" policies, and push for increased domestic production and nuclear power. Dunno if it will work, but it's got a decent chance of happening.

They'll hammer on about that, but that's not going to win them immediate points. What's actually going to happen is that members of both parties will raise the option of export ban. And if the Democrats fail to enact it by 2024, then the Republicans will use it against them. Hell, they may not make it to 2022, depending on how long this conflict lasts and how the year goes.

This unity that the West has against Russia may be permanent, but a lot of these countries have different interests in an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world. This may be a rejuvination of NATO or it may be their last hurrah.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

Your Putin bootlicking here is completely irrelevant to the actual point I was making.

Ok, can you rephrase that with less bootlicking?

Can you maybe spend less time admiring your collection of Putin's ridiculous shirtless pictures and more time reading what I'm actually saying?

It bodes ill for any people or nation when frank acknowledgement of an opponent's superior position is treated like this. Slandering the messenger does not change the truth of the situation.

As I said, Russia has nuclear weapons, a NATO lead invasion of Russia is off the table and has in fact never been on the table, NATO is a defensive alliance and Putin knows that.

Nuclear deterrence is literally the single most important reason for this invasion. Permitting NATO to put ABM tech in Ukraine creates the possibility that NATO warmongers start thinking they can get away with acts of war and escape MAD with their missiles. Our leaders are narcissistic morons and diversity hires, and the whole planet knows it including Putin, he can't risk letting them think MAD doesn't exist, whether or not it does, because they are warmongering idiots who might just roll the dice.

If Russia has to launch, everyone loses including Russia. The winning moves are the ones that keep things from getting there.

 

[Chiron]

I am saying that it is an operational failure that they didn't take better care of their trucks. Now, they could not have known that beforehand and even if the did, it was too late to do anything about it. And yes, the US military also had similar problems when they conducted a major invasion in the Middle East. Vehicles without proper armor, ect.

And that is an unrealistic view. You are assuming competence across the board and that is simply not reality in life. A commander can't inspect every single vehicle himself, he has to trust subordinates to do that as he often has multiple pressing things to do as well. And he has to have time to eat, sleep, and relax before he goes nuts.

So a good plan accounts for units officially on the books, but not present, and is flexible that the overall plan is maintained. So far from showing the Russians incompetent and weak, it actually shows them competent and strong enough to maintain resiliency in the face of setbacks and strength in maintaining the momentum of their plan. If the UkA has a plan, they certainly aren't able to use it as the Russians are cramming their plan down their throats and choking them to death with it.

In effect the Russians planning accounts for the corruption in their own ranks and junior officers fucking up and is flexible enough to where it doesn't matter.

Contrast US plans which rely on everyone not fucking up and thus unable to adapt operationally when fuckups do occur. When fighting 3rd world militias its survivable for the most part. When fighting an industrial state, its an utter disaster.

Execution on the initial invasion? No. Then again, if it's true that the West had exposed his plans and he had to throw something together, it doesn't really surprise me that he's facing hiccups. Especially with some older vehicles and lots of untested troops. And it is a large military operation. Nor does it speak to Putin being incompetent--it is merely as I said, the execution was not splendid or masterful, but it was certainly competent.

The West was thinking he would merely place troops openly in Donbas and skirmish, not go for de bellatio. Zelensky was thinking this as well. And there had been multiple scares in the prior years as well.

That's worth considering and I do not doubt that Putin had hoped to catch Zelensky unawares and had planned to do so, but I think you overemphasize this, because it does not seem likely to me that Putin would have relied on such. There are plenty of people across the world who told Zelensky that Russia was preparing to invade. The fact that Zelensky chose to ignore them shows me that he is a fool.

Putin very much relied on it, he can't afford a protracted attritional struggle. He needs a relatively swift victory with relatively few losses on both sides and to forestall the entry of volunteers from the rest of the world. He also wants as much of the Ukraine intact as possible so it can feed directly into the Russian Economy.

Again Putin only needs to fool one person: Zelensky

Putin only needs to beat one entity: The Ukrainian Army

All else is irrelevant and twitter trolls will be twitter trolls and thus irrelevant.

That's rather vulgar and really does you no favors in this discussion. It's not like this forum is cheering Zelensky on.

No less true despite being vulgar.

 

[sillygoose]

Sadly the US military officials' proclamations on the war are little more than propaganda until proven otherwise.

 

[ATP]

It bodes ill for any people or nation when frank acknowledgement of an opponent's superior position is treated like this. Slandering the messenger does not change the truth of the situation.


Nuclear deterrence is literally the single most important reason for this invasion. Permitting NATO to put ABM tech in Ukraine creates the possibility that NATO warmongers start thinking they can get away with acts of war and escape MAD with their missiles. Our leaders are narcissistic morons and diversity hires, and the whole planet knows it including Putin, he can't risk letting them think MAD doesn't exist, whether or not it does, because they are warmongering idiots who might just roll the dice.

If Russia has to launch, everyone loses including Russia. The winning moves are the ones that keep things from getting there.

NATO warmongers? really? Historically,NATO always planned defense of their countries,only country which planned invasion was always soviets,and now KGBstan.
And you first say,that west leaders are narcissist morons,and then they would attack? really? narcist do not attack others,they are focused on their own greatnest.

If you truly belive,that Putin feared NATO starting war and use H bombs,then you must take him for idiot.
And he is not idiot,becouse KGB take only intelligient psychos,not dumb ones.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

There is a lack of discussion about traps and shotguns here.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

NATO warmongers? really? Historically,NATO always planned defense of their countries,only country which planned invasion was always soviets,and now KGBstan.
And you first say,that west leaders are narcissist morons,and then they would attack? really? narcist do not attack others,they are focused on their own greatnest.

If you truly belive,that Putin feared NATO starting war and use H bombs,then you must take him for idiot.
And he is not idiot,becouse KGB take only intelligient psychos,not dumb ones.

I think that Putin feared NATO being fatheaded enough to engage in acts of war against Russia with the expectation that ABM tech could thwart a nuclear response. The concern is not that NATO launches, but that they think themselves free from threat of reprisal.

Historically, NATO has spent the last sixty years slaughtering people far from NATO countries, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Our armed forces aren't the worst though, it's our intelligence apparatuses that walk the Primrose Path. Our spooks incite rebellion and create wars, even in countries that tried to maintain relations with us. Ex: Egypt 2011, Ukraine 2014.

 

[StormEagle]

The western nations decision to weaponize SWIFT against Russia strikes me as potentially dangerous to western hegemony over the financial sector of the world economy and may have been a very short sighted move.

I think many nations are now looking at the system with wary eyes, many perhaps wondering “when will we be next?”.

I think we may soon see a parallel system to SWIFT pop up. I believe the Russians had already begun building something like it, and perhaps other nations will begin doing likewise.

 

[Battlegrinder]

It bodes ill for any people or nation when frank acknowledgement of an opponent's superior position is treated like this. Slandering the messenger does not change the truth of the situation.

What superior position? Russia's GDP is on par with the notable military powerhouse of Italy, and has consistently struggled to modernize it's military to keep pace with the West, and what upgrades they have doen seem to be less than effective, given how they're taking ages to beat down an even weaker 2nd rate military using equipment Russia has extensive knowledge of.

And that's with the partial advantage of surprise, which would have been a non-advance if Ukraine had believed the US when we warned them weeks in advance of Russia's plans, plans we knew about weeks in advance because we are miles ahead of them in intelligence, something you might have gathered from Putin's various other intel ops going south, such as the clownishly incompetent assassination attempt his guys tried to pull of in the UK a few years back.

As for the other points of Putin's alleged geopolitical brilliance, let's take a tally.
He knocked over a couple of unstable and badly equipped ex-soviet republics, while taking significantly higher loses than the US has in it's various conflicts with equally outdated military forces.
He managed to get a pro-kremlin puppet installed in Ukraine, only to see said puppet get booted back out of office almost immediately (US backed coup or not, it's a bad showing for this alleged mastermind to be thwarted immediately)
When the Syrian civil war broke out, he promptly ran to Assad's aid, and a decade later he still hasn't sorted that out, despite facing a divided opposition and with multi allies of his own also propping up Assad.
And now we get to Ukraine, where his military logistics feel apart within a week of fighting and the army has resorted to stealing civilian vehicles to try and patch together their logistics system, which somehow couldn't hold up to them making slower progress than expected, the army drowned a bunch of thier paratroopers in the ocean, and the west has confirmed that all of his army's shiny "upgraded" tanks are worthless garbage that's totally outclassed by 2nd rate anti-tank weapon systems.

If he manages to pull of a conquest, he will have successfully obtained a bunch of resources he already in abundance, at the cost of any way to actually use those resources, an alienated, increasingly hostile West looking to further marginalize him.

Nuclear deterrence is literally the single most important reason for this invasion. Permitting NATO to put ABM tech in Ukraine creates the possibility that NATO warmongers start thinking they can get away with acts of war and escape MAD with their missiles.

Explain why ABM tech in Ukraine would allow that, but the same tech in Poland (and in the near future, Finland) wouldn't. Since you apparently have some expertise in the operation and capabilities of ABM system.

Our leaders are narcissistic morons and diversity hires, and the whole planet knows it including Putin, he can't risk letting them think MAD doesn't exist, whether or not it does, because they are warmongering idiots who might just roll the dice.

Our leaders are narcissist's, as opposed to Mr "Hey everyone, look how ultra macho and shirtless and totally awesome I am". Right.

As for "warmongers", Putin is doing this as Europe was once again refusing to actually spend as much money on defense as the NATO charter demands them to despite Trump begging them to do it for years, while Biden retreats from a war at an irresponsibly and disastrously pace, the US defense establishment has been spending years trying to pivot away from Europe and the middle east, and in it's decades of existance NATO has never wanted or attempted a first strike against Russia, which he darn well knows.

Even guys like Glenn Greenwald, who insist the US is warmongering state, very clearly state that we're a warmongering state that wants to pick fights with grossly ill-equipped, outclassed powers that have no way of fighting back, which Russia isn't (or at least wasn't, not until this lastest misadventure where we found out Javelin missiles can blast T-90 tanks in half without issue).

If Russia has to launch, everyone loses including Russia. The winning moves are the ones that keep things from getting there.

Ok, so your theory is that having a habit of making unprovoked attacks against neighboring countries and being an obvious threat will make NATO less likely to try and crush Russia like a bug the second they have the chance, but not attacking and conquering other countries means NATO, the defensive alliance that has never intended to launch any sort of first strike, makes them more likely to start a massive war with you, an armed nuclear power, for no reason.

Right.

 

[WolfBear]

Sadly the US military officials' proclamations on the war are little more than propaganda until proven otherwise.

Which countries in very recent history have managed to aggressively fight for their independence other than both Iraq and Ukraine? It's a very random question but still I feel like it's one that should be asked in light of current developments in Ukraine.

Countries like Israel obviously fought for their survival, but a long time ago rather than recently and thus don't count for this.

 

[Floridaman]

The western nations decision to weaponize SWIFT against Russia strikes me as potentially dangerous to western hegemony over the financial sector of the world economy and may have been a very short sighted move.

I think many nations are now looking at the system with wary eyes, many perhaps wondering “when will we be next?”.

I think we may soon see a parallel system to SWIFT pop up. I believe the Russians had already begun building something like it, and perhaps other nations will begin doing likewise.

Them and the Chinese both have alternatives, and this will just force them to use those which id very much something we don't want.

 

[sillygoose]

Which countries in very recent history have managed to aggressively fight for their independence other than both Iraq and Ukraine? It's a very random question but still I feel like it's one that should be asked in light of current developments in Ukraine.

Countries like Israel obviously fought for their survival, but a long time ago rather than recently and thus don't count for this.

Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, and various other countries in smaller wars.

 

[strunkenwhite]

The western nations decision to weaponize SWIFT against Russia strikes me as potentially dangerous to western hegemony over the financial sector of the world economy and may have been a very short sighted move.

I think many nations are now looking at the system with wary eyes, many perhaps wondering “when will we be next?”.

I think we may soon see a parallel system to SWIFT pop up. I believe the Russians had already begun building something like it, and perhaps other nations will begin doing likewise.

I suppose this could be the straw that breaks the back of some camel or other, but a straw is what it is—a twig at most.

You can go into foreign countries that don't particularly like you and assassinate defectors, and no one will even think of mentioning SWIFT in the list of possible sanctions.
You can annex a strategically critical area your neighbor was letting you share the use of, and prop up separatist movements in other regions of that same neighbor, and SWIFT will be fine.
When those separatist movements are in danger of being overrun, you can supplement their forces with your own military and SWIFT will be fine.
When the target of these actions fails to give in after a decade, if you launch a full scale invasion of their entire country, then your participation in SWIFT is in trouble.

 

[prinCZess]

I think many nations are now looking at the system with wary eyes, many perhaps wondering “when will we be next?”.

A whole lot of pretty heinous stuff has gone down in a lot of countries with SWIFT removal never being a thought.

Larger issue is probably the lesson being demonstrated of how giving up nukes for promises of territorial integrity from three of the big boys on the security council is worth jack and diddly, incentivizing the acquisition of nuclear weapons even more (something more supported by prior events of the last two decades...America's Iraq yeet and the Libyan intervention by Europe and Friends prominent among those alongside of Russia's march(es) into Ukraine).

 

[Wargamer08]

Russia 'is planning to stage public executions in Ukraine to shatter morale'

Leaked documents reportedly show Russia's Federal Security Service has drawn up plans to begin public executions in fallen Ukrainian cities in a bid to break morale

www.mirror.co.uk

I mean, the USA has drawn up plans for an invasion of Canada. They are even updated every so often. Let's wait until at least the Ukrainian propaganda press talks about executions before accusing the Russians of something.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

The frightening scenario is that if the Budjak area is taken, that puts Russia within the range of not only Moldova, but Romania and Bulgaria as well.