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

[strunkenwhite]

Regarding blame, I can see "also" in that eventuality; I can't see "instead".

 

[Captain X]

Why the fuck does the west seem to want WW3?

I mean really, you do wonder if Putin is going to have to nuke Berlin before the west gets it through their thick skulls that Russia actually does see Ukraine as an existential issue and a red line that they are prepared to go all the way for.

"Nope, we shall just declare unlimited economic warfare against everything Russian. And we shall give Ukraine unlimited free weapons shipments. And we shall talk about actively providing military forces to fight in Ukraine (that is what a no fly zone is). But we aren't at war with Russia. And if Russia kills any of our people who decide to go into an active war zone to deliver weapons to one of the sides of the conflict, that will be Russia declaring war on NATO."

If this fiasco in Ukraine turns into WW3, the party responsible isn't Putin. It is NATO and the western leaders.

I can't agree with that view. To me, this is on Russia for starting this fight to begin with, and then continuing to escalate it further. Putin has been threatening nukes from the beginning. No, if there's a world war, it will be on him.

 

[bintananth]

Why the fuck does the west seem to want WW3?

Because our "leaders" are idiots. No one wins when nukes fly.

The US got away with using two nukes in '45 because the Japanese could not retaliate and the alternative was deemed to be far worse.

 

[Bacle]

I can't agree with that view. To me, this is on Russia for starting this fight to begin with, and then continuing to escalate it further. Putin has been threatening nukes from the beginning. No, if there's a world war, it will be on him.

Do you not get that the US was fucking around with Ukraine for years, even before the Maidan, when we knew Russia sees Ukraine as a red line in a lot of ways?

Putin should not have invaded now, or invaded Crimea years ago; that does not change that Western leaders got arrogant and cocky after the USSR collapsed, and felt they could use this as an oppurtunity to screw Russia even more, while poisoning the well with Russia when we invaded Iraq on a bunch of lies.

Sure, there is also the new oil deposits found in Ukraine to factor in as well; but pretending we could just push Russia around forever more and ignore their situation because 'lol, Russia is a paper tiger mived with a gas station' once the USSR collapsed was folly of the highest order.

 

[Scottty]

Why the fuck does the west seem to want WW3?

Let's power up the old theory-brainstormer...

Theory 1: Clownworld is out of touch with reality. They've gotten so used to using the American military to bully Third-World countries that they think they can treat the Russian Federation the same way. Contrary information just gets filtered out, as it does not fit their worldview.

Theory 2: They actually do want WW3, and not because they think they can win it. MAD is their actual goal.
There's range of possible motives for this.

Theory 3: It's all staged and run according to a behind-the-scenes conspiracy. ATP seems to believe this. I think it requires too much trust between Moscow and Washington DC to make any sense at all.

Some good news though; apparently Chernobyl is back on the grid and there were no cooling failures.

I'm surprised that Chernobyl is still in operation at all. I thought it was all shut down and cleared out.

 

[Scottty]

Meanwhile...
Francis Fukuyama is sticking his neck out.

Preparing for Defeat

I’m writing this from Skopje, North Macedonia, where I’ve been for the last week teaching one of our Leadership Academy for Development [https://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/lad/events] courses. Following the Ukraine war is no different here in terms of available information, except that I’m in

www.americanpurpose.com

Copium for some of you, some eye-rolling and chuckling for others...

I’ll stick my neck out and make several prognostications:

1. Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. Russian planning was incompetent, based on a flawed assumption that Ukrainians were favorable to Russia and that their military would collapse immediately following an invasion. Russian soldiers were evidently carrying dress uniforms for their victory parade in Kyiv rather than extra ammo and rations. Putin at this point has committed the bulk of his entire military to this operation—there are no vast reserves of forces he can call up to add to the battle. Russian troops are stuck outside various Ukrainian cities where they face huge supply problems and constant Ukrainian attacks.
2. The collapse of their position could be sudden and catastrophic, rather than happening slowly through a war of attrition. The army in the field will reach a point where it can neither be supplied nor withdrawn, and morale will vaporize. This is at least true in the north; the Russians are doing better in the south, but those positions would be hard to maintain if the north collapses.
3. There is no diplomatic solution to the war possible prior to this happening. There is no conceivable compromise that would be acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine given the losses they have taken at this point.
4. The United Nations Security Council has proven once again to be useless. The only helpful thing was the General Assembly vote, which helps to identify the world’s bad or prevaricating actors.
5. The Biden administration’s decisions not to declare a no-fly zone or help transfer Polish MiGs were both good ones; they've kept their heads during a very emotional time. It is much better to have the Ukrainians defeat the Russians on their own, depriving Moscow of the excuse that NATO attacked them, as well as avoiding all the obvious escalatory possibilities. The Polish MiGs in particular would not add much to Ukrainian capabilities. Much more important is a continuing supply of Javelins, Stingers, TB2s, medical supplies, comms equipment, and intel sharing. I assume that Ukrainian forces are already being vectored by NATO intelligence operating from outside Ukraine.
6. The cost that Ukraine is paying is enormous, of course. But the greatest damage is being done by rockets and artillery, which neither MiGs nor a no-fly zone can do much about. The only thing that will stop the slaughter is defeat of the Russian army on the ground.
7. Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power?
8. The invasion has already done huge damage to populists all over the world, who prior to the attack uniformly expressed sympathy for Putin. That includes Matteo Salvini, Jair Bolsonaro, Éric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, and of course Donald Trump. The politics of the war has exposed their openly authoritarian leanings.
9. The war to this point has been a good lesson for China. Like Russia, China has built up seemingly high-tech military forces in the past decade, but they have no combat experience. The miserable performance of the Russian air force would likely be replicated by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, which similarly has no experience managing complex air operations. We may hope that the Chinese leadership will not delude itself as to its own capabilities the way the Russians did when contemplating a future move against Taiwan.
10. Hopefully Taiwan itself will wake up as to the need to prepare to fight as the Ukrainians have done, and restore conscription. Let’s not be prematurely defeatist.
11. Turkish drones will become bestsellers.
12. A Russian defeat will make possible a “new birth of freedom,” and get us out of our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Any in depth discussion is probably best sent to one of the spinoff threads, but ...

A Russian defeat will make possible a “new birth of freedom,” and get us out of our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.

lolwut

 

[ATP]

I just discovered,that group of jews from Izrael lead by Harry Ber-kun planned to create jewish state on Ukraine near Odessa,called "Heavenly Jerusalem" or something like that.
Did anybody here knew something about that? @GoldRanger ,maybe you knew ?

 

[Terthna]

Meanwhile...
Francis Fukuyama is sticking his neck out.

Preparing for Defeat

I’m writing this from Skopje, North Macedonia, where I’ve been for the last week teaching one of our Leadership Academy for Development [https://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/lad/events] courses. Following the Ukraine war is no different here in terms of available information, except that I’m in

www.americanpurpose.com

Copium for some of you, some eye-rolling and chuckling for others...

Anyone who takes anything that idiot says seriously must be truly desperate to find someone willing to tell them what they want to hear.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Le sigh. Once again an analyst fails to think things through.

Let's say that Ukraine somehow does actually straight up win. That they halt the Russian military, get mass surrenders, and retake most/all of the territory that Russia grabbed this time around.

Now what are the consequences of that? The sanctions on Russia are still going to be there so long as anyone associated with the current government is still in power and Russia isn't willing to go and bend the knee to the west and beg for scraps from its table.

Russia still remains the world's second most capable nuclear power. It still retains one of the world's three most capable intelligence forces. It still remains one of the worlds largest energy and agricultural producers. It still remains critical to the supply of a long litany of critical resources that aren't exactly trivial to replace.

And now you add in what would be one of the most abject humiliations any nation has ever suffered and a governmental collapse on top.

Where is Russia's out? How is it going to save face?

Because if there isn't one? Then you are going to see Russia become North Korea. Except North Korea with effectively limitless natural resources, a full blown nuclear arsenal, one of the worlds better space programs (as insulting as that is), and NOTHING to lose.

I mean, right now, what does NATO do if Putin decides to nuke Kiev along with issuing the public, explicit, threat that if any NATO forces violate the claimed territory of Russia or its allies then the immediate response will be nuking NATO capitals?

This is a Putin who has just nuked one nation's capital because he was facing military defeat. The threat must be honored. And yet the consequences of honoring it?

What about when China takes the lesson to heart and says that it is moving on Taiwan and if the US or anyone else attempts to interfere then the offenders cities will be nuked? Yes, the economic damage to China would be orders of magnitude worse than what has happened to Russia, but the PRC would still have the territory.

Major powers just straight up saying to the world, and especially the US "Yeah, we can't stop you in a conventional fight so we aren't going to try. If you interfere, we nuke DC and damn the consequences."

----
Russia losing isn't a land of peace and love and winning lotto tickets for everyone. It's a world far more dangerous than the one where Russia wins.

Because Russia winning in Ukraine? Being brutally honest, that doesn't actually change anything or truly alter any of the balance of power calculations globally. Ukraine isn't a NATO member, the US failing to defend it doesn't impact US security guarantees. Ukraine is a third rate (at best) power that only has real global relevance because of its position and relationship with Russia. Ukraine as a Russian puppet state sucks for the Ukrainians, but the damage it does to everyone else is basically self inflicted. Poland and Romania lose a buffer territory, but that's about it.

And in real politic terms, excusing a failure to act on NATO's part is easy. "Yeah, we deplore what Russia has done. But Russia has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and Ukraine isn't a NATO member. Just like Russia is aware that to cross into the territory of a NATO member risks WW3 and its own nuclear antihalation, we in NATO are aware that Russia is prepared to escalate as far as it needs to in this case and we aren't willing to fight WW3 over Ukraine." The only people who would bitch and not understand are the woke lefty idiots in the western nations. Everyone else would take one look and go "Yeah, NATO not being willing to risk their cities over Ukraine makes sense. This is a reminder to remember to think before really pissing off a major power."

 

[Terthna]

Le sigh. Once again an analyst fails to think things through.

It's Francis Fukuyama; the man built his career on cheerleading the establishment for decades. More recently, he spent all of Trump's term in office calling him and everyone who supported him a threat to democracy, and continues to do so to this day. That's not an "analyst" you'd ever expect to be thinking things through, as opposed to just saying what his audience wants to hear.

 

[ATP]

Le sigh. Once again an analyst fails to think things through.

Let's say that Ukraine somehow does actually straight up win. That they halt the Russian military, get mass surrenders, and retake most/all of the territory that Russia grabbed this time around.

Now what are the consequences of that? The sanctions on Russia are still going to be there so long as anyone associated with the current government is still in power and Russia isn't willing to go and bend the knee to the west and beg for scraps from its table.

Russia still remains the world's second most capable nuclear power. It still retains one of the world's three most capable intelligence forces. It still remains one of the worlds largest energy and agricultural producers. It still remains critical to the supply of a long litany of critical resources that aren't exactly trivial to replace.

And now you add in what would be one of the most abject humiliations any nation has ever suffered and a governmental collapse on top.

Where is Russia's out? How is it going to save face?

Because if there isn't one? Then you are going to see Russia become North Korea. Except North Korea with effectively limitless natural resources, a full blown nuclear arsenal, one of the worlds better space programs (as insulting as that is), and NOTHING to lose.

I mean, right now, what does NATO do if Putin decides to nuke Kiev along with issuing the public, explicit, threat that if any NATO forces violate the claimed territory of Russia or its allies then the immediate response will be nuking NATO capitals?

This is a Putin who has just nuked one nation's capital because he was facing military defeat. The threat must be honored. And yet the consequences of honoring it?

What about when China takes the lesson to heart and says that it is moving on Taiwan and if the US or anyone else attempts to interfere then the offenders cities will be nuked? Yes, the economic damage to China would be orders of magnitude worse than what has happened to Russia, but the PRC would still have the territory.

Major powers just straight up saying to the world, and especially the US "Yeah, we can't stop you in a conventional fight so we aren't going to try. If you interfere, we nuke DC and damn the consequences."

----
Russia losing isn't a land of peace and love and winning lotto tickets for everyone. It's a world far more dangerous than the one where Russia wins.

Because Russia winning in Ukraine? Being brutally honest, that doesn't actually change anything or truly alter any of the balance of power calculations globally. Ukraine isn't a NATO member, the US failing to defend it doesn't impact US security guarantees. Ukraine is a third rate (at best) power that only has real global relevance because of its position and relationship with Russia. Ukraine as a Russian puppet state sucks for the Ukrainians, but the damage it does to everyone else is basically self inflicted. Poland and Romania lose a buffer territory, but that's about it.

And in real politic terms, excusing a failure to act on NATO's part is easy. "Yeah, we deplore what Russia has done. But Russia has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and Ukraine isn't a NATO member. Just like Russia is aware that to cross into the territory of a NATO member risks WW3 and its own nuclear antihalation, we in NATO are aware that Russia is prepared to escalate as far as it needs to in this case and we aren't willing to fight WW3 over Ukraine." The only people who would bitch and not understand are the woke lefty idiots in the western nations. Everyone else would take one look and go "Yeah, NATO not being willing to risk their cities over Ukraine makes sense. This is a reminder to remember to think before really pissing off a major power."

If Fukuyama say,that Ukraine win,that means,that they lost.

But Russia lost long ago,when Putin blow up 311 russians in 1999 to start genociding Czeczenya.Now it is KGBstan,which,of course,would take Kiev on mountain of russian corpses.

Just like planned,when he made deal with Biden handlers - they got their distraction,he got Ukraine and purget russian army,which do not even think about coup now.

So,do not be frightened,KGBstan would not fall.

 

[bintananth]

If Fukuyama say,that Ukraine win,that means,that they lost.

But Russia lost long ago,when Putin blow up 311 russians in 1999 to start genociding Czeczenya.Now it is KGBstan,which,of course,would take Kiev on mountain of russian corpses.

Just like planned,when he made deal with Biden handlers - they got their distraction,he got Ukraine and purget russian army,which do not even think about coup now.

So,do not be frightened,KGBstan would not fall.

Russia lost long before they fired the first shot. The increase in the US military budget from 2021 to 2022 is ... about half of Russia's military budget.

The US will spend about $780bn on our miltary. That's more than half of Australia's GDP all by itself.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Kyiv, Moscow say talks could yield results in days – DW – 03/13/2022

Russia and Ukraine have both signaled progress in cease-fire talks despite the ongoing violence. Moscow said it had targeted "foreign mercenaries" in a rocket attack which hit western Ukraine.

www.dw.com

I saw pictures of the journalist being dead with his id photo on display.

I can't believe I have to ask this. BUT. Did the journalist's face match the ID or was it just a picture of the ID?

 

[Arch Dornan]

I can't believe I have to ask this. BUT. Did the journalist's face match the ID or was it just a picture of the ID?

I saw the bottom half of his face with his body.

The rest on separate display was his American passport and his press ID.

I'll PM you the link.

 

[JagerIV]

Le sigh. Once again an analyst fails to think things through.

Let's say that Ukraine somehow does actually straight up win. That they halt the Russian military, get mass surrenders, and retake most/all of the territory that Russia grabbed this time around.

Now what are the consequences of that? The sanctions on Russia are still going to be there so long as anyone associated with the current government is still in power and Russia isn't willing to go and bend the knee to the west and beg for scraps from its table.

Russia still remains the world's second most capable nuclear power. It still retains one of the world's three most capable intelligence forces. It still remains one of the worlds largest energy and agricultural producers. It still remains critical to the supply of a long litany of critical resources that aren't exactly trivial to replace.

And now you add in what would be one of the most abject humiliations any nation has ever suffered and a governmental collapse on top.

Where is Russia's out? How is it going to save face?

Because if there isn't one? Then you are going to see Russia become North Korea. Except North Korea with effectively limitless natural resources, a full blown nuclear arsenal, one of the worlds better space programs (as insulting as that is), and NOTHING to lose.

I mean, right now, what does NATO do if Putin decides to nuke Kiev along with issuing the public, explicit, threat that if any NATO forces violate the claimed territory of Russia or its allies then the immediate response will be nuking NATO capitals?

This is a Putin who has just nuked one nation's capital because he was facing military defeat. The threat must be honored. And yet the consequences of honoring it?

What about when China takes the lesson to heart and says that it is moving on Taiwan and if the US or anyone else attempts to interfere then the offenders cities will be nuked? Yes, the economic damage to China would be orders of magnitude worse than what has happened to Russia, but the PRC would still have the territory.

Major powers just straight up saying to the world, and especially the US "Yeah, we can't stop you in a conventional fight so we aren't going to try. If you interfere, we nuke DC and damn the consequences."

----
Russia losing isn't a land of peace and love and winning lotto tickets for everyone. It's a world far more dangerous than the one where Russia wins.

Because Russia winning in Ukraine? Being brutally honest, that doesn't actually change anything or truly alter any of the balance of power calculations globally. Ukraine isn't a NATO member, the US failing to defend it doesn't impact US security guarantees. Ukraine is a third rate (at best) power that only has real global relevance because of its position and relationship with Russia. Ukraine as a Russian puppet state sucks for the Ukrainians, but the damage it does to everyone else is basically self inflicted. Poland and Romania lose a buffer territory, but that's about it.

And in real politic terms, excusing a failure to act on NATO's part is easy. "Yeah, we deplore what Russia has done. But Russia has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and Ukraine isn't a NATO member. Just like Russia is aware that to cross into the territory of a NATO member risks WW3 and its own nuclear antihalation, we in NATO are aware that Russia is prepared to escalate as far as it needs to in this case and we aren't willing to fight WW3 over Ukraine." The only people who would bitch and not understand are the woke lefty idiots in the western nations. Everyone else would take one look and go "Yeah, NATO not being willing to risk their cities over Ukraine makes sense. This is a reminder to remember to think before really pissing off a major power."

If Russia loses this initial round, what probably happens is what Russia normally does in these situations: rebuild its army and try again. Conscripts apparently go through 3 months of basic training, then 3 months of "advanced" training. About 250,000 new conscripts brought in per year out of a pool of about 1.2 million. If they switched conscription terms to "length of war", then over 4 years they could build up to the 1 million ish soldiers more appropriate for the scale of the war, and the size of force more appropriate to actually occupy somewhere like Ukraine.

They are definitely trying to fight this war on the relatively cheap and quick, but if they're willing to commit to the long war of 2-4 years, which is not an unreasonably length of war over an area the size, then they can win.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I can't believe I have to ask this. BUT. Did the journalist's face match the ID or was it just a picture of the ID?

I saw the bottom half of his face with his body.

The rest on separate display was his American passport and his press ID.

I'll PM you the link.

PM image seems like a match. This is... unfortunate.

 

[Zachowon]

We civies tell you what the mission is and restrict what you're allowed to do.

No.
My missionis dictatedby FORSCOM.

No the cities decide who your enemies are. Tell me Zach right now Saudi Arabia is an ally right? if the president and congress decide however to perform a police action because of political and economic issues with oil and replace the current king you would obey the order and draw up plans for a invasion of Saudi Arabia yes? Unless you are saying that you would coup the president.

You dobknow us saying no isn't a coup right?
We are literally given that ability in our contracts.

 

[posh-goofiness]

@bintananth I think you're confusing the micro vs the macro decision making here. @Zachowon Is playing dumb about it as usual, though.

 

[bintananth]

No.
My missionis dictatedby FORSCOM.

If FORSCOM isn't doing the lawful thing the civies in charge tells them to tell you to do you have illegal orders and an obligation to say no.

If you don't "just following orders" didn't work for Henry Wirz in 1865 and it won't work for you.

EDIT: @posh-goofiness I wasn't confused about macro v. micro