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

[BlackDragon98]

This is my favorite kind of copenick post. "WHY WON'T THE UKRAINIANS JUST SURRENDER? WHY WON'T THEY COME OUT OF THEIR CITIES AND STAND IN AN OPEN FIELD SO WE CAN BLOW THEM UP EASILY? WHY ARE THEY ACTUALLY FIGHTING FOR THEIR HOMELAND? WHY AREN'T THEY SURRENDERING EVEN WHEN WE MASSACRE THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN TO PUNISH THEM!?!?!?!?! IT'S NOT FAAAAIR!"

Ukrainian officer: "Steiner isn't attacking, Mein Fuhrer . . ."

Zelensky: "NEINNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!"

Fitting, considering the number of Nazis and fascists the ukrops have amongst their ranks.

 

[Agent23]

You do know that it took 8 years to invade ?

Yup, and the US Swamp was yapping about invasion "any day now" for most of that time.
In between wonderful videos like this one:



Now imagine somebody influential like this, but from Russia, going to Mexico and telling them that they believe in "Greater Aztlan", right after the Russian foreign ministry and Russian and Chinese NGOs help put a pro-Eurasian president at the helm of that country.
Human garbage like these politicians, and glorified, uniformed, incompetent and brainwashed welfarequeens like Mr. toilet cleaner helmet are to blame for this mess, for the undemocratic coup in 2014 and for the murder of over 16 000 people in Donbass, Odessa, and all over the Russian areas of Ukraine.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

The 13 were actually real.
They didn't die though.


And what yappend to the Russians this time around huh?
You donknow the Russians have still lost more of thier armed forces in a month then the US in 20 years...

Because Russia isnt fighting goat herders launching hit and run raids, but a high intensity conventional proxy war with NATO.

 

[Abhorsen]

So yeah, much more than anything we theoretically could have ever extracted from the REM and drugs. Unless there were strategic reasons to be there, like supplying the Uyghur resistance to destabilize China:

Yeah, no, there is no real Uyghur resistance, and that's in no way why anyone was there. Like to believe this, first you'd have believe the bullshit excuse China is giving to cover up mass rapes, organ harvesting, and genocide. Then you'd have to believe in time travel that we decided to do this at least a decade before Uyghur persecution. Then you'd have to come to the conclusion that the Uyghur crackdown is actually destabilizing China (which it isn't). And finally, you'd have to come to the conclusion that an unstable Afghanistan is going to support Uyghurs in China when there are only about 2k in all of Afghanistan.

When they do something that America hasn't already done in the past few decades, several times over. We set the bar for acceptable behavior on the international stage; and Russia's actions in Ukraine, even if every piece of propaganda coming out of Zelensky's government were true, are things that everyone ultimately turned a blind eye to when we did it.

No, it really isn't. What America has done in regards to war is bad. I'm not denying that. But Putin's invasions are (internationally speaking) worse. He is invading to seize territory, which has been established since the end of WW2 as beyond the pale internationally (look, I'm not defending that being a good line, but it is definitely a line that has been established, like it or not). Regime change wars is what we legitimized, not this.

Also, geopolitics is the art of hypocrisy where only might makes right. Quite simply, we are finding out that Russia doesn't have the might, economically or militarily, to do what it wants. The economic bit isn't a surprise, but the military part is. So ultimately, none of "Oh, the US is being hypocrtical" matters at all, ever, to anyone important.

To be clear, I'm not making a moral statement here, I'm just saying how the world works.

 

[Terthna]

No, it really isn't. What America has done in regards to war is bad. I'm not denying that. But Putin's invasions are (internationally speaking) worse. He is invading to seize territory, which has been established since the end of WW2 as beyond the pale internationally (look, I'm not defending that being a good line, but it is definitely a line that has been established, like it or not). Regime change wars is what we legitimized, not this.

The invasion isn't over yet; we still don't know for certain what Putin intends to do after Russia conquers Ukraine. If he doesn't absorb the country, and instead tries to install a puppet government, he'd just be emulating what we attempted to do in Afganistan and Iraq (though I would assume with the intention of doing a better job of it than we did).

Also, geopolitics is the art of hypocrisy where only might makes right. Quite simply, we are finding out that Russia doesn't have the might, economically or militarily, to do what it wants. The economic bit isn't a surprise, but the military part is. So ultimately, none of "Oh, the US is being hypocrtical" matters at all, ever, to anyone important.

To be clear, I'm not making a moral statement here, I'm just saying how the world works.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't count Russia out just yet; militarily speaking, we're still years away from being able to see the whole picture of what's actually going on with the invasion (I personally don't trust anything anyone says about about it right now), and as for their economy? If anything the west's pitiful, half-hearted attempts at sanctioning Russia has shown that their economy is surprisingly robust. I mean demographically, they're still screwed; but for now they seem to be in a better position to endure the inevitable than almost all of Europe.

 

[Bacle]

So looks like Don Lemon was using a green screen and stock footage; notice the firefighter with the jacket that says Edmonton on it.

 

[ParadiseLost]

So looks like Don Lemon was using a green screen and stock footage; notice the firefighter with the jacket that says Edmonton on it.

Probable fake, people have been posting fake images from CNN regarding the Ukraine war for a while. If CNN was faking Ukraine footage it wouldn't be nearly that obvious. They're evil, not stupid.

CNN is scum but you shouldn't believe anything you see on Twitter, regarding either friends or enemies.

 

[Abhorsen]

The invasion isn't over yet; we still don't know for certain what Putin intends to do after Russia conquers Ukraine. If he doesn't absorb the country, and instead tries to install a puppet government, he'd just be emulating what we attempted to do in Afganistan and Iraq (though I would assume with the intention of doing a better job of it than we did).

So first, no one had a problem with the Afghanistan war. It's important to realize that was defensive in nature, had we left them alone, they would have kept sending terrorists at us. It's one of the few wars I've been in favor of in US history. Now, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lybia? Whole 'nother story.

And second, he's already absorbed part of the country with Donbass et al and especially Crimea. So even in the case of a puppet, he's gonna grab some extra as well.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't count Russia out just yet; militarily speaking, we're still years away from being able to see the whole picture of what's actually going on with the invasion (I personally don't trust anything anyone says about about it right now), and as for their economy? If anything the west's pitiful, half-hearted attempts at sanctioning Russia has shown that their economy is surprisingly robust. I mean demographically, they're still screwed; but for now they seem to be in a better position to endure the inevitable than almost all of Europe.

When I said they didn't have the might militarily, I mean that has already been established. Basically, if they wanted to get away with this on the international scale they either needed enough of an economy that you can't afford to piss them off economically (given the amount of sanctions, that's a no), or enough of a military to win faster than the sanctions by presenting the world with a fiat accompli (like what they did in 2014, where they really didn't get punished much). Even when they probably win in Ukraine (my money's still on them after a long slow victory), they already didn't do it fast enough. And before someone says that's an unrealistic time table: a) the US could get Kyiv in maybe a week or two it if it was neighboring Ukraine with Belarus' help, and b) this isn't about what's possible, but what they needed to do to succeed, so if it isn't possible, they shouldn't have tried.

 

[Agent23]

The invasion isn't over yet; we still don't know for certain what Putin intends to do after Russia conquers Ukraine. If he doesn't absorb the country, and instead tries to install a puppet government, he'd just be emulating what we attempted to do in Afganistan and Iraq (though I would assume with the intention of doing a better job of it than we did).

With the minor caveat that Afghanistan and Iraq were:
Never part of the USA historically.
Did not have sizable American minorities which they were suppressing.
Are not within spitting distance of New York and Washington and a good launching pad for nuclear missiles and troops.

 

[Terthna]

So first, no one had a problem with the Afghanistan war. It's important to realize that was defensive in nature, had we left them alone, they would have kept sending terrorists at us. It's one of the few wars I've been in favor of in US history. Now, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lybia? Whole 'nother story.

It started out defensive in nature, but then we stayed for two decades and sent our people over there to die for absolutely no reason.

And second, he's already absorbed part of the country with Donbass et al and especially Crimea. So even in the case of a puppet, he's gonna grab some extra as well.

He only absorbed Crimea; and the fact that he didn't also absorb the Donbass region is why I think it's possible he might go the route of creating a puppet state in Ukraine.

When I said they didn't have the might militarily, I mean that has already been established. Basically, if they wanted to get away with this on the international scale they either needed enough of an economy that you can't afford to piss them off economically (given the amount of sanctions, that's a no), or enough of a military to win faster than the sanctions by presenting the world with a fiat accompli (like what they did in 2014, where they really didn't get punished much). Even when they probably win in Ukraine (my money's still on them after a long slow victory), they already didn't do it fast enough. And before someone says that's an unrealistic time table: a) the US could get Kyiv in maybe a week or two it if it was neighboring Ukraine with Belarus' help, and b) this isn't about what's possible, but what they needed to do to succeed, so if it isn't possible, they shouldn't have tried.

The United States military couldn't conquer a ham sandwich at this point, even if you gave them a millennia to do it; we may have the equipment and the training, but our leadership is complete garbage, as the Afghanistan withdrawal clearly illustrated. Also the sanctions don't seem to be hurting Russia nearly as much as people are insisting they are; their recent move to demand payment in Rubles for their natural gas has apparently undone much of the damage.

 

[sillygoose]

Yeah, no, there is no real Uyghur resistance, and that's in no way why anyone was there. Like to believe this, first you'd have believe the bullshit excuse China is giving to cover up mass rapes, organ harvesting, and genocide. Then you'd have to believe in time travel that we decided to do this at least a decade before Uyghur persecution. Then you'd have to come to the conclusion that the Uyghur crackdown is actually destabilizing China (which it isn't). And finally, you'd have to come to the conclusion that an unstable Afghanistan is going to support Uyghurs in China when there are only about 2k in all of Afghanistan.

You know that how?
Your TL is way off BTW. The Uyghur repressions started ~2014 and the US conquered Afghanistan in 2002. So plenty of time to fund resistance activities out of Afghanistan.

No, it really isn't. What America has done in regards to war is bad. I'm not denying that. But Putin's invasions are (internationally speaking) worse. He is invading to seize territory, which has been established since the end of WW2 as beyond the pale internationally (look, I'm not defending that being a good line, but it is definitely a line that has been established, like it or not). Regime change wars is what we legitimized, not this.

Again you're missing the entire point, the US did exactly the same thing with Iraq and normalized this behavior. The Russians have done nothing that the US hasn't done first in the 21st century. The Iraq invasion was against the UN resolutions. How is what Putin is doing any different?

Also, geopolitics is the art of hypocrisy where only might makes right. Quite simply, we are finding out that Russia doesn't have the might, economically or militarily, to do what it wants. The economic bit isn't a surprise, but the military part is. So ultimately, none of "Oh, the US is being hypocrtical" matters at all, ever, to anyone important.

What copium are you huffing?

 

[Batrix2070]

How is what Putin is doing any different?

The answer is pretty damn simple. The U.S. has the power and capability to attack anyone it wants, anywhere, and to portray that it is right in any given dispute. Russia, on the other hand, does not. Therefore, the U.S. will set the world on fire for its own interests, while Russia will break its teeth in Ukraine.

 

[sillygoose]

The answer is pretty damn simple. The U.S. has the power and capability to attack anyone it wants, anywhere, and to portray that it is right in any given dispute. Russia, on the other hand, does not. Therefore, the U.S. will set the world on fire for its own interests, while Russia will break its teeth in Ukraine.

I agree with everything up to the break its teeth part and the US having the capability to attack anyone anywhere.

 

[Firebat]

I agree with everything up to the break its teeth part and the US having the capability to attack anyone anywhere.

Breaking teeth part is basically guaranteed since there is simply no way Russia is going to win anything in this conflict. Even if Russian military takes over all of Ukraine, it's going to be a giant expenditure of resources for the privilege of expending even more resources in the future without getting anything in return.
As for US capability to attack anyone, it's pretty realistic if you include economic warfare (or sanctions, if you want) and cyber warfare.

 

[sillygoose]

Breaking teeth part is basically guaranteed since there is simply no way Russia is going to win anything in this conflict.

Stop watching corporate media, they're basically just an arm of the US security services these days and little more than propaganda.

Even if Russian military takes over all of Ukraine, it's going to be a giant expenditure of resources for the privilege of expending even more resources in the future without getting anything in return.

Yeah ok buddy. It is very resource rich and will concentrate even more food, fertilizer, gas, and oil (among other resources) under Russian control, even as a puppet state like Belarus. The fight over Ukraine is because it is so valuable to both sides.

As for US capability to attack anyone, it's pretty realistic if you include economic warfare (or sanctions, if you want) and cyber warfare.

How well is that working out so far? All they are achieving is starving 3rd world countries and driving up inflation at home, while potentially courting another great depression. The US is teetering like the last years of Rome. Russia is barely touchable with sanctions and the ones getting hurt are going to be the average US citizen, who has already been suffering major reductions in living standards since the 1980s.

 

[planefag]

Could care less.

You mean you "couldn't" care less. Learn to speak my language properly or keep it out of your mouth.

Same principle here. Attack on a broad ass front, force the enemy to decide which to defend and adjust. If the UkA had reinforced the South, they would have lost their capital. If they threw all into the North East, they would have lost Kharkov. Either of those options were bad from the Ukrainian Political Leadership's view.

This just demonstrates your ignorance of internal vs. external lines of communication. Which is to say, an attempt to pressure a defender on all fronts by encircling them as Russia has, must contend with the defender's advantage in his ability to shift forces rapidly from front to front via interior lines of communication that are shorter than what the attacker must utilize. In other words, Russia must move forces around but Ukraine can move forces straight through. This means that if the attacker tries too hard to attack too many fronts at once, then when some objectives prove tougher to take than others (such as literally every single one Russia's pushed towards after Kherson) the defender can asses the situation and rapidly shift forces from fronts holding easily to others, either to re-balance forces and optimize defenses, or to concentrate a greater force against a smaller enemy one and defeat them in detail.

And you presume to lecture me on operational strategy? Vatnik, please.

We also know Russia is launching far more drone sorties in a day than UkA launches in a week

We "know" no such thing; this claim comes straight from Russian propaganda and/or your asshole. Ukraine has posted more drone strike videos than Russia has. What other evidence do you cite to back up this invented horseshit?

Say what you will about Najibullah, he went to his death like a man. Ghani fled like a bitch.

Running and hiding in a UN compound until he's dragged out and shot like a dog is "dying like a man?" Talk about some fucking cope.

Please point out the NATO forces in this video of the liberation of Lukyanovka:

 

[Firebat]

It is very resource rich and will concentrate even more food, fertilizer, gas, and oil (among other resources) under Russian control

Afghanistan is resource rich beyond imagination, yet somehow neither USSR nor USA have prospered by controlling it. It's almost like there are other considerations to economic growth and ability to extract profits beyond mere presence of resources.
Ukraine is (was) a very poor country. It's GDP per capita is (was) below Albania. This war is not going to make Ukraine richer. Assuming Russia occupies all of Ukraine, Moscow would have to pay billions for Ukraine's reconstruction to pre-war level (below Albania). And then it would have to pay even more to make Ukrainian economy profitable.
That's assuming Russian government even has a workable plan to make Ukrainian economy work again, which is a very big assumption since it doesn't seem to have one for Russian economy. Russia's GDP is yet to reach 2013 high point.

Russia is barely touchable with sanctions

Previous round of major sanctions (enacted in 2014) has shaved off a third of Russia's GDP.
According to Russian statistics agency Rosstat, the number of residents below "poverty line" has jumped by 4 millions between 2013 and 2015. It is yet to return to 2013 (pre-sanctions) levels.
A dollar costs three times as many rubles today compared to 2013.
Barely touchable indeed.

 

[sillygoose]

Afghanistan is resource rich beyond imagination, yet somehow neither USSR nor USA have prospered by controlling it. It's almost like there are other considerations to economic growth and ability to extract profits beyond mere presence of resources.

Really bad comparison.

Ukraine is (was) a very poor country. It's GDP per capita is (was) below Albania. This war is not going to make Ukraine richer. Assuming Russia occupies all of Ukraine, Moscow would have to pay billions for Ukraine's reconstruction to pre-war level (below Albania). And then it would have to pay even more to make Ukrainian economy profitable.
That's assuming Russian government even has a workable plan to make Ukrainian economy work again, which is a very big assumption since it doesn't seem to have one for Russian economy. Russia's GDP is yet to reach 2013 high point.

That's largely because corrupt oligarchs have run the country into the ground. Profits have been extracted by 'investors'. Much like Mexico and the US now. Same shit happened with Russia, though it has improved somewhat since Putin took over.

I doubt the damage inflicted on civilian infrastructure would amount to billions, the Russians aren't fighting like the US has.
Even if so there are many more billions if not trillions of wealth available in the coming years from their resources and population. There hasn't been any complaints coming out of Crimea since the Russians took over and the Donbass states really don't seem to want to return to Ukraine either.

Russia has been subjected to serious sanctions, it will take time to recover and redirect supply chains to the East.

Previous round of major sanctions (enacted in 2014) has shaved off a third of Russia's GDP.
According to Russian statistics agency Rosstat, the number of residents below "poverty line" has jumped by 4 millions between 2013 and 2015. It is yet to return to 2013 (pre-sanctions) levels.
A dollar costs three times as many rubles today compared to 2013.
Barely touchable indeed.

Yet they are still surviving and taking apart the Ukrainian military. Current sanctions aren't biting nearly as hard and in fact it seems like they might blow back on the US quite a bit harder than Russia. China is gaining like crazy from all of this while the US looks weaker and more foolish than any time since the Iraq war. Time will tell how this all plays out, but you're looking at this like it's a game a checkers, not 5D long term chess.

 

[Vaermina]

Which is overruled by section 7. Once a war starts and a city is made a fortress, the protections are forfeited unless all military installations are shut down, armed forces leave, and the city declared open. If not done, the city itself is a legitimate target as military units have made it one.

You are wrong.

You do realize there are multiple Russian Columns, the bulk of them getting through without problems and very few actual losses in the columns that are hit.

And it amazes me that you still think its easy to take a well defended city given the US Military spent longer to take Fallujah from 4,000 insurgents in 2004 than it took them to conquer Iraq from an Army of 424,000 soldiers who mostly noped out and deserted.

And in 2nd Fallujah, the US had a 3 to 1 advantage in manpower, a massive firepower advantage, and the city was surrounded.

Also has it occurred to you that Russia has a completely different playbook? They have specific objectives in mind and an overall plan that achieves their socioeconomic-political goals.

They don't give a fuck what Western Analysts and failed NATO Generals think. They had to fool only one person: Zelensky. They only need to beat one Army: Ukraine's Army. Everyone else is irrelevant.

Did they hope the UkA would give up and nope out? Sure, but weren't counting on it, and if that was their plan, the entirety of the VDV would have been thrown into the North West and North East and Spetnaz would have targeted Zelensky as the first move.

What did they actually do?

They weighted the Offensive to the South with the aim of securing the Sea of Azov and setting the conditions to Operationally Encircle the Donbass. Everything else was a double feint to pin and draw out UkA.

In fact they didn't even expect to overrun Kherson so quickly and had too few troops to hold the town proper and instead focused on holding the bridge crossing and the overran Brigade Bases. They took a week to reinforce the advance here as they had more priority to the Azov Sea Offensive. Kherson was only ever meant to shield the Western Flank of the Azov Sea Offensive and secure ground for the second phase advance to Kryvy Rih in conjunction with a push from Donbas.

The major cities can largely be left to wither on the vine. If they fill up with troops, all the better. The Russians only need to take a few key cities to cripple UkA. Kryvy Rih is one of them. Dnipro and Pavlograd are the others. Seizing these Cities will affect the Operational Surrender of the UkA and render the state of Ukraine indefensible and all further resistance pointless.

Wow... You are really drinking deep from the Russia Propaganda coolaid...

 

[Captain X]

Yup, and the US Swamp was yapping about invasion "any day now" for most of that time.

And people like yourself had your head in the sand right up until the invasion happened.