Conversation
Notices
-
:alert: HOT TAKE: If you want Russia to win the war, shouldn't you be upset that the Taliban "kicked America's ass" meaning they're no longer tied down there and now have a free hand and free resources to gayop Russia and drag out the war?
I know the immediate thought is 'no because this way America is defeated twice' but that's clearly not happening any time soon in Ukraine due to American help, unless Russia ISN'T actually fighting all of NATO and is just performing very poorly against just Ukraine?
-
@GoodBoyUV What do you think American help entails that is prolonging the war?
-
@GoodBoyUV You just have to look at a map of countries who pledged to train Ukrainian soldiers and funnel resources to keep them fighting to see it pretty much is a NATO vs. Russia conflict. Beyond the Soviet stockpiles the Ukrainians are using, the only ammunition and weapons they're receiving is from NATO.
Any serious Ukrainian arms manufacturing is either a workshop in some concrete basement or has to be done outside the country because of the risk of bombardment. Logistics is down to whatever you can carry inside a civilian model vehicle or an APC you happen to have.
Without the heavily shared intelligence and communications network, the Ukrainian army would have been SOL long ago.
There is a massive amount of resources from NATO that is keeping this country barely going that just keeps getting forgotten because "muh Russians didn't win fast enough".
I firmly believe the Russians are the ones drawing this war out because they are bleeding the entire country white and content to commit this quasi-genocide if it means Ukraine won't contest Crimea ever again.
-
@weaf I'm of the belief that it's actually not that much in terms of making a difference on whether the war could have ended by now or will anytime soon, but those who are both pro-Russia and pro-Taliban are generally also in the 'Russia is fighting all of NATO' camp so I'm trying to see things from their point of view
-
@GoodBoyUV Let's game this scenario out then. What does concluding this war quickly get for Russia?
Pros:
>Potential normalization of relations with otherwise hostile countries
>Several million new taxpaying and working citizens
>Billions saved on the defense budget
>new gas fields to be tapped and exploited
>a land bridge to Crimea
Cons:
>Much larger rates of casualties for the Russian army
>hundreds of thousands of civilians dead
>A large hostile state to the border that will continue to receive NATO support and Western institutions in it's reconstruction regardless of whether it renounced it's claims to the lost oblasts
>a large and well funded insurgency within new Russian territory that is a magnitude larger than Chechnya
>potential future border wars with the remaining Ukrainian state
>Billions having to be invested in both the military and state security in the future to keep the former events under control
>sanctions will most likely remain in place after the war anyways
These outcomes would be the most likely scenario whether Russia walked away with either only Crimea or the entire country. With a slow and methodical destruction of the Ukrainian army, Russia eliminates any potential military or insurrection threat against it and saves it's army from casualties in risky operations (see Vuhledar: a failed armored offensive now turned into an artillery stomp against the defenders). Time is simply against the Ukrainians.
-
@weaf This was believable until:
>I firmly believe the Russians are the ones drawing this war out because they are bleeding the entire country white and content to commit this quasi-genocide if it means Ukraine won't contest Crimea ever again.
This is the definition of a cope for lack of success, 'we didn't want to end it quickly anyway'
-
@Wisconsin_Kraut @GoodBoyUV No I think the Russian strategy is to flank, isolate, and destroy Ukrainian units holding strongholds whether they're cities, trench networks, or just a building. Just look at the map of Bakhmut and compare it from January to now. The moment the Russians managed to secure the flanks of roads going into Bakhmut the fall of the city was a foregone conclusion. Racking up casualties and lost material on the road before it can even reach the frontline where soldiers need it the most is devastating and you can see it as the defense collapsed over the course of a few months. It's being employed in Avdiivka as well and as long as the Ukrainains insist on holding onto hopeless positions like the French at Dien Bien Phu instead of being flexible in their strategic approach then it's a snowballs chance in hell this will be any different.
-
@weaf @GoodBoyUV so you think the Russian strategy is actually the use of infiltration and saturation bombardment to grind the Ukis in powder
-
@Wisconsin_Kraut @GoodBoyUV Avdiivka for comparison
-
@weaf @GoodBoyUV phrased that wrong I meant that the Russian are intentionally using superior material to pummel Ukrainian formations so as to allow tactical success with a minimum of casualties, but a great expenditure of time and material.
-
@Wisconsin_Kraut @GoodBoyUV Yes. Trading shells for lives is always the best strategy in long wars.
GoodBoyLyle :ov: :sonnenrad: 🚪 :catnoears:
Weaf :jv::nv:
:sonnenrad: ✝️ Wisconsin_Kraut ✝️ :sonnenrad:
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the