2022/24 Russian-Ukrainian War

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Again, I know you have actual military experience Keith, as opposed to my purely political experience so please tell me if I'm wrong, but rhetoric like this seems to me like preparation for an actual war declaration.

Yes mobilization of any kind takes time, but clearly Russia is in for the long haul now so I don't see why that would be a major factor.

Likewise, in discussions of striking NATO countries, I don't think Russia would bomb Warsaw or Vilnius, but with the way they're framing this conflict and Putin's majorly distorted war logic, what if they go for staging grounds in NATO territory to cut off weapons shipments because they feel like that's a legitimate target. I worry about the consequences of a scenario like that based off of a horribly misinformed Russian calculation.

Russia also has to be angered over reports that British SAS troops are on the ground in Ukraine training soldiers, which though I support it, feels like playing with fire in a lot of ways.

The emperor (err, Czar?) truly has no clothes - the Ukraine excursion has show that for all the verbal sabre-rattling their conventional military forces sucked - if they got owned by Ukraine (which didn't even have much of a Navy), they are in no shape to take on NATO. Also, the inflow of weapons started weeks ago - they didn't take any action then - and now their military is in even worse shape to do so.

It's funny - we went from "Denazification" to securing the Donbas to "Third World War". In the meantime, they couldn't even fill their ranks (I am sure a lot openings "suddenly" appeared - and good luck using conscripts).

AoD

 

[lenaitch]

"World War III Has Begun After Sinking Of Moskva": Russian State TV​

On another state-run television channel, a Russian anchor argued that Ukraine was doing the West's bidding.​

See link.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1514870832970960896

Dude looks a Russian cross-breed of Wilford Brimley and John Bolton.

We have to remember that most Russian media is for internal consumption. They have to stoke the embers of fearing for the Motherland.

 

[kEiThZ]

Again, I know you have actual military experience Keith, as opposed to my purely political experience so please tell me if I'm wrong, but rhetoric like this seems to me like preparation for an actual war declaration.

Oh they are certainly trying to gear up for an actual declaration. That much is clear.

Yes mobilization of any kind takes time, but clearly Russia is in for the long haul now so I don't see why that would be a major factor.

They can barely feed and resupply the troops they have in theatre now. See the stories of expired field rations and rusting artillery rounds. Adding tens of thousands of additional troops ain't going to help. Adding hundreds of thousands would probably bring about a logistics collapse.

Also, what exactly would a bunch of untrained or barely trained conscripts do? They would simply end up running up the casualty count on the Russian side. They literally took ethnic Russians from occupied territories and armed them with old Mosin rifles and Soviet era uniforms. Those guys surrendered at the first chance they got. They know they have no chance against troops with assault rifles and anti-tank missiles.

Likewise, in discussions of striking NATO countries, I don't think Russia would bomb Warsaw or Vilnius, but with the way they're framing this conflict and Putin's majorly distorted war logic, what if they go for staging grounds in NATO territory to cut off weapons shipments because they feel like that's a legitimate target. I worry about the consequences of a scenario like that based off of a horribly misinformed Russian calculation.

This rhetoric is not about striking NATO. It's about justifying any mobilization coming up. Which will also make it economically harder at home. Also, easier to justify a loss to NATO than Ukraine. The Russian psyche really can't take the idea of losing to Ukraine. But they can grudgingly accept a loss to NATO.

 

[kEiThZ]

Dude looks a Russian cross-breed of Wilford Brimley and John Bolton.

We have to remember that most Russian media is for internal consumption. They have to stoke the embers of fearing for the Motherland.

It is pretty hilarious. And I like how he's asking what the current military operation is called. Also, a ship catching fire and sinking in stormy weather requires a military response? They can't even keep the propaganda straight on air.

I can't believe people fall for this stuff. But I guess if you have nothing else to watch. It's the same as 24/7 Fox News.

But yep, wish people understood the target audience here. It's Russians. Not Westerners. Mobilization would make this war really unpopular. Both because of any draft imposed and because repurposing industry for military support would make inflation skyrocket In a country where so many people are poor. They really need to convince the public that this war is an existential threat to Russia before any substantial escalation.

 

[Northern Light]

Didn't they try sponsoring the Mujahideen in Afghanistan?

Ummm, No.

The Mujahideen were backed by the Americans, against the USSR.

I hear that war ended really well.

Foreign interventions (at scale) in Afghanistan from the 1970s forward have not gone well.

The USSR campaign was 1979-1989

Estimated peronnel killed ~14000, with another ~53000 injured and a financial cost equal to roughly $150B US in 2019 dollars

*****

U.S.-led invasion/occupation of Afghanistan

2001-2021

U.S. Personnel (excluding allies) 2,401 deaths (~3,500 including allies as at mid 2020); 20,700 wounded in action.

Financial cost ~ 2 Trillion USD

****

The USSR's track record wasn't great, but the U.S. also retreated at the end. with pretty steep cost in blood and treasure with no measurable long-term gain.

****

Not really on point to the thread, but offered for clarification.

 

[Northern Light]

Worth noting at this juncture, given my post above.......

It would appear the Russians have taken comparable casualties in this war w/Ukraine to what they racked up in 10 years in Afghanistan.

 

[kEiThZ]

It would appear the Russians have taken comparable casualties in this war w/Ukraine to what they racked up in 10 years in Afghanistan.

And that was a time when their country had 290 million people and a $2.7 trillion GDP. Russia has half the people and half the GDP and is up against a Ukraine supplied by NATO with a combined GDP of $44T.

And those casualty numbers are verging on double that of coalition casualties in total in Afghanistan and Iraq over 20 years.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I can't believe people fall for this stuff. But I guess if you have nothing else to watch.

I can’t imagine falling for such BS. If Ian Handsome Man Thing on CBC began reporting that the US government was poisoning Canada’s poutin supply my reaction would be to laugh, not outrage.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I can’t imagine falling for such BS. If Ian Handsome Man Thing on CBC began reporting that the US government was poisoning Canada’s poutin supply my reaction would be to laugh, not outrage.

If you were taught that in school, heard about it in the news for twenty years, and could not get any other viewpoint, you'd fall for it too.

That's the scary thing about propaganda.

 

[lenaitch]

Foreign interventions (at scale) in Afghanistan from the 1970s forward have not gone well.

They haven't gone well for centuries. There is a reason they call it the graveyard of empires.

 

[afransen]

Ian Handsome Man Thing

Name checks out.

 

[lenaitch]

Name checks out.

I don't know where it originated but I first heard it on the The Debaters and thought it hilarious.

 

[DSC]

They haven't gone well for centuries. There is a reason they call it the graveyard of empires.

Indeed: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_of_empires Of course, the geography of Afghanistan (lots of mountains and desert) is totally different from that of Ukraine (lots of rolling plains) which makes one far harder to invade and control.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you were taught that in school, heard about it in the news for twenty years, and could not get any other viewpoint, you'd fall for it too.

But the Russians have had twenty years of critical media, until now. They should know when to call BS.

 

[kEiThZ]

But the Russians have had twenty years of critical media, until now. They should know when to call BS.

Wrong. Russian language media has been substantially controlled for decades by Putin. Unless you lived in a major city or knew a foreign language, it is unlikely you were exposed to a lot of criticisms of the regime.