|
oliveoil posted:What's going on with Ukraine? I thought Russia was losing but suddenly everything I hear is about Ukraine being attacked? Ukraine has been doing very well in the ground war. Russia recently launched salvos of long-range rockets against Western Ukraine, essentially as terror bombings. They haven't done that since early in the war so it was notable. Doesn't affect the material situation, which is that Russia is losing but a desperate Russia is somewhat more likely to use nuclear weapons.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
oliveoil posted:What's going on with Ukraine? I thought Russia was losing but suddenly everything I hear is about Ukraine being attacked? Ukraine the country gets attacked every day by Russia since they, know you, invaded the country. If you're talking about the missile attacks on major cities like Kyiv that happened the last few days that's in retaliation for the Kerch bridge getting bombed. And missile attacks aren't anything new, it's just been a while since it's happened. And some apartment buildings get blown up in Kyiv doesn't mean Ukraine is now losing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
The missile attacks serve little to no purpose militarily, the intent seems to be satisfying internal hardliners who want to "get revenge" on Ukraine whenever Ukraine achieves anything important. Long range missiles aren't cheap, it would make more sense to hit military targets instead of playgrounds and foot bridges, obviously, but Russia appears dead set on terrorizing civilians rather than hitting Ukraine's army.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:What's going on with Ukraine? I thought Russia was losing but suddenly everything I hear is about Ukraine being attacked? Unless this is something different, Russia decided to retaliate for knocking out that bridge to crimea by sending missile strikes on playgrounds, etc. Normal piece of poo poo stuff. E: beaten like a bunch of airborne troops trying to take an airport from an army that knows exactly when and how they're coming
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
edit: plenty of discussion on this in another thread
duodenum fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
I guess now I'm wondering is how come Russia didn't do this early in the war before all their generals got killed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:I guess now I'm wondering is how come Russia didn't do this early in the war before all their generals got killed? They did exactly this in the opening salvo. All it did was cement their position as tremendous pieces of poo poo who would launch cruise missiles at apartments, and not be able to handle doing much else. It's hard to overstate how incredibly disastrous the first couple weeks was for Russia, both objectively, and their perception as a world power military. The only reason they're firing a few of these off again is that they were probably all that they manufactured in the last 6 months, and this is the best they can do for retaliation that won't cause a direct military intervention by other nations, not because they're holding back. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:I guess now I'm wondering is how come Russia didn't do this early in the war before all their generals got killed? Russian generals don't seem to be the brightest, but they surely understand this. That they're doing it anyway is due to internal political pressure: do something that makes it seem like we can "strike back" at Ukraine. Cicero fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:I guess now I'm wondering is how come Russia didn't do this early in the war before all their generals got killed? Something that hasnt been mentioned is that right before the Kerch bridge was bombed, Putin appointed a new overall commander of the Ukraine war. And the guy is an absolute monster. He is the one behind the bombing campaign that completely leveled Aleppo city in Syria. Now he's doing the same in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 07:35
|
|
|
lol. If Russia could win this war conventionally they would 100% be doing it tonight. Long range missiles like that are loving expensive even when the majority of the world isn’t cutting off all your trade routes. This is purely a move to appease hardliners, if he didn’t do something after his prized Kerch bridge gets slapped then how would it look to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
So how come he started a war he can't win again? I figure getting to his position is an IQ test, so suddenly failing the IQ test out of nowhere seems weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 12:51
|
|
|
qhat posted:lol. If Russia could win this war conventionally they would 100% be doing it tonight. Long range missiles like that are loving expensive even when the majority of the world isn’t cutting off all your trade routes. This is purely a move to appease hardliners, if he didn’t do something after his prized Kerch bridge gets slapped then how would it look to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 13:08
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:So how come he started a war he can't win again? I figure getting to his position is an IQ test, so suddenly failing the IQ test out of nowhere seems weird. Lots of factors. IMO, it's probably overconfidence and a lack of any plan B; he expected a repeat of 2014: move in fast, the Ukrainians don't know what's going on, new regime installed in days, the collective West tut-tuts, sanctions some industrial parts that central American shell companies can continue to deliver, and life goes on. Unfortunately the parts of the country where that strategy easily worked (due to Russophilia) were already in open rebellion (the "people's republics" in the east) or annexed (Crimea), Ukraine has strengthened itself in the past 8 years, and the brazen, naked imperialism of it all inspired sufficient Ukrainian bravery (it was clearly a life or death situation for all of Ukraine, as we saw in Bucha, defeat means being genocided) that they were able to withstand the initial attack (and it sure was extremely dicey the first weeks). Once the Kyiv offensive stalled, however, the Russian jig is up, and since they never accounted for this being a possibility they're now stuck beyond the point of no return in a war they cannot "win".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:So how come he started a war he can't win again? I figure getting to his position is an IQ test, so suddenly failing the IQ test out of nowhere seems weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Lots of factors. IMO, it's probably overconfidence and a lack of any plan B; he expected a repeat of 2014: move in fast, the Ukrainians don't know what's going on, new regime installed in days, the collective West tut-tuts, sanctions some industrial parts that central American shell companies can continue to deliver, and life goes on. Unfortunately the parts of the country where that strategy easily worked (due to Russophilia) were already in open rebellion (the "people's republics" in the east) or annexed (Crimea), Ukraine has strengthened itself in the past 8 years, and the brazen, naked imperialism of it all inspired sufficient Ukrainian bravery (it was clearly a life or death situation for all of Ukraine, as we saw in Bucha, defeat means being genocided) that they were able to withstand the initial attack (and it sure was extremely dicey the first weeks). Once the Kyiv offensive stalled, however, the Russian jig is up, and since they never accounted for this being a possibility they're now stuck beyond the point of no return in a war they cannot "win". That “open rebellion” was a covert annexation spearheaded by the selfsame Girkin, an FSB employee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/james_acton32/status/1580201451384553472?s=20&t=bgUGHaf6fhrYgYMgA8m4bg As I take it, nuclear/deterrence chat isn't yet acceptable in the other thread, but this is a good line of arguments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:So how come he started a war he can't win again? I figure getting to his position is an IQ test, so suddenly failing the IQ test out of nowhere seems weird. He genuinely thought he could, but a number of factors changed the outcome dramatically
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:He genuinely thought he could, but a number of factors changed the outcome dramatically I would add to this a very surprisingly unified EU/Europe willing to sanction Russia and Putin's friends, and pour war material into Ukraine to help them fend off the genocidal Russians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
I think the main mistake was much more fundamental. He bought into his own propaganda that Ukraine wasn't real and everyone actually wanted to be russian and was just being held hostage by the nazi Zelenskyy. The whole plan was built around this assumption, which means you didn't really need a functional army, just do a quick show of force, drive in in parade uniforms, and watch as everyone puts down their weapons and welcomes the dear leader. There was no plan B because they had to be right and would succeed by definition, because russia stronk. If they had a real idea what this would look like, they almost certainly wouldn't have started it. E: as for the nuclear stuff. Sure we need to keep it in mind but the pussyfooting because of it has been ridiculous. Giving 80km missiles is ok but oh lordy what would putin do about 300km missiles? 
mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I think the main mistake was much more fundamental. He bought into his own propaganda that Ukraine wasn't real and everyone actually wanted to be russian and was just being held hostage by the nazi Zelenskyy. This is sort of what happened? Russia annexed parts of Ukraine when they got rid of Yanukovich, because those parts "wanted" to be "free" of western tyranny etc, but those were the parts that were already far more favorably inclined to Russia. I think this was probably planned on the expectation that Trump would successfully remain in power, effectively neutering most of Nato's military power, and allowing for a strike in early 2021, but then Covid happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I think this was probably planned on the expectation that Trump would successfully remain in power, effectively neutering most of Nato's military power, and allowing for a strike in early 2021, but then Covid happened. I am sure that if he'd invaded while Trump was still in charge, Ukraine would have got 0% support and the US would have done everything they can to support Russia in their "internal dispute". Putin's new plan is probably to hold as much as he can till Trump can regain power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I am sure that if he'd invaded while Trump was still in charge, Ukraine would have got 0% support and the US would have done everything they can to support Russia in their "internal dispute". Trump was a hawk
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
Not on Russia he wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
I've honestly no idea what Trump would've done. There's IMO a 50/50 split between throwing Ukraine under the bus and initiating a nuclear first strike Volmarias posted:This is sort of what happened? Russia annexed parts of Ukraine when they got rid of Yanukovich, because those parts "wanted" to be "free" of western tyranny etc, but those were the parts that were already far more favorably inclined to Russia. The russians that were actually paying attention and not drinking their koolaid knew this: quote:Let's start with the last one. To assert that no one in Ukraine will defend the regime means, in practice, complete ignorance of the military-political situation and the mood of the broad masses of the people in the neighboring state. Moreover, the degree of hatred (which, as you know, is the most effective fuel for armed struggle) in the neighboring republic in relation to Moscow is frankly underestimated. No one will meet the Russian army with bread, salt and flowers in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 08:51
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:Trump was a hawk Trump is infamous for having close ties to Moscow. He was also brazenly subservient and openly obsequious to Putin in person. Trump attempted to blackmail Zelensky at one point. Ukraine would have been worse off under a continued Trump presidency. That's not in doubt
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:Trump is infamous for having close ties to Moscow. He was also brazenly subservient and openly obsequious to Putin in person. Those Russian wishes like ... NATO militaries becoming larger?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
We're going to get a taste of how Trump would have allowed Russia to crush Ukraine when the Republicans take the house and the funding dries up. They can't let a major benefactor (and holder of devastating kompromat) go down while their paws are on the levers of power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
duodenum posted:We're going to get a taste of how Trump would have allowed Russia to crush Ukraine when the Republicans take the house and the funding dries up. They can't let a major benefactor (and holder of devastating kompromat) go down while their paws are on the levers of power. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/R__Politik/status/1580542926177726465?s=20&t=FQokRDzzJ8Gvmn5XCLRzIA
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:Those Russian wishes like ... NATO militaries becoming larger? I'm not sure what you're saying here but Finland and Sweden joining NATO (which isn't even a done deal yet) is something that only happened in the last year after Russia invaded Ukraine. So during the Biden administration obviously. NATO in the Trump years was at its lowest point since the cold war ended. Trump had even threatened to pull out of the alliance. That's just one of the many ways he was a gift to Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I've honestly no idea what Trump would've done. There's IMO a 50/50 split between throwing Ukraine under the bus and initiating a nuclear first strike
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I'm not sure what you're saying here but Finland and Sweden joining NATO (which isn't even a done deal yet) is something that only happened in the last year after Russia invaded Ukraine. So during the Biden administration obviously. Pretty sure FishBulbia was referring more to Trump making a show of demanding that the European NATO partners pony up more defense spending. In my opinion this is less about him actually wanting them to do this than him sowing division and making a pretext for the U.S. to exit NATO entirely. Now Putin himself has single handedly taken care of the issue of European countries increasing their defense spending. The wolf has shown its teeth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I'm not sure what you're saying here but Finland and Sweden joining NATO (which isn't even a done deal yet) is something that only happened in the last year after Russia invaded Ukraine. So during the Biden administration obviously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think the point was that Trump was threatening to pull the US out of NATO if the rest of NATO didn't increase military spending, so it wasn't just the US plus a bunch of free-loaders. He specifically praised Polish militarism. Trump is just a moron, who thought NATO states were freeloading with American military protection in order to fund socialist policies (an american conservative talking point). 100,000k in facebook ads does not make someone a Russian agent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Yes, let's all just ignore the buddying up with strongmen and the praise he offered Putin on the start of the invasion this year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yes, let's all just ignore the buddying up with strongmen and the praise he offered Putin on the start of the invasion this year. Again, a moron. Most of the russiagate stuff has proven hollow. They wanted him to win as they thought he would weaken NATO, namely because he's a moron. FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
He's a moron that likes authoritarian strongmen, which is why people believe he wouldn't have come down nearly as hard on Russia as Biden has. I don't think he's a literal Russian agent, but he'd still probably be much softer on Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
Cicero posted:He's a moron that likes authoritarian strongmen, which is why people believe he wouldn't have come down nearly as hard on Russia as Biden has. Since this is the less than serious war thread: Okay, you've got a point with the strong men, but Trump's also infamous for calling McCain a "loser", and how Trump likes "people who don't get captured" or whatever. You know, since McCain was a POW. Now, after about a month, Zelenskyy was both alive and active, and Vlad was getting his poo poo kicked in by the courageous Ukrainians. Who would win in the pinball death match inside Trump's head, the  strong-man loser Vlad who won't even ride bears anymore, or that handsome bearded fella Zie Lentsky who looks buff in his tee-shirt?Of course the real answer is 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
I really think Trump is just a being created by the id of conservative boomers. That "northern europe only has a higher standard of living by mooching off American military protection" has been a go to point forever. He does have some appreciation of people being "strong" (read assholes) but I don't think that would be enough, especially if he got told by his advisers that supporting Zelensky was a cool macho thing. Only about 1/4 of Republicans are anti-Ukraine. It's essentially bipartisan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Most GOP reps are supportive of Ukraine, but IIRC it's the ardent Trumpista wing that's soft on Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 21:18
|
|