Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
(Thread IKs: fatherboxx)
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Fork of Unknown Origins
Oct 21, 2005
Gotta Herd On?

ImpAtom posted:

I honestly am curious what a peace treaty could even look like. There's no real way to make both sides happy or even both sides accepting of a bad outcome because Ukraine's interest lies in not being invaded again in 4 years and Russia's interest involves Ukraine not joining NATO or whatever.

This, to me, is an even bigger impasse than territory. Ukraine can’t go on not being in NATO and Russia does not want a world where Ukraine is in NATO. I don’t know how that gets resolved as long as Russia is capable of continuing the war and I don’t see that ending soon.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

Herstory Begins Now posted:

there's more 2 war than how many people ur country has, hth

Look I've played Civilization and I know whoever has the bigger stack wins that's just math

Orthanc6
Nov 4, 2009

ImpAtom posted:

I honestly am curious what a peace treaty could even look like. There's no real way to make both sides happy or even both sides accepting of a bad outcome because Ukraine's interest lies in not being invaded again in 4 years and Russia's interest involves Ukraine not joining NATO or whatever.

It will be determined by a bunch of things that are not in place yet. Economic status, who's political situation is collapsing, which bits of land belong to who. Honestly there's too many variables, especially if the end is a few years from now. Various major economies are teetering on recession, so the global situation will play a role that is just as hard to predict.

Unless Ukraine falters, they will really, really need Crimea back. As long as Russia has it Russia will want to have a more secure connection than the Kerch, and it's a giant thorn in the security of Ukraine's Black Sea shipping.

If the war can end, without being frozen, Ukraine joining NATO will solve the real security guarantee issue and the border will be the new iron curtain. If Ukraine can't join NATO for some reason, even if this war ends that border is going to be what can only described as a hot mess.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

This, to me, is an even bigger impasse than territory. Ukraine can’t go on not being in NATO and Russia does not want a world where Ukraine is in NATO. I don’t know how that gets resolved as long as Russia is capable of continuing the war and I don’t see that ending soon.

Yeah fundamentally this war is just going to keep going until either the Russian state or the Ukrainian state breaks. There's no other resolution possible. Putin can't back down while he lives and Ukraine knows any treaty with Putin will be broken as soon as Putin finds it convenient.

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Aug 29, 2023

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003
SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>
A peace treaty or even a cease fire at the moment has about a zero percent chance of happening as Ukraine clearly believes that they have some operational potential to capitalize on and Russia conversely does not appear to believe that they gain anything by negotiating as they believe still mostly believe that their position is too strong to enter negotiations and that western support for Ukraine will dry up any day now. You might see some noise about a cease fire if Russia begins to feel like Ukraine is having too much success as a way of effecting an operational pause, but I wouldn't expect Russia to really expect it to happen and in such a circumstance there's zero chance that Ukraine would accept it, so we come back to there being zero chance of a negotiated peace in the short term

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 22, 2006




steinrokkan posted:

It's disingenuous to say that the experience of an American infantryman in the Pacific was representative of the intensity of the war. I'm pretty sure the Soviets and Germans at Stalingrad weren't fighting one day or month.

If you think that number (Soviet or Germany days in combat / time unit) is going to be substantially different why don’t you find it and post it. The American experience of war intensity from WWII to Vietnam is a 24 X difference.

This is to say it’s a very large and caused by changes in many technologies (helicopters and medicine are big areas).

I’m very comfortable with my point. If you have German or Soviet days in combat per year in WWII figures post em. My point is still correct even if they are 10X higher than the marines in the pacific ( and my understanding that was higher than US army in Europe).

Modern war is much much more combat dense and you are quibbling. We are talking greater than an order of magnitude more combat dense from the American numbers.

Moon Slayer
Jun 19, 2007

It's super easy to stand up and say "war is bad, both sides should sit down and find a way to end it" but then when it comes to the actual details of what the process of setting up negotiations is and what sort of agreements and compromises should be entertained, suddenly there are a lot fewer posts to be made.

Apropos, the negotiations over the Korean Armistice Agreement took two years, while the fighting was still going on, and didn't actually end the war.

Orthanc6
Nov 4, 2009
To get back to what is happening physically and not semantically or rhetorically, there may have been another drone attack at a Russian airport near Estonia:

https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/1696628611368001939?s=20

FishBulbia
Dec 22, 2021

Orthanc6 posted:

To get back to what is happening physically and not semantically or rhetorically, there may have been another drone attack at a Russian airport near Estonia:

https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/1696628611368001939?s=20

There is no reason to believe these were launched from the Baltic as some less reputable sources are saying, right? If Ukraine has drones that can hit Moscow, they can hit Pskov.

fatherboxx
Mar 25, 2013

FishBulbia posted:

There is no reason to believe these were launched from the Baltic as some less reputable sources are saying, right? If Ukraine has drones that can hit Moscow, they can hit Pskov.

Yep, there is no way NATO would actually let Ukraine to use its territory to launch drones. Wouldn't stop rabid propaganda to claim otherwise though.

Orthanc6
Nov 4, 2009

FishBulbia posted:

There is no reason to believe these were launched from the Baltic as some less reputable sources are saying, right? If Ukraine has drones that can hit Moscow, they can hit Pskov.

I'd say it's more likely they were launched from within Russia. But I suppose if drones can consistently reach Moscow, which should in theory have some of the best AA coverage on Earth (in theory doing a lot of lifting there), anything is possible.

And yeah anyone saying a Baltic country is doing this, or even giving Ukraine a place to launch from, is being silly or deliberately misleading. I would not be surprised if we find out someday a couple special forces or trainers are secretly helping out in Ukraine, but launching any kind of attack from NATO territory? No one is green lighting that, I'm sure Zelennsky dreams of it but I doubt he would ever expect it.

ethanol
Jul 13, 2007



Moon Slayer posted:

It's super easy to stand up and say "war is bad, both sides should sit down and find a way to end it" but then when it comes to the actual details of what the process of setting up negotiations is and what sort of agreements and compromises should be entertained, suddenly there are a lot fewer posts to be made.

Apropos, the negotiations over the Korean Armistice Agreement took two years, while the fighting was still going on, and didn't actually end the war.

friendly reminder the war can end anytime russia pulls its troops out of the country it invaded. only Ukraine faces annihilation here.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

How is this supposed to work, though? The Russian population is many times bigger than the Ukrainian population, so they have more manpower. If the Ukrainians fight a war of attrition then they will lose: they are simply shooting themselves in the foot. They need to use cunning, guile, and elan - not attrition! This is not a smart strategy!

The same goes for military production: Russia has a native arms industry, Ukraine does not, and is relying on sporadic - and I think we can all agree - insufficient shipments of arms and materiel from the west. Ukraine is suffering extensive losses in materiel (which is to be expected for an attacker) with uncertain prospects of replenishing them. This is the worst possible time to fight a war of attrition!

You realize that population doesn't matter if those people are not trained and in your army, yes? Russia is not mobilizing its entire populace against Ukraine. It struggles to mobilize the amount it has now. It's not just people, but materiel that makes an army.

EDIT: Also, I'm curious about your mention of 'elan'. Can you inform me where you got this word from and how it relates to Ukraine?

Kchama fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Aug 29, 2023

the holy poopacy
May 16, 2009

hey! check this out
Fun Shoe

Orthanc6 posted:

Unless Ukraine falters, they will really, really need Crimea back. As long as Russia has it Russia will want to have a more secure connection than the Kerch, and it's a giant thorn in the security of Ukraine's Black Sea shipping.

On the other hand, as long as Russia doesn't have Crimea it will want to have Crimea. I don't think it's a loss that Russia would ever be willing to accept.

When Blinken visited he was told that the plan was to try to recapture the land bridge and then push for negotiations with Crimea as a hostage for peace. Yes, that's more or less the status quo that failed to prevent this war in the first place, but that was when both sides assumed that Russia could casually squash Ukraine at will. If Russia becomes convinced that their best chance at ensuring the safety and security of Crimea is peace then we might actually get some peace.

This does assume that Ukraine is capable of at least reaching Melitopol in the near future, which is not at all certain at this point, but I don't blame them for gambling on a risky offense rather than a peace that Russia has no real incentive to uphold.

fatherboxx
Mar 25, 2013

TASS acknowledges 4 transport IL-76 damaged already; if those are destroyed, probably would make today the worst day for Russian aviation in the war so far.

OddObserver
Apr 3, 2009

fatherboxx posted:

TASS acknowledges 4 transport IL-76 damaged already; if those are destroyed, probably would make today the worst day for Russian aviation in the war so far.

I think Prigos rebellion might be worse? Or may be Chornobayivka?

Ynglaur
Oct 9, 2013

The Malta Conference, anyone?

fatherboxx posted:

TASS acknowledges 4 transport IL-76 damaged already; if those are destroyed, probably would make today the worst day for Russian aviation in the war so far.

On the ground or in the air?

Jasper Tin Neck
Nov 14, 2008


"Scientifically proven, rich and creamy."

Doomposters imagining scenes of Ukrainians charging machine gun nests with bayonets while screaming "Uraaa!" are funny, because the fighting in Ukraine looks nothing like that.

Raphael S. Cohen and Gian Gentile posted:

Next, there is the question of troop density—how many troops defend each mile of terrain. During World War I, the density of troops per mile along the Western Front was quite high. For example, on the eve of the British-led Somme Offensive in July 1916, the average ratio of troops per mile on each side of the line was almost 10,000 (PDF). By contrast, in the Normandy hedgerows, the troop density of the German defenders was much closer to the troop density of the Russian defensive lines currently in Ukraine. In the summer of 1944, the average troop density of German defenders that the U.S. Army faced was around 1,000 (PDF) troops per mile. Today in Ukraine, at the most heavily defended part of the Russian defensive lines centered on Bakhmut, Russian troop density is about 700 troops per mile.

Why does troop density matter? Well, because the more sparsely the line is defended, the more likely the line is to have gaps. This is especially true in rough terrain, as the land makes it difficult to patch holes in the line when they occur. Unlike the continuous line of troops on the Western Front in World War I, the German defenders in 1944 did not have sufficient troop density, which meant they had to choose specific points in the hedgerow terrain where they assumed attacking Americans would be most vulnerable. This meant that even though fighting through the hedgerows was tough going, once the U.S. Army broke through, the Germans took to their heels.

Yes, the Russians have extensive fortifications, but they are pretty sparsely manned. The Kremlin has refrained from performing another round of mobilisation, so the trenches can't expect relief any time soon either.

OddObserver
Apr 3, 2009
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1696636011583848557#m

That's some big fires.

fatherboxx
Mar 25, 2013

OddObserver posted:

I think Prigos rebellion might be worse? Or may be Chornobayivka?

Wagner managed to take down the flying HQ plane plus 6 helicopters.

Chornobayivka was a number of regular strikes across days and still only helicopters.

There was also that Crimea airfield last year but I don't think the exact losses there were confirmed.

Some details about the regiment stationed in Pskov:

quote:

The 334th Berlin Red Banner Military Transport Aviation Regiment was formed on June 1, 1944 on the basis of the 101st Long Range Aviation Regiment. For participation in the Berlin operation the regiment was given the honorary name "Berlin". After the war in 1948 the regiment was relocated to Pskov. The regiment's pilots participated in operations and combat operations in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Chechnya. The 334th Regiment is involved in ensuring the Russian President's visits abroad, transporting communications equipment and representative vehicles. Today, it is one of the leading regiments in the Russian Air Force, it has high combat readiness and highly qualified flight personnel, with modern IL-76 airplanes in service.

fatherboxx fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Aug 29, 2023

fuctifino
Jun 11, 2001

It sounds like there's more than just drones

https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1696647710923690399

FishBulbia
Dec 22, 2021


I'd suspect this is people using small arms to shoot at the drone + the "multiple shooters effect"

SpeedFreek
Jan 10, 2008
And Im Lobster Jesus!
You see, Ukraine deserves this and should surrender immediately. After the CIA coup'd Yanukovych the people want to go back to Sov... I meant, Russian rule. Plus Russia needs a huge buffer to protect against the imminent NATO invasion by the "globalists".

-Paraphrased from a hopefully soon to be ex coworker

Moon Slayer posted:

Russia wants a bunch of Ukrainian territory and for the remaining rump state to remain permanently in its sphere of influence. Ukraine wants ... not that. I don't really see where the areas of compromise would be.

With the current state of things anyone saying Ukraine should negotiate for peace is saying that the people there should have no choice in their government or control of their future. If there was a negotiated peace agreement is that far from the truth?

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007


Moon Slayer posted:

It's super easy to stand up and say "war is bad, both sides should sit down and find a way to end it" but then when it comes to the actual details of what the process of setting up negotiations is and what sort of agreements and compromises should be entertained, suddenly there are a lot fewer posts to be made.

Apropos, the negotiations over the Korean Armistice Agreement took two years, while the fighting was still going on, and didn't actually end the war.
Wouldn't it look like a cease fire agreement, where both sides get de facto control over the areas they happen to occupy, and then years of wrangling that will ultimately probably result in Crimea style de facto territory losses for Ukraine that no one will formally acknowledge, which will probably prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, leaving Russia with no reason to get bogged down in another quagmire they now know will be very difficult and destabilizing for themselves?

Honestly, is there any world where things don't eventually look like that?

Even if Ukraine is inching forward, what's the end game? Controlling a few more towns for the inevitable de-facto partition at the cost of a lot of blood?

Honest question. I wouldn't have imagined the Russian army was as incompetent as it is before this all happened. Maybe I'm missing something. But it sounds like it's a stalemate now, which I can't imagine is worth untold ongoing bloodshed to neither side's ultimate advantage.

If getting even that kind of ceasefire would be incredibly difficult for Ukraine at this point, well, military advances also seem incredibly difficult right now. It does seem like, between two difficult options, diplomacy is the option that kills the fewest Ukrainians. But I don't know, maybe they're trying as hard as they can behind the scenes and keeping it quiet for morale reasons.

Moon Slayer
Jun 19, 2007

https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1696648406041510067

https://twitter.com/aldin_aba/status/1696649269699019131

Mr SuperAwesome
Apr 6, 2011

im from the bad post police, and i'm afraid i have bad news

SpeedFreek posted:

With the current state of things anyone saying Ukraine should negotiate for peace is saying that the people there should have no choice in their government or control of their future. If there was a negotiated peace agreement is that far from the truth?

The thing is, I don’t see a pathway for Ukrainian success on the battlefield, miserable though that is. The question then becomes, is it sensible to throw away thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of Ukrainian lives for a fait d’accompli - similar to the Volksturm at the end of WW2 - or to seek peace with the same eventual outcome in terms of a peace treaty, just with fewer dead soldiers. A negotiated settlement, painful though it may be, would save so many more lives that would otherwise be thrown away for nothing.

Celebrating Ukrainian soldiers dying in the meat grinder to take inconsequential pieces of territory is not supporting Ukraine at all.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

The thing is, I don’t see a pathway for Ukrainian success on the battlefield, miserable though that is. The question then becomes, is it sensible to throw away thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of Ukrainian lives for a fait d’accompli - similar to the Volksturm at the end of WW2 - or to seek peace with the same eventual outcome in terms of a peace treaty, just with fewer dead soldiers. A negotiated settlement, painful though it may be, would save so many more lives that would otherwise be thrown away for nothing.

Celebrating Ukrainian soldiers dying in the meat grinder to take inconsequential pieces of territory is not supporting Ukraine at all.

The only people who can answer that question are Ukrainians, and they think that it is absolutely worth the price. They have no interest in negotiating anything at the moment.

DTurtle
Apr 10, 2011


Bar Ran Dun posted:

If you think that number (Soviet or Germany days in combat / time unit) is going to be substantially different why don’t you find it and post it. The American experience of war intensity from WWII to Vietnam is a 24 X difference.

This is to say it’s a very large and caused by changes in many technologies (helicopters and medicine are big areas).

I’m very comfortable with my point. If you have German or Soviet days in combat per year in WWII figures post em. My point is still correct even if they are 10X higher than the marines in the pacific ( and my understanding that was higher than US army in Europe).

Modern war is much much more combat dense and you are quibbling. We are talking greater than an order of magnitude more combat dense from the American numbers.
You seem to have a very … particular … interpretation of what „intensity“ means.

In WW1 roughly a billion artillery shells were fired. France saw 20% of their soldiers killed - on average 1000 dead every single day over 5 years.

In WW2 the Soviet reconquest/liberation of Crimea in 1944 involved almost 750k troops combined from both sides, 180k casualties (70k dead or wounded) and lasted a single month. And that is some minor campaign that probably almost no one knows about.

The current war does not come close.

Eiba posted:

Even if Ukraine is inching forward, what's the end game? Controlling a few more towns for the inevitable de-facto partition at the cost of a lot of blood?

Honest question. I wouldn't have imagined the Russian army was as incompetent as it is before this all happened. Maybe I'm missing something. But it sounds like it's a stalemate now, which I can't imagine is worth untold ongoing bloodshed to neither side's ultimate advantage.
Russia is currently speedrunning the destruction of 40 years of Soviet military production. Russia has shown no capability of producing new military vehicles like tanks and other vehicles in any number since the 1990‘s. It is all old Soviet equipment that is refurbished or modernized. There is no new production. Russia can produce large amounts of dumb artillery shells, a good number of missiles, rockets, and Iranian drones. Endgame for Ukraine is the depletion of usable ex-Soviet military stocks.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 29, 2023

OddObserver
Apr 3, 2009

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

A negotiated settlement, painful though it may be, would save so many more lives that would otherwise be thrown away for nothing.

Celebrating Ukrainian soldiers dying in the meat grinder to take inconsequential pieces of territory is not supporting Ukraine at all.

Thank you for teaching those primitive Easterners what's best for them from your enlightened porch.

Paladinus
Jan 11, 2014

heyHEYYYY!!!

fatherboxx posted:

TASS acknowledges 4 transport IL-76 damaged already; if those are destroyed, probably would make today the worst day for Russian aviation in the war so far.

I like how the headline for the article where they mention damaged ILs is 'Russian Defence Ministry Repels Drone Attack on Pskov Airbase'.

fatherboxx
Mar 25, 2013

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

similar to the Volksturm at the end of WW2

Insanely absurd comparison as was your previous statement about "worse than men marching into machine gun fire", you should probably take it easy with historical parallels.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

The thing is, I don’t see a pathway for Ukrainian success on the battlefield.

They are literally advancing and taking territory and Russia isn't so . . .

Moon Slayer
Jun 19, 2007

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1696653848473952661

poor waif
Apr 8, 2007
Kaboom

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

The thing is, I don’t see a pathway for Ukrainian success on the battlefield, miserable though that is. The question then becomes, is it sensible to throw away thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of Ukrainian lives for a fait d’accompli - similar to the Volksturm at the end of WW2 - or to seek peace with the same eventual outcome in terms of a peace treaty, just with fewer dead soldiers. A negotiated settlement, painful though it may be, would save so many more lives that would otherwise be thrown away for nothing.

Celebrating Ukrainian soldiers dying in the meat grinder to take inconsequential pieces of territory is not supporting Ukraine at all.

Why would you expect Ukraine to trust Russia to uphold a peace agreement? Ukraine could negotiate, Russia would rearm and come back later. A Minsk 3 agreement that resolves nothing is just an invitation to a later war, once Russia feels like it has an advantage again.

Russia executed its invasion in a foolish way, and is in a position where Ukraine can trade blows with them fairly equally. That might not happen again. Russia would have greater capacity for rearming than a Ukraine that is stripped of independent foreign and economic policy, don't you think?

Comparisons with the Volksturm are laughable enough that I'm not sure they merit a response.

DTurtle
Apr 10, 2011


Mr SuperAwesome posted:

The thing is, I don’t see a pathway for Ukrainian success on the battlefield, miserable though that is. The question then becomes, is it sensible to throw away thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of Ukrainian lives for a fait d’accompli - similar to the Volksturm at the end of WW2 - or to seek peace with the same eventual outcome in terms of a peace treaty, just with fewer dead soldiers. A negotiated settlement, painful though it may be, would save so many more lives that would otherwise be thrown away for nothing.

Celebrating Ukrainian soldiers dying in the meat grinder to take inconsequential pieces of territory is not supporting Ukraine at all.
This is completely devoid of any relation to reality.

SpeedFreek
Jan 10, 2008
And Im Lobster Jesus!

Deteriorata posted:

The only people who can answer that question are Ukrainians, and they think that it is absolutely worth the price. They have no interest in negotiating anything at the moment.
Any agreement with Russia is worth less than the paper it's printed on.

In regards to the argument that they haven't made a ton of progress, it's not like there are trenches and minefields occupying ever square meter between the front and the border.

And they did erase any progress the Russians made in their big offensive, why are these people saying the invaded should be the ones to give in when they are punching above their weight class.

Mirificus
Oct 29, 2004

Kings need not raise their voices to be heard

Bar Ran Dun posted:

I’m very comfortable with my point. If you have German or Soviet days in combat per year in WWII figures post em. My point is still correct even if they are 10X higher than the marines in the pacific ( and my understanding that was higher than US army in Europe).

From: The Army’s Orphans: The United States Army Replacement System in the European Campaign, 1944–1945

quote:

The “ninety-division gamble” left the War Department with no strategic reserve and made unit rotation impossible.

quote:

Thus once in combat, infantrymen typically remained at or near the front lines until they were evacuated as casualties, killed in action, or hostilities ceased.

quote:

With both unit and individual rotation ruled out, the army would be forced to keep its units in combat and feed individual replacements into the ranks to restore unit strength.

quote:

There are several good reasons for studying the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 90th Infantry Division surveys. These units served in the same campaigns (Normandy,
Northern France, the Ardennes, the Rhineland, and Central Europe). They engaged similar enemy units, on similar terrain and in similar weather, and were in active combat for roughly the same number of days. One would therefore expect their casualty rates, and consequently the number of replacements they received, to be comparable.

Days in Combat in ETO, June 6, 1944 – May 8, 1945 posted:

1st Infantry Division, 292
2nd Infantry Division, 303
4th Infantry Division, 299
9th Infantry Division, 264
90th Infantry Division, 308

The total divisional casualties are as follows:
4th Infantry Division, 35,545 (252 percent loss)
9th Infantry Division, 33,864 (240 percent loss)
1st Infantry Division, 29,630 (206 percent loss)
90th Infantry Division, 27,617 (196 percent loss)
2nd Infantry Division, 25,884 (184 percent loss)
https://scholarshare.temple.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12613/3127/TETDEDXKlinek-temple-0225E-11743.pdf

ummel
Jun 17, 2002

<3 Lowtax

Fun Shoe

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

Celebrating Ukrainian soldiers dying in the meat grinder to take inconsequential pieces of territory is not supporting Ukraine at all.

Your fundamental understanding of this conflict is so flawed, there's no hope ever convincing you of anything. If you don't fundamentally agree that it is honorable and good or whatever to die defending your homeland from foreign invaders, there's nothing else to be said. This isn't America in Vietnam or Afghanistan. Yeah, it's a wheat field in bumfuck, Donetsk, but it's also the first step in retaking the town you grew up, or that your grandmother is still in, or whatever imaginary scenario you want to plug in there. You're looking at this like Ukraine is invading Russian territory. If you just swap "Russia" for "Ukraine" in your posts, then they make sense.

FishBulbia
Dec 22, 2021

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

The thing is, I don’t see a pathway for Ukrainian success on the battlefield, miserable though that is.

The pathway to Ukrainian success seems a lot straighter and shorter than the pathway to Russian success

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

VideoGameVet
May 14, 2005

It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Yeah fundamentally this war is just going to keep going until either the Russian state or the Ukrainian state breaks. There's no other resolution possible. Putin can't back down while he lives and Ukraine knows any treaty with Putin will be broken as soon as Putin finds it convenient.

Putin won’t quit before the US Election. If Biden is re-elected and the dems manage to get back the house he might consider quitting. If the GOP wins he’ll go all in and launch a major offensive sometime in 2025

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply