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.
 
Senor Tron
May 26, 2006


While the thread is restarting just wanted to say thanks to everyone who posts such clear info in here. The fairly strict rules that the thread is run under means that most content is super relevant and interesting, and while I just lurk because I don't have anything to add, checking in here for the latest news is a daily routine for me.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Senor Tron
May 26, 2006


TheKingofSprings posted:

I find it very difficult to call the people who would be directly facilitating their countrymen going to kill the people in another country either civilians or, particularly, innocent

Obviously I don’t want them to die but maybe they could also just choose not to work on the bridge

This is a really dangerous line of thought to head down. At the extreme ends (not saying you took it that far) you get things like people saying the 9/11 attacks were valid because they targeted the economic system that generates the money the US used to pay for its overseas adventures.

Senor Tron
May 26, 2006


Sucrose posted:

I hate the term “suicide X” because it gets confused with “suicide bomber” and the like. I don’t think anything should be called a suicide munition unless it involves someone driving up in a truck and blowing themselves up. Like, would you call driving a remote-operated car to a location and blowing it up to be a “suicide car bomb?” Of course not, because of how confusing that would be.

This. The imagery the name generates also helps with Russia trying to label them as terrorist acts.

Senor Tron
May 26, 2006


Dandywalken posted:

Thread says Russian strategy is generally weeks to months of strikes versus critical infrastructure before commiting ground forces, but I can't think of a time they've ever done so? I imagine thats a Gulf War-style strategy and doesn't really fit anything Russia has performed.

In addition to them not hitting those targets immediately at invasion, their use of support assets has been a weird mix of Soviet style and just bizarrely unfocused.

So much of the initial strategy seems to have been based around Putin being high on his own supply and truly believing that many Ukrainians would either welcome Russia intervening to remove their dictatorial western puppet leader, or at least being ambivalent to it. So a lot of infrastructure wasn't disrupted as it would be needed when Russia took over and they could aim for as smooth a transition as possible.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5