I really hope Putin tries to claim that Ukraine committed a war crime there.
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter bhamv3
- Start date
I find it interesting how in the West, it's being painted as "Russia really miscalculated and is losing badly and is suffering", while in China and Africa, the narrative is "Russia has secured a land connection to the Crimea, has taken the full coastline, has gotten insurances about Ukrainian neutrality, and is now consolidating defenses to protect the Russian areas where atrocities were being committed against the poor civilians. Ukraine has been destabilized and is now poorer, weaker, and with less infrastructure, the threat to Russia has been neutralized, Russia has achieved all its original goals.".
I mean, the fun bit is both are technically true. I fully believe Russia intended to do a regime change and quickly take Kyiv and replace Zelinskyy. But besides that, all their stated objectives and all of their strategic goals have been achieved. A peace treaty that confirms the current status quo would be an absolute and pure win for Russia.
I mean, the fun bit is both are technically true. I fully believe Russia intended to do a regime change and quickly take Kyiv and replace Zelinskyy. But besides that, all their stated objectives and all of their strategic goals have been achieved. A peace treaty that confirms the current status quo would be an absolute and pure win for Russia.
Why exactly would Ukraine ever agree to a peace treaty that confirmed the status quo? All that would do is insure that they'll be fighting the exact same war 10 years from now.
Because the alternative is "getting bombed even more for a few months, then get the same offer".
Yeah, they're not there yet. But Ukraine can't keep this up for 6 more months unless the West gets a bit more active. And don't forget - the #1 candidate for US president in 2 years' time is even as we speak broadcasting pro-Russian propaganda and calling Putin an amazing genius who made the right call. WHILE THE BOMBS ARE FALLING.
Russia can't keep this up for 6 more weeks. Especially not if Ukraine is starting to strike their only viable industry. To let Russia have the land they've already grabbed is very stupid since it would only insure that Putin attacks again once he's rearmed and resupplied.
It would be cowardly and stupid on a level that I can't see any kind of support for.
I agree with both those. I'm not saying it's going to happen. but, right now, don't kid yourself by only reading American or European newspapers - there is zero possibility Russia will withdraw from the Donbass region or willing give Ukraine access to the sea. It's going to last for quite a bit longer, and where it'll end up, I don't know. But the Facebook Master Strategists claiming Russia is being pushed back and will completely have to give up everything, perhaps even give back Crimea, are just idiots.
I'm sure that North Vietnam will surrender any day now. I mean they're up against a world super power.
You're right, the US realized they weren't going to win and just returned home after a month or two, putting all of Vietnam back into the hands of the North and paying to restore any damage they'd done. I'm genuinely not sure what you're trying to say here?
I'm not saying Ukraine should roll over and give Russia what they want. All I'm saying is that I'm hearing a lot of people in the West going "haha! Russia is completely imploding! they completely misjudged! What buffoons! They're losing so badly, it's funny!", because that's more or less what we're being shown. The sentiment in a very large part of the world is quite different. Obviously this isn't going as planned by the Russians, but thinking they're just going to pack up and go home is naive and wishful thinking. This war is going to last a long time still, and Europe is already coming back on promises for weapons and embargoes and so on. NATO, EU, US - nobody is going to go in and help Ukraine. So, sure, it may turn into Russia's Vietnam, bogged down for years and returning home without any accomplishments. Or it might turn into a second Syria - Assad is happy back in power and the Western-supported rebels are MIA, the population is completely oppressed and scared.
I'm seeing far too much happy "Russia is losing haha" on social media, and that's just...not what's happening. Even if Russia started off badly, there is literally no realistic future where Russia just packs up and goes home and apologizes for disturbing their neighbors. Maybe if the right person were to launch a coup in Russia...But even so I very much doubt it.
Not exactly what they taught in US schools.
You don't see any similarity in a super power getting into a war of misadventure, finding it far more costly than they expected so they kept on upping the violence in an attempt to make the other side surrender and the current situation?
If you don't I don't really know what to tell you.
Except your original claim was that it was reasonable to expect Ukraine to accept a status quo peace treaty because they were being bombed. You have a problem with people saying Russia is losing then go argue with that don't post nonsense.[/quote]
GasBandit
Staff member
The critical difference between Ukraine and Vietnam is that the Russians have a much tighter lock on the information their populace get than America did (and does). Vietnam was lost in the American Press - militarily, we were devastating them. The Tet offensive was a calamitous loss for NV tactically, but its effect on the American public's will to fight accomplished what their troops could not.
An offensive that took place 7 years before the end of the war is your proof that the US was winning in Vietnam?
GasBandit
Staff member
From what I've read, it's generally considered the turning point. Despite it being a military defeat for the north, it started the chain reaction that led to the US failing.
So sayeth the BBC.
North Vietnam - Why the USA lost the war in Vietnam - Higher History Revision - BBC Bitesize
For Higher History, study the reasons the USA lost the war in Vietnam. Learn the tactics used by both sides and the growing opposition to war in the USA.
www.bbc.co.uk
It also isn't proof that the US was winning the war.
The US would get 2 more presidents both of who knew that the Vietnam War was unwinnable and invade another country as part of an insane idea that maybe destroying Cambodia would work. Vietnam was fought harder after the Tet offensive not softer.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, it wasn't proof that the US was winning the war, it was the turning point where public opinion in the US started turning against the war (despite it being a tactical failure for the north), and it was that erosion of public opinion that ultimately led to the US's withdrawal more than any actual military losses.
7 years later after thousands more Americans died and no victory was in sight. Despite the war spiraling completely out of control.
GasBandit
Staff member
From wikipedia:
The Tet offensive was in 68. 12k of those 17k were in that offensive. Total American dead over the course of the war was just over 50k.
Meanwhile the North Vietnamese had 1.1 million dead, a number the Vietnamese government did not release until 1995.
And here almost 50 years later, the American press still has you convinced that the US was losing militarily.
The Russians, by most estimates, have lost around 35k in one month. And their state-run press still has the home front convinced they're doing well.
Lying to the masses is a frightfully powerful political tool.
You do know that the sharp decline in deaths was due to the US sidelining US troops in 1971 right? Not because we suddenly got really good at fighting the Vietnamese?
And yeah that's what casualties liok like when a country with air superiority fights another country. You want me to post the number of dead Russians vrs the number of dead Germans as proof that Germany was winning WWII?
GasBandit
Staff member
That's a disingenuous comparison.
Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Germany's military: 13.6 million
Red army: 35 million
Germany deaths on the eastern front: 5 million.
USSR deaths on the eastern front: 8.7-10 million.
As a function of a fraction of the total size of each nation's military, neither figure looks good, but in no way do these numbers even come close to making Germany look like it was winning. They had a 2:1 K/D ratio at best, starting with a force that was less than half the size.
That's kind of a different story than Vietnam's 22/1 ratio, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine's (unconfirmed) at least 10:1 ratio.
Point remains that looking at the number of enemy killed vrs the number of your own dead is a childish way of looking at military victory. Especially when you see how the US stopped being on the Frontline after 71.That's a disingenuous comparison.
Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia
Germany's military: 13.6 million
Red army: 35 million
Germany deaths on the eastern front: 5 million.
USSR deaths on the eastern front: 8.7-10 million.
As a function of a fraction of the total size of each nation's military, neither figure looks good, but in no way do these numbers even come close to making Germany look like it was winning. They had a 2:1 K/D ratio at best, starting with a force that was less than half the size.
That's kind of a different story than Vietnam's 22/1 ratio, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine's (unconfirmed) at least 10:1 ratio.
GasBandit
Staff member
Point remains that the actual point here was that public opinion - shaped by the press - was what did the US in, not the actual military situation. And it's what is keeping Putin's regime afloat amidst the biggest military flop since Custer.
Yeah guys, if the US just fought for another decade or so, it totally wouldn't have been taken over by the locals within weeks of leaving.
Nah, i'm pretty sure it's the mass crackdown on dissent that's keeping the public opinion on his side, no matter what the private one is like.
If you believe nonsense without an ounce of proof.
Propaganda also isn't going to change the facts on the ground that Ukraine is a goddamn debacle and isn't going to turn out well for Russia. It'll probably keep Putin around but it isn't going to magically dissolve Ukrainian troops.
GasBandit
Staff member
I mean, I've provided links (granted wikipedia links, but they have source documentation), others have provided links to other experts saying the same thing... whereas you haven't provided anything but disproven rhetoric. But hey, you're just as free as any Trumper to plug your ears and scream "fake news."
At any rate, I think this conversation has run its course.
You actually haven't provided a single link to show that the US was in a good position in the Vietnam War.
But if you want links instead of just reading your own let's talk about how the US military post 68 was a fucking mess with soldiers fragging officers that wouldn't allow them to find a safe spot and call back fake reports. Or just refusing to fight the Vietnamese at all. Which is why the US started undergoing Vietnamization where US troops would step back and South Vietnamese forces would step forward. An undertaking that worked as well in Vietnam as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. With big operations in Cambodia and Laos having either little effect or being outright disasters. Then of course you ignore the Easter offensive where North Vietnam launched a huge invasion of South Vietnam and was only halted by a massive bombing campaign that left North Vietnam with only significant gains rather than complete victory.
So your claim that the US was in a great position militarily is nonsense.
Probably has.
lol
metro.co.uk
Putin 'running out of missiles' because all the parts are made in Ukraine
The Russian military's stock levels are said to be 'pretty bad'.
metro.co.uk
GasBandit
Staff member
Has not been on the site since March 2021 :/