The war in Ukraine is the strangest war history has ever seen. A much, much larger opponent with shockingly incompetent leadership and preparation invades a smaller country that has been aggressively preparing for exactly this outcome, armed with the support of many of the world’s strongest economic and military suppliers’ middle tier gear and top tier intelligence.
Indeed. And Ukraine doing absolutely amazing propaganda work to pull the entire developed world firmly onto its side. I don't mean to take anything away from the suffering Ukraine is experiencing, or the justness of its cause. I mean, they're presenting all that in an incredibly persuasive way, across essentially all media.
For example, early on in the invasion, we saw pictures of new highway signs, where the directions to different cities had been replaced with (in Russian), "Fuck Off", "Also Fuck Off", and "Fuck Off Back to Russia." Or, when a brewery switched to creating Molotov cocktails, they had already printed labels, with fun graphic design, an the title "Putin is a dickhead." That wasn't spontaneous. They had an entire portfolio of stuff like that, which they'd been planning for years.
They have intentionally bombed hospitals and shelters with civilians. The most prominent case being the theater in Mariupol that had "Children" written next to it so that it would be visible from the air.
Russia is pretty clearly committing war crimes and directly targeting civilians, there is a lot of evidence for that.
To say that "Russia has no interest in massacring and torturing civilians" is a barefaced lie considering the numerous soldiers' testimonies to the opposite.
So, one, it's actually a violation of the Geneva Convention to be using captured soldiers in propaganda videos (regardless of whether what they're saying is true). Nonetheless, the Ukrainians have been doing this a lot.
Two, how do you know the guy is actually a Russian soldier, how do you know he's telling the truth, how do you know he's free to tell the truth? You should be a little more skeptical of random videos posted online during a war. Both sides have been caught putting out blatantly fake propaganda.
I’m from Serbia, and know for sure that during the NATO war against Serbia in ‘99 our military was residing in (some) schools. It makes sense if you think about it. If they were better at information warfare, they would have written “children” on some of the buildings.
> Russia has no interest in massacring and torturing civilians (if they did, they would have won the war weeks ago)
Well, they don't have that as their end goal, just as the method of choice for accomplishing their real goal (capturing territories + forcing Ukraine to surrender). Because if they did, you are correct, that wouldn't make sense, since they could've just done it earlier.
Wiping out a country serves no purpose, no benefit, and attracts massive downsides all around. But harming them to the point where they would consider surrendering those territories and capitulating, that makes way more sense.
I think i know of him. Helped one of my friend around 2016 to get himself (and his Kyiv nightclub project) started in Ukraine. 32 yo French interpret checks out.
My country used to be occupied by them and I remember their withdrawal that left numerous historical buildings destroyed. Those illiterate rubes couldn't even use flushing toilets, so they shat all over the place. Some of those buildings were finally repaired as late as in the last decade.
When a military unit operates out of civilian infrastructure, that infrastructure becomes a "clean" target, to use your terminology. That is well-established law of war, accepted by every nation on the planet.
> When a military unit operates out of civilian infrastructure, that infrastructure becomes a "clean" target
We have zero evidence of the military operating out of civilian infrastructure that doesn't come from Russia. We have independent evidence of the Russian military targeting civilian infrastructure which had zero military presence.
Hate to have to look at this kind of stuff, but a 61-day old account parroting Putin's propaganda points doesn't look credible per se.
The mall attack that everyone was so shocked about turned out to be housing a Ukranian MLRS which was documented by a Russian drone (obviously there for multiple days given the amount of tire tracks matching the path it took).
I personally think - technically - that is a fair target in war / urban combat. But it's also incredibly dangerous and reckless to bomb such a huge building in a city. So there's basically no good rational here if the war itself is not justifiable.
Whether the war was legally initiated or not is totally beside the point of whether the laws of war are observed in its execution. That is why not every Nazi officer was a war criminal, only the ones who committed war crimes, even though they were ultimately carrying out an illegal war of aggression.
You're kind of moving the goalposts here. The original assertion is that our attitudes are shaped by Ukrainian propaganda rather than the reality.
Certainly it is a fact that this is an illegal war which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians. Whether those deaths were, uh, "procedurally valid" is not really relevant.
It's not beside the point because you cannot separate the two. Operating the war, from the start is an issue. Even attacking Ukrainian military personnel is an issue, let alone civilians.
> That is why not every Nazi officer was a war criminal, only the ones who committed war crimes, even though they were ultimately carrying out an illegal war of aggression.
Yes. Hopefully we'll be able to hold these Russian officers accountable. Though I think it's unlikely unless they slip up and travel to the wrong country where the United States and allies have enough sway to extradite and bring these criminals to trial.
2) Nobody said that historically, Russians have been perfectly rational. So whatever you think would or would not be appropriate is irrelevant, and in any case recorded facts about events that actually happened trump your feels about those events.
3) Russians may not even be in possession of neutron bombs suitable for ground delivery. The only ones they've had were installed in ABM systems and had a whopping 10 kt yield.
Not exactly true. From what I've seen, upon investigation, targeted facilities were being used for military purposes. Again, if they were fine just killing civilians, they'd have just flattened a couple of cities to make an example of them and we'd have millions of dead civilians. The war has become complicated because Ukraine has been arming people en masse (totally legitimate) and operating out of civilian infrastructure (also legitimate in specific circumstances, but it makes that infrastructure a legitimate military target). I'm sure there's been some bungled strikes, and possibly some malicious ones, but that's clearly not the general thrust of the Russian strategy here. Do you really think Russia doesn't have the capability to just bomb central Kiev out of existence?
> Again, if they were fine just killing civilians, they'd have just flattened a couple of cities to make an example of them and we'd have millions of dead civilians.
That's what they're heading to now that their maskirovka of "liberating oppressed Russians" has failed.
You're gonna have to explain to me how that TV station in central Kyiv was killing Russian soldiers. Explain to me nice and slow. Or are Russian troops so incompetent that they mistake a TV tower for another target?
We know where the Russian troops are, maybe 50km north of Kyiv. None of them are in downtown Kyiv yet, and they certainly weren't there on March 1st (when this video was posted).
The Russian troops at the time were trying to take Hostomel Airport, a few dozen miles north of Kyiv at this time. So there's no military reason to destroy the TV station. It was clearly an attack on civilian infrastructure. (Military communications don't use TV Towers)
And actually all these cases just show us how dumb is war propaganda.
No, the TV tower wasn't hit on this video, you can really see it with your eyes.
The shopping mall destroyed by Kinzhal was in fact the military base/ammunition store, and some local guy made a photos of GRADs in that base(he was caught and god knows what they did to him).
The guys on Zmeiny Island never said "Fuck you, Russian warship" and never died, they just gave up.
But most of this propaganda is easily swallowed by public.
But sure, propaganda. The "tower was never hit", etc. etc. There's one side on this discussion who is consistently lying about the events, and its not the "Kyiv TV Tower was attacked" people.
I think that’s not the best of examples. Some people, in some circumstances, may consider taking out civilian communications equipment a valid target in war.
It's not uncommon. It was one of NATO'S first targets in Belgrade too.
“Our military leaders at NATO believe … that the Serb television is an essential instrument of Mr. Milosevic’s command and control. … It is not, in a conventional sense, therefore, a media outlet. That was a decision they made, and I did not reverse it.” - Clinton
The US and NATO were lavished with praise for their part in that war.
Please explain the Ukrainian propaganda to me that was deserving of this strike.
Capt. America punching Hitler is propaganda. I happen to agree with it. You'll need to be specific with me. Not all propaganda is bad, and it takes particularly bad propaganda before I think that military action is required. Would you support say, hypothetical German Bombers attacking Marvel Comics over their depiction of Capt. America?
I dont think it's a legitimate target whatever kind of propaganda is pumped out.
I think Bill Clinton is also a war criminal. The question is will you call him a war criminal or will you go quiet or bullshit an excuse for why it's ok when WE do it?
Whataboutism will disappear as soon as the perpetrators get punished. If a country does some awful things and walks away free and the world looks the other way it sets the example for others.
I do not give a flying fuck about Russian propaganda. Or any propaganda for that matter. It is pretty easy to see through. I am much more concerned about the reality. And the reality is simple. The guy with the biggest dick and whomever he has decided to like do what they want and go unpunished and I do not see it changing.
So I have no doubts that the R should an will be fixed and for good reasons. I am also pretty sure that X, Y and Z would continue do what they do and laugh all the way to the bank.
I don't think you can dismiss this as just whataboutism. There is at least some recognition in every legal system that law is largely about how previous cases with similar facts have been handled. This is probably how human normative systems work. The whole point of international law is that everyone agrees to limit their own freedom of action in exchange for the other guy doing the same. Once violations are openly tolerated and even accepted as legitimate, the norms lose their compelling force.
If you don't understand the need to either take out tv stations and broadcast towers you really don't understand what a modern war is about.
TV/radio controlled by the other side spread information against your interests. Taking over this is step 1. Controlling electrical power stations and resources are next.
This is a Moscow designed structure and the tallest structure in all of Ukraine (and was the tallest in the world until 2012).
There's more cultural significance to this object than there is practical military value. The broadcasts are being filmed on other buildings inside the city. The actual tower itself is a big landmark.
If you watch carefully, you will notice that the strike lands near the tower, leaving it intact.
If you watch more carefully, you'll see a giant movie-like explosion which indicates that there was something very flammable in this area. Storage of gas? Some ammunition?
> You're gonna have to explain to me how that TV station in central Kyiv was killing Russian soldiers. Explain to me nice and slow. Or are Russian troops so incompetent that they mistake a TV tower for another target?
It was a ... a ... a Nazi transformer mecha in stealth mode! /s
Russia still does not have air superiority, so they actually might be afraid to commit bombers here as there is still working Ukrainian air defence.
And Russia is very obviously shelling entire cities indiscriminately, there is no possible way to claim this has a direct military purpose. Bombarding an entire city with artillery is a war crime.
> but it makes that infrastructure a legitimate target
It’s an illegal armed conflict, thus all use of force is illegal, even use of force on legitimate military targets is illegal.
> Do you really think Russia doesn't have the capability to just bomb central Kiev out of existence?
Capability? Maybe. The will? Absolutely not. Putin is no doubt a war criminal and despot, but: 1) he rightly fears potentially military response from the international community; 2) he has very practical considerations due to the close ties of the Russian and Ukrainian people, which goes directly to Putin’s propaganda that this isn’t war but a special military operation against a Nazi regime, he must at least try to balance his acts with his propaganda or lose support of his people and possibly his troops.
It's really horrible that a lot of civilians are dying, but it doesn't seem they are being targeted deliberately.
Knowing the real numbers it's impossible, but we can take the UN-provided numbers as a baseline:
> From 4 a.m. on 24 February 2022, when the Russian Federation's armed attack against Ukraine started, to 24:00 midnight on 22 March 2022 (local time), the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) recorded 2,571 civilian casualties in the country: 977 killed and 1,594 injured. [1]
Let's double this number and assume 5000 civilian casualties.
The US estimates that between 2000-4000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. [2] This means that the number of military Ukrainian "casualties" (which includes wounded and not only killed), should be higher: let's take the middle of the range (3000) and double it to account for 6000 Ukrainian military casualties.
If you look at the ratio it's almost a 1:1 civilian to military casualties. Just for comparison:
> Figures by the Iraq Body Count from 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013 indicate that of 174,000 casualties only 39,900 were combatants (Wikipedia)
This means that there are 134100 civilian and 39900 military casualties. This puts the ratio at 3.3.
This calculation is anything but scientific, but these are the only numbers we have at our disposal. (I would be interested if somebody has a better way to compute this estimate.)
Besides numbers, there are also military analysts that say this is not happening (deliberate targeting of civilians). One of them is working for the Pentagon, hardly an outlet for Russian propaganda:
> "I know it's hard ... to swallow that the carnage and destruction could be much worse than it is," says the DIA analyst. "But that's what the facts show. This suggests to me, at least, that Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians, that perhaps he is mindful that he needs to limit damage in order to leave an out for negotiations." [3]
I don't really see what would be the edge for Putin in intentionally targeting civilians, when it's obvious this would be a PR nightmare.
Lastly, I just want to say that there are reports (mainly from Mariupol) of the Azov battalion using civilian infrastructure (e.g. schools) as military outposts, while leaving the civilians inside. These have not been widely circulated in the mainstream media and I haven't found a way to verify them myself (it's pretty much impossible), but I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that, because they have been shown (just read OHCHR reports) to be capable of really horrible atrocities.
Western media has for 30 years excused Israel for doing precisely the same thing on the basis that militants were most likely using them as bases or to fire weapons from.
I'm not debating whether or not it is. You framed that previous statement as if I'd be ok with one group doing it and not another, or it was simply "whataboutism," and it doesn't apply. Either way, I'm consistent here and I don't think it's right to shell residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, etc. as you claim moral superiority/you aren't doing anything against the civilian population.
Yes, good point. The truth is Europe is utterly helpless militarily. They can't defend against Russian action in Eastern Europe without American military power. So they have to accept these sanctions as the cost of that protection. This is no doubt part of the why the United States has lobbied so strongly against the development of an integrated EU army, which is the probably the only way Europe can by itself deter aggression on its periphery.
I think Russia's incompetent invasion goes to show that Europe can defend itself against Russia (at least discounting Nuclear Weapons, but who can defend there, and not just retaliate). And further more, that they should prepare in order to defend even more capably.
In general some countries in Europe, notably Germany, have been relying on the US and to a lesser extent France, UK and Poland to defend them from Russia. But recent events have caused a change in tack here.
Hopefully after this pointless fiasco they will be less happy to start something. But it is a good reason for European countries to keep supplying Ukraine, and to build their own defence forces.
> The truth is Europe is utterly helpless militarily. They can't defend against Russian action in Eastern Europe without American military power.
If you paid any attention to recent weeks, it would have occurred to you that the rest of Europe would obliterate Russian forces if Russia dared to attack with its absolutely inept ground forces.
I'm pretty sure the Russian cannot detect French Rafale in enemy territory, and while MICA can hit most Russian planes without troubles AND defend against R77s, i'm not convinced old long distance missile like the R-27 can actually lock on a Rafale, let alone hit it.
Also i'm not sure there is a chance for any Russian fighter to avoid getting hit by a Meteor, so i guess Russia would have to destroy Eu satellites and hope the US doesn't lend theirs?
Also i think Europe have more MICA-VF than Ukrainian had manpads. So the Russian would have to go ground-only. I don't think they have something as good as MICAVF to defend against let's say SCALP, so most of the artillery would have to stay under cover (and again, need to destroy EU satellites).
I'm pretty sure the fuel tech used in the Meteors could be used in AtS missiles too, and that would render any artillery useless as long as any EU satellites can discover the piece. Basically, mechanized infantery and tanks would have to be the way to go.
I don’t know about an integrated EU army, but the US has been lobbying for Europe to expand its defense capabilities for years, that wasn’t just Trump.
Given the petrodollar hypothesis for dollar dominance is a debunked myth, no. (TL; DR Oil is priced and trades in numerous currencies. America is not dependent on foreign oil. The global transaction volumes in oil, across currencies, pales next to total U.S. dollar volumes.)
We've in all but explicit name cancelled the deal with the House of Saud that created the petrodollar because petrodollars are no longer useful to us.
This is one of the developments I've been watching with interest.
Saudi Arabia seems to be interested in trading oil in Yuan now [1], which would mark an enormous shift away from the petrodollar. And from one of the US' biggest oil trading partners, at that.
Does anyone with more context in the energy / geopolitical world care to add some color?
It doesn't matter. They were only proposing this for trade with China, and the USD is useful regardless. Notice how nobody in Europe is worried that the Euro isn't the primary trading currency for oil, and the Euro is worth more than the USD?
The only existential threat to the USD is an actual civil war in the United States. I don't even view cryptocurrency as a threat.
The westerners I work and socialize with must not be average. The overwhelming opinion in my circle was of course support for Ukrain, disgust for Putin, but the sad thought that Ukraine couldn't possibly hold out long - I remember thinking when everyone was impressed they cleared the 4 day mark that if the world's impressed with 4 days, how much longer could they last? Of course that opinion proved incorrect, but that's OK because I figured myself average and a layman in the realm of military engagement outside Civ.
I also reject the notion that Ukrainians only fight because of romanticism or having been duped about their prospects. Plenty of what I've seen in their own messaging seems very aware, and like people fighting for their homes and way of life against harsh odds. Perhaps there are some who would fall under your characterization, but to generalize them all so you can wax armchair Foreign Affairs correspondent undermines your entire comment.
Also, I keep seeing these comments crop up. All manner of semi-literate arguments for why a country is better off to roll over and accept, in this case, Putin as their new overlord. It's always cloaked in the veneer of "regrettable truths if only all could see..." and a tone of reluctant pragmatism that's manufactured to a painful degree.
> They are doing so well in part because of the propaganda
Propaganda doesn't kill tanks, planes, helicopters, and soldiers. Weapons do these things.
> The average Westerner and Ukrainian has an unrealistic idea of their prospect of victory, and an inflated sense of Russia's desires to commit cruel atrocities for the sake of it.
Putin has been arresting generals and intelligence personnel who had an unrealistic idea of their prospect for victory. Russian citizens have such an unrealistic idea of how the war is going that they can't even state how many have died or that there is even a war at all.
> There's a small chance this unrealistic expectation of victory becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I doubt it.
It isn't unrealistic. Russia doesn't have a much larger economy than Ukraine and though it has a much larger military its spending was dedicated to fighting a very different type of war than the type it is waging against Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been preparing for this attack and has the support of larger economies than Russia.
> That is, they are dying for Poland, the Baltic states, and American hegemony, and perhaps for a romantic idea of going down fighting, but not for the best outcome for their people.
Your comment calls this conflict a war. That is illegal in Russia. What you said, under Russian rule, isn't allowed. You are a criminal according to Russia. You deserve, according to Russia, time in jail and/or fines. You yourself have shown through your own use of liberty to be an enemy of Russia. You use a freedom without thought to its value. You walk free, rather than in jail. Yet you imply that Ukraine fights for nothing. That there is no value to itself in preserving the freedom that you yourself enjoy. In my eyes this is cowardly hypocrisy: shouldn't you despise your own freedom before you criticize others for fighting for those freedoms?
Tsar Nicholas starts an imperial war of aggression with Japan to obtain a warm-water port, while the Japanese Navy (supplied with last-generation ships from the British Navy) surprises the world and proves to be able to fight the Russians on the world stage.
Turns out that those old British ships were still pretty good, and the Japanese have learned how to use Western guns and tactics by the early 1900s (despite being a Samurai/Sword society just 40 years prior).
Even on paper the match between Japan and Russia was much more evenly matched. Japan was balls deep in their whole "speed run European history" phase at that time. Russia didn't care about the territory in question nearly as much and it was more of a "fisticuffs between two people who already are predisposed to fight each other" war.
Ukraine isn't that big and isn't developing like that right now and the Russian motivation is very different.
Japan started the war with a surprise attack, but Russia intended to go to war with Japan and everyone knew it. Japan just figured that, as the smaller country, it ought to try to seize what advantages it could
Hmmm. Politics of the 1800s are weird. Both sides were imperialists, expanding their domains far beyond their historical norms.
Russia expanded eastward. Japan expanded westward.
You're right that Japan ultimately was the one who started the attack though. But I'm also looking at Russia's expansion to seek a warm-water port on the Pacific Ocean and connect it up with the Tran-Siberian railway.
Russia definitely was encroaching upon the East. But Japan also was encroaching upon the West, with the 1890s Sino-Japanese War. Soooooo... both are kind of imperialistic assholes on this event, now that I think of it.
What is so weird about that? Proxy wars have been a thing since the Roman empire. It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time, but NATO certainly seems to be regarding it as such.
"It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time"
Russia has been conducting a proxy war in Ukraine for years, trying to inspire ethnic Russians to revolt against their supposed Ukrainian oppressors. That ploy turned into a quagmire because even ethic Russians in Ukraine don't want to live under Russian control.
Russia is doomed in this fight. They've only secured about 20% of Eastern Ukraine, exposing the rot in the heart of the Russian military in the process. If they ever get as far as Western Ukraine, where they will face desperate ethnic Ukrainians armed to the teeth with advanced weapons, supported by supply lines to the Western world and informed by real time surveillance the Russians can only dream of, the Russian body count will be staggering; far beyond any level Putin can conceal or survive politically.
The awful truth is that this ends only after enough Russian men have been fed into the meat grinder and Putin is deposed. For Putin it's win or fall, and winning clearly isn't feasible.
I want to believe that. But then I think about how desperation could just lead to missile attacks / high level bombing of still-populous western Ukrainian urban centers and I'm not so sure.
Cruise missiles are too expensive for Russia to keep using (and are among the cheapest of long-range missiles).
To destroy large swaths of Ukraine, Russia needs to march its artillery, be it MLRS systems or 162mm Howitzers, within firing range of city areas. The Ukrainian forces have largely repelled these advances.
MLRS systems and 162mm Howitzers "only" have 30km range or so. Sure, Russia has longer-range systems, but they're clearly trying to get these cheaper artillery systems within firing range of Kyiv (and other cities).
The Ukrainians have pushed back and have stalled the progress. Keeping those systems at least 50km away from the Kyiv center will prevent the worst of attacks that Russia can afford to launch.
--------
Given what Russia is doing to Mariupol, its clear that they don't mind razing entire cities to the ground with these kinds of artillery strikes. The key for the Ukrainians moving forward are to keep the Russian line away from artillery strike range.
"Cruise missiles are too expensive for Russia to keep using (and are among the cheapest of long-range missiles)."
A NATO assessment last week concluded that Russia has already expended nearly all of the missiles (Kalibr cruise missiles and Iskander ballistic missiles) they had staged for the invasion. Since then they've used a couple hypersonic missiles, but those are fabulously expensive and thus not available in quantity. Russia won't be blowing up Soviet era apartment blocks with hundreds of those.
So yes, I think you are correct; if they're going to continue the missile attacks they'll need to use up Russia's reserve munitions. Otherwise, as you say, they have to turn to artillery.
Turns out Ukraine is pretty effective at artillery duels. The blasted Russian armor we see isn't all down to Javelins and NLAWs; they're directing artillery with UAVs to great effect.
Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties. They just don't have the munitions.
> Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties.
While estimates vary, I’ve seen none that indicates Russia isn't experiencing mind-boggling casualties for the major power in a modern major-power-on-one-side war as it is.
The US estimate put it at a large fraction of the total official Soviet losses over the whole decade-long campaign in Afghanistan that was sometimes referred to as the USSR’s Afghanistan and major contributor to the collapse of the regime, the Ukraine MOD estimates put it well over the Soviet Afghanistan toll.)
Rubblization hasn't worked yet, and so far Russia has only assaulted the easy side of Ukraine. Western Ukraine will be the equivalent of a dozen Mariupols. Putin would have to mobilize all of Russia in the attempt.
> Proxy wars have been a thing since the Roman empire. It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time, but NATO certainly seems to be regarding it as such.
Many things described as modern “proxy wars” between major powers have been direct wars between a major power and an ally of an opposed major power (and many have involved direct conflict between major powers, though usually with at least one major power having deniability.) This was true of several of the major USA/USSR “proxy” conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan).
Most proxy wars aren't fought with really up to date technology wielded by professional soldiers. Weirdest? Don't know, but it certainly is remarkable.
To me, it kind of feels like the coup attempt against Gorbachev, where a bunch of the coup leaders were drunk, and the whole thing quickly fell apart. It's the same level of incompetence.
Learn some history. This is about par for Russian performance for large scale wars for past 100s of years. They're a huge land power with chronically underfunded military where corruption cause initial stumbling but they tend to hammer through and win.
Seems like a gross exaggeration. Larger RU experiencing some difficulties annexing one her smaller neighbours with foreign support is history rhyming, down to both sides thoroughly entrenched in their own propaganda. This is regression towards mean in terms of typicalness of peer war. Note scale, paper deals with insurgencies.
I'm really curious if Ukraines years of preparation was a big factor in Russia's hesitation to use the airforce (besides helicopters) in the initial days of the war.
You can avoid them flying low, but then you fall into the killing envelope of shoulder mounted anti-air weapons, which Ukraine also happens to have many.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a slow guerilla war against an insurgency. Russia has lost more troops in Ukraine in a few weeks than in 9 years of Afghanistan. It’s not an insurgency either. Ukraine is outright fielding a proper army with armor and air support and what not.
Hell they’ve got a sizeable amount of the western front of Russia’s army surrounded and set for a strategic rout.
Rout == uncoordinated retreat, which seems to be happening on a regular basis right now. Russian morale is really, really bad.
Surrounded / Encirclement might really be happening. Its hard to tell for sure due to the fog of war, it could just be Ukrainian propaganda, but there's so much discussion about a Ukrainian counter-push in various parts of the country.
Rout == enemy escapes, with heavy losses due to disorganization. Its a win, but not as much of a win as "Surrounded/Encirlcement", which basically is a "surrender or die" situation.
Its clear that the Russians were trying to encircle Kyiv (and Mariupol with more success). But there seems to be whispers that the Ukrainians are successfully surrounding / encircling some Russian troops.
I guess in 1975 it would be around the longest break Afghanistan had, from being invaded by superpowers (~100 years since the British, Soviets about to do their thing).
Yeah, thanks for amending this 1975 date. It made it all the more
interesting. Still only half way through but this is a great analysis
by Andrew Mack.
So, it leans heavily on Vietnam for its arguments as it was written
before Afghanistan (a fail for the Russians and Allies).
What I'm getting is a combination of two factors in conventional
asymmetrical conflict;
1) For the superior force, not winning is basically losing
2) There's a sort of "Overton window" for winning, after which you
lose at home, politically.
Vietnam played out at home via television and newspapers. The US tried
to avoid that mistake during Iraq-I by massively managing the news
media and images. Iraq-I happened on CNN and was carefully scripted.
Even now we're only just getting documentary accounts of how it really
went over there, things that surprise even those who served.
Putin is trying that. But in the internet age I think it's failing.
Someone who read the PDF and didn't just use the headline as a jumping off point to talk about Russia!
Agreed, it seems to be talking about terrorism-style wars like Algeria and guerilla wars like Vietnam. The Ukraine war is far more conventional and both parties are a strong existing nation state.
Bigger nations have (rightfully!!) stopped being willing to kill or enslave everyone if there is any form of uprising or resistance. It's not like the Gauls or the British or the Jews didn't try to rise up against the Romans, or Native American groups against the US, they were just incredibly brutally put down.
I wonder if really winning a war and properly suppressing its people long term just requires a level of barbarism towards its populous that countries can no longer do? It certainly seems that the "winning hearts and minds" approach didn't really accomplish anything.
I don't think this is true. Wars have been successful at those goals without the hundreds of thousands or millions of souls lost to unsuccessful wars.
There was no real hearts and minds in, say, Afghanistan. A real hearts and minds campaign would see at least as much on improving the quality of life as in destruction, yet in Afghanistan or Iraq, enough money was spent that the US could have provided every single family with a car, modern electronics, built a brand new house, and more - what was spent in Afghanistan was 350 000$ for each Afghan family!
And yet the average Afghan saw war, devastation, death, and famine. The level of material investment is so bad that, adjusted for inflation, the average Afghan was significantly richer during the Soviet-Afghan war as during U.S. occupation.
I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that real effort was spent on hearts and minds when so much money was spent on war when the living condition of the average Afghan only got worse.
If you want hearts and minds, you need to materially and significantly improve the life of whoever you are occupying at the bare minimum. You can't impoverish a population that's already massively impoverished and claim that you're doing hearts and minds.
On the contrary, Rome was able to conquer most of Europe thanks to its hearts and minds approach. You can rule yourself, keep doing your thing, get some nice roads and towns, move on with life. All you have to do is swear allegiance to Rome and pay some taxes. No more than that. You didn't even have to change your religion if you didn't want to.
If you said no, that's when the pain started of course.
You can conquer people by force, but you can't occupy by force. Occupation only works with hearts and minds.
That's really not how it worked, the conquered people mostly obeyed the Roman rule not because they were won over with hearts and minds but because otherwise the Romans were absolutely brutal and cruel in their punishment against any kind of uprising or disobedience. Rebellions and insurgencies broke out all over the place and were usually brutally crushed typically with great bloodshed on both sides and any survivors and their families typically suffering one of the many cruel and unusual punishments the Romans favoured.
>"winning hearts and minds" approach didn't really accomplish anything.
Agent orange, Mỹ Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, hundreds of thousands of dead, millions of maimed, displaced, financially ruined, starved (check heartwarming reply of Madeleine Albright in regards to 500,000 kids dead by starvation and desease). Well the list can go on and on.
I fail to see even a trace of "winning hearts and minds" approach here.
>"Mariupol with most of the people dead is happening right now"
I have zero sympathy to that rabid dog Putin. However your "most of the people dead" is total BS. Check the numbers on Wikipedia - casualties vs population [0].
Not for lack of trying. Drone video of Mariupol yesterday.[1] Some people got out in time. Some didn't. At least 100,000 are stuck with no escape route.[2] The city is surrounded and being shelled by both ground artillery and naval vessels.
There's no body count yet.
The siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg today) is the closest historical parallel.
Siege of the Leningrad had lasted 900 days with the body count of 1.5 million people. Judging by the way things going in Ukraine this whole Putin's war should be over pretty soon and not to his liking.
Russia is only "losing" because they can't justify being barbaric to the world, US justified that with fighting terrorism, so "collateral damage" was allowed.
I lived enough that I made it to 2021 to see that even Israel starting to care about that, when they let people know what buildings they are targeting before launching the attack.
> when they let people know what buildings they are targeting before launching the attack
This is not a new thing in 2021. They have been calling families to evacuate their homes before the home's scheduled bombing for a long time (I think more than a decade now).
I managed to get through the PDF and it certainly dances around the vietnam war. Stanfords shouldering the bulk of the wound-licking here as vietnam ended in futility in 1975, which is a little early for a comprehensive academic assessment if you ask me. the article also flogs 'asymmetry' to the point of using it to scapegoat US culpability of leadership. Congress and Senate couldnt agree on a daily basis what to target or when to attack, and insisted on the micromanagement of the entire affair in some cases to a deleterious objective of just "fighting the communism" and "winning" without any meaningful performance indication. conscripting americans resulted in desertion and decline of morale to the point most soldiers didnt care, and lying to the public about casualty and progress made it equally untenable at home.
im sure after defeat it was comforting to consider it a small war, but it wasnt. vitenam had the full backing (albeit proxy) might of the soviet union. it killed or wounded nearly 200,000 US troops and at a surge point of 3.5 million enlisted troops spelled the precipitous decline of enlistment to less than half that number over the next five decades.
> spelled the precipitous decline of enlistment to less than half that number over the next five decades
That was why, as a teenager, I refused to consider any kind of military involvement. The whole Vietnam war appeared an abuse of the draft and the goodwill of people who joined voluntarily.
I still lean towards a belief that militaries should be all voluntary.
I think during wartimes political leaders and business leaders (especially defense company leaders) should be required to either go themselves to the front themselves or have their children fight in the war. It’s good for them to have “skin in the game” in wartime so they understand their decisions better. There are way too many examples of leaders and their families who live the good life during war while the military and civilian population are suffering.
John McCain couldn't raise his hands because of his torture at the hand of the Vietcong.
Then big-man draft-dodger Trump comes around and gets the Republican Nomination instead, all the while making fun of McCain's injuries as a POW.
People like to pretend they care about leaders who have gone into war zones and personally risked their lives. But the politics of the past decade have taught me that all of that is just more political bluster. There's no actual power to going into war and risking yourself as a leader, the people will forget by the next election.
So, if the political will had been there at home, they could have sent a lot more.
I also think what you describe in “Congress and Senate couldnt… made it equally untenable at home.” is precisely the argument this paper made: that war was lost in the USA, not in Vietnam.
Agreed on the last point - Vietnam was no small war, at all. For comparison, the Ukraine war is not small either, and has around 1/10th as many troops on the attacking side!
>> Congress and Senate couldnt agree on a daily basis what to target or when to attack, and insisted on the micromanagement of the entire affair in some cases to a deleterious objective of just "fighting the communism" and "winning" without any meaningful performance indication.
Ultimately the administration needed Congressional backing, but the Pentagon reports directly to the president.
Today Russia is forcing oil payments in rubbles to unfriendly countries. This will shore up their currency and with the price increase in oil I'm not sure Russia is losing the economic war.
Military wise they are afraid to go in and out right kill and level cities which is how they normally wage war. It makes sense because they share a genetic history where they had no issue leveling separatist southern provinces when needed.
