History in the Making: Russian Invasion

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to tuna55 :

That's a distinction without a difference. Yes, war helps the defense industry. It's also obviously easier for Ukraine if they get the stuff they want to fight the war instead of money to buy the stuff they want to fight the war. And this way some of it trickles down to help our economy quicker. 

It's interesting that this was a popular neoconservative philosophy back when I was growing up, and now it feels like the "traditional" left, that used to oppose such concepts, is now fully on board, while many on the right have now swung the other way. 

 

You know my personally well enough to know I am neither on the left nor a neocon.

This is not the US looking for a proxy war, this is the US responding with basically the entire civilized world to a humanitarian crisis perpetrated by a clear aggressor.

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Given the current power structure in Russia, what comes after Putin may make him look like the moderate. 

One would hope that the moderates who think this "special exercise" is a waste of resources and a self-pwn will take out Putin's supporting hardliners at the same time.

Now, granted, it did not take long for the Bolshevik revolution to get sidetracked, and when they thought they were moving Stalin to an unimportant post so he could be kept out of the way, they miscalculated a bit and ended up putting the pieces in place to make the 'Secretary of the Party' the most powerful member of the Soviet.... but, you know.  At least that took a while to happen, instead of instantaneous, hammer-like Worse.

In reply to tuna55 :

"We help people.  It's what we DO."

Quote from rallycross a couple days ago.  A competitor's car failed spectacularly and a number of tow rig/trailer combos were offered to help get the guy home.

Story last month about a guy in Florida's trailer getting stolen and $200k of circle track cars and equipment destroyed by the thief to hide the evidence because he only wanted a trailer.  The racer's competitors offered to give him chassis/engines/etc to get him back competing.

It's what we DO.

tuna55 said:

02Pilot said:

Lukashenko has announced that Belarus will deploy troops jointly with Russia. No clear indication if this means into Ukraine, or just the annexed territories, or something else. Nor is there any statement on size and composition of the force, or the intended timing. Possibly a significant development, but Belorussian forces are likely to be pretty brittle if subjected to direct combat. They might be more effectively deployed as security forces or other secondary duties behind the lines, freeing up Russian troops for the front.

I read that this was done as a token to avoid getting into the conflict (and having Ukrain target them), thoughts?

I don't have any more information at this time. This was a new statement within the last 24 hours. There were also unconfirmed reports that some of the drones targeting Ukrainian cities in retaliation for the Kerch Bridge attack were launched from Belarus. Until there are indications of troop movements or other solid intel, it's a bit of a guessing game (which is likely part of the reason for the vagueness of the statement).

tuna55 said:

Russia has apparently responded to the destruction of the Crimean bridge by launching cruise missiles into city centers and parks. If you needed any more evidence of who the aggressor is, here is said evidence.

I don't think there's a person here arguing that point.  

02Pilot said:

tuna55 said:

02Pilot said:

Lukashenko has announced that Belarus will deploy troops jointly with Russia. No clear indication if this means into Ukraine, or just the annexed territories, or something else. Nor is there any statement on size and composition of the force, or the intended timing. Possibly a significant development, but Belorussian forces are likely to be pretty brittle if subjected to direct combat. They might be more effectively deployed as security forces or other secondary duties behind the lines, freeing up Russian troops for the front.

I read that this was done as a token to avoid getting into the conflict (and having Ukrain target them), thoughts?

I don't have any more information at this time. This was a new statement within the last 24 hours. There were also unconfirmed reports that some of the drones targeting Ukrainian cities in retaliation for the Kerch Bridge attack were launched from Belarus. Until there are indications of troop movements or other solid intel, it's a bit of a guessing game (which is likely part of the reason for the vagueness of the statement).

This is not a question just to you, but a point, regardless of if this action is Belarus, Putin retaliating, or the appointment of Suroviken:

What do they think the result of targeting civilians is going to be? This is only going to make Ukraine fight harder, make the rest of the world supply them with more weapons, and make it less likely that they will cede any territory. Let's not forget to mention that they spent a large portion of their dwindling high precision weapons to attack playgrounds and intersections.

This is what is meant by irrational. You're losing a fight, and so you turn around and start punching the guys kids?

volvoclearinghouse said:

tuna55 said:

Russia has apparently responded to the destruction of the Crimean bridge by launching cruise missiles into city centers and parks. If you needed any more evidence of who the aggressor is, here is said evidence.

I don't think there's a person here arguing that point.  

There are a few, that one guy on TV with a passion for odd smirks, and a few of that type in real life.

Our church supports a missionary family in Ukraine and they have been keeping us rather up to date with the things they have faced since the invasion.  The husband (and his son-in-law) are working as chaplains now with the UA and requested support on medical supplies, because the medics cannot get all that they need.  They are also using up a ton of supplies caring for wounded Russian soldiers.  

The most profound thing that I have gotten from the correspondence from them is that he (as an American serving there) states that the Russians are seen as terrorists, not just invaders.  

tuna55 said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to tuna55 :

That's a distinction without a difference. Yes, war helps the defense industry. It's also obviously easier for Ukraine if they get the stuff they want to fight the war instead of money to buy the stuff they want to fight the war. And this way some of it trickles down to help our economy quicker. 

It's interesting that this was a popular neoconservative philosophy back when I was growing up, and now it feels like the "traditional" left, that used to oppose such concepts, is now fully on board, while many on the right have now swung the other way. 

 

You know my personally well enough to know I am neither on the left nor a neocon.

 

This is not the US looking for a proxy war, this is the US responding with basically the entire civilized world to a humanitarian crisis perpetrated by a clear aggressor.

That wasn't a personal statement, I apologize if it came of as such.  I was commenting on the larger state of things.  I'm neither on the left nor a neocon as well, as you know.  There's lots of humanitarian crises in the world right now, I think questioning why the US gets involved in them is a worthwhile discussion to have.  Yes, they asked us for help.  Is that the sole criterion?  This isn't a LeMons race or a rallycross.  This is war, and acting upon emotion without consulting reason is a good way to get in deep trouble, very quickly.  

I'm old enough to remember Iraq I.  At the time, many on the left were decrying it as "Bush's War", I don't recall it being anything close to unanimously supported.  Conversely, Iraq II was initially pretty well supported, coming on the heels of 9/11 as it did.  It was only when the questions regarding the real motives came out that support for it waned.  Some said, Saddam Hussein may have been a insane dictator, but he was our preferred insane dictator.  

tuna55 said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

tuna55 said:

Russia has apparently responded to the destruction of the Crimean bridge by launching cruise missiles into city centers and parks. If you needed any more evidence of who the aggressor is, here is said evidence.

I don't think there's a person here arguing that point.  

There are a few, that one guy on TV with a passion for odd smirks, and a few of that type in real life.

I don't know who that guy is, but I understand mentioning names here is tantamount to bringing up politics, so I guess we'll let it go.  

tuna55 said:

02Pilot said:

tuna55 said:

02Pilot said:

Lukashenko has announced that Belarus will deploy troops jointly with Russia. No clear indication if this means into Ukraine, or just the annexed territories, or something else. Nor is there any statement on size and composition of the force, or the intended timing. Possibly a significant development, but Belorussian forces are likely to be pretty brittle if subjected to direct combat. They might be more effectively deployed as security forces or other secondary duties behind the lines, freeing up Russian troops for the front.

I read that this was done as a token to avoid getting into the conflict (and having Ukrain target them), thoughts?

I don't have any more information at this time. This was a new statement within the last 24 hours. There were also unconfirmed reports that some of the drones targeting Ukrainian cities in retaliation for the Kerch Bridge attack were launched from Belarus. Until there are indications of troop movements or other solid intel, it's a bit of a guessing game (which is likely part of the reason for the vagueness of the statement).

This is not a question just to you, but a point, regardless of if this action is Belarus, Putin retaliating, or the appointment of Suroviken:

What do they think the result of targeting civilians is going to be? This is only going to make Ukraine fight harder, make the rest of the world supply them with more weapons, and make it less likely that they will cede any territory. Let's not forget to mention that they spent a large portion of their dwindling high precision weapons to attack playgrounds and intersections.

 

This is what is meant by irrational. You're losing a fight, and so you turn around and start punching the guys kids?

This is the sort of stuff that's just bizarre.  Is he trying to lessen our resolve to support Ukraine?  War is one thing....bombing innocent people is, as others have said, terrorism.  And a good way to make sure the U.S. _stays_ involved.  It's like he's actively trying to keep the U.S. supporting Ukraine.  Or maybe even trying to draw the U.S./ E.U. into the war directly.  Which I can't imagine would be good for Russia, at all.  Maybe he's just plain self destructive.  He's going down (dying) and he's going to bring down his whole bloody country with him.  

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

Well, could this be Putin enacting China's will by dragging the West into a massive contest that eventually requires global funding by the Chinese which could save their economy?

volvoclearinghouse said:

tuna55 said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to tuna55 :

That's a distinction without a difference. Yes, war helps the defense industry. It's also obviously easier for Ukraine if they get the stuff they want to fight the war instead of money to buy the stuff they want to fight the war. And this way some of it trickles down to help our economy quicker. 

It's interesting that this was a popular neoconservative philosophy back when I was growing up, and now it feels like the "traditional" left, that used to oppose such concepts, is now fully on board, while many on the right have now swung the other way. 

 

You know my personally well enough to know I am neither on the left nor a neocon.

 

This is not the US looking for a proxy war, this is the US responding with basically the entire civilized world to a humanitarian crisis perpetrated by a clear aggressor.

That wasn't a personal statement, I apologize if it came of as such.  I was commenting on the larger state of things.  I'm neither on the left nor a neocon as well, as you know.  There's lots of humanitarian crises in the world right now, I think questioning why the US gets involved in them is a worthwhile discussion to have.  Yes, they asked us for help.  Is that the sole criterion?  This isn't a LeMons race or a rallycross.  This is war, and acting upon emotion without consulting reason is a good way to get in deep trouble, very quickly.  

I'm old enough to remember Iraq I.  At the time, many on the left were decrying it as "Bush's War", I don't recall it being anything close to unanimously supported.  Conversely, Iraq II was initially pretty well supported, coming on the heels of 9/11 as it did.  It was only when the questions regarding the real motives came out that support for it waned.  Some said, Saddam Hussein may have been a insane dictator, but he was our preferred insane dictator.  

Iraq 1 was interesting. As a sidebar, I recall vividly seeing posters up in my school, essentially saying that the Iraqi army dwarfed our own, and that we were doomed. I recall CNN reluctantly admitting that we had made lots of progress through the desert, and that we would surely encounter much stiffer resistance from the "Elite Republican Guard" which is a term I must have heard repeated dozens of times that day. I say "that day" because I also recall, as they were talking with an expert about how elite the Elite Republican Guard was, and how their equipment and training far surpassed the regular army, they pivoted to show the destroyed Elite Republican Guard tanks, and the intact ones with white flags waving, and a few really surprised Iraqi soliders walking through the desert with their hands up towards where the scary was coming from.

Anyway I get your point. Where do we act, in a humanitarian crisis? For instance, you could rightfully challenge why were are not storming China to free the Uyghurs. I don't know where the line is, but I can safely say that my opinion of where this line is causes an action like this. As much as I am not a fan of this administration in general, if I were in the White House, my response would be pretty similar on this issue.

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

Well, could this be Putin enacting China's will by dragging the West into a massive contest that eventually requires global funding by the Chinese which could save their economy?

This is like when the right wing said Trump was playing 4D chess.

No, I am pretty sure it's just irrational chaos.

In reply to tuna55 :

Oh it definitely is irrational in my opinion. I was looking for alternative options following VCHs statement.

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

In reply to tuna55 :

Oh it definitely is irrational in my opinion. I was looking for alternative options following VCHs statement.

I heard once about the four quadrants of human actions. Basically, you have the helps-hurts others axis, and the helps-hurts myself axis, and the four resulting combinations. The problem is, Putin's actions fall squarely in the "hurts others + hurts myself axis, which is usually reserved for the truly stupid.  So either Putin is just stupid, or insane enough to appear stupid, or there's some other motivations at play here.  Maybe he is doing China's bidding in exchange for something for himself?  

volvoclearinghouse said:

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

In reply to tuna55 :

Oh it definitely is irrational in my opinion. I was looking for alternative options following VCHs statement.

I heard once about the four quadrants of human actions. Basically, you have the helps-hurts others axis, and the helps-hurts myself axis, and the four resulting combinations. The problem is, Putin's actions fall squarely in the "hurts others + hurts myself axis, which is usually reserved for the truly stupid.  So either Putin is just stupid, or insane enough to appear stupid, or there's some other motivations at play here.  Maybe he is doing China's bidding in exchange for something for himself?  

Pootin is bummed that the US is the only country that has nuked anyone.  He's doing E36 M3 to get the US "actively" involved in the war so he can launch a nuke.  Dude wants to get that one in the books.

tuna55 said:

Russia has apparently responded to the destruction of the Crimean bridge by launching cruise missiles into city centers and parks. If you needed any more evidence of who the aggressor is, here is said evidence.

This has some parallels to Germanys frustration at it's inability to reach it's objectives (eliminate the effectiveness of the British Air Force) in the Battle of Britain.  After an accidental bombing of London, Germany went whole hog on trying to bomb London flat, which has no strategic purpose other then try an break the will of the British.  It of course resulted in quite the opposite effect (and also resulted in a LOT of terror bombing retaliation by the British).

There is a saying that goes something like: "once your opponent starts acting or talking emotionally, you know you have won"

This is a very "emotional" attack.  Seems very desperate to me.

Also of note on these attacks:

- Russia apparently launched around 60 cruise missiles.  Missiles that they likely cannot easily replace, and have been rumored to be in short supply already.

- Ukraine apparently shot down at least 50% of them (they say 40).

aircooled said:

Also of note on these attacks:

- Russia apparently launched around 60 cruise missiles.  Missiles that they likely cannot easily replace, and have been rumored to be in short supply already.

- Ukraine apparently shot down at least 50% of them (they say 40).

That's pretty huge. I don't know how many they have, but based on how irrational the rest of the moves have been, and how this was, pretty clearly a terror attack on city centers, this may be all of them they could get ready today.

Shooting down half is huge. It's not wonderful for the injured and dead, but it's still pretty great considering they were aimed everywhere.

Russia's been lobbing missiles indiscriminately all along. This is just the latest round.

There's no such thing as a "clean" war without civilian casualties. But there are different degrees of restraint. Our bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were not technically terrorist acts.  But terror was certainly involved, and lots of innocent people died, so......... 

As for Iraq 1, they played directly to our strengths. Armies are rarely so lucky as we were there.   

Once again, I will posit the idea that Putin's actions are increasingly driven by his need to keep the political hardliners behind him (the alternatives all resulting in him losing his position one way or another). If we start with the premise that Putin is acting rationally, then the obvious question that has to be asked is what he gains by targeting civilians. The other important question is simply: what other options did he have? To do nothing would seriously weaken his standing with Russian hardliners, so he has to act. But how? The only attack vector available with a good chance of success is this sort of strike; any failure of a retaliatory effort would only further undermine his support among those that are currently keeping him in power. How the average Russian, or Westerner for that matter, views these attacks is not the point; those aren't the people Putin is relying on to maintain his position.

In reply to 02Pilot :

What I haven't heard much of is that should Putin be removed, his successor might make him look restrained. I have no doubt that there are those in the upper echelons who would launch a nuke tomorrow if it were within their power.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

What I haven't heard much of is that should Putin be removed, his successor might make him look restrained. I have no doubt that there are those in the upper echelons who would launch a nuke tomorrow if it were within their power.

It seems more than ever that Putin has a tiger by the tail, and if he lets go, he gets eaten. This circles back to providing him with an off ramp, especially since the next guy could be a lot worse. 
Not an appealing choice, trying to give him a way out after all that he's responsible for, but maybe that's the most pragmatic approach. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

What I haven't heard much of is that should Putin be removed, his successor might make him look restrained. I have no doubt that there are those in the upper echelons who would launch a nuke tomorrow if it were within their power.

^This.  Putin has to do some sabre-rattling, in part to appease the hardliners in his government.  But IMO tactically launching nukes in this conflict would actually be a mistake.  It lets Ukraine off the "leash" so to speak, and basically starts the road to escalation of the conflict to the Baltic states and NATO.  I don't think any of his allies (China, Iran, NK, India?) would step up to help him wage a nuclear war that he started without provocation.