Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 29

On March 05 2022 02:31 deacon.frost wrote:

Well, the Earth can support many more people WITH fertilizers. Without them it will be hard. Especially with this shock method, this will result in smaller crops, because recently the gas(which it is made of) was raising in price so everybody was waiting for the price to go down to start trading/manufacturing. This may have huge implications with food shortage.

Edit> also western countries waste shitload of food and they won't stop now for some magical reason, the habits will be hard to break. Which won't help. This can be deadlier than the war itself. (I hope it won't)

On March 05 2022 02:36 PhoenixVoid wrote:

I've read to keep a close watch on impending food shortages and insecurities in the Middle East and Africa due to this war. That means a higher probability of conflicts, uprisings, and wars, which is tragic. We saw food shortages be a spark for the Syrian Civil War, as one example. This will resonate far beyond Europe at this rate.

On March 05 2022 04:42 pmh wrote:
Warning:incoming 500 word essay.

Russia will win this war eventually. I have little doubt about that but i could be wrong. If they should be happy with that is a different question. I do think this conflict is a mistake even from Russias perspective. It wont lead to an optimal outcome for them in the long run. And i also think it was a mistake from the west to not make some sort of compromise while the opportunity was still there. Maybe they counted on Russia not making a mistake.

The big question is how the west should proceed from what eventually will be a new reality. All eyes are on the war itself now which makes sense seeing how horrible it is. But the west should start looking ahead.

Does the west even have a plan on how to proceed geopolitically once the new reality is there? They rushed all in with sanctions,now anticipating those might last 10 years or more (which does seem realistic to me). But what exactly is the exit for the west from this situation?

10+ years of cold war,massive military spending and sanctions which also severely effect europe itself. Hoping that once Putin eventually goes out of office naturally there is an opportunity for a more satisfying solution?
And if we are willing to wait this long to potentially reach a more satisfying outcome anyway (which would also mean 10+ years of waiting for the people of Ukraine which would obviously be horrible..) is it not an option to sit out that time without pushing the tensions to the brink?
There is some positive aspects as well but i dont really feel like mentioning them,

All of this doesnt strike me as very attractive. Not to mention that the long term geo-political prospect of facing of against a Chinese/Russian block which supports eachoter in their geo political ambitions doesnt look to promising either. Seeing the other potential areas of conflict that are there elsewhere in the world. Sure maybe in 10+ years there is another opportunity. But that is not guaranteed and world might have changed in such a way that such an opportunity might not arise.
I dont want to claim there is a better option,sometimes there is no easy solution. But are alternatives beeing considered or is the west all in on the current aproach and sticking with it till the end no matter what?

Maybe the sanctions will be enough to force a reasonable and for all parties satisfying compromise eventually. This does seem unlikely though. Russia seems very determined and the population of Russia is no stranger to economic hardship.
The country is an autarky to a high degree,contrary to western europe,and they have China as a partner. Besides that the long term geo-political perspective following from the current situation do not look good to me.

The west seems to chose a middle of the road aproach. Between getting involved in the war and giving in to Russias demands virtually completely. Is such a middle of the road aproach really a good strategy, is it the best of both worlds or is it the worst of both world ?
In general when it comes to any sort of critical situation a middle of the road aproach is not the best aproach. In such situations it is often better to go all in on an aproach that lies on either end of the spectrum.

The middle of the road aproach kicks the can down the road. Which could lead to disaster in the long run as it is obvious where this road leads to. It is understandable,rather face another difficult situation in a few years then having to face it today.
Which is why Chamberlains policy did make perfect sense at the time. People knew where it would lead to eventually,they simply didnt want to deal with it right away and rather postponed it with a few years.
We will cross that bridge when we get there as a popular saying goes. It is a way to keep moving forward but it is also an excuse to simply not care about long term implications of certain policys. Not only in politics but also in business and when it comes to things like climate change.

Which aproach is "best" (captions because nothing is good in the current situation) i honestly would not know. Maybe current aproach is best indeed from a geo-political point of vieuw. (And just to be clear,the current aproach is definitely not the best aproach from a humanistic point of vieuw as the suffering that comes with it is far to big).
But right now i dont really see a clear advantage in the current aproach over either of the 2 more polarizing aproaches. Which would be getting involved directly or de-escalating by giving in to Russia and then firmly drawing a new line somewhere else on the map.

On March 05 2022 04:42 pmh wrote:
Warning:incoming 500 word essay.
...
The west seems to chose a middle of the road aproach. Between getting involved in the war and giving in to Russias demands virtually completely. Is such a middle of the road aproach really a good strategy, is it the best of both worlds or is it the worst of both world ?
In general when it comes to any sort of critical situation a middle of the road aproach is not the best aproach. In such situations it is often better to go all in on an aproach that lies on either end of the spectrum.

The middle of the road aproach kicks the can down the road. Which could lead to disaster in the long run as it is obvious where this road leads to. It is understandable,rather face another difficult situation in a few years then having to face it today.

On March 05 2022 05:17 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

I feel like pure abstract military-strategically it's fine for the west to watch the russian war machine wreck itself on stingers and NLAWs and Bayraktars. Russians are both being exposed as actually not a A-tier military, and their shit is getting destroyed. But it's being paid with Ukrainian blood.

Morally I think it's a huge loss. Like I feel just pure despair all week long from having to watch these armored columns of destruction move toward Kyiv or the shelling of Kharkiv, and knowing we will not (can not?) interfere. It's really horrifying to me that such state vs state evil can still happen in Europe. But of course potential nuclear war is also horrifying.

Emotionally I really want to airstrike that entire armor column out of existence right now. I feel like most of Russia's military capabilities have been a lie and we can easily defeat their jets over Ukrainian territory if even slow shitty drones like Bayraktar are successful against their AA.. There wouldn't be a NATO push into russian territory, but we'd blast anything that comes over the border. I feel like that would cause them to back off after they lose several jets. People say this would immediately equal total war but it doesn't have to. Technically the sanctions are doing way more financial damage than russia losing jets and tanks, so why would one mean total war but not the other?

However, there is also a chance that instead of backing off after losing jets, Russia tactical nukes every NATO airbase in range of Ukraine, and tells us that we are the ones who should back off. And no leader wants to flip that coin. So that's why the response is what it is and we probably can't change much about it sadly.

On March 05 2022 05:29 SC-Shield wrote:


Is it possible that Russia saves their best tech because they thought Ukraine was an easy target? Also, so they don't expose what they have. There has to be a reason why Russian army is so mediocre... even if Russia wins, it's like a Pyrrhic victory at this point

On March 05 2022 05:29 SC-Shield wrote:


Is it possible that Russia saves their best tech because they thought Ukraine was an easy target? Also, so they don't expose what they have. There has to be a reason why Russian army is so mediocre... even if Russia wins, it's like a Pyrrhic victory at this point

On March 05 2022 05:29 SC-Shield wrote:


Is it possible that Russia saves their best tech because they thought Ukraine was an easy target? Also, so they don't expose what they have. There has to be a reason why Russian army is so mediocre... even if Russia wins, it's like a Pyrrhic victory at this point

In the two weeks prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Marine Corps University ran a four-day wargame to simulate the first several days of just such an invasion. One of us ran the wargame while the others played the Ukrainian and Russian forces. Despite a few stark differences, the current Russian offensive is playing out in ways eerily similar to that simulation.

By the time the wargame ended, the overall situation appeared very much as it does on the ground in Ukraine, with only two major deviations. First, the Russians have pushed harder out of Belarus to the west of the Dneiper — north of Kyiv — to strike the city from the rear. And secondly, the Russian assault in Kherson was temporarily halted, as the axis of advance in the south for a time turned northeast toward Mariupol. Both of these actions were, however, discussed by the players in the wargame.

As the wargame ended, the Ukrainians were under pressure in the north, with Russian forces closing in on the eastern approaches to Kyiv and the Dnieper River, while also beginning to cross the border from Belarus into the northwest through the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. In the east, the Russians were starting to encircle Kharkiv and the 8th Combined Arms Army was emerging from the Donetsk area to attack towards Melitopol and the Dnieper River. Again, this is almost precisely what we are seeing on the ground in Ukraine on the war’s fifth day.