War in Ukraine

[PKT_VOL]

Dude, we needed 350k and mobilized for 6 months leading to Desert Storm and that was in a country that is 1/3 or 1/4 the size of Ukraine. We needed 550k at the peak of Vietnam against a non-conventional force.

At a bare minimum, you would need over 1 million.


Leaning heavily on airpower is not going to do anything. Israelis are finding that out in Gaza, and the US found it out in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Syria.

There is already an army on the ground. Once Russian assets are destroyed and/or Russia retreats/surrenders, they would take that land.

Desert Storm was a different situation with a different military and different goals. Given the state of the Russian army presently in Ukraine, NATO's goals could literally achieve all their goals from the air.

The Russians would destroy the logistics in thos NATO countries the minute you start to gather troops. Even in your 100k assumption, that would be easy to detect. The moment one toe crosses over into Ukraine, those logistic sites become military targets.

They can't even destroy Ukrainian logistics a few miles from their own border and frontline as is. What kind of buffoonery is this?

 

[PKT_VOL]

WTF is wrong with that? Is Turkiye not a sovereign country? It only makes sense for sovereign countries to keep all available options open. Just like the trade deal in 2013 for Ukraine, the US wants countries to pick a side, and not engage in pragmatic policies that are in their best interests.

Where did I criticize their strategy goals? I merely stated their strategic goals and that it wasn't working out as they had planned (minus the success of their drone program).

You don't think that one factor in some countries being hesitant is the idea of them being sanctioned or targeted by the US?

Sanctioned? No.

Cut off from American/West MIC technology/platforms? Yes. Have a harder time being meshed into the West + allies defense network? Yes.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Air power is critical! It is why Hitler overran France in 1940. You point out the USA's wars but USA won easily ON THE BATTLEFIELD. What USA sucks at is putting down Guerillas/Insurgencies. The Nazis would do that by simply massacring anyone involved and having a very ruthless and efficient SS squads.

Soviets failed in Afghanistan as well so KGB is just as much a joke as the CIA when it came to dealing with the insurgents in Afghanistan.

It really makes Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan kind of see more impressive that they were able to take over and control so much land in a short period of time. It takes a massive level of cruelty to do that though and USA is not a CRUEL nation like the others listed.

Basically, people take advantage of USA's desire to protect civilians. Even Russia, despite being crueler than the USA, is no where near the level of cruelty of the Axis nations that I listed.

Germany would have won in Afghanistan but they would have literally done it by rounding up the families and anyone tied to or that gave support to the Taliban. Heck, they would probably kill people just for being in the area the Taliban patrolled.

This.

MASSIVE difference between battlefield and country building. Trying to tame insurgency without cruelty is a fool's errand (although commendable).

 

[hog88]

This.

MASSIVE difference between battlefield and country building. Trying to tame insurgency without cruelty is a fool's errand (although commendable).

I disagree on trying to tame insurgency without cruelty being commendable. I think it's the opposite of commendable because it just brings death, destruction and misery for everyone involved.

 

[volbound1700]

I disagree on trying to tame insurgency without cruelty being commendable. I think it's the opposite of commendable because it just brings death, destruction and misery for everyone involved.

I am NOT saying do it but it is probably the most effective way to end insurgencies. The dead don't rebel against you or fight you.

Apparently, European Colonial Powers in the 1700 and 1800s didn't have as hard a time. Perhaps read up on how France controlled Algeria and Vietnam in the 1800s.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I disagree on trying to tame insurgency without cruelty being commendable. I think it's the opposite of commendable because it just brings death, destruction and misery for everyone involved.

It's certainly commendable morally.

Geocide, brutal cruelty, and massive crimes against humanity is ruthlessly pragmatic; particularly in the short-term. Imperial Japan's occupation of Asia/the Pacific was quite effective during the war. After the war, the lingering resentment has continued to hurt post-imperial Japan. People don't forgive nor forget Rape of Nanjing type of actions.

 

[LSU-SIU]

BTW LSU-SIU guy, if Russia is trying to kill off the people, wouldn't it just be easier to use Biological/Chemical weaponry to kill off the people. You preserve the land that way.

Its pretty simple. Israel by and large is just flattening the joint, of course this is on significantly smaller scale. Russia flanks the town, village, city and gains fire control over the roads in and out. Ukraines can still get meat in there but that helps Russia grind the meat, than they keep pounding it with artillery and FABs until the whole joint basically doesn't exist. During this time Russia has fire control and can kill soldiers on the exit or replacements. Eventually, things run its course by retreat or just no more meat to grind.... Russia moves everything forward to the next spot. There is no magic, its just grinding.

Russia's goal isn't to kill all the people in the Ukraine, but if they stand in front of the artillery or FABs they will. Push everything west until everything is one big parking lot.

Its not complex, there isn't much to analyze. I'm sure at this point Russia can probably calculate size of area they can destroy in a day or week or month.

Of course, I know... the Ukraine is winning.

 

[hog88]

I am NOT saying do it but it is probably the most effective way to end insurgencies. The dead don't rebel against you or fight you.

Apparently, European Colonial Powers in the 1700 and 1800s didn't have as hard a time. Perhaps read up on how France controlled Algeria and Vietnam in the 1800s.

They controlled by brutality and that is the only way to tame an insurgency.

 

[hog88]

It's certainly commendable morally.

Geocide, brutal cruelty, and massive crimes against humanity is ruthlessly pragmatic; particularly in the short-term. Imperial Japan's occupation of Asia/the Pacific was quite effective during the war. After the war, the lingering resentment has continued to hurt post-imperial Japan. People don't forgive nor forget Rape of Nanjing type of actions.

There is nothing moral in war.

 

[norrislakevol]

Air power is critical! It is why Hitler overran France in 1940. You point out the USA's wars but USA won easily ON THE BATTLEFIELD. What USA sucks at is putting down Guerillas/Insurgencies. The Nazis would do that by simply massacring anyone involved and having a very ruthless and efficient SS squads.

Soviets failed in Afghanistan as well so KGB is just as much a joke as the CIA when it came to dealing with the insurgents in Afghanistan.

It really makes Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan kind of see more impressive that they were able to take over and control so much land in a short period of time. It takes a massive level of cruelty to do that though and USA is not a CRUEL nation like the others listed.

Basically, people take advantage of USA's desire to protect civilians. Even Russia, despite being crueler than the USA, is no where near the level of cruelty of the Axis nations that I listed.

Germany would have won in Afghanistan but they would have literally done it by rounding up the families and anyone tied to or that gave support to the Taliban. Heck, they would probably kill people just for being in the area the Taliban patrolled.

Absolutely 100 percent true. I actually heard a retired U.S. general saying something like this. He stated that you could definitely get rid of the Taliban for good, but you have to threaten to completely blow up any town or city that lets them in at all. Everyone, and everything dies if that happens. Soon after that the Taliban are done.

They are done even quicker if you go after their families and anyone who has financially helped them and those families as well. It ends quickly then. All of them dead. The west has no stomach for that though, and likely never will.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

They are done even quicker if you go after their families and anyone who has financially helped them and those families as well. It ends quickly then. All of them dead. The west has no stomach for that though, and likely never will.

What you are talking about is not war, it is genocide.

 

[tvolsfan]

What you are talking about is not war, it is genocide.

Ras accidentally leaking the Kremlin’s plan for Ukraine.

 

[BeardedVol]

Ras accidentally leaking the Kremlin’s plan for Ukraine.

Remember, it's not genocide when Russia does it, cause nazi-donbas-nuland-coup-NATO.

 

[volbound1700]

Absolutely 100 percent true. I actually heard a retired U.S. general saying something like this. He stated that you could definitely get rid of the Taliban for good, but you have to threaten to completely blow up any town or city that lets them in at all. Everyone, and everything dies if that happens. Soon after that the Taliban are done.

They are done even quicker if you go after their families and anyone who has financially helped them and those families as well. It ends quickly then. All of them dead. The west has no stomach for that though, and likely never will.

Agree. It is really not worth it though because for one, it is morally wrong, and two, USA loses significant standing in the war.

USA's soft power puts us way ahead of China and Russia. I don't care what Ras and crew say, they are idiots. Most the world would back the USA against China/Russia if push came to shove.

 

[tvolsfan]

Most the world would back the USA against China/Russia if push came to shove.

Not if we keep shouting “America First” at our allies.

 

[volbound1700]

Not if we keep shouting “America First” at our allies.

LOL, they don't care about that. They want the one nation that won't invade them or threaten them. If China or Russia were in charge, we would have a very different world?

Definitely, Putin of Russia is a fan of a more Risk-like world were nations just fight each other and see who is stronger. That world existed prior to the 20th Century.

 

[tvolsfan]

LOL, they don't care about that. They want the one nation that won't invade them or threaten them. If China or Russia were in charge, we would have a very different world?

Definitely, Putin of Russia is a fan of a more Risk-like world were nations just fight each other and see who is stronger. That world existed prior to the 20th Century.

The only countries that matter in this scenario are in Europe and they will work on paving their own path if they don’t think they can trust us.

 

[volfanhill]

Remember, it's not genocide when Russia does it, cause nazi-donbas-nuland-coup-NATO.

You left off the gays

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

 

[LouderVol]

I think the general game plan was take the eastern areas and come up with a peace plan, Russia never wanted the western part and assumed Poland would just annex it at some point. However, it seems like Russia is starting to figure out what I kind of said to start with - turn the whole country into a parking lot. Given enough time and flattening the population will have to continue to move west and eventually out of the country.

We'll see how it turns out, it could certainly take considerable time to do that though (years - decades) - depends on how many shells come in and how much meat remains to throw into the grinder.

My take is the deal will get worse every day, today is better for a deal than tomorrow.

Those people will be a European problem. Remember, F the EU. This isn't a stupid nation building exercise, its a large scale building deconstruction zone.

Is it? I mean they took the Eastern part and had a deal in place than the so called sovereign Ukraine did exactly what the United States wanted their bitch asses to do.

The intend at another point was just to have Poland annex or invade western Ukraine, however I think the realization now is all of the Ukraine needs to become a parking lot something I alluded to within the first year of the start of the war. If they turn the whole thing into flat ground, the problem is fix for the foreseeable future.

Turn the west of Ukraine to dust and sell it to China.

They don't have to take Kiev, they will just flatten it... this isn't nation building, its the largest demolition project in human history. It could take a decade or two, I would say that is on the long end if somehow the Ukraine can generate new meat and artillery. However, that is seeming more unlikely as time goes on.

here you go @LSU-SIU these are just from the last three pages. you are talking about flattening the whole country. turning everything into a parking lot. Plenty more where that came from.

like I said, don't back down now that you are starting to see how ridiculous your claims are.

 

[LouderVol]

I am NOT saying do it but it is probably the most effective way to end insurgencies. The dead don't rebel against you or fight you.

Apparently, European Colonial Powers in the 1700 and 1800s didn't have as hard a time. Perhaps read up on how France controlled Algeria and Vietnam in the 1800s.

I have been reading up a lot on various counter insurgency tactics, including ours. One that consistently pops up was Rhodesia. Much smaller forces using mobility to strike. apparently adapted some of our Vietnam strategy, but I haven't read up enough on the tactics of either to say which part works.

but even the Germans had pretty consistent issues. The French partisans, the Yugoslavian partisans in particular, Polish army. there was organized operational resistance aplenty.

The Japanese faced a little different of a situation and were smarter in their occupation. One they had some Chinese on their side from the start, leaving them in charge helped negate some resistance issues. Two, culturally asian countries aren't as independent once you drive out leaders, which is why the Vietnamese never gave up we never touched their leaders. Three, China was made up of various warlords, there wasn't much of an idea of a unified country to begin with, Japan was able to work with some of those warlords they "conquered". based on their previous occupations and interreference in Chinese governance it was doubtful that their strategy would have worked for a long time. Fourth, China was not industrialized at all, far easier to maintain control on a population that largely doesn't see much difference in a government from Beijing vs a government from Tokyo.

 

[Orangeslice13]

here you go @LSU-SIU these are just from the last three pages. you are talking about flattening the whole country. turning everything into a parking lot. Plenty more where that came from.

like I said, don't back down now that you are starting to see how ridiculous your claims are.

I don’t like it either but unfortunately that’s the only way to actually win wars.
I’d much prefer we didn’t fight them or pay for others to fight them.

 

[LouderVol]

I don’t like it either but unfortunately that’s the only way to actually win wars.
I’d much prefer we didn’t fight them or pay for others to fight them.

depends on what the goal of the war is and what side you are on.

If you are there to take resources or gain something from the land you are taking, destroying everything makes no sense and is counter productive. if you are going in to save the people from the evil west, and you default to blowing them all up, you have defeated yourself. If you are trying to gain a physical buffer between you and an enemy and you lose far more men and material than you gain in relative protection from the buffer, you have hurt yourself.

people have a broad misconception about the role of strategic bombing in WW2. The Germans were producing more in 1944 after 3 years of daily allied bombing than they did in 1941 before the bombing began. They really only lost production capability when they started losing land. We have already been over the nuking of Japan. even the german bombings of Britain had little to no strategic impact on the war. We didn't defeat the Axis because we crippled their manufacturing, we defeated the Axis because we had two world powers that were out escalating them on the macro scale regardless of how much damage we could do. it has an impact, but it doesn't win wars.

if by winning you mean genocide of a nation, then yeah that's how you win the war. But that is not how the referenced wars were won. If you simply want to look at statistics and see who killed more of who, and consider the higher total the winner, then yeah, its how you win a war. if you want a greco-roman boxing match and just see who can do the most damage, then yeah it might be winning.

you aren't going to overthrow a government via strategic destruction. you aren't going to remove some idea via strategic destruction. you aren't going to take and hold ground via strategic destruction. you aren't going to be able to defend your own territory/people with strategic destruction.

 

[Rocky_Top_Vol13]

 

[LSU-SIU]

here you go @LSU-SIU these are just from the last three pages. you are talking about flattening the whole country. turning everything into a parking lot. Plenty more where that came from.

like I said, don't back down now that you are starting to see how ridiculous your claims are.

Who said I was backing down? You are acting like a child, there is no such think as flattening using your definition.

You can act like a 6 year old all day, not much I can do about it.