Just because they're not fighting doesn't necessarily mean they're not contributing.
Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter pardus
- Start date
Just because they're not fighting doesn't necessarily mean they're not contributing.
Fewer than the Afghans and Iraqis?
I don’t think most of them are supplying the front lines with food or any other type support.
Not disagreeing with this comment. A decent chunk of Ukrainian’s are willing to fight for their country.
CPL B USMC
Verified Military
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2014
- Messages
- 47
Probably a different thread.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,561
This is a pretty bold statement.
CNN: Zelensky: 'I'm ready for negotiations' with Putin, but if they fail, it could mean 'a third World War'.
Zelensky: 'I'm ready for negotiations' with Putin, but if they fail, it could mean 'a third World War'
CNN: Zelensky: 'I'm ready for negotiations' with Putin, but if they fail, it could mean 'a third World War'.
Zelensky: 'I'm ready for negotiations' with Putin, but if they fail, it could mean 'a third World War'
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Part of it is the secure comms of the Russian Army are non-existent and they're using Ukrainian Cell phones, not their own cell phones, to communicate.
Just like every other war, ever? You also have tens of thousands of Ukrainians who held residence outside the country returning and volunteering under the general mobilization order. The vast majority of the evacuees are women and children.
Just don't understand the tone of your comments.
__________
Saw a claim somewhere that what helped Russia affect their siege of Mariupol to it's current state of affairs was that half the police force defected to Russia, this rings similar to when the Berkut were being disbanded and Russia invaded Crimea. The entire Berkut unit defected to Russia. These police have supposedly forcefully evacuated 5-10,000 people from Mariupol to Russia.
Last edited:
I suspect it's because just like our military, the commanders position themselves where they can best control their formations, which in turn is tied to communication. When your comms suck, or when your units are otherwise not doing what you want them to do (or are doing a bunch of shit you DON'T want them to do), then commanders need to move forward to exercise more control. Our commanders are back on the FOBs because they have great NCOs and officers in the field, tremendous situational awareness thanks to intel, and the best military comms in the world. Otherwise there'd probably be a lot of brigade (and above) commanders in places where they could get got.
Russia will probably spin this like it's heroically "leading from the front," but I suspect it's because poor leadership, poor comms, poor morale, and very shitty mission accomplishment are driving this.
John Mearsheimer is one of the leading voices of the "Realism" school of International Relations thought. I think this piece by him is probably more nuanced than the headline indicates (writers rarely get to pick their headlines). The article is paywalled but understanding his thoughts on Realism, I can probably guess what it says: national interests, driven by survival, trump everything.
John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis
John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis
The Clash approve of this new version.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,561
I'm curious as to the argument in the rest of his article but, on the surface, I reject his premise that the West is responsible for Ukraine -- unless he's arguing about West inaction/failure to keep Putin in check when he moved on Georgia and other Russian aggressions over the past couple decades. Putin has retained power in what can only be described as a dubious fashion for the better part of 2 decades. His actions have always given pause.
Putin certainly played a role in a lot of Russia's economic success, particularly early in his rise to power, but he also holds sole responsibility for it's many failures and missed opportunities. Ukraine wasn't inevitable, save for Putin's desire to make it so.
I suspect that his argument is that states are wholly motivated by national interests and survival, and that NATO "encroachment" on significant countries like Georgia and Ukraine threaten Russia's national interests, something we knew or should have known for years (in fact I think Mearshimer wrote that a few years back). Therefore, by our relentless march east, we're threatening Russia's core interests, so of course they're going to react militarily.
In retrospect we may have been better off supporting the push to get Ukraine into the EU instead of NATO.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,561
I always find the argument about encroaching NATO to be a bit of an odd one, especially if one believes reports Putin once inquired about Russia joining NATO -- who knows the context or reality of that discussion. Regardless, if a state had no ulterior motive, why would it object to a neighbor state bolstering it's own defenses, especially if Russia really considered NATO to be somewhat of a paper tiger. And how ridiculous is the buffer argument if Ukraine falls? It will be under direct Russian control with bordering NATO countries. In addition, in the modern age, why would this necessarily require a military response? None of the angles really holds much water.
The real fact that appears apparent is that Putin probably always envisioned a reunification of sorts. The issue was how to frame it; deal with Chechnya first, then Georgia/South Ossetia, then Crimea...all a slow boil.
They inquired because they were taking the piss, saying if it wasn't an anti-Russian operation then surely Russia could also join?
So just a principled statement more than anything. I thought it was funny.
So just a principled statement more than anything. I thought it was funny.
It's a classic case of the security dilemma, which is also a key component of realism. To sum up the security dilemma: because power is zero-sum in an anarchical international system, the measures one state takes to make themselves more secure inevitably make other nations less secure. It's the same reason the Russians got super-upset over Star Wars; it was a purely defensive measure, but the Russians didn't have something comparable to shoot down any missiles we shot at them.
...and EVERY state ALWAYS has ulterior motives.
