Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[RZehr]

In my mind, the best outcome of this war and best outcome for future world peace is if Russia is completely defeated in Ukraine. Not because Ukraine is necessarily a shining beacon of democracy or something. But because countries and leaders need to finally learn that offensive war is not the answer. But it seems we need to keep learning that lesson again and again ever couple of decades.

Need to finally learn? Every couple decades? Mankind will never learn not to have wars. Reminds me of Matthew.
Matthew 24:6-7: And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

But the historical fact is that offensive wars of choice rarely end well for the aggressor.

• In 1860 the Confederate south launched a war of choice against the United States for the purpose of defending and expanding slavery. Four years later after over a million deaths the south lay in ruins and in some ways still suffers today from their choice to go to war in 1860.
• In 1865 Paraguay insanely launched a simultaneous war against Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. It became the deadliest war in Latin American history and did not end well for Paraguay, which has still not completely recovered 150 years later.
• In 1914 Germany and its allies plunged the world into war, claiming (just like Russia in 2022) that they were acting "defensively" by invading Belgium and the low countries in route to France. That war of choice did not end well for anyone, but most certainly not Germany and its allies the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire.
• In 1939 Germany again chose to go to war in Poland and then later France, the UK, the USSR, and the US. That war of choice did not end well for Germany.
• In 1931 Japan launched a war of conquest against China which eventually expanded in 1941 when Japan attacked the UK and US. That war of choice did not end well for Japan.
• In 1948 Palestinian Arabs together with their Arab allies chose to go to war with Israel rather than negotiate a peaceful co-existence with their Jewish neighbors. That choice has not ended well for the Palestinians who have suffered for over 60 years for that choice.
• In the 1950s France went to war in Vietnam in an attempt to retake its former colony after Vietnam had declared its independence in the wake of Japanese withdrawal at the end of WW2. That war did not end well for France. And when the US chose to pick up the baton from France and wage another 10 years worth of war in Vietnam it did not end well for the US either.
• In 1979 the USSR chose to invade Afghanistan. That war did not end well for the USSR.
• In the 2000s the US chose to wage war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those wars ended well for the US and in the grand scheme of things accomplished nothing. Afghanistan is back where it started. And Iraq? What did we gain there other than destabilize the region, strengthen Iran, and probably help plunge Syria into civil war?

And here we are in 2023. Russia has somehow convinced itself that this time it will be different. We can only hope that they are wrong. Because if we live in a new world in which offensive wars of choice are rewarded we will most certainly see many many more of them. But if Russia serves as an object lesson for others, perhaps not. At least for a while anyway, until the next leader in 20 or 30 years convinces themselves that "this time it will be different"

There is a list of wars that the aggressor won too.

[Ken]

Helpful chart:



The West has lost its influence on the majority of the world.

Actually it isn't really that helpful because it isn't accurate.

There are plenty of countries on that map that are shaded gray because they haven't imposed their own unilateral sanctions on Russia. But they have certainly gone along with western sanctions.

For example, here is Chile and Argentina cutting off lithium exports to Russia last year: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsig ... a-ministry

Countries around the world are also canceling military contracts with Russia and taking other steps to disengage. Here is India cancelling a multi-billion dollar military contract with Russia: https://indianexpress.com/article/world ... s-7799245/ and other countries have also done the same.

Many of the gray counties on that list have also cut off air service to Russia and many also closed their air space to Russian planes.

[Ken]

There is a list of wars that the aggressor won too.

Sure, lots of wars between enormously over-matched foes. Like the Indian wars in the American west or various colonial wars during the 19th Century.

But how many wars can you list between more closely matched modern foes in which the aggressor nation won some sort of long-lasting victory? At least in the past 150 years of modern military history?

Napoleon's wars all ultimately ended in defeat.
The Franco-Prussian war? That was actually started by France and resulted in French defeat.

Which wars do you have in mind? How far back in history do you have to go to find an example of an aggressor nation winning a lasting victory over a capable foe?

Sure you can go back to the Romans, Ottomans, Mongols under Genghis Khan, etc. But in the era of nation states and modern war?

[Josh]

There is a list of wars that the aggressor won too.

Sure, lots of wars between enormously over-matched foes. Like the Indian wars in the American west or various colonial wars during the 19th Century.

But how many wars can you list between more closely matched modern foes in which the aggressor nation won some sort of long-lasting victory? At least in the past 150 years of modern military history?

Napoleon's wars all ultimately ended in defeat.
The Franco-Prussian war? That was actually started by France and resulted in French defeat.

Which wars do you have in mind? How far back in history do you have to go to find an example of an aggressor nation winning a lasting victory over a capable foe?

Sure you can go back to the Romans, Ottomans, Mongols under Genghis Khan, etc. But in the era of nation states and modern war?

I mean, the modern powers are almost entirely defined as the winners of wars, and they have territory because they won. The map of countries doesn’t look remotely similar to 200 years ago.

[Ken]

There is a list of wars that the aggressor won too.

Sure, lots of wars between enormously over-matched foes. Like the Indian wars in the American west or various colonial wars during the 19th Century.

But how many wars can you list between more closely matched modern foes in which the aggressor nation won some sort of long-lasting victory? At least in the past 150 years of modern military history?

Napoleon's wars all ultimately ended in defeat.
The Franco-Prussian war? That was actually started by France and resulted in French defeat.

Which wars do you have in mind? How far back in history do you have to go to find an example of an aggressor nation winning a lasting victory over a capable foe?

Sure you can go back to the Romans, Ottomans, Mongols under Genghis Khan, etc. But in the era of nation states and modern war?

I mean, the modern powers are almost entirely defined as the winners of wars, and they have territory because they won. The map of countries doesn’t look remotely similar to 200 years ago.

That is an entirely different question from the one that I posed. Which is how many modern countries that CHOSE to be the aggressor in an elective war of choice came out on top?

The USSR was attacked and invaded by Germany in 1941
Britain and France were attacked and invaded by Germany in 1940
China, the UK, and the US were all attacked and had territories invaded by Japan in 1941

Yes the victors redrew the map of the world in the wake of both WW1 and WW2 but in both wars the victors were not the original aggressors. They were the ones attacked.

[Soloist]

Sure, lots of wars between enormously over-matched foes. Like the Indian wars in the American west or various colonial wars during the 19th Century.

But how many wars can you list between more closely matched modern foes in which the aggressor nation won some sort of long-lasting victory? At least in the past 150 years of modern military history?

Napoleon's wars all ultimately ended in defeat.
The Franco-Prussian war? That was actually started by France and resulted in French defeat.

Which wars do you have in mind? How far back in history do you have to go to find an example of an aggressor nation winning a lasting victory over a capable foe?

Sure you can go back to the Romans, Ottomans, Mongols under Genghis Khan, etc. But in the era of nation states and modern war?

So in other words, it only matters if the battles had equal strength? Conveniently side stepping almost all the military conflicts.

Germany was not evenly matched, the French were not evenly matched. Both of those accounts, they bit off more then they could chew.
I’m sure a teacher such as yourself can find an example.
What are you defining as long lasting?
What are you using to determine closely matched foes?

Russia invaded using Cold War tech and tactics. Ukraine has fought back using 1980 and later tech with massive support from most of the western world. This isn’t evenly matched. Russia bit off more then they could chew when they estimated a lower response from the west. There is no question in my mind if the battle for the airport early on was won, the Russians would have carried the day and the western powers would have done almost nothing.

The majority of wars Americans know about is the wars we have been involved in. There have been a number of wars fought that we were not involved in and most of them are with uneven sides.
Simply put, if you chose to attack without first determining if you can win, then you are a fool. The implication of this is that equal forces will not fight.

[Ken]

Sure, lots of wars between enormously over-matched foes. Like the Indian wars in the American west or various colonial wars during the 19th Century.

But how many wars can you list between more closely matched modern foes in which the aggressor nation won some sort of long-lasting victory? At least in the past 150 years of modern military history?

Napoleon's wars all ultimately ended in defeat.
The Franco-Prussian war? That was actually started by France and resulted in French defeat.

Which wars do you have in mind? How far back in history do you have to go to find an example of an aggressor nation winning a lasting victory over a capable foe?

Sure you can go back to the Romans, Ottomans, Mongols under Genghis Khan, etc. But in the era of nation states and modern war?

So in other words, it only matters if the battles had equal strength? Conveniently side stepping almost all the military conflicts.

Germany was not evenly matched, the French were not evenly matched. Both of those accounts, they bit off more then they could chew.
I’m sure a teacher such as yourself can find an example.
What are you defining as long lasting?
What are you using to determine closely matched foes?

Russia invaded using Cold War tech and tactics. Ukraine has fought back using 1980 and later tech with massive support from most of the western world. This isn’t evenly matched. Russia bit off more then they could chew when they estimated a lower response from the west. There is no question in my mind if the battle for the airport early on was won, the Russians would have carried the day and the western powers would have done almost nothing.

The majority of wars Americans know about is the wars we have been involved in. There have been a number of wars fought that we were not involved in and most of them are with uneven sides.
Simply put, if you chose to attack without first determining if you can win, then you are a fool. The implication of this is that equal forces will not fight.

I'm simply pointing out that in the era of nation states and modern warfare, the aggressor nation rarely wins. And, in fact, it usually turns out badly. I gave a long list of examples from the Confederacy to Afghanistan.

If you think that is not the case, then you must certainly have some notable counter-examples. Do you?

Now one might argue that more powerful states tend not to go to war to achieve their objectives because they have other economic means at their disposal to extort weaker nations into doing their bidding. And that might well be the case. Nations tend not to be altruistic. They are self-interested.

But I'm talking about war here. What are the modern examples in which it turned out well for an aggressor nation bent on territorial conquest?

[temporal1]

Ken:
In the history of Christianity probably less than 1% of Christians ever truly took a path of non-resistance and pacifism. ..

This has been the central purpose of this forum, MD+MN. Believers do not expect to be in the majority, they don’t expect an easy time of it, nor the broad road. Salvation is not based on mob rule.

Ken:
And yes, we do know EXACTLY ..

sorry, kenny, to put it mildly, we-don’t-know-squat .. all we have is speculation, human reasoning, etc. [not much.]

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”
Chesterton

Scriptures and world history, including contemporary history, have examples of the impossible happening, underdogs prevailing. If not, no one would make an effort to resist. It would all be settled on paper.
There is the great unknown, providence, God’s perfect will. Heart+soul. Resiliency. Resourcefulness.

“The Christian ideal” is not based on statistics, models, any of the grand stuff of human reasoning. Press it all you like, you don’t hold the final word. .. “You are a mist that appears for a little while then disappears.” .. James 4:14

i didn’t make up God’s rules. neither did you.

No.
We will never know what would have happened had Ukraine+The West not immediately met the intruders with billions in warfare.
It wasn’t tried. All evidence is, the response was “hair trigger” planned+ready. For years. (Possibly, 2016-2020 slowed things temporarily.) As irritating as it was.

“Billions in warfare” does not materialize overnight. My guess is, it was years+years in the making.
Just try to interfere!

(i think) not unlike a trap. But one Putin surely could forsee?

[Soloist]

But the historical fact is that offensive wars of choice rarely end well for the aggressor.

• In 1860 the Confederate south launched a war of choice against the United States for the purpose of defending and expanding slavery. Four years later after over a million deaths the south lay in ruins and in some ways still suffers today from their choice to go to war in 1860.

Inaccurate. The Union refused to remove troops from Confederate territory. The Union was bigger and more powerful. This also is out of your 150 year window.

[*]In 1865 Paraguay insanely launched a simultaneous war against Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. It became the deadliest war in Latin American history and did not end well for Paraguay, which has still not completely recovered 150 years later.

I know nothing about this war, again it falls out of your timeline. Also attacking multiple nations is pretty stupid

[*]In 1914 Germany and its allies plunged the world into war, claiming (just like Russia in 2022) that they were acting "defensively" by invading Belgium and the low countries in route to France. That war of choice did not end well for anyone, but most certainly not Germany and its allies the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire.

You know very well this was the last Great War of the kings and it wasn’t started as you say. I suggest you review the history books.
It actually ended pretty good for the Ottoman Empire overall.

[*]In 1939 Germany again chose to go to war in Poland and then later France, the UK, the USSR, and the US. That war of choice did not end well for Germany.

Good example of a war of aggression, although pretty clearly caused from WW1 otherwise Hitler would never have risen in power.

[

*]In 1931 Japan launched a war of conquest against China which eventually expanded in 1941 when Japan attacked the UK and US. That war of choice did not end well for Japan.

If a nation blockaded you until your ability to fight was critical, do you think perhaps they might have had a reason?

[*]In 1948 Palestinian Arabs together with their Arab allies chose to go to war with Israel rather than negotiate a peaceful co-existence with their Jewish neighbors. That choice has not ended well for the Palestinians who have suffered for over 60 years for that choice.

As pointed out by Josh, that isn’t the full story and again, western powers basically caused this.

[*]In the 1950s France went to war in Vietnam in an attempt to retake its former colony after Vietnam had declared its independence in the wake of Japanese withdrawal at the end of WW2. That war did not end well for France. And when the US chose to pick up the baton from France and wage another 10 years worth of war in Vietnam it did not end well for the US either.

It’s been the same issue with any western imperialism. Most of those wars of aggression though you ignore.

[*]In 1979 the USSR chose to invade Afghanistan. That war did not end well for the USSR.

[*]In the 2000s the US chose to wage war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those wars ended well for the US and in the grand scheme of things accomplished nothing. Afghanistan is back where it started. And Iraq? What did we gain there other than destabilize the region, strengthen Iran, and probably help plunge Syria into civil war?[/list]

More examples of imperialism. I’ll point out though that you are not following your own terms you challenged others on. Both Russia and America were much more capable then these other foes. The reasons both lost is more complicated then strictly military aspects.

And here we are in 2023. Russia has somehow convinced itself that this time it will be different. We can only hope that they are wrong. Because if we live in a new world in which offensive wars of choice are rewarded we will most certainly see many many more of them. But if Russia serves as an object lesson for others, perhaps not. At least for a while anyway, until the next leader in 20 or 30 years convinces themselves that "this time it will be different"

Perhaps when Americans have figured it out we can then teach the Russians.

[temporal1]

Ken:
Simply put, if you chose to attack without first determining if you can win, then you are a fool.

One of the complaints about U.S. involvement in Vietnam was the evident refusal to win it. So many lives sacrificed, while leadership .. spent+spent, ordering more young men to go. For what?