Szdfan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 12:56 pm
I've read concerns about the strategy for this. I've seen suggestions that part of the intent is to reduce pressure in the Donbass as the Russians have to redirect their military forces to Kursk, which makes sense?
The attack and its current success certainly damage the view that Russia is invulnerable and can attack its neighbors with impunity.
I have lots of questions -- including how the West is going to respond to this -- but we'll see how this shapes out. I'm curious how committed the Ukrainians are in the attack on region around Kursk. Is it a diversion or do they intend to control Russian territory for as long as they can?
Well, a realistic question is how they actually brought the troops into Russians territory. I haven’t read that much, but I would say it risks broadening in the war line that they have already.
From what I heard, it’s only 1000. If that’s the case without a supply line, they’re not going to be able to continue combat longer than about 7-10 days. Russia could conceivably just ignore it and use it as propaganda for their own country, although they likely will do something eventually. Ukraine is unable to actually hold any of the territory they pursue without digging in with substantial effort and they do not have the resources to spread to a second front. This move basically is political, part of their issue, though is if they look capable to launch attacks and raids, then it could hamper efforts to get supplies. At the same time, not doing anything risks other countries deciding it’s a lost cause.
My guess is they’re hoping Russia diverts substantial forces to show a grand response that might allow them to gain a little territory elsewhere. This just presents as another tactic from their president and not the generals.
I think I agree with you. This attack is a political move more than a pragmatic military one. It certainly has propagandistic value in bringing the war a little closer to the Russians.
I'm dreading how my Dad is going to respond to this.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 12:56 pm
I've read concerns about the strategy for this. I've seen suggestions that part of the intent is to reduce pressure in the Donbass as the Russians have to redirect their military forces to Kursk, which makes sense?
The attack and its current success certainly damage the view that Russia is invulnerable and can attack its neighbors with impunity.
I have lots of questions -- including how the West is going to respond to this -- but we'll see how this shapes out. I'm curious how committed the Ukrainians are in the attack on region around Kursk. Is it a diversion or do they intend to control Russian territory for as long as they can?
Well, a realistic question is how they actually brought the troops into Russians territory. I haven’t read that much, but I would say it risks broadening in the war line that they have already.
From what I heard, it’s only 1000. If that’s the case without a supply line, they’re not going to be able to continue combat longer than about 7-10 days. Russia could conceivably just ignore it and use it as propaganda for their own country, although they likely will do something eventually. Ukraine is unable to actually hold any of the territory they pursue without digging in with substantial effort and they do not have the resources to spread to a second front. This move basically is political, part of their issue, though is if they look capable to launch attacks and raids, then it could hamper efforts to get supplies. At the same time, not doing anything risks other countries deciding it’s a lost cause.
My guess is they’re hoping Russia diverts substantial forces to show a grand response that might allow them to gain a little territory elsewhere. This just presents as another tactic from their president and not the generals.
I think I agree with you. This attack is a political move more than a pragmatic military one. It certainly has propagandistic value in bringing the war a little closer to the Russians.
I'm dreading how my Dad is going to respond to this.
When you choose to start a war based on lies and false pretenses it usually tends not to go in the direction you want.
Something the south found out during the Civil War. Something the US found out in Vietnam and Iraq. Something Hamas found out in Gaza. And something the Russians are finding out in Ukraine.
I have no idea what kind of strategic objective is achieved by this. But three possibilities do come to mind. First, it may force Russia to re-deploy troops and equipment out of eastern Ukraine and back into Russia to defend and retake their own territory. Which would ease the pressure on other parts of the front. Second, it may be part of a deliberate strategy on the part of Ukraine to incrementally take the war deeper into Russia instead of just fighting on Russia's terms in the places and times that Russia chooses where they are at a disadvantage. And third, it puts Ukraine into more equal footing in some future peace negotiation if both sides have territory to exchange rather than just one side.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Soloist wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:04 pm
Well, a realistic question is how they actually brought the troops into Russians territory. I haven’t read that much, but I would say it risks broadening in the war line that they have already.
From what I heard, it’s only 1000. If that’s the case without a supply line, they’re not going to be able to continue combat longer than about 7-10 days. Russia could conceivably just ignore it and use it as propaganda for their own country, although they likely will do something eventually. Ukraine is unable to actually hold any of the territory they pursue without digging in with substantial effort and they do not have the resources to spread to a second front. This move basically is political, part of their issue, though is if they look capable to launch attacks and raids, then it could hamper efforts to get supplies. At the same time, not doing anything risks other countries deciding it’s a lost cause.
My guess is they’re hoping Russia diverts substantial forces to show a grand response that might allow them to gain a little territory elsewhere. This just presents as another tactic from their president and not the generals.
I think I agree with you. This attack is a political move more than a pragmatic military one. It certainly has propagandistic value in bringing the war a little closer to the Russians.
I'm dreading how my Dad is going to respond to this.
When you choose to start a war based on lies and false pretenses it usually tends not to go in the direction you want.
Something the south found out during the Civil War. Something the US found out in Vietnam and Iraq. Something Hamas found out in Gaza. And something the Russians are finding out in Ukraine.
Are wars more likely to go the direction the aggressor wants if they start them based on truth?
Szdfan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:08 pm
I think I agree with you. This attack is a political move more than a pragmatic military one. It certainly has propagandistic value in bringing the war a little closer to the Russians.
I'm dreading how my Dad is going to respond to this.
When you choose to start a war based on lies and false pretenses it usually tends not to go in the direction you want.
Something the south found out during the Civil War. Something the US found out in Vietnam and Iraq. Something Hamas found out in Gaza. And something the Russians are finding out in Ukraine.
Are wars more likely to go the direction the aggressor wants if they start them based on truth?
They are less likely to start in the first place if they are based on the truth.
Would Americans have supported the rush to war in Iraq if they had been told the truth? Which is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, and that going to war in Iraq will cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, last 10 years, generate millions of refugees, and leave the middle east more chaotic and worse off than before?
I kind of doubt it.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
When you choose to start a war based on lies and false pretenses it usually tends not to go in the direction you want.
Something the south found out during the Civil War. Something the US found out in Vietnam and Iraq. Something Hamas found out in Gaza. And something the Russians are finding out in Ukraine.
Are wars more likely to go the direction the aggressor wants if they start them based on truth?
They are less likely to start in the first place if they are based on the truth.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 2:02 pm
Are wars more likely to go the direction the aggressor wants if they start them based on truth?
They are less likely to start in the first place if they are based on the truth.
You didn't answer my question.
Yes probably.
Although you will probably find very few examples in history where aggressive wars (as opposed to defensive wars) were started based on truth. I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. Which is exactly why they are less likely to start if based on the truth. The truth rarely if ever supports aggression. You need lies for that.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
When you choose to start a war based on lies and false pretenses it usually tends not to go in the direction you want.
Something the south found out during the Civil War. Something the US found out in Vietnam and Iraq. Something Hamas found out in Gaza. And something the Russians are finding out in Ukraine.
Are wars more likely to go the direction the aggressor wants if they start them based on truth?
They are less likely to start in the first place if they are based on the truth.
Would Americans have supported the rush to war in Iraq if they had been told the truth? Which is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, and that going to war in Iraq will cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, last 10 years, generate millions of refugees, and leave the middle east more chaotic and worse off than before?
I kind of doubt it.
Millions of Americans including myself didn’t support it.
I don’t know if anyone remembers it, but Bush/Cheney ran on a platform of being less hawkish than Gore/Lieberman. Much like when LBJ ran and ran the infamous “Daisy” campaign ad. Once in office, Bush and Cheney oversaw multiple invasions and occupations and massive expansion of an American police state and surveillance state.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 2:02 pm
Are wars more likely to go the direction the aggressor wants if they start them based on truth?
They are less likely to start in the first place if they are based on the truth.
Would Americans have supported the rush to war in Iraq if they had been told the truth? Which is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, and that going to war in Iraq will cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, last 10 years, generate millions of refugees, and leave the middle east more chaotic and worse off than before?
I kind of doubt it.
Millions of Americans including myself didn’t support it.
I don’t know if anyone remembers it, but Bush/Cheney ran on a platform of being less hawkish than Gore/Lieberman. Much like when LBJ ran and ran the infamous “Daisy” campaign ad. Once in office, Bush and Cheney oversaw multiple invasions and occupations and massive expansion of an American police state and surveillance state.
Good luck trying to say that it’s not lawful to be deployed if you are a military member.
They are less likely to start in the first place if they are based on the truth.
You didn't answer my question.
Yes probably.
Although you will probably find very few examples in history where aggressive wars (as opposed to defensive wars) were started based on truth. I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. Which is exactly why they are less likely to start if based on the truth. The truth rarely if ever supports aggression. You need lies for that.
So then, the question is, how often do wars of aggression go the way the aggressor expects? 1/3 of the time? 1/4 of the time?
Because nearly every war of aggression that goes the way the aggressor expects is a war based on lies and deceit that goes as expected.