It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I see a lot of Ukrainian propaganda and I’m sure they’re fighting back and stuff but it doesn’t really make sense that one of the strongest armies in the world can’t beat ukraine. Who is actually winning rn?
I don't know if I'd consider it winning, but the fact that Ukraine has held out for as long as they have shows both the strength of the Ukrainian forces and the weaknesses of the Russian forces.
I mean just for context the United States GDP is almost 20x Russia. The oligarchs control all the wealth so there’s no opportunity for small businesses or really any innovations beyond oil and gas production. That’s why it was so easy to ruin their economy with sanctions the US wouldn’t have 1/100th the leverage with China that we had with Russia.
But anyway if the US couldn’t keep Iraq under a lid there’s no way Russia could keep Ukraine. Occupation is difficult, expensive, generally kind of sucks and the public runs out of enthusiasm real quick
CaseyI mean just for context the United States GDP is almost 20x Russia. The oligarchs control all the wealth so there’s no opportunity for small businesses or really any innovations beyond oil and gas production. That’s why it was so easy to ruin their economy with sanctions the US wouldn’t have 1/100th the leverage with China that we had with Russia.
But anyway if the US couldn’t keep Iraq under a lid there’s no way Russia could keep Ukraine. Occupation is difficult, expensive, generally kind of sucks and the public runs out of enthusiasm real quick
One thing I want to point out-And not really in response to you because I agree generally. This is more towards the people that compare the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts and Ukraine as 1 to 1.
I'm going to quote really poorly, but I heard a smart guy say this and I think it was good.
Basically, a country has a right to sovereignty, control of its territory, and one more that I can't fucking remember I'm trying to find the video. Maybe sovereignty of decisions?
But basically, since I can't remember all of the terminologies
1. A country has a right to exist
2. A country has a right to its territory
3. A country has a right to make decisions within said territory.
All wars or invasions can violate one or all of these "rights"
So for example, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while shitty and largely unjustified, challenged the 3rd right. We wanted a change in leadership/change in the way that things are done. But we didn't want to make Afghanistan or Iraq cease to exist, nor did we want to annex their territory for our own use. The first and second "rights".
The thing with the Russian invasion is that it seems to violate all three. Russia does not want Ukraine to exist, Russia wants to take and use Ukrainian territory for its own purposes, and Russia at the very least wants to install a pro-Russian government.
Broadly speaking, to my knowledge, the united states did not take parts of Afghanistan or Iraq and make them U.S. territories. Nor did they remove the country itself. So while the atrocities committed can be compared, and we did plenty, I think that the wars are still not a direct one-to-one comparison as many people like to say they are. Ignoring the fact that well...Iraq was compromising the rights of another country and invading before we got involved.
And that's ignoring the point that I live in the U.S. and I'm able to be critical of my home country's international actions without being disappeared. Can't say the same for russia.
Govygen_gourmetLibs want us to think its Ukraine they hare reporting the grim reality they live in a fantasy world
What are you even saying? The Russian Ukrainian War is irrelevant of US politics in terms of what is happening. Yes we (us gov) are influencing the war towards Ukraine's benefit but the damage and loss of life is OBJECTIVE.
Idk what I hate more, your username or your icon, but I'd sure like to knock you the fuck out.
HypeBeastWhat are you even saying? The Russian Ukrainian War is irrelevant of US politics in terms of what is happening. Yes we (us gov) are influencing the war towards Ukraine's benefit but the damage and loss of life is OBJECTIVE.
Idk what I hate more, your username or your icon, but I'd sure like to knock you the fuck out.
i mean, everyone loses in a sense here but especially russia in the short and long term, both tactically and strategically. the invasion has been an unmitigated disaster for them
this is about as close to a concession that things are going badly for them as you can ever reasonably hope to get from someone like putin
Apparently they are not one of the most powerful armies in the world, or if they are then nobody there seems to know how to wield said power. The one dude they interviewed on the BBC said "they fight like stupid animals" and that they fight like it's 1940 or something.
I don't know that anybody is winning, but the fact that Russia isn't winning says a lot.
The way the Russians fought in WW2 was this. Smother the fire with more wood. And the wood was young men and women. They just sent wave after wave of humans
DrZoidbergApparently they are not one of the most powerful armies in the world, or if they are then nobody there seems to know how to wield said power. The one dude they interviewed on the BBC said "they fight like stupid animals" and that they fight like it's 1940 or something.
I don't know that anybody is winning, but the fact that Russia isn't winning says a lot.
LonelyOne thing I want to point out-And not really in response to you because I agree generally. This is more towards the people that compare the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts and Ukraine as 1 to 1.
I'm going to quote really poorly, but I heard a smart guy say this and I think it was good.
Basically, a country has a right to sovereignty, control of its territory, and one more that I can't fucking remember I'm trying to find the video. Maybe sovereignty of decisions?
But basically, since I can't remember all of the terminologies
1. A country has a right to exist
2. A country has a right to its territory
3. A country has a right to make decisions within said territory.
All wars or invasions can violate one or all of these "rights"
So for example, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while shitty and largely unjustified, challenged the 3rd right. We wanted a change in leadership/change in the way that things are done. But we didn't want to make Afghanistan or Iraq cease to exist, nor did we want to annex their territory for our own use. The first and second "rights".
The thing with the Russian invasion is that it seems to violate all three. Russia does not want Ukraine to exist, Russia wants to take and use Ukrainian territory for its own purposes, and Russia at the very least wants to install a pro-Russian government.
Broadly speaking, to my knowledge, the united states did not take parts of Afghanistan or Iraq and make them U.S. territories. Nor did they remove the country itself. So while the atrocities committed can be compared, and we did plenty, I think that the wars are still not a direct one-to-one comparison as many people like to say they are. Ignoring the fact that well...Iraq was compromising the rights of another country and invading before we got involved.
And that's ignoring the point that I live in the U.S. and I'm able to be critical of my home country's international actions without being disappeared. Can't say the same for russia.
You’re right. I think the Afghan invasion was initially far more justified - hey you’re hiding the perpetrators of 9/11 give them up or else. I think international law would basically support that effort as not a war of aggression.
Iraq was weird, tbh. I turned 18 in 2002 so I was paying a shit load of attention. The more historical context you apply to the lead up to the war the less sense it makes in hindsight. HOWEVER, even the most cynical liberals would have to admit that the primary goal of the Iraq invasion was to enrich defense contractors and gin up support for Bush’s 2004 re election campaign. It was never argued that the US had anything to gain long term from occupying Iraq outside of homeland security and nuclear nonproliferation
CaseyYou’re right. I think the Afghan invasion was initially far more justified - hey you’re hiding the perpetrators of 9/11 give them up or else. I think international law would basically support that effort as not a war of aggression.
Iraq was weird, tbh. I turned 18 in 2002 so I was paying a shit load of attention. The more historical context you apply to the lead up to the war the less sense it makes in hindsight. HOWEVER, even the most cynical liberals would have to admit that the primary goal of the Iraq invasion was to enrich defense contractors and gin up support for Bush’s 2004 re election campaign. It was never argued that the US had anything to gain long term from occupying Iraq outside of homeland security and nuclear nonproliferation
For the money we spent in the middle east the last 20 years, we could have offered $250,000,000 bounties per "terrorist" and had far greater results and zero civilian deaths.
hoodratz47The way the Russians fought in WW2 was this. Smother the fire with more wood. And the wood was young men and women. They just sent wave after wave of humans
Yeah but WWII Russia was all about communism and believed in their country and they were also defending it. Then of course there were millions forced to fight too, including over a million women in combat. Way too much division and access to social media to replicate that today. I feel like ukraine has the advantage of manpower because the majority of their population is still there and fighting/resisting.
DominatorJacquesPutin is a dick. I feel sorry for the people of Russia.
Poor people of Ukraine, I feel so sad for them.
HypeBeastYeah but WWII Russia was all about communism and believed in their country and they were also defending it. Then of course there were millions forced to fight too, including over a million women in combat. Way too much division and access to social media to replicate that today. I feel like ukraine has the advantage of manpower because the majority of their population is still there and fighting/resisting.
Fuck yeah! Love it!
Thanks Beast! It's spot on the colors!
larilinesignIn war, no one wins.
That is true, but one "side" will, let's say, prevail.
I hope Ukraine prevails is insane war.
Russia is using all their 3rd rate troops and equipment and they are advancing without a whole lot of trouble. If it was Russia’s full military force Ukraine would get plowed
Lmao... so you think Putin has the bench players in right now?
That some army actually has a *second string*?
Son......
yungonaRussia is using all their 3rd rate troops and equipment and they are advancing without a whole lot of trouble. If it was Russia’s full military force Ukraine would get plowed
I'm still trying to think through this situation's likely outcomes as Russian advances have now stalled far shorter of where I originally thought they would. Honestly, if you asked me in October I would have predicted a 3 week steamrolling of Ukraine with the US and NATO watching from the sidelines, so half wrong for sure. As odd as it sounds, players like the US and NATO need to think up terms that satisfy Putin's need to find a halfway satisfying out. If Russia fails and falls apart economically in the long term, we'll all get to enjoy a world with 2 North Korea's.
went to a two-day panel at my university about it. the gist i got was ukraine is doing surprisingly well, all things considered. russians are taking Ls on all fronts, from an internal and logistical perspective. doesn't seem like there is an off ramp for putin anywhere in the foreseeable future, so expect a prolonged and bloody conflict.
Timbyno they haven't, little boy needs a statistics lesson.
If you account for civilian casualties then yeah Russia has killed more people. That's what he was saying.
Timbywent to a two-day panel at my university about it. doesn't seem like there is an off ramp for putin anywhere in the foreseeable future, so expect a prolonged and bloody conflict.
I think this war will be like WWI where we see a pivotal change in how the structure of armies and tactics have evolved. In WWI we had the initial model of artillery barrage than infantry advance which led to trench warfare and the Western Front stalemate. It was the invention of the tank that finally broke this and led to the tank being the prominent ground weapon for about a century.
The interesting thing is now hand launched anti-tank weapons are so good they basically make tanks obsolete in the kind of fighting we see in Ukraine. Russia learned that the hard way as sophisticated missile systems that hit the soft tops of tanks are lurking behind every building. This gives a strange balance of power back to infantry we have not seen in over a century.
SuspiciousFishI think this war will be like WWI where we see a pivotal change in how the structure of armies and tactics have evolved. In WWI we had the initial model of artillery barrage than infantry advance which led to trench warfare and the Western Front stalemate. It was the invention of the tank that finally broke this and led to the tank being the prominent ground weapon for about a century.
The interesting thing is now hand launched anti-tank weapons are so good they basically make tanks obsolete in the kind of fighting we see in Ukraine. Russia learned that the hard way as sophisticated missile systems that hit the soft tops of tanks are lurking behind every building. This gives a strange balance of power back to infantry we have not seen in over a century.
I think it’s interesting as well how prominent economic sanctions and cyber warfare have become in the conflict. The US have a basically at war with Russia in every sense of the word except for using our military. Those anti tank weapons are all ours too.
CaseyI think it’s interesting as well how prominent economic sanctions and cyber warfare have become in the conflict. The US have a basically at war with Russia in every sense of the word except for using our military. Those anti tank weapons are all ours too.
It is crazy how the global economic powerhouse of our banking system can flex its muscles like that. It kind of puts into perspective they theory that Qaddafi was killed because he wanted to unite Africa under a gold based currency that would threaten the global economic authority.
It's just classic modern history. Stinking Vietnam shoved a stick up all our asses.. I will say the tigers helped alot. Went to a seminar about it years ago and it was like 10% casualties to the jungle.
