- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 2/26/25 at 10:39 am to doubleb
Posted on 2/26/25 at 10:39 am to doubleb
quote:
It was a knockout punch, but tempered?????
lol
Do you understand how invasions work?
Yes, that's exactly what it was. We did that in Iraq and it mostly worked.
You don't do a full scale, all out assault, but you do try to disrupt key logistics and capture strategic points early on in the conflict. That does involve a significant amount of strength, but not an all out assault.
If you're trying to end it in 3 days, you do a full scale, all out assault.
Would you like to argue that Russia did that in 2022?
I'm not glossing over any failures, I'm saying the 3 day operation narrative is mostly fiction.
This post was edited on 2/26/25 at 10:41 am
1
Posted on 2/26/25 at 10:44 am to John Barron
Posted on 2/26/25 at 11:12 am to John Barron
Right Wing Populism is Europes only hope
Posted on 2/26/25 at 11:24 am to John Barron
Trump says Europe responsible for Security Guarantees.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 2/26/25 at 11:55 am to VolSquatch
quote:
Do you understand how invasions work?
I understand that some work and some do not work.
quote:
Yes, that's exactly what it was. We did that in Iraq and it mostly worked.
What we did in Iraq (1 and 2) was nothing like what the Russians did in Ukraine.
quote:
You don't do a full scale, all out assault, but you do try to disrupt key logistics and capture strategic points early on in the conflict. That does involve a significant amount of strength, but not an all out assault.
There are various strategies. For instance, Germany invading France and Poland was a different strategy than D Day or either Gulf Wars. There is no one strategy.
quote:
I'm not glossing over any failures, I'm saying the 3 day operation narrative is mostly fiction.
I agree the three day thing is BS, but I do believe Putin thought he’d roll over Ukraine’s resistance in three of four weeks and Ukraine would give up.
Putin under estimated Ukraine and his military was not up to the task given to them. When that became obvious he never adjusted, he continued to do the same things over and over eventually losing gains he made and then part of Russia.
I do not know what the final outcome will be, but this three year expedition will be looked at by military analysts as a terrible example of how to conduct a war.
But honestly, for much of modern history the Russians have been humiliated while fighting on their own beginning with the Crimean War, their war with Japan, WWI and WWII until the US entered the war. Then they failed in Afghanistan which turned into another debacle.
But Russia can’t be dismissed, they fight a lot and they have their nukes to protect them which allows them to bully their neighbors.
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:14 pm to doubleb
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:30 pm to doubleb
quote:
Putin under estimated Ukraine and his military was not up to the task given to them. When that became obvious he never adjusted, he continued to do the same things over and over eventually losing gains he made and then part of Russia.
I'm guessing they hoped to roll Ukraine in short order like they did Georgia. No mistake, 3 days is hyperbole, but Russia was going for a knockout. They bungled it badly. There's no "if they wanted to, then they could have." They did and then didn't.
quote:
But honestly, for much of modern history the Russians have been humiliated while fighting on their own beginning with the Crimean War, their war with Japan, WWI and WWII until the US entered the war. Then they failed in Afghanistan which turned into another debacle.
Chechnya gave them hell twice as well. In neither Georgia nor Chechnya did Russia give two shites about civilian casualties.
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:36 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
There's no "if they wanted to, then they could have." They did and then didn't.
And that wasn't even what I was saying. It was "they tried to and didn't, but it seems like they probably knew they weren't going to"
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:41 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
And that wasn't even what I was saying. It was "they tried to and didn't, but it seems like they probably knew they weren't going to"
Then that's a piss poor way to go about it. If the aftermath of failure is a long war of attrition with hundreds of thousands of casualties and mass economic sanctions, why risk an operation that you probably knew wasn't going to work?
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:44 pm to SirWinston
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:45 pm to DakIsNoLB
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:50 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
If the aftermath of failure is a long war of attrition with hundreds of thousands of casualties and mass economic sanctions, why risk an operation that you probably knew wasn't going to work?
If you're going to war anyway (which Russia was), the aftermath is exactly WHY you try it
You know you're probably going to end up in this war of attrition that goes on for years, but if there's a 10-15% chance you could end it in a few weeks that doesn't significantly hinder you going forward, I think you should try.
This post was edited on 2/26/25 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:51 pm to John Barron
Posted on 2/26/25 at 12:51 pm to John Barron
Handsome Pete just chilling there with his hair and his jaw 
Posted on 2/26/25 at 1:01 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
If you're going to war anyway (which Russia was), the aftermath is exactly WHY you try it
You know you're probably going to end up in this war of attrition that goes on for year, but if there's a 10-15% chance you could end it in a few weeks that doesn't significantly hinder you going forward, I think you should try.
I don't buy any of this. This is not sound strategy or decision making. You don't risk getting into the entanglement we've seen play out, assuming they foresaw this as an outcome as you suggest, if you believe you only have a 10-15% of seeing a short war happening. That's bad math. You go all in to give yourself the best chance of success. If it was a 50/50 shot, maybe I'd be with you on it. They bungled this from the beginning. Either they had terrible intelligence and/or were supremely overconfident in their estimation of Ukraine resources and resolve as well as the effectiveness of their own forces.
This post was edited on 2/26/25 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 2/26/25 at 1:09 pm to DakIsNoLB
Posted on 2/26/25 at 1:22 pm to DakIsNoLB
That's because you're looking at it from the Russian perspective as "if this haymaker doesn't work, we have to be a years long war of attrition" instead of "we are going into a years long war of attrition, we might as well try this to see if we can end it sooner".
Ukraine had the second largest military in Europe in Feb 2022. They saw the buildup on the border. Does it really make sense that it was an all in operation that failed, vs Russia trying to end it early even though they probably weren't that optimistic? Of course not.
Ukraine had been preparing for this since 2014. Wargaming, buildup, weapons shipments. It isn't just something that happened one day.
Ukraine had the second largest military in Europe in Feb 2022. They saw the buildup on the border. Does it really make sense that it was an all in operation that failed, vs Russia trying to end it early even though they probably weren't that optimistic? Of course not.
Ukraine had been preparing for this since 2014. Wargaming, buildup, weapons shipments. It isn't just something that happened one day.
This post was edited on 2/26/25 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 2/26/25 at 1:30 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
I don't buy any of this. This is not sound strategy or decision making. You don't risk getting into the entanglement we've seen play out, assuming they foresaw this as an outcome as you suggest, if you believe you only have a 10-15% of seeing a short war happening. That's bad math. You go all in to give yourself the best chance of success. If it was a 50/50 shot, maybe I'd be with you on it. They bungled this from the beginning. Either they had terrible intelligence and/or were supremely overconfident in their estimation of Ukraine resources and resolve as well as the effectiveness of their own forces.
Correct, if the option on the table was let’s roll the dice and end it all quickly, but that was only a 15% chance, or invade and get stuck in a war of attrition you can’t risk that.
Now just over three years later what have they gained? 15% more of East Ukraine, The US promising not to let Ukraine into NATO and what else?
They have had half a million men killed or wounded, they lost thousands of their vest soldiers, they have seen numerous ships sunk, refineries damaged and they have run through a thousand tanks and who knows how many artillery pieces, shells and drones.
NATO gained two members, Europe seems to be growing a pair and you’ve had to go to Iran and N Korea for help. Your military was exposed and they ran you out of Syria.
Russia is winning, but at an enormous cost.
This post was edited on 2/26/25 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 2/26/25 at 1:36 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Ukraine had the second largest military in Europe in Feb 2022. They saw the buildup on the border.
The Ukrainians were preparing to attack the rebel republics that February, there has been an uptick in violence along the ceasefire line, with increased shelling from the Ukrainian side
Both sides were gambling
Posted on 2/26/25 at 1:40 pm to doubleb
quote:
Russia is winning, but at an enormous cost.
So in the end, it could very well be a Pyrrhic Victory for Russia when its all over.
Page 4601 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News