• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 9

carlosy said:
The problem is, that it doesn't really matter where the frontline is. Even if Ukraine would be able to push all russian occupiers back to russia, the war would continue just a few hundred kilomters to the east. And the ICBMs and drones would continue to terrorize ukrainian cities and citizens as well.

Even without any frontline at all, russia could just continue to send ICBMs and drones to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
My humble civilian armchair general's take (no military experience or studies, just many hours in military strategy games and an interest in the topic and in the very special military operation):

IMO it mostly matters in two ways. Firstly because it sets conditions for a peace treaty, not to mention a Korea-style cease-fire. When russia controls a fifth of Ukraine they have a stronger position to negotiate from than if they controlled nearly nothing. Then of course if the war ground to a halt and/or there was an official cease-fire, the russians would just continue to hold the territory they controlled.

Secondly, I'd the frontline matters because not only its position but more importantly its movement can and will be used for propaganda purposes, and it tells us a lot about how the war is going. Right now Ukraine is making organized combined-arms offensives and retaking more ground than they lose, while russia is barely inching forward with meat-wave assaults. This in my eyes puts russia in a weaker position at the negotiation table, as it shows that if the war continues they'll end up with less and less land as time goes on --unless of course the momentum changes again.

From my experience with grand strategy games like Europa Universalis, I know that wars are incredibly costly in terms of money and men, and that if one of them becomes a quagmire, you've probably made a mistake somewhere and most often your best bet is to cut your losses and try for a peace treaty.

(Also, I just got back from a chat with ChatGPT about something, so I'm sorry if I sound bot-ish in this post😛)
 
theprestige said:
You have that part of your US history completely wrong. To the point that whatever it is you have, it would be a mistake to call it "US history".

The truth is that the USA shouldered a substantial amount of the costs of waging the war at a scale that could actually defeat the axis. "Lend-lease was financial aid, not a loan. Billions of American dollars, given away and never repaid. Stalin didn't pay cost plus a profit margin for the supplies he received from the US. He begged for donations, and got generously served. America had the resources to cover not only its own war costs, but also much of the war costs of its allies, and it did so even to the point of strict rationing at home. Yes, Americans drastically reduced consumption of luxuries and even necessities, in order to ensure that Great Britain had what it needed to stay in the fight.

Nobody paid America to join the alliance against Nazi Germany. Quite the opposite: America paid billions to keep the other Allies alive.

ETA: Wait, did you seriously believe all this time that America's participation in WW2 was a for-profit enterprise?
Click to expand...
We benefited by being the last one standing. After the war was over we switched our hugely expanded industrial base to consumer products and traded with the world, and we became very wealthy*. That's how the usa profited. Its complety wrong to categorize this as the reason we participated in ww2, it depends on FDR somehow having super natural prescience. If profit was our main motivation we would've just sold arms to the highest bidder.


*its the reason why for a few decades a working joe in the usa had a vastly superior quality of life than anywhere else in the world
 
carlosy said:
The problem is, that it doesn't really matter where the frontline is. Even if Ukraine would be able to push all russian occupiers back to russia, the war would continue just a few hundred kilomters to the east. And the ICBMs and drones would continue to terrorize ukrainian cities and citizens as well.

Even without any frontline at all, russia could just continue to send ICBMs and drones to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
So what's your solution?

My solution is that Ukraine continue to drive all the Russians out of the occupied territories, and reunite all 24 oblasts under the flag of Ukraine.
 
lobosrul5 said:
We benefited by being the last one standing.
Click to expand...
Nobody paid us to join the war. We didn't join the war to turn a profit. We didn't join the war to enjoy the long-term benefits of turbocharging our economy. Nobody paid us back, quid pro quo, for our contributions.

Peace makes plenty. The Pax Americana, which had its beginnings in WW1 has made plenty for everyone. There's no denying that.

But no, America did not profit from joining the war. America - and everyone else, including the enemy - profited from America having the resources to win the war on its own terms.

But sure, if you need to tell yourself and others that the US joined WW2 out of a mercenary profit motivation, I guess I can't stop you.
 
theprestige said:
But sure, if you need to tell yourself and others that the US joined WW2 out of a mercenary profit motivation, I guess I can't stop you.
Click to expand...
I hope you meant that as a general comment. Because I don't subscribe to that opinion. And I more or less literally said we didnt join the war for profit.
 
Last edited:
carlosy said:
The problem is, that it doesn't really matter where the frontline is. Even if Ukraine would be able to push all russian occupiers back to russia, the war would continue just a few hundred kilomters to the east. And the ICBMs and drones would continue to terrorize ukrainian cities and citizens as well.

Even without any frontline at all, russia could just continue to send ICBMs and drones to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
And Ukraine can return fire, hopefully soon with it's own ballistic missiles.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I hope you meant that as a general comment. Because I don't subscribe to that opinion. And I more or less literally said we didnt join the war for profit.
Click to expand...
I read it as you trying to rebut my claim that the US didn't benefit from joining (and winning) the war. This was not a claim I ever made. Safe-Keeper was under the misapprehension that the US contributed men and material to the war effort on a lending-for-profit basis. Which is absolutely wrong. The US benefited from the same peace dividend as everyone else. They didn't collect loan repayments plus interest on the misleadingly-named "lend-lease" program.
 
Scratch two Su-35 (reportedly).

defence-blog.com

Russian Su-35 fighter jets collide over Kursk, killing pilot

Two Russian Su-35S fighter jets collided in Russia's Kursk region, according to Fighterbomber, a Telegram channel with reported ties to the Russian Aerospace Forces. Follow-up reports indicate one pilot was killed in the collision and another was seriously injured, though
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
a_unique_person said:
I'm stunned that Putin accuses Ukrainians of being Nazi's while doing everything he can to help the actual Nazis in Germany.
Click to expand...
... and the actual Nazis in Germany are going to do everything they can to help Russia. Their program says: Drop support of Ukraine, drop sanctions against Russia, reintroduce Russian as a course in school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom