No. of Recommendations: 2
The question was to name three large countries that have managed to conquer and absorb a smaller countries over the active opposition of that smaller country’s military
Uh, huh. Sure.
I don't think I've mentioned "insurgency" once. No, you keep going on about small countries vs. larger ones. Given that small ones tend to have small armies and fewer resources…
The reason that 1pg might be mentioning it is that typically it's an insurgency that's doing it, because typically the bigger country hasn't failed to manage defeating the formal army the way Russia has.
He’s misreading history, as he often does. For example, the United States had uniforms and loads of other foreign mercenaries in uniform along with them. Did they combine that with (at the time) nontraditional methods of combat? Sure. But since he Iraq on the brain (and he even gets that wrong) he’s in ‘everything must be like this’ mode.
I think you misunderstand the key element of asymmetric warfare. What we've learned is that a smaller power doesn't need to have the military resources to drive out a larger power trying to occupy them. Instead, all they need is enough resources to keep inflicting heavy damage on the larger power.
I think you’re misreading history right along side your partner. The US left Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted to, not because they threw us out. Joe Biden and Barack Obama chose arbitrary dates and timelines for their own political purposes.
Here, Putin has failed to even do that - so the dynamic is playing out with the heavy damage and casualties still being inflicted by the regular army.
No offense, but both of you keeping going on about ”insurgency” when you yourself said upthread that we hadn’t really reached that stage in the Ukraine. So I’m not really sure what point you’re even trying to make here. It seems to be another variant of “kick Putin down to the last Ukrainian”. That’s not working out very well for them at the moment.
I don't hate it - it's just simply false. Ukraine has access to effectively unlimited guns and money, relative to the size of the conflict. And their supply of dudes is adequate</iL
Wrong. Their supply of dudes is not unlimited and they’re having manpower issues now. Dudes, guns and money tend to be the right equation. Choose any conflict you like. How about the Sovs in Afghanistan? The mujahideen were getting rolled until…we stepped in with guns and money. You think they do as well as they did without US-made Stinger missiles shooting down helicopters? Somebody else will say, “Oh, yeah - what about Iraq?” What, did you guys think AQI wasn’t getting help from the Iranians? And perhaps the Russians and Chinese? Think again.
Small countries sometimes have dudes especially if it’s the civilian population doing the fighting. But that’s not the case in the Ukraine right now.
Once again. You’re a dad in the occupied parts of the Ukraine and Putin has your kids. How motivated are you to fight?
Russia's economy and military production capacity is small compared to the NATO support available to Ukraine. They still have it - as you point out, China and India are still doing business with them full stop, and Europe has only partially cut them off. But it's not enough to allow Russia to fight a war of this magnitude indefinitely
They don’t have to fight “indefinitely”. They just need to outlast Zelenskyy and grind him down. A slow war of attrition favors Putin especially when India/China/Europe keep his economy afloat.
Every EU nation's national security interest is affected if Russia can get away with conquering a neighbor, but China and India are indifferent.
Lol. Really? India is getting VERY cheap oil (that they refine and sell to Europe at a handsome profit). China gets cheap oil AND they get to watch their potential adversaries deplete their war stocks to zero in a conflict they care nothing about.
Oh, the Chinese are in fact watching this go on happily. They play the long game; it’s a shame so few here do.
We don't need any Americans in the fight. This is what you keep missing.
Missing? Nah, bruv. You folks are all frozen in amber ca 2023 when it looked like a rapid infusion of lethality in the form of western tech could push Putin out. That hasn’t happened, and in fact as the conflict grinds on Putin’s hold on the occupied territory of the Ukraine gets stronger.
So. I’ve posited some scenarios and you rejected the economic one. Now you’re rejecting the direct involvement scenario.
They don't need to militarily drive Russia out of their territory. All they need to do is keep the war going at current levels, as they have the last three and a half years. And then Russia will eventually not be able to maintain their military operations there.
Right down to the last Ukrainian, eh?
Trump turned to tariffs not because they were the only, or even a good, option - it's just that's what he wants to do generally (he loooooooves tariffs) and it's the sort of thing that doesn't involve actually having to be a decent negotiator.
Now it’s you not understanding things. Trump and Modi have a good relationship. I swear everyone on this board expects the US to get bent over the table every single time…Modi is very well aware that he’s buying oil from a pariah state and keeping Russia in the war. He’s an adult. He made this decision from his own set of strategic options.
And that’s what all of you forget: other countries act in their own best interest 100% of the time. Doubling dealing in matters like this is the norm, not the exception and Modi was the one seizing an advantage that he thought would help him. If you want sanctions to work on Russia then they need to work…if we’re too afraid to take action, then why bother to sanction Putin at all? *shakes head*
Because you cannot and should not bring Putin to the table
Wow, from a trained negotiator, no less.
If their pre-negotiation stance is that their conquest of Ukrainian territory is not subject to negotiation, then you can't start negotiating.
And why would Putin think this? Might it be that he’s confident that he’s got enough dudes, guns and money to keep what he’s won?
