Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

MontyB said:
I struggle with his argument because it bases itself on the certainty of "it didn't happen, therefore it couldn't happen" and fails to take into account that even a minute change at the time could have resulted in an entirely different outcome.
Had Jackson not died at Chancellorsville or Buford not engaged Confederate forces at Gettysburg, had the Italians and Romanians put up a better fight at Stalingrad things may have ended differently.

Basically it is the Butterfly Effect, it is impossible to determine its effect but fun to postulate.

Russia fans seem to like pushing the idea that it is Ukrainians who started this yet none of it would have happened had Russia not crossed the border in 2014, they generally get very upset at pushing black and white arguments back at them.

Strangely I enjoy US Civil war discussion even when I don't know much about it as I find it fascinating.
Click to expand...

NO : you fail to take in account the fact that there are always TWO , not ONE, sides in a war .
Napoleon won battles but lost the war .
Jackson won battles but the South lost .
German capture of Stalingrad would still result in the German defeat .
Wars are not decided by battles .
 
lljadw said:
NO
Napoleon dead or not :France would still try to dominate Europe and to spread its ideology .
The Civil war outcome was a fact at the start,unless the North would give up to try to conquer the South .
The South had not the intention, neither could it do it, to occupy the North .
The South was faced by a war of attrition and could not win it, Lee or no Lee .
NO : you fail to take in account the fact that there are always TWO , not ONE, sides in a war .
Napoleon won battles but lost the war .
Jackson won battles but the South lost .
German capture of Stalingrad would still result in the German defeat .
Wars are not decided by battles .
Click to expand...
Napoleon & Hitler were able to conquer most of Europe due to their ambition & drive, both also failed because the same reasoning said they could also beat Russia. But w/o either both conflicts might not have happened. The Official name of the US Civil War is the War between the States, it technically wasn't a Civil War because it was never the intention of the Confederates to take over the whole country, it was a war of secession. Statistically the North was going to win, but lots of wars don't go by stats. As you said earlier the Colonies shouldn't have won the American Revolution, for instance.
 
George said:
Napoleon & Hitler were able to conquer most of Europe due to their ambition & drive, both also failed because the same reasoning said they could also beat Russia. But w/o either both conflicts might not have happened. The Official name of the US Civil War is the War between the States, it technically wasn't a Civil War because it was never the intention of the Confederates to take over the whole country, it was a war of secession. Statistically the North was going to win, but lots of wars don't go by stats. As you said earlier the Colonies shouldn't have won the American Revolution, for instance.
Click to expand...

France was already at war before Napoleon took power.And as Hitler he attacked Russia,because he could do nothing against Britain. Napoleon did only what Louis 14 and 15 did and Hitler did only. on a smaller scale, what the Emperor did in 1914 .
WW2 would also happen without Hitler : in 1922 the chief of the Reichswehr ( von Seeckt ) said that the existence of Poland was incompatible with Germany's vital interests .Hitler did not invent the problems at the German border: he used them . Foch said about the Treaty of Versailles that it was only an armistice of 20 years .
I did not say that the rebels against Britain should not have won , I said that today American historians admit the importance of the Spanish and French help to the Colonies .
 
lljadw said:
The Daily Kos is a far left US blog and internet forum, thus one should be very careful to use it .
Click to expand...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, the value of information is not determined by its provider but rather its accuracy as such poor sources can still be right and I happen to like that article.
Whether its information is right or wrong will be determined by those who understand the information provided better than I do.
 
MontyB said:
What parts of it don't make sense?
Click to expand...

The article doesn't mention strategic deception. It says which is true, a commander shall not divide his forces, it worked for the Ukrainians because of deception. They told the entire world about the counter offensive in the south and the Russians bought it. They deployed forces from the north to the south and the Ukrainians launched an offensive in the north.

If we compare with another symmetric war. The first Gulf War. The US made the Iraqis to believe the US would launch an amphibious assault on the Kuwaiti coast. The Iraqis deployed forces to defend it, but the assault never occurred.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The article doesn't mention strategic deception. It says which is true, a commander shall not divide his forces, it worked for the Ukrainians because of deception. They told the entire world about the counter offensive in the south and the Russians bought it. They deployed forces from the north to the south and the Ukrainians launched an offensive in the north.

If we compare with another symmetric war. The first Gulf War. The US made the Iraqis to believe the US would launch an amphibious assault on the Kuwaiti coast. The Iraqis deployed forces to defend it, but the assault never occurred.
Click to expand...

That smacks of Montgomery at El Alamein, as is well known used that same tactic. It's who can tell the biggest but believable lie such as the ''Man who never was'' Major Martin, brilliant deception plan
 
MontyB said:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, the value of information is not determined by its provider but rather its accuracy as such poor sources can still be right and I happen to like that article.
Whether its information is right or wrong will be determined by those who understand the information provided better than I do.
Click to expand...

The same Daily Kos published also an article with as content that the fact that Stalin and Mao ordered atrocities was not a proof that Communism was wrong, as Stalin and Mao were not Communists .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The article doesn't mention strategic deception. It says which is true, a commander shall not divide his forces, it worked for the Ukrainians because of deception. They told the entire world about the counter offensive in the south and the Russians bought it. They deployed forces from the north to the south and the Ukrainians launched an offensive in the north.

If we compare with another symmetric war. The first Gulf War. The US made the Iraqis to believe the US would launch an amphibious assault on the Kuwaiti coast. The Iraqis deployed forces to defend it, but the assault never occurred.
Click to expand...

The article is swarming with contradictions .
The author said : do not divide your forces and ..the Ukrainians launched a two front offensive .
The author said that the Russians make the mistake of attacking on 7 places in February last year, but forgets that a concentrated attack on one place would not have more chances to succeed,as logistics prevented a concentrated attack by 200000 men .
Besides,and the author was unaware of it or preferred to hide it:Eisenhower also attacked on a broad front in September 1944 and wisely rejected the narrow front advance proposition .
The Germans also divided their forces in Fall Weiss ( 2 Army Groups ),Fall Gelb and Fall Rot (3 Army Groups ) and during Barbarossa . And this for grounded reasons .
Napoleon invaded Russia starting from 3 different places :Vilnius, Grodno , Sovetsk (Tilsit )
The distance between Vilnius and Sovetsk was 221,9 km,between Vilnius and Grodno 682 km .
Only a minority of the Confederate Army and of the Union Army was at Gettysburg.
Old Moltke said :Getrent marschieren, vereinigt schlagen
Advance separately,fight together (if possible ) .
But,battles do not decide wars .
Blücher did not advance to Waterloo together with Wellington and if he did not arrive at Waterloo,Napoleon would still lose the battle .And if Napoleon won at Waterloo, he still would lose the war .
 
And the story that the Russians fell for an Ukrainian plan of deception,is a myth : the Ukrainians could attack over a front of 1000 km ,thus the Russians were forced to defend a front of 1000 km .
 
BritinBritain said:
That smacks of Montgomery at El Alamein, as is well known used that same tactic. It's who can tell the biggest but believable lie such as the ''Man who never was'' Major Martin, brilliant deception plan
Click to expand...

The Japs failed with their deception/diversion when they attacked the Aleutian islands before Midway. But the US had been successful with breaking the Japanese naval code and that helped.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The article doesn't mention strategic deception. It says which is true, a commander shall not divide his forces, it worked for the Ukrainians because of deception. They told the entire world about the counter offensive in the south and the Russians bought it. They deployed forces from the north to the south and the Ukrainians launched an offensive in the north.

If we compare with another symmetric war. The first Gulf War. The US made the Iraqis to believe the US would launch an amphibious assault on the Kuwaiti coast. The Iraqis deployed forces to defend it, but the assault never occurred.
Click to expand...
US would have won the first Gulf War without their strategic deception,as the Iraqi forces that remained in the South would not have made the difference if they were concentrated in the North .
Besides :even without US strategic deception,these forces would have remained in the South .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The Japs failed with their deception/diversion when they attacked the Aleutian islands before Midway. But the US had been successful with breaking the Japanese naval code and that helped.
Click to expand...

Its been suggested that the US and Bletchley Park had broken the Japanese code before the attack on Pearl Harbour.

What I cannot understand, there were Japanese spy's on Pearly Harbour way before the Japanese fleet sailed, they must have seen the US carriers leave Pearl and signalled the fact to Japan, yet the attack went ahead anyway. I thought the carriers were the prime targets.
 
BritinBritain said:
Its been suggested that the US and Bletchley Park had broken the Japanese code before the attack on Pearl Harbour.

What I cannot understand, there were Japanese spy's on Pearly Harbour way before the Japanese fleet sailed, they must have seen the US carriers leave Pearl and signalled the fact to Japan, yet the attack went ahead anyway. I thought the carriers were the prime targets.
Click to expand...

I suspect there are a number of reasons for this:
1. The Japanese task force left for Pearl Harbour on the 26th November and the Enterprise left Pearl on the 28th November, Lexington left on the 5th December and Saratoga was in San Diego, the Japanese enforced strict radio silence during travel so they would not have been told they had left even if they knew and Enterprise was due back that day (and it's aircrews suffered casualties at Pearl Harbor so they were close).

2. Most of the Japanese fleet would have been low on fuel by the time the reached the launch point, the destroyer fleet were reported as below half by the time they were in position.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
What do you think about the drones flying around in Russia? Are they a false flag operation by the Russians
Click to expand...

I really don't know, every "expert" I have seen and read says they aren't false flags and while they present good cases I struggle to agree with one important question:
"Who has the most to gain?"
To me the answer isn't Ukraine, at best attacking Moscow may damage a few buildings and the fact that they are getting there is a black eye for Putin and the great Russian air defence systems but the damage they will do is a double edge sword as it may also galvanise Russia and make justifying a full mobilisation a lot easier.

I lean toward it being a false flag but not by a lot and and I could easily be persuaded otherwise, the ones crashing into Russian refineries and infrastructure however do think are Ukrainian in origin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top