this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
163 points (98.8% liked)
Ukraine
8060 readers
358 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of the many ridiculous things Russia has done to humiliate and debase itself in this stupid vanity revenge project, making no provision at all for serious border defense may not be most manically immoral, but it may be the most militarily stupid.
For all their bluster about nukes - how are you going to use them exactly? On the Ukrainian territory you claim is yours, or on the Russian territory that is currently occupied by Ukraine.
They’re just so fucking stupid.
That's mostly false, but the truth is significantly more hilarious. Russia made some pretty extensive border fortifications around Ukraine, including the current incursion area, for example: https://read.bradyafrick.com/p/russian-field-fortifications-in-ukraine
Granted, most of the work was done in the occupied areas, because bulldozing the countryside and towns of someone else's country is preferable to your own, but the Ukrainians had to pass some pretty large defensive works.
The engineering is, mostly, not the problem.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, it became super obvious that their conscript soldiers are mostly untrained, poorly disciplined, have terrible morale and generally suck as soldiers. Their contract soldiers are much better trained, and they're mostly volunteers backed with some veterans who imparted at least some skills (Russian units are expected to train the recruits that arrive themselves).
As a result, Russia deployed their skilled soldiers in the areas of heavier fighting, which is a sensible choice. Attacking is a lot harder than sitting in a trench for a few years, after all. In ye olde days of WW1, these conscripts would have been called fortress troops, not trained to attack, only to defend their fixed position.
But Russia also didn't do that. Their border troop conscripts were, as with the original invasion, mostly shit. And if you pour shit into solid concrete fortifications, it's still going to drip out when you shake it, and that's exactly what happened. Again. For the third time this war.
So Russia can either pull their contract "volunteers" from the front to sit on the border, meaning they can't attack as well, or they can start losing troops and land to these kinds of attacks. Either way, sucks to be them.
Good write up!
Offtopic, but it just hit me that george baby bush did something very similar while squatting in the White House, when the Army Corp Of Engineers and its' resources were shipped over to Iraq (another stupid vanity revenge project, also from a regressive right-wing cadre of sociopaths), domestic tasks on the home front were neglected, and here I'm thinking about basic maintenance to the New Orleans dike infrastructure leading up to Hurricane Katrina, as a very specific and tangible example.
Definitely off topic, and suggestive of decades old axe-grinding whataboutism. But - since it's a topic of apparent interest to you, let me counter in good faith with another OpEd angle for "why was iraq invaded", beyond the simple motive of vanity revenge. Pure speculation, no claim this is fact.
In the initial months and years Post 9-11, there were dozens of AQ cell attacks across the globe, including inside the US and Europe. Gunman squads, workplace murders, bombings across the globe, Spain, Belgium, France, etc. Stopping them all is essentially impossible. The US is also in a position of having to "respond" to deal with the american electorate's bloodlust. You can't just do nothing and bleat on superlatives about moral superioirty. Someone has to die. They are unable to find and stop AQ cells from carrying out attacks on soft targets against civilians, in areas only protected by local law enforcement. So - what do you do? Deploy your army everywhere in your own country to try and interdict attacks after they're already happening? Well, that's not a great plan.
Maybe the conscious decision was to create a global flashpoint in someone else's backyard, which would draw in the irrational hatred of global jihadism, where they could fight directly against the US military, instead of against civilians, and where collateral damage would be the lucky host country's problem. Put simply - invite the jihad inclined global population to come to Iraq and die fighting the US Army instead of having them come to you and kill people in malls, airports and gas stations. Of course the idea is morally reprehensible - criminal even. But it's also logical. That is not the same as saying it was a good idea, before you go down the ad hominem route. Offered only as a possible line of thought of "why was Iraq invaded at all". But - brought up only because of an incongruity with your assertion that Iraq was a vanity revenue project and therefore(?) at least somehow comparable to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine because of it's ongoing insistence on being an independent country.
Now, perhaps you're doing what you seem to be - trying to equate the US actions in Iraq as a moral equivalent to what Russia has done to Ukraine. If that's your angle, well - you be you, i wouldn't try to change your mind. I would only, in that case, say that Russia invaded Ukraine, first in 2014 and again in 2022, without any pretext 9/11 style attack. Russia's simple, naked imperial genocide was not provoked by any Ukrainian-spawned outrage, but if you'd care to make the case that even that is not true, but all means, let's hear it.