Not in the same era, but Afghanistan made Russia go home and I am hoping after a decade of war and Ukraine blowing up Russian infrastructure, Russia will stagger back home.
Last edited:
Russia Invades Ukraine XIX
- Thread starter Huckleberry
- Start date
Yep, two things about this:
1. We seem to be unable to think in time. What we do right now is not necessarily what we will do forever. Doing X today does not mean we will be doing X forever. We can make another decision tomorrow and if X is no longer the best option, we can decide to do something else.
2. Next is the options we take in terms of policy that preclude other, better options, tomorrow. Tension in a spring, if we release that tension now for one objective, we can no longer use that tension to solve other problems tomorrow. This occurred to me while in the service. Every military service when not actually fighting a war, is preparing for war. Over the 1980s, the military was refining its war-fighting skill. When it was unleashed in Panama in 1989 and especially in Iraq 1990-91, the results were impressive. Since the First Gulf War, we continually expend the military's skill on an endless series of brush wars (some bigger than others). Madeleine Albright (called the Secretary of War in the 1990s) asked, "What good is having a military if we do not use it?"
Germany decided to burden the German economy with increased energy costs by closing down all of Germany's nuclear power plants. Obviously not generating radioactive waste is a good thing, but is it worth decades of emission-free electricity? Germany decided paying more for electricity was worth it so they closed down their nuclear plants. Then Russia invaded Ukraine. I believe that stopping all energy purchases from Russian (and sanctioning those who did buy from Russia) would have stopped this war years ago. Having closed down all her nuclear plants, however, Germany was no longer in a position to do that, unless the German government wanted Germans to shiver in the dark all winter.
That would be the best option.
Brezhnev made the decision to go into Afghanistan and Gorbachev decided to pull them out. Brezhnev was dead by 1989.
Putin invaded Ukraine. Pulling out would be admitting a personal mistake. He would not survive long afterwards.
Russia probably has the most notable history of war-losers having a short life expectancy...
Not necessarily.
- Brezhnev died 6 years before the end of the Afghanistan war
- Losing the First Chechen War did not result in Yeltsin losing power
- Nicholas II was in power from 1896 to 1917. Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905
Losing WW 1 was the only lost war in the last 150 years that resulted in the death of the monarch, but that war resulted in the death of several empires.
Last edited:
Yeah, it's funny, Hungarians I believe do not remember the Soviet era fondly. The former KGB headquarters in Budapest is surrounded by a series of 3' x 4" porcelain portraits of all the people that disappeared inside that building.
I think that a lot how they act officially if Viktor Orban and how stupidly the EU acted towards Hungary. The source of Orban's power in Hungary is standing up to the arrogance and stupidity of the EU.
Each of those analogies has problems.
Gorbachev was ending Brezhnev's war, so Brezhnev could not pay for his mistake.
Yeltsin did not "win" the First Chechen War, but neither did he lose it. Chechnya was not an independent state after that war. That would have been defeat and if that had actually happened, I seriously doubt Yeltsin would have survived that, because there were a bunch of "republics in the Russian Federation would would have said, "Hang on. We want our independence as well." Putin re-asserted Russian control and that was a big part of his credibility in his early years in the Kremlin.
Nicholas lost the Russo-Japanese War and the loss of his reputation forced him to accept a Duma, something the Romanovs had not done before. That was no small concession.
No, that just started a train of events that Putin was happy to step into and assist, not because he likes Orban (although he might), but to cause mayhem inside the EU.
If we are comparing past wars to the current war then stopping the war at the current lines cannot be called a defeat for Russia either
Two thing Orban did which earned him immense credit with a ton of Hungarians.
Hungarians traditionally exercise two important cultural activities: the slaughter swine and they make palinka (plum brandy). The EU said, "Since you are members of the EU, you must no longer slaughter swine anywehere but in an abattoir and you cannot distill your own palinka any more." Orban told the EU "We are Hungarians. We butcher swine. We distill palinka," and he suggested they commit an unnatural act on themselves, and this earned him enormous credibility and gratitude from Hungarians. It seems there is no supremacy clause in the EU Treaty, or at least not one with real teeth.
Hungarians traditionally exercise two important cultural activities: the slaughter swine and they make palinka (plum brandy). The EU said, "Since you are members of the EU, you must no longer slaughter swine anywehere but in an abattoir and you cannot distill your own palinka any more." Orban told the EU "We are Hungarians. We butcher swine. We distill palinka," and he suggested they commit an unnatural act on themselves, and this earned him enormous credibility and gratitude from Hungarians. It seems there is no supremacy clause in the EU Treaty, or at least not one with real teeth.
Agreed, but if the Russians were to withdraw totally from all Ukrainian territory, Putin would not survive long afterwards. Somebody would whack him.
All Ukrainian territory (including Crimea) - absolutely.
Pre-2022 invasion lines - not good for him, but could be survivable
Current battle lines - should not be a problem to sell as a victory
I agree with all of those assessments.
If they freeze the front lines where they now are, there will be a huge victory parade on Red Square.
Unfortunately, he wants more than the current battle lines
And the only way to stop him is to provide more weapons to Ukraine and more economic pressure on Russia
BREAKING: The U.S. just approved the sale of 3350 ERAM air-launched cruise missiles to Ukraine for $825 million. Denmark, Norway and Netherlands have agreed to provide Ukraine with the money needed for the purchase
In Putin's and most Russians' eyes, it would be, the post 2014 part. Millions of lives for minimal territorial gains...
"Russia does not have enough strength to capture all of Ukraine, and Ukraine does not have enough strength to reclaim all occupied territories," said Zelensky. According to the President of Ukraine, the diplomatic path is the only option today and the fastest way to end the war.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Baker staying put as LSU defensive coordinator- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Tulane wins American title, strengthens CFP shot
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Boise State halts UNLV for 3rd straight MWC title
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: How the conference championship results affect the playoff: Tulane finishes the job
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Kennesaw St. rallies to win Conference USA title
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Cyclones name WSU's Rogers to replace Campbell
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0