618 Кб, 592x645
Hello Overseas Friends!
I attempted to post on the other board but was unable...
I understand that this conflict is ongoing and I do not want to discuss morality. I am not interested in that. I just want to ask this question to real Russians. I do not want to blindly read the propaganda that is being fed to me. Russia is a superpower! They have a well educated, well trained volunteer army, like the US. The West wants people to believe that the Russians are not "pulling their punches" or gathering all their forces.
I doubt it. I think Russia is acting like the US would act. Only sending as many as they think they need. If the Kremlin wants to raze Ukraine and cause international outrage, they will.
Do you think Russia views this war the same way the US viewed Iraq or Afghanistan?
Thanks!!!
I attempted to post on the other board but was unable...
I understand that this conflict is ongoing and I do not want to discuss morality. I am not interested in that. I just want to ask this question to real Russians. I do not want to blindly read the propaganda that is being fed to me. Russia is a superpower! They have a well educated, well trained volunteer army, like the US. The West wants people to believe that the Russians are not "pulling their punches" or gathering all their forces.
I doubt it. I think Russia is acting like the US would act. Only sending as many as they think they need. If the Kremlin wants to raze Ukraine and cause international outrage, they will.
Do you think Russia views this war the same way the US viewed Iraq or Afghanistan?
Thanks!!!
2 132542>>539 (OP)
You can only post on other boards for foreigners with a passcode.
I also recommend to create these threads in /int/pol in the future. The Mod doesn't like it if a political thread is outside of /int/pol.
https://2ch.hk/int/res/123465.html (
М)
No.The Russian Federation is something between a regional power and a superpower. It inherits some elements of the superpower called the USSR, but it is not a superpower in a number of respects. Usually, a superpower is understood as a country with enormous political, economic, military and cultural power, capable of exerting global influence on all spheres of world politics. Apart from military power, which is currently the first in the world, Russia is behind the US in the other three indicators, although it is clearly striving to narrow the gap. The US and China are the undisputed superpowers.
If I understand the expression correctly, we are talking about prolonging the conflict and the absence of full military mobilization. Russia is doing this because at this stage of the war it is not economically profitable; declaring an official war removes a number of restrictions and imposes new ones. War is a completely different legal status than a “special military operation” in Russian law, because of which Russia would have to switch to a military economy, which would affect other areas of the economy (development of civilian AI, civilian airplanes, medicine, etc.).
No. The US starts its war by destroying the entire power generation and water supply of the enemy, causing a humanitarian catastrophe and wreaking havoc in the enemy ranks. Russia didn't do that because Ukraine has a huge number of Russian speakers, former Russians from the Russian empire who were forcibly Ukrainianized and assimilated by Ukrainian communists (no job if you don't know Ukrainian, no work, no job, go to jail).
I am not going to push a 10000 page Putin style historical text here. You can read it yourself. The point is that Russia is using humanitarian approach, this is one of the main difficulties of this war.
And I personally think this approach is flawed, if we were more cynical like the US about our enemies , this war would have ended much faster. The Russian Empire lost 700,000 Russian soldiers in the war to liberate the Balkans from Turkish slavery, and where are these countries now? All of them except Serbia are now members of a hostile alliance. Humanitarianism in Russian culture is not bad in itself, but it is Russia's main problem militarily. That's why being number one in power in the world doesn't make Russia a great warrior.
I find the cynical approach of the US more successful.
This war for Russia is not an attempt to have strategic influence (unlike the operation in Syria), it's a security issue that was very much compromised by the CIA's actions in supporting the coup d'état in 2014. A civil war broke out in Ukraine (all western media denies this fact, but it's just a fucking fact by all criteria) and the Ukrainian army started a military campaign against the east of their country, destroying the population, part of the AFU army defected to the rebels, many rebellions were suppressed (except Donetsk and Lugansk) which forced Russia to intervene indirectly for humanitarian reasons. Ukraine in NATO is a serious power imbalance, the Black Sea (5 NATO fleets vs. 1 Russian fleet) is a serious security hole through which Russia can be pressured geopolitically by limiting its sovereignty. The only infrastructure in the region that allowed NATO and Russia to have a strategic advantage was the Crimean ports. This war has a strategic importance that determines Russia's ability to develop and is much more important than Afghanistan or Iraq. Afghanistan or Iraq can be compared to the Russian operation in Syria, but the Ukrainian conflict is more serious for Russia's existence.
You can only post on other boards for foreigners with a passcode.
I also recommend to create these threads in /int/pol in the future. The Mod doesn't like it if a political thread is outside of /int/pol.
https://2ch.hk/int/res/123465.html (
М)>Russia is a superpower!
No.The Russian Federation is something between a regional power and a superpower. It inherits some elements of the superpower called the USSR, but it is not a superpower in a number of respects. Usually, a superpower is understood as a country with enormous political, economic, military and cultural power, capable of exerting global influence on all spheres of world politics. Apart from military power, which is currently the first in the world, Russia is behind the US in the other three indicators, although it is clearly striving to narrow the gap. The US and China are the undisputed superpowers.
>The West wants people to believe that the Russians are not "pulling their punches" or gathering all their forces.
If I understand the expression correctly, we are talking about prolonging the conflict and the absence of full military mobilization. Russia is doing this because at this stage of the war it is not economically profitable; declaring an official war removes a number of restrictions and imposes new ones. War is a completely different legal status than a “special military operation” in Russian law, because of which Russia would have to switch to a military economy, which would affect other areas of the economy (development of civilian AI, civilian airplanes, medicine, etc.).
>I think Russia is acting like the US would act.
No. The US starts its war by destroying the entire power generation and water supply of the enemy, causing a humanitarian catastrophe and wreaking havoc in the enemy ranks. Russia didn't do that because Ukraine has a huge number of Russian speakers, former Russians from the Russian empire who were forcibly Ukrainianized and assimilated by Ukrainian communists (no job if you don't know Ukrainian, no work, no job, go to jail).
I am not going to push a 10000 page Putin style historical text here. You can read it yourself. The point is that Russia is using humanitarian approach, this is one of the main difficulties of this war.
And I personally think this approach is flawed, if we were more cynical like the US about our enemies , this war would have ended much faster. The Russian Empire lost 700,000 Russian soldiers in the war to liberate the Balkans from Turkish slavery, and where are these countries now? All of them except Serbia are now members of a hostile alliance. Humanitarianism in Russian culture is not bad in itself, but it is Russia's main problem militarily. That's why being number one in power in the world doesn't make Russia a great warrior.
I find the cynical approach of the US more successful.
>Do you think Russia views this war the same way the US viewed Iraq or Afghanistan?
This war for Russia is not an attempt to have strategic influence (unlike the operation in Syria), it's a security issue that was very much compromised by the CIA's actions in supporting the coup d'état in 2014. A civil war broke out in Ukraine (all western media denies this fact, but it's just a fucking fact by all criteria) and the Ukrainian army started a military campaign against the east of their country, destroying the population, part of the AFU army defected to the rebels, many rebellions were suppressed (except Donetsk and Lugansk) which forced Russia to intervene indirectly for humanitarian reasons. Ukraine in NATO is a serious power imbalance, the Black Sea (5 NATO fleets vs. 1 Russian fleet) is a serious security hole through which Russia can be pressured geopolitically by limiting its sovereignty. The only infrastructure in the region that allowed NATO and Russia to have a strategic advantage was the Crimean ports. This war has a strategic importance that determines Russia's ability to develop and is much more important than Afghanistan or Iraq. Afghanistan or Iraq can be compared to the Russian operation in Syria, but the Ukrainian conflict is more serious for Russia's existence.
2 132542>>539 (OP)
You can only post on other boards for foreigners with a passcode.
I also recommend to create these threads in /int/pol in the future. The Mod doesn't like it if a political thread is outside of /int/pol.
https://2ch.hk/int/res/123465.html (М)
No.The Russian Federation is something between a regional power and a superpower. It inherits some elements of the superpower called the USSR, but it is not a superpower in a number of respects. Usually, a superpower is understood as a country with enormous political, economic, military and cultural power, capable of exerting global influence on all spheres of world politics. Apart from military power, which is currently the first in the world, Russia is behind the US in the other three indicators, although it is clearly striving to narrow the gap. The US and China are the undisputed superpowers.
If I understand the expression correctly, we are talking about prolonging the conflict and the absence of full military mobilization. Russia is doing this because at this stage of the war it is not economically profitable; declaring an official war removes a number of restrictions and imposes new ones. War is a completely different legal status than a “special military operation” in Russian law, because of which Russia would have to switch to a military economy, which would affect other areas of the economy (development of civilian AI, civilian airplanes, medicine, etc.).
No. The US starts its war by destroying the entire power generation and water supply of the enemy, causing a humanitarian catastrophe and wreaking havoc in the enemy ranks. Russia didn't do that because Ukraine has a huge number of Russian speakers, former Russians from the Russian empire who were forcibly Ukrainianized and assimilated by Ukrainian communists (no job if you don't know Ukrainian, no work, no job, go to jail).
I am not going to push a 10000 page Putin style historical text here. You can read it yourself. The point is that Russia is using humanitarian approach, this is one of the main difficulties of this war.
And I personally think this approach is flawed, if we were more cynical like the US about our enemies , this war would have ended much faster. The Russian Empire lost 700,000 Russian soldiers in the war to liberate the Balkans from Turkish slavery, and where are these countries now? All of them except Serbia are now members of a hostile alliance. Humanitarianism in Russian culture is not bad in itself, but it is Russia's main problem militarily. That's why being number one in power in the world doesn't make Russia a great warrior.
I find the cynical approach of the US more successful.
This war for Russia is not an attempt to have strategic influence (unlike the operation in Syria), it's a security issue that was very much compromised by the CIA's actions in supporting the coup d'état in 2014. A civil war broke out in Ukraine (all western media denies this fact, but it's just a fucking fact by all criteria) and the Ukrainian army started a military campaign against the east of their country, destroying the population, part of the AFU army defected to the rebels, many rebellions were suppressed (except Donetsk and Lugansk) which forced Russia to intervene indirectly for humanitarian reasons. Ukraine in NATO is a serious power imbalance, the Black Sea (5 NATO fleets vs. 1 Russian fleet) is a serious security hole through which Russia can be pressured geopolitically by limiting its sovereignty. The only infrastructure in the region that allowed NATO and Russia to have a strategic advantage was the Crimean ports. This war has a strategic importance that determines Russia's ability to develop and is much more important than Afghanistan or Iraq. Afghanistan or Iraq can be compared to the Russian operation in Syria, but the Ukrainian conflict is more serious for Russia's existence.
You can only post on other boards for foreigners with a passcode.
I also recommend to create these threads in /int/pol in the future. The Mod doesn't like it if a political thread is outside of /int/pol.
https://2ch.hk/int/res/123465.html (
М)>Russia is a superpower!
No.The Russian Federation is something between a regional power and a superpower. It inherits some elements of the superpower called the USSR, but it is not a superpower in a number of respects. Usually, a superpower is understood as a country with enormous political, economic, military and cultural power, capable of exerting global influence on all spheres of world politics. Apart from military power, which is currently the first in the world, Russia is behind the US in the other three indicators, although it is clearly striving to narrow the gap. The US and China are the undisputed superpowers.
>The West wants people to believe that the Russians are not "pulling their punches" or gathering all their forces.
If I understand the expression correctly, we are talking about prolonging the conflict and the absence of full military mobilization. Russia is doing this because at this stage of the war it is not economically profitable; declaring an official war removes a number of restrictions and imposes new ones. War is a completely different legal status than a “special military operation” in Russian law, because of which Russia would have to switch to a military economy, which would affect other areas of the economy (development of civilian AI, civilian airplanes, medicine, etc.).
>I think Russia is acting like the US would act.
No. The US starts its war by destroying the entire power generation and water supply of the enemy, causing a humanitarian catastrophe and wreaking havoc in the enemy ranks. Russia didn't do that because Ukraine has a huge number of Russian speakers, former Russians from the Russian empire who were forcibly Ukrainianized and assimilated by Ukrainian communists (no job if you don't know Ukrainian, no work, no job, go to jail).
I am not going to push a 10000 page Putin style historical text here. You can read it yourself. The point is that Russia is using humanitarian approach, this is one of the main difficulties of this war.
And I personally think this approach is flawed, if we were more cynical like the US about our enemies , this war would have ended much faster. The Russian Empire lost 700,000 Russian soldiers in the war to liberate the Balkans from Turkish slavery, and where are these countries now? All of them except Serbia are now members of a hostile alliance. Humanitarianism in Russian culture is not bad in itself, but it is Russia's main problem militarily. That's why being number one in power in the world doesn't make Russia a great warrior.
I find the cynical approach of the US more successful.
>Do you think Russia views this war the same way the US viewed Iraq or Afghanistan?
This war for Russia is not an attempt to have strategic influence (unlike the operation in Syria), it's a security issue that was very much compromised by the CIA's actions in supporting the coup d'état in 2014. A civil war broke out in Ukraine (all western media denies this fact, but it's just a fucking fact by all criteria) and the Ukrainian army started a military campaign against the east of their country, destroying the population, part of the AFU army defected to the rebels, many rebellions were suppressed (except Donetsk and Lugansk) which forced Russia to intervene indirectly for humanitarian reasons. Ukraine in NATO is a serious power imbalance, the Black Sea (5 NATO fleets vs. 1 Russian fleet) is a serious security hole through which Russia can be pressured geopolitically by limiting its sovereignty. The only infrastructure in the region that allowed NATO and Russia to have a strategic advantage was the Crimean ports. This war has a strategic importance that determines Russia's ability to develop and is much more important than Afghanistan or Iraq. Afghanistan or Iraq can be compared to the Russian operation in Syria, but the Ukrainian conflict is more serious for Russia's existence.
3 132543How and who benefits from provoking Russia, you can guess for yourself.
And the answer to the main question: Can Russia lose?
No, it can't.
Russia will suffer a complete strategic defeat, so all means, including nuclear weapons, will be gradually used to prevent this.
And the answer to the main question: Can Russia lose?
No, it can't.
Russia will suffer a complete strategic defeat, so all means, including nuclear weapons, will be gradually used to prevent this.