11 votes

Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - January 19

This thread is posted weekly on Thursday - please try to post relevant content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Especially significant updates may warrant a separate topic, but most should be posted here.

If you'd like to help support Ukraine, please visit the official site at https://help.gov.ua/ - an official portal for those who want to provide humanitarian or financial assistance to people of Ukraine, businesses or the government at the times of resistance against the Russian aggression.

31 comments

  1. [3]
    cfabbro
    Link
    Foreign Ministers of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia joint statements: https://twitter.com/edgarsrinkevics/status/1616699708969287680 https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1616699923994660865...

    Foreign Ministers of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia joint statements:

    We, 🇱🇹 🇱🇻🇪🇪 Foreign Ministers, call on Germany to provide Leopard tanks to Ukraine now. This is needed to stop Russian aggression, help Ukraine and restore peace in Europe quickly. Germany as the leading European power has special responsibility in this regard.

    https://twitter.com/edgarsrinkevics/status/1616699708969287680
    https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1616699923994660865
    https://twitter.com/UrmasReinsalu/status/1616700018748018689

    5 votes
    1. [2]
      ThatFanficGuy
      Link Parent
      I wonder what reaction that would cause in Germany. My – admittedly relatively recent – understanding of the EU politics is that Germany and Austria opposed entry of the Eastern European states...

      I wonder what reaction that would cause in Germany.

      My – admittedly relatively recent – understanding of the EU politics is that Germany and Austria opposed entry of the Eastern European states into the EU, calling them a bog. This may or may not be the same attitude behind Germany's Ukraine-war antics with lazy delivery of arms.

      The three Baltic states, on the other hands, were some of the most supportive states of Ukraine throughout the war, in terms of both relative GDP contributed to Ukraine's fund and their acceptance of fleeing Ukrainians as refugees. They may also be the most vocal against Russia – behind Ukraine, of course. (The oppressive history towards the Baltic states by the Soviet Union aren't helping the situation.)

      Germany being the de facto leader of the EU, and the "little dogs" (relatively speaking) calling the "big dog" out... I wonder what the German leadership thinks of that.

      5 votes
      1. FishFingus
        Link Parent
        I imagine they're sweating bullets over the state of the country's army and tank fleet. They don't want to have to crack open the storage and see just how bad things really are for themselves, let...

        I imagine they're sweating bullets over the state of the country's army and tank fleet. They don't want to have to crack open the storage and see just how bad things really are for themselves, let alone show the rest of Europe and Russia too.

        I doubt Britain's situation much better. They're probably relieved that the attention is on Germany.

        7 votes
  2. cmccabe
    Link
    House Foreign Affairs chairman says some members don’t understand what’s at stake in Ukraine https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/22/politics/mike-mccaul-republicans-ukraine-russia-cnntv/index.html

    House Foreign Affairs chairman says some members don’t understand what’s at stake in Ukraine
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/22/politics/mike-mccaul-republicans-ukraine-russia-cnntv/index.html

    The Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sought Sunday to tamp down speculation that the new GOP majority will be less likely to fund aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia, though he did suggest some members of his party may need to be convinced about the need to continue US support.

    “I think there’s enough support on both sides of the aisle. Majority in the Democratic Party, majority in the Republican,” Texas Rep. Michael McCaul told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” referring to aid to Ukraine. But he added, “We have to educate our members. I don’t think they quite understand what’s at stake.”

    4 votes
  3. [9]
    Fal
    Link
    No German tanks for Ukraine until America sends its own, Scholz tells U.S. lawmakers
    3 votes
    1. cmccabe
      Link Parent
      I posted about the Leopard II’s below but should have made that in a reply here. To get back on track, here’s rumblings about the announcement that the M1 Abrams is soon to be headed to Ukraine....

      I posted about the Leopard II’s below but should have made that in a reply here. To get back on track, here’s rumblings about the announcement that the M1 Abrams is soon to be headed to Ukraine.

      In reversal, US poised to approve Abrams tanks for Ukraine
      https://apnews.com/article/us-m1-abrams-tanks-ukraine-russia-249de5c301a9bf83b5f3ac2182076a02

      4 votes
    2. [7]
      ThatFanficGuy
      Link Parent
      The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports: The US is angry with Scholz (article in German; archived version). Translated snippets from the article welcome under this comment.

      The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports: The US is angry with Scholz (article in German; archived version).

      Translated snippets from the article welcome under this comment.

      2 votes
      1. [6]
        vektor
        Link Parent
        Regarding this and the above "No Leopards unless the US sends Abrams", both of those seem to be back channel communications. The "No Leopards unless the US sends Abrams" line is not official...

        Regarding this and the above "No Leopards unless the US sends Abrams", both of those seem to be back channel communications. The "No Leopards unless the US sends Abrams" line is not official policy at all; it was what was communicated to the US in confidential channels - among which talks in Ramstein, and a phone call between Scholz and Biden.

        The "US angry with Scholz" , well... my take is that the US argument of "Abrams is not appropriate for Ukraine" is complete BS. Replacing an engine pack is a comparable repair job, and with the APUs Abrams have, their fuel economy is fairly comparable. In fact, Abrams and Leopard are possibly the most similar current western tank models. And again, that Lloyd Austin is angry with Scholz is, afaict, an inofficial stance from a internal document. Nevermind that it's also a matter of interpretation. All the report says, judging from the article, is that the negotiations in and around Ramstein were rougher than usual.

        I could entirely see this as merely "Germany/Scholz pressure US to also commit tanks".

        Note also that there could be a defense economics angle to this: The US, Germany and Korea are in the business of exporting tanks. The only thereof who apparently is expected to supply Ukraine is Germany. Which means Germany has to delay deliveries to other partners, lengthen the backlog of products required by the Bundeswehr, and all that for no money in return. And this won't be a short-term loss. Any country that decides for/against a tank model now, will likely do so for a long time. Germany's been operating the Leo2 for 40 years, and we haven't seriously thought about replacing it yet, so that's the rough time frame over which the loss of procurement, upgrade and maintenance contracts will play out. It's would be a shame if this is what's standing in the way of Ukrainian aid. Poland for example is apparently looking to replace it's Leo2s with M1s and K2s. But before you crucify germany, consider that the US could be perfectly happy to exploit this opportunity for the same shitty motives and not give any concessions to assuage german fears. It's all speculation anyway, but I figured I'd share this one.

        In related news, Poland, who has been crying the loudest for Leo2s, but doing fuck all, has finally actually done something: They have finally officially asked Germany for permission to send Leo2s. I have waited for this moment, and I didn't think it'd ever come. PiS, the Polish government party, is on a anti-german crusade, and they use every dirty trick they can come up with to paint Germany as the bad guy; mostly for popularity with the electorate. So I did not, not for a single second, buy their bullshit about "Germany won't let us send our Leo2s."

        • some very relevant politicians said we would allow the transfer
        • Scholz said we'd have to check, but I think this is just him covering his ass to not be seen as a "warmonger" by the pacifists in his party - we don't want a govt in crisis right now, so I support this silly dance for utilitarian reasons.
        • Poland never even officially asked to send them, so Scholz never had to decide, and he couldn't even have permitted it without the request first being filed.
        • The obvious counter argument to (3) is that Poland wouldn't want to risk making germany look bad, by forcing them to officially deny the request. To which I say, are we talking about the same polish government? Because I don't for a second believe they could hold back if they had a chance to make Germany look bad.

        But, well, all of that will soon be moot, because Poland has officially asked, and Germany is now forced to give a clear answer: Yes, or No?


        Before you jump down my throat for any of my statements here, please read carefully whether I support those statements myself, or merely relay them; if in doubt, ask. This overall discussion on Leo2 has been extremely toxic, at least outside of tildes, both within Germany and outside thereof. I have no interest of inviting that discussion culture to over here, or to bring it here myself.

        1 vote
        1. vektor
          Link Parent
          German news orgs Spiegel and NTV apparently agree that Germany has greenlit the delivery of foreign-owned and announced delivery of Bundeswehr Leopards, and apparently Abrams will also be rolling....

          German news orgs Spiegel and NTV apparently agree that Germany has greenlit the delivery of foreign-owned and announced delivery of Bundeswehr Leopards, and apparently Abrams will also be rolling. Looks like an alliance with enough critical mass has finally been found.

          4 votes
        2. [2]
          ThatFanficGuy
          Link Parent
          About that: — The Washington Post For me, a layperson with little understanding of the legal process behind heavy equipment transfer, the timeline checks out: within the same month (Jan 2023):...

          So I did not, not for a single second, buy their bullshit about "Germany won't let us send our Leo2s."

          About that:

          But because the tanks are made in Germany, other countries that have purchased them must get permission from Berlin to transfer them to third countries. The approval decision lies with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

          The Washington Post

          For me, a layperson with little understanding of the legal process behind heavy equipment transfer, the timeline checks out: within the same month (Jan 2023):

          • France promises its AMX-10 RC to Ukraine
          • the UK promises their Challenger 2s to Ukraine
          • the US responds: Abrams are too difficult to maintain in Ukraine, so their transfer is unlikely
          • attention shifts to Germany, an industrial powerhouse of Europe

          That doesn't sound to me like Poland beating around the bush in order to paint Germany in the worst light possible. It sounds instead like Poland – and other countries, like Finland – putting pressure on Germany to fulfill its promises in regards to helping Ukraine like it said it would.

          Besides: Ukraine asked for the tanks on day 7 of the war.

          I'm not a fan of the present Polish government, but even an asshole is right every once in a while. (Even if it allows the asshole to feel perfectly justified in their assholery.)

          So what am I missing?

          I could entirely see this as merely "Germany/Scholz pressure US to also commit tanks".

          This argument works better when Germany itself has had its commitment to the security of Ukraine demonstrated prior. For someone who'd been stalling on promises for months... Not so much.

          But before you crucify germany, consider that the US could be perfectly happy to exploit this opportunity for the same shitty motives and not give any concessions to assuage german fears. It's all speculation anyway, but I figured I'd share this one.

          I wonder why the conversation had been so very toxic indeed.

          2 votes
          1. vektor
            Link Parent
            So, here's why I don't think that's accurate... I admit that's merely one out of multiple possible interpretations of the facts. I hope you see that given the facts, multiple different...

            That doesn't sound to me like Poland beating around the bush in order to paint Germany in the worst light possible. It sounds instead like Poland – and other countries, like Finland – putting pressure on Germany to fulfill its promises in regards to helping Ukraine like it said it would.

            So, here's why I don't think that's accurate... I admit that's merely one out of multiple possible interpretations of the facts. I hope you see that given the facts, multiple different interpretations are possible, as most of it is about human factors and (mis)communication. So leave space in your rhetoric for my interpretation, and I'll leave space for yours. Anyway, of course Germany has to sign off on the transfer. This is usually the domain of Habeck, who is in favor, though apparently the authority ultimately rests with the chancellor, who hasn't publicly decided yet? I'm not quite sure. In any case, the problem I have with Poland's stance is that they've themselves "stalled" (urgh) by not actually requesting permission. The problem with that is that Poland was for two weeks or so complaining that Germany was holding them back, when they didn't even ask. I don't believe the common explanation that they didn't formally ask out of diplomatic decency; they don't have that when it comes to Germany. For bullshit domestic reasons, Scholz couldn't accept without actually being asked, I believe. Alas, ask and you shall get an answer. I'm not surprised in the least by the nature of the answer.

            I don't think it's at all a coincidence that NATO and allies have generally coordinated their deliveries closely. Generally, I think it is, was, and will be a good idea to figure out what's needed the most, figure out what can (politically, logistically, economically) be sent, and do that. I don't think it's a coincidence that this ends up in everyone agreeing to start sending (155mm artillery/IFVs/Tanks) at the same time. Working as intended, and frankly I wouldn't pretend to know whether political or logistical feasibility is what's so slow.

            the US responds: Abrams are too difficult to maintain in Ukraine, so their transfer is unlikely

            And I don't really believe that either: The main argument for the logistical and maintenance difficulty is the gas turbine engine. But that's not a major downside anyway: It's barely more fuel hungry, it's just as easy to remove the engine, and overhauling the engine will be done abroad anyway. Sure, it's not complete bullshit - but isn't nearly the disqualifier it's portrayed to be.

            I wonder why the conversation had been so very toxic indeed.

            To clarify: Are you insinuating that I am contributing to the toxic conversation?

            1 vote
        3. [2]
          skybrian
          Link Parent
          I'm no tank expert, but from skimming some discussion by someone who is (a thread I can't find now), my impression is that the Leopards and Abrams aren't that similar from a maintenance...

          I'm no tank expert, but from skimming some discussion by someone who is (a thread I can't find now), my impression is that the Leopards and Abrams aren't that similar from a maintenance standpoint. One difference is that they have different kinds of engines - diesel versus turbine.

          1 vote
          1. vektor
            Link Parent
            I'm aware of that. It is my understanding that in the field you just strip out the entire engine pack and replace it, sending the defective unit rearward. Whether you send it back to MTU...

            I'm aware of that. It is my understanding that in the field you just strip out the entire engine pack and replace it, sending the defective unit rearward. Whether you send it back to MTU Friedrichshafen or to an American-run supply depot in Poland doesn't really matter. And when stripping out the engine, the size of the job apparently doesn't depend much on the type of engine.

            I dunno, maybe the Americans did a silly and designed an unmaintainable nightmare of a track or something, but I don't see the Abrams as unviable as it's sometimes portrayed as.

            Oh, and the other one is fuel consumption of the engine... But consider that the gas turbine can run on almost anything that burns. Including diesel.

            2 votes
  4. ThatFanficGuy
    Link
    U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea, via The New York Times: <...> <...> <...> <...> <...>

    U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea, via The New York Times:

    After months of discussions with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally starting to concede that Kyiv may need the power to strike the Russian sanctuary, even if such a move increases the risk of escalation, according to several U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive debate.

    <...>

    <...> the Biden administration has come to believe that if the Ukrainian military can show Russia that its control of Crimea can be threatened, that would strengthen Kyiv’s position in any future negotiations. In addition, fears that the Kremlin would retaliate using a tactical nuclear weapon have dimmed, U.S. officials and experts said — though they cautioned that the risk remained.

    <...>

    However, President Biden is not yet ready to give Ukraine the long-range missile systems that Kyiv would need to attack Russian installations on the peninsula.

    <...>

    In deciding to give the Bradleys to Ukraine, the Biden administration moved closer to providing Kyiv with something for which senior Ukrainian officials have been imploring the United States for months: direct American help for Ukraine to go on the offense — including targeting Crimea.

    <...>

    If Ukraine does focus on reclaiming Zaporizhzhia, then preliminary attacks could include hitting targets in nearby Crimea. “A major Ukrainian breakthrough in Zaporizhzhia would seriously challenge the viability of Russia’s ‘land bridge,’” the British assessment said.

    <...>

    Still, despite the additional weaponry, the Biden administration does not think that Ukraine can take Crimea militarily — and indeed, there are still worries that such a move could drive Mr. Putin to retaliate with an escalatory response. But, officials said, their assessment now is that Russia needs to believe that Crimea is at risk, in part to strengthen Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations.

    3 votes
  5. cmccabe
    Link
    Germany won’t block Poland giving Ukraine [Leopard 2] tanks https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-government-united-states-c9459e1bed9ad7358a59b541b3a5ae8c

    Germany won’t block Poland giving Ukraine [Leopard 2] tanks
    https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-government-united-states-c9459e1bed9ad7358a59b541b3a5ae8c

    The German government will not object if Poland decides to send Leopard 2 battle tanks to Ukraine, Germany’s top diplomat said Sunday, indicating movement on supplying weapons that Kyiv has described as essential to its ability to fend off an intensified Russian offensive.

    German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told French TV channel LCI that Poland has not formally asked for Berlin’s approval to share some of its German-made Leopards but added “if we were asked, we would not stand in the way.”

    3 votes
  6. cmccabe
    Link
    Germany set to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Der Spiegel reports https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/europe/germany-leopard-2-tanks-ukraine-announcement-intl/index.html …

    Germany set to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Der Spiegel reports
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/europe/germany-leopard-2-tanks-ukraine-announcement-intl/index.html

    Germany is set to send its sought-after Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine to help bolster the country’s war effort, Der Spiegel reported on Tuesday evening, attributing to unnamed sources. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has decided to deliver the battle tanks following “months of debate,” according to the German news outlet’s exclusive report.

    The report comes shortly after US officials revealed on Tuesday that the Biden administration is finalizing plans to send US-made tanks to Ukraine. Germany had indicated to the US last week that it would not send its Leopard tanks unless the US also agreed to send its own M1 Abrams tanks.

    3 votes
  7. [2]
    skybrian
    Link
    Top Ukrainian officials ousted in anti-corruption sweep (Washington Post) [...] [...] [...]

    Top Ukrainian officials ousted in anti-corruption sweep (Washington Post)

    Several senior Ukrainian officials, including a close adviser of President Volodymyr Zelensky, were swept out of their posts on Tuesday, mainly over corruption allegations, as Kyiv moved swiftly to show zero tolerance for graft that could undermine the confidence of Western nations keeping the country alive with donated weapons and billions in economic assistance.

    The dismissals and resignations — notably of Zelensky’s deputy chief of staff, Kyrylo Tymoshenko; Deputy Defense Minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov; and Deputy Prosecutor General Oleksiy Symonenko — represent the biggest shake-up in Ukraine’s leadership since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February.

    Five governors were removed outright from their positions, including Oleksiy Kuleba of the Kyiv region and Valentyn Reznichenko of the Dnipropetrovsk region, two of the most prominent regional heads. The governors of the Sumy, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions were also dismissed.

    [...]

    Another Ukrainian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly, said that some in the government had for months complained about what they saw as a pattern of corruption, and the official predicted that Zelensky’s moves on Tuesday marked “just the beginning.”

    [...]

    The removal of Shapovalov, the deputy defense minister, was directly connected to reports in the Ukrainian media that food was purchased for the military at inflated prices. Mirror of the Week, a prominent Ukrainian news site, said that a recently concluded $350 million procurement contract listed basic food items, such as eggs and potatoes, at prices between double and triple those found in local stores.

    [...]

    Symonenko had been embroiled in a scandal in recent weeks following a report that he had left the country over the New Year’s holiday to vacation with his family in Spain.

    The incident carried an additional punch in Ukraine, where, since the beginning of the war, Ukrainian men of military age have been barred from exiting the country, unless they obtain official permission by convincing the authorities that they have a well-grounded reason to leave.

    3 votes
    1. skybrian
      Link Parent
      Ukrainian journalists are uncovering Ukrainian corruption (Washington Post)

      Ukrainian journalists are uncovering Ukrainian corruption (Washington Post)

      The headlines are deeply uncomfortable for the Ukrainian government. Since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022, Zelensky has become an international icon, praised for his resilience and steady hand. But reports of corruption are likely to alarm many in Western capitals, which have sent huge sums of money to Ukraine to balance the economic catastrophe of the war.

      But it’s important to remember who uncovered the allegations of Ukrainian corruption: Ukrainian journalists and anti-corruption campaigners.

      3 votes
  8. skybrian
    Link
    What Bradley Fighting Vehicles Will Mean for Ukraine (The Bulwark) From the article: [...] [...] The author talks about tanks in this Twitter thread.

    What Bradley Fighting Vehicles Will Mean for Ukraine (The Bulwark)

    From the article:

    For Ukrainian soldiers who are trying to dislodge the Russian military from positions it’s been hardening for months or even years, the difference between advancing on foot with a rifle in hand or advancing with Bradleys over trenches and across fields is huge. In combat, our crew destroyed enemy trucks, Russian-original Iraqi infantry fighting vehicles, and even early-model Russian tanks—and that doesn’t even include the Bradley’s main tank-killing weapon.

    [...]

    We launched several [TOW] missiles during combat, and each hit their targets at very long range. By comparison, most Russian tanks have an effective range of between 1900-2500 meters (this is for a well-trained tank crew, which I have yet to see in the Russian army), so the TOW provides significant standoff.

    [...]

    The Ukrainians may well be capable of operating the logistics systems required to maintain a fleet of Abrams, and it helps that neighboring Poland also uses them. But logistics networks don’t emerge overnight; they have to be designed, developed, tested, and optimized. Giving the Ukrainians Bradleys will begin the process of developing those logistics networks for a vehicle they can use in the immediate term. As has been the pattern with the Biden administration’s weapons transfers to date, small steps beget bigger ones.

    The author talks about tanks in this Twitter thread.

    2 votes
  9. [12]
    tomf
    Link
    is it purely for fear of nuclear war that the US isn’t using its military to take over russia and call it a day?

    is it purely for fear of nuclear war that the US isn’t using its military to take over russia and call it a day?

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      Fal
      Link Parent
      Mostly nuclear deterrence, and partially because an invasion of Russia would be a herculean task from a military and logistics perspective. Not only would the US probably need to implement at...

      Mostly nuclear deterrence, and partially because an invasion of Russia would be a herculean task from a military and logistics perspective. Not only would the US probably need to implement at least limited drafting in order to pull together the manpower to fight a war on such a large front, even including European allied support, such an effort would almost certainly force the US to reduce its efforts in supporting other allies around the world, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc in countering influence from powers like China. This isn't even to mention how such a large war would likely be unpopular and be used as a tool in domestic politics.

      5 votes
      1. ThatFanficGuy
        Link Parent
        In other words, the US would have to pull a Russia in order to conquer Russia. The difference is: people aren't all that afraid to storm government buildings in the US. Designated Survivor may...

        In other words, the US would have to pull a Russia in order to conquer Russia.

        The difference is: people aren't all that afraid to storm government buildings in the US. Designated Survivor may well become a reality if such a turn would take place.

        1 vote
    2. [9]
      teaearlgraycold
      Link Parent
      Keep in mind the US hasn't won a war since WWII.

      take over russia and call it a day

      Keep in mind the US hasn't won a war since WWII.

      3 votes
      1. MimicSquid
        Link Parent
        I think it depends on how you define winning? If the war is there to take ground, remove or greatly limit the ability of their opponent to leverage violence, and to bring their opponent to the...

        I think it depends on how you define winning? If the war is there to take ground, remove or greatly limit the ability of their opponent to leverage violence, and to bring their opponent to the negotiation table, there's a bunch of military excursions (whether you want to call them "wars") that the US has won.

        The thing that the US has been spectacularly bad at is winning the peace that comes after the shooting has mostly stopped. The US may be the world's police, but more often than not what's needed is the world's EMT, and that's not the force that the USA has.

        5 votes
      2. stu2b50
        Link Parent
        Apart from the "hasn't been a war since WWII" pedantry, the US has at the least won Operation Power Pack, invasion of the Dominican Republican Desert Storm & Saber, invasion of Iraq Operation...

        Apart from the "hasn't been a war since WWII" pedantry, the US has at the least won

        • Operation Power Pack, invasion of the Dominican Republican
        • Desert Storm & Saber, invasion of Iraq
        • Operation Uphold Democracy, invasion of Haiti
        • Operation Allied Force, air strikes against Serbia for Kosovo
        • Operation Desert Fox, invasion of Iraq electric boogaloo

        Winning a war does not mean you automatically accomplish all of your political goals, however.

        5 votes
      3. [2]
        Loire
        Link Parent
        I mean... We have two Korea's explicitly because of US intervention in the peninsula. Had the U.S. not "won that war" there would.only be one Korea and it would be communist. Just because they...

        I mean... We have two Korea's explicitly because of US intervention in the peninsula. Had the U.S. not "won that war" there would.only be one Korea and it would be communist. Just because they couldn't hold the Yalu river in the face of the Chinese Red Army joining the war doesn't mean they "lost".

        4 votes
        1. skybrian
          Link Parent
          Well, in some ways it was more of a draw. Fought to a stalemate that lasted two years, then a cease fire and armistice. The South Korean president refused to sign.

          Well, in some ways it was more of a draw. Fought to a stalemate that lasted two years, then a cease fire and armistice. The South Korean president refused to sign.

          1 vote
      4. [4]
        Fal
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Unless you're going by the definition of 'wars actually declared by the US Congress' because WWII was the last time that Congress declared war, that's... definitely not true. 'Hehe the US lost to...

        Unless you're going by the definition of 'wars actually declared by the US Congress' because WWII was the last time that Congress declared war, that's... definitely not true. 'Hehe the US lost to a bunch of Vietnamese farmers' is the memetic thing to say, but the US has been involved in dozens of armed conflicts post-WWII, and achieved its strategic goals a fair amount of the time. I'm not saying that those goals were morally upright or even good for the US' foreign policy goals long term, but said military goals were achieved. Its also worth considering that in cases where the US fought in a more 'conventional' military conflict, which a non-nuclear war with Russia almost certainly would be, the US seems to win more often than it loses (I'm thinking of the Korean war and the Gulf war specifically, but its possible that I'm forgetting some other conflicts which might be considered 'conventional').

        3 votes
        1. papasquat
          Link Parent
          The problem is that war is different than it was 60 years ago. A war with Russia likely wouldn't stay conventional for very long. I have no doubt that the US could dismantle Putin's government in...

          The problem is that war is different than it was 60 years ago. A war with Russia likely wouldn't stay conventional for very long. I have no doubt that the US could dismantle Putin's government in a few months, but what then? Install a puppet regime and fight off another 20 year anti western insurgency?

          What's different about Russia that it wouldn't become another quagmire where the US feels it has an obligation to stick around to provide stability and avoid a strongman taking over the country again?

          If anything, I think Russia would be an even tougher insurgency than Afghanistan was. The country is absolutely huge, with a strong anti western sentiment amongst the massive population, with some parts that are more or less uncharted even to this day, the weather is harsh, and there's a massive amount of heavy weaponry that's been proliferated throughout the country after 30 years of post soviet corruption. As an added bonus, if you thought IEDs and suicide bombers using homemade and makeshift explosives in Iraq and Afghanistan were bad, what happens when they have access to nuclear weapons?

          1 vote
        2. [2]
          NoblePath
          Link Parent
          Is the US government not likely fighting a non-conventional, non-nuclear war with putin now? Sanctions are a form of warfare, as are withholding of grain amd energy. Putin’s propaganda machine i...

          Is the US government not likely fighting a non-conventional, non-nuclear war with putin now? Sanctions are a form of warfare, as are withholding of grain amd energy. Putin’s propaganda machine i running full tilt. I’ll wager at least one us infrastructure hit has putin or wagner group behind it. Who knows what actions are occurring inside Russia.

          1 vote
          1. Fal
            Link Parent
            Possibly. My comment was done in continuation of the 'why doesn't the US just invade Russia' premise in the top-level comment, and isn't really discussing what is actually happening in reality.

            Possibly. My comment was done in continuation of the 'why doesn't the US just invade Russia' premise in the top-level comment, and isn't really discussing what is actually happening in reality.