Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Berkut]

I think there is more subjectivity to this though. Islamic jihadists want more then just the US in a war with someone in the Middle East. There is a war of ideas happening as well, and one of the important ideas in the secular liberal west is that the liberal, free order has value and meaning.

The embrace of the security state to the inevitable detriment of the liberal state is one that aligns with one of the core ideas of any ideology in opposition to the liberal West. That all this "freedom" and "liberty" is fake bullshit. There is no reason to fear Islamic authoritarianism because in reality, the alternative is authoritarian as well, they just hide it better begin McDonalds and porn videos. (Same thing with Russian despotism, or Chinese authoritarianism or any other non-liberal ideology for that matter).

This circles neatly back around to Russia and Putin and why he hates the West as well.

They really do hate us for our freedom, as trite as that sounds. An attack that results in us *voluntarily* removing our own freedoms, and engaging in wars were we inevitably stomp all over other peoples freedom is exactly what they want. And we gave it to them.

As stupid as I think airport security is and as happy as it makes me to say that saying yes to stupid security lines is letting Al Qaeda win, I don't think they give a shit about our freedoms or even really our continued existence. The ultimate goal was in the Islamic world. They wanted to provoke a west vs. islam conflict and they never got it. They got a west vs. the taliban conflict, and arguably a west vs. saddam hussein conflict. But 9/11 ultimately alienated Al Qaeda from the bulk of the islamic world.

You are too focused on the "us" side of the equation. If the postulate is that 9/11 was conceived as a plan to provoke a west vs. islam war that ultimately led to the defeat of the west and establishment of a caliphate, and it was a success because it kicked off a couple decades of adventures in islamic countries, what you miss is the the "islam" side didn't rise up against us. They were more like, "well we don't really like you over here, but 9/11 was pretty bad so you kind of have justification" and generally not wanting to be associated with islamic extremism especially after that.

Again, this is all long term outcome.

If you define success of a tactical move in terms of whether it led to the long term outcome desired, then there is no possible tactical move that can be successful on its own merits.

The Japanese attack on Singapore was a failure, because it did not lead to the long term outcome they wanted, under this logic.

We are just languish arguing semantics at this point. Under your definition of success, 9/11 was a failure before it began, since it could not lead to the long term outcome desired (or at least didn't in hindsight).

[Admiral Yi]

We are just languish arguing semantics at this point.

Disagree.  We are arguing about what constitutes a successful terrorist attack.

[alfred russel]

Again, this is all long term outcome.

If you define success of a tactical move in terms of whether it led to the long term outcome desired, then there is no possible tactical move that can be successful on its own merits.

The Japanese attack on Singapore was a failure, because it did not lead to the long term outcome they wanted, under this logic.

We are just languish arguing semantics at this point. Under your definition of success, 9/11 was a failure before it began, since it could not lead to the long term outcome desired (or at least didn't in hindsight).

I disagree.

The Japanese plan was hopeless, but Singapore moved them closer to the goal. We have the benefit of hindsight, but if contested naval landings were more problematic than they actually were, Germany did better in Europe and/or developed nuclear weapons first, etc. maybe Singapore and the achievements of December 1941 through May 1942 could have led to success.

9/11 was intended to provoke a west vs. islam battle. It didn't. And a major reason it didn't is because world opinion, and most importantly islamic opinion, was decidedly repulsed by 9/11. Yeah they provoked a battle, but in that battle almost everyone was against them. Western leaders were acutely aware of the risk; I recall Bush reiterating many times that our quarrel was not with islam, etc. i'd argue that a west vs. islam fight was made less likely by 9/11 than it was before, because islamic countries had a "with us or against us" moment, and chose to side with the west.

[Josquius]

Again, this is all long term outcome.

If you define success of a tactical move in terms of whether it led to the long term outcome desired, then there is no possible tactical move that can be successful on its own merits.

The Japanese attack on Singapore was a failure, because it did not lead to the long term outcome they wanted, under this logic.

We are just languish arguing semantics at this point. Under your definition of success, 9/11 was a failure before it began, since it could not lead to the long term outcome desired (or at least didn't in hindsight).

I disagree.

The Japanese plan was hopeless, but Singapore moved them closer to the goal. We have the benefit of hindsight, but if contested naval landings were more problematic than they actually were, Germany did better in Europe and/or developed nuclear weapons first, etc. maybe Singapore and the achievements of December 1941 through May 1942 could have led to success.

9/11 was intended to provoke a west vs. islam battle. It didn't. And a major reason it didn't is because world opinion, and most importantly islamic opinion, was decidedly repulsed by 9/11. Yeah they provoked a battle, but in that battle almost everyone was against them. Western leaders were acutely aware of the risk; I recall Bush reiterating many times that our quarrel was not with islam, etc. i'd argue that a west vs. islam fight was made less likely by 9/11 than it was before, because islamic countries had a "with us or against us" moment, and chose to side with the west.

It's true the apocolyptic battle of civilizations they wanted didn't immediately emerge. But 11/9 certainly did bring a lot of success for al quaida.
It drastically increased islamophobia in the west helping to push more Muslims towards extremist views, it did wonders for their reputation and recruitment against this angry niche.
That so many Muslim leaders alied with the west against them was also quite the win in the grand scale, showing the people of their nations that they were just americas dog and all that.

[Admiral Yi]

11/9

Dude, it's our terrorist attack, you should use our name.

[mongers]

Yesterday's war.

Back in the Ukraine, Putin is playing one of his last cards, trying to freeze Ukrianians into surrendering this Winter.

Perhaps he thinks General Winter will save him?

[Berkut]

Again, this is all long term outcome.

If you define success of a tactical move in terms of whether it led to the long term outcome desired, then there is no possible tactical move that can be successful on its own merits.

The Japanese attack on Singapore was a failure, because it did not lead to the long term outcome they wanted, under this logic.

We are just languish arguing semantics at this point. Under your definition of success, 9/11 was a failure before it began, since it could not lead to the long term outcome desired (or at least didn't in hindsight).

I disagree.

The Japanese plan was hopeless, but Singapore moved them closer to the goal. We have the benefit of hindsight, but if contested naval landings were more problematic than they actually were, Germany did better in Europe and/or developed nuclear weapons first, etc. maybe Singapore and the achievements of December 1941 through May 1942 could have led to success.

9/11 was intended to provoke a west vs. islam battle. It didn't. And a major reason it didn't is because world opinion, and most importantly islamic opinion, was decidedly repulsed by 9/11. Yeah they provoked a battle, but in that battle almost everyone was against them. Western leaders were acutely aware of the risk; I recall Bush reiterating many times that our quarrel was not with islam, etc. i'd argue that a west vs. islam fight was made less likely by 9/11 than it was before, because islamic countries had a "with us or against us" moment, and chose to side with the west.

9/11 was intended to do a lot of things, most of which had some process.

In it's simplest form, the intent was to hijack some planes and fly them into buildings, killing lots and lots of people. That worked.

Your argument seems to me to be taking the 9/11 attacks, then following the chain to the first moment where the outcome was not what was hoped, and then saying "HAHA! See! Failure!"

I can do the same thing with Singapore. I can skip all the parts that worked, and get to the first point that it did not work, and say "The attack on Singapore was intended to..." and then call it a failure.

This is special pleading. You want to call it a failure, so you are arguing backwards from the point that their overall goals were not achieved, and the first point you can find where they are not getting what they want, THAT is what you identify as their "intention".

They intended to kill a bunch of Americans in a spectacular fashion. They did so. They intended to destroy the World Trade Center, as they felt that was a symbol of western interference and power. They did so. They intended to attack the Pentagon, and they did.

They intended to force the US to react, and the US reacted. They intended to make Americans afraid, and lash out, and Americans did that as well.

The world changed after 9/11, and success for the West would have been the world NOT changing.

[Tamas]

FFS people open a separate thread.

[Tamas]

Again, apologies for moving this thread away from the United State of America, but:

Kirill Stremousov, the Russian-installed deputy administrator of the Kherson region, has said in a Telegram message posted late on Tuesday that, '"In the very near future, the battle for Kherson will begin."

"The civilian population is advised to leave the area of ��the forthcoming fierce hostilities, if possible, so as not to expose themselves to unnecessary risk," Stremousov added.

The new commander of Moscow's army in Ukraine announced on Tuesday that civilians were being "resettled" from the Russian-occupied southern city of Kherson, describing the military situation as "tense".

"The enemy continually attempts to attack the positions of Russian troops," Sergei Surovikin said in his first televised interview since being appointed earlier this month, adding that the situation was particularly difficult around the occupied southern city of Kherson.

I wonder if they are talking about this openly hoping to draw the Ukrainians into city fighting. My impression from earlier analysis was that likely Ukraine is looking to cut off, rather than assault, the city.

Also it is very ominous to hear a Russian official talk about "resettlement". Makes me wonder if the slave economy of the 30-50s is back in vogue there. 

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I've seen stuff about Russia evacuating civilians. They're not they're deporting occupied civilians into Russia.

[Josquius]

Warsaw Uprising style bait?

[alfred russel]

9/11 was intended to do a lot of things, most of which had some process.

In it's simplest form, the intent was to hijack some planes and fly them into buildings, killing lots and lots of people. That worked.

Agree. On a tactical level it was a success. I thought that was trivial and we were discussing something deeper than that - whether it was a strategic success.

Your argument seems to me to be taking the 9/11 attacks, then following the chain to the first moment where the outcome was not what was hoped, and then saying "HAHA! See! Failure!"

I can do the same thing with Singapore. I can skip all the parts that worked, and get to the first point that it did not work, and say "The attack on Singapore was intended to..." and then call it a failure.

You can do that. And as I've said above, if you did i would disagree with you.

This is special pleading. You want to call it a failure, so you are arguing backwards from the point that their overall goals were not achieved, and the first point you can find where they are not getting what they want, THAT is what you identify as their "intention".

They intended to kill a bunch of Americans in a spectacular fashion. They did so. They intended to destroy the World Trade Center, as they felt that was a symbol of western interference and power. They did so. They intended to attack the Pentagon, and they did.

As I said above, yes it was a tactical success. I thought that was trivially obvious.

They intended to force the US to react, and the US reacted. They intended to make Americans afraid, and lash out, and Americans did that as well.

The world changed after 9/11, and success for the West would have been the world NOT changing.

And again, you are focused much more on the "us" than on the Islamic audience. You hit someone and they hit back: great job but that didn't really put them closer to their goals. They calculated a west vs. islam war would put the street on their side, but while in some other hypothetical it may have, 9/11 left almost everyone against them. I'm not following down the chain of events until it failed years later. I'm saying that success for them was further off on 10/11 than it was on 9/11. They went too big, in too horrific of circumstances.

In a counterfactual, if the west didn't respond for whatever reason, but a majority or even significant minority of the islamic world celebrated on 9/11 and al qaeda was considered heroic, noble and worthy of support, that would have been wild success.

[The Larch]

Yeah - I've seen stuff about Russia evacuating civilians. They're not they're deporting occupied civilians into Russia.

I wonder what will be done about that, if something will be able to be done, once the war is over. Has the number of forced relocations of Ukranians to Russia been estimated? At the beginning of the war I remember reading some articles about how Russia could try to "Russify" Ukranian children by separating them from their families (in case they had one) and getting them adopted by Russian families.

[celedhring]

It's just the largest hostage-taking operation in modern history, imho. Another bargaining chit.

[Sheilbh]

I wonder what will be done about that, if something will be able to be done, once the war is over. Has the number of forced relocations of Ukranians to Russia been estimated? At the beginning of the war I remember reading some articles about how Russia could try to "Russify" Ukranian children by separating them from their families (in case they had one) and getting them adopted by Russian families.

Yeah what's happening with kids is monstrous.

It's one of the examples that I think really hits home the imperial (and, perhaps, colonial) angle of Russia because it seems reminiscent of similar institutionalised child abuse in the British empire (Ireland, Australia, Canada).