Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[celedhring]

Russia needs to be salted

They're currently taking enormous casualties, even by vatnik standards up around Kharkiv. The play seems to be to gamble on a Trump win in November to somehow bail them out or something. But Trump is capricious and unpredictable and plenty of European states will continue to supply Ukraine even if Trump remains focused enough for a day to implement some kind of US withdrawal of aid. 

I have little doubt that Trump would (will? ) appoint the most reprehensible Putin useful idiot to the DoD. He'll do the actual job of withdrawing aid.

[crazy canuck]

Could Trump end the US sanctions against Russia, or would he need congress to do that?

[Zanza]

Could Trump end the US sanctions against Russia, or would he need congress to do that?

What happens if he just tells his executive to not enforce them?

[Valmy]

One thing that I find rather amazing in the 21st century is how protracted these wars still seem to be. Technology has really had no impact on making these regional flare ups be decided quickly. They tend to get going and then just just burn and burn and smolder eating up lives and resources and barely anything ever seems to be decided.

I mean the Syrian Civil War started during the Arab Spring, a seemingly distant historical event these days, and even though there has been a ceasefire there is still occasional clashes and nothing seems close to being resolved.

And here we are more than two years into this war and the battle lines just barely move. It makes me wonder if this thing is also going to burn out with some cease fire where things just kind of sit for years with no resolution and endless low scale violence.

[Josquius]

I guess the Iran-Iraq war is the closest analogue to this war?

It depends on foreign support what happens. If the west keeps Ukraine survived and they can keep their will, convince enough kids the front line is for them, then they will wait out Russia as it collapses.... Unless China swoops in.

[Iormlund]

One thing that I find rather amazing in the 21st century is how protracted these wars still seem to be. Technology has really had no impact on making these regional flare ups be decided quickly.

In this case I'd argue technology is having an impact. It seems it is really hard to breach a defense line when the enemy can easily see you coming and both sides have ways to quickly blunt any attack (arty, ATGMs, helos).

[Tamas]

What strikes me is the utter madness of it. All these resources and lives could have improved Russia's prosperity and power if spent more wisely. Instead they are burnt to save Putin from having to admit he made a bad decision two years ago.

[frunk]

I think protracted conflicts of this type result from one or more sides trying to get away with the bare minimum.  In this case both Ukraine and Russia are going all out, but Ukraine's supporters would have been way better off by giving more and better support earlier.  Instead it's more an attitude of what can be spared, and "is this enough?".  With that kind of support it will never be enough to end it, just to keep Ukraine in the fight until one of the two parties is exhausted.

[Valmy]

What strikes me is the utter madness of it. All these resources and lives could have improved Russia's prosperity and power if spent more wisely. Instead they are burnt to save Putin from having to admit he made a bad decision two years ago.

Putin seems content to just let the whole country collapse from neglect outside of St Petersburg and Moscow. So many of the cities the USSR built are just decaying across the country, all their tax money flowing to war and the only two cities he cares about.

[crazy canuck]

What strikes me is the utter madness of it. All these resources and lives could have improved Russia's prosperity and power if spent more wisely. Instead they are burnt to save Putin from having to admit he made a bad decision two years ago.

Putin seems content to just let the whole country collapse from neglect outside of St Petersburg and Moscow. So many of the cities the USSR built are just decaying across the country, all their tax money flowing to war and the only two cities he cares about.

Well, he is reported to be a big fan of Tsarist Russia.

[DGuller]

In a perverse sense it makes some sense, if you rule your country like you play Victoria 3.  People are renewable resource: no matter how comfortably they live, they still die at some point.  Borders are a little more permanent, especially in the nuclear age.  Spending resources on something temporary, like people, is the true waste, unless it somehow helps you with getting permanent gains.

[Josquius]

In a perverse sense it makes some sense, if you rule your country like you play Victoria 3.  People are renewable resource: no matter how comfortably they live, they still die at some point.  Borders are a little more permanent, especially in the nuclear age.  Spending resources on something temporary, like people, is the true waste, unless it somehow helps you with getting permanent gains.

I've not played Victoria 3 yet.
It's such a change to 2 that the optimal way to play isn't a mad dash towards social democracy?

[Legbiter]

Ukrainians seem to be doing very well on the defense. The Czech shell initiative is finally in full effect along with a lot of disparate Western industrial processes coming together. Still no sign of the Europeans (aside from the Scandis and Balts) noticing the 3000% trade increase with Central Asia in industrial inputs...

We're hopefully out of 1943 and into 1944 megadeath for the russians in this case.   

[Tamas]

In a perverse sense it makes some sense, if you rule your country like you play Victoria 3.  People are renewable resource: no matter how comfortably they live, they still die at some point.  Borders are a little more permanent, especially in the nuclear age.  Spending resources on something temporary, like people, is the true waste, unless it somehow helps you with getting permanent gains.

I've not played Victoria 3 yet.
It's such a change to 2 that the optimal way to play isn't a mad dash towards social democracy?

Social democracy is still superior but due to the strength and vested interests of influence groups such as the nobility, passing reforms can be very challenging, you have to grind their power down piecemeal. I think within some limits, with some countries it is a viable strategy to maintain the old order and grab the bonuses that's giving you.

[The Minsky Moment]

In a perverse sense it makes some sense, if you rule your country like you play Victoria 3.  People are renewable resource: no matter how comfortably they live, they still die at some point.  Borders are a little more permanent, especially in the nuclear age.  Spending resources on something temporary, like people, is the true waste, unless it somehow helps you with getting permanent gains.

I've not played Victoria 3 yet.
It's such a change to 2 that the optimal way to play isn't a mad dash towards social democracy?

Social democracy is still superior but due to the strength and vested interests of influence groups such as the nobility, passing reforms can be very challenging, you have to grind their power down piecemeal. I think within some limits, with some countries it is a viable strategy to maintain the old order and grab the bonuses that's giving you.

right. If your package of starting laws is pretty good, then there is more flexibility.  If your starting law package sucks - e.g. traditionalism, isolationism, serfdom/slavery, etc.  - then it becomes the priority to beat down the influence of the Landowners ASAP and that usually means going in a social democratic or at least liberalizing direction.