Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Jacob]

I think there's a difference between between "terrorist attack" by insurgent / guerillas to affect government policy (which I think has a record of working at least some of the time), and deliberate bombings of civilians and civilian infrastructure by one of the sides in a conventional military conflict, which has less of a success record.

Bombings by terrorists groups has been successful, IMO, with the 9-11 attack being the most obvious example. I believe the IRA bombing campaign had some impact as well. If you argue the 2004 Al Qaeda attack was successful, I'd put it in this category.

As for bombing civilian targets in conventional conflicts, I think there's less of a track record. I think critical infrastructure damage has helped shape military operations, but we're talking more about things like bombing housing and playgrounds and so on... I can't think of any successful examples that weren't also paired with actual military victories.

[Maladict]

Has terror bombing ever worked? Seems cruel and futile.

Netherlands 1940.

Seems like there was a little more going on there than just terror bombing.

The consensus is that German commanders called for a bombing of the northern bridgehead of the Maas crossing, which was a legitimate target as it was heavily defended. They got carpet bombing, ordered by Goering out of frustration with slow progress.

They then threatened to obliterate the next city near the front line, Utrecht, which prompted capitulation.

The defenses were still holding at that time, though  probably not for very long.

[Admiral Yi]

Bombings by terrorists groups has been successful, IMO, with the 9-11 attack being the most obvious example.

The only way I could see how 9/11 could be considered successful is if you're starting from the talking point "if we increase security measures the terrorists have won."

[Sheilbh]

Bombings by terrorists groups has been successful, IMO, with the 9-11 attack being the most obvious example. I believe the IRA bombing campaign had some impact as well. If you argue the 2004 Al Qaeda attack was successful, I'd put it in this category.

I'd disagree on the IRA.

There's a fair amount of revisionism around them currently - especially in Ireland as Sinn Fein rise (which has many interesting angles I think). But I think that's basically wrong. I think IRA bombing campaigns have made a united Ireland less likely and still cast a very long shadow.

Also the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973 included a Council of Ireland, a north-south body with executive powers; the Good Friday Agreement 25 years later only included consultative north-south bodies. I think that reflects a failure of a quarter century bombing campaign - but also the weakness of the IRA by the 90s and the need to address the major unionist objection to Sunningdale. Even more fundamentally it's an agreement recognising the existence of a border in Ireland and of Northern Ireland.

They've been far more effective as a constitutional political force through Sinn Fein in the last 25 years than as a terrorist force. I think they've also been very effective as the party elders who are very strongly suspected of having been part of the violent struggle, like McGuinness or Adams, have moved off the political stage or died to be replaced by a generation untainted directly with violence.

[Jacob]

The only way I could see how 9/11 could be considered successful is if you're starting from the talking point "if we increase security measures the terrorists have won."

Al Qaeda's strategy was accelerationist. It certainly succeeded in accelerating conflict between the US and various Muslim nations and other groupings. It altered the political landscape within the larger Muslim world, as well as the trajectory of America's internal politics.

Would democracy in the US be threatened as it is today without 9/11?

Obviously it's hard to argue counterfactuals, but to me it seems 9/11 was successful and effective. It did not bring about Al Qaeda's desired end state, of course, but lots of actions are successful and effective without bringing about ultimate victory by themselves.

[Jacob]

Bombings by terrorists groups has been successful, IMO, with the 9-11 attack being the most obvious example. I believe the IRA bombing campaign had some impact as well. If you argue the 2004 Al Qaeda attack was successful, I'd put it in this category.

I'd disagree on the IRA.

There's a fair amount of revisionism around them currently - especially in Ireland as Sinn Fein rise (which has many interesting angles I think). But I think that's basically wrong. I think IRA bombing campaigns have made a united Ireland less likely and still cast a very long shadow.

Also the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973 included a Council of Ireland, a north-south body with executive powers; the Good Friday Agreement 25 years later only included consultative north-south bodies. I think that reflects a failure of a quarter century bombing campaign - but also the weakness of the IRA by the 90s and the need to address the major unionist objection to Sunningdale. Even more fundamentally it's an agreement recognising the existence of a border in Ireland and of Northern Ireland.

They've been far more effective as a constitutional political force through Sinn Fein in the last 25 years than as a terrorist force. I think they've also been very effective as the party elders who are very strongly suspected of having been part of the violent struggle, like McGuinness or Adams, have moved off the political stage or died to be replaced by a generation untainted directly with violence.

Okay, fair point.

[Berkut]

I m with Jake. I think 9/11 was a spectacular success.

[Iormlund]

Something like 85-90% of the population was against the invasion before it even started.
It doesn't make any sense to say the bombings made a significant impact on the way people viewed Spanish involvement in Iraq.

I'm not saying it did. I'm aware that the population was overwhelmingly against the invasion before it started.

The overwhelming opposition to the invasion of Iraq is what ultimately caused the terror bombings to be so successful. They raised the salience of the issue of Iraq in the minds of the voters, which was an existential threat to the government just days before an election. The government ultimately fell and the policy in Iraq was reversed.

Al Qaeda's goals in Spain went much further than Iraq. They claimed the reinstatement of Al-Andalus no less.
That didn't happen, obviously. Cordoba's mosque, one of the most important in the world, remains to this day a Catholic church where Muslim praying is actually banned.

If anything, the lessons from the aftermath of the bombings should be that a) it is a terrible idea to enter a war  without the support of your citizenship (hello Vlad!) and b) trying to gaslight millions of voters in a few hours is likely to blow up in your face (or at least it was pre-Facebook).

[Berkut]

Something like 85-90% of the population was against the invasion before it even started.
It doesn't make any sense to say the bombings made a significant impact on the way people viewed Spanish involvement in Iraq.

I'm not saying it did. I'm aware that the population was overwhelmingly against the invasion before it started.

The overwhelming opposition to the invasion of Iraq is what ultimately caused the terror bombings to be so successful. They raised the salience of the issue of Iraq in the minds of the voters, which was an existential threat to the government just days before an election. The government ultimately fell and the policy in Iraq was reversed.

Al Qaeda's goals in Spain went much further than Iraq. They claimed the reinstatement of Al-Andalus no less.

The delta between stated "goals" and what they (or anyone)is actually trying to do is often rather significant.

[The Brain]

I m with Jake. I think 9/11 was a spectacular success.

Yeah my impression is that they got what they wanted out of it.

[Tamas]

US embassy in Budapest Tweeted a short video on "who said it? a Hungarian politician / public figure, or Vladimir Putin":

In recent weeks, several senior Hungarian government figures and government-funded commentators have made harsh anti-Western and anti-American statements. Hungary and the United States are Allies. As Russian aggression threatens us all, we must stand together, not move apart.

https://twitter.com/usembbudapest/status/1582009361106227200?s=20&t=rCG_UVd0ko2uHbdP-i8Sow

[celedhring]

I honestly fail to see what Orban stands to win with this.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the segue into talk of Islamic terrorism is manifestly worthless in discussion about a military conflict. The 9/11 attacks had no military significance and al-Qaeda was never a military force pursuing military goals. Success for al-Qaeda is essentially achieved if they kill anyone or cause any chaos that contributes towards their larger ideological conflict with Westernism and apostates and people they view as heretical Muslims.

Strategic terror bombing to attain tactical or strategic military goals is basically an entirely different topic.

[Tamas]

I honestly fail to see what Orban stands to win with this.

It is really getting puzzling. It's a news from today that Hungary was the only EU country not voting yes (they abstained) for offering training to Ukrainian soldiers.

One explanation is that clearly "EU sanctions" are the latest boogieman in a long series of imagined enemies, but that doesn't really explain the fervour and dedication to the Russian cause.

It just stomach-turning. I am genuinely becoming ashamed of being Hungarian. I don't personally know anyone who is not pro-Ukraine back home, but I know there is a lot of sympathy for the government's pro-Russia position - pergolas little wonder considering the media domination that position enjoys.

[Josquius]

I honestly fail to see what Orban stands to win with this.

It is really getting puzzling. It's a news from today that Hungary was the only EU country not voting yes (they abstained) for offering training to Ukrainian soldiers.

One explanation is that clearly "EU sanctions" are the latest boogieman in a long series of imagined enemies, but that doesn't really explain the fervour and dedication to the Russian cause.

It just stomach-turning. I am genuinely becoming ashamed of being Hungarian. I don't personally know anyone who is not pro-Ukraine back home, but I know there is a lot of sympathy for the government's pro-Russia position - pergolas little wonder considering the media domination that position enjoys.

Any thinking of "yes. Russia Unites the Russian speakers then its our turn to unite the Hungarian speakers!"?