Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Admiral Yi]

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.

I don't see how you can describe an attack that provokes your enemy to come kill you as successful.  We were talking about the success of terror bombings in causing your enemy to surrender. 

[PDH]

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

Nobody actually speaks the Hungarian language, it is a mythical language of elves and dwarves used to make fantasy stories seem deeper.

[Tamas]

For the most rabid far right maybe but their numbers must be tiny, it's not discussed anywhere I am exposed to.

[Jacob]

I don't see how you can describe an attack that provokes your enemy to come kill you as successful.  We were talking about the success of terror bombings in causing your enemy to surrender. 

As OvB said, terror bombings by militaries to effect surrender in a military conflict is a wholly different thing than terror bombings by clandestine terrorist networks. They have different methods and different goals altogether.

Agreed that Al Qaeda did not cause the US to surrender. However, I don't think that's a particularly relevant criterium as I don't think that was the objective of the attack.

[Jacob]

Anyways, before I got distracted by the terror-bombing tangent I came into the thread to post this - an analysis that argues Belarus is not about to attack Ukraine: https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1582044513274822656

[Berkut]

Is it possible that Orban is just straight up bought by Putin? As simple as that?

[grumbler]

I've seen headlines this morning saying "suicide drones" (probably because the social media editor has no idea what 'kamikaze' means) which is incredibly silly.

Given that "kamikaze" is really a very Japanese concept (which cannot apply to unmanned aircraft), "suicide drones" is probably more accurate even if not really accurate. "Kamikaze drones" is very incredibly silly.

Ironically, "kamikaze bomber" rather than "suicide bomber" is a better use of "kamikaze."

[DGuller]

I don't see how you can describe an attack that provokes your enemy to come kill you as successful.  We were talking about the success of terror bombings in causing your enemy to surrender. 

You don't judge the success of the terrorist act by what happens to the perpetrator.  By definition, suicide attacks end poorly for the perpetrators.  In the case of 9/11, it ended poorly for the 19 hijackers, and it ended poorly for their organization, but it also continues poorly for the US.

I think what is missed here is that being attacked can make you worse off even if you defend against the attack successfully.  You may defend yourself very well against burglars by installing an expensive security system, but you would be better off if you didn't have to invest resources and reduce your convenience by having to defend against burglars in the first place.

[alfred russel]

Back in the day, harsh treatment of civilians was a tried and true method of war. Carthage was destroyed, Edward Longshanks instituted prima noctae in Scotland, etc. Did that get results? we can argue the point but those saying "no" are saying military tactics were dumb for thousands of years.

Strategic bombing isn't the same thing, but it is relatively new. Probably the best argument is the most important war in the post WWII era, the Cold War, involved one side with conventional superiority (the USSR) holding back in large part because of the threat of strategic nuclear attack, until it internally collapsed.

[DGuller]

Ironically, "kamikaze bomber" rather than "suicide bomber" is a better use of "kamikaze."

That's the term used in Russian.  When I was little, for a while I thought there was a Georgian dude nicknamed "Terrorist Kamikadze" who did the bombings. 

[alfred russel]

I don't see how you can describe an attack that provokes your enemy to come kill you as successful.  We were talking about the success of terror bombings in causing your enemy to surrender. 

You don't judge the success of the terrorist act by what happens to the perpetrator.  By definition, suicide attacks end poorly for the perpetrators.  In the case of 9/11, it ended poorly for the 19 hijackers, and it ended poorly for their organization, but it also continues poorly for the US.

I think what is missed here is that being attacked can make you worse off even if you defend against the attack successfully.  You may defend yourself very well against burglars by installing an expensive security system, but you would be better off if you didn't have to invest resources and reduce your convenience by having to defend against burglars in the first place.

This is my problem with internet discussions of winners of wars. War is profoundly negative sum. If you want to view war as a sporting event, in which one side wins and the other side loses, you have to look at the outcomes to both participants and judge which one is better off. It isn't enough to show that one side is worse off than they would have been had the war not occurred. If that is the standard than almost every participant in every recent war is a loser.

[Josquius]

Back in the day, harsh treatment of civilians was a tried and true method of war. Carthage was destroyed, Edward Longshanks instituted prima noctae in Scotland, etc. Did that get results? we can argue the point but those saying "no" are saying military tactics were dumb for thousands of years.

Historic humans are generally not known for being rational beings.
When you've an all powerful man on top then the whims of his emotions become standard policy.
And petty atrocities very much feed into this.

Also to consider with eg the Mongols and slaughtering cities that don't surrender this was less about that particular city than future cities.
Russia could be thinking this way. But if so that's quite pathetic considering how badly Ukraine is going.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Back in the day, harsh treatment of civilians was a tried and true method of war.

This is a very simplistic representation of history and is fairly meaningless without a massive amount of context and further exploration.

Carthage was destroyed,

No.

Edward Longshanks instituted prima noctae in Scotland, etc.

No.

Did that get results? we can argue the point but those saying "no" are saying military tactics were dumb for thousands of years.

It would help if when presenting an example of "military tactics" going back thousands of years you didn't use two entirely ahistorical claims.

Strategic bombing isn't the same thing, but it is relatively new. Probably the best argument is the most important war in the post WWII era, the Cold War, involved one side with conventional superiority (the USSR) holding back in large part because of the threat of strategic nuclear attack, until it internally collapsed.

Nothing Putin is doing in the past week would be called strategic bombing, it is small scall "harassment" bombing of civilians, there isn't a ton of historical precedent for it because it is a combination of discouraged by international law and widely understood to not be effective. I wish people would not conflate scattered small scale bombings with other types of bombardments as if they are identical things, when they are not. I can talk about potential strategic benefits of large scale strategic bombing, I can talk about potential strategic benefits to large scale terror bombing of civilian populations, but none of that is happening here and we should stop comparing it to those things because it is making false equivalences.

Putin's behavior in the last couple weeks is notable precisely because it is largely nonsensical, and no, whatever historical example you want to point to probably is not like what Putin is doing, that's why everyone is saying it is nonsensical.

[alfred russel]

It would help if when presenting an example of "military tactics" going back thousands of years you didn't use two entirely ahistorical claims.

WHOOOSH 

[Admiral Yi]

As OvB said, terror bombings by militaries to effect surrender in a military conflict is a wholly different thing than terror bombings by clandestine terrorist networks. They have different methods and different goals altogether.

Agreed that Al Qaeda did not cause the US to surrender. However, I don't think that's a particularly relevant criterium as I don't think that was the objective of the attack.

What would be the particularly relevant criteria?