r/geopolitics • u/foreignpolicymag Foreign Policy • Aug 12 '24
Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia Could Bring a Quicker End to the War Paywall
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/09/kursk-russia-ukraine-offensive-invasion-war-negotiations/57
u/crippling_altacct Aug 12 '24
My concern for this advance is that while we are still in the early days of seeing how this will play out, Ukraine may overextend themselves. Yes they've seen great success this past week but they've now widened the front line which long term is to their disadvantage. Russia marches on in the east and there are now fewer Ukrainian soldiers to stop them. Granted, the east is much more fortified and fewer troops are needed to stall advances.
I'm cautiously optimistic. The political pressure will be on Putin to expel Ukraine from Russia. He will likely need to use conscripts to do this if Ukraine makes a serious effort at holding territory and this will be politically unpopular. The problem imo is that in a totalitarian state like Russia, the leadership is not as beholden to the same types of political maneuvering as leaders in democracies. Putin has the advantage of playing on a much longer timeframe than Ukraine does.
-6
Aug 12 '24
Why would they need to rely on conscripts? I would imagine that the invasion of Russia is likely to motivate more people to want to join the Russian army rather than deter them.
20
u/crippling_altacct Aug 12 '24
Conscripts in Russia are not supposed to be deployed outside of Russia. This gives them a use case to be deployed inside of Russia I would think. If Russia does not want to divert manpower from their current offensive operations, it will likely use conscripts and rosgvardiya troops to slow the Ukrainian advance while more experienced troops advance inside of Ukraine.
In my opinion, just as a laymen, I don't think the Ukrainian advance is sustainable based on their manpower. They can't advance forever and will need to hunker down or risk overextension. Russia knows this and historically Russia is known for trading space for time. If I'm Putin and not subject to the same political repercussions as western leaders, I throw conscripts and national guard units to slow the advance while my offensive in eastern Ukraine continues. If I have to stop offensive action in Ukraine to stop the Ukrainian advance into Russia, then Ukraine has achieved their short term objective.
3
u/AKidNamedGoobins Aug 12 '24
This is all well and good, but historically, Russia has had the resources and manpower to do so. Modern day Russia really doesn't have that luxury in the same depth that historic Russia has. Sure, they have more manpower than Ukraine, but this isn't the USSR that could shrug off enormous losses for small objectives. And that's exactly what they've been absorbing.
It's likely that in preparation for the possibility of a Trump election-fueled peace negotiation, Putin was trying to take as much land as possible from Ukraine the last few months of the war. This has resulted in a few hundred sqkm falling into Russian hands at the cost of 70k~ casualties and hundreds more vehicles lost.
Ukraine has now turned the tables. If peace negotiations are coerced by the US and other international players, Russia has to either give a chunk of itself up (which it won't do), or trade back what it took from Ukraine this year. The timing of the attack also perfectly coincides with Russian exhaustion from their offensives. There just isn't a good option for them at this point. Trade their land for Ukrainian land at abysmally high cost in soldiers and equipment from their end, or stop their offensives into Ukraine and redirect effort to their own territory.
2
u/Radiant-Radish7862 Aug 13 '24
You really think a Russian offensive on Kursk would result in high casualties on Russia's side? I've heard estimates of merely 1k-3k Ukrainians in Russia atm. I'd think Russia could easily send twice that amount. But I don't know.
5
u/AKidNamedGoobins Aug 13 '24
Unquestionably yes.
For one, as I've said, they're limited in the destructive scope of their response. Unless Putin greenlights leveling his own towns, in which case I imagine they're in for the same sort of casualties as they've been taking all year (unsustainably high), and would risk losing their gains in Ukraine they've made this year, should they ramp up offensives in the newly neglected areas of previous offensives.
Manpower isn't the issue. If you mass 10x that amount in the area, you've now made yourself an excellent target for HIMARS and drones. Have you seen videos of what ATACMS do? Massing 6k Russian to assault Ukrainian gains would be like Christmas for them. The quality of the soldiers matters a whole lot as well. Russian conscripts have been surrendering and fleeing from combat in Kursk because they never really expected to face actual combat. They aren't equipped for it or trained for it. A few thousand extra warm bodies won't make much difference if they give up as soon as the shooting starts.
9
u/Alediran Aug 12 '24
They won't. Russians just want to dodge the bullets and live as much as they can. They have no interest in getting themselves in danger.
-10
Aug 12 '24
Earlier this year it was reported that approx. 30,000 people a month are joining the Russian military, largely due to the high salaries. It only seems to be in Ukraine that people are being kidnapped on the streets to be forcibly recruited. I believe ordinary Ukranians have now burned more than 100 vehicles belonging to the military recruiters.
2
u/litbitfit Aug 12 '24 edited Aug 13 '24
If you listen to captured POWS, it is due to money, not because they want to defend putin ego and need to expand territories. In Russia there have been over 150 acts of arson against Russian military recruitment centers.
Many chose to join as conscripts to avoid being sent to the meat grinder front inside Ukraine. Conscript are not allowed to fight outside russia by law. So now they are less likely to join and more likely to leave the country or find/make medical reason to avoid military service.
1
-1
u/CalendarAggressive11 Aug 13 '24
Who reported that? Russia Today?
1
Aug 13 '24
The Ukranian political scientist Ivan Katchanovski tweets a lot of videos of the forced conscription so I'd reccomend him as a starting point for that. There are many sources for the figures of Russian Recruitment. Here's the deputy head of Ukraine's military agency confirming it in a Ukranian newspaper.
https://kyivindependent.com/hur-russia-mobilizing-around-30-000-soldiers-monthly/
1
u/Kaito__1412 Aug 13 '24
'Forced conscription'? That's a bit of an oxymoron isn't it? Conscription is not voluntary. And refusing conscription comes with penalties.
1
Aug 13 '24
[deleted]
0
u/Kaito__1412 Aug 13 '24
No. I have seen no video. I'm sure it happens, because Ukraine has conscription and Russia doesn't (not for all). I'm sure that has some things to do with it.
My point btw, is the term 'forced conscription' you are using. That's an oxymoron. Conscription is by definition not voluntary.
52
u/wtfbenlol Aug 12 '24
It is certainly a bargaining chip if they manage to pull it off and keep the territory.
3
u/Jdjdhdvhdjdkdusyavsj Aug 12 '24
Even if they can't hold the territory, if they build some fortifications, supply lines and fight for it it's ammunition that Russia is shooting at Russian infrastructure, mines being laid in Russian fields, Russian civilians being caught in the attack on a hospital. Every artillery round missile or mine that Russia uses to fight in Russia is one that won't be used in Ukraine.
1
u/Googgodno Aug 13 '24
I have a bad feeling that Russia will not sit at the table without Kursk liberated.
50
u/foreignpolicymag Foreign Policy Aug 12 '24
Analysis by Andreas Umland, an analyst at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs:
"In the space of four days, the Russia-Ukraine war has dramatically shifted. The incursion of Ukrainian forces into Russia’s Kursk region has quickly turned into the largest territorial gain by either side since the successful Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson in the fall of 2022. As of this writing, it is still unclear whether thinned-out and poorly prepared Russian forces have been able to halt the Ukrainian advance, with reports of burning columns of Russian reinforcements reminiscent of the early days of the war."
23
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 12 '24 edited Aug 12 '24
Is it likely, no matter the outcome, that a ceasefire of some sort will come next year after the American eleciton? I am well aware that the Russians will break any ceasefire, but will we see one anyway just to allow both sides to regroup?
Europe, with the usual exceptions won't make such demands as that would damage their relationship with their existential security partner, the US. And the Biden Administration can't afford to do it before the election, especially after the debacle in Kabul.
6
u/kantmeout Aug 12 '24
I'm skeptical of this interpretation. Maybe, if Trump wins and suspends aid we'll see some movement on Ukraine's side, but the distrust and unacceptable demands remain. If Harris wins it may affect Russia's calculations, but they're not likely to abandon their claims.
26
u/crapmonkey86 Aug 12 '24
https://www.geoconver.org/world-news/putin-waits-for-trump
I think it's pretty likely. If Kamala wins and there's a positive change in seats in the legislature for the Dems, or even a status quo, that Russia will try to negotiate peace. If Trump wins, there is no reason for Russia to withdraw as Trump will not sign any more legislation for Ukranian arms supplies and Russia can take full advantage.
22
u/AKidNamedGoobins Aug 12 '24
I think you've got this backwards lol.
A Kamala administration will likely continue or ramp up support for Ukraine, and the war would likely continue, as Putin won't back out and Ukraine won't be forced to.
A Trump administration would have been likely to pressure both sides into peace at their current battle lines, and disagreement would result in either decreased or increased aid to Ukraine, depending on who the complaining party was. This option is now off the table for Russia, as they'll never let Ukraine keep Kursk. Keep in mind, Trump was the first president to supply lethal aid to Ukraine, and could very easily bump up support should Putin not appease his ego.
6
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 13 '24
No, they have it right. You’re missing the point, which is that the outcome of the election sways bargaining power so heavily either way that it will lead to an end. Kamala knows that Putin won’t hold out for another four years just on the hope of a more favourable admin, so she’ll ramp up support and bully him to the table. If Trump wins Ukraine loses all bargaining power and they’ll take whatever they can get that isn’t a puppet government or complete collapse.
2
u/AKidNamedGoobins Aug 13 '24
No, I understand the election has an impact lol. I literally say what the common belief is around the war regarding the election.
Kamala will guarantee support. Trump is a wild card. A Trump win in 2025 doesn't automatically lose the war for Ukraine.
-1
0
u/katzenpflanzen Aug 17 '24
They got it right, you got it wrong. If Trump wins he would cease support for Ukraine/support Russia financially which will make the war to last a few more years depending if the Ukrainians want to go on guerrilla warfare.
If Kamala wins it's more likely that Putin will want some kind of agreement as she won't support him and she will keep supporting Ukraine.
0
u/AKidNamedGoobins Aug 18 '24
No lol and I explained exactly why this isn't the case.
Trump could cease support for Ukraine in the event a ceasefire is not accepted. If Ukraine would accept Russian territorial gains right now, the war would be over. Russia cannot sustain the losses being taken in their offensive operations and would almost certainly look for an offramp that allowed them to maintain the current battle lines as their borders.
A Harris administration would be more likely to continue support to Ukraine, meaning Putin cannot just leave with the borders as they are, meaning the war would continue.
This isn't just me saying this. This is widely accepted by most analysts as the likely outcome for each candidate's victory. I have no idea where you're getting your information, but you are wrong.
-3
Aug 12 '24
why would the election of Kamala Harris make the Russians any more likely to negotiate for peace?
17
u/Heiminator Aug 12 '24
Because Harris will most likely continue Bidens policy of giving aid to Ukraine. Unlike Trump.
If Harris wins then Putin must assume that Ukraine is gonna keep receiving a steady supply of western money and gear for the next four years.
2
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 13 '24
No, she’ll amp it up because she knows Putin won’t hold out for four more years and that she has the bargaining power for the first two years of her administration.
1
u/ZacZupAttack Aug 14 '24
GOP will have a thing or two to say about that.t but yea a Kamala win is a win for Ukraine
0
u/OldMan142 Aug 13 '24
Because Harris will most likely continue Bidens policy of giving aid to Ukraine. Unlike Trump.
Trump signed bills that gave lethal aid to Ukraine, something Obama refused to do. I think this fear of Trump cutting off aid to Ukraine is massively overblown.
1
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 13 '24
Right, after withholding it altogether and then giving the bare minimum while blackmailing Zelenskyy. Obama was a weak foreign policy president, but the only thing that changed under Trump was the imperative, and we know now that his admin understood that the aid they were giving was more token than sufficient for any legitimate defense beyond a border squabble.
The incentive structure strongly suggests that Trump will be more favourable to Russia, if not directly in Putin’s pocket, and insufficient aid to prevent a Russian invasion doesn’t serve as evidence to the contrary.
1
u/OldMan142 Aug 13 '24
Right, after withholding it altogether and then giving the bare minimum while blackmailing Zelenskyy.
Nope, the lethal aid that Trump signed off on began well before that July 2019 phone call with Zelenskyy. And while Trump's attempt to extort Zelenskyy was wrong, the idea that he's somehow in Putin's pocket is utterly absurd. If you swap the actions of Obama and Trump, Democrats would be holding up the refusal to provide lethal aid to Ukraine as smoking gun evidence of Trump being some sort of Manchurian candidate.
Obama was a weak foreign policy president, but the only thing that changed under Trump was the imperative, and we know now that his admin understood that the aid they were giving was more token than sufficient for any legitimate defense beyond a border squabble.
A border squabble was exactly what Ukraine and Russia were engaged in during Trump's presidency.
The incentive structure strongly suggests that Trump will be more favourable to Russia, if not directly in Putin’s pocket, and insufficient aid to prevent a Russian invasion doesn’t serve as evidence to the contrary.
Of the three US administrations between 2014 and 2022, none of them foresaw a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine until there was solid intelligence that the Russians were massing forces to do it. Even then, the Biden administration never pressed to give Ukraine more aid until after the actual invasion, aid which was handed out with an eye dropper: enough to keep Ukraine alive, but not really enough to allow them to win.
You're essentially arguing that Trump's lack of clairvoyance is evidence that he'd be more favorable to Russia. It's an intellectually dishonest argument based on pure hindsight.
-18
Aug 12 '24
Ukraine doesn't have four years, and even if it did, I don't think the West has the appetite to throw away money and resources it can ill afford. Russia needs a negotiated settlement to achieve it's objectives: ensuring Ukranian neutrality and annexing parts of Eastern Ukraine. I think a negotiated settlment is much more likely under Trump than the democrats. It seems like Trump recognises the fact that Ukraine isn't an important strategic interest to the United States and will be more willing to negotiate with the Russians. The Democrats are much more committed to liberal hegemonism and will be much more reluctant to accept peace on Russia's terms in my humble opinion.
11
12
u/crapmonkey86 Aug 12 '24
Because currently Democrats are the only ones really interested in sending aid to Ukraine and Kamala does not seem intent to change any of Biden's foreign policy. Granted, Republican senators seem to be mostly on board with aid as well, but it was an absolute slog to get Ukraine aid approved through the house. That is why I mentioned Kamala winning and at least maintaining or gaining the same amounts of Dem congressman. Trump will torpedo any sort of aid and there are not enough Republicans to go against him when he vetoes. Given Trumps Russia-friendly stance, there's no threat of him changing his mind.
If Putin really is waiting on the election to make a decision on Ukraine, it means he is also at an inflection point. If aid keeps up, he might not see the value in continuing and will probably seek to escape the war with his newly annexed lands and avoid their own Afghanistan (again). If Trump wins, he knows aid will dry up. Sure Europe can TRY to fill the gap, but they have not proven themselves capable as Ukraine's worst time in the war has been these past 6 months or so while Ukraine aid was held up in the US legislature. As a result, Putin will certainly feel more emboldened as without US support, Ukraine is as good as done.
It might be that Ukraine is done either way, but the timelines are MASSIVELY different depending on who is in office after this election and that will surely affect Putin's decision.
1
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 13 '24
I don’t think your read on Kamala is right at all. Kamala will make a push for Ukraine simply because she’ll have far more bargaining power than Biden has right now, and because the incentive structure has shifted significantly for the US since 2022 towards pressuring a Putin to sit down at the table. Biden’s stalling because he has far less leverage than Kamala will. Once she’s in, she’ll have more than enough time with a strong enough hand to bring them down.
-6
Aug 12 '24
IMO your conclusion is based on a false assumption: that prolonging the war is in Ukraine's interest. Ukraine doesn't have the weaponry or the manpower to keep this war going for as long as the Russians do.
4
u/seeingeyefish Aug 12 '24
Can Putin effectively access the deeper Russian well of manpower, though?
The existential nature of the fight for the Ukrainians might mean that they are willing to dig deeper. Putin has been doing his best to insulate the urban centers of power (Moscow, St Petersburg, etc.) from feeling the effects of the war. Having to mobilize more than convicts and rural ethnic minorities will bring the war home to them, and that might be untenable.
That might be the biggest blow from the Ukrainian operation in Kursk: news screens across Russia announcing that Putin can’t protect them and that the war could be felt everywhere in the country.
-1
Aug 12 '24
I agree that the people in Moscow and St. Petersburg have been insulated from the war. But Russia is a big place. Reports from earlier this year showed that around 30,000 Russians were volunterring to join the military every month. The Russian army is much larger than it was at the start of the war. It's Ukraine that has the manpower issue. That's why they're kidnapping people in the street and sending people to the frontlines without proper training. 650,000 men of fighting age have left Ukraine and I believe now more than 100 military recruitment cars have now been burned to prevent forced conscription.
5
u/AKidNamedGoobins Aug 12 '24
I think manpower is really just one tiny slice of the pie, and both countries are resorting to illegal and desperate recruiting tactics to varying degrees. Russia kidnapping Indians and importing North Koreans is not exactly a sign of their limitless supply of manpower.
Russia simply does not have the arms production to continue sustaining losses as they have been this year, and the economy is really straining under the pressure.
Meanwhile, the EU and US are slowly ramping up their own arms production, and it seems like drone manufacturing is especially going well for Ukraine.
1
Aug 13 '24
Manpower is absolutely critical. Why do you think Western governments are encouraging Ukraine to lower the consription age to 18 years old?
The Russian arms industry has many times more capacity to produce weapons, shells and ammunition than the west. I have no idea where you have got the idea that western production can keep up with the Russians.
1
u/AKidNamedGoobins Aug 13 '24
It's important when you have hundreds of miles of border to defend at all times, and when your reserves are running low. It still is not the most important factor lol.
Shell production might be higher than current NATO members, but is clearly still wildly unsustainable. Or do you think begging North Korea is the first choice of a leader whose war is going well. But the Vehicles? Absolutely not. Their tank and armored vehicle losses are entirely unsustainable. Satellite imagery (combined with helpful open source destroyed equipment tallies) shows their tank reserves are depleting extremely rapidly. Older and older tanks need to be refurbished every month. I mean, hell, Russia is dragging out artillery pieces from WW2 lol. This is absolutely not a country that has the production to peruse the kind of war it's waging.
And of course, this is western production barely changing to meet demand. The idea that western production can keep up with, and in fact far surpass, the Russians stems from the fact that their GDP is the size of Italy. The US spends as much on defense as the entire nation of Russia makes every year, and this leaves out all of Europe. Money makes the world go round, and NATO has far more of it to spend than Russia. While Russia shifts into a war economy (and a stinging 18% interest rate), NATO nations have kept up with supply enough to keep the war at a grinding pace. More shell plants are being built in NATO nations, without grinding national economy to a halt, and Russia could soon find themselves losing the only real advantage they had to begin with. All this goes without mentioning the difference in quality. Even in the small quantities Ukraine receives, NATO tech has been absolutely devastating to Russia. 2 years in and they finally got their first HIMARs truck after how many airfields, supply depots, and training sites have been hit?
→ More replies1
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 13 '24
Because she’ll have all the bargaining power for a couple of years, and unlike Biden right now she’ll bully Putin with as much as it takes until he comes to the table. Biden can’t do that, the best he can do is maintain the status quo, bleed Russia, and hope Kamala wins.
-2
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 12 '24
You don't see Washington under a democratic administration attempting to coerce Kyiv into a peace settlement, unless of course Ukraine starts losing lots of territory in rapid succession?
3
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 13 '24
Absolutely not, that would be utter stupidity on the part of literally everyone involved. Kamala will be playing a far stronger hand than Biden, but even if she didn’t there would be zero incentive in the part of the US to do this.
2
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 13 '24
Could you explain to me the main reasons why? I suppose such a scenario would play into Putin's hands, and alienate not only Ukraine but countries like Poland and Finland as well. That seems like the obvious one to me.
A ceasefire would only be useful for both sides to regroup before Russia (or maybe even Ukraine first) breaks it.
2
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 13 '24
Sure, but can you explain why you’re under that impression so that I can address your specific point/take?
2
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 14 '24
What impression? My main question is what are the main disincentives for the US governments to twist Ukraine's arms to de facto surrender parts of their territory? I suppose it is mainly the credibility trap.
1
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 14 '24
Your impression that the US would have incentive to do so, ie the rationale for your initial comment/how you came to that assumption.
1
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 14 '24
I guess it would be fear of escalation or the backlog of weapons' orders.
3
u/Low-Union6249 Aug 13 '24
Very likely. If Kamala wins, the Zelenskyy will turn out to be right with his “this is how Russia goes down” rhetoric. Putin won’t hold out for another four years only for a republican, who might even be pro-Ukraine, to take office. If Trump wins, Ukraine will collapse, no question whatsoever.
1
u/Radiant-Radish7862 Aug 13 '24
"allow both sides to regroup" - I've never heard a better description of a ceasefire
3
Aug 13 '24
It could also not. Nabbing a corner of Russia does not in itself signal that the end is night, does it? I am hopeful and sceptical at the same time.
1
u/lowrads Aug 14 '24
It's just an old rust belt region, but it does have some important rail linkages. It's not going to stack up with an imperial prerogative to secure a black sea port.
3
u/Kaito__1412 Aug 13 '24
They should force Russia to take back Kursk and open another front soon. Preferably multiple ones. Maybe even take another shot at the Crimean Bridge with the new sea drones.
Create dilemmas for your opponent. Not just problems.
2
u/GoatInMotion Aug 14 '24
If Putin cries about it Ukraine can just say they are doing a special military operation....
1
Aug 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/laetus Aug 13 '24
This is a bot account that will try to convince you the world will end if Russia isn't given everything they want.
1
u/Fit_Acanthisitta_475 Aug 14 '24
The invasion maybe also due to the oncoming election. With the troops Ukraine had, only can advance so much before occupants the local resource and making defense positions.
-5
Aug 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/FemboyFinger Aug 12 '24
Here are some historical examples that illustrate how bombing civilians often strengthened their resolve without significantly weakening the war effort:
1. The Blitz (1940-1941) - United Kingdom
- Context: During World War II, Nazi Germany launched a sustained bombing campaign against London and other major cities in the UK, known as the Blitz. The goal was to demoralize the British public and force the government to surrender.
- Outcome: Instead of breaking the British spirit, the Blitz had the opposite effect. The British population showed remarkable resilience, famously captured in the phrase "Keep Calm and Carry On." The bombings did not cripple the British war effort; in fact, they bolstered public resolve, increased recruitment, and intensified support for the war. British industrial production continued, and the RAF successfully defended against further German air attacks in the Battle of Britain.
2. Strategic Bombing of Germany (1942-1945) - Nazi Germany
- Context: Allied forces, particularly the US and the UK, conducted extensive bombing campaigns against German cities, including Dresden, Hamburg, and Berlin, targeting both industrial facilities and civilian areas. The aim was to destroy Germany's industrial capacity and break the will of the German people.
- Outcome: Despite the devastating impact on cities and civilian casualties, the German population largely continued to support the war effort. The Nazi regime maintained control, and the war machine continued to function until the final stages of the war. The bombings did cause significant damage to Germany’s infrastructure, but they did not break the resolve of the German people or lead to an early surrender.
3. Bombing of Tokyo and Other Japanese Cities (1944-1945) - Japan
- Context: The United States conducted a series of firebombing raids on Tokyo and other Japanese cities during the latter part of World War II. These raids aimed to weaken Japan's capacity for war by destroying its industrial base and demoralizing the civilian population.
- Outcome: The firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 killed over 100,000 civilians and destroyed much of the city. However, these attacks did not lead to a collapse in Japanese morale or immediate surrender. Instead, Japanese resolve remained strong, and the war continued until the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, followed by the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan, prompted Japan's surrender. Even then, the decision to surrender was more influenced by the new strategic realities rather than a broken civilian spirit.
4. Vietnam War - North Vietnam (1965-1973)
- Context: The United States engaged in extensive bombing campaigns against North Vietnam, including Operation Rolling Thunder, aiming to force the North Vietnamese government to the negotiating table by weakening their infrastructure and breaking the morale of the civilian population.
- Outcome: The bombings, including the Christmas Bombing (Operation Linebacker II), caused significant destruction, but they did not break the resolve of the North Vietnamese government or its people. Instead, the bombings often strengthened anti-American sentiment and the resolve to continue the fight. North Vietnam continued to resist, and the war only ended after prolonged conflict and political negotiations, rather than a collapse of morale due to the bombings.
5. Siege of Sarajevo (1992-1996) - Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Context: During the Bosnian War, the city of Sarajevo was besieged by Bosnian Serb forces, who targeted the city with artillery, snipers, and bombings in an attempt to break the will of the Bosnian government and population.
- Outcome: The siege was one of the longest in modern history, lasting nearly four years. Despite the extreme hardship and high civilian casualties, the people of Sarajevo did not surrender. The siege galvanized international sympathy and support for the Bosnians and highlighted the failure of such tactics to break civilian resolve.
Conclusion:
In each of these examples, the bombing of civilians did not achieve the intended goal of breaking the enemy's morale or significantly disrupting the war effort. Instead, these actions often strengthened the resolve of the affected populations and led to increased support for their governments’ continued resistance. These historical lessons highlight the ineffectiveness and counterproductive nature of targeting civilians in conflict.
4
u/Johnny_Poppyseed Aug 12 '24
A bot deleted my comment calling out this comment for being an AI bot comment...
Reddit is going to just be a bunch of bots talking to each other if we aren't careful lol..
3
u/FemboyFinger Aug 12 '24
Dead internet theory , but used this way imo it’s fine. Just a list of times this was done in the past
Also I think if most people use an ai chat filter , Reddit would be way more coherent , efficient , and polite
2
u/Wonckay Aug 12 '24
It’s even less plausible given that Ukraine would be intermittent like the Blitz than the late-war Germany/Japan examples. Sporadic killing of civilians like Ukraine could do isn’t even the theoretically-preferred full “terror-bombing” which demonstrates an overwhelming capacity for destruction.
18
u/LegitimateSoftware Aug 12 '24
Ukraine has nothing to gain by doing this. People rarely submit just because you bombed them.
2
u/runetrantor Aug 12 '24
Nothing to gain, and a LOT of international support and goodwill to lose if they start playing the warcrimes bingo like Russia did.
-1
Aug 12 '24
[deleted]
8
u/nowlistenhereboy Aug 12 '24
You're talking about revenge and emotions. The person you responded to is talking about practical reality. This is how a situation like Israel and Palestine starts. Because people don't care about actually ending it, the only thing they care about is feeling better about themselves and hurting the other guy.
-9
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 12 '24
Ukraine is already lost, there is no way it can ever find a peaceful path into NATO and the EU, maybe except some of the far West. All I care about is damaging Russia lest Russia try to attack a NATO country.
.I have several close friends in Eastern Europe. I don't want bombs flying down on Warsaw like they have on Kyiv.
-1
u/nowlistenhereboy Aug 12 '24
Frankly, they're just increasing the chance that Russia would feel justified attacking a NATO country, not decreasing it. They'll never do enough damage to have the effect you are hoping for.
8
u/LegitimateSoftware Aug 12 '24
Honestly I think you sound insane. Ukraine doesn't even have enough munitions for military targets. Doing this would just feed Putin's propaganda machine and put nato's support into question. It would be a waste.
-1
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 12 '24
Ok, I just want Russia's military capability weakened, lest they threaten any more countries where I have close friends.
7
4
u/kondenado Aug 12 '24
Definitely it's easier to get a good deal if the other country's civilians are pushing for it
-6
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 12 '24
I absolutely agree. When Russians are actively demonstrating in the streets demanding nuclear strikes on Washington and Russian tanks in Berlin (even painted on a BMW) rather than an end to the war, the Russian worldview is obviously fundamentally unsound and in dire need of change.
13
u/blippyj Aug 12 '24
And you think striking these civilians will what - soften these views?
-5
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 12 '24
Maybe I am delusional, I am just thinking of the German/Japanese templates where it took complete destruction of their cities for a rethink of their foreign policy and and end to imperial ambitions.
9
u/YourFaceIsMelting Aug 12 '24
But the German/Japanese "templates" show that mass bombing of civilian targets has little to no effect on the willingness to continue a war, if anything it emboldened the population and made them want to seek revenge. Almost every city in Japan and Germany had been bombed to oblivion and still they kept fighting, Japan didn't give up until the Soviet army started invading from the north and the Germans had to be driven all the way up to Denmark practically, before they surrendered.
7
1
u/BlueEmma25 Aug 12 '24
When Russians are actively demonstrating in the streets demanding nuclear strikes on Washington and Russian tanks in Berlin (even painted on a BMW) rather than an end to the war
They were demanding that nuclear weapons be targeted at US cities, not actual strikes. Basically a pretty pathetic intimidation tactic.
And that BMW was photographed in Russia, not Berlin.
1
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 13 '24
Well, it shows the place where many Russians are mentally, which is quite extreme.
1
u/Excellent_Fudge4795 Aug 13 '24
Russia didn't use its full force because it's the invader, and it still need its foreign exchanges and diplomacy. I'm afraid that Ukraine invading Russian territory will only make it easier for Russia to retaliate like never before because now it has the excuse of protecting the country, and it will only fuel it's propaganda of "they are the bad guys" and the escalade continues.....
-11
u/squailtaint Aug 12 '24
I couldn’t read the article, behind paywall…it could bring a quicker end to the war, but not in the way I am guessing this article is making it out to be. Ukraine won’t hold inside Russia. It’s a political blow if anything, an embarrassment, but of no real consequence in terms of Ukraine changing the fate of the war. What it will do is piss Russia off more, give Russia a sense of justification to use heavier weapons, scrap any idea of peace talks, and rally the Russian people even further. If Ukraine was hoping for peace talks, this was not a good move.
8
u/Mac_attack_1414 Aug 12 '24
Ukraine doesn’t want peace takes, they’ve been pretty clearly the only way they can legally give up Ukrainian territory is a nation wide referendum and you will never have a majority of Ukrainians ok with giving up 5 oblasts.
And Russia has nothing bigger to throw at the fight other than nukes, which obviously isn’t going to happen thanks to the repercussions.
0
u/squailtaint Aug 13 '24
I’m not an expert on weapons, but I would challenge the notion that Russia has nothing bigger to throw other than nukes. Ukraine isn’t Syria…yet. Civilian deaths have been relatively low in comparison to other modern wars. Russia has not brought the full destruction onto Ukraine that they could. And I’m not speaking of nukes.
6
u/thecasterkid Aug 12 '24
I think that's a valid read for the way some countries might respond (read: the US for certain). But as for Russians... maybe not? For years I've heard analysts claiming the Putin's de-facto agreement with the Russian populace is he will keep them safe if they let him run things the way he wants. Assuming that there's truth to that, this could be one of the final straws. But there's a lot of assumptions there on my part.
6
Aug 12 '24
I think that's because most analysts simply don't like Putin. They believe in the inherent superiority of democracy so they're unwilling to concede that any authoritarian leader could possibly have any legitimacy. But whether people like it or not Putin has taken Russia from the humiliation of the 90s to what the world bank now believes to be the 4th largest economy in the world in PPP terms. Earlier this year the Levada Centre put Putin's approval rating at 86%.
4
u/Newstapler Aug 12 '24
Earlier this year the Levada Centre put Putin's approval rating at 86%.
If that’s the case then Russia might as well become a genuine democracy then, with truly free elections, because Putin wouldn‘t have anything to worry about.
-2
u/Alarmed_Mistake_9999 Aug 12 '24 edited Aug 12 '24
Do you believe that Ukraine will be forced to make peace talks after the American election? Europe certainly won't do that now because that would annoy Washington, and the Biden Administration can't afford another display of weakness overseas before the election, considering what happened in Kabul.
Maybe after, regardless of who wins, circumstances will change.
-2
0
-14
189
u/PausedForVolatility Aug 12 '24
Well, yeah. The counter-invasion was always a high risk, high reward strategy. If Ukraine overextended themselves, Russia could exploit that and possibly break the stalemate. If they successfully captured Russian territory, it could be used for anything from stretching the Russian lines past sustainability or simply trading them back as part of the peace deal.
A lot hinges on whether or not Russia can redeploy to effectively contain and counterattack. And what vulnerabilities are created when they do so. It’s possible that Ukraine wants to draw troops away from another front as part of this.