this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
178 points (98.4% liked)
worldnews
4836 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Strategic ambiguity. It's very unlikely that NATO will send combat troops to Ukraine. But suggesting that it's a possibility, means that Russia has to prepare for that possibility, which has a cost for the Russians. They can't focus too much on only defeating the Ukrainians, they have to hold something back just in case NATO decides to get involved.
This whole thing is incredibly stupid.
Even if by some miracle Russia 'won' in Ukraine, it'd still be a pyrrhic victory. As the Americans learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan, the occupation is what's difficult, the actual war should have been a breeze. Even the first bit wasn't a breeze for the Russians, Russia won't be able to afford holding on to Ukraine. It will cost them too much money and too many troops. The inevitable insurgency will grind them down.
And thanks to the war, NATO has expanded and is drastically increasing spending. Russia has drastically increased military spending to win the war in Ukraine, but they can't keep up with NATO. It'll be like the Soviet Union all over again, they'll end up spending far more than their economic base allows.