Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FM-101 t1_je4uqd0 wrote

>The Kremlin has consistently said that Western arms deliveries to Ukraine would ultimately not have any impact on the battlefield

I wonder if russia will ever figure out that every time they are denying something it reveals to the entire world that the opposite is true.
They are so embarrassingly predictable and simple minded. Like a small child denying they ate the chocolate while their face is covered in chocolate.

499

NoMoreProphets t1_je64tri wrote

It's one of those things that works when people forget. If you do it consistently enough then you can push any narrative. Eventually there will be a ceasefire and the ending narrative will be "we came out ahead but global powers are conspiring against us." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

80

WebbityWebbs t1_je6too2 wrote

The problem is that the press keeps reporting the Russian claims without explicitly stating that they are lies.

18

jrabieh t1_je6g8hy wrote

If they lose crimea this will be impossible.

9

Thinking_waffle t1_je9jtsj wrote

>If they lose crimea this will be impossible.

Nazi Germany claimed that the final victory was a hand even in 1945.

1

NoMoreProphets t1_je6gf4u wrote

That's why it's actually a little scary that they are threatening nukes over Crimea. I can see that being a hardline for them but I can't forsee the day they actually use nukes.

−10

ErikTheAngry t1_je6hyh5 wrote

Well luckily Russian warnings are about as serious as Chinese warnings.

Actual Russian territory has been struck (Belgorod as one example) and Crimea has been hit very hard a few times.

The only retaliation was yet another cruise missile strike against civilian infrastructure, that would have happened anyways.

The oligarchs won't nuke shit. The moment they do they know they get into a war that's fought inside Russia rather than in Ukraine which will, regardless of any other outcomes, end their lives.

34

NoMoreProphets t1_je6mw8i wrote

China plays a long game and their defining moment will be trying to take over Taiwan. Hong Kong proves they can be pretty ruthless against politically opposed "Chinese" nationals. If they manage to take over Taiwan then I dont expect them to allow much political dissent. I don't think its wild to think there will come a day when China tries to forcably take back Taiwan.

The Kremlin isn't their Oligarchs. Its a legitimate time of war and their propaganda feels like it would justify using nukes. Like half of the time they are talking about fighting Nazis and Satanists. That type of demonification feels intentional and pretty hard to reverse.

−4

Fredrickstein t1_je6p7xd wrote

I'm not so sure about China trying to forcibly take Taiwan without something significant changing. Namely a withdrawal of US support for Taiwan. Unlike some countries, the US does not make idle military threats. China would have to commit to an amphibious landing. Such landings are one of the most dangerous operations for any military. To do so without air and naval superiority is utter suicide.

11

Least_Growth4247 t1_je8c5fj wrote

We do sometimes

1

Quigleyer t1_je8grdh wrote

>We do sometimes

I'm not necessarily doubting you, but that's the kind of statement you bring examples for.

2

Least_Growth4247 t1_je8hlhy wrote

Obama threatened Assad with strikes from carriers before he enabled isis to become the new Al Qaeda

−1

PutlerDaFastest t1_je78htd wrote

They threatened nukes over a lot of things. Last time Putin bluffed he said he wasn't bluffing about not bluffing anymore but all he does is bluff bluff Bluffety bluff all bluffing day. At any rate, threatening nukes isn't a loophole for world conquest. That's not a precedent the world is willing to set.

9

TThor t1_je6tzl9 wrote

The reality is, no matter what hardlines they claim, the only actual hardline would be a direct military assault on the entirety of moscow. Anything less will never inspire a nuclear strike, because, so long as moscow isn't under attack, Russia will still have far more to lose by firing the nuke than whatever they gain.

5

[deleted] t1_je73vhf wrote

[removed]

0

FlamingMothBalls t1_je76xzq wrote

it's also his own best interests. No western power will make a move to dethrone Putin. He can lose Crimea and a have a full-blown civil war inside Russian territory, and none of that would threaten his reign - I don't think.

It would have to get a lot, lot worse inside Russia for him to want to lash out, and by the time that happens, he would lack the military and elite support to have such an attack take place.

1

Successful_Ad_6248 t1_je78nek wrote

I do not even think it will get to a stage where he will get a full blown civil war. I mean, look at the protests at the start of the war, those were pretty huge and it died down. Of course, the protests will be even larger if he loses Crimea but I do not really see a pathway to outright rebellion. I mean, his army is puttin down refuseniks very effectively now. Unless the officers rebel too of course, but I cannot foresee that happening, at least not yet. Maybe once the officers realise they have a high chance of dying when US enters the fray, only then they will rebel.

Again, US should tilt Putin calculations such that losing Crimea is an acceptable risk.

1

FlamingMothBalls t1_je79avb wrote

I was thinking the same thing. Putin's reign is secure. He's not going anywhere, and because of that, he won't suicide himself by starting a nuclear war.

0

Successful_Ad_6248 t1_je7bfnl wrote

Ironically, the fact that Putin's reign is secure might be better for Ukraine's prospects for retaking Crimea, because Biden might just decide to support Ukraine for retaking Crimea.

1

FlamingMothBalls t1_je7ceju wrote

true. tho I wonder if it's physically, militarily possible.

Real Life Lore had an interesting take on the issue. Not sure how on the money the video is, but it would be a massacre to try to take it by force. It's always been (except for 2014 when Ukraine had no choice but to mostly give it up without a fight).

1

Successful_Ad_6248 t1_je7hdq8 wrote

Well, the alternative plan he talked about where Ukraine walks across the swamp, the Syvash, is probably the best plan. I have not yet seen any detailed operational plans discussed anywhere else so I will not say it here. I suggest you look at the Siege of Perekop, where the Soviets walked across the swamp, the Syvash, to flank enemy positions and take them by surprise. I think it might be workable for light infantry. Nevertheless, the Soviets took heavy casualties in taking Crimea.

1

dub-fresh t1_je6qezv wrote

They won't use nukes because a) they likely don't have 6000 functioning nukes as claimed b) NATO likely does have way more functioning nukes, and c) using nukes will cause WW3 and literally end the Russian state.

4

beetrootdip t1_je77pa1 wrote

If crimea were a red line the world would have ended months ago. Ukraine already are attacking crimea, as well as territory that the United Nations, ukraine and United States all agree is Russian.

4

grandroyal66 t1_je9e75g wrote

Nothing to gain and everything to loose for Russia. So no..

1

CaptianAcab4554 t1_je81u8r wrote

>It's one of those things that works when people forget. If you do it consistently enough then you can push any narrative.

You can see this in action over a long timeline with the US civil war and Confederacy. The meme now is that the CSA didn't lose they "quit fighting to stop the bloodshed".

2

Golluk t1_je5btfv wrote

Far more impactful when the Ukrainians deliver them to the Russians

53

cromwest t1_je66uwz wrote

This whole thing is a case study on why it's a terrible idea to let a spy run a country.

15

Devourer_of_felines t1_je6ykbj wrote

I guess we better start sending better stuff until they do have an impact on the battlefield 🤔

5

Xaxxon t1_je68ncg wrote

The people that matter know what’s going on regardless of what Russia says.

3

Just_a_follower t1_je7290t wrote

It’s kinda like ensign Sulu once said

  • Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances

And how prolonged war benefits no one. And how fighting often with someone is a bad idea because they get to know you.

Russia was more successful at the same playbook when they used it at intervals. Not so when exposing themselves to a protracted engagement.

Now their playbook is obvious. Lie. Deny. And when caught feign disbelief.

Sulu said he was all about peace but we all know better from his book about war.

1

puffinfish420 t1_je9bif7 wrote

Yeah I think you’re drastically underestimate the complexity of information warfare on the geopolitical/strategic level. You live in a Reddit bubble so you don’t actually see global perspectives on the narrative and the effect Russias work in the information space has had. Ask an Indian about their position on the war, for example.

Edit:spelling

1

rtutor75 t1_je9ry7o wrote

"If you repeat a lie for long enough, it becomes the truth."

1