Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

754

Reading this just now is the first time I have felt legitimate concern that this will escalate into war between the United States and Russia. Russia gave a very clear and precise warning that if we directly Interfered we would face repercussions like never before in the history of our country. The United States admitting that we were involved in the sinking of that ship is us calling his bluff. This seems like a terribly reckless thing to do.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. What do you expect to happen going forward?

The seems like a very big story, a line was just crossed.

Reading this just now is the first time I have felt legitimate concern that this will escalate into war between the United States and Russia. Russia gave a very clear and precise warning that if we directly Interfered we would face repercussions like never before in the history of our country. The United States admitting that we were involved in the sinking of that ship is us calling his bluff. This seems like a terribly reckless thing to do. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. What do you expect to happen going forward? The seems like a very big story, a line was just crossed.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (22).
[–] • 1 pt

They do not want to destroy their enemy in a day, that is not the goal. The only thing that would do is make it difficult to control after the war. The objective here is not land. It is winning the population over.

[–] • 0 pt

Okay how about this: pretend you are a country that wants to invade a much smaller and weaker country. Your generals are confident in your military’s ability to quickly overpower the enemy with very little effort and gain control in less than a day. Do you:

A) Steamroll the enemy with your vastly superior military. The fight is over before the enemy could even react or mobilize a defense. There is very little damage to residential areas and minimal loss of life on both sides, because you moved so quickly that the enemy would have needed to fire on their own population to get to you. Obviously there will still be resistance into the foreseeable future, but the strength and totality of your occupation make quick work of them. Your trade partners can’t even sanction you for your actions because they would by extension be sanctioning the citizens of the country you invaded as well.

B) Send in a smaller force and drag the conflict out over the course of weeks and months. Both you and the enemy sustain losses. Residential areas are evacuated and leveled as the conflict drags on. Your trade partners sanction you for your continued assault. Friends and family of your soldiers become resentful of your slow progress. Friends and family of enemy soldiers become angry and vengeful and have a tangible cause to rally behind. You eventually declare victory and finally secure your new wasteland of bodies and unexploded ordinance.

[–] • 0 pt

The other guy stated it better: "There is a massive difference between trying to remove a political group vs actually "destroying" a country."

[–] • 0 pt

The longer they spend trying to remove a political group the more actually destroyed the country becomes. Expediency still seems like the only reasonable strategy if they're capable of it.