Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread

How well is the war this going for Russia?

  • ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Blyatskrieg

    Votes: 249 10.6%

  • ⭐⭐⭐⭐ I ain't afraid of no Ghost of Kiev

    Votes: 278 11.8%

  • ⭐⭐⭐ Competent attack with some upsets

    Votes: 796 33.7%

  • ⭐⭐ Stalemate

    Votes: 659 27.9%

  • ⭐ Ukraine takes back Crimea 2022

    Votes: 378 16.0%
  • Total voters
    2,360
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spicey McHaggis said:
Thats a very easy conclusion to make. It's also a very wrong conclusion to make. WW1 merely accelerated certain things, it not happening wouldn't have stopped them all. The pressures were already there for the Russian revolution, and all the other stuff that happened in the aftermath of ww1. The 20th century was always going to be a bloody shitshow, regardless of whether or not some archduke got blasted in Sarajevo.
Click to expand...
I think you might be taking the other extreme position here. The pressures were there, yes. But the main casualty of World War I in general is the prestige and reputation of monarchies in general. The anti monarchist fervour was so great by the end of the war, that even well-liked kings like the Bavarian one were forced to abdicate. Others like the British and Belgian ones were more or less forced to be subordinate to their respective parliaments. In most cases, the forced transition of monarchies into unstable democracies and republics had an overall negative impact on the country in question. The Russian Empire disintegrated and fought a bloody civil war. The new republics formed from its ashes fought several wars against each other. And of course eventually fostered the communists. The German Empire were forced to endure a weak, ineffectual government for several years, and eventually fostered Hitler, etc. The Middle East after the Ottomans crumbled endured decades-long instability and we're still feeling the effects of Sykes-Picot till this very day.

Had the war not happened, it may very well be that some or even all of the above would peacefully transition into a constitutional monarchy form in the style of the British. Or broken up just as peacefully. If nothing else, the Great War sealed the doom of Old Europe and assured the ascendancy of the liberal democracies as we know it today.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Sigismund223, DumbDude42, Considered HARMful and 3 others
The Other Baldwin said:
This happened on Twitter today:
1648609481594.png
Click to expand...
I'm not finding any news about this, the only person saying that is the person in that screenshot who is very obviously biased against Ukraine.
1648616751767.png
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Aidan, Candlelight Desolation, UVB-76 and 8 others
Kane Lives said:
I think you might be taking the other extreme position here. The pressures were there, yes. But the main casualty of World War I in general is the prestige and reputation of monarchies in general. The anti monarchist fervour was so great by the end of the war, that even well-liked kings like the Bavarian one were forced to abdicate. Others like the British and Belgian ones were more or less forced to be subordinate to their respective parliaments. In most cases, the forced transition of monarchies into unstable democracies and republics had an overall negative impact on the country in question. The Russian Empire disintegrated and fought a bloody civil war. The new republics formed from its ashes fought several wars against each other. And of course eventually fostered the communists. The German Empire were forced to endure a weak, ineffectual government for several years, and eventually fostered Hitler, etc. The Middle East after the Ottomans crumbled endured decades-long instability and we're still feeling the effects of Sykes-Picot till this very day.

Had the war not happened, it may very well be that some or even all of the above would peacefully transition into a constitutional monarchy form in the style of the British. Or broken up just as peacefully. If nothing else, the Great War sealed the doom of Old Europe and assured the ascendancy of the liberal democracies as we know it today.
Click to expand...
Nah, the ottoman empire was teetering as it was, and nationalism was rising throughout the Austro-Hungarian empire as well. Something was going to trigger a big war in that period, one way or another. The Russian empire would probably have kept pushing south from the caucuses and eventually come into conflict with the ottomans, or if the ottomans finally started to break down, everyone was going to try and steal a few pieces.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Homegrown Homophobia and MrJokerRager
Spicey McHaggis said:
Nah, the ottoman empire was teetering as it was, and nationalism was rising throughout the Austro-Hungarian empire as well. Something was going to trigger a big war in that period, one way or another. The Russian empire would probably have kept pushing south from the caucuses and eventually come into conflict with the ottomans, or if they finally started to break down, everyone was going to try and steal a few pieces.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. I don't doubt there would be a few wars erupting. Key thing here is that they would probably be in the model of olden limited wars, rather than total war.

Had the Austrian-Serb war was kept regional as originally intended, I do not doubt that the peace would have been kept for a few more decades at least. You may slather me in rainbows for that.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: MrJokerRager, Mr Processor and Spicey McHaggis
Kane Lives said:
Oh yeah. I don't doubt there would be a few wars erupting. Key thing here is that they would probably be in the model of olden limited wars, rather than total war.

Had the Austrian-Serb war was kept regional as originally intended, I do not doubt that the peace would have been kept for a few more decades at least. You may slather me in rainbows for that.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure it was possible to actually have a limited war at that period in time. Not because of all the interlocking defense agreements, but because of pure simple national interest. Also there was never going to be way to keep Russia out of a war with Serbia at that time.
 
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: Kane Lives and MrJokerRager
Matt Damon said:
Fair point - just imagine being born an average person in much of Europe around the 1890s and how much of a shitshow your adult life ended up being.

It's no wonder most of the continent is still buck broken over a century later.
Click to expand...
The even worse part about being born then is not just what you would see, but what would happen to your children right as they hit military age. You would have to go through it, then you got to see your children go through the same shitshow, but worse. On the upside you got to see one of the fastest and most revolutionary periods of technological growth in history.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Cpl. Long Dong Silver, SCSI, JosephStalin and 1 other person
Feline Supremacist said:
Fuck you Germany! Never spending my dollars in Germany! Enjoy your Russian LNG, I hope the Russian petrol fouls your Mercedes pistons and cylinders, blyats!

I'm tagging along @The Other Baldwin

Call me when it's over. Which may be never, given the history there.
Click to expand...
Still when this first started I was excited to see Ukraine get blitzkrieged in 4K and see Russia curbstomp the Ukrainian government, but for Russia to not even take Kharkov after a month and stall out less than 50km from the border is absolutely astonishing.

I'm still confused how Russia hasn't even been able to take a token city like Somy yet, with all they have to show thus far is Kherson.

Atleast Mariupol is understandable due to the high propaganda value it has to Ukraine and being in the highly militarized eastern Oblasts.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cpl. Long Dong Silver
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back