Theoretically...

Isn't keeping any vehicle in an open like that dangerous?

WOULD FORCE instead of "was force", apologies for the mild brain fart.

Ukraine will just be the new Korea

In the current calculus they can't afford the consequences which would never be the same.
They don't exactly need clay and an unreliable population.

Jesus, you have to be at least 18 to post here.

>a straight up conquest of the rest of Ukraine would create massive political fallout.
also probably some actual fallout

Why are the Russians even bothering then?

What's the point of a half measure war thats very expensive with little gain?

They weren't even committed in there in the first place like in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam at least.

Doubt it, Ukraine at the moment is too much of a mess to launch a proper assault and both sides have a ton of anti air as well as anti armor weapons. And Russia can't just launch a full on assault otherwise they'd get NATO on their ass overnight. Donbass is probably going to be the next North Korea/Afghanistan.
Guess they thought that region would be easy pickings.

tell that to

>guess they thought it would be easy pickings
"Hey guys, lets invade Finland! They're like less than 1/10th our side, this should be a breeze."

They want to destabilize the Ukraine even slightly so that they aren't really eligible for NATO membership

They want access to Crimean ports and the gas pipeline through Ukraine so they can gouge euros.

If there was ever a post to read like Ivan, it's this one.

Ukraine has always been a strategic crossroads between central Europe, Russia and the black sea. Despite the "durr hurr no such thing" meme, Cossacks and western Ukraine was distinct from from the Russian bolsheviks. They are still a major pain in the Kremlins side. The only sad part is that they're like just going to end up being either an extension of either Russia or the EU unless some drastic changes are made in Ukraine's leadership.

Can someone give me the skinny on the current situation in Ukraine?

Poopity poop in the scoop. That's a wrap. Thanks for sharing.

So, the truth is that the Russian Army doesn't actually have a lot of shit. It's got a lot of soldiers and a lot of small arms but when it comes to tanks, planes, etc, it's basically always about 3 days shy of just running out of shit to deploy.

That's why they got skull fucked for so long in Chechnya and why they can't effectively do shit in Syria except make a big stinky noise and buzz us every once in a while. that's why Ukraine, which has even less, can still fight, it's only slightly less shitty than the Russian army.

The Ukrainians didn’t have shit because they sold everything off after the fall of the Soviets.
The Russians got their shit pushed in in Chechnya because they sent armor without soft support into fucking citites.
And it’s the opposite when it comes to small arms and vehicles.

Please inform yourself.

I think Ukraine is too big for the Ruskies to do what they did to Georgia

Its already showing

The Russian army has something like 2800 total tanks in service and most of those are 50 year old shitty T-72s. The air force has about 350 attack aircrafts. They don't even have warfighting UAVs

You, too, can read Jane's and understand the truth

Russia controls all the good parts and the ports to the Black Sea so they can expand their shitty little Navy. Ukraine sits around with no money in static defenses as paid to fight russians are doing the same within Ukraine. Russia has esssentially seized part of the country through force and propaganda and the will of the local populous

But for what purpose.

I find it hilarious when you fat, sweaty loser bitchboys discuss war as if you are experts. Enjoy mom's basement and videogames, operators.

No. The longer reason is classified Ivan, but let's just say I'll enjoy the day we can finally unleash total war on your vatnick ass. Russia was a mistake which has existed 30 years too long.

Because they don't want Ukraine joining the EU or NATO after Putin's butt buddy Yanukovych was ousted.

Well why are they there in the first place?

As a Malvinas style distraction from the incompetence and corruption of their own state.

Which side is in the right in the Ukraine right now?

That's a difficult question to answer. The reality is that both side tries to make out the other for being the "bad guy", and to be honest, neither of them are wrong. Both sides do have their bad apples. And both have very good, honest, and well-intended soldiers too.
In the grand scheme of things, the Separatists want their area (some of them want all of Ukraine) to become part of Russia, and the Ukrainian forces are trying to hold onto the land they have and defend it. Both use whatever means they have to fulfill their objective, and, sadly, both often use unnecessary violence to do so as well.
I personally side with the Ukrainians in the grand scheme of things, but I do not support independent acts of brutality that occur.

I'd say that Ukraine still comes out ahead, as Ukraine unfucking itself would more or less cause pro-Russian sentiment to plummet. All things being equal the Separatists and Crimea want to be part of Russia, but the moment things start looking up for Ukraine they'll start thinking they got a bum deal. Eastern Ukraine was already an economically depressed, poor area when everything started and it has only gotten worse. Crimea is functionally cut off from Russia, saw its economy shrink, and Russia basically has to threaten Ukraine to keep them from turning off the lights, gas, and pensions. Russia can't afford a prosperous Ukraine, even if it never joins the EU or NATO.

Attached: steve_thinks_its_nice.gif (444x250, 3.04M)

Dick

If the Russians sent in several divisions instead of the 1-2 Battalion Tactical Groups they have in there, yes, of course they could break the trenches.

bazinga

Syria right now draining most of resources from Russian military and Ukraine simply don't have enough resources, at least for now.
I think countries like Poland or Romania should donate their soviet shit, like tanks and planes, to Ukraine and get new american weapon instead.

>go to an online imageboard about weapons and war
>gets enraged over a thread about the situation and tactics in the Ukraine war
Do something to that blood pressure and let us fat sweaty loser bitchboys enjoy the discussion

Then why did they send troops in the first place? Whats their motive?

BAZOOPER

As far as anyone can tell, the original idea was to create a festering wound, which would destabilize Ukraine and not allow it to join EU and Nato. They succeeded at creating it, but failed to make the maintenance of the wound a problem of Ukraine (financial support, in essence). As for the troops, those were mostly deployed to reinforce the local militias on key fronts.

Snatching Crimea and creating a frozen conflict in resource-rich industrial region of Donbass, in response to regime change in Ukraine.
As I said in 2014: Ukrainians lost as soon as they attacked. They had no way of winning, even if they fought okay at various points. It was a strategic blunder in every sense.
You'll have wishful thinkers and idiots/shills tell you Ukraine beat Russian agression and how Russia is dying and all that bullshit, but that's delusion.
Russians dealt with the crisis surprisingly well.
>b-but they lost their ally
Ukraine was never Russia's ally.
Aid just ensures Ukrainians do nothing to unfuck their ultra-corrupt state.
Frozen conflict ensures Ukraine won't join NATO or EU.
Russians won. It's over. There's no way to reverse this besides direct Western intervention.

And to answer OP: of course they could, but why would they?
They gain nothing by gobbling up more Ukrainian land.
But they are prepared to invade if necessary. They learned lessons from their previous involvement, they have superiority in numbers and equipment, and they even brought back the tank armies as formations.
But I would say any Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a defeat from the outset.

>As I said in 2014: Ukrainians lost as soon as they attacked.

Unless they wanted to cede East Ukraine to Russia they had no choice.

>they had no choice.

Attached: 14860579362780.jpg (604x394, 56K)

If you don't defend the territorial sovereignty of areas you tend to lose them.

Russia has created a buffer zone and secured the strategic location of Crimea.

What is the value of the Baltics that makes them so scared of being conquered by Russia?

Russia wants buffer zones for Petersburg and Moscow

Disputed territories clause, as long as Ukraine has areas occupied by separatists they can't join NATO.
So, in theory the best course of action for Ukraine would be to just give up the territories,
cut all infrastructure to the separatist areas and Crimea and let the Russians take care of them, they will probably get tired of their infighting soon enough.
Then join NATO and watch the Russians foam at the mouth.

In practice? Russia would never stop funding destabilizing forces in Ukraine, if the eastern part were surrendered they would just find some other group of drunk miners to stir up somewhere else.

This was a /comfy/ conflict. Anyone watch the live streams from the airport back in the day?

>/comfy/
I bet civilians in eastern Ukraine thought the same as grad rockets rained down on them from both sides.