Why didn't Ukraine invade Russia a long time ago? nt

[LAS14]

[Deep State Witch]

1. They were playing defense

They were just trying to defend their territory. Now that the conflict has reached a stalemate - and they have better weapons - they're going on the offensive.

[Jacson6]

16. To tell you the truth I'm surprised that Ukraine stayed and fought back.

When the Russian invasion happened I expected the politico's and oligarchs to get their money and run. But they have stayed and fought the Russians.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Resources, mainly the F16s for the offensive air support...

plus, most of the Western Powers, the US included, wouldn't have stood for it. It took time for them to get comfortable with the idea.

[stopdiggin]

23. these two things. (and thanks for putting them out there right away)

there was quite a bit of western apprehension about 'escalation' - and what an 'offensive' strategy would engender. And 2) the Ukraine was really on their heels as far as weapons and real firepower - and once again, western powers were very deliberate (read slow) in turning toward providing them.

( And - - THANK YOU Joe Biden !! For clearly providing impetus, example, and prodding along the reluctant )

[yagotme]

3. Is this a serious question? nt

[LAS14]

4. What makes you think it's not????

Take the previous two posts as a model of how to discuss things here.

[yagotme]

5. Well, name a country that has SUCCEEDED in invading Russia.

Let's start with that. Nations that had a lot more military might than Ukraine have tried it. And failed. A quick review of history should have precluded even the serious contemplation of that question, just on THAT basis.

[Irish_Dem]

7. This is a discussion forum. We discuss.

[yagotme]

9. Right. Until someone puts forth an opposing view, then the name calling comes out. nt

[Irish_Dem]

10. Most online forums require some courage and a thick skin.

And the ability not to take things personally.

[yagotme]

14. Hard to not "take things personally", when those things ARE addressed to you personally. nt

[Irish_Dem]

46. Yes it takes some practice and courage to post online.

[yagotme]

49. I do call them out when they do that, but I don't report or ignore.

If someone wants to say a darned fool thing, I'm going to let everyone else see it, too.

[Irish_Dem]

57. Yes I agree.

Just don't take it personally when they sharp elbow you back.

[yagotme]

60. Nope. Just keep up my innocent "Who, me?" face and let them carry on. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

36. You didn't start with an "opposing view" You started with a challenge without substance.

[yagotme]

47. I asked the OP if they were presenting a serious question.

A serious question begs a serious answer. If OP was NOT asking a serious question, then anything goes. Where did I "challenge" the OP by the way?

[stopdiggin]

24. And dumb questions qualify for 'discussion'

Similarly, we've all seen a WHOLE lot worse than "serious question?" as far as the 'civility meter' goes.

There's been some rather inane stuff regarding Ukraine running around on the board here of late.
This one perhaps not the worst, but still ...

[LAS14]

8. OK, maybe I should have asked this question instead.

What made Ukraine decide to invade Russia now?

[yagotme]

11. That one makes a lot more sense.

Ukraine invading Russia at a previous date, depending on date, would either have been bad on the public stage (prior to current Russian invasion), or not militarily feasible, as all their arms/effort were applied to stopping/repelling the incursion. Invading Russia has never been a good idea, in the thoughts that one could conquer it, but a riposte into the Motherland may cause Pooty a bit of alarm, and may have him rethink going to the bargaining table. But, as unstable as he is, I wouldn't put money on it.

[gab13by13]

34. Ukraine doesn't want to conquer Russia,

doesn't even want to annex Russian land. Just the incursion has caused serious repercussions for Putin.

If Ukraine is controlling Russian land it can be used as bargaining chip for peace talks.
Ukraine captured over 100 Russians in the incursion that can be used for prisoner swaps.

The incursion is good for Ukrainian morale and bad for Russian morale.

[yagotme]

53. Thus, my confusion, on whether the question the OP posted was serious or not.

An "invasion" prior to the conflict, would be an aggression on Ukraine's part. An "invasion" prior to Ukraine getting manpower up, and arms/ammo for them to use, have been difficult, as most of the weapons have been in use in a defensive posture. Russia SHOULD HAVE been able to run roughshod over Ukraine, but Pooty underestimated Ukrainian backbone, and overestimated his own forces/supplies.

[The Magistrate]

12. It's A Raid More Than An Invasion

A kick at a rotten tree to see what shakes loose.

Just the political effect of demonstrating Putin's inability to protect Russia itself has great value. As does the decent treatment accorded civilians in the area over-run.

[MineralMan]

37. Yes, exactly. By illustrating just how weak and unprepared Russia is right now,

they have told a story the entire world needs to hear. Russia cannot muster up a defense on its own territory. The Russian military is weak and unprepared. Ukraine has made that clear.

And there it is.

As for "why now?" it's because Ukraine now has additional equipment and armaments on hand. What better time?

[BrianTheEVGuy]

17. There are several

Including Ukraine, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, China and the Golden Horde Mongols — all of which ruled over large swathes of Russia for centuries.

[yagotme]

18. How about after the 1500's...

when Russia was actually a named country, along with Ukraine being a named country.
https://www.rbth.com/history/330753-which-countries-dared-to-invade-russia

[BrianTheEVGuy]

21. Ah yes

I forgot that name changes imbue magical powers of invincibility on corrupt and criminal oligarchies.

Somewhere on the road to Moscow, Ukrainian troops will say “hey wait a minute, Russia is magical with its current name. We had better give up and submit to the war criminals in the Kremlin!”

[stopdiggin]

25. Not clear how 'invade Russia' applies to a time when Russia

did not exist.
A bit like talking about when the Vikings 'invaded' Canada or the U.S.

And then we're going to deflect with magical powers? Explain again how you invade Russia - when there is no such thing?

[BrianTheEVGuy]

55. It's ironic

Russian irredentists insist that Russia did exist in that time when they make claims on Ukrainian territory… yet then exist Russia wasn’t a thing at that time when it comes to discussing successful invasions of that area.

They also do things like conflate “Russia” (a single Soviet republic) with the USSR (a collection of 15 republics including Russia). Ukraine and numerous other Soviet republics were instrumental to driving back prior invasions of “Russia,” and now they’re on the other side — doing the same thing to Kremlin fascists that they did to Reichstag fascists 80 years earlier.

[Kaleva]

41. Germany in WWI

[yagotme]

48. Key word: Succeeded.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/warfare-1914-1918-russian-empire/
So, the Germans succeeded in their invasion? For how long? (Not very.)

[Kaleva]

56. It's irrelevant that Germany lost in the Western Front

During WWI, Russia was weak economically which was a key factor contributing to its defeat. Today, Russia has an economy the size of Italy s or Canada's. It does not have the industrial capacity to sustain this war.

[yagotme]

58. We had a fairly weak economy/industrial output in 1941.

That changed rapidly when our own soil was under threat. Don't underestimate what an attack on the "Motherland" may inspire.

[Kaleva]

40. The Mongols

"The Mongols invaded and destroyed Volga Bulgaria and Kievan Rus', before invading Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and other territories. Over the course of three years (1237–1240), the Mongols razed all the major cities of Russia with the exceptions of Novgorod and Pskov."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_and_conquests#:~:text=The%20Mongols%20invaded%20and%20destroyed,exceptions%20of%20Novgorod%20and%20Pskov.

[haele]

43. The Mongol empire. But seriously,

The Ukrainians may have succeeded in taking real estate, but not yet have succeeded in holding it, as Russia still technically holds the Ukrainian regions they took in 2014.
My question is why, when they are still on the defensive?
The natural gas depot hub, perhaps?
Or as someone more politically astute than I figured out, this may be a ploy to see if Putin can be toppled.
Putin tried a general conscription about a year ago, but backed down when the political power centers where middle and professional classes live - Moscow and St. Petersburg - refused to consider their sons going into harms way.
So they basically emptied the prisons and swept through the rural areas to get enough manpower for the last major offensives.
If he has to call a conscription because his corrupt military system wasted too much manpower to protect some 'backwater' Russian oblast, affecting the middle class and wealthier folks, he well might end up with an internal revolt and civil war when they do overthrow him. Especially since the Ruble is hanging by a thread.

Haele

[yagotme]

50. "My question is why, when they are still on the defensive?"

My guess is manpower, and supplies. Invading Russia is not something to be taken lightly, that's why I asked my initial question, if this was a serious question or not. Invading forces, per history, usually require at least a 2-1 margin for attackers/defenders, usually. Ukraine would have serious problems defending themselves on one front, and continuing an attack on another. Even when Russia is on the ropes, they just retreat, and use their land mass to sap their opponent.

[Irish_Dem]

6. US made it clear they would not support this action.

Took the US a couple of years to decide Ukraine should actually win this war.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Yup

[stopdiggin]

27. PLUS - it was in no way feasible

given that countries capabilities at said time. Once the Ukraine had (exponentially) better equipment ...

But, yes - western apprehension played a big roll. (remember all the talks about nukes .. ?)

[Irish_Dem]

28. The military and US intelligence knew Putin was bluffing.

[stopdiggin]

30. I don't remember it that way

I'm kind of curious about whether our allies saw it that way? Sure didn't seem like it at the time ..

(will have to admit - I always thought it was mostly hot air ... but there seemed to be a certain element of real apprehension? "This guy really IS that nuts ..?" )

[Irish_Dem]

31. If you listen to interviews with US retired generals

And retired Intelligence they were all saying the same thing.

US being too cautious. Putin not a nuke threat.

[stopdiggin]

32. edited prior post. As far as truly 'informed' opinion, you (and they) are probably correct.

[Irish_Dem]

45. Retired generals are known for speaking on the behalf of the military.

Because active duty officers cannot speak out publicly.

So I like to listen to retired generals to find out what is going on inside the
current active duty thought process.

Same with retired CIA directors.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. I think Jake Sullivan was a more influential voice on that score.

[Beastly Boy]

13. Not using NATO weapons on Russian territories has been the condition for getting them

Until it wasn't, which is a very recent development.

[LAS14]

15. Thank you! Most persuasive and clearest answer yet. nt

[Kaleva]

42. Yes

[k55f5r]

19. I think Ukraine wanted Russia

To stick it in real deep before they broke it off.

[hlthe2b]

22. Because the US pressured them NOT to (initiallly being very concerned of wider conflict)...

But as this war drug on and Russia made clear they have no intention of ending a very "scorched earth" (civilians, children, innocents be damned) conduct of the war, Biden admin not only approved the F-16s, but gave a wink and a nod to some level of incursion.

[speak easy]

26. F-16s

[EarnestPutz]

29. In the begining the expectation was that the amassed 100,000 Russian troops of the vaunted Red Army would.....

......roll across Ukraine and their tanks would be in Kiev in a week and, briefly, it looked like that might happen. It took years of fighting and begging for arms for the Ukrainians to push the Russians back from newly occupied territory. Attacking them now, in areas of "Mother Russia" itself, is designed to define the battlefield by requiring the Russians to defend rather than attack, as well as demoralizing both the troops and supporters in Moscow.

[onandup]

33. I thought our policy prohibited them from going into Russia

Apparently not.

[gab13by13]

35. Ukraine didn't inform anyone before it went into Russia.

The incursion is an embarrassment to Putin. He just summoned the Italian ambassador to explain why Italian correspondents went along with the incursion filming it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-summons-italian-ambassador-over-journalists-reporting-from-kursk/ar-AA1oVNUk?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3003e4e66b3b4b39983ecc31ccdc1bb2&ei=29

[Zoomie1986]

38. It's easy to ask that from the comfort of your living room

In a country not invaded.

Not so easy when an aggressive enemy power has invaded your country.

They were sort of busy trying to keep their country in one piece to think about things like invading the other guys.

[LAS14]

39. Your tone is unnecessarily condescending. Several people up thread...

.. provide examples of good ways to answer an honest question. I don't understand why people so often assume that a poster is being snide or whatever.

[Torchlight]

59. Sounds serious.

Good luck.

[jimfields33]

61. Nice.

[edisdead]

51. Seriously?

This can’t be a real question.

[Shermann]

52. Obligatory meme

[Wicked Blue]

54. Partly because they were pressured by the U.S. and Russia to give up their nukes in the 1990s

And in addition to being left virtually defenseless againt Russia, I don't think Ukraine had any interest in tangling with the russkys. Not until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.

[LiberalFighter]

62. Invade with what?