de-circlement

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name	%{ ⛰AuxEd>/+YWZyzRU☙NXnJ(\~_♎cMkgl\|S♢'9
Email
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Captcha Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1701575317437.jpg ( 29.54 KB , 480x358 , td.jpg )

de-circlement Anonymous 2023-12-03 (Sun) 03:48:37 No.477068

The west tried to encircle the Soviet Union, by putting military bases near it. The Soviets countered by mirroring western military deployments, which halted all western advance but, it did not undo the partial encirclement the west had already achieved. The west had resumed this strategy with Russia until recently. But I think the Ukraine war has bricked encirclement.

Looking at the big picture after the Russians had dug in their positions in Ukraine: The west began diverting military resources away from the encirclement and funneled it into a slow/static front where it got chewed up. It took 2 years to deplete the encirclement stock-pile but it will take 10 years to restore it.

I think that encirclement as a strategy now has a effective counter. It's neither cheap nor easy, and certainly unpleasant. It takes a conflict that sucks in all the surrounding encirclement military resources.

The Russians did not set out to do this, but they might have realized it was happening along the way. But I'm sure all kinds of clever military strategists will figure out all the details about how to create this on purpose.

So what do you think is encirclement over ?

Anonymous 2023-12-03 (Sun) 05:06:20 No.477070

File: 1701579979776.mp4 ( 4.06 MB , 480x270 , Ellsberg-coldwar.mp4 )

I think you're missing a bit of cause and effect here: weapons manufacturers are itching at any opportunity to get rid of old materiel because it's insanely profitable to replace it.

Anonymous 2023-12-03 (Sun) 05:10:02 No.477071

>>477070
So the reason question is not whether encirclement itself is over. It's whether the incentive to create a military buildup still exists. And trillions of dollars of unaccounted for Pentagon spending says it is.

Anonymous 2023-12-03 (Sun) 06:26:00 No.477075

>>477070
>weapons manufacturers are itching at any opportunity to get rid of old materiel because it's insanely profitable to replace it.
While that's certainly true, it's not the only factor they consider. The pictures of burned out tanks are like bad marketing. The Ukrainians got told they had to pull back the fancy tanks to avoid so many of them getting blownup.

That very lucrative gig for replacing military equipment, that probably wouldn't survive as is, if it turns into making shovel-ware that gets cast into the shredder as quickly as it can be produced. Their margins would get slashed.

Unique IPs: 3