Blyatskrieg

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:55 pm

Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby on Thursday said the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet was still afloat and “operating under her own power” after an explosion aboard the vessel — which Ukraine said was the result of a missile strike and Russia said was caused by an internal fire detonating ammunition.

Kirby was unable to verify either country’s claim about the Soviet-era guided-missile cruiser Moskva, which he said is one of three cruisers in the Russian fleet and was operating roughly 60 miles south of Odesa — a Black Sea port city in southern Ukraine — at the time of the blast.


“We know she suffered an explosion,” Kirby said in an interview on MSNBC. “It looks like — from the images that we have been able to look at — it looks like it was a pretty sizable explosion, too. We don’t know what caused that explosion.”


The warship is now heading further east, he added, and U.S. officials assess it will likely dock at Sevastopol — a Black Sea port city in Crimea, the disputed peninsula south of Ukraine that Russia seized and annexed in 2014.

[...]

In an interview on CNN, Kirby said the explosion was “sizable enough” that U.S. officials “picked up indications that other naval vessels around her tried to come to her assistance.”

“Eventually, that wasn’t apparently needed, so she’s making her own way now across the Black Sea,” Kirby said, “and we’ll continue to try to monitor this as best we can.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/1 ... p-00025243

User avatar
TimW
Catbabel
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:27 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TimW » Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:27 pm

Well that's an interesting third version that doesn't seem to fit in with either of the others.

temptar
Fuzzable
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun May 10, 2020 6:19 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by temptar » Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:50 pm

I believe the valid term here is POIDH.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Apr 14, 2022 4:17 pm

lpm wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:54 pm
jimbob wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:04 pm
Video

Tanks are Obsolete - apparently since 1919

https://youtu.be/QPth_xqBXGY

Lots of sources and discussion
I'm confused by that video because it completely skipped WW2.

You can't do that, surely. That was when the tank showed how mobile warfare could be devastating to defenders. The front moved much faster than defenders could adapt to, with defenders trying to grind the offensive to a halt once the attackers resupply was over-extended. Massed tanks - with all that support he described - conquered a huge part of Europe plus a lot of North Africa. And did it fast.

The blitzkrieg started on 10 May 1940. Dunkirk started on 26 May 1940. That's 16 days!

Barbarossa started 22 June 1941. They began the siege of Kiev on 7 August. They reached Leningrad 8 September. That's 46 and 78 days!

This war has been going 59 days.
We're in the middle of the mud season. Tanks did pretty poorly during that in WWII as well.
Tanks have completely failed to achieve any sort of mobility in Ukraine. It's not enough to state that tanks have always suffered bad losses and there's plenty of ways to defend - the point is tanks have overcome that in the past and surged onwards. Nor is it enough to imply that there'll always be an evolutionary arms race. Sometimes things just end. Or stay out of balance for decades.
Within a year or so of the first tanks lurching across the WWI battlefields it became clear tanks could not operate effectively without infantry support. Interwar development was dominated with how best to coordinate infantry and armour, leading to the concept of motorised and mechanised infantry. Combined arms has advantages over any single approach, and that's been true since the days of Alexander the Great. There is footage of tanks and infantry working effectively together - generally on the Ukrainian side - including infantry screening tank movements, and tanks providing fire support to infantry, eg destroying a building reportedly occupied by a Russian sniper.

Spanners aren't obsolete because they don't work well as hammers, socket drivers aren't obsolete because people who try to use them without any sockets have no success.

Tanks will not be obsolete unless something else can do their job for them. Sending infantry - on foot or in infantry fighting vehicles - to do a tank's job is going to result in a lot of dead infantry. Future tanks won't be identical to contemporary ones, but there are upgrade routes by which modern designs can successfully overcome many of the weaknesses they have shown towards ATGMs. The Trophy active protection system is one example of such technology already in use.
And the video failed to address tanks used by defenders vs tanks used by attackers. What can make sense for one can be useless for the other. For starters a tank with limited mobility, defending a set area, doesn't need a long chain of fuel trucks following behind. The video for some reason disqualified abandoned Russian tanks from consideration, presumably feeling they were undefeated by counter measures. This is incorrect. You can defeat tanks by denying them resupply or demoralising their crew. In WW2 wasn't there some amazingly powerful German tank that was the master of the battlefield, but rarely reached the battlefield because it had massive maintenance demands and the Allies bombed the sh.t out of all maintenance facilities?
I assume you are referring to the German late war heavies - the Tigers and Panthers - and that is sort of true, but to assume it is the whole story is as wrong as assuming that the Russians will never move again because of bad tyres.

The issue isn't that tanks aren't useless without supply lines, it's that they aren't unique in this. Everything is vulnerable to supply problems - supply problems however can be avoided by not biting off more than one can chew with long, unsupported thrusts through hostile territory with no second echelon of infantry to hold the terrain and secure the line of supply.

And tanks are safer and potentially more deadly in defence - and they always have been. Some people online have an unsettling fondness for German WWII equipment, and one thing they will often cite is the kill/loss ratio in the latter stages of the war, yet was much more about who was attacking than the respective technology. Tanks operating in defence can be concealed, and do not risk running into anti-tank guns, and while the anti-tank gun is basically obsolete, many of the same considerations apply to MANPATS.
Theory is useless if reality on the ground strays. Which has happened in Ukraine. A tank might not be considered obsolete if it's repurposed to be an armoured vehicle for other goals, but it looks obsolete as a weapon to achieve rapid movement across enemy territory.
This is judging a piece of equipment for failing to do something it was never going to be capable of to begin with. Technology changes, but a combination of firepower, mobility and protection will always be needed. No doubt there will be points in the future when people wonder why anyone ever built drones now that AA lasers exist*

*Footage was released today of Iron Beam shooting down a rocket, a mortar bomb and a drone.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Thu Apr 14, 2022 6:27 pm

lpm wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:54 pm
jimbob wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:04 pm
Video

Tanks are Obsolete - apparently since 1919

https://youtu.be/QPth_xqBXGY

Lots of sources and discussion
I'm confused by that video because it completely skipped WW2.

You can't do that, surely. That was when the tank showed how mobile warfare could be devastating to defenders. The front moved much faster than defenders could adapt to, with defenders trying to grind the offensive to a halt once the attackers resupply was over-extended. Massed tanks - with all that support he described - conquered a huge part of Europe plus a lot of North Africa. And did it fast.

The blitzkrieg started on 10 May 1940. Dunkirk started on 26 May 1940. That's 16 days!

Barbarossa started 22 June 1941. They began the siege of Kiev on 7 August. They reached Leningrad 8 September. That's 46 and 78 days!

This war has been going 59 days.

Tanks have completely failed to achieve any sort of mobility in Ukraine. It's not enough to state that tanks have always suffered bad losses and there's plenty of ways to defend - the point is tanks have overcome that in the past and surged onwards. Nor is it enough to imply that there'll always be an evolutionary arms race. Sometimes things just end. Or stay out of balance for decades.

And the video failed to address tanks used by defenders vs tanks used by attackers. What can make sense for one can be useless for the other. For starters a tank with limited mobility, defending a set area, doesn't need a long chain of fuel trucks following behind. The video for some reason disqualified abandoned Russian tanks from consideration, presumably feeling they were undefeated by counter measures. This is incorrect. You can defeat tanks by denying them resupply or demoralising their crew. In WW2 wasn't there some amazingly powerful German tank that was the master of the battlefield, but rarely reached the battlefield because it had massive maintenance demands and the Allies bombed the sh.t out of all maintenance facilities?

Theory is useless if reality on the ground strays. Which has happened in Ukraine. A tank might not be considered obsolete if it's repurposed to be an armoured vehicle for other goals, but it looks obsolete as a weapon to achieve rapid movement across enemy territory.
It did mention WWII. Pointing out that Soviet tank losses were immense.

And even that German tank losses in the invasion of Poland in 1940 were significant.

But if one is arguing that tanks have a role as part of combined arms, and pointing out other occasions when they had been considered outdated, it makes little sense to look at one of the times when they were considered of immense importance.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
sTeamTraen
After Pie
Posts: 2554
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by sTeamTraen » Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:11 pm

TASS confirms Moskva has sunk.

Apparently it was while being towed; shades of HMS Sheffield in the Falklands campaign, which was holed above the waterline but sank while being towed in seas that reached higher than the hole.

The largest ship sunk by enemy action since World War II, although that perhaps tells us more about the astonishing size of the ships used in World War II than anything else.
Something something hammer something something nail

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:52 pm

sTeamTraen wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:11 pm
TASS confirms Moskva has sunk.

Apparently it was while being towed; shades of HMS Sheffield in the Falklands campaign, which was holed above the waterline but sank while being towed in seas that reached higher than the hole.

The largest ship sunk by enemy action since World War II, although that perhaps tells us more about the astonishing size of the ships used in World War II than anything else.
The Royal Navy's two largest ships are larger by far than any previous British warship. And US supercarriers are the largest warships ever built
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by lpm » Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:56 pm

At least the fire's out.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Herainestold » Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:59 pm

jimbob wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:52 pm
sTeamTraen wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:11 pm
TASS confirms Moskva has sunk.

Apparently it was while being towed; shades of HMS Sheffield in the Falklands campaign, which was holed above the waterline but sank while being towed in seas that reached higher than the hole.

The largest ship sunk by enemy action since World War II, although that perhaps tells us more about the astonishing size of the ships used in World War II than anything else.
The Royal Navy's two largest ships are larger by far than any previous British warship. And US supercarriers are the largest warships ever built
How do they compare to Moskva? It doesn't look that big in pictures, but it is hard to judge without a reference.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:20 pm

Herainestold wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:59 pm
jimbob wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:52 pm
sTeamTraen wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:11 pm
TASS confirms Moskva has sunk.

Apparently it was while being towed; shades of HMS Sheffield in the Falklands campaign, which was holed above the waterline but sank while being towed in seas that reached higher than the hole.

The largest ship sunk by enemy action since World War II, although that perhaps tells us more about the astonishing size of the ships used in World War II than anything else.
The Royal Navy's two largest ships are larger by far than any previous British warship. And US supercarriers are the largest warships ever built
How do they compare to Moskva? It doesn't look that big in pictures, but it is hard to judge without a reference.
12000 tonnes vs 70000 according to wikipedia
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:47 pm

sTeamTraen wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:11 pm

The largest ship sunk by enemy action since World War II, although that perhaps tells us more about the astonishing size of the ships used in World War II than anything else.
It’s possibly more a feature of how unusual it has been since 1945 for states with navies to go to war against states equipped with weapons able to sink ships.

Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Herainestold » Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:53 pm

Anti-platform weapons have come have come of age in this conflict.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:59 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:47 pm
sTeamTraen wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:11 pm

The largest ship sunk by enemy action since World War II, although that perhaps tells us more about the astonishing size of the ships used in World War II than anything else.
It’s possibly more a feature of how unusual it has been since 1945 for states with navies to go to war against states equipped with weapons able to sink ships.
if you have no damage control, surprisingly small weapons can sink a 5000 tonne destroyer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Huron_(DDG_281)

Video of the sinkex

It was eventually sunk by 76mm rounds before the heavier weapons were due to be used

https://youtu.be/9IimkffYBAc
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:47 am

lpm wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:00 am
Grumble wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 6:18 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:43 am
And if this is accurate: https://armourersbench.com/2022/03/13/j ... n-ukraine/ the kill rate is 280 vehicles for 300 fired.
280/300 is extraordinary isn’t it?
No way is 280 out of 300 going to be true. 93% in proper language. That's either fantasy or Ukraine propaganda.
It does seem quite high, but note that it's 300 fired - not 300 supplied.
I'd say we'd need to supply Ukraine with >1,000 javelins if we want to destroy 100 Russian tanks. That sort of ratio?
The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken seems to agree with you. He said in an interview with NBC on April 6 “We have supplied or will shortly deliver 10 anti-tank systems every Russian tank between the United States and other allies and partners.”

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:11 am

Furious Russian pundits call for reprisal bombing of Kyiv and attacks on Ukrainian railways as a response to the sinking of the Moskva: https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/stat ... HMm8XLD0qA

They are possibly unaware of what has actually been happening in the Special Military Operation.

The sinking is an enormous blow to Russian perceptions of its self as a military great power.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:24 am

jimbob wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:59 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:47 pm
sTeamTraen wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:11 pm

The largest ship sunk by enemy action since World War II, although that perhaps tells us more about the astonishing size of the ships used in World War II than anything else.
It’s possibly more a feature of how unusual it has been since 1945 for states with navies to go to war against states equipped with weapons able to sink ships.
if you have no damage control, surprisingly small weapons can sink a 5000 tonne destroyer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Huron_(DDG_281)

Video of the sinkex

It was eventually sunk by 76mm rounds before the heavier weapons were due to be used

https://youtu.be/9IimkffYBAc
Certainly.

However with the Falklands excepted, wars since 1945 have involved naval forces which were usually safe so long as they stayed out of artillery range.Neither the North Vietnamese nor North Koreans sank a US navy ship at sea (though one was sunk by commandos while at port in Saigon).

The USS Stark in 1988 was one exception, but it didn’t sink and the attack on it was claimed to be a mistake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

I can’t think of any other cases, but there maybe some.

User avatar
headshot
Dorkwood
Posts: 1414
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by headshot » Fri Apr 15, 2022 5:37 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:11 am
Furious Russian pundits call for reprisal bombing of Kyiv and attacks on Ukrainian railways as a response to the sinking of the Moskva: https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/stat ... HMm8XLD0qA

They are possibly unaware of what has actually been happening in the Special Military Operation.

The sinking is an enormous blow to Russian perceptions of its self as a military great power.
But according to the Russian official reports the ship wasn’t destroyed by a Ukrainian attack. It was a fire, and the crew all got off safely, so why do they think a reprisal attack is justified?

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:28 am

headshot wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 5:37 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:11 am
Furious Russian pundits call for reprisal bombing of Kyiv and attacks on Ukrainian railways as a response to the sinking of the Moskva: https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/stat ... HMm8XLD0qA

They are possibly unaware of what has actually been happening in the Special Military Operation.

The sinking is an enormous blow to Russian perceptions of its self as a military great power.
But according to the Russian official reports the ship wasn’t destroyed by a Ukrainian attack. It was a fire, and the crew all got off safely, so why do they think a reprisal attack is justified?
Maybe they have trouble keeping up with the party line.

User avatar
Martin Y
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Martin Y » Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:26 am

I foolishly accepted the Russian claim that the crew were all evacuated as if it might be substantially true. I wonder how many of the 500(?) did survive.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:32 am

Martin Y wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:26 am
I foolishly accepted the Russian claim that the crew were all evacuated as if it might be substantially true. I wonder how many of the 500(?) did survive.
In the short term, it's going to be hard to know. I've seen rumours of fifteen crew being brought in to Sevastapol, and talk of a Turkish ship picking up fifty four survivors.

It could easily be the greatest loss of life in a single incident so far in the conflict.

User avatar
sTeamTraen
After Pie
Posts: 2554
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by sTeamTraen » Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:21 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:11 am
Furious Russian pundits call for reprisal bombing of Kyiv and attacks on Ukrainian railways as a response to the sinking of the Moskva: https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/stat ... HMm8XLD0qA
I like the bit where they try to work out what words they're meant to use to refer to the war. It reminds me a bit of the semi-official UK government ban on the word "Brexit".
headshot wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 5:37 am
But according to the Russian official reports the ship wasn’t destroyed by a Ukrainian attack. It was a fire, and the crew all got off safely, so why do they think a reprisal attack is justified?
I saw a suggestion on Twitter (although I couldn't find an original quote) that Lavrov was complaining that sinking a warship with its crew was a war crime, which is hilarious (a) because it's just combat and (b) it officially didn't happen anyway.

But I think the current party line about the reprisals is that they are a response to Ukrainian "terrorism" in attacking targets inside Russia. Remember, in a Special Military Operation, only one side is allowed to attack the other.
Something something hammer something something nail

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:24 pm

sTeamTraen wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:21 pm
headshot wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 5:37 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:11 am
Furious Russian pundits call for reprisal bombing of Kyiv and attacks on Ukrainian railways as a response to the sinking of the Moskva: https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/stat ... HMm8XLD0qA

They are possibly unaware of what has actually been happening in the Special Military Operation.

The sinking is an enormous blow to Russian perceptions of its self as a military great power.
But according to the Russian official reports the ship wasn’t destroyed by a Ukrainian attack. It was a fire, and the crew all got off safely, so why do they think a reprisal attack is justified?
I saw a suggestion on Twitter (although I couldn't find an original quote) that Lavrov was complaining that sinking a warship with its crew was a war crime, which is hilarious (a) because it's just combat and (b) it officially didn't happen anyway.

But I think the current party line about the reprisals is that they are a response to Ukrainian "terrorism" in attacking targets inside Russia. Remember, in a Special Military Operation, only one side is allowed to attack the other.
Insert Bomber Harris quote here. Evidently Russia are extremely bothered about the possibility of reaping the whirlwind.

It is, of course, difficult to think of a more clear cut and legitimate military target than a warship of a belligerent nation at sea.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by shpalman » Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:04 pm

Their reprisal seems to be an attack on an actual factory which makes missiles rather than several apartment blocks full of civilians?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:04 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:26 am
I foolishly accepted the Russian claim that the crew were all evacuated as if it might be substantially true. I wonder how many of the 500(?) did survive.
Further to my previous post, it's now bring pretty widely reported that Captain (1st Rank) Anton Kuprin went down with the ship after being killed in the initial explosion. This isn't something I've done anything to verify, but it's across quite a bit of the press.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Apr 15, 2022 4:23 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:24 pm
It is, of course, difficult to think of a more clear cut and legitimate military target than a warship of a belligerent nation at sea.
Yes, there would be a very low chance that any civilians might be hurt.

The Russian pundits are pissed off because this isn't the sort of thing that is supposed to happen when a great power attacks a weaker state. Iraq in 1991 or 2003 involved far fewer casualties. We're watching the them come to grips with the reality that they aren't nearly as powerful as they thought they were.

Post Reply