Because there were no wars with extensive trench warfare after WW2. It was always insurgents vs regular military, or insurgents vs other insurgents. Now there is regular military on both sides, and they had 1.5 years to dig fortifications and cover every flat piece of land with mines and tripwires.
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
97 points (97.1% liked)
Ukraine
8207 readers
441 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd put the Korean war into the regular military vs regular military category.
True. If any side tries to cross established battle lines, they'll get similarly huge losses.
On the other hand it's Koreans, they'll send an army of robot dogs named Zerg.
They have the best defense except when a mercenary is performing a coup.
This is why I’m so surprised they didn’t pull a left hook through Russian territory and envelop their flank.
Good idea, but Ukraine isn’t “allowed” to use western weapons on Russian soil. Pure bullshit, Russia will escalate regardless.
Yes because if Ukraine threatens to gain territory within Russia's historic (pre-2014) border they will absolutely use nuclear weapons. They've made this clear, and honestly, they didn't have to.
No nuclear power has ceded any significant territory through open conflict since the advent of nuclear weapons. China won't, France won't, Russia won't, Pakistan won't, North Korea won't, the U.S. won't. It doesn't even have to be spoken out loud to be a known factor. If the deterrent of nuclear strikes won't protect your border, then you have absolutely nothing to lose by using them if you are even slightly concerned that you couldn't move the border back conventionally.
I'm not sure it's guaranteed that they would use nuclear weapons. The west and the rest of the world wouldn't stand idly by if that happened.
They have to. If you don't respond to territorial loss with nuclear weapons you have signalled to anyone with two brain cells that it's all up for grabs. If Ukraine can grab territory why can't Finland? Latvia? Estonia? China?
If Ukraine was obviously and clearly using Russian soil to take back their own and no more, then I think that would muddy the waters a bit.
Because Russia is the aggressor in this conflict? It's not like Ukraine decided to invade Russia for fun. Mind you I don't necessarily think that will matter to Putin, but it does make it a bit more gray than you're implying