On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:27:08 AM UTC+10, Fredxx wrote:
> On 05/09/2023 10:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 04/09/2023 16:28, SteveW wrote:
> >> Yes, but that is not a reason to ban landmines - just a reason to ban
> >> ones that don't self-destruct. Mines are a very good way of protecting
> >> an important area, a camp, or similar and lowering the risk to
> >> defenders and if that can be done without leaving a dangerous legacy,
> >> it may make sense to.
> >
> > In a nutshell, yes. Cluster bombs and mines are effective weapons, if
> > you have to go to war. There is an argument for making them safer and
> > time limited. The West tries to do this. Russia doesn't give a fuck,
> > which tells you something about the Russian state.
>
> It suggests they're not as wealthy as the West to put such features in munitions.

They are wealthy enough to have much more expensive weapons, as indeed is North Korea. As Clausewitz said, war is an extension of diplomacy by other means, and if your weapons have nasty side effects, you are poor diplomats. But if you are silly enough to start wars that you can't win, you are something worse -plain stupid.

It is unfortunate for the Russian people that they have gotten stuck with a moronic government. The correct answer is to overthrow the government, but that costs a lot of lives - even the most moronic government knows how to hang onto power.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 17:46:36 UTC+3, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:27:08 AM UTC+10, Fredxx wrote:
> > On 05/09/2023 10:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > > On 04/09/2023 16:28, SteveW wrote:
> > >> Yes, but that is not a reason to ban landmines - just a reason to ban
> > >> ones that don't self-destruct. Mines are a very good way of protecting
> > >> an important area, a camp, or similar and lowering the risk to
> > >> defenders and if that can be done without leaving a dangerous legacy,
> > >> it may make sense to.
> > >
> > > In a nutshell, yes. Cluster bombs and mines are effective weapons, if
> > > you have to go to war. There is an argument for making them safer and
> > > time limited. The West tries to do this. Russia doesn't give a fuck,
> > > which tells you something about the Russian state.
> >
> > It suggests they're not as wealthy as the West to put such features in munitions.
> They are wealthy enough to have much more expensive weapons, as indeed is North Korea. As Clausewitz said, war is an extension of diplomacy by other means, and if your weapons have nasty side effects, you are poor diplomats.. But if you are silly enough to start wars that you can't win, you are something worse -plain stupid.
>
> It is unfortunate for the Russian people that they have gotten stuck with a moronic government. The correct answer is to overthrow the government, but that costs a lot of lives - even the most moronic government knows how to hang onto power.
>
Russians overthrow their beloved government? Putin is calm and
prudent, pays very close attention to his approval rating and
carefully considers what he can afford. If approval drops to
65% or below (and disapproval goes over 30%) then he does
something to entertain Russians. Very good leader. His
intelligence gave him biased information about how easy it is
to deal with Ukraine and how good generals he has so he fucked
up a bit, but other options weren't perhaps lot better.

October 1999 approval 65% -> Chechen War -> January 2000 approval 84%.
January 2005 approval 65% -> tensions with Georgia and War -> November 2008 approval 86%.
November 2013 approval 61% -> occupation of Crimea -> October 2014 approval 88%.
But Russians didn't care about his screwing with Syria and
campaigns in Africa so it did no last that long. Also wrestling
on energy markets of Europe left them indifferent.
August 2021 approval 61% -> Ukrainian War -> April 2022 approval 82%.
August 2023 his approval was 80% but it is expensive so he
won't perhaps do any sharp moves in close future.