/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Nobody really wants to win. Winning means you have to govern and that's harder than fighting a war. Also less cool and boring. At least that's what I think.

>>2835807
How is losing a war better then winning won man

Fair question. The answer is that euroyanks devils are fascist demons like hitler. They desperate becauase Russia never be defeated and never stop. Iran never be defeated and never stop. And the zioeuroyank settler exploiter and oppressor class bloc support their wars, like CPUSA against iran and venezuela.they support the war because the war because zioyank real wages tend to rise from them
>what happened to the gulf war shit and le hecking fast super wars cool times and death.
Because third worldism is stronger and firstworldismist hitlerite yankdevil grow more desperate and rapacious like hitlerite paper tiger they are
>>2835807
Euroyank settler devils really can fight to lose or to stalemate (like the jewish immigrant colonizers often do) becauae the zio-yank settler class bloc formation benefit from all the turmoil they cause. Their gas prices prove this general material law, as yank gas prices are very low relative to globe, lower now than bidenomic mode of production somehow.

>>2836008
me big communist. you small euroyank. you are devil. me win big communism. you win box under ground.

>>2835791
All wars are banker wars. Why win?

>It's boring, what happened to the gulf war shit and le hecking fast super wars cool times and death.
Those only happen when two woefully mismatched sides try to wage a symmetrical conflict. Russia and Ukraine are roughly evenly matched in terms of their capabilities (though Russia is has only undergone limited mobilization while Ukraine's is total), and Iran has far weaker conventional capabilities than the US but is waging an asymmetrical campaign.

>>2835990
he said winning means you have to govern, not that winning is better than dying. he's saying even the stronger side has lower motivation

>>2847828
Winning doesn't mean governing unless you intend to occupy the territory.

Bourg little cock can't stay hard, bourg war machine goes limp because they can no longer afford wars.

>>2836008
Another garbage thirdieuyghur post, Imagine thinking Russia can fight a war when they have to use early cold war tanks lmao.

>>2847837
Early Cold War tanks are still in service in NATO countries and also Ukraine. Turkey still uses M48s for example. However Russia's most common tank iirc is the T-72B3.

>>2847849
Yes Russian army is on the level of Turkey not on the level of major NATO armies. and it is because Russia is an oligarch bourgeois shithole and no longer a left leaning state.

>>2847860
Turkey is a major NATO army, the second largest in the alliance. Its also a stupid point because T-72s and T-90s make up the vast majority of Russia's tank fleet. Almost all the footage coming out of Ukraine shows them using upgraded late Cold War models which is also what every NATO country uses.

>>2847864
The US has been using the Ambrams since the Gulf war, T-14 was nothing but an expensive paper weight.

>>2847873
I guess the Russians agree with you

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/russian-battle-tank-attrition-completely

>❗️— The end of the Armata era: —- a new Russian tank will be created on the basis of the T-90M

>A new generation Russian tank can be built NOT on the T-14 Armata platform, but on the basis of the deeply modernized T-90M tank.

>Alexander Potapov, General Director of Uralvagonzavod said.

>According to him, real combat experience has seriously changed the requirements for modern tanks. Now robotization, digital control systems and the integration of artificial intelligence elements are coming to the fore.

>The T-90M “Breakthrough” today is considered the most developed and mass-produced modern Russian tank. The machine is already used in the troops, is well known to the industry and has been used in combat in a real conflict.

>In addition, the maintenance infrastructure of the T-90 has long been created, and the cost of production is noticeably lower than that of the T-14 Armata. That is why many technologies originally developed for the Armata can now be adapted to the T-90M platform.

because all competing sides are too integrated in the same global capitalist system and rocking the boat too hard is bad for profits

>>2835791
>It's boring, what happened to the gulf war shit and le hecking fast super wars cool times and death.
Soviet military innovation: a "Military-Technical Revolution." This was later adopted in U.S. military literature, renamed "Revolution in Military Affairs." Soviet version defined it as a qualitative leap in the development of means of armed struggle, radically changing the principles of warfare, the structure of the armed forces and the geopolitical balance. A Marxist angle would emphasize contradictions between the productive forces and existing social or organizational forms. Military institutions are conservative bureaucracies. New technologies appear, but armies are organized around old assumptions.

(That's partly LLM generated but you get the idea.)

Warfare goes through periodic phase transitions before new organizational forms catch up to advances in technology. During World War I, it was impossible to make breakthrough because armies organized along a model inherited from the Napoleonic wars were confronted by industrial firepower. Modern armies built around tanks (World War II, Arab-Israeli wars of the 1960s/1970s, Persian Gulf War of 1991) relied on to make breakthroughs after the introduction of machine guns and advancements in artillery are now obsolete because of drones and further advancements in artillery (more accurate, faster to turn around the time between spotting the target and hitting the target).

A basic military tactic is "fire and maneuver." Basically some people shoot and other people move. Warfare is also like movement in a restricted medium. Armies can't really maneuver very well right now.

Fire and maneuver. This is apparently pretty accurate. There's overhead surveillance, but if both sides have that, and also FPVs, then the maneuver isn't going to work very well.

Bro never heard of the Hundred Years' War

I had to post the Red Alert version but this was new social/organizational forms updating to the advances in technology at one point in history. (There was some older horse-drawn stuff too, so still in the transition stage.)

They're not total wars. They want to maintain support at home by avoiding a draft and a full war economy and all of their implications, so they're not going all out. Furthermore, many modern wars aren't full on states vs. states, but states vs. insurgencies (aka a mini-state within a state), which are much harder to resolve.
Also contractors make more money in a protracted conflict.

>>2848975
why don't they just abolish democracy and go full fascism then

Another thing that allowed tanks to break the stalemate produced in WWI was developments to make them faster, also cross-country mobility. In addition, the radio, to allow large tank formations to communicate. There was also developments in aviation, and the planes could also work with the tanks.

It was really a combination of technologies introduced in WWI being refined and then organized into a mutually reinforcing system.

This will happen again with new technologies but it's speculative to predict how it'll look like. But in WWII, there was mass production of tanks, planes + communication.

Drones are the most important thing today, and now precision-guided missiles. Missiles will also behave more like drones in the future. And then those will be combined with new communications technology to allow them to attack in very large masses, so there will be swarms of drones flying around like a cloud of bees, and they'll be partially automated. Also ground vehicles will be increasingly roboticized. I can imagine large swarms of robotic ground vehicles replacing tanks.

From 1997

>>2849837
Toys also came out in 1992.

>>2849841
Also the Terminator movies. (More laser guns though but I can see lasers being used more as defensive anti-drone weapons.) Making the small robots is easy but to get them to work like that will mean plugging them into an AI brain, so that's what is going to happen.

>>2835791
because drones changed everything

>>2849836
>>2849837
>>2849843
>>2849844
Why don't armies just use microwave weapons against drones then?
They cheap and fry the inside of the drone disabling them

>>2849971
It's also very cheap to protect them with a faraday cage so those weapons would work a grand total of a few days/weeks until this is set up. Even random protestors already came up with solution against microwave riot weapons so an half assed organized military would have no issue.