I can't help but see some parallels between the two:
-The invaders claiming that they are liberating the country from the "regime"
-Using fallacious claims to justify the invasion under the guise of "national security" (Genocide in Donbass and 9/11 links)
-Using past atrocities committed by the government as a post-hoc justification for the invasion.
-Claims of WMDs (I covered that in another question here ).
-Soldiers being surprised when they don't get welcomed as liberators
-There is a large international backlash against the invasion
-Those who oppose the war being decried as traitors:But there are some shortcomings to these comparisons. For one: For America Iraq is a far off land so if shit goes haywire, it would appear we could just curtail out of there and act like it never happened. Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine are neighbors with an intertwined history so the fallout from this conflict will be unavoidable for Russia. Also, while the US conducted a shock and awe campaign that caused the Iraqi Army to disintegrate where conventional fighting was then followed by Guerilla warfare (i. e. stuck in a quagmire), the same can't be said of the Ukraine. Russia tried their own version of "shock and awe" that failed miserably. The Ukrainian Army didn't disintegrate and fought and continues to fight as a coherent unit. So, instead of fighting poorly equipped, disorganized insurgents, the Russians are fighting a comparably equipped and coordinated military and at this point, Russia probably lost over +7000 soldiers while the US lost 4,500 over the entire war. So Russia's not in a quagmire so much as they are in a meat grinder and while on the international stage, it may be reminiscent of the Iraq War, on the battlefield, it's more like Talvisota 2.0.
I was 13 at the time but I could tell the case for the war was BS but it's weird seeing the propaganda from the other side.
-The invaders claiming that they are liberating the country from the "regime"
-Using fallacious claims to justify the invasion under the guise of "national security" (Genocide in Donbass and 9/11 links)
-Using past atrocities committed by the government as a post-hoc justification for the invasion.
-Claims of WMDs (I covered that in another question here ).
-Soldiers being surprised when they don't get welcomed as liberators
-There is a large international backlash against the invasion
-Those who oppose the war being decried as traitors:But there are some shortcomings to these comparisons. For one: For America Iraq is a far off land so if shit goes haywire, it would appear we could just curtail out of there and act like it never happened. Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine are neighbors with an intertwined history so the fallout from this conflict will be unavoidable for Russia. Also, while the US conducted a shock and awe campaign that caused the Iraqi Army to disintegrate where conventional fighting was then followed by Guerilla warfare (i. e. stuck in a quagmire), the same can't be said of the Ukraine. Russia tried their own version of "shock and awe" that failed miserably. The Ukrainian Army didn't disintegrate and fought and continues to fight as a coherent unit. So, instead of fighting poorly equipped, disorganized insurgents, the Russians are fighting a comparably equipped and coordinated military and at this point, Russia probably lost over +7000 soldiers while the US lost 4,500 over the entire war. So Russia's not in a quagmire so much as they are in a meat grinder and while on the international stage, it may be reminiscent of the Iraq War, on the battlefield, it's more like Talvisota 2.0.
I was 13 at the time but I could tell the case for the war was BS but it's weird seeing the propaganda from the other side.
