It’s Time to End Magical Thinking About Russia’s Defeat

Provide the evidence to your 2nd paragraph?.....please and thank you.

 

Well I didn't mean that much reality.

Baby steps.

 

That's the lesson you take from that example? Mexico isn't Russia and America isn't Ukraine?

How about the part of losing territory, and not getting it back, and declaring it victory? Sound familiar?

 

I'm sorry, but I simply can't take seriously the proposition that Ukraine is victorious in a war in which they lose massive territory and Russia is the loser in a war in which they gain massive territory.

I mean, that's your argument.

 

Sure, that's how it started until Russians were parked right outside of Kiev.

Losing territories given to Russia by Obama might be the best case scenario....the best option among bad options.

If certain areas captured by Russia are Russian partizans, they might want to just give that area up anyway as it could be a huge headache in the future.

 

It's better than the option of losing Ukraine as a sovereign entity entirely. It's not a great compromise, but when you're at war all options have to be examined.

 

Neither side will really win anything in this conflict.

My prediction is that Ukraine will have to give up areas like Crimea to achieve peace. Russia will probably want to keep any areas that are predominately Russian population. If I were Ukraine, I wouldn't want to keep an area that would result in constant guerilla warfare from partisans even IF it were possible for Ukraine to completely repel Russia.

On the other hand, even if Russia redraws the map to include areas like Crimea, they are the ultimate losers because their incompetence at warfare has been made to the entire world. The only real threat they pose to Europe is the nuclear option.

***Edit*** Except France. They could still take France in a day or two.

 

RuZZkavitch conscripts control no major cities.....if Maripol is considered one.....there is an active insurgency and partisans in occupied territory.....hundreds of "mobiks" have been poisoned and killed behind the lines.

 

They've already conquered much of the US and never fired a shot.

 

Yes but for areas of Ukraine heavily populated by Russian partisans you have the reverse of that moving forward, even if Ukraine can kick out Russian troops.

Drawing borders along ethnic lines might be the best option of the bad options available.

End the fighting or keep dying over patches of dirt for decades into the future, potentially erupting into larger conflict in the future.

 

Putler has done a marvelous job of depopulating the Lugansk and Donetsk areas of fighting age military men. What's left is 12 yr olds and 70+ yr olds....and a hollowed economy.

Putler has killed off the most vociferous Pro ruZZian voices in occupied areas by sending them into meatgrinders like Bakmut and Avdivka.


Re integrating these areas may be easier than expected.

 

Time will tell....decompression of a failed philosophy is never easy.

 

Yeah that I don't know too much about.

Although I expect that's true, reading info and watching videos of Russian combatants fleeing and attempting to surrender.

When your troops have no stomach for fighting and route so easily, you're in deep trouble.

 

I think that's always an issue when you have ethnic enclaves inside another country.

 

I don't consider myself to be a warmonger, but I acknowledge that in some instances, a country must engage a war. As examples, I cite our war against Al Qaeda after 9/11. Israel's war against Hamas is another one. And Ukraine's defensive war against Russia is another one. And I have to hand it to the Ukrainians. They have fought doggedly and bravely against one of the superpowers of the world. Although I know Ukraine is not a perfect country (We've all heard the tales of corruption and some still lingering Nazi-like leanings in some quarters), still my sympathies lie with Ukraine.

I just read a NY Times article (August, 2023) giving estimates of the casualties on both sides of this war. The article gives Russia's casualties as about 300,000 with 120,000 dead. By contrast, the U.S. had around 58,000 dead after more than a decade of war in Viet Nam. And Russia had around 15,000 dead after 10 years of occupation of Afghanistan. The Ukrainians are estimated to have around 70,000 dead and around 100-120,000 wounded.

The advantage Russia has is that, as a percentage of fighting age men in their country, their losses are smaller than that of the much smaller country of Ukraine. Conceivably, Russia could conscript hundreds of thousands more men and mount a "surge" that might possibly break Ukraine.

But, on the other hand, Russia's conventional forces have been exposed as incompetent on virtually every level. Russia has shown NATO that its conventional ground forces are not a viable threat to the NATO alliance. Ukraine has an advantage as well. The NY Times article points out that, after suffering huge losses trying to mount offensive operations against the Russians, Ukraine is becoming more risk averse, preferring to attrite the Russians with long range artillery and drones. And so the advantage Ukraine has is that they could conceivably quit offensive operations with ground forces and continue to cost the Russians men and equipment almost endlessly, as long as they receive western support. They could use their ground forces to simply build defenses of what they have, while never giving Russia a clear victory, instead giving them an endless, costly slog at a much lower cost in manpower. Ukraine has the ability, with western support, to never give the Russian navy the safe, usable port in Crimea that they dearly want. They can attack Russian navy ships with suicide boats, missiles, and drones if they venture too close. We have also seen multiple instances of sabotage inside Russia which I suspect has been carried out by Ukrainians who have infiltrated into Russia.

If a country invades another country, the idea is to win something. So far, all the Russians have won is some ground. But if there is no peace, if it requires endless men and equipment losses to keep, if it cannot produce anything of value, if that ground is little more than a dangerous "no man's land", what have they really won? The answer is little or nothing, really. And one wonders how long Russia can sustain such staggering losses in men and equipment. What will their casualties mount to in another year, and another? So Mike, reluctantly, I think we should continue to help the Ukrainians. Reluctantly, as much as I would like to turn our resources inwards to our own country rather than paying for yet another war, I think we should continue to do what we're doing and not wimp out.

My greatest criticism of our efforts has been the absence of negotiation and constructive dialogue with the Russians. I think we hold some pretty good cards in our hand with which we could use, but there has been no real effort to use them. Our present administration has been an utter failure in this regard. I am not meaning to turn this into a Trump campaign post, but Trump's approach to this mess would have been to get on the phone to Putin and find out how this could be resolved. In spite of all of his other faults, Trump's record on the world stage is that of a peacemaker, and he could be very proactive in those efforts. But our present administration strikes me as being almost allergic to proactive action, out-of-the-box thinking, or compromise that could end the fighting and bring peace to Ukraine. It incenses me as I think about the fecklessness of this administration.

There's my two cents, Mike. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

 

Crimea has been Russian since 2014. This war isn't about Crimea. So I find it hard to see how Russia is the "ultimate loser" if they walk away with more territory. Apparently that must be some new talking point.

 

All I'm saying is that, looking at this as a neutral observer, when a military the size of Russia is parked right outside your capitol, and is pushed entirely back to areas that they had previously taken, things aren't looking good for Russia.

A military the size of Russia should have easily taken all of Ukraine in less than a year.

It is extremely clear their commanders are worthless and their front line fighters have no stomach to stand their ground.

On the other hand, the Ukrainians look more determined than ever to fight.

I don't know how it ends, but Russia's performance has been abysmal.

 

And a happy Thanksgiving to you, but as I'm seeing more and more, winning ground is no longer considered winning. I think it's one of the most basic definitions of winning.

In fact it seems so counter intuitive to me that it's hard not to think of it as some level of cope for a war which can't be won, and that should have been obvious from day 1.

On the plus side, if NATO thinks winning is losing ground it makes it more amenable to striking some sort of cease fire, so maybe losing territory is really the winning we need for peace.

 

I don't see either side really "winning" anything.

Ukraine is devastated and Russia's weakness is on global display.

The price Russia has payed, in lives, in reputation back home, in military equipment, and as damage to their economy wouldn't be worth it even if they captured the entirety of Ukraine.

 

What did we "win" in WW2?

Winning, ultimately, is about preventing your enemy from waging further war upon you.

Taking territory in WW2 was only ever about that ultimate goal of getting to Hitler, Imperial Japan, etc.

 

The Russian Army of today seems to be fighting with the same abilities and skills as the Red Army of the 1940's; in other words, grossly incompetent. However that's just part of Russian military history. Just look at the Chechen war, which cost the Russians a ridiculous amount of casualties, but what was the result? The Chechens ultimately lost. Unless the Russians just quit, they'll win this war.

 

I doubt the Kremlin would agree with your assessment.

 

That they're still fighting as they were in 1940 is why they lose on the global stage.

Making it evident they are no match for Europe, despite claiming they are, is the true loss for Russia.

 

We did lose territory in the war (The Philippines) and we fought to get it back.

 

That's because the Kremlin doesn't observe reality as valid.