Ukraine Endgame?

[BabyBoomer50s]

It’s becoming increasingly evident that the Ukraine war is not going to end in victory for either side. There will be no full Russian withdrawal and there will be no negotiated peace settlement. There will be an eventual cease fire with no final conclusion for years, probably decades.

 

[LupusDei]

It’s becoming increasingly evident that the Ukraine war is not going to end in victory for either side. There will be no full Russian withdrawal and there will be no negotiated peace settlement. There will be an eventual cease fire with no final conclusion for years, probably decades.

The short answer is, sadly yes.

Even if Ukraine succeeds in retaking most or all of its territories currently under Russian occupation, there would be no speedy peace agreement, at most an uneasy ceasefire.

It's yet too soon to offer guesses where the frontlines will end up, but wherever they will in a year or two, a prolonged "frozen" mostly artillery/drone war will likely continue a decade until/unless there's be significant political shifts in Russia.

It is Russia's war of choice, and sadly, they have and will continue to own the strategic initiative, ability to determine the timeline of the war, even if not necessary in success. The war was theirs to start and is theirs to end, in theory, at any moment, even if ending it would be, or at least be perceived by most as humiliating defeat, now, or actually, wherever it ends.

There is no viable theory of victory for Russia in this war. Their declared objectives are unreachable, and aren't finite or fully honest in any case, even full and uncontested victory in Ukraine, including full and complete genocide of Ukrainian nation would only be a preparatory effort for the "real" war, and stopping short of it or even then would be a defeat nevertheless.

Unfortunately, there is no willingness in current Russian ruling class to end the war. Ever. Twisted propaganda narrative as it is, the war is existential to them, and has no other ending than defeat, therefore the only viable way to keep power is to extend the war indefinitely. They are hard at work to incorporate this forever war in the very fabric of their regime (not that such need much adjustment, it's been there in form of so called "siege mentality" for a long time).

And there wouldn't be any "drive to Moscow." The necessary defeat of Russia will never be delivered until/unless they choose to accept it. There are obvious rational reasons why, and just as obvious interests to keep it that way.

 

[HisArpy]

The short answer is, sadly yes.

Even if Ukraine succeeds in retaking most or all of its territories currently under Russian occupation, there would be no speedy peace agreement, at most an uneasy ceasefire.

It's yet too soon to offer guesses where the frontlines will end up, but wherever they will in a year or two, a prolonged "frozen" mostly artillery/drone war will likely continue a decade until/unless there's be significant political shifts in Russia.

It is Russia's war of choice, and sadly, they have and will continue to own the strategic initiative, ability to determine the timeline of the war, even if not necessary in success. The war was theirs to start and is theirs to end, in theory, at any moment, even if ending it would be, or at least be perceived by most as humiliating defeat, now, or actually, wherever it ends.

There is no viable theory of victory for Russia in this war. Their declared objectives are unreachable, and aren't finite or fully honest in any case, even full and uncontested victory in Ukraine, including full and complete genocide of Ukrainian nation would only be a preparatory effort for the "real" war, and stopping short of it or even then would be a defeat nevertheless.

Unfortunately, there is no willingness in current Russian ruling class to end the war. Ever. Twisted propaganda narrative as it is, the war is existential to them, and has no other ending than defeat, therefore the only viable way to keep power is to extend the war indefinitely. They are hard at work to incorporate this forever war in the very fabric of their regime (not that such need much adjustment, it's been there in form of so called "siege mentality" for a long time).

And there wouldn't be any "drive to Moscow." The necessary defeat of Russia will never be delivered until/unless they choose to accept it. There are obvious rational reasons why, and just as obvious interests to keep it that way.

I actually disagree. Putin is driving this war to appease China. China wants the US to engage in Europe so that we won't have the ability to respond when they seize Taiwan.

The war ends when Putin dies or China realizes that the US isn't going to engage. There will be a treaty which, like the last treaty, won't be worth the paper it's written on but which purportedly ends the war at that point.

 

[LupusDei]

Yes, yes, everyone knows the official narrative. How could any sane, rational individual possibly NOT fall down before the altar of Dagon-America?

You DID notice that I spoke of doing the painful work of facing the history BEHIND the conflict, and the role of material necessity IN this conflict, I take it?

Where understanding of the origins of the US-NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is concerned, the real question is, ‘how far back do you want to go.’ Now, if you’re a ‘who fired the first shot, who crossed the first line’ guy, history means nothing. But I’m not that guy.

Five years after the October Revolution, the Soviet constitution was forged. At the insistence of Lenin and Trotsky, Ukrainian and Russian workers were put on identical footing in the new Republic as a matter of constitutional principle. As late as 1939, Trotsky defended powerfully the right of Ukrainians to withdraw from the Soviet Union. Stalin’s betrayal of Revolution notwithstanding, it was the 25 December dissolution of the USSR that culminated in these populations going for each other’s throats.

Throughout the 80s, the US sought to destabilize the Soviet Union with a massive military buildup [including ‘Star Wars’], and by fomenting a US-backed Islamist insurgency in Afghanistan. By the 90s, the bureaucracy had degenerated to the point that the US was able to invade Iraq with the support of the Soviet regime. It bears the responsible for the devastation wrought there. It is there that the 30 Years of War Timeline begins. I won’t hold anyone’s hand and walk them through what they’re capable of reading for themselves. But before censoring anyone for willful ignorance and/or naiveite, it behooves you at least to visit it.

But I will note that when the August ’91 Stalinist putsch failed, Trotskyists warned of the dangers of a restoration of Capitalism. David North stated:

‘Declaring “independence” from Moscow, the nationalists can do nothing more than place all the vital decisions relating to the future of their new states in the hands of Germany, Britain, France, Japan and the United States.’

That, the US and its allies were only too willing to do. Merely two months after the 25 December 1991 dissolution of the USSR, the US Department of Defense asserted the willingness of the United States to use military force to fill the vacuum and secure global economic hegemony:

‘There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor.’ [p 4].

That document is revised periodically. Bill Van Auken records the words of historian Arthur L. Herman to the Wall Street Journal. He said that the 2017 version [under Trump] recalled a world which existed more than a century earlier.

“This is the world of Otto von Bismarck, who said in 1862: “The great questions of the time are not decided by speeches and majority decisions. .. but by iron and blood.”

For good reason, the German nobleman, Bismarck, was known as the ‘Iron Chancellor.’

In addition to many other strategic questions, such as the December’94, Budapest Memorandum which laid the basis for the surrender of nuclear weapons by Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, the NATO alliance began expanding to Russia’s borders, contrary to assurances given to the Stalinist bureaucracy and the new ruling Capitalist oligarchy in Russia.

1999: Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO.
2004: The Baltic states (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania), Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Slovakia were admitted.
2009: Albania and Croatia were admitted.
2017: Montenegro was admitted.
2020: North Macedonia was admitted.

View attachment 2220497

The question to be asked and frankly faced is this: ‘at what point does simple honesty necessitate that the Russian General or politician recognize that with its allies secured throughout the region, the US seeks encirclement and full military domination, and that Russia and China must prepare for a ‘worst-case scenario,’ namely – world war.’

The issue is not ‘who fired the first shot.’ Our imperial aggressions are continual, and they put the lie to the noble rationales that are recited endlessly with every intervention. Our strategic doctrine which precludes the emergence of any potential future global competitor’ bars other nations the right of self-determination which we demand for ourselves.

Cavil as we may at others’ rule-breaking, no nation on earth can match our record of electoral interference, sponsoring insurrectionist movements, toppling elected leaders, assassinating elected leaders, currency attacks, low intensity warfare overt and clandestine occupations and on and on. Our crimes are legion. Our actions across generations put the lie to every rationale cited for justifying US interventions in global affairs.

The US government has published a list of rare, strategic minerals and metals deemed essential to industry and production; especially, many are deemed essential to the production of military materiel. THAT is the reason for this war. The US uses Ukraine as a platform for war on Russia, which will be reduced to defenseless statelets with semi-colonial status. They will then serve as a base for attacking China in the same way that Ukraine is the base for war on Russia.

It’s easy to say that President Putin is the worst. Perhaps. Yet our own Presidents, Republicans or Democrats – are right in there with him like so many dirty rags. The lot of them can go to the Hague.

So what will it be? Do we act like schoolboys who square off on ‘who crossed the line’ and ‘took the first swipe? OR, do we act like men, look at policies, and from that discern their strategic intent, and make ‘leaders’ answerable accordingly?

Edit: Syntax

Well... that's quite well presented propaganda piece, and as such, a wholly valid point of view. However, it's informed by legends and known half truths and most notably suffer from very simplistic views on big power politics that completely ignores the agency, initiative and actions of the supposed "subjects" of this cloud high level sight of "the big game."

Again, as such, it isn't even necessary wrong. Especially, when we look in the modern day economic incentives that can be linked to the conflict. However, I believe those, and the whole "American Imperialism" narrative in the whole are accidental outside interests in existing situation that wouldn't unfold principally different if were removed or even reversed.

Yes, I seriously claim that there would be this war, that Russia would have invaded and that Ukrainians would fight to some extent of success even if there was no NATO and US interests perfectly aligned with those of Moscow.

The whole "NATO expansion" narrative is the most laughable, and most demonstrative embrace of adversary propaganda. The "assurances given" of no NATO expansion are in fact limited to an incidental verbal utterance during unofficial part of a dinner. However, at the time it was honest and truthful opinion of the person providing them. Inclusion of, say, Baltic states in NATO was objectively unthinkable at that time.

Blue dream to some, perhaps. Certainly it was so for us, certain part of people on the ground in those very territories. We worked very hard and eventually laughed as thieves when successfully maneuvered the alliance in accepting us. Trust me, we knew what a time bomb we were carrying with us. To be totally frank, we have zero trust US would ever move in our defense, ditto France or even Germany. We have never counted on it, and never would, but we do and will excercise our influence in full to extract such assurances.

Meanwhile it isn't by accident Poland is arming at full throttle. Intermarium, an alliance spanning from Scandinavia to Black Sea, Finland to Ukraine, is a very old dream that has failed multiple times. It has bugs and insanely old grievances and wouldn't likely be possible without framework structure imported from outside, but both EU and NATO provide such frameworks right now. And a war against common enemy is extremely good motivation to revive it.

For us here, the frontline in Ukraine is our frontline. Principal frontline between civilizations that had been raging for millennia, and perhaps will. Interests of the US, very existence of US is incidental overseas background noise. That they are aligned with us, isn't entirely accidental of course, actually they're honor bound to be if not otherwise, and it is very helpful of course. But they aren't a principal player in this conflict.

 

[LupusDei]

I actually disagree. Putin is driving this war to appease China. China wants the US to engage in Europe so that we won't have the ability to respond when they seize Taiwan.

The war ends when Putin dies or China realizes that the US isn't going to engage. There will be a treaty which, like the last treaty, won't be worth the paper it's written on but which purportedly ends the war at that point.

I believe China was blindsided by the war going hot. It seriously upended their game. Putin is failing to get assistance from China he had been counting upon, that he needs to avoid obvious defeat.

 

[Rightguide]

The short answer is, sadly yes.

Even if Ukraine succeeds in retaking most or all of its territories currently under Russian occupation, there would be no speedy peace agreement, at most an uneasy ceasefire.

It's yet too soon to offer guesses where the frontlines will end up, but wherever they will in a year or two, a prolonged "frozen" mostly artillery/drone war will likely continue a decade until/unless there's be significant political shifts in Russia.

It is Russia's war of choice, and sadly, they have and will continue to own the strategic initiative, ability to determine the timeline of the war, even if not necessary in success. The war was theirs to start and is theirs to end, in theory, at any moment, even if ending it would be, or at least be perceived by most as humiliating defeat, now, or actually, wherever it ends.

There is no viable theory of victory for Russia in this war. Their declared objectives are unreachable, and aren't finite or fully honest in any case, even full and uncontested victory in Ukraine, including full and complete genocide of Ukrainian nation would only be a preparatory effort for the "real" war, and stopping short of it or even then would be a defeat nevertheless.

Unfortunately, there is no willingness in current Russian ruling class to end the war. Ever. Twisted propaganda narrative as it is, the war is existential to them, and has no other ending than defeat, therefore the only viable way to keep power is to extend the war indefinitely. They are hard at work to incorporate this forever war in the very fabric of their regime (not that such need much adjustment, it's been there in form of so called "siege mentality" for a long time).

And there wouldn't be any "drive to Moscow." The necessary defeat of Russia will never be delivered until/unless they choose to accept it. There are obvious rational reasons why, and just as obvious interests to keep it that way.

How many men are left in the Ukrainian army reserves? All we hear about is Russia's gigantic losses of both men and material, against half of that number of losses for the Ukrainians. But now there are credible American sources that are saying those numbers should actually be reversed and that is the Ukrainian army that is being annihilated and that is totally outnumbered by Russian men and artillery that are either there or are coming online. Russia does have a bigger population to draw from and there is a national mobilization underway. Col Douglas MacGregor says the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian artillery is as much as 10-1 and that ammunition supplies to Ukraine are becoming problematic for the west who have drawn down their stores to dangerous levels. The Colonel claims his sources in Ukraine and western Europe are telling him that Bakhmut will be known in the future as the graveyard of the Ukrainian army. Who to believe?

 

[ll74]

How many men are left in the Ukrainian army reserves? All we hear about is Russia's gigantic losses of both men and material, against half of that number of losses for the Ukrainians. But now there are credible American sources that are saying those numbers should actually be reversed and that is the Ukrainian army that is being annihilated and that is totally outnumbered by Russian men and artillery that are either there or are coming online. Russia does have a bigger population to draw from and there is a national mobilization underway. Col Douglas MacGregor says the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian artillery is as much as 10-1 and that ammunition supplies to Ukraine are becoming problematic for the west who have drawn down their stores to dangerous levels. The Colonel claims his sources in Ukraine and western Europe are telling him that Bakhmut will be known in the future as the graveyard of the Ukrainian army. Who to believe?

MacGregor seems to be the only guy on the topic you'll listen to.

 

[LupusDei]

How many men are left in the Ukrainian army reserves? All we hear about is Russia's gigantic losses of both men and material, against half of that number of losses for the Ukrainians. But now there are credible American sources that are saying those numbers should actually be reversed and that is the Ukrainian army that is being annihilated and that is totally outnumbered by Russian men and artillery that are either there or are coming online. Russia does have a bigger population to draw from and there is a national mobilization underway. Col Douglas MacGregor says the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian artillery is as much as 10-1 and that ammunition supplies to Ukraine are becoming problematic for the west who have drawn down their stores to dangerous levels. The Colonel claims his sources in Ukraine and western Europe are telling him that Bakhmut will be known in the future as the graveyard of the Ukrainian army. Who to believe?

Well, that's the billion dollar question, isn't it. Ukraine jealousy guard information about their losses, and those are mounting, no doubt, but if they were as catastrophic as the worst claims paint, it wouldn't be possible to suppress.

A significant disconnect in information spaces is between "loses" understood as deaths, and "casualties" numbers that include wounded, including full recovery wounds. The total number of casualties between sides may well be if not similar, then comparable, but I still believe Ukrainian casualties are less than Russian overall.

Then the principal difference is in training and treatment. Ukrainians have very good medical and evac and good modern proportions of 5-7 wounded per death, and return a good number of those to service.

Russians on the other hand practice no field medicine. None. Allegedly their updated field manuals forbid attacking soldiers to even try to evacuate wounded, supposedly trusting that specialist medical teams would come to get them. Such teams... there's not much evidence they exist. There's a lot of speculation of course, and little hard data, but it's possible Russians have as few as 1.2-1.5 wounded per death. Yes, it's medieval.

Ukraine is not short of manpower, not yet anyhow. They still struggle to arm and outfit them. Russia wasn't short of mobiks either for the winter, but how depleted they really are coming out of their big attack drive (at one point there were nine separate efforts underway) is disputed. And yes, both sides are continuing mobilization, despite claims of the contrary.

Ukrainians enjoy to be underrated and engage in strategic deception. Some arguably hysterical Russians claim Ukrainians are concentrating 200,000 strong force near Bahmut for a Stalingrad style counter attack. That's probably... not quite near truth, especially as it's fairly unlikely the eagerly anticipated Ukrainian spring offensive would occur in that direction. But it is known Ukraine has reserves, including there.

Bahmut is defended by comparably small forces at any given time, on constant rotation of smaller split elements of many different units. Access to the city isn't ideal but isn't disrupted either. What's the logic of it all is hard to say, but... in gaming terms it's like they're farming experience. Don't know can it work like that in real life.

A typical engagement there is looking like, a fortified position of 4-6 Ukrainians is being attacked by 20+ Russians who are trying to outflank them. An Ukrainian drone is watching the attackers, and Russians are wiped out by phenomenally accurate artillery fire. Then Russian artillery is trying to erase the discovered position (that's why they have to fall back, if you stay put, you die, eventually). Rinse and repeat every few hours.

The decision to hold there is debatable, but defendable, although probably more politically than militarily. However there's merit to hold in urban terrain, and falling back to next such just means, the next set of towns will be erased the same way. Its also said it's crucial to deny Bahmut as logistics connection and hub to Russians, at least as long as possible.

Artillery shell hunger is now mutual. Both sides are conserving ammunition. But it's true that at it's worst Russians fired 20x the volume. Ukrainians fire less, but are reportedly far more efficient and accurate. Now Russians can't maintain their volume either, and the advantage had shrunk, but Russians probably fire more on total volume still.

There is belief Ukraine will recover from the current shortages first, but it may be rather relatively, at least for now. Although there are good news, like It's recently reported a new 122mm artillery shells production capacity has come online in cooperation of Ukraine with an unnamed partner country. Understandably, no specifics are reported. There are other wide efforts to increase ammo production, but those mostly would only bear fruit in future. However, the same dubious Russian sources claim Ukraine has increased shelling volume significantly (the literal claim was "dozens of times") in the last days, concluding they fire because they can. Those combatants would happily fire the entire world's ammunition stock at each other.

Are the Russian ammo shortages merely logistical or more global is still unclear, but the global shortages may not be far off for them tok, even if the previously offered calculations seemed to indicate they should have enough stored to fire until about autumn of this year. The quality of the long storage material (it's rusted through) might be one reason they're experiencing shortages sooner than anticipated. If China isn't starting deliveries Russians may be in trouble. Instead, Russians are whining about Ukrainians&co having bought out the entire stock of Chinese commercial drone parts.

The anticipated Ukrainian offensive, I wouldn't hold my breath for it, and would rather keep expectations modest. They themselves say it's like two months out, but just now issued another appeal to keep opsec and refrain from discussion about it in public. In northeast it's still mud anyway. The southern direction may or not have alredry dried, and some say it's where it's coming, but, it's also told that forced to choose, Putin would rather keep Mariupol than Donetsk, and the Kherson campaign last fall wasn't encouraging (even though Russians were convinced to leave eventually, it was more costly than it should have been and didn't do nearly enough damage to Russians who eventually withdrew on own choice and in order).

 

[Holy_Seduction]

More telling is the economic situation:

IMF props up Ukraine with $15.6 billion loan package​

Jason Melanovski​

19 hours ago​

‘Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have agreed upon a $15.6 billion loan package dedicated to propping up the Ukrainian government, which saw its economy shrink by over 30 percent in 2022, even as it sharply raised military spending to fund its ongoing war with Russia.’​

Among socialists, we have a ‘joke’ that the US is prepared to fight Russia to the very last Ukrainian.’ [Our jokes are intended not to be funny, but to make a point].​

Assuming that we are not dragged into WW III and nuclear war, Ukraine may well become the world’s next failed state. It’s sad, and totally unnecessary.​

 

[ll74]

Well, that's the billion dollar question, isn't it. Ukraine jealousy guard information about their losses, and those are mounting, no doubt, but if they were as catastrophic as the worst claims paint, it wouldn't be possible to suppress.

A significant disconnect in information spaces is between "loses" understood as deaths, and "casualties" numbers that include wounded, including full recovery wounds. The total number of casualties between sides may well be if not similar, then comparable, but I still believe Ukrainian casualties are less than Russian overall.

Then the principal difference is in training and treatment. Ukrainians have very good medical and evac and good modern proportions of 5-7 wounded per death, and return a good number of those to service.

Russians on the other hand practice no field medicine. None. Allegedly their updated field manuals forbid attacking soldiers to even try to evacuate wounded, supposedly trusting that specialist medical teams would come to get them. Such teams... there's not much evidence they exist. There's a lot of speculation of course, and little hard data, but it's possible Russians have as few as 1.2-1.5 wounded per death. Yes, it's medieval.

Ukraine is not short of manpower, not yet anyhow. They still struggle to arm and outfit them. Russia wasn't short of mobiks either for the winter, but how depleted they really are coming out of their big attack drive (at one point there were nine separate efforts underway) is disputed. And yes, both sides are continuing mobilization, despite claims of the contrary.

Ukrainians enjoy to be underrated and engage in strategic deception. Some arguably hysterical Russians claim Ukrainians are concentrating 200,000 strong force near Bahmut for a Stalingrad style counter attack. That's probably... not quite near truth, especially as it's fairly unlikely the eagerly anticipated Ukrainian spring offensive would occur in that direction. But it is known Ukraine has reserves, including there.

Bahmut is defended by comparably small forces at any given time, on constant rotation of smaller split elements of many different units. Access to the city isn't ideal but isn't disrupted either. What's the logic of it all is hard to say, but... in gaming terms it's like they're farming experience. Don't know can it work like that in real life.

A typical engagement there is looking like, a fortified position of 4-6 Ukrainians is being attacked by 20+ Russians who are trying to outflank them. An Ukrainian drone is watching the attackers, and Russians are wiped out by phenomenally accurate artillery fire. Then Russian artillery is trying to erase the discovered position (that's why they have to fall back, if you stay put, you die, eventually). Rinse and repeat every few hours.

The decision to hold there is debatable, but defendable, although probably more politically than militarily. However there's merit to hold in urban terrain, and falling back to next such just means, the next set of towns will be erased the same way. Its also said it's crucial to deny Bahmut as logistics connection and hub to Russians, at least as long as possible.

Artillery shell hunger is now mutual. Both sides are conserving ammunition. But it's true that at it's worst Russians fired 20x the volume. Ukrainians fire less, but are reportedly far more efficient and accurate. Now Russians can't maintain their volume either, and the advantage had shrunk, but Russians probably fire more on total volume still.

There is belief Ukraine will recover from the current shortages first, but it may be rather relatively, at least for now. Although there are good news, like It's recently reported a new 122mm artillery shells production capacity has come online in cooperation of Ukraine with an unnamed partner country. Understandably, no specifics are reported. There are other wide efforts to increase ammo production, but those mostly would only bear fruit in future. However, the same dubious Russian sources claim Ukraine has increased shelling volume significantly (the literal claim was "dozens of times") in the last days, concluding they fire because they can. Those combatants would happily fire the entire world's ammunition stock at each other.

Are the Russian ammo shortages merely logistical or more global is still unclear, but the global shortages may not be far off for them tok, even if the previously offered calculations seemed to indicate they should have enough stored to fire until about autumn of this year. The quality of the long storage material (it's rusted through) might be one reason they're experiencing shortages sooner than anticipated. If China isn't starting deliveries Russians may be in trouble. Instead, Russians are whining about Ukrainians&co having bought out the entire stock of Chinese commercial drone parts.

The anticipated Ukrainian offensive, I wouldn't hold my breath for it, and would rather keep expectations modest. They themselves say it's like two months out, but just now issued another appeal to keep opsec and refrain from discussion about it in public. In northeast it's still mud anyway. The southern direction may or not have alredry dried, and some say it's where it's coming, but, it's also told that forced to choose, Putin would rather keep Mariupol than Donetsk, and the Kherson campaign last fall wasn't encouraging (even though Russians were convinced to leave eventually, it was more costly than it should have been and didn't do nearly enough damage to Russians who eventually withdrew on own choice and in order).

I'd say that it doesn't matter how many Ukrainian troops are dying. They are defending their country and will continue to do so as long as the invaders continue their incursion. All that matters is whether Russia has lost enough troops to seek an end..whether that be a complete withdraw or an invitation to negotiating.

 

[LupusDei]

I'd say that it doesn't matter how many Ukrainian troops are dying. They are defending their country and will continue to do so as long as the invaders continue their incursion.

Well, that's a bit strange way to put it. Ukrainian loses does matter in regards to their ability to continue their fight. (We may believe that our fallen will come back to continue the fight, but it usually would take at least a generation for them to be reborn.)

The Russian war aims are explicitly to kill Ukrainians. So, from Ukrainian perspective, wining means staying alive. Of course, not necessarily at any price, if the alternative is enslavement, fight to death may be more appealing to many, and they are arguably in that exact situation.

So, we may argue that there is significant tolerance to loses, but still way less than for a slave army like Russians. Ideally, we want at least five dead Russians for every Ukrainian.

 

[ll74]

Well, that's a bit strange way to put it. Ukrainian loses does matter in regards to their ability to continue their fight. (We may believe that our fallen will come back to continue the fight, but it usually would take at least a generation for them to be reborn.)

The Russian war aims are explicitly to kill Ukrainians. So, from Ukrainian perspective, wining means staying alive. Of course, not necessarily at any price, if the alternative is enslavement, fight to death may be more appealing to many, and they are arguably in that exact situation.

So, we may argue that there is significant tolerance to loses, but still way less than for a slave army like Russians. Ideally, we want at least five dead Russians for every Ukrainian.

If they choose to defend their land to the death, that's their prerogative..and nobody would fault them for it. That's my point.....the pressure should be on Russia and countries that support Russia.....

 

[Chobham]

Well, that's a bit strange way to put it. Ukrainian loses does matter in regards to their ability to continue their fight. (We may believe that our fallen will come back to continue the fight, but it usually would take at least a generation for them to be reborn.)

The Russian war aims are explicitly to kill Ukrainians. So, from Ukrainian perspective, wining means staying alive. Of course, not necessarily at any price, if the alternative is enslavement, fight to death may be more appealing to many, and they are arguably in that exact situation.

So, we may argue that there is significant tolerance to loses, but still way less than for a slave army like Russians. Ideally, we want at least five dead Russians for every Ukrainian.

The Ukrainians need a 8 to 1 ratio to prevail. Pure population profiles. The current estimates run from 4:1 to 6:1 and that isn't going to cut it.

Now we get into the intangibles. How motivated are the new Russian conscripts? Historically the Russians were the invadees not the invaders. The scenario has changed now. Are the Russians willing to sacrifice their youth for the grand desires of Putin?

Now that the Russians have shown themselves to be inept are combined arms warfare and reverted back to their historical tactics of artillery and human wave attacks how long can they sustain same? It is effective if you have a significant manpower advantage, and they do............for now. Given that the Russians fertility rate is in free fall (so is most of Europe's) how long before the mothers revolt?

It's obvious now that the Russian objective is to reduce Ukraine to rubble, an uninhabitable territory. And the Ukraine objective is to effectively reduce the Russians logistics train to ineffectiveness. An army marches on beans and bullets and if you take either one away, they quit marching.

By July we should know one way or the other.

 

[LupusDei]

Now we get into the intangibles. How motivated are the new Russian conscripts? Historically the Russians were the invadees not the invaders. The scenario has changed now. Are the Russians willing to sacrifice their youth for the grand desires of Putin?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1639757260766191619

By the way, apparently, these are not convicts. They're all mobilised with previous military experience. Grey Zone found all these people on social media. Russians use blocking units against experienced, valuable (for them) mobiks.

 

[Chobham]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1639757260766191619

Yeah, a lot of mixed messaging coming out of the war zone.

 

[HisArpy]

I believe China was blindsided by the war going hot. It seriously upended their game. Putin is failing to get assistance from China he had been counting upon, that he needs to avoid obvious defeat.

I don't read this as factual. China just had a State visit with Russia where they came to agreement on several issues, some of which involved the sale of arms to Russia as well as the construction of a pipeline between Russia and China. That doesn't sound like China was blindsided, it sounds like Chinese support for, and resupply of, the Russian war effort.

Meanwhile China is also increasing their aggressive posture in the South China Sea.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

...

Meanwhile China is also increasing their aggressive posture in the South China Sea.

They recognize weakness and a vacuum of leadership, so the ease into the breach.

Like Hitler, they were prepared to tactically retreat and wait if their incursions had met with firm pushback.

 

[HisArpy]

They recognize weakness and a vacuum of leadership, so the ease into the breach.

Like Hitler, they were prepared to tactically retreat and wait if their incursions had met with firm pushback.

China is like a Chihuahua, they bite your ankles until you kick them.

Saudi Arabia officially joining forces with known enemies of the US is much more terrifying and a larger indication of how little real strength Brandon and his administration have.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Indeed.

 

[ll74]

Saudi Arabia officially joining forces with known enemies of the US is much more terrifying and a larger indication of how little real strength Brandon and his administration have.

They're just doing what their paid advisor, Jared, is telling them to do.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

They're just doing what their paid advisor, Jared, is telling them to do.

Still hating on the Jews, eh? You make a better Nazi than the people here accused of being Nazis...

 

[LupusDei]

I don't read this as factual. China just had a State visit with Russia where they came to agreement on several issues, some of which involved the sale of arms to Russia as well as the construction of a pipeline between Russia and China. That doesn't sound like China was blindsided, it sounds like Chinese support for, and resupply of, the Russian war effort.

Meanwhile China is also increasing their aggressive posture in the South China Sea.

They did talk about pipelines and weapons and what not. Talk. But they didn't sign anything. None of those got the prepared documents signed. The pipeline project is all but dropped by them right now.

Chinese largest container operator has ended business with Russia. Chinese credit card companies Russians jumped to have now dropped them too. Chinese international infrastructure bank dropped all Russian projects the first month after the invasion last year, and haven't picked back up anything. And so forth.

They sell some stuff, yes, but the closest thing to weapons to Russia so far had been a couple hundred AR15 clones, civilian rifles. Uniforms and so forth, there's a rumor they pack and load orders to Russia and Ukraine side by side, literally, and doing more business with Ukrainians. It's even more lopsided on drones and drone parts, where Ukrainians and affiliated international buyers are clearing stock in advance so that Russians are left with "sold out" stickers.

Xi may yet ride to Putin's rescue, but it doesn't seem like he was preparing to do so anytime soon.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

They do not have public high-level talks unless something is going to be achieved.

You do not have to sign papers to send messages...

 

[ll74]

Still hating on the Jews, eh? You make a better Nazi than the people here accused of being Nazis...

Where did I hate on anyone here?

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Really? Own up to it. Some of us "get" implication and understand the history of animus towards Jared being given a prominent position.


Post #149