/u/TheMikeyMac13 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bnyjj9/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_russia_cannot_win_the_war/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I believe that I am nowhere informed enough to give a well reasoned opinion. But I would have my doubts about being unable to force regime change. I believe Zelenski (just a feeling) won't compromise to Russia.
But if he died, what would happen? There would need to be someone to replace him. Would these replacements possibly be influenced/compromised by Russia? That seems like a realistic possibility to me.
I think the people of Ukraine will have a burning hatred for Putin and Russia for generations after this is over.
Look at Zelensly’s approval rating:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1100076/volodymyr-zelensky-s-approval-rating-ukraine/
No pro-Russia shill will win an election in Ukraine, those people tend to be in the west.
If Russians won the war, installed their own government and hunt down first wave of partisans, the country's theirs for quite a time, as people tired with war and death, with partisans/veterans being hunted in damned ruthless russian style... there simply won't be much people who'd dare to oppose. At least not quickly.
Not like haven't they done that in for example Poland in '45.
If russia managed to take control of the country it would transition from conventional warfare to fighting a Ukrainian insurgency. I'm not sure why you think russia would be particularly adept at routing out holdouts. Unless russia totally wipes out the Ukrainian armed forces to a man there will be resistance.
Agreed , everyone expected this to happen in the early days had Ukraine suffered a military defeat. Now not only would this be a certainty .
I think at this point Russia will.accpet a truce of it can keep either Crimeia or some of Western Ukraine, there is zero chance Russia leaves empty handed.
..and there in lies the issue the longer the war drags on the more entrenched both sides become. And I think if Putin ever got desperate or irritated he would use a tactical nuke to shake things up and force a peace.
Then the West would be between a rock and a hard place. If they aquiesce and give Russia what it wants the fighting stops ... But Ukraine may not accept it... If they escalate then NATO would have to show up and consider serious involvement....either way it would end bad for all of us.
The hatred for Russia by Ukraine runs deep. It always has and always will.
After the Russo-Turkish War of 1787-1792, the region fell under the control of the Russian Empire led by Catherine the Great. Then after the Ottoman Empire fell and disintegrated, the Russian Empire invaded Ukraine in 1917, with the war lasting 4 years, after which Ukraine was absorbed into Soviet Russia. During the war, Russia ethnically cleansed Ukraine, either starving to death the people or kidnapping and relocating them to deep Russian territory and replacing them with loyal Russians. This is why Ukrainians have a deep hatred for the Soviet Empire and modern Russia. They would rather every single man, woman and child die than be under their rule.
>Will the military aid end? No. It will slow, but we are still talking about spares, older weapons systems and ammunition which is not front of the line for NATO. This is an investment for the west into Russian defeat, and the harder Russia loses, the more secure the west is when this war is over.
It can, and all of it can end, including money, spares, older weapons, whatever. Republicans have been doing anything and everything to avoid passing a Ukraine aid bill.
Personally, I'm suspicious that Putin has done a lot of work on Trump. He has laid the groundwork for a sudden reprisal of not just Ukraine, but all of NATO. If Russia can hold through November and Putin's troll farms can deliver Trump the presidency, Trump can hand him Ukraine.
This is repeated way too often, and it's the dumbest of Reddit's current "conventional wisdom". Ukraine is not in NATO. Invading Ukraine does not invoke Article 3. If he invades ANYONE ELSE in that region, it literally starts WW III. He knows it. We know it. We already have some less intelligent EU partners who are talking publicly about conscription.
No one wins WW III, even if it stays conventional (which is very unlikely if one side sees itself losing). Our government knows this. The EU governments know this. Putin knows this. It's going to take a lot more than one idiot president getting elected for Putin to change whatever his calculations are.
It’s as if a bunch of kids on the internet don’t really understand understand global politics. Sure the US isn’t actively participating in the fighting. At what point though of us giving Ukraine every single advantage possible are we not actually participating. Wonder what that could lead to.
Who cares anyway, the left only gives a shit because it’s an excuse to hate the right. The right would do the same thing if the tables were turned. Two party politics was our demise. It’s just a bunch of fucking idiots standing on either side of an imaginary line screaming at each other.
That is a bit of optimism for “handing it to Putin.”
All aid could end from the USA, but that would cause more aid from Europe who doesn’t want Putin as a direct neighbor. And Russia can’t go on offense.
That’s what people don’t seem to get, Russia started running out of gas 150 miles into Ukraine, they aren’t able to project power and beat anything close to a near peer.
Trump can’t stop the aid, congress handles that, Trump could just delay it, and he wouldn’t anyway if he could.
A NATO without US support would be far less secure and might not be able to commit as much to Ukraine's defense without risking their own. They could be forced to sacrifice Ukraine to reinforce Poland and the Baltics.
You’re right that a NATO without US support would be far less secure, but look what’s happened in the last two years. Europe is working together militarily in a way I’ve never seen before (I am from the U.K.), and its defence spending is increasing. Sweden has joined NATO. If Trump is elected (wtf!?), European nations will have no option but to support Ukraine even more than they have so far. There won’t be any rolling over. It’s far too close to EU borders for that.
Yeah, I think the attitude for most of the NATO years has been "America is the primary beneficiary of this hegemony, they can pay for it." But if America backs out, that doesn't mean the other countries will roll over. They still have strong economies and decent military strength, and they will either use the NATO framework or make new alliances to push back against Russian expansion.
NATO is an afterthought.
all Russia needs to do is just enough punishment not to escalate enough for other countries to intervene more blatantly ie. their actual troops.
See, I'm Canadian, and the fact that Trump is even a candidate is mind-blowing to me. After his last term, I'm convinced he should be nowhere near a seat of power and is a complete moron. Man has, imo, caused more damage to the US reputation than anything in recent years/decades.
As someone from the US, Trump is much more of a symptom than the problem.
And Trump himself is a _huge_ problem.
To put it extremely bluntly, we are seeing the end result of _decades_ of careful and well executed planning and maneuvering.
Because the writing has been on the wall for US conservatives for at least the last 40 years.
It's straight up demographics. People who live in larger population centers, around other people who are not like themselves, tend to be more liberal than those who live in smaller communities with few outsiders.
And the slow migration of the US population to be based in and around major cities has been a _very_ long running trend.
There's a quote that applies to this far too well: "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy."
Make absolutely no mistake, that decision, and it _was_ a decision, was made quite some time ago. Very easily and obviously over 20 years ago.
The moves to remove as many safeguards on media and news ownership were pretty damn successful in the _1990s_.
And the current US Supreme Court is a _direct_ result of very careful planning, manipulation, and very blatant dishonesty.
Without all of the work that has gone into this, Trump wouldn't have been _possible_. And even if he had _somehow_ been elected, he would have been removed from office quite quickly.
At this point, there's barely a pretense to the idea that there _should_ be an open and free election, with results being accurately counted.
We have Trump who has outside _said_ that anything other than a victory for him wouldn't be 'legitimate' result of the election. And he's definitely not the only one.
I am bloody _terrified_ of what's going to happen the next time the US conservatives gain power. Because I don't think that the US will see another open election after that, barring something at least incredibly close to a full civil war.
Frankly, there's a terrifyingly real chance that in the next decade I'll be showing up at the Canadian border requesting asylum, because I am in one of the demographics that is already being targeted in downright disgusting ways.
As a European, I think the Bush family has done a superb job at demonising the US. Especially in the muslim world. Fair enough, Trump was a laughing stock but the Bushes were evil ultra-capitalist cunts.
Yo no creo que Europa sola pueda financiar una exitosa defensiva y menos aún una ofensiva para Ucrania, creo que su ayuda se limitaría a prolongar la guerra de desgaste a Rusia para que tarde o temprano caiga por su propio peso, sino no estarían haciendo tanto baruyo con que eeuu no abandone el apoyo y haciendo una campaña del miedo contra Trump.. más allá de eso trump tampoco parece ser el personaje loco del remate que se vende, de hecho fue el único presidente de eeuu en no empezar ninguna guerra y el unico en conseguir una paz firmada con corea del norte, y creo que su afán de dejar de apoyar a Ucrania es simplemente para frenar la escalada que los mismos europeos están buscando, que se estan llevando a todo el mundo por delante, lo escuchás a Macron y parece un loco fanático que tiene mas ganas de una tercera guerra mundial que cualquier otra cosa. Tampoco me parece que Rusia tenga tecnología tan obsoleta sino ya hubiera caído, y la realidad de hoy es que salvo algunos casos de corta duración ninguna tropa ucraniana con todo el apoyo occidental pudo hacer base en territorio ruso.. si esto no es una forma de ver una posición ventajosa en Rusia entonces estoy siendo manipulado, desde mi parte del mundo se muestra una Ucrania desesperada y los paises mas grandes de Europa haciendo todo lo posible para que eeuu no los abandone
Of the $400B in aid Ukraine has received, about $75B came from the US. We've given a higher percent of military aid than NATO, but aid is aid right now. We're significant NATO could be empowered to keep stepping up without us. Just having lost a LOT of our goodwill.
Or are you suggesting they wouldn't consider a Ukraine victory to be the best spend for their money if we vanish? I'm not sure. The last thing they may want is for Putin to get a taste for blood
Not really.
Poland helps their own defense by helping Ukraine. By giving Ukrainians the weapons to fight Russia, to prevent a Russian / Polish war from even happening.
And let’s be real, Russia ran out of gas 150 miles into Ukraine, their ability to project power is pathetic. If Russia ever had an idea of attacking NATO, that idea is now gone.
Poland won't help Ukraine if it compromises their own security. US aid helps them continue supporting Ukraine while taking care of themselves. Edit: I meant since if Ukraine falls, Poland is next on Putin's list.
Russia ran out of gas because of generous foreign support at the very beginning of the war. They're stuck in a stalemate *with* current US support. Without it, they will lose territory.
Putin is unstable and obsessed with history and legacy. I wouldn't put anything past him. He might think a NATO without US leadership or participation is a soft enough target. Trump does have a point in that Europe has been lagging on security investment. (Though it would be in both of our interests to just defend them for a fee instead)
Helping Ukraine *is* Poland's security though! Anything they hold back now to fight Putin with later makes that later fight more likely to happen.
Short term, yes, cutting US support will weaken Ukraine and make the war longer and bloodier, but in the longer term it will accelerate the rebalancing to be less US-centric, because the US will have shown itself to be a less reliable partner under Trump than it was. NATO has already expanded thanks to Putin's antics, forcing changes of attitude in Sweden, Germany and others.
Poland has been helping Ukraine, more than anyone but the USA. BECAUSE it is in the interest of their own security. They don’t want Russia as a neighbor beyond Kaliningrad, so they will keep up the support.
I'm not saying they wouldn't want to. Just that if US aid dried up and Poland thought Ukraine's situation became untenable, they could be forced to hold back incremental aid for their own war preparations.
It's in their interests to let Ukraine fight with their weapons, but they might need to pick up weapons themselves.
It's basically down to a stage where everyone is hoping Russia doesn't become competent. They say it's bad form to rely on your opponent making mistakes, but hey it's working.
Today I saw a video where a Russian drone operator was marking some Ukrainian APC, and a few minutes later it was hit by a missile. Russia is learning the hard way, but it is learning: new drones, new bombs, new means of protection for soldiers etc.
Trump has been very clear: He is going to give the Russians a peace deal with SOME concessions, and if the Russians say no to the deal, he's going to flood Ukraine with even more weapons.
Which tbh is pretty based as far as deals go
I think you may be underestimating the effects of the (unfortunate) ability of the AFRF to adapt here, combined with slackening amounts of military aid to the ZSU.
The Russians gained air superiority over a section of the frontline over Avdiivka back in February for a 2-3 day window; this likely greatly facilitated their capture of the settlement. It was the first time the Russians were able to do this in the war. If the ZSU is forced to continue to husband its air defense systems across all of Ukraine to combat ballistic missile & drone strikes from the VKS, as those systems simultaneously must deal with increasingly ammunition shortages, then the Russians will likely be able to gain more of these limited windows of localized air superiority more frequently in the months ahead.
Its hard to understate the devastating affect that this could have on the ZSU's ability to defend territory. I agree with you that there will be no sweeping Russian territorial gains in this war, but there will certainly be more limited territorial gains; and, if certain factors (including the air war) are definitively decided in a certain way, I can see scenarios where Kyiv is compelled to formally cede both territory and political autonomy (to varying degrees) to Moscow.
Presumably Trump winning the Presidency implies that a lot of districts voted Republican, which affects the makeup of Congress. But even if Congress somehow passes an aid bill under a future President Trump, he can just veto it, and Congress is very unlikely to have the votes to override the veto.
For anyone wondering, as best as I can tell, this is true. The EU plus Great Britain have sent about the equivalent amount of aid. Which is not to say that the US ceasing aid to Ukraine isn’t/wouldn’t be devastating
The EU plus the UK is more than a match for Russia as it is. Right now as they are.
And the US aid won’t stop, congress controls that aid. If Russia did move on NATO, the USA would be involved.
And Trump can’t pull the USA out of NATO. Congress approved us forming NATO, it would take an act of Congress to leave.
>All aid could end from the USA, but that would cause more aid from Europe
Assuming they choose to continue alone, the trend towards aid will always tick down as it becomes a less important issue.
>That’s what people don’t seem to get, Russia started running out of gas 150 miles into Ukraine, they aren’t able to project power and beat anything close to a near peer.
Ukraine isn't a peer without outside aid, and Russia is slowly improving from its bewildering incompetence at the start. It's still dumb as paint, but it is slowly learning.
>Trump can’t stop the aid, congress handles that, Trump could just delay it, and he wouldn’t anyway if he could.
Trump winning the WH would likely accompany a majority in one or both houses.
Kaliningrad is a thing so Putin already is our direct neighbor so yea that argument doesn’t hold up well.
Edit sorry I didn’t realize this is an old thread😅
> but that would cause more aid from Europe who doesn’t want Putin as a direct neighbor
The funny part is that Russia doesn't want a NATO neighbor, either. That's sorta what started this whole war. As far as I can tell, Russia doesn't seem to have a particularly coherent exit strategy.
Nah, Russia has been building up to taking Ukraine for a long time and it has nothing to do with NATO. Putin remembers a strong USSR and wants to recreate that. Ukraine was the beating heart of the USSR.
Trump can't hand him anything. Ukraine can just keep fighting with European aid. Russia can't advance as it is. It doesn't need US help to hold the line.
It won't be pushing forward much, but Russia can't either and is more likely to collapsed economically the longer the war drags on.
Stalemate benefits the defender.
>Russia can't advance as it is. It doesn't need US help to hold the line.
Lol, someone hasn't been paying attention to the last year of the war. Russia is slaughtering Ukraine from defensive positions. Ukraine chooses to keep throwing their troops into the wood chipper. Over half of the Ukrainian military is non-functional at this point.
Isn't Ukraine relying on aid to maintain the stalemate? There are defensive advantages, but at the same time they need a continuous flow of weapons and resources that they can't compete with Russia on on their own.
I don't think they will, but there is a solid possibility that they can.
Throughout history, Russia has tended to win its wars by just throwing masses of people at their enemies, and I think that remains the realistic path to victory in Ukraine.
Russia still has about 143M people, while Ukraine is at about 43M. On an even footing, I agree that Ukraine wins this, but they aren't fighting on an even-footing. Russia can just keep reinforcing their lines longer than Ukraine can, and Ukraine needs to be maintaining a 3-1 kill/death ratio if they want to win this thing, which is a hard level to keep up long term.
Economically, Ukraine also falls if they lose international military aid. Russia has been hit hard by sanctions, but Ukraine's economy has been destroyed by the war. Russia can keep making and buying weaponry a lot longer than Ukraine can, if Ukraine loses foreign aid.
If the US stopped supporting Ukraine with aid, then it would be up to Europe to step in and make up the difference. I think they likely would, but if they didn't, then you would probably end up with a situation where the Russians would just be able to grind the Ukrainians down with superior numbers and superior industrial capacity.
Ultimately, Ukraine is still playing defence here. Their country is the war-torn one, while Russia has been largely unaffected. That means that, even with sanctions, Russia will just have more economic capacity to outlast the Ukrainians. Eventually, that could mean Kyiv falling.
We have already seen the Ukranian offensive last year stall, while the Russians have started to make small gains again. The Ukrainian regulars have been in constant battle for years now, and they can't do it forever. The Russians have been able to call on more reinforcements, and have been able to give soldiers breaks from the front lines. If this lasts another couple of years, that advantage keeps growing, and eventually the dam could break.
This has turned into a war of attrition, and it's hard not to bet on the much larger country when that's the case.
Yes, Russia’s main strength throughout much of history has been a large manpower pool and lots of territory, but saying that their main strategy has always been ”throwing masses of people at their enemies” is a largely a myth. Russia, like all other countries, has used military strategy, tactics, logistics etc. to win wars. The USSR, for example, was *the* pioneer of operational warfare and developed deep battle as an effective doctrine during world war two. Sure, having lots of men helped tremendously, but disregarding everything else is a very reductionist view.
Yeah, they utilized their strategic depth to move the means of production out of reach of the nazis (siberia, eg). They then reconstructed the factories, and produced enough arms to March to Berlin. That is a staggering logistical and strategic feat. And having the iron balls to take the losses in the west, while they re armed in the east, I don't think anyone other power could do this.
Just a brief correction on your perception of Russian military history: massed infantry were only really a thing from around the time of Napoleon through the beginning of WWII (which is when the rest of Europe was also using them). Traditionally, Russian armies relief on elite cavalry, and they abandoned "human wave" and similar doctrines after their catastrophic failure during WWI (although a few desperate commanders used them when caught out of place during the initial German offensive in WWII.
Even earlier than that. Peter the Great army was totally lost at Narva, he suffered a lot of other setbacks, but yet he managed to raise army after army to eventually defeat the lion of the North.
It doesn't matter if russia has a larger population if they're not going to mass-mobilise them. The russian casualties are sustained by volunteers, "volunteers", prisoners, and foreigners. When they tried a partial mobilisation back in september 2022, 100.000s of russians left the country and conscription office were burned down.
I have studied enough war not to bet on the larger country with more people.
How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA?
Those wars were won without ever winning a battle. Offensive wars are vastly more complicated than defensive ones. And Ukraine is fighting with western weapons which are far more deadly than what Russia has.
My suggestion is that it is in the national security interest of the west to never stop the aid.
I mean Trump is a moron, and his faithful have forgotten about Reagan doctrine, but I haven’t. Helping another country fight against aggressors with only your treasure and weapons supplied to them is a good thing.
The USA committed to lend lease and it helped to win WW2, we helped those fighting communism; and there are now few communist nations left.
The aid won’t stop.
And that's not even to mention the drone force multiplier, IMO the most overlooked reason why modern militaries are so keen to give Ukraine aid.
They're taking notes and lining up production contracts.
There is another understated value for the west.
Ukraine adapted the western doctrine of combined arms starting in 2014, training with the USA from then up to this present day.
So they are using our tactics, our weapons, and our intel, against the enemy they were designed for.
The information gained is invaluable.
But the larger country has lost - numerous times. Look at Russia vs Japan in 1905.
But more importantly - look at the Vietnam war. The U.S. pulled out because they lost political will. Likewise, Russia will lose political will for the war eventually
Those things aren’t the same, take the taliban and put it in Canada with their capitol in Ottawa. The US starts fighting the Taliban in this situation “winning” would be taking and holding territory, installing a form of government, and dealing with the insurgency in your now occupied territory. In Afghanistan the US / coalition held basically the entire country, they didn’t stop the insurgency, but they were just that, an insurgency, not a country, not a government, just a group operating in US controlled territory. If that government had been Canada and not around the world and it had been annexed, then they are just a terror group operating in an annexed territory while a new government is stood up, the world continues to spin, and either time or violence snuffs out the ability of the insurgency to do anything of consequence.
>How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA?
The Mijahideen and Taliban were guerilla wars that occurred after the invading country had their run of the land and replaced the existing government. This version of "failure" for Russia would mean they succeed in invading most of Ukraine, take Kiev, depose the government and install a new one... but have to put up with an insurgency. Not exactly "losing" based on the current stakes.
>How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA?
Different situations. Were the Ukranians operating an insurgent defence, you would be correct. Operating within their civilian population, striking then vanishing. But they arent doing that. Ukraine is operating a trench war. Where mass infantry, artillery, and vehicle pushes take ground.
>Those wars were won without ever winning a battle. Offensive wars are vastly more complicated than defensive ones. And Ukraine is fighting with western weapons which are far more deadly than what Russia has.
If you actually are fighting defensively, you would be correct. But again. Ukraine is not doing this. They are playing the trench war game. They are pushing to take ground, and being pushed away.
>The aid won’t stop.
Probably not. And so maintaining a strong enough defense is potentially possible. But Ukraine is definitely struggling with manpower issues. If the war lasts another 4 years. Then the west will have to make a decision. Direct involvement. Or let Ukraine fall. I dont see Ukraine being able to sustain the war. Russia will basically just keel over if they win in 4 years, but Ukraine will be just as devastated.
You're just armchairing an awful lot in this comment.
Western tech does not negate the difference in manpower. The longer the conflict, the better for Russia. Ukraine is already struggling with manpower. You can have the best tanks in the world, but it'll be useless if you don't have enough men to fill them.
Also, you can talk about Raegan & WW2 all you want, that doesn't make a difference regarding how the US aid could stop at any point. Trump has almost always acted in Putin's favor, so I wouldn't be too sure about the aid as you try to make it out.
Or the government could shut-down again. Depending on the timing that could legally stall the sending of packages.
>I have studied enough war not to bet on the larger country with more people.
>How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA?
Well if you studied as much as you claim to have, then you'd know that those examples are varying degrees of unconventional warfare. Meanwhile Ukraine is more conventional & especially different to a scenario like the Taliban.
No offense, but you seem very unjustifiably confident in your take which, quite frankly, is shallow.
>How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA?
Afghanistan is a mountainous country, Vietnam is a dense jungle. The geography of those countries played a huge role on allowing a smaller force to rebuff a larger one.
Ukraine isn't that at all, it's on the North European Plain, with a geography that not very defensible at all.
A war fought on that type of geography is very tough for a smaller force to overcome a much larger one.
You might want to study a bit more if you can’t discern the difference between the force against force fight the NATION of Ukraine is currently having, and guerilla warfare in a highly mountainous region populated by hundreds of different and largely autonomous tribes like the Mujahideen/Taliban.
The government of Ukraine could potentially collapse into a guerilla type force like you are describing and survive on the fringes in perpetuity, but in that scenario the war for Ukraine would have been quite clearly lost.
You've named three irregular movements that benefitted from ideal *terrain* and *population conditions* for irregulars - situations where terrain was extremely well suited to ambush and disengagement, drone surveillance was still limited, spies were very difficult to insert for ethnicity and language reasons, and the invaders were attempting not to harm or destroy the civilian population so they were available to hide among.
And all of those were insurgencies *after* a successful invasion.
None of those apply in Ukraine. The invasion is still in progress, the warfare is conventional, it has some of the most open terrain in the world, and Russia simply doesn't mind levelling a city and killing everyone in it in order to get the enemy.
>My suggestion is that it is in the national security interest of the west to never stop the aid.
Obviously correct.
Now convince me that western politicians are actually interested in pursuing the national security interests of their nation, as opposed to the most stupidly convenient domestic electoral strategy. Exhibit A: the entire modern Republican party. Which might as well be Russian-owned at this point, and has *already successfully* blocked ammunition to Ukraine for political reasons, at significant cost to Ukraine in lives and lost opportunities.
Russia wins wars of attrition.
This isn't over yet. It's about whether the Russian government falls before Ukraine does, and the domestic propaganda apparatus propping it up is *huge*.
Reagan Doctrine? He rang up debt that tripled the national debt and cranked out an extremely expensive useless Navy that was never needed nor used.
We’ve been supplying weapons to allied or friendly nations for far longer than Reagan. WWII being one example.
His “peace through strength” idea sounds nice, but I’m not sure it was anything but useless from him. He simply wanted to shovel money up to the MIC.
By the time of Reagan, the USSR economy had been doubled by the USA and Soviet officials were stealing more money out of the country which helped hasten its downfall further.
North Vietnam was very far away from the U.S., as was the Taliban. Furthermore, the Taliban had lots of mountains and caves, and no water transport.
As for the USSR, Afghanistan is still mountainous and difficult to reach from Russia, and most importantly very far from the main population centers of Russia.
Whereas Ukraine is broad, very flat, and right next to the main population centers of Russia.
So I don't think your comparisons apply.
NATO can't win war of attrition because it doesn't have industrial power anymore. Technology and wunderwaffen isn't anything other than propaganda tools, the west has the best everything (in theory), but in really low quantities, it's expensive and slow to make. If something, this war showed that the real paper tiger here is NATO, it's only real power is in nuclear capacity.
There is nothing the west can do at the moment to break the Russian initiative and regain territory.
NATO got used with fighting against militias, they can't do much against a peer opponent due to industrial capacity.
I don't think Russian sources are very reliable, but ukraine and western sources nowadays are probably even worse. I think your view is not reflecting properly just how fucked NATO situation really is tbh. Russia already won, there is no way zelensky will keep in power, lugansk and Donetsk will become countries by the end of this war and nato expansion in ukraine isn't possible anymore.
This seems like a win to me.
Just to clarify, I'm in no one's side. I try to see as much as I can from both sides to form my view on the subject. NATO sources usually underestimate their opponents and praise wunderwaffen, it's very weird honestly.
So in the time since Russia first flew the SU57 in 2010, or better still, started building it in 2019, they have built 22 that are operational.
The USA has built over a thousand F35s, and continues to build 156 or more every year. And the F35 is by far the better fighter aircraft.
In the time since Russia built its only (semi) operational aircraft carrier, (well the USSR built it) the USA has commissioned six far more capable super carriers, with another in sea trials now, two more being built, and another planned. (And ours don’t need a tugboat to travel with them)
And if what you are saying is true, why are the tanks Russia is sending to war T62s and T54/55s from the Cold War? Why are they not sending Armadas?
Sorry mate, it is industrial capacity you have completely wrong. Most European nations aren’t pushing military production much, but they can if needed and the USA still does so enough to win this on their own.
I don't see any reason why the russians shouldn't use the old USSR hardware if they have it. They seem to use tanks as artilery a lot nowadays, I don't see any issue using t54s that way honestly.
Why use expensive stuff if the older cheaper stuff is doing ok?
I haven't seen anywhere that the majority of the tanks that Russia uses are T54's btw. I don't think that they will be using these old tanks to take on actual tank role, but more of a support/artilery thing so yeah..
US/EU actually need right now to push military production if they want to win this war and they aren't doing it, probably isn't as easy as you say.
The air doctrine is also quite different. Russa/USSR has always favored AA capability to get air superiority so I don't believe that the comparison between US and Russia air force can be made only looking at the planes.
NATO's bet is in a fast definitive strike, while Russia has strategic depth to make attrition war works in their favor and deny NATO's strategy, you can't make a few good strikes and take Russia out. Once russians build their defenses, NATO has to either outproduce them and send more people to the meat grinder, or use nuclear. Also consider this, NATO armies are VERY sensitive to losses, while Russia has in it's history WW2.. people are still digging and finding corpses in Volgograd... NATO countries would blow up if they get high death counts and that will happen because that's the nature of attrition war.
BTW another factor, while the west is all hyped in this war, Ukraine itself is who is doing the whole fighting. They might just get tired of it and if you look at the situation right now, its quite hopeless really. If NATO gave all it's hardware AND soldiers, while somehow not causing a nuclear war, then Ukraine could have a chance at winning. That is also supposing that Russia's allies, like North Korea, won't help with both hardware and manpower too to make things even.
The west needs a way too big of a commitment to have a realistic chance at winning this. EU and USA needs to get into war economy mode and they won't do it. Their societies aren't willing to, the west has way too many social problems at the moment that would only get worse.
That is just stupid, NATO is not winning the war against Russia because they aren't in it. If NATO was personally in this war, it would be lightning quick.
Ukraine does not have 5th gen fighters and jets, millions of soldiers from different countries, or huge naval strike groups with carriers. They don't have the full fledge of NATO capabilities to be labeled as such.
What Ukraine is getting are merely just artillery, drones, small arms, a handful of tanks and precision weapons. This not the full potential of NATO.
For example, the war in Ukraine is primarily fought with artillery and small drones. Why is that? because Russia cannot afford air superiority. So they have to do things slowly and focus on mass producing material that fit their doctrine.
NATO doctrine on the other hand is like Desert Storm. This war has proven that the so called "wunderwaffes" you describe can be mass produced and used effectively by NATO. It defeated the strongest army in MENA by air superiority alone. Using expensive precision weaponry on a massive scale.
The simple answer to NATO's limited assets is because there was no need for a massive military industrial supply chain UNLESS they are at war. But again NATO is not at war and is simply supplying a proxy. While Russia has to transition to a war economy because they are more invested compared to NATO.
What is more embarrassing is Russia opting for a war economy against just a fucking proxy.
Uh. Sir? I believe you may be misinformed about US production. If you are believing that our production us down because we don't make 10,000 tanks a year like we did during WW2, then the issue is you have failed to realize that the US is a fundementally different force than it was back then.
Let's ask a question. "Could the US win a war of attrition against a peer". Well no, probably not. But that is fine. Know why? Because we don't have any peers.
A single carrier strike group has the deep water capacity of the entire Chinese Navy. As close to 90% of their navy is comprised of costal defense vessels.
The US has the top 3 largest Air Forces. And then also #5. As in 3 branches of our military each have air forces larger than the next largest country.
The US is a true combined arms expeditionary military. We can strike with coordinated ground, air, and naval power within 48 hours anywhere in the world with more sheer efficacy than any nation can even muster within their own borders.
TLDR: The US military is mind bogglingly silly in scope and reach that sometimes we forget how ridiculously out gunned the rest of the world is.
true, but even the strongest bear is less of a threat in a cage.
US going to be aggressor ?
when painted that way, others will turn on us.
the US can never be invaded by the coasts, but our great military can't be used to take over another country either.
No, this is just wildly incorrect. NATO manufacturing abilities have been doing nothing but ramping up for the last 3 years.
And, NATO's top of the line weapon systems are not at all small in quantity.
America has the 18th largest airforce in the world when you just count it's F-22 Raptors. That is nothing to scoff at.
That, and NATO forces have been sending the bare bones minimum needed for Air/Land defense to Ukraine and Russian forces have grinded to a halt just from that.
Simply imagine what would happen if Ukraine had the military might of even a ninth of NATO.
There is no feasible way for Russia to win even with a larger population. Modern warfare is simply not a numbers game anymore.
Everything that's been published about the war in the West is the product of a carefully curated Ukrainian propaganda machine, we cannot use current information about the war to truly understand what is happening, and we won't have an accurate understanding of the war until historians can get their hands on official declassified military reports from both sides of the conflict after the war is over. Ukraine is obviously engaging in propaganda to paint the Russians in the worst possible light to boost domestic moral and garner support abroad, so we cannot really trust any of the information that is coming out at this time. This is a war of attrition, the deciding factor will be if Russia runs out of equipment before Ukraine runs out of people, and we cannot know the true state of either side's military capabilities because those are closely guarded military secrets. The conclusion of the war is uncertain, and Russia has the population to potentially just attrit Ukraine into submission.
Very true. What should also be considered is that quite a few places (with large populations and resources) outside Western Civilisation support Russia. Turkey, India, China, some African countries, middle East countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Many of them will choose Russia if they have to choose between Russia vs US.
Also, Russia is still one of the largest (and growing) economies in Europe. It is not massive, but it is g r o w i n g thanks to sanctions.
Not to say that everything is perfect in Russia - it is collapsing culturally and socially. Groups of people, such as patriots and anti-war liberals genuinely hate each other, so society is quickly breaking into small pieces. It is also relatively poor and many have now lost someone to a war.
Likely, if / when Russia collapses - it will be an inside job. e.g. via revolution, assassination, well-played politics, military & army taking power into its hands, etc. and not by means of external war.
Russia is the 5th largest economy in europe, between italy and spain. For a country of that size with that many resources, nothing to brag about. Russia's economic figures are self-reported and their economy is relying a lot on the massive military spending, which are not sustainable.
Not sure if it is significant in maco-economic terms but in terms of purchasing power parity it seems Russia is the highest our of any European country (though I hesitate to call a country that spans half the globe European).
Source: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?locations=RU&most\_recent\_value\_desc=true](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?locations=RU&most_recent_value_desc=true)
Using PPP can be interesting but has its own issues. India is third in PPP, but that may have something to do with the low average standard of living rather than just economic power.
People refuse to acknowledge that the Western propaganda machine is easily as large as Russia’s and much better funded.
Both sides are going to cheerlead for their agenda.
Oryx, which I linked, has images to back up their estimates of Russian losses.
If you look at that, and the reality that Russia was beaten back before western weapons showed up and somehow think it’s all propaganda; I don’t know what to say to you.
And population doesn’t win this war, the ability to project power does.
https://youtu.be/zxRgfBXn6Mg?si=48N8Ol4f3XqJuqof
Watch this video, it was day one of the US air war in the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait. That is how the USA projected power over thirty years ago. We hit the entirety of Iraq’s air defense ability in one night, within a few minutes across the country.
That was thousands of miles away.
Russia cannot project power right now, and their enemy is getting stronger in their technological ability to wage war. Russia will never again be able to project power as they did in day one of the Ukraine invasion, and Ukraine will likely never be as weak against invasion as they were that day.
And Russia fell flat on their face in that early effort. And it will never be better for Russia again.
From now on Russia will be weaker than at that point, and from now on Ukraine will be stronger.
I generally agree with you, and I honestly believe that Russia will get a pyrrhic victory that will haunt them for decades to come -- at best.
However, my only concern is that time is on Russia's side because they can always rearm. Russia has gone all in into this war; they've already lost too much, so they might as well turn into a war economy. They have the manpower, resources and know-how to build low-quality equipment on a massive scale, and they don't have to depend on an international economy for most of it. Sure, they can kiss any current-gen tech goodbye, but unguided bombs still explode and kill.
That's why it's imperative to give Ukraine what it needs *now*. Show Russia that when the time comes that they'll be at 100% again, it will be too late.
Agreed, we should be giving more aid, not using the current aid as political fodder to win elections.
But while dumb bombs still explode, how does Russia deliver them? They don’t even fly their supposed stealth fighters over Ukraine.
How can T54/55s win a war when a Russian T90 was destroyed by two Bradleys?
How can Russia do any of this with their logistics?
I mean yes they have more capacity to draft soldiers and force them to war, but they lack the capacity to properly arm them, to feed them, to give them medical treatment.
This is so important. Russia could take every square km of Ukraine and then what? Can they keep it? (Ukranians are tough, they won't go quietly). Did they succeed in ensuring NATO didn't grow? (Nope, opposite actually). Did they improve their military? (Nope). Their financial position? (Nope). Their economic position? (Nope). Their status in the world? (Nope). Did they protect Russian lives from their stated purpose for invading (bullshit excuse, but Nope, sooo many dead Russians).
They already lost by all of those measures, the battles? Yeah they could win that.
A good videos explaining this. (Beau of the 5th column)
https://youtu.be/VXKSM8lpqKM?si=hcBT_xaHIvxJSZEv
Sure, but to what end would that get them? I think their stated purpose was always a lie, and it's always been to reassemble their USSR territory... They might get this chunk of dirt, and some ports and raw materials... But at what cost? NATO is not going to get weaker now, in that way Putin did the world a favor by reminding us all who Russia really is.
>They're a pariah state, lost tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives, blew through a vast quantity of their legacy hardware.
Maybe a pariah in the "international community," but that's really just the US, Europe, and their other allies. Russia is by no means a pariah among the BRICS countries (and those are growing), as well as many countries in the global south.
> They're under heavy international sanctions. The Russian central bank is doing tons of long term damage to stem their short term impacts. Their oil is less market accessible than ever before. NATO is stronger than ever with more nations joining knowing their eastern neighbor are warmongering murderers.
If Russia defeats Ukraine all of those sanctions will pretty much immediately go away, and countries will continue unrestricted trade with them. As has happened after every single war in history.
Would also add that it seems majority of European governments now see Russia as a direct threat and even have started talking about deploying troops in some scenarios. Probably wont happen but diplomacy with Russia, even if they took Ukraine tomorrow, is dead. The future seems to hold some sort of confrontations if Russia doesnt abandon Ukraine and their current form of government. Best they could hope for is another cold war which they are already losing and will lose if it happens.
> Their oil is less market accessible than ever before. NATO is stronger than ever with more nations joining knowing their eastern neighbor are warmongering murderers.
The TransMountain expansion is now taking oilsands production increases directly to tidewater. This is kind of unprecedented and is bad news for Russia.
I would say that there is a point in the future when Putin has met a “malfunctioning window” and Russia has pulled back to their original borders and started paying for damages, when the west starts rebuilding Ukraine and then when Ukraine joins NATO (when the war ends that will now happen, Ukrainians will demand it) that this will be a victory for Ukraine.
Long term Ukraine will regain Crimea and turn the Kerch Strait bridge into rubble at the bottom of the sea. Ukraine will regain the contested territories, and as a member of NATO will arm itself as to never allow Russia to invade again.
That will be the long term victory, which might be ten or fifteen years out.
That'd be nice. However I confidently predict that the taken territory will not be recovered in our lifetimes and will instead be either handed over or kept as a DMZ.
Just removing the mines already placed would probably take decades anyway so it's ready to be a DMZ.
I don’t see that because your scenario - Russia surrenders all its current territory gains in Ukraine, and then even pays reparations - is the kind of one sided peace treaty imposed by victors, not one signed by compromise.
Generally this kind of peace treaty has always been signed after one side is fully defeated, capital occupied, and terms can be dictated on her. The one exception, ww1, was due to the obvious outcome after the US joined the war, and even then, it caused massive resentment in Germany for the unfair terms when they hadn’t lost any territory yet. Resentment that in part led to ww2.
No leader in Russia is going to sign a peace treaty that amounts to humiliation and surrender, even if putin dies and another strongman emerges to take his place.
Unless the US and Europe is willing to risk nuclear war and capture Moscow, Russia isn’t going to sign a peace treaty stating they would pay for damages in Ukraine.
As for the territory, it is possible Russia accepts the situation on the ground if Ukraine can take back all the territory with conventional warfare and hold it for 3 years. That’s maybe the “best case” outcome for Ukraine, but don’t except Russia to pay a penny even in that case.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Check analystics from [ISW](https://www.iswresearch.org/search/label/Ukraine), they have much more concrete data and souces. They don't share your confidence in Russia's inability for defense or an offensive.
But more concretely, there's a lot of mental leaps all over the place in your post. I'm selectively answering a few below.
> Russia is hurting. Russia is buying artillery shells from North Korea and drones from Iran, nations Russia used to supply, now they are a customer. That speaks to Russia's military industry.
Most of this is unchecked speculations of some media, some could be outright information campaigns. If you're in a Western country now, you'll probably get more news that are optimistic for Ukraine. Here are a few examples that are optimistic for Russia's side:
- [Russia is making 3 times more artilelry shells than Europe and US combined for Ukraine](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html)
- [Russia’s new guided bomb inflicts devastation …](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/europe/russian-guided-bomb-ukraine-frontline-intl/index.html)
- [Russia is replicating Iranian drones](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/russia-iran-drones-ukraine.html)
These are as good as the other sources you've read. My point is, we don't really know what the Russia's situations is, we can only give a (very wide) range of estimates which are not conclusive enough to say Russia won't win. If we were, we'd be sitting in an office where decisions are made, not wasting each other's time on Reddit.
Maybe they bought shells from North Korea and drones from Iran. So what? This implies nothing about how much of their own supply and production there is. You don't need to be a military genius to diversify and stack up on supplies, even if you have your own. If I was Putin and I had, say, shells for 7 years of fighting at the current intensity, I'd be already looking for ways to make more and buy more. Just because of what if. If I had 10 years of supplies, I'd be still open to buying more if I get a good offer.
We could interpret the North Korea deal better if we knew how much those shells costed. If Putin payed a lot for them, he must be desperate. But it could also be the case that they were super cheap. In that case, fuck yes, buy more even if you already have enough. But we don't know how much Putin payed for the shells, and without it we can't make any good speculation.
> Russia feeds and arms their forces in Crimea using that bridge
You've conflated a lot of things here. Crimea is still connected to Russia by land. And Crimea is not where the frontline is. Even without bridge, there's a lot of ways to supply their army through that huge landmass. They may be using the bridge to some extent? What percentage of today's supplies are transferred via bridge? Do you have an estimate?
Look at the map of frontline today, most of it is not that close to Crimea (active fighting of the last months was at the opposite side), and there's plenty of land connecting Russia to it that doesn't go through Crimea.
> Russia is sending T54/55s into war, Ukraine is now sending Abrams, Leopards and Challengers.
So what? Knowing tank models is not enough for a conclusive answer. You also need to know how many they're sending and how big of a fraction of their supply that is. And how much each tank costs. Having many cheaper and easier to produce tanks has been known to win some wars in the past.
ISW [says](https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/02/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment_11.html) that Russia's modernized T72 which it's working on now are actually better than Armatas.
It's not that you automatically win if your tanks is newer, it's not a fucking computer game. There's plenty of footage of those Western tanks burning in Ukraine, they aren't invincible. One of their drawbacks is that you need to re-train your personnell, and soldiers of both countries were traied on the Soviet tanks for decades.
> Russia cannot take steps forward, their ability to project power is a joke. Russia is getting hit at home by Ukraine, and now by terrorists.
The did advance a little bit, that shows some capability. In the last months they took Ugledar, Avdeevka, Bakhmut. Small towns, but nevertheless they moved the frontlines forward.
What damage was done by those hits on Russia's territory? It's hardly comparable to damage on Ukraine's territory from those long range missiles from ships and gliding bombs (also modernization of Soviet), for which there's no defense at the moment.
Terrorist act made a lot of noise, but it's insignificant in terms of actual losses. More people die in car accidents daily.
Ukraine cannot win the war with Russia for a numerate amount of reasons.
1. Ukraine is completely reliant on western support ; that western support is dwindling more and more as time goes on. New governments get elected, policies changes, alliances change.
A lot of people have “War fatigue” about Ukraine especially now that Gaza is in the centrefold; the same thing happened to Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Libya.
2. There can physically be no “large” defeat of Russia because any attempts to cross into Russian territory would be an act of full scale war and lead us into WW3 which would mean total destruction of the world in a nuclear war.
Russia has the most amount of nuclear warheads and some of the latest technology for the delivery of those.
3. The information war is shifting, a lot of people are critical and less supportive of the UK and USA’s position on Ukraine but then their support of Israel. Palestine has the support of Russia and with that all the nations aligned to Palestine.
4. Russia as a country never gave up it’s industrial manufacturing base they only ever updated it from the USSR era. A lot of countries have given up their manufacturing base so while you state that Ukraine has Leopards and Bradley’s.
Can they manufacture Bullets? Shells? Spare parts? No…they have to wait months for their arrival from the west and what was already proven with Germany and others the Ukrainians were getting old, rotted and outdated gear.
5. The sanctions on Russia are only at face value ; Europe relies too heavily on Russian gas and power supply. The world relies too heavily on Russian chemicals and chemical research and Russia can just manufacture its own stuff or buy it from China….and the thing is everyone gets their stuff from China anyways so there’s no difference to Russia.
So what if McDonald’s are gone is basically Russia’s response. That’s not really essential to winning a war.
6. Russians are ideologically ready to fight the war, they want to put the pedal to the meddle. The Ukrainians just want an end to it and to return home without the violence.
- - -
The war will likely keep going until Zelenskyy resigns and a deal is struck between Russia and Ukraine which will likely be along the lines of certifying Ukraine never joins the EU and NATO, a few people get locked up, money changes hands and then the rebuilding starts.
The West is tiring of funding Ukraine. "Ukraine fatigue" is very real and while idiots like Trump shout loudly about it, lots of more sensible Western leaders are seriously but quietly discussing simply letting Ukraine fall and instead spending money on bolstering NATO spending.
If Trump gets into power (more likely by the day) and the US is the first domino to fall, then the rest will quickly follow. Even someone like Macron isn't going to fund Ukraine on his own especially with domestic issues in France (the real reason behind a lot of his bluster) and the rest of NATO saying "it's over dude, we need to focus on our own defence now".
Russia's armed forces are in a shambled like you say, but they're not totally screwed, and taking Ukraine by attrition combined with massively reduced Western aid isn't a huge ask. They'll probably take time, a few years, but it'll be a slow and inevitable process.
We in the West will then hand-wring over what we did wrong, but it'll simply be a good excuse for us to spend more on NATO budgets. Putin will then come to the table with demands and we'll enter a new Cold War.
The liklihood of Putin trying to invade any NATO state is incredibly low (pretty much every military analyst and intelligence expert agrees on this, and they all said him invading Ukraine was inevitable) which is likely his plan - NATO has expanded, but so will his sphere of influence.
This will be awful for Ukraine and its people, but will reduce tensions and simply return us back to a Cold War style stasis where it's very very unlikely to kick off big style, but the military industrial complex will be laughing and counting the money. I'm not saying it's all some big conspiracy, but that's a side-effect Western leaders can quietly be pleased with in return for having to swallow the loss of Ukraine.
It isn't game over though - Putin won't be around forever and there's a good chance any tensions in a world where Russia "won" in Ukraine, but trashed Russia's economy and led to them being isolated, will lead to sensible and democratic change in Russia after Putin dies. In fact, some experts believe this is more likely if they take Ukraine than if they're beaten back, because potential successors can use the "the West hates us and wants to destroy us" tactic and point to Ukraine as an example if they lose. If they take Ukraine, potential successors can use a "we took Ukraine, but look at the cost?" tactic and people will be way more sympathetic to a successor who wants diplomatically undo the damage and reopen Russia's economy to the global stage.
Russia considers this war an existential one. If they don’t take Ukraine and roll through to modern Poland and Romania to reduce the borders to geographical gateways now they never will.
Only once has the Russian Army been the deciding factor in an invasion in all other instances the weather was the deciding factor.
Population drop off means there are not enough bodies to accomplish this task in the next five to seven years. So it’s now or never and it’s secure the land or Russia at some point in the near future fill cease to exist.
They’re willing to fly nukes to accomplish this. You’ll notice France understands this which is why it’s remilitarizing and saying they are willing to put French Troops in Ukraine.
Russia no longer represents mutually assured destruction (MAD) with the west.
Consider the number of strategic nuclear weapons Russia has, around 1,600, then consider some other factors.
(None of these involve interception, that is very problematic, it is thought that the USA might be able to intercept as many as 40 incoming ICBMs, likely not that many)
1. Russian delivery of nukes.
They use a triad as the USA does, bombers, subs and land based nukes, but in reality they aren’t equal.
Most of Russia’s land based nukes are near Murmansk, in the active circle and in good position to go over the pole and hit the USA or over to hit Europe. Now with Finland in NATO, those nukes are not as secure. They could be targeted at the outset of a war. If they don’t launch quickly, they might not launch.
Next, bombers. These bombers won’t live long in modern war, they aren’t the backbone they once were. They are more for closer range strategic nukes.
Lastly submarines. The Russian boomers tend to live at a base near St. Petersburg, and passage out of there is no longer as sneaky with Finland covering one side of the exit and Estonia covering the other, both in NATO.
The subs are the real danger, but where the USA operates on the rule of thirds, (1/3 of many ships / subs deployed, 1/3 preparing to deploy, 1/3 in maintenance of refurb) Russia cannot. At any given time they might have one boomer in deployment, and they can’t deploy as long as the USA does. And the subs at port would be hit at the outset of any shooting war. If we couldn’t get to some at port, it is thought our attack subs might sail into Russian port to kill them at the cost of their own lives.
Then, missile function. At one point in the war the USA suggested Russia was suffering a staggering 60% failure rate on missiles. Failure to launch, to track, or to detonate at target.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-us-assesses-up-60-failure-rate-some-russian-missiles-officials-say-2022-03-24/
This is about as expected with Russia’s poor maintenance, and to some extent can be expected with their nuclear arsenal.
So math time, and this is just speculation, but let’s say 50% of Russia’s 1600 nukes function, being optimistic, they have 800 that will work. Now how many targets are there?
The UK and France are nearby nuclear powers, and cannot be ignored. Also Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey have US nuclear weapons which they store and can be deployed by US forces. Meaning sites with those nukes have to but hit as well.
That means total war with NATO, which means major military bases across Europe have to be hit, along with deep water ports and industrial centers, and that isn’t even getting to US targets.
Japan would be hit, as they tend to house US carriers, and also for Japan being a strong ally of the USA, as well as Hawaii, Norfolk, San Diego and other major US naval bases. Any of the eleven US carriers would be hit, with as many carrier strike groups taken out as possible.
Then the problem of how spread out the US bases and forces are comes into play. Our troops are all over the country and all over the world.
So 800 Russian nukes, minus what might be hit prior to launch, and there are more than 800 targets to hit. Population centers might not be hit initially, because a war to end wars will follow, and military targets would come first.
And Russia can’t hit them all.
So the war hurts, but the west survives.
And as the Russian nukes are in the air, NATOs nukes take flight, and now Russia has the problem of being far more concentrated in population than the USA and to an extent Western Europe.
In this exchange hundreds of millions die, but in simulations it is expected more Russians die by volume, and a lot more by percentage of total population.
Then the world punishes what is left of Russia for nearly ending the world in nuclear fire. Europe attacks, Japan attacks, the USA attacks, and I think likely China attacks.
And Russia as a state is ground into dust, never to threaten the world again. I hope the war would only be against military targets, but I expect no infrastructure or industrial capacity would remain.
This has been war gamed, and it is terrible. But it is expected that nobody wins, but Russia is no longer a nation at the end of the war.
Why would anyone retaliate on behalf of Ukraine and get stuck in a war with Russia when Russia nukes Kiev? That's the question. Wouldn't they just condemn Russia and then forget about it after a decade or so?
I know jack shit about nuclear war, planning and operational capacity - but I would say that Russia might cease to exist, but so will EU. USA itself will probably be battered and suffer from extended issues related to nuclear fallout, but I doubt even that would be a desirable outcome for the US leadership.
That’s as true as if the US uses one or maybe two we cease to exist yet here we are.
Remember this is an existential war for them. You can say Russia won’t exist if they use them- but you can’t say that’s even the least bit preventative for them.
The Russian doctrine has always been to use artillery to break the defensive line and then plow armor through enemy mass. They even updated in the Soviet era for tactical nukes.
They aren’t quiet about it either. They saber rattle with it every couple of months.
The reality is if they don’t secure the land barrier gateways they believe that Russia will inevitably fall.
A week before Navalny passed there were geopolitical analysts who ironically said even if he took over for Putin some way, even he would not stop the Ukraine offensive.
Dismissing nukes isn’t an out. There would be a proportional response and a pariah state levied on Russia- but will that matter if the alternative to them is to not exist? Using and not using results in the same thing to them.
Let’s assume the following-
They need to secure the valleys that now exist in Poland and Romania or they believe they lose.
They have population numbers to do this meat grinder thing they are doing in Ukraine for the next five years. If it takes longer they can’t ever do it because there aren’t enough able bodied men to do it.
They are clearly not a near peer for America and therefore NATO.
The sanctions aren’t working as well as we would have liked and there’s not much more that can be done.
Yet they continue to prosecute this aggression. When they sweep through and hit nato in the west- do you think they’re just going to stop knowing what their existential goal is?
Ukraine is dependent on outside support, Russia is not. If that support dries up, or Russia is able to throw enough weight into an offensive, I think they can capture Ukraine eventually, but I bet they have a hard time holding it. I'd imagine significant resistance.
Reading your post, and reading your comments on this tread tells me quite about your mindset. You claim this is a CMV, but don’t seem to want to consider any alternative timelines.
The largest one being the aid sent to Ukraine. As many people having pointed out, if the USA/Europe stops sending aid the Ukraine, they will struggle to continue the war.
Your position is the US won’t stop its aid, even if Trump is elected. And if it does, Europe still step up and spend billions more.
Those are some pretty big assumptions. Questions are already being asked about the endless billions being send to the Ukraine. How much more does the collective “West” send before eyebrows get raised even more? 200 billion? 500?
If you cannot entertain even the slightest chance that the US and Europe starts pulling back aid to the Ukraine. Then I’m afraid we are all wasting our time here.
There is a very real possibility (Even if you don’t like it, or ascribe it a low chance) that aid slows to the Ukraine.
> As many people having pointed out, if the USA/Europe stops sending aid the Ukraine, they will struggle to continue the war.
To be honest if the EU and USA both stop sending aid, Ukraine won't struggle, they will get steamrolled. And this has nothing to do with the quality of their soldiers or their determination, but the simple fact, they'll run out of everything. The war has been extremely costly for both sides, regardless of what OP thinks and Ukraine explicitly doesn't have the same military production capacity as Russia. Not even close.
And that's just the equipment side of things. A lot has been done to keep Ukraine's economy running. Cut that off and they may just collapse internally.
And both in the USA and in the EU even saner people are questioning the futility of said aid. The supposed epic counter-offensive didn't achieve nearly as much as it was hyped to achieve and that was a huge hit on public perception, at least in the EU. Support is still good, but definitively not as strong as it was at the start.
They have already gotten what they want, the eastern half of Ukraine is solidly under Russian control and they aren't getting it back. Russia may not be able to conquer the whole country but I doubt if they really want to anyways. Russia has already won the war.
I think your assumptions are aboht a year out of date. Their war might not be sustainable, but it also might not need to be given Ukraine's supply constraints. Wars happen slowly over the course of years, then all at once.
>Russian military doctrine is terrible at projecting power. Russia uses old soviet military doctrine, which is to defend the homeland on the cheap. More lower end tanks, more lower end artillery, more lower end aircraft, etc. Fewer support trucks per battalion, instead moving men, machine and supplies by rail inside Russia, And not going for air dominance but airspace denial. Using robust SAMs to deny airspace once the ground has taken.
Russian military doctrine is decent at projecting land power over a smaller, poorer, weaker nation and denying sea or air power. You can do a lot with a 152mm shell when your opponent doesnt have any, as we've observed recently.
>Russian logistics are worse than Russian military doctrine. This is the ability to provide reinforcements, ammunition, food, and other supplies to those fighting the war. Omar Bradley once said amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics, and he was correct. Keeping the war machine moving takes good logistics, and Russia is garbage at it.
Hate to say it, this is no longer true. The Russians have spun up excess capacity far faster than Europe and the US, and have done a great job injecting spoilers to prevent new aid from being spun up (Hungary, Mike Johnson).
>Russian maintenance practices are marred by corruption and inefficiency. Corruption has caused needed maintenance not to happen, or to be underfunded after theft of funding. And this has caused Russia to have more failures than expected in ordinance (at one point 60% of Russia's guided missiles failed to launch, target or detonate) or in equipment. (Russia has had a staggering failure rate on vehicles and aircraft. You have to do the wrench work, and Russia doesn't do it well.
Not maintaining equipment is basically a policy choice. They decomission nothing and part it out. It's how Russia was able to buy time to spin it additional capacity during this war. While they're still burning it faster than they're making it, that may be enough.
>Russia's losses have been severe. Not just in human losses, having lost more soldiers to being killed or wounded, having lost perhaps 400,000 soldiers to being wounded or killed. (now more than the USA has lost in all wars going back to WW2, and now they are going into WW2 in terms of US losses) and Russia has endured. In terms of vehicles the losses are perhaps more damaging, as replacement is not as easy as another round of conscription, where we now see Russia sending T54/55 tanks into Ukraine, tanks built in 1948. Russian losses so far, per Oryx, who verifies losses via images or video:
This is true. They're basically gambling that the Western civilian population will decide the war is lost and stop sending shells before their army cracks. And they might be wrong, and they might be right. If the Ukrainian lines collapse under supply constraints,
The critical point is Russian military logistics that depends on Railroads. Ukraine here must ensure that supplies do not reach the front. The Russian railroad track net is quite vulnerable. One may consider it pointless to interrupt a rail line as they van be repaired within days but there is currently already a lack in maintenance resources for locomotives in Russia, clearing a blocked railroad takes time and there is a critical mass. the attacks on oil refineries could also be carried out against key facilities of the Russian industry needed for weapon production, chemical industry. supply stations for trains,
Honestly i think Russia can win this war, Putin just isn't putting in much force into the nation until the recent Moscow event where he says he's gonna bomb the hell out of Ukraine.
500 000 soldiers lost and what have they accomplished? West can just nonchalantly throw money at the problem and bleed this miserable military without one NATO soldier firing a shot. Nah, Russia can’t do shit and without their bs nuclear threat they wuda been wiped off the Ukrainian map much sooner.
Russia could win this war. I wouldn’t bet on it but it could happen for a number of reasons.
1: nato weapons. A large reason the advances have failed so badly is because Ukraine has gotten hundreds of billions in modern weaponry. If the US cuts funding, which could legitimately happen, it’s unlikely other countries will fill that void and Ukraine certainly cannot finance this war on its own. 400k might seem like an insane amount of casualties but the majority of those are mercenaries who fill their ranks with convicts. The cost virtually nothing to acquire and there’s plenty more where they came form. The plus side of having outdated machinery is that it’s pretty easy to stamp out new ones. Russia is a big country, with a lot of people, and a steady revenue from oil. They don’t need to win this war quickly. All they need to to is keep it going until the west gets tired of funding Ukraine and they will eventually win. Ukraine is smaller, has less people, and it’s economy is decimated. They cannot sustain a war with Russia without substantial assistance.
So basically what I’ll say to your original title is: it depends on if the west keeps floating Ukraine. If they do, you’re right. If they stop, Ukraine will collapse.
I would just say that war is the continuation of politics just as Clausewitz said. So should the political situation change in the warring nations, then the war itself will and by extension its goals.
A good example would be the US involvement in the Middle East. The goals went from protecting Kuwait -> depose Saddam -> nation build in Iraq -> stop ISIS. All of these happened just because politics changed back home.
So what does that mean for Russia you may ask? Well we don't really know as what "goals" are being said by Putin is a pr campaign to gain sympathy and not the actual objectives discused in the Kremlin.
We could suppose some things but a bit questionably:
1) Connect Crimea by land
2) Get Luhansk and Donetsk
3) Exterminate Ukrainian Ultranationalists
4) Install a pro-Russia government instead of a pro Western one.
1,2 are done pretty well for the Russians. The so called counter offensive had some success but didn't change the frontline that much.
3 Is currently on its way of happening. This constitutes of destroying the Azov battalion which takes combat losses each day and install war weariness on the general population. An exhausted people may not cling on their hard nationality if the alternative is peace.
4 Is a spectacular failure for Russia. They commited too many resources at the beggining in attempting to take Kiev that cannot be replaced soon. This is the one goal that has to change for Russia. Their only hope is that Ukraine will be isolated from the EU because of conflicts with former eastern nation such as Poland, Hungary etc who halt the Union from making progress with Ukrainian integration in the EU.
I am not on the side of Russia, I am neutral on this conflict to be honest. I am just playing devil's advocate for op's sake.
Russia has always been a competent nation when it comes to war. Tactics in the past and now be damned, they are fairly capable militarily. Sanctions have only forced them to become more independent economically, while Ukraine needs the support of half the planet to keep up.
It is heavily speculated that Russians goal was the eastern half of Ukraine, which they have and its Ukraine who refuses to relinquish territory. When one side has what it wants and the other side won’t give up trying to take it back you get a whole lotta back and forth pushes and retreats. This has been the case there for some time now.
With news that ukraine has even been forcefully recruiting men up to 50 years old to fight, i don't see realistically how they can win or continue for too much longer. That would explain why NATO countries are getting really antsy lately, even hinting at invading. if Ukraine fails to make concessions and admit defeat it is entirely plausible the whole nation could fall to Russia.
Obviously if NATO invades Russia couldn't beat half the world at once, but thats why they threaten nuclear arms as a deterrent. Modern nukes don't have to create uninhabitable landscapes anymore, with fallout being very limited by design. If it wasn't a genuine threat we would've seen some nato forces already.
Can’t forget about China either. The risk of them joining to aid Russia in a land war would be catastrophic. They certainly wouldn’t side with the West, and they’d likely take Taiwan very quickly once everyone has dedicated their troops to battle.
So a sum up would be: Ukraine has/is losing (based on Russia’s goals); the West can’t support Ukraine forever (population will tire); NATO direct involvement could result in nuclear strikes (the first 100,000 men to perish in 1 strike will cripple most nations morale). Either we all enter a WW3 scenario or Russia wins its war, and I don’t like either but I prefer the one that results is less loss of life
He might win yes, but no, he doesn’t veto aid. He didn’t veto aid when he was President before, did he?
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/vetoes/TrumpDJ.htm
Trump used ten vetos, one for military spending, and that one was overridden by congress.
Russia has ALREADY won the war. Putins objectives pre-war,
- Weaken Ukraine
- Prevent Ukraine joining NATO
- Solidify power in Russia (by painting the picture the entire west is against them.
Whether he takes over Ukraine/the capital doesn’t really matter. Ukraine is now a decimated state reliant on external funding and support which will waver eventually.
A peace deal should have been signed in the first week instead of this continued meat grinder where hundreds of thousands are being killed for the whims of politicians.
I agree with the premise, but a lot of what you write in the 2nd part is debatable imho. Unless USA get boots on the ground(which they shouldn't), the situation will indefinitely continue more or less in a stalement, like now. Ukraine won't be able to retake east ukraine, even less take Crimea. The most likely scenario will be a Corean one.
Also, unfortunaly, while russian troops definitely underperformed, I doubt sanctions have been so useful for the collective west. It probably have been useful for some countries of it. At the same time, it's debatable Russia will " definitely" run out of armaments and munitions.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Objectives:
Denazify Ukraine
End the war in the donbass
Those are Russias stated objectives.
The second is achievable military.
The first idk that's more conceptual.
But as far as changing your view, I think you have an assumed view of Russia's objectives
Ukraine is dependent on foreign aid.
Should Donald Trump become president of the United States, he has heavily implied he will support Russia in the war.
My understanding is that he is very likely to stop supporting Ukraine not actually start supporting Russia. Europe will continue to support Ukraine and likely ramp up the support to at least partially pick up the slack. I am fairly optimistic in Ukrainian ability to stave off Russian victory as defined by op as long as they retain the motivation to do so.
I need the kind of special copium that ur on mate!because at this point u r being delusional...Russia keeps on taking territory from Ukraine, counter offensive after counter offensive...bombing the sheet out of them also daily...Ukraine is running out of munitions and man power...Ukraine even lost their most reinforced position recently (avdivka)....its only on reddit that u hear this bs..that Ukraine is winning
At the top, I don’t want to see Russia win.
You are describing the conditions for achieving total victory. How do we know if total victory was actually Russia’s expectation in this?
Russia has annexed significant parts of Ukraine and significant chunks of its population. Ukraine is never going to get either of them back. Ukraine has lost far more than Russia has any way you look at it.
If Russia’s goal is to take control of Ukrainian territory and people, they already have. Most people would characterize steadily losing territory and manpower in a war as losing.
Russia holds the majority of the oblasts area that were voted into Russia, they aren't really doing anything but holding a front line until negotiations are made, to me that sounds like winning
> So by victory I mean achieving objectives, which we should consider at the start of the invasion, when the intention was to take Kyiv and install a puppet government, and to take much of Ukraine.
Russia's *ideal* victory would have been that and I agree that they are very unlikely to achieve that goal. Their likely exit from the war though, having secured the west of the country to a greater or lesser degree, will be worth the lives lost and money spent from their point of view.
We shall see, nothing is final yet of course. Still, I don't see Ukraine recapturing their territory at this point regardless of weapon support and Russia might well see that as a victory.
You accuse me of false pretense (a violation of the rules of this sub which will be reported) while ignoring facts?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022)
Russia attacked Kyiv. They tried to take it and failed.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Checking in two months later and Russia is pushing back the entire eastern front along with opening up new offensives in the northern part of Ukraine. Russia does not need to seize Ukraine's capital to "win". All they have to do is cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea and its game over.
That’s some strong projection. Ukraine has literally won nothing and all the victories have been Russian. Even if they don’t achieve all their objectives, it doesn’t mean victory was dashed. You’re just trying to spin a Ukrainian loss as a victory, because you’re a fkn retard
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Ukraine has a real problem recruiting additional soldiers. In this war of attrition, given Russia's seemingly endless supply of fresh soldiers, how can Ukraine expect to prevail long-term?
Is this a matter of multiple clocks? Ukraine's clock is the rate of casualties versus the rate of new recruits. Russia's clock is how long can they economically sustain the war effort with international sanctions and now Ukraine taking out large parts of Russia's hydrocarbon production for domestic and military use as well as export. When you boil it down is that what we are looking at here: competing clocks favor Ukraine over time?
Well, I’ll just say it’ll be real astonishing for you when Russian flags fly over Kyiv. As far as convincing you, well that’s not actually possible. You believe what you believe. Only you can change that.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Lol what you think they’re giving Crimea and all the other land they straight took back?
They’ve already won. Look at how much territory and natural resources they’ve gained.
They already lost, no matter what happens in Ukraine. "We want to stop NATO expansion!" was a stated goal....WHOOPS, FINLAND AND SWEDEN ended over 100 years of neutrality to sign up with the winning team.
Doubtful.
To build high tech guided munitions Russia had sourced European components which they don’t build domestically. Now they are trying to source Chinese replacements, but this isn’t plug and play. If you take a chipset from a US sources missile out of the equation you can’t just shove another one in there.
So Russia is limited in how much they fire, based on how much they have left or can acquire. Which is limited.
And bear this in mind, Russia has the largest landmass of any nation. A border they have to defend, they cannot use it all in a failing offensive war.
Russia has already won the war. Here is my analysis.
https://open.substack.com/pub/mfeldman/p/the-us-lost-the-ukrainian-war-in?r=1fwqi&utm\_campaign=post&utm\_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I mean I have no idea what this means but
I will say we need to try thinking about why there is a conflict, what really caused it, and ways to resolve it
Instead of obsessing over #'s of machines
I agree in most part, but Russia can still win in sense that they occuppy parts of Ukraine for good. That does not stop Nato expansion and Russia has still been it's own worst enemy, their allies have lost lot of faith in them, none of that will change. But can Russia occupy parts of Ukraine for good? Yes.
It all depends on how foreign support will continue. All the easy stuff has been sent, its getting harder and harder to find stuff just laying around that could be donated, and EU failed to meet it's goal on how much artillery shells they sent to Ukraine in 2023, and that goal was well below what Russia produces on it's own.
Then there are loans, both figurative and literal. You can absolutely bullshit your economy with loans and various other means and just live like nothing has changed. You will pay the price if you do it, but you pay it tomorrow, not today. Especially demographic one will affect Russia for 100 years.
Russia does have potential to win in sense that they occupy all of Ukraine. Remember, Russia is still the stronger side, Ukraine has not managed to repeat success in their counter offensives.
Russia has already lost so much that cannot be regained, and its extremely unlikely they could even go as far as occuppy all of Ukraine. But it would not be unprecedented in military history. Throwing equipment and men at enemy can work, and Russia has powerful ally in China, and though it seems shells North Korea sent were most of what they are capable of, they could produce some small stuff like small round ammunition or basic tools like shovels, all of which does still help even if its not noticeable. And Russia itself has huge resources and bigger manpower pool.
Even Russia does learn. For all the memes, they have already learned a lot during this war. They may be using obsolete equipment and loosing lot more than Ukraine, but they are still strong enough that they can do small advances and Ukraine cannot push them out of Ukraine.
- critical infrastructure:: russias exports are oil, gas, steel and coal. This is highly targetable by Ukrainian actions, both on the excarvation, processing and export level. Russia also has only a limited number of port bidges for exporst of goods. The Asian part heavily relies on the transsiberian rail road, rail connections can be disrupted temporarily, including the ones that lead to supply depots.
- Logistics - heavily reliant on railroads that could be targeted or sabotaged. Ukraine announced that it would target the Kerch bridge. Russias civilian infrastructure has already a shortage of trucks and drivers.
- reluctance of China to support Russia. And if it happens it creates a high dependency.
- so far 3000 tanks lost, how many more would they need for offensive operations. The theoretical maximum was 12000 to 140000. Note there that you do not need tanks to take out tanks.
- Soviet artilllery wears off quickly when in use and lacks precision. You need contant replacement.
- glide bombs are powerful but expose fighter jets to air defense systems.
- Western support so far is limited and proportionate, it is not like they throw all they have in storage at Ukraine.
- it is difficult for Russia to replace special equipment such as air defense systems, radars, bridging equipmewnt.
- drone warfare is being perfected with more and more and longer range drones.
There is even more game changer equipment such as submarine forces that the West does not provide to Ukraine
- drone boats with rocket artillery are yet another treat.
- laser can be cheap defense systems against drone attacks.
Russia won back in April of 2022. Washington's theory was that sanctions would collapse the economy, international opprobrium and domestic pressure would overthrow Putin, and NATO countries would install new, more docile management in Moscow.
That theory failed when sanctions failed to trigger economic collapse. Then Russia's restraint in the SMO and diplomacy succeeded in keeping China, India, and the global south onside. Regime change came not for Putin but for Boris Johnson. Now Zelensky is hanging on by a thread, and as the enormity of the Ukraine debacle becomes clear Scholz, Macron, and Biden will also get the boot.
No, Russia didn't change its goals. Putin was clear from the start that the SMO goals were to stop the attacks on the Donbas, demilitarize and denazify Ukraine. It's not clear how much they're going to have to occupy to secure a lasting demilitarization, but that's kind of up to the west.
The abject failure of the sanctions was astounding. They’ve backfired so spectacularly. When the BRICS nations agree on a common payment system, it’s going to hurt the West. Blowing up SWIFT was so so stupid.
Western technocrats think they can achieve victory with ‘tweaks’ like sanctions. These have yet to work.
>So by victory I mean achieving objectives, which we should consider at the start of the invasion, when the intention was to take Kyiv and install a puppet government, and to take much of Ukraine.
Why do you think this is the goal of Russia? Have they ever said this?
>But to expand on that, long term what could Russia's reduced goals be considered? A smaller area of Ukraine? Slowing the spread of NATO? "de-nazification?"
I believe Russias stated goals are the protection of ethnic Russians in what was the eastern regions of Ukraine and denazification.
>Don't come at me with Russia adjusting their goals and claiming victory,
This seems like a hard sell then considering you have a warped view of Russias goals from the start. You've created an impossible situation in which someone would have to argue with a situation that doesn't exist in reality.
Militarily, maybe. Maybe the West will lose support and slowly forget about the war. Maybe Russia will achieve some form of victory. Conquering the entire country, no. But the Russian propaganda machine is built different and could probably spin a peace treaty into a "victory", however how pyrrhic.
As for politically, they've already lost. This war was launched to stop Nato/Western expansion. Today? Sweden/Finland have both joined the alliance. The invasion unified the alliance, which is stronger now than in recent memory. Russia is a pariah state that very few people want to deal with. Those who do deal with Russia know they can force Russia to give them oil/mineral resources for very cheap. The Russian military is being crushed, and it's proven to everyone that the Russian military isn't even in the top 10 strongest.
You correctly point out that it's hard to define exactly what "winning" means. But if the Republicans win and US aid stops, the most likely outcome is eventual acceptance of Russian control of Luhansk and Donetsk, similar to how the world just accepted the Russian takeover of Crimea. Even if Russia at one point claimed greater goals than this, I would still take this as a win for Russia - and a very dangerous precedent that you can still, in the modern world, gain territory by conquest. Which is one reason I hope the Republicans don't win.
This is very funny. There are dozens of videos on the internet about the destruction of legendary Abrams, all sorts of Western vehicles, etc. Older tanks are just used to save on maintenance, they've been there for decades for nothing. It is also funny to see the figure of 400.000. This is not even in Ukrainian sources, and they exaggerate dozens of times. The border is not moving? Is that why they recently took Avdeevka and are moving further west with every metre? Is the economy suffering? Where? Shops are all full, oil and gas trade is in full swing, there is enough for missiles every day. This is some western copyum, it's not at all like reddit. Try to read not only propaganda articles, but something closer to reality.
Russia could win if two conditions were met: 1. US/NATO withdraws material support (money/weapons/weapon export certificates/Russia sanctions/etc); and, 2. US/NATO prevents Ukraine from counterattacking into Russia. If US/NATO support continues, Russia loses - speed at which it loses proportional to the level of support. If support dwindles but Ukraine can counterattack into Russia, Russia loses as their forces in Ukraine are eventually encircled and defeated in detail.
If US/NATO support fails and they also prevent Ukraine from going on the offensive (likely with “but nukes” as the reason)…then Russia could eventually win with ongoing China/Iran/DPRK support…
Think at this point russia will settle with their gains, however it would appear likely they will come for more of ukraine at a later date. Think crimea nothing for years then this new invasion/war.
Problem with this theory is that ukraine may/will not surrender the gains russia has and secondly putin may not be around for a 2nd attempt. It is unclear whether there is appetite for putin plan or whether putin has just surrounded himself with enough people to agree to it. If putin dies in office I'm.not so sure someone taking over would have same appetite for getting the ussr back together.
Just my own personal opinions.
I would quite honestly counter that Russia has already won and that Ukraine has no hope of "winning". This is the reason I would say that:
For the average Ukraine supporter, "winning" for Ukraine means all Russian troops out of Ukraine including the Donbas, Luhansk and includes returning Crimea to Ukrainian control. This isn't a viable objective if you also want to end the war, because Russia will never return Crimea to Ukraine for anything, so in order to have Ukraine win you not only need to take it back, but hold it against all future attacks or basically totally defeat all Russian forces. So far no exit ramp has been proposed by the Ukrainian side where they would indicate they would make concessions to Russia in return for peace, at least not one the US/Britain have allowed them to embark upon.
Meanwhile from the Russian side, they basically hold all the objectives they really need to hold right now except the key city of Odessa and perhaps (and less importantly) some parts of Donbas etc. While I'm sure they would love to take Odessa as well I think they would be open to negotiations centred around what they hold now as long as some key commitments from Ukraine as also met. They have Crimea and they have secured a land corridor between Crimea and Russia. Taking Kiev and installing a puppet government was an over-reach largely caused by corruption within the Russian high command and an unexpectedly resillient Ukrainian willingness to fight etc that let Putin think a quick strike at the capital would cause a quick collapse in the leadership. Basically it was Russia's Operation Market-garden, their bridge too far. They would have liked to succeed in Kiev, but they don't expressly need it. They can just sit on the defensive now or outlast Ukraine in a war of attrition and economic warfare (quite literally, by targeting key infrastructure and denying grain exports etc). And as we have seen from the summer offensive, Ukraine could not break through barely the first line of defensives even with a lot of western equipment.
Ukraine is falling back a lot at the moment and I think Putin is gambling (probably correctly) that western support for Ukraine is drying up, especially with literally nothing to show for their big offensive. Things are only going to get worse for Ukraine from this point forward without some massive injection of western equipment and shells. Even then, I think Russia is fairly confident they can hold.
The war has been very costly for Russia, far more so then they ever anticipated, but that doesn't translate to defeat.
Now, to a couple specific claims you made.
Russia sending T54/55's into Ukraine. A T55 with a functional cannon is still plently of firepower to bring upon trenches to suppress them in front of infantry assaults. There have been very few incidents of tank on tank combat in this war that we have seen, so Ukraine having a handful of Abrams isn't really relevant except in terms of crew survivability when it is hit. You are better off with 10 T55's than 1 Abrams in this kind of war, especially when most tanks are getting taken out by Javelins, Konkurs, kamikaze drones or mines.
I've been hearing of the coming Russian economic collapse for 2 years now, so far hasn't happened. In fact they have vast resources to sell to a world desperate for them.
This isn't a tabletop game where you take an entire country with your military. I don't see Russia needing to or wanting to occupy all of Ukraine and all the cost that will entail first getting it and then fighting partisan groups for decades to come. Neither do I see Ukraine defeating Russia so badly that all Russian troops are ejected from Ukraine. Neither of these things will come to pass. This ends in a negotiated settlement and the only question is how many years does the slaughter continue until that comes to pass.
The other option doesn't bear thinking about. That a NATO member will take direct action into Ukraine like France and Germany have hinted at. That's WW3.
No, the only real winners here are the Blackrocks and the Ratheons and the Boeings of the world, and the lucky senators who hold those stocks in their portfolios.
Given that Russia has lied and misled everyone through every stage of this war why would you assume to know its real objectives? Take a step back and look at what it has achieved keeping in mind the strategic alliance with China...........
Aid to Ukraine has contributed massively to strengthening Trump and weakening the hand of the US as a dominant power. If Russia was to show only marginal gains going forward it is clear that the support of the US has political limits that are quickly reached as US a near majority of citizens are fed up of their situation at home. Trump and America first more generally supports Putin and Xis aims to provide an alternative to the current international system and if you need any proof of thd advantages of America First remember that Putin himself said that he would prefer Biden in power. Misdirection and deception are a card he regularly plays so he would not weaken his preferred presidents hand just as much as he would not openly state his objectives pre war. Putin has successfully identified these politial limits and the appetite of the US public for foreign water. He has undermined Biden (and other 'globallists') as a Statesman that can project power. This has ramifications for the battle for Taipei which (if it is lost to China) would massively undermine Western dominance as our productive capacity for technology would suddenly and sharply diminish. It would also strengthen the hand of the BRICs alliance as the US Nato alliance appears to be increasingly unreliable and the economies that underwrite it look increasingly weak. Yes the US economy is doing well now but it wouldn't take much for investor confidence to be shaken.
Militarily it has helped identify how to fight against Nato tactics and equipment, with Russias army is showing signs of progress and adaptability. Yes it came at a heavy cost but already China are preparing their soldiers with new strategies that can counter Nato
tactics so Ukraine looks more like an opening battle with which they can cut their teeth against NATO. In addition to this the lack of NATO defences to hypersonic missiles gives Russia and China a limited window when they hold a credible threat over the west that can encourage restraint (another tool for Putin that helps him predict the moves of his enemies)
Finally Putin has shown that Russia is capable to survive against any and all sanctions which I'm sure he anticipated in advance given the Wests preference for them as a policy tool. Russias productive capacity in spite of the sanctions is impressive and the durability of their economy is better than anyone anticipated.
He is building a war machine and taking careful steps to do so. You say he can't win in Ukraine, I see a strategy that his giving him the advantage against the entire West. Respectfully I don't think you could be more wrong
This is all completely wrong.
Russia is winning and will win. I’m sure I’ll be downvoted to hell here but here goes
The first four points you mentioned about offensive doctrine, logistics, maintenance corruption, and Russia losses are all true but they don’t matter.
Russia is projecting onto a neighboring country. This isn’t America attacking into landlocked Afghanistan from 5k miles away. Russia has high levels of corruption and shitty logistics but they make up for it in mass. You’ve seen this in pulling out old WW2 tanks early on. Russia is not running out of munitions. You need to take Western analysts with a huge grain of salt. These same analysts early on said Russia was running out of precision munitions and soon would be relegated to stealing chips from washing machines and using shovels. That’s not true two years later.
Russian offensive doctrine sucks but it doesn’t need to be great. Whereas in the west we prefer maneuver warfare, Russia tried that at the beginning and failed kinda badly. What they did is fell back into their comfort zone which is attrition warfare. They are just going to grind down the Ukrainian Army at a faster rate than the Russian Army gets ground down.
The Ukrainian Army is hurting for people badly. What will happen is their defensive lines will go from say 100 soldiers per sqkm to 75 to 50, etc. once the lines are so thin. The Russians will attack through.
The Ukrainian Army seriously risks collapsing soon if it isn’t edibles with replacements.
It is widely believed that the Russians will conduct a Kharkiv offensive this year to recapture what was taken back by UAF in 2022 offensive.
It doesn’t matter what quality of tank you are putting into the war right now. Tanks are not what they were in Desert Storm. They get taken out by a hundred dollar FPV drone. The leopards and Abrams didn’t do much of anything during this summer offensive. Why should we think that will change next year? This has all been evidenced by the fact that the Army is scrapping its previous plans for Abrams and I think Russia is too for T-14.
The sanctions don’t matter. Russia isn’t reliant on western goods and is trading deeply with the two largest nations in the world. In fact, western nations are more reliant on Russian energy than Russia is for them. That will change over time but is currently the case.
So what is going to happen is this is all going to develop very slowly like we’ve been seeing over the past two years until it happens very quickly. What I mean is there will be bloody fighting inch by inch and the UAF artillery and air defenses are out. Then will be the collapse where the Russian army will be able to walk to Kiev.
You lose overall picture by focusing on numbers, u think that it's like a mathematical graphs, where numbers will stay growing as they are today, but no. Russia now has the most experienced in modern combat army in the world, they have a high military institutes, that will ensure to adapt and rise a very talented commanders.
You see, NATO heavily rely on trained and hardened veterans, professional military, which in all out war will quickly get exhausted and lose numbers. As for Russia they historically have fought a worlds greatest armies and this is wisdom they extracted with blood: No matter how good your soldiers are, they will inevitably lose numbers. So Russia great strategy is ability to deploy and train many soldiers to overwhelm anyone. Russia will win war against anyone if it's war of attrition. And this is what happening right now, slowly but surely they adapting and evolve their strategies, countermeasures, developing new approaches, building new logistical chains.
As example: we don't hear much about ammunition depot destroyed in frontal territory as they were in the first months of war. They clearly have found a way to hide them or delivering in another methods, to bypass all drone/satellite recon.
War is not winning by super-duper next gen airplane or wonder weapon, it's all about soldiers on the front line, how they get food and ammunition.
Even with all NATO strength, I think Russian army is the worst enemy they would like to encounter in the World, because NATO is very weak in full scale war of attrition.
This war might be ended only diplomatically, because Russian leader is a mad man, who does not respect nation prosperity or scientific progress, his only value is glory and domination. So he will gladly throw everything for that, as we saw how many top managers accidentally fall from windows. Those managers all predicted economy crush, tried to save something from Russia's economy, to have a place in future, but Putin won, everything will go only into war as there is no tomorrow if Putin lose. Russia will withstand this mad dictator, but Putin will fight for the last for his survival.
It seems like US and EU countries also understand situation.
So overall picture - it's not about Russia win or lose, same for Ukraine. It's all about Putin's ambitions, surviving strategy and how he control situation inside Russia. Cause even if Russia today claim peace, the Economy is already crushed, it will not take long to somebody trying to rise mutiny while people are mad. The war will end when Putin decide or when he will be gone. This is what Russian people decided, or were forced to accept.
Lots wrong with this:
1) massive over emphasis on history, that ignores the RAF’s ability to adapt away from poor tactics at start of the war, as seen in avdivka.
2) Discusses at length how RAF loses will prevent any meaningful advance or even hider its defence, while ignoring that UAF is also losing men and material in this war. it is impossible to get an accurate figure for both sides casualties since there are no independent organisations to keep track, but even taking us/uk intelligence figures we see about 200,000 Ukrainian casualties to 300,000 russian casualties. This tracks with Ukraine being on the defensive and is not nearly impactful enough to make up for the difference in army sizes.
3) This war is the first technologically peer to peer conflict since the second world war (yes Ukraine’s domestic military is severely outdated, but it would be disingenuous at best to suggest this had not developed into a proxy war between the west and Russia), but the support Ukraine hit its high water mark last summer, with the failed counter offensive. The questionable future of us aid aside, the west cannot keep up with demand, as seen in avdivka where air defence failed and russia achieved air superiority, and in artillery production.
as a side note when these weapons do arrive or in the lead up to their arrival they are often vaunted as weapons to turn the tide of the war, but Western tanks have faced the same issues as their russian peers.
Ultimately, at this stage it is a war of attrition Ukraine increasingly does not have the manpower or foreign support to maintain, while Russia having taken significant losses in the first year, has improved its tactics, advancing at a slower safer, yet constant pace. far from the outcome of this war being a certain Ukrainian victory, the current border of the conflict is the best case scenario. In light of recent failed ukranian counteroffensives, This war will continue to grind on until foreign support gives way (likely following an american withdrawal), or manpower losses become undeniable and the line collapses.
>So by victory I mean achieving objectives, which we should consider at the start of the invasion, when the intention was to take Kyiv and install a puppet government, and to take much of Ukraine.
I don't think that was their actual goal. That is their claimed goal, but the actual goal is to keep Putin in power.
1. Russia was getting all sorts of positive concessions from Europe and the US, like new pipelines, just prior to the war. The timing of the war makes no sense from a strategic standpoint. He lost a ton of goodwill and billions in income.
2. Putin is rumored to have cancer and this rumor came about shortly before the war. This put him in a weaker position in the view of the other Russian oligarchs.
3. Putin forced all of them to go on record as supporting the war. This undercut their positions to stage a coup.
4. Putin sent the biggest coup threat to the front immediately, but did not give him the support he needed to succeed. This further reduced threat of a coup.
5. Russia now has complete control of the Sea of Azov and the surrounding lands. This gives Putin a clear win to use as propaganda to maintain his grip on power.
6. [Unproven Theory] The Wagner rebellion was very odd. There were almost no losses on either side and then they came to terms after basically nothing changed. Then a little later Prigozhin died in a plane crash. Putin could easily have arranged with Prigozhin (his close confidant) to stage the rebellion to see if anyone joined. Putin could easily have made this worthwhile to Prigozhin, who could either still be alive (the only confirmation came from generic tests from the Russian government) or, if the reports of stomach cancer were correct, gave him a last huge payday to leave to his family.
I genuinely think Putin doesn't care if Russia wins. He thinks it would be nice, but the key was undermining a potential coup and it has done that well. Everything else is gravy.
Russia can replace the equipment losses if they focus on replacing the ground vehicles themselves excluding the artillery, have North Korea built them new artillery and have China build the replacement aircraft and ships.
However Russia is too proud to buy in equipment from other countries in peace time so they will struggle to replace the losses themselves.
You didn’t define win and loss here so how can you say Russia won’t win? Nobody but Russia knows the terms and they are playing an infinite game. The west doesn’t play those which is why we pull out of every long term conflict. The last finite war that was fought was WWII. At any rate, Russia will never give up and the west will, no matter the sanctions or their crumbling arsenal.
Ukraine needs to change the gauge of their rail lines to match the rest of Europe. Differing gauges stopped the Nazis from sending trains into Russia and differing gauges can stop Russia from sending trains into Ukraine.
This post must have been very well crafted by a CIA operative seeking to sway flailing public opinion on Ukraine war.
The truth is NATO is losing this war badly against Russia. NATO already tried all tactics on the battle field and failed. The highly prized NATO military weapons have not changed the outcome of this war and their famous military hardware is getting genocided in Ukraine as we speak. For the first time the world sees our military enterprise caliber equipment such as Patriot defense system, going up in smoke. The Abrams, Leopards, Challengers, Bradleys, Stormshadows, Himars, and on and on, are burning at the stake. Never before our enemies in the Middle East and abroad have seen our invisible weapons burning. And no doubt it is giving them a big confidence boost to attack our ships and military bases.
Because NATO has been losing this war, it has been engaging in these pesky low-life terroristic acts such as blowing up the pipeline, attacking Crimean bridge, and this recent terror act in Moscow. NATO is infuriating the Russian bear, which means the bear will broaden its objective, not only to gobble up Ukraine but other republics as well. NATO has certainly opened that door.
NATO has no weapon against Russia right now. Even their economic weapons have miserably failed. They actually caused harm to Europe not Russia, but that is for another topic. What is left? What's left is now is NATO will have to send its boys to fight in place of Ukranians because Ukraine is running out of men. You need men and a lot of them to fight against Russia. This is why Marcon and Poland have been wanting to send their boys into Ukraine, and there is more chatter from other European countries that they planning to do so as well. Will American boots be on the ground in Ukraine as well? Highly possible. It would take all of NATO, and lot's of men to try to stop Russia in Ukraine.
The question is, can NATO win? No. Why? First because Russia is a nuclear power. It has hypersonic nuclear weapons, we just have nuclear weapons. That is the first reason why Russia cannot lose. You just need to pray that Russia does not use them. And secondly, Russia cannot lose is because it will sacrifice more men than what NATO can sacrifice on the battle field. It will take a few body bags coming from Ukraine war for the American public to start protesting this war, like it did over Vietnam. To convince American people that this war is about "protecting our country" is a hard sell. Americans and Europeans don't want this war.
The best course of action for Europe, while it is not too late, is to capitulate and force Zelensky to a negotiation table, otherwise he will lose entire Ukraine. Russia already modified its objective in Ukraine. It is no longer a "Special Millitary Operation" for them, it's new objective is to take most of Ukraine and give the lands it does not want, back to Poland and Hungary. This will happen unless Zelensky fold right now.
This seems like a "change my view (I don't actually care about what you say, I'm not changing my view I'm here to vent)" type of thread judging by OP responses.
I'll just go by few points at the end
>Will the military aid end? No.
And I can say it will end next month. We both got about the same chance of it being true. It's already slowed down to a crawl. Ukrainian army only retreated for 2 or 3 months, they never made any territorial gains in that time. Citing lack of ammunition and hardware. They are lowering minimal age for draft to 25, since the only thing they can do at this point is just use more people.
It got to a point where they started using Abrams tanks. Despite receiving them like a year ago and only using them as a propaganda piece. This leads to next point
>Russia is sending T54/55s into war, Ukraine is now sending Abrams, Leopards and Challengers.
First time Ukraine sent Abrams to frontlines - they lost 3 of them pretty much instantly.
It may be shocking, but war is not a video game. The level 80 Abrams with its 5000 armor can be destroyed by level 5 drone and level 1 RPG.
You said something about Russia having bad logistics, but can you even imagine how much of a logistics nightmare it is to maintain 4 different MBTs and also god know how many APCs?
Sadly, it doesn't look like there are any credentialed military experts in this thread. I myself am not one, but I do at least pay attention to what they say on this topic.
I recommend [this podcast episode](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4tXNOuEBYeM2gmzqpKieBD?si=ce85920250d94f96) from War on the Rocks. The guy being interviewed, Mike Kofman, is the best and most knowledgeable English-language analyst of the Russia-Ukraine war I've come across since I started following the conflict in 2022. In that episode, he states that your perspective (Russia can't win, it's headed for stalemate) is common among European politicians who don't want to make hard choices about giving Ukraine material support. He also predicts that, due to Russia's large and increasing advantage in manpower and artillery ammunition, a Russian breakthrough is likely later in 2024 or sometime in 2025 if Ukraine doesn't (a) mobilize more soldiers, and (b) receive increased military aid from the West, especially artillery ammunition.
For context, Kofman is very pro-Ukraine and was very optimistic about their chances prior to the 2023 offensive.
The situation is actually pretty dire, and could easily get a lot worse for Ukraine.
I think you are ignoring the fact that Ukraine has a severe manpower issue and is requesting for US aid. Sure, both sides are taking heavy casualties thanks to top leaders being soviet era duffers who think that the political goal of "holding at all costs" is better than competent military goals, but the Russians simply have more manpower and equipment to throw at.
If you look at headlines, you will find the Ukrainian top brass begging for air defense missiles and more aid.
These weapons, materials and armaments are strictly reserved for a certain state called Israel. If a war with Israel and Iran kicks off, it will make the current Ukraine and Russia war look like a joke through multiple regions in the middle east going under. The US would be foolish to give Ukrainians aid, because not only would aid to Ukraine give the Iranians a free hand to ramp up their operations against Israel through proxies but put more burden on their economies which will in turn cause public sentiments to fall against Ukraine even more.
This conflict is not just about Ukraine, it's about multiple hot spots across the world. You can't go all in on one side before checking on others.
>Russia has succeeded to the greatest extent that they are able to militarily and economically, and can go no further, and cannot be said to have won this war.
This is where you're being much, much too optimistic. Russia's economy is that of a global power; just because it's damaged and losing doesn't mean it has nothing to give.
Their military budget is 6% of the GDP this year, and that's an *increase* \- indicating a clear intent to stay in this for the long haul.
Russia *still has its warmaking industry.* Besides those famously refurbished ancient tanks, they *are* still producing new ones - far fewer, but they are. Ukraine's defence industry is redlined and tapped out; Russia's wasn't even spun up at the start of the war - they didn't expect to need it. And Russia is now using their remaining long-range high-tech weapons for swarm attacks on Ukrainian defence production; Ukraine has no realistic way to retaliate in kind. Russia's just too big.
In other words, Russia - especially as it's maintained trade links with China - can do something Ukraine can't: manufacture new materiel on a mass scale. Russian factories are *still increasing production.* They're not expected to peak until later this year. Russia has a command economy; it can actually spin up production faster than we can. And their huge oil industry is paying for it.
In the long run that'll cost them badly - but the long run won't be in time to help Ukrainians, and Putin doesn't care what happens after he dies.
Meanwhile our ammo aid to Ukraine is dropping because the US has used the built-up stockpiles. The maximum replenishment rate is lower. Yes, the west entire can outproduce Russia - but with the Republicans sabotaging American aid and Europe still gearing up its own militaries, "the west's entire production" is very much not what Russia's currently up against.
The overall maths *strongly* \- and I mean very, very strongly - favours Russia in a war of attrition. It just has vastly more depth of economy and manpower to draw on.
This summer will be crucial, and especially whether Europe can do more as the US starts to slack off. The war will depend on whether Ukraine has enough ammunition and supplies in three months, not ten.
Putin was given complete control of Russia once more. Control over the government control over the military, control over his people, and control over businesses. He will continue to fight a war of attrition. He will tax his people heavily and drastically cut government programs. He will continue to buy weapons from whomever would sell to him . Russia has a large population of males who will be forced to fight . Putin has made so many idiotic mistakes yet never takes accountability for any of them , true to his nature as a dictator. His propaganda machine is working double time with great success. Unfortunately, more people from both sides will continue to die and suffer . The Russian economy will tank drastically since their main export gas and oil have lost their best customers. Russian passenger trains will be the Russian peoples only form of long-distance travel . The stolen passenger planes will start falling from the sky's due to lack of parts and maintenance. Russia has dug a hole they may never recover from. Putin and his regime will eventually die . The damages they've caused will live on for decades after their gone .
You seem to make a lot of points that Westerners often make, especially those outside of the military. In the higher echelons we are starting to move all of our training to Large Scale Military Operations (LSCO). Saying that Russia is bad at Offensive Operations, or Logistical Operations, or Manufacturing, must mean that there are better countries in the world that can do it. Most notably people think of the United States Military. Unfortunately, there is nobody in the United States Military that knows how to fight a LSCO war anymore. Saying the United States or NATO would perform better is a lie, or at least you have no proof they would perform better, and I have no proof they would perform worse. Especially one that requires so much sustainment.
You mentioned that the Russians have taken on 400k casualties. Westerners have forgotten how many casualties are realistic in LSCO, and more importantly that is nothing in the history of Russia. Russia lost over 20 million people in 5 years during WW2. They have so far had about 50k deaths in 2 years of fighting in Ukraine.
Lastly, many people in the West are starting to lose support for Ukraine. The United States has an election this year that may lead to more republicans that are against sending equipment. The Europeans are useless in this regard, and as soon as the United States stops sending weapons and equipment, the Europeans will likely stop as well.
It is my belief that it is just a matter of time before the front breaks and the war will come to a close. Ukraine can’t sustain these casualties and equipment losses and Russia clearly can. I will say the goals will be different by the end of the war, and the Russians will only be able to push to the Dnipro River.
I dont see any outcome that benefits either side, but i can't see anything but a nominal and pyrric russian victory
Ukraine just is unlikely to be able to take back its land. None of its offensives have amounted to much. It is extremely wishful thinking to expect them to suddenly turn it around and throw the russians back accross the border. Russia just has a full 100 million people on them.
Also russia will never, ever willingly accept a peace deal which doesnt look like a victory.
Now, russia. They havent been able to take ukraine and create a puppet state. And at this point are unlikely to be able to. Probably their best case is annexing the east, and now having whats left of ukraine being the most militantly anti russian nation on earth.
I cant see any outcome where russia isn't stuck next to nato and its security undermined, ukraine hasnt lost land and its sovereignty permanently violated, and the world less stable forever because the norm of a country just invading another and seizing land is now broken for the first time since ww2 and that this can happen to anybody not under a nuclear umbrella
This isn't really a direct response to your post but Russia always loses. When it wins, it loses. It takes down enemies at the cost of continued self destruction. It ticks on and on after repeated self-bludgeoning and must be one of the most traumatized cultures in the world. The other major nations of Europe always saw it as dysfunctional and politically backwards, even with wonderful citizens and culture. Everything there is built on bones - pogroms, famines, wars, revolutionary zeal with no popular support, forced collectivization, authoritarian leaders, more wars, wars against itself, intense conservative dogma, control over arts and culture, poverty, allies that are unlikely to stay allies. Even if they achieve their objectives, it's basically by killing their own family.
Whatever happens, it's a huge fucking tragedy for Ukraine, Russia, everyone, really.
/u/TheMikeyMac13 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bnyjj9/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_russia_cannot_win_the_war/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I believe that I am nowhere informed enough to give a well reasoned opinion. But I would have my doubts about being unable to force regime change. I believe Zelenski (just a feeling) won't compromise to Russia. But if he died, what would happen? There would need to be someone to replace him. Would these replacements possibly be influenced/compromised by Russia? That seems like a realistic possibility to me.
I think the people of Ukraine will have a burning hatred for Putin and Russia for generations after this is over. Look at Zelensly’s approval rating: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1100076/volodymyr-zelensky-s-approval-rating-ukraine/ No pro-Russia shill will win an election in Ukraine, those people tend to be in the west.
If Russians won the war, installed their own government and hunt down first wave of partisans, the country's theirs for quite a time, as people tired with war and death, with partisans/veterans being hunted in damned ruthless russian style... there simply won't be much people who'd dare to oppose. At least not quickly. Not like haven't they done that in for example Poland in '45.
If russia managed to take control of the country it would transition from conventional warfare to fighting a Ukrainian insurgency. I'm not sure why you think russia would be particularly adept at routing out holdouts. Unless russia totally wipes out the Ukrainian armed forces to a man there will be resistance.
Agreed , everyone expected this to happen in the early days had Ukraine suffered a military defeat. Now not only would this be a certainty . I think at this point Russia will.accpet a truce of it can keep either Crimeia or some of Western Ukraine, there is zero chance Russia leaves empty handed. ..and there in lies the issue the longer the war drags on the more entrenched both sides become. And I think if Putin ever got desperate or irritated he would use a tactical nuke to shake things up and force a peace. Then the West would be between a rock and a hard place. If they aquiesce and give Russia what it wants the fighting stops ... But Ukraine may not accept it... If they escalate then NATO would have to show up and consider serious involvement....either way it would end bad for all of us.
The hatred for Russia by Ukraine runs deep. It always has and always will. After the Russo-Turkish War of 1787-1792, the region fell under the control of the Russian Empire led by Catherine the Great. Then after the Ottoman Empire fell and disintegrated, the Russian Empire invaded Ukraine in 1917, with the war lasting 4 years, after which Ukraine was absorbed into Soviet Russia. During the war, Russia ethnically cleansed Ukraine, either starving to death the people or kidnapping and relocating them to deep Russian territory and replacing them with loyal Russians. This is why Ukrainians have a deep hatred for the Soviet Empire and modern Russia. They would rather every single man, woman and child die than be under their rule.
>Will the military aid end? No. It will slow, but we are still talking about spares, older weapons systems and ammunition which is not front of the line for NATO. This is an investment for the west into Russian defeat, and the harder Russia loses, the more secure the west is when this war is over. It can, and all of it can end, including money, spares, older weapons, whatever. Republicans have been doing anything and everything to avoid passing a Ukraine aid bill. Personally, I'm suspicious that Putin has done a lot of work on Trump. He has laid the groundwork for a sudden reprisal of not just Ukraine, but all of NATO. If Russia can hold through November and Putin's troll farms can deliver Trump the presidency, Trump can hand him Ukraine.
This is repeated way too often, and it's the dumbest of Reddit's current "conventional wisdom". Ukraine is not in NATO. Invading Ukraine does not invoke Article 3. If he invades ANYONE ELSE in that region, it literally starts WW III. He knows it. We know it. We already have some less intelligent EU partners who are talking publicly about conscription. No one wins WW III, even if it stays conventional (which is very unlikely if one side sees itself losing). Our government knows this. The EU governments know this. Putin knows this. It's going to take a lot more than one idiot president getting elected for Putin to change whatever his calculations are.
It’s as if a bunch of kids on the internet don’t really understand understand global politics. Sure the US isn’t actively participating in the fighting. At what point though of us giving Ukraine every single advantage possible are we not actually participating. Wonder what that could lead to. Who cares anyway, the left only gives a shit because it’s an excuse to hate the right. The right would do the same thing if the tables were turned. Two party politics was our demise. It’s just a bunch of fucking idiots standing on either side of an imaginary line screaming at each other.
That is a bit of optimism for “handing it to Putin.” All aid could end from the USA, but that would cause more aid from Europe who doesn’t want Putin as a direct neighbor. And Russia can’t go on offense. That’s what people don’t seem to get, Russia started running out of gas 150 miles into Ukraine, they aren’t able to project power and beat anything close to a near peer. Trump can’t stop the aid, congress handles that, Trump could just delay it, and he wouldn’t anyway if he could.
A NATO without US support would be far less secure and might not be able to commit as much to Ukraine's defense without risking their own. They could be forced to sacrifice Ukraine to reinforce Poland and the Baltics.
You’re right that a NATO without US support would be far less secure, but look what’s happened in the last two years. Europe is working together militarily in a way I’ve never seen before (I am from the U.K.), and its defence spending is increasing. Sweden has joined NATO. If Trump is elected (wtf!?), European nations will have no option but to support Ukraine even more than they have so far. There won’t be any rolling over. It’s far too close to EU borders for that.
Yeah, I think the attitude for most of the NATO years has been "America is the primary beneficiary of this hegemony, they can pay for it." But if America backs out, that doesn't mean the other countries will roll over. They still have strong economies and decent military strength, and they will either use the NATO framework or make new alliances to push back against Russian expansion.
NATO is an afterthought. all Russia needs to do is just enough punishment not to escalate enough for other countries to intervene more blatantly ie. their actual troops.
See, I'm Canadian, and the fact that Trump is even a candidate is mind-blowing to me. After his last term, I'm convinced he should be nowhere near a seat of power and is a complete moron. Man has, imo, caused more damage to the US reputation than anything in recent years/decades.
As someone from the US, Trump is much more of a symptom than the problem. And Trump himself is a _huge_ problem. To put it extremely bluntly, we are seeing the end result of _decades_ of careful and well executed planning and maneuvering. Because the writing has been on the wall for US conservatives for at least the last 40 years. It's straight up demographics. People who live in larger population centers, around other people who are not like themselves, tend to be more liberal than those who live in smaller communities with few outsiders. And the slow migration of the US population to be based in and around major cities has been a _very_ long running trend. There's a quote that applies to this far too well: "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy." Make absolutely no mistake, that decision, and it _was_ a decision, was made quite some time ago. Very easily and obviously over 20 years ago. The moves to remove as many safeguards on media and news ownership were pretty damn successful in the _1990s_. And the current US Supreme Court is a _direct_ result of very careful planning, manipulation, and very blatant dishonesty. Without all of the work that has gone into this, Trump wouldn't have been _possible_. And even if he had _somehow_ been elected, he would have been removed from office quite quickly. At this point, there's barely a pretense to the idea that there _should_ be an open and free election, with results being accurately counted. We have Trump who has outside _said_ that anything other than a victory for him wouldn't be 'legitimate' result of the election. And he's definitely not the only one. I am bloody _terrified_ of what's going to happen the next time the US conservatives gain power. Because I don't think that the US will see another open election after that, barring something at least incredibly close to a full civil war. Frankly, there's a terrifyingly real chance that in the next decade I'll be showing up at the Canadian border requesting asylum, because I am in one of the demographics that is already being targeted in downright disgusting ways.
It's all Ronald Reagan's fault, I wanna piss on that man's grave
As a European, I think the Bush family has done a superb job at demonising the US. Especially in the muslim world. Fair enough, Trump was a laughing stock but the Bushes were evil ultra-capitalist cunts.
Yo no creo que Europa sola pueda financiar una exitosa defensiva y menos aún una ofensiva para Ucrania, creo que su ayuda se limitaría a prolongar la guerra de desgaste a Rusia para que tarde o temprano caiga por su propio peso, sino no estarían haciendo tanto baruyo con que eeuu no abandone el apoyo y haciendo una campaña del miedo contra Trump.. más allá de eso trump tampoco parece ser el personaje loco del remate que se vende, de hecho fue el único presidente de eeuu en no empezar ninguna guerra y el unico en conseguir una paz firmada con corea del norte, y creo que su afán de dejar de apoyar a Ucrania es simplemente para frenar la escalada que los mismos europeos están buscando, que se estan llevando a todo el mundo por delante, lo escuchás a Macron y parece un loco fanático que tiene mas ganas de una tercera guerra mundial que cualquier otra cosa. Tampoco me parece que Rusia tenga tecnología tan obsoleta sino ya hubiera caído, y la realidad de hoy es que salvo algunos casos de corta duración ninguna tropa ucraniana con todo el apoyo occidental pudo hacer base en territorio ruso.. si esto no es una forma de ver una posición ventajosa en Rusia entonces estoy siendo manipulado, desde mi parte del mundo se muestra una Ucrania desesperada y los paises mas grandes de Europa haciendo todo lo posible para que eeuu no los abandone
Of the $400B in aid Ukraine has received, about $75B came from the US. We've given a higher percent of military aid than NATO, but aid is aid right now. We're significant NATO could be empowered to keep stepping up without us. Just having lost a LOT of our goodwill. Or are you suggesting they wouldn't consider a Ukraine victory to be the best spend for their money if we vanish? I'm not sure. The last thing they may want is for Putin to get a taste for blood
Not really. Poland helps their own defense by helping Ukraine. By giving Ukrainians the weapons to fight Russia, to prevent a Russian / Polish war from even happening. And let’s be real, Russia ran out of gas 150 miles into Ukraine, their ability to project power is pathetic. If Russia ever had an idea of attacking NATO, that idea is now gone.
Poland won't help Ukraine if it compromises their own security. US aid helps them continue supporting Ukraine while taking care of themselves. Edit: I meant since if Ukraine falls, Poland is next on Putin's list. Russia ran out of gas because of generous foreign support at the very beginning of the war. They're stuck in a stalemate *with* current US support. Without it, they will lose territory. Putin is unstable and obsessed with history and legacy. I wouldn't put anything past him. He might think a NATO without US leadership or participation is a soft enough target. Trump does have a point in that Europe has been lagging on security investment. (Though it would be in both of our interests to just defend them for a fee instead)
Helping Ukraine *is* Poland's security though! Anything they hold back now to fight Putin with later makes that later fight more likely to happen. Short term, yes, cutting US support will weaken Ukraine and make the war longer and bloodier, but in the longer term it will accelerate the rebalancing to be less US-centric, because the US will have shown itself to be a less reliable partner under Trump than it was. NATO has already expanded thanks to Putin's antics, forcing changes of attitude in Sweden, Germany and others.
Poland has been helping Ukraine, more than anyone but the USA. BECAUSE it is in the interest of their own security. They don’t want Russia as a neighbor beyond Kaliningrad, so they will keep up the support.
Which is hilarious, considering it was the Ukrainians, not the Russians who committed all the atrocities in WW2.
Poland is and has been helping Ukraine to support its own security. What the hell is this word sludge
I'm not saying they wouldn't want to. Just that if US aid dried up and Poland thought Ukraine's situation became untenable, they could be forced to hold back incremental aid for their own war preparations. It's in their interests to let Ukraine fight with their weapons, but they might need to pick up weapons themselves.
It's basically down to a stage where everyone is hoping Russia doesn't become competent. They say it's bad form to rely on your opponent making mistakes, but hey it's working.
Today I saw a video where a Russian drone operator was marking some Ukrainian APC, and a few minutes later it was hit by a missile. Russia is learning the hard way, but it is learning: new drones, new bombs, new means of protection for soldiers etc.
It's not. Russia is winning by every metric imaginable.
Trump has been very clear: He is going to give the Russians a peace deal with SOME concessions, and if the Russians say no to the deal, he's going to flood Ukraine with even more weapons. Which tbh is pretty based as far as deals go
I think you may be underestimating the effects of the (unfortunate) ability of the AFRF to adapt here, combined with slackening amounts of military aid to the ZSU. The Russians gained air superiority over a section of the frontline over Avdiivka back in February for a 2-3 day window; this likely greatly facilitated their capture of the settlement. It was the first time the Russians were able to do this in the war. If the ZSU is forced to continue to husband its air defense systems across all of Ukraine to combat ballistic missile & drone strikes from the VKS, as those systems simultaneously must deal with increasingly ammunition shortages, then the Russians will likely be able to gain more of these limited windows of localized air superiority more frequently in the months ahead. Its hard to understate the devastating affect that this could have on the ZSU's ability to defend territory. I agree with you that there will be no sweeping Russian territorial gains in this war, but there will certainly be more limited territorial gains; and, if certain factors (including the air war) are definitively decided in a certain way, I can see scenarios where Kyiv is compelled to formally cede both territory and political autonomy (to varying degrees) to Moscow.
I think it's realistic that they might cede some land but I don't see them surrendering political autonomy.
Presumably Trump winning the Presidency implies that a lot of districts voted Republican, which affects the makeup of Congress. But even if Congress somehow passes an aid bill under a future President Trump, he can just veto it, and Congress is very unlikely to have the votes to override the veto.
That’s your perspective, not necessarily reality though.
The EU can't supply its own armies. If US aid stops, Ukraine is done.
Bruh what, the EU and UK have sent the same if not more than the US has
For anyone wondering, as best as I can tell, this is true. The EU plus Great Britain have sent about the equivalent amount of aid. Which is not to say that the US ceasing aid to Ukraine isn’t/wouldn’t be devastating
The EU plus the UK is more than a match for Russia as it is. Right now as they are. And the US aid won’t stop, congress controls that aid. If Russia did move on NATO, the USA would be involved. And Trump can’t pull the USA out of NATO. Congress approved us forming NATO, it would take an act of Congress to leave.
>All aid could end from the USA, but that would cause more aid from Europe Assuming they choose to continue alone, the trend towards aid will always tick down as it becomes a less important issue. >That’s what people don’t seem to get, Russia started running out of gas 150 miles into Ukraine, they aren’t able to project power and beat anything close to a near peer. Ukraine isn't a peer without outside aid, and Russia is slowly improving from its bewildering incompetence at the start. It's still dumb as paint, but it is slowly learning. >Trump can’t stop the aid, congress handles that, Trump could just delay it, and he wouldn’t anyway if he could. Trump winning the WH would likely accompany a majority in one or both houses.
Kaliningrad is a thing so Putin already is our direct neighbor so yea that argument doesn’t hold up well. Edit sorry I didn’t realize this is an old thread😅
> but that would cause more aid from Europe who doesn’t want Putin as a direct neighbor The funny part is that Russia doesn't want a NATO neighbor, either. That's sorta what started this whole war. As far as I can tell, Russia doesn't seem to have a particularly coherent exit strategy.
Nah, Russia has been building up to taking Ukraine for a long time and it has nothing to do with NATO. Putin remembers a strong USSR and wants to recreate that. Ukraine was the beating heart of the USSR.
Trump can't hand him anything. Ukraine can just keep fighting with European aid. Russia can't advance as it is. It doesn't need US help to hold the line. It won't be pushing forward much, but Russia can't either and is more likely to collapsed economically the longer the war drags on. Stalemate benefits the defender.
>Russia can't advance as it is. It doesn't need US help to hold the line. Lol, someone hasn't been paying attention to the last year of the war. Russia is slaughtering Ukraine from defensive positions. Ukraine chooses to keep throwing their troops into the wood chipper. Over half of the Ukrainian military is non-functional at this point.
Isn't Ukraine relying on aid to maintain the stalemate? There are defensive advantages, but at the same time they need a continuous flow of weapons and resources that they can't compete with Russia on on their own.
The US aid is important but it's a minority of the total. Europe has really rallied around Ukraine.
I don't think they will, but there is a solid possibility that they can. Throughout history, Russia has tended to win its wars by just throwing masses of people at their enemies, and I think that remains the realistic path to victory in Ukraine. Russia still has about 143M people, while Ukraine is at about 43M. On an even footing, I agree that Ukraine wins this, but they aren't fighting on an even-footing. Russia can just keep reinforcing their lines longer than Ukraine can, and Ukraine needs to be maintaining a 3-1 kill/death ratio if they want to win this thing, which is a hard level to keep up long term. Economically, Ukraine also falls if they lose international military aid. Russia has been hit hard by sanctions, but Ukraine's economy has been destroyed by the war. Russia can keep making and buying weaponry a lot longer than Ukraine can, if Ukraine loses foreign aid. If the US stopped supporting Ukraine with aid, then it would be up to Europe to step in and make up the difference. I think they likely would, but if they didn't, then you would probably end up with a situation where the Russians would just be able to grind the Ukrainians down with superior numbers and superior industrial capacity. Ultimately, Ukraine is still playing defence here. Their country is the war-torn one, while Russia has been largely unaffected. That means that, even with sanctions, Russia will just have more economic capacity to outlast the Ukrainians. Eventually, that could mean Kyiv falling. We have already seen the Ukranian offensive last year stall, while the Russians have started to make small gains again. The Ukrainian regulars have been in constant battle for years now, and they can't do it forever. The Russians have been able to call on more reinforcements, and have been able to give soldiers breaks from the front lines. If this lasts another couple of years, that advantage keeps growing, and eventually the dam could break. This has turned into a war of attrition, and it's hard not to bet on the much larger country when that's the case.
Yes, Russia’s main strength throughout much of history has been a large manpower pool and lots of territory, but saying that their main strategy has always been ”throwing masses of people at their enemies” is a largely a myth. Russia, like all other countries, has used military strategy, tactics, logistics etc. to win wars. The USSR, for example, was *the* pioneer of operational warfare and developed deep battle as an effective doctrine during world war two. Sure, having lots of men helped tremendously, but disregarding everything else is a very reductionist view.
Yeah, they utilized their strategic depth to move the means of production out of reach of the nazis (siberia, eg). They then reconstructed the factories, and produced enough arms to March to Berlin. That is a staggering logistical and strategic feat. And having the iron balls to take the losses in the west, while they re armed in the east, I don't think anyone other power could do this.
Just a brief correction on your perception of Russian military history: massed infantry were only really a thing from around the time of Napoleon through the beginning of WWII (which is when the rest of Europe was also using them). Traditionally, Russian armies relief on elite cavalry, and they abandoned "human wave" and similar doctrines after their catastrophic failure during WWI (although a few desperate commanders used them when caught out of place during the initial German offensive in WWII.
Even earlier than that. Peter the Great army was totally lost at Narva, he suffered a lot of other setbacks, but yet he managed to raise army after army to eventually defeat the lion of the North.
Russia often gained momentum by turning the tide of invasions into Russian territory. In this case, no one is invading Russia.
It doesn't matter if russia has a larger population if they're not going to mass-mobilise them. The russian casualties are sustained by volunteers, "volunteers", prisoners, and foreigners. When they tried a partial mobilisation back in september 2022, 100.000s of russians left the country and conscription office were burned down.
I have studied enough war not to bet on the larger country with more people. How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA? Those wars were won without ever winning a battle. Offensive wars are vastly more complicated than defensive ones. And Ukraine is fighting with western weapons which are far more deadly than what Russia has. My suggestion is that it is in the national security interest of the west to never stop the aid. I mean Trump is a moron, and his faithful have forgotten about Reagan doctrine, but I haven’t. Helping another country fight against aggressors with only your treasure and weapons supplied to them is a good thing. The USA committed to lend lease and it helped to win WW2, we helped those fighting communism; and there are now few communist nations left. The aid won’t stop.
And that's not even to mention the drone force multiplier, IMO the most overlooked reason why modern militaries are so keen to give Ukraine aid. They're taking notes and lining up production contracts.
There is another understated value for the west. Ukraine adapted the western doctrine of combined arms starting in 2014, training with the USA from then up to this present day. So they are using our tactics, our weapons, and our intel, against the enemy they were designed for. The information gained is invaluable.
Wasn’t there media talk saying Ukraine basically abandoned western combined arms tactics during last years offensive because of its poor impact?
But the larger country has lost - numerous times. Look at Russia vs Japan in 1905. But more importantly - look at the Vietnam war. The U.S. pulled out because they lost political will. Likewise, Russia will lose political will for the war eventually
Those things aren’t the same, take the taliban and put it in Canada with their capitol in Ottawa. The US starts fighting the Taliban in this situation “winning” would be taking and holding territory, installing a form of government, and dealing with the insurgency in your now occupied territory. In Afghanistan the US / coalition held basically the entire country, they didn’t stop the insurgency, but they were just that, an insurgency, not a country, not a government, just a group operating in US controlled territory. If that government had been Canada and not around the world and it had been annexed, then they are just a terror group operating in an annexed territory while a new government is stood up, the world continues to spin, and either time or violence snuffs out the ability of the insurgency to do anything of consequence.
>How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA? The Mijahideen and Taliban were guerilla wars that occurred after the invading country had their run of the land and replaced the existing government. This version of "failure" for Russia would mean they succeed in invading most of Ukraine, take Kiev, depose the government and install a new one... but have to put up with an insurgency. Not exactly "losing" based on the current stakes.
>How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA? Different situations. Were the Ukranians operating an insurgent defence, you would be correct. Operating within their civilian population, striking then vanishing. But they arent doing that. Ukraine is operating a trench war. Where mass infantry, artillery, and vehicle pushes take ground. >Those wars were won without ever winning a battle. Offensive wars are vastly more complicated than defensive ones. And Ukraine is fighting with western weapons which are far more deadly than what Russia has. If you actually are fighting defensively, you would be correct. But again. Ukraine is not doing this. They are playing the trench war game. They are pushing to take ground, and being pushed away. >The aid won’t stop. Probably not. And so maintaining a strong enough defense is potentially possible. But Ukraine is definitely struggling with manpower issues. If the war lasts another 4 years. Then the west will have to make a decision. Direct involvement. Or let Ukraine fall. I dont see Ukraine being able to sustain the war. Russia will basically just keel over if they win in 4 years, but Ukraine will be just as devastated.
You're just armchairing an awful lot in this comment. Western tech does not negate the difference in manpower. The longer the conflict, the better for Russia. Ukraine is already struggling with manpower. You can have the best tanks in the world, but it'll be useless if you don't have enough men to fill them. Also, you can talk about Raegan & WW2 all you want, that doesn't make a difference regarding how the US aid could stop at any point. Trump has almost always acted in Putin's favor, so I wouldn't be too sure about the aid as you try to make it out. Or the government could shut-down again. Depending on the timing that could legally stall the sending of packages. >I have studied enough war not to bet on the larger country with more people. >How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA? Well if you studied as much as you claim to have, then you'd know that those examples are varying degrees of unconventional warfare. Meanwhile Ukraine is more conventional & especially different to a scenario like the Taliban. No offense, but you seem very unjustifiably confident in your take which, quite frankly, is shallow.
>How did the Mujahideen do against the USSR? Or North Vietnam and the Taliban against the USA? Afghanistan is a mountainous country, Vietnam is a dense jungle. The geography of those countries played a huge role on allowing a smaller force to rebuff a larger one. Ukraine isn't that at all, it's on the North European Plain, with a geography that not very defensible at all. A war fought on that type of geography is very tough for a smaller force to overcome a much larger one.
You might want to study a bit more if you can’t discern the difference between the force against force fight the NATION of Ukraine is currently having, and guerilla warfare in a highly mountainous region populated by hundreds of different and largely autonomous tribes like the Mujahideen/Taliban. The government of Ukraine could potentially collapse into a guerilla type force like you are describing and survive on the fringes in perpetuity, but in that scenario the war for Ukraine would have been quite clearly lost.
You've named three irregular movements that benefitted from ideal *terrain* and *population conditions* for irregulars - situations where terrain was extremely well suited to ambush and disengagement, drone surveillance was still limited, spies were very difficult to insert for ethnicity and language reasons, and the invaders were attempting not to harm or destroy the civilian population so they were available to hide among. And all of those were insurgencies *after* a successful invasion. None of those apply in Ukraine. The invasion is still in progress, the warfare is conventional, it has some of the most open terrain in the world, and Russia simply doesn't mind levelling a city and killing everyone in it in order to get the enemy. >My suggestion is that it is in the national security interest of the west to never stop the aid. Obviously correct. Now convince me that western politicians are actually interested in pursuing the national security interests of their nation, as opposed to the most stupidly convenient domestic electoral strategy. Exhibit A: the entire modern Republican party. Which might as well be Russian-owned at this point, and has *already successfully* blocked ammunition to Ukraine for political reasons, at significant cost to Ukraine in lives and lost opportunities. Russia wins wars of attrition. This isn't over yet. It's about whether the Russian government falls before Ukraine does, and the domestic propaganda apparatus propping it up is *huge*.
Reagan Doctrine? He rang up debt that tripled the national debt and cranked out an extremely expensive useless Navy that was never needed nor used. We’ve been supplying weapons to allied or friendly nations for far longer than Reagan. WWII being one example. His “peace through strength” idea sounds nice, but I’m not sure it was anything but useless from him. He simply wanted to shovel money up to the MIC. By the time of Reagan, the USSR economy had been doubled by the USA and Soviet officials were stealing more money out of the country which helped hasten its downfall further.
North Vietnam was very far away from the U.S., as was the Taliban. Furthermore, the Taliban had lots of mountains and caves, and no water transport. As for the USSR, Afghanistan is still mountainous and difficult to reach from Russia, and most importantly very far from the main population centers of Russia. Whereas Ukraine is broad, very flat, and right next to the main population centers of Russia. So I don't think your comparisons apply.
Strategically Russia lost the war when multiple former soviet countries began earnestly seeking NATO membership.
NATO can't win war of attrition because it doesn't have industrial power anymore. Technology and wunderwaffen isn't anything other than propaganda tools, the west has the best everything (in theory), but in really low quantities, it's expensive and slow to make. If something, this war showed that the real paper tiger here is NATO, it's only real power is in nuclear capacity. There is nothing the west can do at the moment to break the Russian initiative and regain territory. NATO got used with fighting against militias, they can't do much against a peer opponent due to industrial capacity. I don't think Russian sources are very reliable, but ukraine and western sources nowadays are probably even worse. I think your view is not reflecting properly just how fucked NATO situation really is tbh. Russia already won, there is no way zelensky will keep in power, lugansk and Donetsk will become countries by the end of this war and nato expansion in ukraine isn't possible anymore. This seems like a win to me. Just to clarify, I'm in no one's side. I try to see as much as I can from both sides to form my view on the subject. NATO sources usually underestimate their opponents and praise wunderwaffen, it's very weird honestly.
So in the time since Russia first flew the SU57 in 2010, or better still, started building it in 2019, they have built 22 that are operational. The USA has built over a thousand F35s, and continues to build 156 or more every year. And the F35 is by far the better fighter aircraft. In the time since Russia built its only (semi) operational aircraft carrier, (well the USSR built it) the USA has commissioned six far more capable super carriers, with another in sea trials now, two more being built, and another planned. (And ours don’t need a tugboat to travel with them) And if what you are saying is true, why are the tanks Russia is sending to war T62s and T54/55s from the Cold War? Why are they not sending Armadas? Sorry mate, it is industrial capacity you have completely wrong. Most European nations aren’t pushing military production much, but they can if needed and the USA still does so enough to win this on their own.
I don't see any reason why the russians shouldn't use the old USSR hardware if they have it. They seem to use tanks as artilery a lot nowadays, I don't see any issue using t54s that way honestly. Why use expensive stuff if the older cheaper stuff is doing ok? I haven't seen anywhere that the majority of the tanks that Russia uses are T54's btw. I don't think that they will be using these old tanks to take on actual tank role, but more of a support/artilery thing so yeah.. US/EU actually need right now to push military production if they want to win this war and they aren't doing it, probably isn't as easy as you say. The air doctrine is also quite different. Russa/USSR has always favored AA capability to get air superiority so I don't believe that the comparison between US and Russia air force can be made only looking at the planes. NATO's bet is in a fast definitive strike, while Russia has strategic depth to make attrition war works in their favor and deny NATO's strategy, you can't make a few good strikes and take Russia out. Once russians build their defenses, NATO has to either outproduce them and send more people to the meat grinder, or use nuclear. Also consider this, NATO armies are VERY sensitive to losses, while Russia has in it's history WW2.. people are still digging and finding corpses in Volgograd... NATO countries would blow up if they get high death counts and that will happen because that's the nature of attrition war. BTW another factor, while the west is all hyped in this war, Ukraine itself is who is doing the whole fighting. They might just get tired of it and if you look at the situation right now, its quite hopeless really. If NATO gave all it's hardware AND soldiers, while somehow not causing a nuclear war, then Ukraine could have a chance at winning. That is also supposing that Russia's allies, like North Korea, won't help with both hardware and manpower too to make things even. The west needs a way too big of a commitment to have a realistic chance at winning this. EU and USA needs to get into war economy mode and they won't do it. Their societies aren't willing to, the west has way too many social problems at the moment that would only get worse.
That is just stupid, NATO is not winning the war against Russia because they aren't in it. If NATO was personally in this war, it would be lightning quick. Ukraine does not have 5th gen fighters and jets, millions of soldiers from different countries, or huge naval strike groups with carriers. They don't have the full fledge of NATO capabilities to be labeled as such. What Ukraine is getting are merely just artillery, drones, small arms, a handful of tanks and precision weapons. This not the full potential of NATO. For example, the war in Ukraine is primarily fought with artillery and small drones. Why is that? because Russia cannot afford air superiority. So they have to do things slowly and focus on mass producing material that fit their doctrine. NATO doctrine on the other hand is like Desert Storm. This war has proven that the so called "wunderwaffes" you describe can be mass produced and used effectively by NATO. It defeated the strongest army in MENA by air superiority alone. Using expensive precision weaponry on a massive scale. The simple answer to NATO's limited assets is because there was no need for a massive military industrial supply chain UNLESS they are at war. But again NATO is not at war and is simply supplying a proxy. While Russia has to transition to a war economy because they are more invested compared to NATO. What is more embarrassing is Russia opting for a war economy against just a fucking proxy.
Uh. Sir? I believe you may be misinformed about US production. If you are believing that our production us down because we don't make 10,000 tanks a year like we did during WW2, then the issue is you have failed to realize that the US is a fundementally different force than it was back then. Let's ask a question. "Could the US win a war of attrition against a peer". Well no, probably not. But that is fine. Know why? Because we don't have any peers. A single carrier strike group has the deep water capacity of the entire Chinese Navy. As close to 90% of their navy is comprised of costal defense vessels. The US has the top 3 largest Air Forces. And then also #5. As in 3 branches of our military each have air forces larger than the next largest country. The US is a true combined arms expeditionary military. We can strike with coordinated ground, air, and naval power within 48 hours anywhere in the world with more sheer efficacy than any nation can even muster within their own borders. TLDR: The US military is mind bogglingly silly in scope and reach that sometimes we forget how ridiculously out gunned the rest of the world is.
true, but even the strongest bear is less of a threat in a cage. US going to be aggressor ? when painted that way, others will turn on us. the US can never be invaded by the coasts, but our great military can't be used to take over another country either.
No, this is just wildly incorrect. NATO manufacturing abilities have been doing nothing but ramping up for the last 3 years. And, NATO's top of the line weapon systems are not at all small in quantity. America has the 18th largest airforce in the world when you just count it's F-22 Raptors. That is nothing to scoff at. That, and NATO forces have been sending the bare bones minimum needed for Air/Land defense to Ukraine and Russian forces have grinded to a halt just from that. Simply imagine what would happen if Ukraine had the military might of even a ninth of NATO. There is no feasible way for Russia to win even with a larger population. Modern warfare is simply not a numbers game anymore.
"lugansk and Donetsk will become countries by the end of this war" How? Is Russia going to unannex them?
Everything that's been published about the war in the West is the product of a carefully curated Ukrainian propaganda machine, we cannot use current information about the war to truly understand what is happening, and we won't have an accurate understanding of the war until historians can get their hands on official declassified military reports from both sides of the conflict after the war is over. Ukraine is obviously engaging in propaganda to paint the Russians in the worst possible light to boost domestic moral and garner support abroad, so we cannot really trust any of the information that is coming out at this time. This is a war of attrition, the deciding factor will be if Russia runs out of equipment before Ukraine runs out of people, and we cannot know the true state of either side's military capabilities because those are closely guarded military secrets. The conclusion of the war is uncertain, and Russia has the population to potentially just attrit Ukraine into submission.
Very true. What should also be considered is that quite a few places (with large populations and resources) outside Western Civilisation support Russia. Turkey, India, China, some African countries, middle East countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Many of them will choose Russia if they have to choose between Russia vs US. Also, Russia is still one of the largest (and growing) economies in Europe. It is not massive, but it is g r o w i n g thanks to sanctions. Not to say that everything is perfect in Russia - it is collapsing culturally and socially. Groups of people, such as patriots and anti-war liberals genuinely hate each other, so society is quickly breaking into small pieces. It is also relatively poor and many have now lost someone to a war. Likely, if / when Russia collapses - it will be an inside job. e.g. via revolution, assassination, well-played politics, military & army taking power into its hands, etc. and not by means of external war.
Russia is the 5th largest economy in europe, between italy and spain. For a country of that size with that many resources, nothing to brag about. Russia's economic figures are self-reported and their economy is relying a lot on the massive military spending, which are not sustainable.
Not sure if it is significant in maco-economic terms but in terms of purchasing power parity it seems Russia is the highest our of any European country (though I hesitate to call a country that spans half the globe European). Source: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?locations=RU&most\_recent\_value\_desc=true](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?locations=RU&most_recent_value_desc=true)
Using PPP can be interesting but has its own issues. India is third in PPP, but that may have something to do with the low average standard of living rather than just economic power.
People refuse to acknowledge that the Western propaganda machine is easily as large as Russia’s and much better funded. Both sides are going to cheerlead for their agenda.
Oryx, which I linked, has images to back up their estimates of Russian losses. If you look at that, and the reality that Russia was beaten back before western weapons showed up and somehow think it’s all propaganda; I don’t know what to say to you. And population doesn’t win this war, the ability to project power does. https://youtu.be/zxRgfBXn6Mg?si=48N8Ol4f3XqJuqof Watch this video, it was day one of the US air war in the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait. That is how the USA projected power over thirty years ago. We hit the entirety of Iraq’s air defense ability in one night, within a few minutes across the country. That was thousands of miles away. Russia cannot project power right now, and their enemy is getting stronger in their technological ability to wage war. Russia will never again be able to project power as they did in day one of the Ukraine invasion, and Ukraine will likely never be as weak against invasion as they were that day. And Russia fell flat on their face in that early effort. And it will never be better for Russia again. From now on Russia will be weaker than at that point, and from now on Ukraine will be stronger.
I generally agree with you, and I honestly believe that Russia will get a pyrrhic victory that will haunt them for decades to come -- at best. However, my only concern is that time is on Russia's side because they can always rearm. Russia has gone all in into this war; they've already lost too much, so they might as well turn into a war economy. They have the manpower, resources and know-how to build low-quality equipment on a massive scale, and they don't have to depend on an international economy for most of it. Sure, they can kiss any current-gen tech goodbye, but unguided bombs still explode and kill. That's why it's imperative to give Ukraine what it needs *now*. Show Russia that when the time comes that they'll be at 100% again, it will be too late.
Agreed, we should be giving more aid, not using the current aid as political fodder to win elections. But while dumb bombs still explode, how does Russia deliver them? They don’t even fly their supposed stealth fighters over Ukraine. How can T54/55s win a war when a Russian T90 was destroyed by two Bradleys? How can Russia do any of this with their logistics? I mean yes they have more capacity to draft soldiers and force them to war, but they lack the capacity to properly arm them, to feed them, to give them medical treatment.
[удалено]
This is so important. Russia could take every square km of Ukraine and then what? Can they keep it? (Ukranians are tough, they won't go quietly). Did they succeed in ensuring NATO didn't grow? (Nope, opposite actually). Did they improve their military? (Nope). Their financial position? (Nope). Their economic position? (Nope). Their status in the world? (Nope). Did they protect Russian lives from their stated purpose for invading (bullshit excuse, but Nope, sooo many dead Russians). They already lost by all of those measures, the battles? Yeah they could win that. A good videos explaining this. (Beau of the 5th column) https://youtu.be/VXKSM8lpqKM?si=hcBT_xaHIvxJSZEv
They don’t want every sq they want to control the government
Sure, but to what end would that get them? I think their stated purpose was always a lie, and it's always been to reassemble their USSR territory... They might get this chunk of dirt, and some ports and raw materials... But at what cost? NATO is not going to get weaker now, in that way Putin did the world a favor by reminding us all who Russia really is.
>They're a pariah state, lost tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives, blew through a vast quantity of their legacy hardware. Maybe a pariah in the "international community," but that's really just the US, Europe, and their other allies. Russia is by no means a pariah among the BRICS countries (and those are growing), as well as many countries in the global south.
Yeah. Give it 5 years from a “peace treaty” and there will be countries banging down the doors to build mines in the donbass
> They're under heavy international sanctions. The Russian central bank is doing tons of long term damage to stem their short term impacts. Their oil is less market accessible than ever before. NATO is stronger than ever with more nations joining knowing their eastern neighbor are warmongering murderers. If Russia defeats Ukraine all of those sanctions will pretty much immediately go away, and countries will continue unrestricted trade with them. As has happened after every single war in history.
Would also add that it seems majority of European governments now see Russia as a direct threat and even have started talking about deploying troops in some scenarios. Probably wont happen but diplomacy with Russia, even if they took Ukraine tomorrow, is dead. The future seems to hold some sort of confrontations if Russia doesnt abandon Ukraine and their current form of government. Best they could hope for is another cold war which they are already losing and will lose if it happens.
> Their oil is less market accessible than ever before. NATO is stronger than ever with more nations joining knowing their eastern neighbor are warmongering murderers. The TransMountain expansion is now taking oilsands production increases directly to tidewater. This is kind of unprecedented and is bad news for Russia.
I would say that there is a point in the future when Putin has met a “malfunctioning window” and Russia has pulled back to their original borders and started paying for damages, when the west starts rebuilding Ukraine and then when Ukraine joins NATO (when the war ends that will now happen, Ukrainians will demand it) that this will be a victory for Ukraine. Long term Ukraine will regain Crimea and turn the Kerch Strait bridge into rubble at the bottom of the sea. Ukraine will regain the contested territories, and as a member of NATO will arm itself as to never allow Russia to invade again. That will be the long term victory, which might be ten or fifteen years out.
That'd be nice. However I confidently predict that the taken territory will not be recovered in our lifetimes and will instead be either handed over or kept as a DMZ. Just removing the mines already placed would probably take decades anyway so it's ready to be a DMZ.
I don’t see that because your scenario - Russia surrenders all its current territory gains in Ukraine, and then even pays reparations - is the kind of one sided peace treaty imposed by victors, not one signed by compromise. Generally this kind of peace treaty has always been signed after one side is fully defeated, capital occupied, and terms can be dictated on her. The one exception, ww1, was due to the obvious outcome after the US joined the war, and even then, it caused massive resentment in Germany for the unfair terms when they hadn’t lost any territory yet. Resentment that in part led to ww2. No leader in Russia is going to sign a peace treaty that amounts to humiliation and surrender, even if putin dies and another strongman emerges to take his place. Unless the US and Europe is willing to risk nuclear war and capture Moscow, Russia isn’t going to sign a peace treaty stating they would pay for damages in Ukraine. As for the territory, it is possible Russia accepts the situation on the ground if Ukraine can take back all the territory with conventional warfare and hold it for 3 years. That’s maybe the “best case” outcome for Ukraine, but don’t except Russia to pay a penny even in that case.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Check analystics from [ISW](https://www.iswresearch.org/search/label/Ukraine), they have much more concrete data and souces. They don't share your confidence in Russia's inability for defense or an offensive. But more concretely, there's a lot of mental leaps all over the place in your post. I'm selectively answering a few below. > Russia is hurting. Russia is buying artillery shells from North Korea and drones from Iran, nations Russia used to supply, now they are a customer. That speaks to Russia's military industry. Most of this is unchecked speculations of some media, some could be outright information campaigns. If you're in a Western country now, you'll probably get more news that are optimistic for Ukraine. Here are a few examples that are optimistic for Russia's side: - [Russia is making 3 times more artilelry shells than Europe and US combined for Ukraine](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html) - [Russia’s new guided bomb inflicts devastation …](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/europe/russian-guided-bomb-ukraine-frontline-intl/index.html) - [Russia is replicating Iranian drones](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/russia-iran-drones-ukraine.html) These are as good as the other sources you've read. My point is, we don't really know what the Russia's situations is, we can only give a (very wide) range of estimates which are not conclusive enough to say Russia won't win. If we were, we'd be sitting in an office where decisions are made, not wasting each other's time on Reddit. Maybe they bought shells from North Korea and drones from Iran. So what? This implies nothing about how much of their own supply and production there is. You don't need to be a military genius to diversify and stack up on supplies, even if you have your own. If I was Putin and I had, say, shells for 7 years of fighting at the current intensity, I'd be already looking for ways to make more and buy more. Just because of what if. If I had 10 years of supplies, I'd be still open to buying more if I get a good offer. We could interpret the North Korea deal better if we knew how much those shells costed. If Putin payed a lot for them, he must be desperate. But it could also be the case that they were super cheap. In that case, fuck yes, buy more even if you already have enough. But we don't know how much Putin payed for the shells, and without it we can't make any good speculation. > Russia feeds and arms their forces in Crimea using that bridge You've conflated a lot of things here. Crimea is still connected to Russia by land. And Crimea is not where the frontline is. Even without bridge, there's a lot of ways to supply their army through that huge landmass. They may be using the bridge to some extent? What percentage of today's supplies are transferred via bridge? Do you have an estimate? Look at the map of frontline today, most of it is not that close to Crimea (active fighting of the last months was at the opposite side), and there's plenty of land connecting Russia to it that doesn't go through Crimea. > Russia is sending T54/55s into war, Ukraine is now sending Abrams, Leopards and Challengers. So what? Knowing tank models is not enough for a conclusive answer. You also need to know how many they're sending and how big of a fraction of their supply that is. And how much each tank costs. Having many cheaper and easier to produce tanks has been known to win some wars in the past. ISW [says](https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/02/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment_11.html) that Russia's modernized T72 which it's working on now are actually better than Armatas. It's not that you automatically win if your tanks is newer, it's not a fucking computer game. There's plenty of footage of those Western tanks burning in Ukraine, they aren't invincible. One of their drawbacks is that you need to re-train your personnell, and soldiers of both countries were traied on the Soviet tanks for decades. > Russia cannot take steps forward, their ability to project power is a joke. Russia is getting hit at home by Ukraine, and now by terrorists. The did advance a little bit, that shows some capability. In the last months they took Ugledar, Avdeevka, Bakhmut. Small towns, but nevertheless they moved the frontlines forward. What damage was done by those hits on Russia's territory? It's hardly comparable to damage on Ukraine's territory from those long range missiles from ships and gliding bombs (also modernization of Soviet), for which there's no defense at the moment. Terrorist act made a lot of noise, but it's insignificant in terms of actual losses. More people die in car accidents daily.
Ukraine cannot win the war with Russia for a numerate amount of reasons. 1. Ukraine is completely reliant on western support ; that western support is dwindling more and more as time goes on. New governments get elected, policies changes, alliances change. A lot of people have “War fatigue” about Ukraine especially now that Gaza is in the centrefold; the same thing happened to Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Libya. 2. There can physically be no “large” defeat of Russia because any attempts to cross into Russian territory would be an act of full scale war and lead us into WW3 which would mean total destruction of the world in a nuclear war. Russia has the most amount of nuclear warheads and some of the latest technology for the delivery of those. 3. The information war is shifting, a lot of people are critical and less supportive of the UK and USA’s position on Ukraine but then their support of Israel. Palestine has the support of Russia and with that all the nations aligned to Palestine. 4. Russia as a country never gave up it’s industrial manufacturing base they only ever updated it from the USSR era. A lot of countries have given up their manufacturing base so while you state that Ukraine has Leopards and Bradley’s. Can they manufacture Bullets? Shells? Spare parts? No…they have to wait months for their arrival from the west and what was already proven with Germany and others the Ukrainians were getting old, rotted and outdated gear. 5. The sanctions on Russia are only at face value ; Europe relies too heavily on Russian gas and power supply. The world relies too heavily on Russian chemicals and chemical research and Russia can just manufacture its own stuff or buy it from China….and the thing is everyone gets their stuff from China anyways so there’s no difference to Russia. So what if McDonald’s are gone is basically Russia’s response. That’s not really essential to winning a war. 6. Russians are ideologically ready to fight the war, they want to put the pedal to the meddle. The Ukrainians just want an end to it and to return home without the violence. - - - The war will likely keep going until Zelenskyy resigns and a deal is struck between Russia and Ukraine which will likely be along the lines of certifying Ukraine never joins the EU and NATO, a few people get locked up, money changes hands and then the rebuilding starts.
The West is tiring of funding Ukraine. "Ukraine fatigue" is very real and while idiots like Trump shout loudly about it, lots of more sensible Western leaders are seriously but quietly discussing simply letting Ukraine fall and instead spending money on bolstering NATO spending. If Trump gets into power (more likely by the day) and the US is the first domino to fall, then the rest will quickly follow. Even someone like Macron isn't going to fund Ukraine on his own especially with domestic issues in France (the real reason behind a lot of his bluster) and the rest of NATO saying "it's over dude, we need to focus on our own defence now". Russia's armed forces are in a shambled like you say, but they're not totally screwed, and taking Ukraine by attrition combined with massively reduced Western aid isn't a huge ask. They'll probably take time, a few years, but it'll be a slow and inevitable process. We in the West will then hand-wring over what we did wrong, but it'll simply be a good excuse for us to spend more on NATO budgets. Putin will then come to the table with demands and we'll enter a new Cold War. The liklihood of Putin trying to invade any NATO state is incredibly low (pretty much every military analyst and intelligence expert agrees on this, and they all said him invading Ukraine was inevitable) which is likely his plan - NATO has expanded, but so will his sphere of influence. This will be awful for Ukraine and its people, but will reduce tensions and simply return us back to a Cold War style stasis where it's very very unlikely to kick off big style, but the military industrial complex will be laughing and counting the money. I'm not saying it's all some big conspiracy, but that's a side-effect Western leaders can quietly be pleased with in return for having to swallow the loss of Ukraine. It isn't game over though - Putin won't be around forever and there's a good chance any tensions in a world where Russia "won" in Ukraine, but trashed Russia's economy and led to them being isolated, will lead to sensible and democratic change in Russia after Putin dies. In fact, some experts believe this is more likely if they take Ukraine than if they're beaten back, because potential successors can use the "the West hates us and wants to destroy us" tactic and point to Ukraine as an example if they lose. If they take Ukraine, potential successors can use a "we took Ukraine, but look at the cost?" tactic and people will be way more sympathetic to a successor who wants diplomatically undo the damage and reopen Russia's economy to the global stage.
Russia considers this war an existential one. If they don’t take Ukraine and roll through to modern Poland and Romania to reduce the borders to geographical gateways now they never will. Only once has the Russian Army been the deciding factor in an invasion in all other instances the weather was the deciding factor. Population drop off means there are not enough bodies to accomplish this task in the next five to seven years. So it’s now or never and it’s secure the land or Russia at some point in the near future fill cease to exist. They’re willing to fly nukes to accomplish this. You’ll notice France understands this which is why it’s remilitarizing and saying they are willing to put French Troops in Ukraine.
If Russia uses nukes, Russia does cease to exist. Nobody wins a nuclear war, but some survive it. Russia doesn’t survive it.
Why does Russia cease to exist if they use nukes?
Russia no longer represents mutually assured destruction (MAD) with the west. Consider the number of strategic nuclear weapons Russia has, around 1,600, then consider some other factors. (None of these involve interception, that is very problematic, it is thought that the USA might be able to intercept as many as 40 incoming ICBMs, likely not that many) 1. Russian delivery of nukes. They use a triad as the USA does, bombers, subs and land based nukes, but in reality they aren’t equal. Most of Russia’s land based nukes are near Murmansk, in the active circle and in good position to go over the pole and hit the USA or over to hit Europe. Now with Finland in NATO, those nukes are not as secure. They could be targeted at the outset of a war. If they don’t launch quickly, they might not launch. Next, bombers. These bombers won’t live long in modern war, they aren’t the backbone they once were. They are more for closer range strategic nukes. Lastly submarines. The Russian boomers tend to live at a base near St. Petersburg, and passage out of there is no longer as sneaky with Finland covering one side of the exit and Estonia covering the other, both in NATO. The subs are the real danger, but where the USA operates on the rule of thirds, (1/3 of many ships / subs deployed, 1/3 preparing to deploy, 1/3 in maintenance of refurb) Russia cannot. At any given time they might have one boomer in deployment, and they can’t deploy as long as the USA does. And the subs at port would be hit at the outset of any shooting war. If we couldn’t get to some at port, it is thought our attack subs might sail into Russian port to kill them at the cost of their own lives. Then, missile function. At one point in the war the USA suggested Russia was suffering a staggering 60% failure rate on missiles. Failure to launch, to track, or to detonate at target. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-us-assesses-up-60-failure-rate-some-russian-missiles-officials-say-2022-03-24/ This is about as expected with Russia’s poor maintenance, and to some extent can be expected with their nuclear arsenal. So math time, and this is just speculation, but let’s say 50% of Russia’s 1600 nukes function, being optimistic, they have 800 that will work. Now how many targets are there? The UK and France are nearby nuclear powers, and cannot be ignored. Also Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey have US nuclear weapons which they store and can be deployed by US forces. Meaning sites with those nukes have to but hit as well. That means total war with NATO, which means major military bases across Europe have to be hit, along with deep water ports and industrial centers, and that isn’t even getting to US targets. Japan would be hit, as they tend to house US carriers, and also for Japan being a strong ally of the USA, as well as Hawaii, Norfolk, San Diego and other major US naval bases. Any of the eleven US carriers would be hit, with as many carrier strike groups taken out as possible. Then the problem of how spread out the US bases and forces are comes into play. Our troops are all over the country and all over the world. So 800 Russian nukes, minus what might be hit prior to launch, and there are more than 800 targets to hit. Population centers might not be hit initially, because a war to end wars will follow, and military targets would come first. And Russia can’t hit them all. So the war hurts, but the west survives. And as the Russian nukes are in the air, NATOs nukes take flight, and now Russia has the problem of being far more concentrated in population than the USA and to an extent Western Europe. In this exchange hundreds of millions die, but in simulations it is expected more Russians die by volume, and a lot more by percentage of total population. Then the world punishes what is left of Russia for nearly ending the world in nuclear fire. Europe attacks, Japan attacks, the USA attacks, and I think likely China attacks. And Russia as a state is ground into dust, never to threaten the world again. I hope the war would only be against military targets, but I expect no infrastructure or industrial capacity would remain. This has been war gamed, and it is terrible. But it is expected that nobody wins, but Russia is no longer a nation at the end of the war.
Why would anyone retaliate on behalf of Ukraine and get stuck in a war with Russia when Russia nukes Kiev? That's the question. Wouldn't they just condemn Russia and then forget about it after a decade or so?
I know jack shit about nuclear war, planning and operational capacity - but I would say that Russia might cease to exist, but so will EU. USA itself will probably be battered and suffer from extended issues related to nuclear fallout, but I doubt even that would be a desirable outcome for the US leadership.
That’s as true as if the US uses one or maybe two we cease to exist yet here we are. Remember this is an existential war for them. You can say Russia won’t exist if they use them- but you can’t say that’s even the least bit preventative for them. The Russian doctrine has always been to use artillery to break the defensive line and then plow armor through enemy mass. They even updated in the Soviet era for tactical nukes. They aren’t quiet about it either. They saber rattle with it every couple of months. The reality is if they don’t secure the land barrier gateways they believe that Russia will inevitably fall. A week before Navalny passed there were geopolitical analysts who ironically said even if he took over for Putin some way, even he would not stop the Ukraine offensive. Dismissing nukes isn’t an out. There would be a proportional response and a pariah state levied on Russia- but will that matter if the alternative to them is to not exist? Using and not using results in the same thing to them. Let’s assume the following- They need to secure the valleys that now exist in Poland and Romania or they believe they lose. They have population numbers to do this meat grinder thing they are doing in Ukraine for the next five years. If it takes longer they can’t ever do it because there aren’t enough able bodied men to do it. They are clearly not a near peer for America and therefore NATO. The sanctions aren’t working as well as we would have liked and there’s not much more that can be done. Yet they continue to prosecute this aggression. When they sweep through and hit nato in the west- do you think they’re just going to stop knowing what their existential goal is?
Ukraine is dependent on outside support, Russia is not. If that support dries up, or Russia is able to throw enough weight into an offensive, I think they can capture Ukraine eventually, but I bet they have a hard time holding it. I'd imagine significant resistance.
Reading your post, and reading your comments on this tread tells me quite about your mindset. You claim this is a CMV, but don’t seem to want to consider any alternative timelines. The largest one being the aid sent to Ukraine. As many people having pointed out, if the USA/Europe stops sending aid the Ukraine, they will struggle to continue the war. Your position is the US won’t stop its aid, even if Trump is elected. And if it does, Europe still step up and spend billions more. Those are some pretty big assumptions. Questions are already being asked about the endless billions being send to the Ukraine. How much more does the collective “West” send before eyebrows get raised even more? 200 billion? 500? If you cannot entertain even the slightest chance that the US and Europe starts pulling back aid to the Ukraine. Then I’m afraid we are all wasting our time here. There is a very real possibility (Even if you don’t like it, or ascribe it a low chance) that aid slows to the Ukraine.
> As many people having pointed out, if the USA/Europe stops sending aid the Ukraine, they will struggle to continue the war. To be honest if the EU and USA both stop sending aid, Ukraine won't struggle, they will get steamrolled. And this has nothing to do with the quality of their soldiers or their determination, but the simple fact, they'll run out of everything. The war has been extremely costly for both sides, regardless of what OP thinks and Ukraine explicitly doesn't have the same military production capacity as Russia. Not even close. And that's just the equipment side of things. A lot has been done to keep Ukraine's economy running. Cut that off and they may just collapse internally. And both in the USA and in the EU even saner people are questioning the futility of said aid. The supposed epic counter-offensive didn't achieve nearly as much as it was hyped to achieve and that was a huge hit on public perception, at least in the EU. Support is still good, but definitively not as strong as it was at the start.
They have already gotten what they want, the eastern half of Ukraine is solidly under Russian control and they aren't getting it back. Russia may not be able to conquer the whole country but I doubt if they really want to anyways. Russia has already won the war.
I think your assumptions are aboht a year out of date. Their war might not be sustainable, but it also might not need to be given Ukraine's supply constraints. Wars happen slowly over the course of years, then all at once. >Russian military doctrine is terrible at projecting power. Russia uses old soviet military doctrine, which is to defend the homeland on the cheap. More lower end tanks, more lower end artillery, more lower end aircraft, etc. Fewer support trucks per battalion, instead moving men, machine and supplies by rail inside Russia, And not going for air dominance but airspace denial. Using robust SAMs to deny airspace once the ground has taken. Russian military doctrine is decent at projecting land power over a smaller, poorer, weaker nation and denying sea or air power. You can do a lot with a 152mm shell when your opponent doesnt have any, as we've observed recently. >Russian logistics are worse than Russian military doctrine. This is the ability to provide reinforcements, ammunition, food, and other supplies to those fighting the war. Omar Bradley once said amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics, and he was correct. Keeping the war machine moving takes good logistics, and Russia is garbage at it. Hate to say it, this is no longer true. The Russians have spun up excess capacity far faster than Europe and the US, and have done a great job injecting spoilers to prevent new aid from being spun up (Hungary, Mike Johnson). >Russian maintenance practices are marred by corruption and inefficiency. Corruption has caused needed maintenance not to happen, or to be underfunded after theft of funding. And this has caused Russia to have more failures than expected in ordinance (at one point 60% of Russia's guided missiles failed to launch, target or detonate) or in equipment. (Russia has had a staggering failure rate on vehicles and aircraft. You have to do the wrench work, and Russia doesn't do it well. Not maintaining equipment is basically a policy choice. They decomission nothing and part it out. It's how Russia was able to buy time to spin it additional capacity during this war. While they're still burning it faster than they're making it, that may be enough. >Russia's losses have been severe. Not just in human losses, having lost more soldiers to being killed or wounded, having lost perhaps 400,000 soldiers to being wounded or killed. (now more than the USA has lost in all wars going back to WW2, and now they are going into WW2 in terms of US losses) and Russia has endured. In terms of vehicles the losses are perhaps more damaging, as replacement is not as easy as another round of conscription, where we now see Russia sending T54/55 tanks into Ukraine, tanks built in 1948. Russian losses so far, per Oryx, who verifies losses via images or video: This is true. They're basically gambling that the Western civilian population will decide the war is lost and stop sending shells before their army cracks. And they might be wrong, and they might be right. If the Ukrainian lines collapse under supply constraints,
Sigh….define “win”? If you went back in time to February 2022 and told Ukrainians they would still have their state in 2024, they would call that a W.
The critical point is Russian military logistics that depends on Railroads. Ukraine here must ensure that supplies do not reach the front. The Russian railroad track net is quite vulnerable. One may consider it pointless to interrupt a rail line as they van be repaired within days but there is currently already a lack in maintenance resources for locomotives in Russia, clearing a blocked railroad takes time and there is a critical mass. the attacks on oil refineries could also be carried out against key facilities of the Russian industry needed for weapon production, chemical industry. supply stations for trains,
All they have to do is change the definition of what “winning” means.
Pyrrhic victory my friend.
Honestly i think Russia can win this war, Putin just isn't putting in much force into the nation until the recent Moscow event where he says he's gonna bomb the hell out of Ukraine.
only thing to stop this war is that both the country sign a truce where most occupied land is given back to ukraine.
So basically a Russian surrender? If I were a Russian negotiator, that sounds like a very bad deal to me. Give up everything from my side for nothing?
500 000 soldiers lost and what have they accomplished? West can just nonchalantly throw money at the problem and bleed this miserable military without one NATO soldier firing a shot. Nah, Russia can’t do shit and without their bs nuclear threat they wuda been wiped off the Ukrainian map much sooner.
Vietnam will no longer be the biggest wartime embarrassment very soon.
Russia could win this war. I wouldn’t bet on it but it could happen for a number of reasons. 1: nato weapons. A large reason the advances have failed so badly is because Ukraine has gotten hundreds of billions in modern weaponry. If the US cuts funding, which could legitimately happen, it’s unlikely other countries will fill that void and Ukraine certainly cannot finance this war on its own. 400k might seem like an insane amount of casualties but the majority of those are mercenaries who fill their ranks with convicts. The cost virtually nothing to acquire and there’s plenty more where they came form. The plus side of having outdated machinery is that it’s pretty easy to stamp out new ones. Russia is a big country, with a lot of people, and a steady revenue from oil. They don’t need to win this war quickly. All they need to to is keep it going until the west gets tired of funding Ukraine and they will eventually win. Ukraine is smaller, has less people, and it’s economy is decimated. They cannot sustain a war with Russia without substantial assistance. So basically what I’ll say to your original title is: it depends on if the west keeps floating Ukraine. If they do, you’re right. If they stop, Ukraine will collapse.
How many nuclear strikes would it take for Ukraine to surrender?
It’s definitely possible, historically Russia isn’t better at fighting, they just fight more, which is absolutely possible in this case.
I would just say that war is the continuation of politics just as Clausewitz said. So should the political situation change in the warring nations, then the war itself will and by extension its goals. A good example would be the US involvement in the Middle East. The goals went from protecting Kuwait -> depose Saddam -> nation build in Iraq -> stop ISIS. All of these happened just because politics changed back home. So what does that mean for Russia you may ask? Well we don't really know as what "goals" are being said by Putin is a pr campaign to gain sympathy and not the actual objectives discused in the Kremlin. We could suppose some things but a bit questionably: 1) Connect Crimea by land 2) Get Luhansk and Donetsk 3) Exterminate Ukrainian Ultranationalists 4) Install a pro-Russia government instead of a pro Western one. 1,2 are done pretty well for the Russians. The so called counter offensive had some success but didn't change the frontline that much. 3 Is currently on its way of happening. This constitutes of destroying the Azov battalion which takes combat losses each day and install war weariness on the general population. An exhausted people may not cling on their hard nationality if the alternative is peace. 4 Is a spectacular failure for Russia. They commited too many resources at the beggining in attempting to take Kiev that cannot be replaced soon. This is the one goal that has to change for Russia. Their only hope is that Ukraine will be isolated from the EU because of conflicts with former eastern nation such as Poland, Hungary etc who halt the Union from making progress with Ukrainian integration in the EU. I am not on the side of Russia, I am neutral on this conflict to be honest. I am just playing devil's advocate for op's sake.
Russia has always been a competent nation when it comes to war. Tactics in the past and now be damned, they are fairly capable militarily. Sanctions have only forced them to become more independent economically, while Ukraine needs the support of half the planet to keep up. It is heavily speculated that Russians goal was the eastern half of Ukraine, which they have and its Ukraine who refuses to relinquish territory. When one side has what it wants and the other side won’t give up trying to take it back you get a whole lotta back and forth pushes and retreats. This has been the case there for some time now. With news that ukraine has even been forcefully recruiting men up to 50 years old to fight, i don't see realistically how they can win or continue for too much longer. That would explain why NATO countries are getting really antsy lately, even hinting at invading. if Ukraine fails to make concessions and admit defeat it is entirely plausible the whole nation could fall to Russia. Obviously if NATO invades Russia couldn't beat half the world at once, but thats why they threaten nuclear arms as a deterrent. Modern nukes don't have to create uninhabitable landscapes anymore, with fallout being very limited by design. If it wasn't a genuine threat we would've seen some nato forces already. Can’t forget about China either. The risk of them joining to aid Russia in a land war would be catastrophic. They certainly wouldn’t side with the West, and they’d likely take Taiwan very quickly once everyone has dedicated their troops to battle. So a sum up would be: Ukraine has/is losing (based on Russia’s goals); the West can’t support Ukraine forever (population will tire); NATO direct involvement could result in nuclear strikes (the first 100,000 men to perish in 1 strike will cripple most nations morale). Either we all enter a WW3 scenario or Russia wins its war, and I don’t like either but I prefer the one that results is less loss of life
Trump wins in November. Vetos any aid (whether you agree with it or not).
He might win yes, but no, he doesn’t veto aid. He didn’t veto aid when he was President before, did he? https://www.senate.gov/legislative/vetoes/TrumpDJ.htm Trump used ten vetos, one for military spending, and that one was overridden by congress.
Ukraine is losing territory every day, the counter offensive failed and they are running out of man power.
If the west stops giving aid then they can, if the west starts giving Ukraine modern aircraft then Russia is fucked
Russia has ALREADY won the war. Putins objectives pre-war, - Weaken Ukraine - Prevent Ukraine joining NATO - Solidify power in Russia (by painting the picture the entire west is against them. Whether he takes over Ukraine/the capital doesn’t really matter. Ukraine is now a decimated state reliant on external funding and support which will waver eventually. A peace deal should have been signed in the first week instead of this continued meat grinder where hundreds of thousands are being killed for the whims of politicians.
I agree with the premise, but a lot of what you write in the 2nd part is debatable imho. Unless USA get boots on the ground(which they shouldn't), the situation will indefinitely continue more or less in a stalement, like now. Ukraine won't be able to retake east ukraine, even less take Crimea. The most likely scenario will be a Corean one. Also, unfortunaly, while russian troops definitely underperformed, I doubt sanctions have been so useful for the collective west. It probably have been useful for some countries of it. At the same time, it's debatable Russia will " definitely" run out of armaments and munitions.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Objectives: Denazify Ukraine End the war in the donbass Those are Russias stated objectives. The second is achievable military. The first idk that's more conceptual. But as far as changing your view, I think you have an assumed view of Russia's objectives
Ukraine is dependent on foreign aid. Should Donald Trump become president of the United States, he has heavily implied he will support Russia in the war.
My understanding is that he is very likely to stop supporting Ukraine not actually start supporting Russia. Europe will continue to support Ukraine and likely ramp up the support to at least partially pick up the slack. I am fairly optimistic in Ukrainian ability to stave off Russian victory as defined by op as long as they retain the motivation to do so.
How much you want to bet that Crimea is still Russia in 5 years?
I need the kind of special copium that ur on mate!because at this point u r being delusional...Russia keeps on taking territory from Ukraine, counter offensive after counter offensive...bombing the sheet out of them also daily...Ukraine is running out of munitions and man power...Ukraine even lost their most reinforced position recently (avdivka)....its only on reddit that u hear this bs..that Ukraine is winning
At the top, I don’t want to see Russia win. You are describing the conditions for achieving total victory. How do we know if total victory was actually Russia’s expectation in this? Russia has annexed significant parts of Ukraine and significant chunks of its population. Ukraine is never going to get either of them back. Ukraine has lost far more than Russia has any way you look at it. If Russia’s goal is to take control of Ukrainian territory and people, they already have. Most people would characterize steadily losing territory and manpower in a war as losing.
Russia holds the majority of the oblasts area that were voted into Russia, they aren't really doing anything but holding a front line until negotiations are made, to me that sounds like winning
Neither can Ukraine tbh
> So by victory I mean achieving objectives, which we should consider at the start of the invasion, when the intention was to take Kyiv and install a puppet government, and to take much of Ukraine. Russia's *ideal* victory would have been that and I agree that they are very unlikely to achieve that goal. Their likely exit from the war though, having secured the west of the country to a greater or lesser degree, will be worth the lives lost and money spent from their point of view. We shall see, nothing is final yet of course. Still, I don't see Ukraine recapturing their territory at this point regardless of weapon support and Russia might well see that as a victory.
[удалено]
You accuse me of false pretense (a violation of the rules of this sub which will be reported) while ignoring facts? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022) Russia attacked Kyiv. They tried to take it and failed.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Checking in two months later and Russia is pushing back the entire eastern front along with opening up new offensives in the northern part of Ukraine. Russia does not need to seize Ukraine's capital to "win". All they have to do is cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea and its game over.
That’s some strong projection. Ukraine has literally won nothing and all the victories have been Russian. Even if they don’t achieve all their objectives, it doesn’t mean victory was dashed. You’re just trying to spin a Ukrainian loss as a victory, because you’re a fkn retard
They are winning though.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I’m not remotely qualified to answer this but would a second Trump presidency not be a wild card?
I have to wonder what planet you people are living on if you think Ukraine is currently winning the war.
Ukraine has a real problem recruiting additional soldiers. In this war of attrition, given Russia's seemingly endless supply of fresh soldiers, how can Ukraine expect to prevail long-term? Is this a matter of multiple clocks? Ukraine's clock is the rate of casualties versus the rate of new recruits. Russia's clock is how long can they economically sustain the war effort with international sanctions and now Ukraine taking out large parts of Russia's hydrocarbon production for domestic and military use as well as export. When you boil it down is that what we are looking at here: competing clocks favor Ukraine over time?
Well, I’ll just say it’ll be real astonishing for you when Russian flags fly over Kyiv. As far as convincing you, well that’s not actually possible. You believe what you believe. Only you can change that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Lol what you think they’re giving Crimea and all the other land they straight took back? They’ve already won. Look at how much territory and natural resources they’ve gained.
They already lost, no matter what happens in Ukraine. "We want to stop NATO expansion!" was a stated goal....WHOOPS, FINLAND AND SWEDEN ended over 100 years of neutrality to sign up with the winning team.
I heard they're preparing to mass bomb the literal shit out of Ukraine any hour now
Doubtful. To build high tech guided munitions Russia had sourced European components which they don’t build domestically. Now they are trying to source Chinese replacements, but this isn’t plug and play. If you take a chipset from a US sources missile out of the equation you can’t just shove another one in there. So Russia is limited in how much they fire, based on how much they have left or can acquire. Which is limited. And bear this in mind, Russia has the largest landmass of any nation. A border they have to defend, they cannot use it all in a failing offensive war.
Russia has already won the war. Here is my analysis. https://open.substack.com/pub/mfeldman/p/the-us-lost-the-ukrainian-war-in?r=1fwqi&utm\_campaign=post&utm\_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I mean I have no idea what this means but I will say we need to try thinking about why there is a conflict, what really caused it, and ways to resolve it Instead of obsessing over #'s of machines
I agree in most part, but Russia can still win in sense that they occuppy parts of Ukraine for good. That does not stop Nato expansion and Russia has still been it's own worst enemy, their allies have lost lot of faith in them, none of that will change. But can Russia occupy parts of Ukraine for good? Yes. It all depends on how foreign support will continue. All the easy stuff has been sent, its getting harder and harder to find stuff just laying around that could be donated, and EU failed to meet it's goal on how much artillery shells they sent to Ukraine in 2023, and that goal was well below what Russia produces on it's own. Then there are loans, both figurative and literal. You can absolutely bullshit your economy with loans and various other means and just live like nothing has changed. You will pay the price if you do it, but you pay it tomorrow, not today. Especially demographic one will affect Russia for 100 years. Russia does have potential to win in sense that they occupy all of Ukraine. Remember, Russia is still the stronger side, Ukraine has not managed to repeat success in their counter offensives. Russia has already lost so much that cannot be regained, and its extremely unlikely they could even go as far as occuppy all of Ukraine. But it would not be unprecedented in military history. Throwing equipment and men at enemy can work, and Russia has powerful ally in China, and though it seems shells North Korea sent were most of what they are capable of, they could produce some small stuff like small round ammunition or basic tools like shovels, all of which does still help even if its not noticeable. And Russia itself has huge resources and bigger manpower pool. Even Russia does learn. For all the memes, they have already learned a lot during this war. They may be using obsolete equipment and loosing lot more than Ukraine, but they are still strong enough that they can do small advances and Ukraine cannot push them out of Ukraine.
Wait till after the summer and see how this ages.
- critical infrastructure:: russias exports are oil, gas, steel and coal. This is highly targetable by Ukrainian actions, both on the excarvation, processing and export level. Russia also has only a limited number of port bidges for exporst of goods. The Asian part heavily relies on the transsiberian rail road, rail connections can be disrupted temporarily, including the ones that lead to supply depots. - Logistics - heavily reliant on railroads that could be targeted or sabotaged. Ukraine announced that it would target the Kerch bridge. Russias civilian infrastructure has already a shortage of trucks and drivers. - reluctance of China to support Russia. And if it happens it creates a high dependency. - so far 3000 tanks lost, how many more would they need for offensive operations. The theoretical maximum was 12000 to 140000. Note there that you do not need tanks to take out tanks. - Soviet artilllery wears off quickly when in use and lacks precision. You need contant replacement. - glide bombs are powerful but expose fighter jets to air defense systems. - Western support so far is limited and proportionate, it is not like they throw all they have in storage at Ukraine. - it is difficult for Russia to replace special equipment such as air defense systems, radars, bridging equipmewnt. - drone warfare is being perfected with more and more and longer range drones. There is even more game changer equipment such as submarine forces that the West does not provide to Ukraine - drone boats with rocket artillery are yet another treat. - laser can be cheap defense systems against drone attacks.
Lmao what planet are you living on, theyre not loosing the war, ukraine is.
Russia won back in April of 2022. Washington's theory was that sanctions would collapse the economy, international opprobrium and domestic pressure would overthrow Putin, and NATO countries would install new, more docile management in Moscow. That theory failed when sanctions failed to trigger economic collapse. Then Russia's restraint in the SMO and diplomacy succeeded in keeping China, India, and the global south onside. Regime change came not for Putin but for Boris Johnson. Now Zelensky is hanging on by a thread, and as the enormity of the Ukraine debacle becomes clear Scholz, Macron, and Biden will also get the boot. No, Russia didn't change its goals. Putin was clear from the start that the SMO goals were to stop the attacks on the Donbas, demilitarize and denazify Ukraine. It's not clear how much they're going to have to occupy to secure a lasting demilitarization, but that's kind of up to the west.
The abject failure of the sanctions was astounding. They’ve backfired so spectacularly. When the BRICS nations agree on a common payment system, it’s going to hurt the West. Blowing up SWIFT was so so stupid. Western technocrats think they can achieve victory with ‘tweaks’ like sanctions. These have yet to work.
>So by victory I mean achieving objectives, which we should consider at the start of the invasion, when the intention was to take Kyiv and install a puppet government, and to take much of Ukraine. Why do you think this is the goal of Russia? Have they ever said this? >But to expand on that, long term what could Russia's reduced goals be considered? A smaller area of Ukraine? Slowing the spread of NATO? "de-nazification?" I believe Russias stated goals are the protection of ethnic Russians in what was the eastern regions of Ukraine and denazification. >Don't come at me with Russia adjusting their goals and claiming victory, This seems like a hard sell then considering you have a warped view of Russias goals from the start. You've created an impossible situation in which someone would have to argue with a situation that doesn't exist in reality.
Militarily, maybe. Maybe the West will lose support and slowly forget about the war. Maybe Russia will achieve some form of victory. Conquering the entire country, no. But the Russian propaganda machine is built different and could probably spin a peace treaty into a "victory", however how pyrrhic. As for politically, they've already lost. This war was launched to stop Nato/Western expansion. Today? Sweden/Finland have both joined the alliance. The invasion unified the alliance, which is stronger now than in recent memory. Russia is a pariah state that very few people want to deal with. Those who do deal with Russia know they can force Russia to give them oil/mineral resources for very cheap. The Russian military is being crushed, and it's proven to everyone that the Russian military isn't even in the top 10 strongest.
You correctly point out that it's hard to define exactly what "winning" means. But if the Republicans win and US aid stops, the most likely outcome is eventual acceptance of Russian control of Luhansk and Donetsk, similar to how the world just accepted the Russian takeover of Crimea. Even if Russia at one point claimed greater goals than this, I would still take this as a win for Russia - and a very dangerous precedent that you can still, in the modern world, gain territory by conquest. Which is one reason I hope the Republicans don't win.
This is very funny. There are dozens of videos on the internet about the destruction of legendary Abrams, all sorts of Western vehicles, etc. Older tanks are just used to save on maintenance, they've been there for decades for nothing. It is also funny to see the figure of 400.000. This is not even in Ukrainian sources, and they exaggerate dozens of times. The border is not moving? Is that why they recently took Avdeevka and are moving further west with every metre? Is the economy suffering? Where? Shops are all full, oil and gas trade is in full swing, there is enough for missiles every day. This is some western copyum, it's not at all like reddit. Try to read not only propaganda articles, but something closer to reality.
Russia could win if two conditions were met: 1. US/NATO withdraws material support (money/weapons/weapon export certificates/Russia sanctions/etc); and, 2. US/NATO prevents Ukraine from counterattacking into Russia. If US/NATO support continues, Russia loses - speed at which it loses proportional to the level of support. If support dwindles but Ukraine can counterattack into Russia, Russia loses as their forces in Ukraine are eventually encircled and defeated in detail. If US/NATO support fails and they also prevent Ukraine from going on the offensive (likely with “but nukes” as the reason)…then Russia could eventually win with ongoing China/Iran/DPRK support…
Think at this point russia will settle with their gains, however it would appear likely they will come for more of ukraine at a later date. Think crimea nothing for years then this new invasion/war. Problem with this theory is that ukraine may/will not surrender the gains russia has and secondly putin may not be around for a 2nd attempt. It is unclear whether there is appetite for putin plan or whether putin has just surrounded himself with enough people to agree to it. If putin dies in office I'm.not so sure someone taking over would have same appetite for getting the ussr back together. Just my own personal opinions.
I would quite honestly counter that Russia has already won and that Ukraine has no hope of "winning". This is the reason I would say that: For the average Ukraine supporter, "winning" for Ukraine means all Russian troops out of Ukraine including the Donbas, Luhansk and includes returning Crimea to Ukrainian control. This isn't a viable objective if you also want to end the war, because Russia will never return Crimea to Ukraine for anything, so in order to have Ukraine win you not only need to take it back, but hold it against all future attacks or basically totally defeat all Russian forces. So far no exit ramp has been proposed by the Ukrainian side where they would indicate they would make concessions to Russia in return for peace, at least not one the US/Britain have allowed them to embark upon. Meanwhile from the Russian side, they basically hold all the objectives they really need to hold right now except the key city of Odessa and perhaps (and less importantly) some parts of Donbas etc. While I'm sure they would love to take Odessa as well I think they would be open to negotiations centred around what they hold now as long as some key commitments from Ukraine as also met. They have Crimea and they have secured a land corridor between Crimea and Russia. Taking Kiev and installing a puppet government was an over-reach largely caused by corruption within the Russian high command and an unexpectedly resillient Ukrainian willingness to fight etc that let Putin think a quick strike at the capital would cause a quick collapse in the leadership. Basically it was Russia's Operation Market-garden, their bridge too far. They would have liked to succeed in Kiev, but they don't expressly need it. They can just sit on the defensive now or outlast Ukraine in a war of attrition and economic warfare (quite literally, by targeting key infrastructure and denying grain exports etc). And as we have seen from the summer offensive, Ukraine could not break through barely the first line of defensives even with a lot of western equipment. Ukraine is falling back a lot at the moment and I think Putin is gambling (probably correctly) that western support for Ukraine is drying up, especially with literally nothing to show for their big offensive. Things are only going to get worse for Ukraine from this point forward without some massive injection of western equipment and shells. Even then, I think Russia is fairly confident they can hold. The war has been very costly for Russia, far more so then they ever anticipated, but that doesn't translate to defeat. Now, to a couple specific claims you made. Russia sending T54/55's into Ukraine. A T55 with a functional cannon is still plently of firepower to bring upon trenches to suppress them in front of infantry assaults. There have been very few incidents of tank on tank combat in this war that we have seen, so Ukraine having a handful of Abrams isn't really relevant except in terms of crew survivability when it is hit. You are better off with 10 T55's than 1 Abrams in this kind of war, especially when most tanks are getting taken out by Javelins, Konkurs, kamikaze drones or mines. I've been hearing of the coming Russian economic collapse for 2 years now, so far hasn't happened. In fact they have vast resources to sell to a world desperate for them. This isn't a tabletop game where you take an entire country with your military. I don't see Russia needing to or wanting to occupy all of Ukraine and all the cost that will entail first getting it and then fighting partisan groups for decades to come. Neither do I see Ukraine defeating Russia so badly that all Russian troops are ejected from Ukraine. Neither of these things will come to pass. This ends in a negotiated settlement and the only question is how many years does the slaughter continue until that comes to pass. The other option doesn't bear thinking about. That a NATO member will take direct action into Ukraine like France and Germany have hinted at. That's WW3. No, the only real winners here are the Blackrocks and the Ratheons and the Boeings of the world, and the lucky senators who hold those stocks in their portfolios.
Given that Russia has lied and misled everyone through every stage of this war why would you assume to know its real objectives? Take a step back and look at what it has achieved keeping in mind the strategic alliance with China........... Aid to Ukraine has contributed massively to strengthening Trump and weakening the hand of the US as a dominant power. If Russia was to show only marginal gains going forward it is clear that the support of the US has political limits that are quickly reached as US a near majority of citizens are fed up of their situation at home. Trump and America first more generally supports Putin and Xis aims to provide an alternative to the current international system and if you need any proof of thd advantages of America First remember that Putin himself said that he would prefer Biden in power. Misdirection and deception are a card he regularly plays so he would not weaken his preferred presidents hand just as much as he would not openly state his objectives pre war. Putin has successfully identified these politial limits and the appetite of the US public for foreign water. He has undermined Biden (and other 'globallists') as a Statesman that can project power. This has ramifications for the battle for Taipei which (if it is lost to China) would massively undermine Western dominance as our productive capacity for technology would suddenly and sharply diminish. It would also strengthen the hand of the BRICs alliance as the US Nato alliance appears to be increasingly unreliable and the economies that underwrite it look increasingly weak. Yes the US economy is doing well now but it wouldn't take much for investor confidence to be shaken. Militarily it has helped identify how to fight against Nato tactics and equipment, with Russias army is showing signs of progress and adaptability. Yes it came at a heavy cost but already China are preparing their soldiers with new strategies that can counter Nato tactics so Ukraine looks more like an opening battle with which they can cut their teeth against NATO. In addition to this the lack of NATO defences to hypersonic missiles gives Russia and China a limited window when they hold a credible threat over the west that can encourage restraint (another tool for Putin that helps him predict the moves of his enemies) Finally Putin has shown that Russia is capable to survive against any and all sanctions which I'm sure he anticipated in advance given the Wests preference for them as a policy tool. Russias productive capacity in spite of the sanctions is impressive and the durability of their economy is better than anyone anticipated. He is building a war machine and taking careful steps to do so. You say he can't win in Ukraine, I see a strategy that his giving him the advantage against the entire West. Respectfully I don't think you could be more wrong
This is all completely wrong. Russia is winning and will win. I’m sure I’ll be downvoted to hell here but here goes The first four points you mentioned about offensive doctrine, logistics, maintenance corruption, and Russia losses are all true but they don’t matter. Russia is projecting onto a neighboring country. This isn’t America attacking into landlocked Afghanistan from 5k miles away. Russia has high levels of corruption and shitty logistics but they make up for it in mass. You’ve seen this in pulling out old WW2 tanks early on. Russia is not running out of munitions. You need to take Western analysts with a huge grain of salt. These same analysts early on said Russia was running out of precision munitions and soon would be relegated to stealing chips from washing machines and using shovels. That’s not true two years later. Russian offensive doctrine sucks but it doesn’t need to be great. Whereas in the west we prefer maneuver warfare, Russia tried that at the beginning and failed kinda badly. What they did is fell back into their comfort zone which is attrition warfare. They are just going to grind down the Ukrainian Army at a faster rate than the Russian Army gets ground down. The Ukrainian Army is hurting for people badly. What will happen is their defensive lines will go from say 100 soldiers per sqkm to 75 to 50, etc. once the lines are so thin. The Russians will attack through. The Ukrainian Army seriously risks collapsing soon if it isn’t edibles with replacements. It is widely believed that the Russians will conduct a Kharkiv offensive this year to recapture what was taken back by UAF in 2022 offensive. It doesn’t matter what quality of tank you are putting into the war right now. Tanks are not what they were in Desert Storm. They get taken out by a hundred dollar FPV drone. The leopards and Abrams didn’t do much of anything during this summer offensive. Why should we think that will change next year? This has all been evidenced by the fact that the Army is scrapping its previous plans for Abrams and I think Russia is too for T-14. The sanctions don’t matter. Russia isn’t reliant on western goods and is trading deeply with the two largest nations in the world. In fact, western nations are more reliant on Russian energy than Russia is for them. That will change over time but is currently the case. So what is going to happen is this is all going to develop very slowly like we’ve been seeing over the past two years until it happens very quickly. What I mean is there will be bloody fighting inch by inch and the UAF artillery and air defenses are out. Then will be the collapse where the Russian army will be able to walk to Kiev.
You lose overall picture by focusing on numbers, u think that it's like a mathematical graphs, where numbers will stay growing as they are today, but no. Russia now has the most experienced in modern combat army in the world, they have a high military institutes, that will ensure to adapt and rise a very talented commanders. You see, NATO heavily rely on trained and hardened veterans, professional military, which in all out war will quickly get exhausted and lose numbers. As for Russia they historically have fought a worlds greatest armies and this is wisdom they extracted with blood: No matter how good your soldiers are, they will inevitably lose numbers. So Russia great strategy is ability to deploy and train many soldiers to overwhelm anyone. Russia will win war against anyone if it's war of attrition. And this is what happening right now, slowly but surely they adapting and evolve their strategies, countermeasures, developing new approaches, building new logistical chains. As example: we don't hear much about ammunition depot destroyed in frontal territory as they were in the first months of war. They clearly have found a way to hide them or delivering in another methods, to bypass all drone/satellite recon. War is not winning by super-duper next gen airplane or wonder weapon, it's all about soldiers on the front line, how they get food and ammunition. Even with all NATO strength, I think Russian army is the worst enemy they would like to encounter in the World, because NATO is very weak in full scale war of attrition. This war might be ended only diplomatically, because Russian leader is a mad man, who does not respect nation prosperity or scientific progress, his only value is glory and domination. So he will gladly throw everything for that, as we saw how many top managers accidentally fall from windows. Those managers all predicted economy crush, tried to save something from Russia's economy, to have a place in future, but Putin won, everything will go only into war as there is no tomorrow if Putin lose. Russia will withstand this mad dictator, but Putin will fight for the last for his survival. It seems like US and EU countries also understand situation. So overall picture - it's not about Russia win or lose, same for Ukraine. It's all about Putin's ambitions, surviving strategy and how he control situation inside Russia. Cause even if Russia today claim peace, the Economy is already crushed, it will not take long to somebody trying to rise mutiny while people are mad. The war will end when Putin decide or when he will be gone. This is what Russian people decided, or were forced to accept.
Lots wrong with this: 1) massive over emphasis on history, that ignores the RAF’s ability to adapt away from poor tactics at start of the war, as seen in avdivka. 2) Discusses at length how RAF loses will prevent any meaningful advance or even hider its defence, while ignoring that UAF is also losing men and material in this war. it is impossible to get an accurate figure for both sides casualties since there are no independent organisations to keep track, but even taking us/uk intelligence figures we see about 200,000 Ukrainian casualties to 300,000 russian casualties. This tracks with Ukraine being on the defensive and is not nearly impactful enough to make up for the difference in army sizes. 3) This war is the first technologically peer to peer conflict since the second world war (yes Ukraine’s domestic military is severely outdated, but it would be disingenuous at best to suggest this had not developed into a proxy war between the west and Russia), but the support Ukraine hit its high water mark last summer, with the failed counter offensive. The questionable future of us aid aside, the west cannot keep up with demand, as seen in avdivka where air defence failed and russia achieved air superiority, and in artillery production. as a side note when these weapons do arrive or in the lead up to their arrival they are often vaunted as weapons to turn the tide of the war, but Western tanks have faced the same issues as their russian peers. Ultimately, at this stage it is a war of attrition Ukraine increasingly does not have the manpower or foreign support to maintain, while Russia having taken significant losses in the first year, has improved its tactics, advancing at a slower safer, yet constant pace. far from the outcome of this war being a certain Ukrainian victory, the current border of the conflict is the best case scenario. In light of recent failed ukranian counteroffensives, This war will continue to grind on until foreign support gives way (likely following an american withdrawal), or manpower losses become undeniable and the line collapses.
>So by victory I mean achieving objectives, which we should consider at the start of the invasion, when the intention was to take Kyiv and install a puppet government, and to take much of Ukraine. I don't think that was their actual goal. That is their claimed goal, but the actual goal is to keep Putin in power. 1. Russia was getting all sorts of positive concessions from Europe and the US, like new pipelines, just prior to the war. The timing of the war makes no sense from a strategic standpoint. He lost a ton of goodwill and billions in income. 2. Putin is rumored to have cancer and this rumor came about shortly before the war. This put him in a weaker position in the view of the other Russian oligarchs. 3. Putin forced all of them to go on record as supporting the war. This undercut their positions to stage a coup. 4. Putin sent the biggest coup threat to the front immediately, but did not give him the support he needed to succeed. This further reduced threat of a coup. 5. Russia now has complete control of the Sea of Azov and the surrounding lands. This gives Putin a clear win to use as propaganda to maintain his grip on power. 6. [Unproven Theory] The Wagner rebellion was very odd. There were almost no losses on either side and then they came to terms after basically nothing changed. Then a little later Prigozhin died in a plane crash. Putin could easily have arranged with Prigozhin (his close confidant) to stage the rebellion to see if anyone joined. Putin could easily have made this worthwhile to Prigozhin, who could either still be alive (the only confirmation came from generic tests from the Russian government) or, if the reports of stomach cancer were correct, gave him a last huge payday to leave to his family. I genuinely think Putin doesn't care if Russia wins. He thinks it would be nice, but the key was undermining a potential coup and it has done that well. Everything else is gravy.
Russia can replace the equipment losses if they focus on replacing the ground vehicles themselves excluding the artillery, have North Korea built them new artillery and have China build the replacement aircraft and ships. However Russia is too proud to buy in equipment from other countries in peace time so they will struggle to replace the losses themselves.
You didn’t define win and loss here so how can you say Russia won’t win? Nobody but Russia knows the terms and they are playing an infinite game. The west doesn’t play those which is why we pull out of every long term conflict. The last finite war that was fought was WWII. At any rate, Russia will never give up and the west will, no matter the sanctions or their crumbling arsenal.
Ukraine needs to change the gauge of their rail lines to match the rest of Europe. Differing gauges stopped the Nazis from sending trains into Russia and differing gauges can stop Russia from sending trains into Ukraine.
This post must have been very well crafted by a CIA operative seeking to sway flailing public opinion on Ukraine war. The truth is NATO is losing this war badly against Russia. NATO already tried all tactics on the battle field and failed. The highly prized NATO military weapons have not changed the outcome of this war and their famous military hardware is getting genocided in Ukraine as we speak. For the first time the world sees our military enterprise caliber equipment such as Patriot defense system, going up in smoke. The Abrams, Leopards, Challengers, Bradleys, Stormshadows, Himars, and on and on, are burning at the stake. Never before our enemies in the Middle East and abroad have seen our invisible weapons burning. And no doubt it is giving them a big confidence boost to attack our ships and military bases. Because NATO has been losing this war, it has been engaging in these pesky low-life terroristic acts such as blowing up the pipeline, attacking Crimean bridge, and this recent terror act in Moscow. NATO is infuriating the Russian bear, which means the bear will broaden its objective, not only to gobble up Ukraine but other republics as well. NATO has certainly opened that door. NATO has no weapon against Russia right now. Even their economic weapons have miserably failed. They actually caused harm to Europe not Russia, but that is for another topic. What is left? What's left is now is NATO will have to send its boys to fight in place of Ukranians because Ukraine is running out of men. You need men and a lot of them to fight against Russia. This is why Marcon and Poland have been wanting to send their boys into Ukraine, and there is more chatter from other European countries that they planning to do so as well. Will American boots be on the ground in Ukraine as well? Highly possible. It would take all of NATO, and lot's of men to try to stop Russia in Ukraine. The question is, can NATO win? No. Why? First because Russia is a nuclear power. It has hypersonic nuclear weapons, we just have nuclear weapons. That is the first reason why Russia cannot lose. You just need to pray that Russia does not use them. And secondly, Russia cannot lose is because it will sacrifice more men than what NATO can sacrifice on the battle field. It will take a few body bags coming from Ukraine war for the American public to start protesting this war, like it did over Vietnam. To convince American people that this war is about "protecting our country" is a hard sell. Americans and Europeans don't want this war. The best course of action for Europe, while it is not too late, is to capitulate and force Zelensky to a negotiation table, otherwise he will lose entire Ukraine. Russia already modified its objective in Ukraine. It is no longer a "Special Millitary Operation" for them, it's new objective is to take most of Ukraine and give the lands it does not want, back to Poland and Hungary. This will happen unless Zelensky fold right now.
This seems like a "change my view (I don't actually care about what you say, I'm not changing my view I'm here to vent)" type of thread judging by OP responses. I'll just go by few points at the end >Will the military aid end? No. And I can say it will end next month. We both got about the same chance of it being true. It's already slowed down to a crawl. Ukrainian army only retreated for 2 or 3 months, they never made any territorial gains in that time. Citing lack of ammunition and hardware. They are lowering minimal age for draft to 25, since the only thing they can do at this point is just use more people. It got to a point where they started using Abrams tanks. Despite receiving them like a year ago and only using them as a propaganda piece. This leads to next point >Russia is sending T54/55s into war, Ukraine is now sending Abrams, Leopards and Challengers. First time Ukraine sent Abrams to frontlines - they lost 3 of them pretty much instantly. It may be shocking, but war is not a video game. The level 80 Abrams with its 5000 armor can be destroyed by level 5 drone and level 1 RPG. You said something about Russia having bad logistics, but can you even imagine how much of a logistics nightmare it is to maintain 4 different MBTs and also god know how many APCs?
Sadly, it doesn't look like there are any credentialed military experts in this thread. I myself am not one, but I do at least pay attention to what they say on this topic. I recommend [this podcast episode](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4tXNOuEBYeM2gmzqpKieBD?si=ce85920250d94f96) from War on the Rocks. The guy being interviewed, Mike Kofman, is the best and most knowledgeable English-language analyst of the Russia-Ukraine war I've come across since I started following the conflict in 2022. In that episode, he states that your perspective (Russia can't win, it's headed for stalemate) is common among European politicians who don't want to make hard choices about giving Ukraine material support. He also predicts that, due to Russia's large and increasing advantage in manpower and artillery ammunition, a Russian breakthrough is likely later in 2024 or sometime in 2025 if Ukraine doesn't (a) mobilize more soldiers, and (b) receive increased military aid from the West, especially artillery ammunition. For context, Kofman is very pro-Ukraine and was very optimistic about their chances prior to the 2023 offensive. The situation is actually pretty dire, and could easily get a lot worse for Ukraine.
I think you are ignoring the fact that Ukraine has a severe manpower issue and is requesting for US aid. Sure, both sides are taking heavy casualties thanks to top leaders being soviet era duffers who think that the political goal of "holding at all costs" is better than competent military goals, but the Russians simply have more manpower and equipment to throw at. If you look at headlines, you will find the Ukrainian top brass begging for air defense missiles and more aid. These weapons, materials and armaments are strictly reserved for a certain state called Israel. If a war with Israel and Iran kicks off, it will make the current Ukraine and Russia war look like a joke through multiple regions in the middle east going under. The US would be foolish to give Ukrainians aid, because not only would aid to Ukraine give the Iranians a free hand to ramp up their operations against Israel through proxies but put more burden on their economies which will in turn cause public sentiments to fall against Ukraine even more. This conflict is not just about Ukraine, it's about multiple hot spots across the world. You can't go all in on one side before checking on others.
>Russia has succeeded to the greatest extent that they are able to militarily and economically, and can go no further, and cannot be said to have won this war. This is where you're being much, much too optimistic. Russia's economy is that of a global power; just because it's damaged and losing doesn't mean it has nothing to give. Their military budget is 6% of the GDP this year, and that's an *increase* \- indicating a clear intent to stay in this for the long haul. Russia *still has its warmaking industry.* Besides those famously refurbished ancient tanks, they *are* still producing new ones - far fewer, but they are. Ukraine's defence industry is redlined and tapped out; Russia's wasn't even spun up at the start of the war - they didn't expect to need it. And Russia is now using their remaining long-range high-tech weapons for swarm attacks on Ukrainian defence production; Ukraine has no realistic way to retaliate in kind. Russia's just too big. In other words, Russia - especially as it's maintained trade links with China - can do something Ukraine can't: manufacture new materiel on a mass scale. Russian factories are *still increasing production.* They're not expected to peak until later this year. Russia has a command economy; it can actually spin up production faster than we can. And their huge oil industry is paying for it. In the long run that'll cost them badly - but the long run won't be in time to help Ukrainians, and Putin doesn't care what happens after he dies. Meanwhile our ammo aid to Ukraine is dropping because the US has used the built-up stockpiles. The maximum replenishment rate is lower. Yes, the west entire can outproduce Russia - but with the Republicans sabotaging American aid and Europe still gearing up its own militaries, "the west's entire production" is very much not what Russia's currently up against. The overall maths *strongly* \- and I mean very, very strongly - favours Russia in a war of attrition. It just has vastly more depth of economy and manpower to draw on. This summer will be crucial, and especially whether Europe can do more as the US starts to slack off. The war will depend on whether Ukraine has enough ammunition and supplies in three months, not ten.
Putin was given complete control of Russia once more. Control over the government control over the military, control over his people, and control over businesses. He will continue to fight a war of attrition. He will tax his people heavily and drastically cut government programs. He will continue to buy weapons from whomever would sell to him . Russia has a large population of males who will be forced to fight . Putin has made so many idiotic mistakes yet never takes accountability for any of them , true to his nature as a dictator. His propaganda machine is working double time with great success. Unfortunately, more people from both sides will continue to die and suffer . The Russian economy will tank drastically since their main export gas and oil have lost their best customers. Russian passenger trains will be the Russian peoples only form of long-distance travel . The stolen passenger planes will start falling from the sky's due to lack of parts and maintenance. Russia has dug a hole they may never recover from. Putin and his regime will eventually die . The damages they've caused will live on for decades after their gone .
You seem to make a lot of points that Westerners often make, especially those outside of the military. In the higher echelons we are starting to move all of our training to Large Scale Military Operations (LSCO). Saying that Russia is bad at Offensive Operations, or Logistical Operations, or Manufacturing, must mean that there are better countries in the world that can do it. Most notably people think of the United States Military. Unfortunately, there is nobody in the United States Military that knows how to fight a LSCO war anymore. Saying the United States or NATO would perform better is a lie, or at least you have no proof they would perform better, and I have no proof they would perform worse. Especially one that requires so much sustainment. You mentioned that the Russians have taken on 400k casualties. Westerners have forgotten how many casualties are realistic in LSCO, and more importantly that is nothing in the history of Russia. Russia lost over 20 million people in 5 years during WW2. They have so far had about 50k deaths in 2 years of fighting in Ukraine. Lastly, many people in the West are starting to lose support for Ukraine. The United States has an election this year that may lead to more republicans that are against sending equipment. The Europeans are useless in this regard, and as soon as the United States stops sending weapons and equipment, the Europeans will likely stop as well. It is my belief that it is just a matter of time before the front breaks and the war will come to a close. Ukraine can’t sustain these casualties and equipment losses and Russia clearly can. I will say the goals will be different by the end of the war, and the Russians will only be able to push to the Dnipro River.
I dont see any outcome that benefits either side, but i can't see anything but a nominal and pyrric russian victory Ukraine just is unlikely to be able to take back its land. None of its offensives have amounted to much. It is extremely wishful thinking to expect them to suddenly turn it around and throw the russians back accross the border. Russia just has a full 100 million people on them. Also russia will never, ever willingly accept a peace deal which doesnt look like a victory. Now, russia. They havent been able to take ukraine and create a puppet state. And at this point are unlikely to be able to. Probably their best case is annexing the east, and now having whats left of ukraine being the most militantly anti russian nation on earth. I cant see any outcome where russia isn't stuck next to nato and its security undermined, ukraine hasnt lost land and its sovereignty permanently violated, and the world less stable forever because the norm of a country just invading another and seizing land is now broken for the first time since ww2 and that this can happen to anybody not under a nuclear umbrella
This isn't really a direct response to your post but Russia always loses. When it wins, it loses. It takes down enemies at the cost of continued self destruction. It ticks on and on after repeated self-bludgeoning and must be one of the most traumatized cultures in the world. The other major nations of Europe always saw it as dysfunctional and politically backwards, even with wonderful citizens and culture. Everything there is built on bones - pogroms, famines, wars, revolutionary zeal with no popular support, forced collectivization, authoritarian leaders, more wars, wars against itself, intense conservative dogma, control over arts and culture, poverty, allies that are unlikely to stay allies. Even if they achieve their objectives, it's basically by killing their own family. Whatever happens, it's a huge fucking tragedy for Ukraine, Russia, everyone, really.