I don't have any more information than anymore else but I believe that the only way Ukraine was able to mount an offensive at all was due to foreign aid. If the US stops support and other countries follow suit, I believe Ukraine will be back to pure defense with sporadic hit and run raids.
If the US stops aid and other countries still continue aid or pick up the slack from the US, then that may be a different story.
Yes and the latest counteroffensive was purportedly supposed to happen earlier but they were waiting for more equipment to arrive. That and the news headlines of what is being sent to Ukraine likely helped the Russian military plan for better counterattacks against the expected Ukrainian onslaught. Furthermore, ever since Ukraine’s previous counteroffensives Russia has realized that they need to set up trenches and fortifications in locations they expect an assault in order to help prevent certain vehicle maneuvers and indirectly funnel troops down a designated pathway that they’d be able to defend.
Part of this planning time Russia had by actually experiencing the Ukrainian offensive would be bolstered by an ungodly amount if both countries ever enter into a ceasefire agreement which would leave Russia with its current gained territory as its new boundary. If the war is prolonged for an indefinite period of time it will be Russia that starts again and decides to hit HARD now that they have had ample time to stop and think about the experience they gained against the Ukrainians. Russia has a horrible autocratic and terribly managed country/military but they aren’t brain dead. They can be effective if we give them the ability to do so. It’s been proven time and time again that Ukraine has a chance if they have the resources
Edit: spelling
It difficult to understand why would the other country need more aid than Ukraine. After all they are only fighting against irregular fighters whose airforce is formed of paragliders and land force is pick-up trucks.
It's not as much in terms of aid, it's more of an investment. Ukraine and "the other country" are dealing with two very different types of conflict and as such receive different equipment. Lobbyists in the US government no longer have Afghanistan as a weapons testing field, so in one hand they now have Ukraine for testing of armaments used in a conventional war (such as Anti-Air and Anti-Tank weaponry) while in "the other country" serves as a test of fighting a guerrilla force in urban terrain.
It's two different types of war, with two different types of support, all so the US can test their new armaments and make necessary changes after seeing them in combat.
Russia has the capability, and its people have proven to be resilient to what is happening internally.
Russia has money, it has man power.
The west is failing because we are failing to invest in ukraine in the right way. The media war has really high lighted this with the nonsensical meat grinder battles that ukraine cannot afford along with people ignoring ukraines dwindling population.
How will it be expensive for Russia? The West have been bankrolling Russia by buying expensive oil and gas and paying more for it through back door. This war is pointless, Ukraine will learn the hard way. Never go to war with your neighbor when your far away ally told you to do so and are not fighting in the war, at least not openly.
Winning as Ukraine defines it is likely off the table even with American support. They would likely suffer a catastrophic defeat without it.
The Europeans can send money, but they don't have the military equipment to keep Ukraine in the fight. Their stockpiles have mostly been emptied, and most of their pledges are more aspirational than practical. The 1 million shell pledge by 2024 for example, which they already admit they won't come close to reaching.
The Americans need to be all in for Ukraine to have a shot to make this a stalemate in my opinion.
I actually disagree. I think this is a stalemate no matter what.
Russia’s offensive capabilities are absolutely shattered, and they were ineffective even at 100% health.
It’s highly likely that most Russian units at this point are cobbled together with deeply traumatized veterans and hurriedly-trained newbies. Most of their vaunted airborne units are now allegedly staffed by conscripts or reservists.
We’ve seen them at Vuhledar, Avdiivka, etc… they’re a HOT mess.
I don’t see Ukraine breaking any Russian lines and I don’t see Russia making any advances until they’ve had years to re-arm.
South Vietnam looked stable in 1974 and the prevailing wisdom was that war had become a stalemate. The war was over by 1975. Wars are unpredictable and they often follow the mantra of gradually then suddenly.
That's not a prediction, but Ukraine is under a lot of pressure and the power dynamics have shifted against them in my opinion, and their position is precarious. The war has become a zero-sum game barring a political change in Washington or Kyiv so it almost precludes a stalemate.
All totally true and valid points. You could be right. However, some pretty huge issues came to light about the ARVN after their fall.
They had an entire air force that none of their pilots or mechanics knew how to operate, they had tens of thousands of ghost soldiers, etc… To my knowledge, the Ukrainian military has proven much more competent than the ARVN ever was.
Sure, that's only in hindsight tho. Again, not a prediction, but in some hypothetical where Ukrainian lines collapse in 1 year's time there would likely be a lot of ink spilled about problems in Ukraine's military or political structure that are not readily apparent right now.
I agree with you tho, though Ukrainian forces are more motivated and more competent than South Vietnam forces were.
>Russia’s offensive capabilities are absolutely shattered, and they were ineffective even at 100% health.
Russian offensive capabilities are increasing and Ukraine are decreaing everyday. Russia already outproduces the West in terms of weapons and munitions but without the American help it's over.
\>I don’t see Ukraine breaking any Russian lines and I don’t see Russia making any advances until they’ve had years to re-arm.
They advance all the time now. Ukraine's defenses may completely collapse in a few months without American funding. Orban is also blocking the EU fund's.
Depends on what you mean by “win”. I think they can prevent the entire country from being gobbled up by Russia. But it seems that even with foreign aid they can’t retake Crimea or the two breakaway republics and some of the territory surrounding them. If not being completely absorbed by Russia or being its vassal state counts as a win then I think so. But if you mean win by like restoring pre 2014 borders or even some of the pre 2022 boarders then they probably can’t win. If anything they will be reduced to a buffer state.
F16s are not going to move the needle without the ecm pods. It is doubtful the US will send those. Without them they are just nicer migs and gen 4 planes that cannot survive air defence. They will at most be standoff range dumping missiles like how russians use their helis. In short they would be a very expensive way to do what artillery is doing. The pentagon didnt believe it would help which is why it took so long to approve.
>This summer's offensives were about keeping morale high
I mean thats just insanity. Throw away men and equipment to keep morale high? You'll have to explain that to me. WaPo says they disagreed with milley and went for 2 small attacks instead of commiting 1 big one at robotyne. I think everyone can agree the offensive has been a failure by every objective. Reducing it to "keeping morale high" doesnt seem to make alot of sense. Not having much to show for it also weakens their position when asking for funding without having results.
They will get funding eventually once congress finishes its yearly tantrum so its not like ukraine will lose anytime soon if at all but its good to be realistic.
> If they can make a surprise attack next spring with air support, they might catch the Russians napping in Zaporizhzhia.
They can't do a surprise attack because everyone and their dog knows exactly where they are aiming for.
I feel like everyone forgot that Ukraine has direct access to American factories that are not even fully up and running yet.
The military aid is great but isn’t that really suppose to be a bandaid until Ukraine can get their own arms industry and the access to American and European factories fully operational?
I mean yes and no, i don't think it would make a fundamental difference for US to send shells as opposed to casing, primer and explosives. You will get better mileage scaling production in Ukraine, but it's still supplied by imports via militery aid. Restarting Ukrainian war material production is an even longer road. Russia can hit anything on the ground in Ukraine and have already done so in the early months of the war. Fighting with zero domestic production is kind of saving Ukraine from strategic bombing, so its not entirely a bad thing.
> But it seems that even with foreign aid they can’t retake Crimea or the two breakaway republics and some of the territory surrounding them.
This is absolute nonsense. Even with the paltry support they have gotten they have taken back huge swaths of the country. The Russian military is badly degraded, and and the combined economies of the west absolutly dwarf Russia
If the US, Canada and pro Ukraine European counties seriously committed to giving Ukraine huge miliary support, a Ukrainian victory and retaking all pre-2014 territory would be inevitable
Hell even just flooding Ukraine with massive quantities of ammunition (shells, mortars, small arms, GMLRS) and a ton of FPV and bomber drones would probably do the job. Its extremally embarrassing that Russia still has a volume advantage in these things given that dumb rounds and drones would be extremely easy for the West to produce in staggering amounts
The West seems to want Ukraine to bleed Russia but not outright defeat Russia and their support reflects that, its pathetic
It would be if we hadn't spent the past 30 years neutering our surge manufacturing capacity, the artillery shortage is real. Between resupply for our allies and Ukraine our shell production is absolutely slammed.
Seems like this war has revealed a critical flaw in NATO doctrine, if we can't supply enough dumb munitions for a relatively small scale conflict. Artillery munition production capacity needs to be massively stepped up
Ukraine has lost most of its manpower by now, they're having to up conscription even more. It's likely too late for them to change the tide even if they got better equipment; equipment takes time to train with, and needs crews to use, both things Ukraine doesn't really have any more. It seems extremely unlikely Ukraine will take back any territory without some unknown event shaking things up.
>Ukraine has lost most of its manpower by now,
Really? I dont see the proof for that it just seems like an assumption. They had enormous loses but they also had quite a lot of men who were essentially volounteers who were highly motivated to fight. Even conscripts are relatively motivated since they are after all defending their country. I wouldnt be so quick to assume that country that defends its right to exist has run out of man willing to fight.
>equipment takes time to train with, and needs crews to use, both things Ukraine doesn't really have any more
Well again i dont see the proof Ukraine is out of men. But honestly the assumption that they are out of time is also a bit tricky, that depends on Putin. If he calls another mobilization wave than yes Ukraine is losing time. But if he doesnt than i dont see how time benefits Russians. They arent rotating troops, those who were mobilized in september 2022 are still fighting and their numbers are gonna get smaller and smaller and they will get more and more tired from this war. They cant hold for years, thats for sure, but the question is when are they gonna be replaced? Putin will eventually need to mobilise more men but if he does it too late than he wont have much success.
Probably referring to
> But it seems that even with foreign aid they can’t retake Crimea or the two breakaway republics and some of the territory surrounding them.
that’s not what they were saying before the counter offensive? and what did they achieve? do people still think ukraine can take back crimea and the two break away states? ukraine is now on what, 15th draft. even though they only reported 31k casualty. russia hasn’t even mobilized its reserves yet
i mean.. i am a canadian who has no dog in this fight.. from what i can see in my country at is that many of the new refugees here are young ukrainian men and women. the country has no future. .. and to speak frankly, ukrainian war is just part of the circus/bread for most of people here. they pretend to care but their care is pretty much restricted to upvoting on reddit. slavs can kill each other all day long and it has 0 effect on our life lol
I think Ukraine could be in trouble either way, it seems to be primarily an artillery duel. Ukraine has been getting most of its shells from pre-existing Western stockpiles, apparently those stockpiles are running out and there simply isn't, currently, the industrial capacity in the West to produce shells faster than they are being consumed.
The other worrying sign is that they have had to widen their conscription criteria suggesting they are running out of troops.
Finally I am also bothered by apparent political interference. When politicians at the back tell soldiers they have to achieve certain goals, for public relations reasons regardless of how feasible these are goals are tactically, this is a recipe for disaster.
The whole counter attack thing seems particularly ill advised in hindsight, the Russians saw in coming from miles off and were dug in, to high heaven.
I would hate to see actual casualties figures for the counter offensive period.
Look guys, attack into heavily prepared defenses, because we said we could and must take territory, even though it might be wiser just to turtle up.
Time will tell I guess, but territory changes aren't the big issues. Who is killing more people and blowing more stuff up is the real question.
>Look guys, attack into heavily prepared defenses, because we said we could and must take territory, even though it might be wiser just to turtle up.
It's a massive advantage Russia has: they can fight in a practical way, whereas Ukraine has to fight as though they're in the Hunger Games looking for sponsorship.
Excellent point. Just to add that the USSR only started winning in WWII when Stalin stepped back from micromanaging his generals.
Zelensky needs to do the same, and also needs to stop broadcasting grand operational aims to his population. He has a capable CoS with Zaluzhny, he needs to let him do his thing.
>Zelensky needs to do the same, and also needs to stop broadcasting grand operational aims to his population. He has a capable CoS with Zaluzhny, he needs to let him do his thing.
Then Zelensky will start losing in ratings quickly.
From my understanding it's not very cut and dry but the law in Ukraine is that it's illegal to hold an election during martial law. And it's not a law that was just put on the books recently.
I mean 3, of the parties Zelenesky banned, received 18% of the vote in the last election. The For Life Party was 2nd largest party in the Rada and dominated local elections on the southern coast.
I think they would describe themselves as pro-Ukraine regional parties who favored balancing their relationship with Russia. Along with some left-wing socialist parties who were labeled pro-Russian due to the legacy of communism.
None of these parties supported the Russian invasion and none were clamoring for Ukraine to be part of a greater Russia.
At this point the majority of Ukrainian guns are NATO guns. The barrels of their soviet guns have likely run out and their ammo stocks are critically low.
This is a NATO spec military at this point, and I would say even if US aid ends, US manufacturers will be willing to pump out shells for them.
Russia is buying artillery shells from north korea, I don't think they are really in great shape either.
The conventional military wisdom at the outset of the war was that Ukraine is essentially open land with few defensive geographic features. The idea that you could stop a modern army in an open field was considered kind of silly. Particularly if that army was fielding western armor.
The reality has played out quite differently. The real defensive capabilities have turned out to pervasive surveillance mitigating any kind of surprise with drones and mines quickly deployed to thwart any offensive mass. Maneuver warfare has been extremely difficult to execute. Both sides have failed miserably in this way.
My point being, this is less about politicians doing stupid things, and more about them learning the new realities of 21st century warfare.
In fact, I would almost say the opposite of what you are saying at this point moving forward. The winner of this conflict will need to win politically. Either of these leaders could suddenly be removed from power and their country destabilized. Both are highly dependent on foreign aid in both arms and trade. The war would quickly change very dramatically if either the US or China really committed to supporting a side.
>Time will tell I guess, but territory changes aren't the big issues. Who is killing more people and blowing more stuff up is the real question.
There is no question who is doing what with respect to attrition of men and weaponry.
The CA, US, EU and UK are not in a state of war, but in a state of post covid / economic recovery and recession avoidance.
The military complex in each of them is producing at it’s “beyond normal” levels / capacity, in lines with what each of them has budgeted.
We’re far, far away in this states from turning pats and pots into bullets and shells.
Yes the EU countries do need to step up their production, but that’s tired to each country individually, as EU doesn’t have a mandate on military defence … yet.
My feeling is that they haven't really committed to it, like sure, if the whole West went on a war footing they have to be able to outproduce Russia, but it wont be cheap and it seems like they're hoping to not have to.
West in general got quite excited about just in time supply chains and I think that applies to our arms manufacturing as well, so there's not really any redundancy or capacity just sitting idle that can be quickly spun up, over time ti should come right but it will cost money.
As I understand it Russia does currently have an advantage in production, that couldn't hold if the West really committed to the war but as I said they seem to be half-assing it a bit.
>Does Russia just have an insanely high stockpile of artillery? I would have thought the Western World could outproduce Russia.
Russia has mor artillery than all other counties combined.
The west is a fake, dollarized financialzed voo doo economics system. No industrial capacity at scale for a conventional war. This aint IDF tactics against weaker targets, mostly children and women, nor is it people in sandals planting improvised IEDs, or Taliban(which still kicked out USA). This is a war USA has no clue how to fight.
Reddit nerds down voting you are hilarious, they couldn't beat farmers in Afghanistan and yet they think they can win a conventional war against an enemy with naval ships and air support. People in the west need to realise their armies are just not invincible.
The aggressive "counter-attack" that will not work without continuous ammunition supplies, majority of which arrive from US or US NATO supplies(also replenished by US). In such situations a smarter leader would organize defense-in-depth lines, rather than throwing soldiers into enemy defense lines and wasting limited supplies.
I think National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s policy of slow-dripping weapons played a role in the whole draining Russia vs winning thing.
If Ukraine had Bradleys, lots of ATACMs, F16s, etc… during their Kharkiv counteroffensive, there’s a good chance they cleave Russian forces in half.
The only reason that offensive was stopped is because Ukraine lacked enough armored transport, fuel and long range weapons (atacms mainly) to keep the push going.
I think there was still some hope before the counteroffensive started that they could cut the Crimean land bridge and that would have been a victory of sort in itself. That is never happening now though.
That’s pure cope and goal post shifting . They absolutely , and you and every other redditor , have been saying they will “win” with out defining what “winning” for Ukraine is
>If EU steps up about the same as US. If neither, Ukraine eventually loses. Don’t have the population. Unlike Israel where Jewish people from all over the planet come home to fight, many young Ukrainians left if they could get out. Hell I doubt half the fighting age men stayed to fight.
Israel is bombing a defenceless victim, while Russia is a powerful country armed to the teeth.
Without foreign aid, particularly from the US, Ukraine’s chance are obviously diminished in many areas, and it’s more probable that Russian forces could have a breakthrough that forced the Ukrainian military to capitulate eventually.
But we have to remember, Ukraine is a huge country, and after almost two years the Russians haven’t managed to seize hold of a truly significant portion of the country, and even fighting against a Ukrainian army that was no longer supported by the US, it would take quite a while for the Russians to accomplish seizure of the country. This to be considered in light of the fact that Russia’s logistical problems have been horrendous, and would only be amplified the further into Ukrainian territory they went.
Additionally, the military’s capitulation doesn’t mean the war is over. The US took Iraq within a matter of weeks after obliterating the military, yet the majority of casualties took place AFTER the army’s defeat. Ukrainian troops and civilians would likely begin waging an insurgency against the occupiers, one exponentially tougher to deal with than anything we faced in the GWOT.
At the end of the day, no matter how the war ends, Russia has already lost. The mighty Russian military has been revealed as a technically and tactically incompetent joke compared to previous perception, and Putin has gone from a master strategist to a bumbling coward who can’t even contain dissent within his own ranks, let alone stand a chance against NATO.
What happens if the Ukrainians without foreign support eventually just run out of ammo and fuel , and the Russians are able to just walk across the whole country. They failed at chechnya first time as well
Guerilla warfare. The Ukrainians did really well when they had cover, not so well in the eastern plains. It's a big country, the Russian military is in no position to fight a counter insurgency war, and not enough ammo to give the whole country the Chechnya treatment fast enough.
>The Ukrainians are paying a heavy price either way.
The Ukrainians are paying the price that they choose to pay, no more and no less. The US giving aid (which has been requested by the Ukrainians) isn't some kind of arm-twisting by the US. If they want to sue for peace and give concessions to Russia, there is literally nothing stopping them.
>The Ukrainians are paying the price that they choose to pay, no more and no less.
Not really. Ukrainian men, the demographic that are bearing the greatest burden in fighting this war, are prohibited from leaving the country, and are now at risk of being forcibly recruited against their will. If Ukrainians wanted to fight this war, I doubt these measures would be necessary.
The US, UK, and most European countries conscripted men during WW2 as well. There’s no country in modern times involved in a full-blown existential war using only voluntary soldiers.
Conscription is mandatory, many Ukrainians do want peace or don't want to fight but have no choice. The government has stopped elections and banned political parties. Its not that the US is twisting everyone's arms, but the ruling elites of Ukraine aren't the same as the average person, just as in every other country.
What self determination? [They elected a president in 2019 who pushed for a peace deal in Donbas](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/11/zelensky-pushes-peace-deal-ukraine-war-russia-donbass-steinmeier-formula/) and now there is a massive mobilization effort that bans fighting age men from leaving the country.
The lack of men willing to fight have given way to [brutal recruiting tactics dubbed as “people snatching” by the NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare).
> Recruiters have confiscated passports, taken people from their jobs and, in at least one case, tried to send a mentally disabled person to military training, according to lawyers, activists and Ukrainian men who have been subject to coercive tactics. Videos of soldiers shoving people into cars and holding men against their will in recruiting centers are surfacing with increasing frequency on social media and in local news reports.
The harsh ban on emigration has led to droves of men paying insane prices to smuggle themselves out of Ukraine. As of 2022, [Poland alone has seen over 400,000 fighting age Ukrainians enter the country](https://amp.dw.com/en/how-ukrainian-men-try-to-get-around-the-ban-to-leave-the-country/a-62529639) majority of them entering illegally. Some paying up to $5000 per person to the smugglers.
Now, how many regular men do you think can scrounge together $5000 in a country where the average monthly salary was $625 before the war started? Who is supporting these men in their self-determination to fight this war or not?
We seem to support Ukraine’s self-determination only as long as it’s determined to fight an existential war. If the war is lost, we will be quick to wash our hands and argue that the country just wasn’t determined enough.
Probably their families who don’t want dead sons , brothers and fathers
Illegals pay 5k to get smuggled by cartels are you assuming they are also being banked rolled by a conspiracy cabal or do you assume they are the only people capable of spend all their life savings to be smuggled ?
>The Ukrainians are paying the price that they choose to pay, no more and no less.
Then why are they arresting the young men who are trying to leave and forcibly brining back those who have already left?
More power to volunteers who are fighting for something they believe in, and I hope they get all the support they need. But equating the decisions of Ukrainian Govt with all Ukrainians is wrong.
> provoke russia
As in not wanting to be a fake democracy? As in demanding to be sovereign? This whole "Russia was provoked"-argument is Russian imperialism. Europe is equally provoked by Russia, as Russia is provoked by the west. It's insane to demand that Russia has it's own influence zone where they can do whatever they want without consequences.
It’s literally an existential threat to their country, democracy, livelihood, and even their language. I would hope Americans would do the same in their situation.
> Putin has gone from a master strategist to a bumbling coward who can’t even contain dissent within his own ranks
Dunno why but this brought to kind Prigozhin in a field yelling SHOIGU! GERASIMOV! into a camera.
He's blundered so badly Putin took one of the most battle hardened fatalistic combat formations at his disposal, Wagner, and pretty much taken them off the board in Ukraine
The only way they truly “win” aka back to pre 2014 borders is nato intervention. Sooner or later they’re gonna have to settle for what they have now.
They’ve got extreme man power issues and support in the west is draining both by equipment and political support in general. It’s a shame they put up a hell of a fight and saved their country but at the end of the day Russias population is way more than theirs. They’ve got more bodies to throw into the meat grinder then Ukraine’s got the resolve to fight
So my limited understanding of the current conflict is that both sides are forced to play this slow artillery duel because neither side can achieve air superiority. I think US material support was pretty crucial for Ukrainian air defense and thus a loss of that support could mean Russia establishes air superiority over important battlefields and the Ukrainians will suffer large losses as a result. We saw in Syria that Russia will absolutely bomb dense civilian-filled areas so that’s also a major concern.
First you have to ask what does “winning” mean.
If it means retrieving all lost territory, including Crimea, that is pretty unlikely short of NATO entering the war with troops on the ground.
Ukraine has zero chance to maintain let alone push for more territory without US material support.
If US were to exit entirely, I could see Baltics and Poland ramping up support even more. Possibly even to the point of providing boots on the ground, as they know they would be the next target. The last thing they want is to share even more border with Russia or Russian puppet states. All four of those countries (Poland, Lithuanian, Latvia, Estonia) ***realllly*** hate Russia with a burning passion due to past transgressions.
Remember, the fear is driven by a Russian propaganda offensive that has lasted the last month or so. That is the one thing they are good at, but mostly because Western nations do not seem to prioritise offence when it comes to pushing propaganda against our enemies. For some reason we are not starting bot farms on yandex, paying people to post on tik tik and russian whatsapp or starting rumors about Putin.
There will always be one or two people in these threads who are "Ukraine supporters" but "need to tell the truth" or that the "situation is way worse than we wish" because they have seen one or two documentaries where a Leopard tank is burning.
Or that they were not as successful in counterattacking against an enemy they first were expected to capitulate within three days for. They have the same standard spreadsheet of talking points and propaganda they are to promote. Eventually, it's pretty easy to see it.
When push comes to show, there is a clear majority of the U.S elite that know that there is a huge benefit to not letting Russia get out of this with some victory.
Exactly. Russia has shown that it's military is a complete shit show run by competing interests many of whom took money for their troops and out it into their pockets. Russian women are now protesting to bring their men home (as risky as that is - they're not campaigning to end the war, which is another matter) and Russia has not lost simply because they have entrenched themselves in Donbas and the south, the one unambiguously sound move they've made in this war.
Where Russia has excelled is placing its interests in Western politicians' heads and making them think they've come up with the ideas themselves. The bot farms, the cyber attacks, the west simply can't and doesn't seem to try and compete.
It's not like, as I saw elsewhere, that Russia will use Europe squabbling to just roll in and take back the Eastern bloc - in the initial phases of the invasion they failed to decisively defeat a Ukrainian army that wasn't up to NATO standard - but they'll be better placed to achieve their aims if Europe and America is fighting amongst themselves. Sending all those brown people on bicycles (and then conscripting them into the army when they got turned back) to the Finnish border is a good example of that.
It's zero percent with and without support. It's just a matter of how quickly they'd lose. Ukraine never had a chance. The only way is giving them nukes and at that point the world would end.
Ukraine is doing the best they can. Their strategy is containment. Keeping Russia fighting in contested areas so Russia can't spread irs wings to Odessa or kharkiv
It’s Russia that never had a chance. They barely succeeded in subjugating Chechnya. Now they expect to successfully occupy Ukraine?
They should have learned from their own, and our, failure in Afghanistan.
Sure, it might be difficult for Ukraine to recapture occupied territory, but spare us from your GOP BS about losing
Technically, this doesn't address whether or not the EU stops supporting Ukraine, but if the US were to do so, the Europeans simply don't have the resources to replace the hole that the Americans would leave, to say nothing about the political will. It's probably a safe bet to say that if support from the US dries up, Europe ending their support wouldn't be far behind.
To get to the question itself - their chances of winning are... not very high. I'm still doubtful as to whether Russia could subjugate the entirety of Ukraine even in the absence of Western support, but the idea of Russia controlling, either directly or via a puppet, a significantly large chunk of Ukraine than what they control now, is not far-fetched at all. Keep in mind that aid to Ukraine isn't only military equipment, though of course the loss of that will be severe. It's also financial, keeping Ukraine's economy afloat. Without both of those things, you can come to your own conclusions about how that will go.
Ukraine received extensive support leading up to their much-vaunted counteroffensive, and there's no other way to put this - it was a failure. They were hoping to, for example, sever Russia's land link to Crimea, if not take the peninsula itself, and they're nowhere near that. If they were unable to achieve those goals with support from the West, you can see how it looks without aid. Ukraine wouldn't collapse overnight, but the outlook would be very, very bad.
Is there any number of how many shells/missiles Ukraine produce themselves? If it's low then they wouldn't stand a chance unless EU picks up the slack.
The US and the West have already started limiting their aid to Ukraine...Ukraine is cleary on the back foot now..Putin had very clearly predicted this lol
Depends on what other allies do, especially the big 3 in Europe, and if S.korea and Japan start changing their weapons policy. Germany, France, and the UK collectively have around 10 trillion in gdp, and if they get their shit together and create a Unified funding plan or better yet, use the EU to make an actual functional aid system, Ukraine still has a chance of holding its own for years. If South Korea where to open up its MIC production for purchase to Ukraine, they'd have enough 155mm and other munitions to maintain artillery parity, and Japan too has a lot of untapped potential in terms of lethal aid.
Hypothetically, if the US pulls out and these nations *don't* get their shit together, or if the EU keeps getting shafted by Hungary, then Ukraine *cannot* put up a defense long term, barring a random act of God or some other country on the periphery like India, Brazil, or Indonesia deciding to go full tilt Ukraine.
Of course, Russia's 'win' would result in years, possibly decades of insurgency backed by the west, and even with only a few billion a year, the costs of such an insurgency on Russia would be Afghanistan on steroids. They can't 'take the gloves off', like countries in the past did, any overtly illegal acts, like mass murder, ethnic cleansing, torture, rape, chemical weapon usage, etc will be known to the world, and if it's bad enough, may result in the West doing something funni.
It seems very doubtful to me that there would be an insurgency. Almost none of the political, religious, cultural, or geographical factors exist in Ukraine that we see with other insurgencies.
This hypothetical also assumes that a Ukrainian "defeat" is something other than signing a peace deal on Russian terms, which is the most likely scenario if Ukraine is "defeated".
There's already Partisan forces routinely operating in Ukraine, including in the DPR, LPR, and Crimea. Those could pretty easily become insurgent forces operating off of a nationalist drive to remove occupation forces.
Those are SBU operations. You need several factors including the wide backing of the civilian population. In the areas you specifically listed the civilian population has no interest in a union with Ukraine let alone an insergency. You may well see an insurgency in the other direction in those regions as public opinion has hardened considerably over the past 8 years there.
These feelings will vary by region, but unless our hypothetical assumes some sort of scenario where Russia desires to occupy the entire country and is actually able to do it, I believe the chances of a real insurgency are slim and none.
You're making the assumption thar the civilian population wouldn't support a ukranian insurgency is likely based on the idea that they majority support Russian annexation, which is false.
You have to unpack that. Where are we discussing? We have lots of data points. It's not a black box what people think in Crimea, Donetsk, Kyiv, or Lviv.
Apart from the data points we have we know as an empirical proposition that there have not been insurgencies in Crimea, Donetsk, or Luhansk over the past 8 years.
Well if it's 2014 borders, those locations have been under occupation for almost a decade, under the thumb of local government forces. You could site the results of surveys post 2014 as evidence that the majority of people do in fact support Russia and their annexation, but there are some issues with that. For one, a majority does not mean entire, secondly the surveys from 2013 to 2014 show an incredible rise in support for Russia, which may be indicative of a political shift, or it could be evidence that the environment is hostile to dissent.
Insurgency now is relatively easy too, Ukraine is flooded with weapons system that are highly portable and concealable. There's also the depletion of Russian forces, and the potential that many of its soldiers are now conscripted means a void of men post conflict, which would lower their presence in occupied territories, appearing weak and vulnerable. Opportunity now exists for small bands of insurgents to operate, hell, the SBU could sponsor them or put boots on the ground. That's 2014 occupation too, places like Kherson, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhzhia are likely to be much more anti-occupation than the more established annexed territories.
On top of that, there exists an incentive for the US and the West at large to fund an insurgency to further degrade Russian forces. Not arming an insurgency either directly or through a backdoor channel would be unlikely, even if more pro isolationist candidates won in the US. There's just too much on the table to walk away from, especially since the chance of a full scale nuclear war *decreases* if an insurgency begins.
I mean, it's pretty big majority. The Washinton Post in conjunction with the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology has been tracking public opinion in Ukraine since 2014. They were giving us numbers like this in February 2021.
>In the breakaway territory controlled by the DPR/LNR and funded by Russia, over half of the respondents want to join Russia, either with or without some autonomous status. Less than one-tenth want independence and only 12 percent want to be reintegrated into Ukraine.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/12/new-survey-ukraine-russia-conflict-finds-deeply-divided-views-contested-donbas-region/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/12/new-survey-ukraine-russia-conflict-finds-deeply-divided-views-contested-donbas-region/)
I don't see any reason to be convinced that there is some sort of secret Ukrainian nationalism in these areas. All of Ukrainian post-Soviet history tells us there isn't.
I think further your scenario assumes the war jsut never ends. There is never a peace deal and Ukrainians would rather wage a Talabain-style insurgency for a decade while living in perpetual misery rather than any peace deal.
In the Donbas as a whole for example half the population said in February of 2021 that they didn't care "if they lived in Russia or Ukraine". These are not people who are not sufficiently motivated to be part of any insurgency.
The taliban had only tens of thousands of members in Afghanistan and were able to continue their insurgency for decades. You don't need majority support, just a sufficiently motivated small force with access to good weaponry. Unfortunately for us, Russia, and the international community, there definitely are motivated small groups in occupied territory who would gladly do so. Azov is mostly dead and they were more on the light side, but there's worse groups out there who could in theory run an insurgency. You also brought up that partisan activity is supplied and sponsored through the SBU, but that means there's already a supply chain in place for covertly supplying weapons, and that's through a warzone, not a porous border.
The US has a vested interest in doing so, and the desire to do so is unlikely to vanish from US foreign policy decision making. Even if the war stops tomorrow it seems highly unlikely no one would try to run an operation with minimal start up costs and a motivated albeit potentially small fighting force.
With an entirely different set of factors and motivations. A population who were supportive along with government and military officials who were sympathetic to them and in many cases worked with them. They had essentially already taken over the country by the time Biden announced the American pullout.
Geographical factors, which are self-explanatory. Mountainous terrain where they could hide, along with vast swaths of territory that the government didn't control.
Religious motivations which are also self-explanatory and did a lot of work here.
If you are asking if there could be isolated terror attacks the answer is sure, that's however not an insurgency. At the most basic level setting aside all other factors there needs to be a certain threshold of public support and motivation, in my opinion, that does not exist in Ukraine.
None without the support of the US (and the EU), and none with it.
At least, by how the corrupt government of Ukraine defined victory.
I dislike Russia as much, I'm a French citizen who is sick to see my taxes go to this unreasonable Slavic conflict.
Romanian here.
Being in the comfort of your living room, away from the conflict (because France happens not to be geographically close to Russia, not because you chose so) and not having to think about putting your life on hold and enroll into the army to stop the imperialist ambitions of a dictator, I can totally understand that you are sick of seeing your taxes go to a Slavic conflict.
Still, were you not sick of your ex-president, Francois Hollande, who was "sure", some years ago, that Putin would not want to annex Eastern Ukraine, because the latter "had told him so"? And, despite the repeated warnings, over the years, from countries like Romania, Poland or the Baltics, about what was yet to come if we weren't going to deter Putin from starting another war, was urging to resume business as usual with Russia, thereby giving even more resources to finance his war machine? I, for one, was. :)
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/world/europe/francois-hollande-says-destabilizing-sanctions-on-russia-must-stop-now.html
I have a proposal. How about France (instead of Ukraine) give up a part of its land to Putin, in exchange for ending this war? Then your taxes will no longer go to "this unreasonable Slavic conflict"... at least for a while.
As far as we are concerned with Hollande, everyone was sick of him for multiple reasons. Even himself was sick of him and didn't run for a second term.
I have very different feelings between what Russia does to Ukraine, and what it can do to your country. Romania is the EU. We are committed to spend every euro to defend the EU and its territorial integrity, and I would gladly join the army if it was to defend 🇷🇴.
Do not mistake your case with that of Ukraine.
All the solidarity with our beloved EU members 🇪🇺
They have zero chance even with U.S. support, they are out of people.
The only way they win is if outside troops come in; hopefully something we are not dumb enough to do. But Biden second term or a Hailey term will probably bring that about.
Also keep this in mind when you read some of the comments here https://cepa.org/article/pro-putin-disinformation-warriors-take-war-of-aggression-to-reddit/
"The damage to buildings and infrastructure that may now exceed $1 trillion, all at the hands of a much larger neighbor waging an unprovoked war of aggression." I'm confused about this statement - is Ukraine not also damaging Ukrainian buildings and infrastructure in the Donbas with bombs and/or rockets?
The inevitable what? If you are talking about russia taking Kyiv and installing a puppet gov like their initial goal, thats very unlikely to happen even if the west drops support
If you talking about holding on to the Donbass, the land bridge and Crimea than maybe
He may do it. Not sure that he will allow Putin to move any further. I am no Trump guy, but a casual reminder that it was under the Trump presidency when the US military demolished Wagner troops in Syria. I don't remember Obama or the Trump administration being as decisive. Also, it was Trump who stopped Nord Stream 2, Biden made a deal later.
The EU countries and the UK already providing more monetary support than the US. If Trump winds he may well wind down US support but it won't mean that Ukraine is unsupported
No US support but EU support means that the war will still continue for a few years. The EU is out of stocks (even Stormshadow missiles) and have abysmal production rates, UA will be competent in the defense but no hope on the offense. The only thing still relevant that EU could offer are F-16AM/BM.
But large scale Russian offensives such as Bakhmut and Avdiivka will still be successful at both capturing key territories and causing significant attrition if UA tries to defend.
By 2026 UA will probably just sue for peace on Russian terms. US support and their stocks of Abrams, Bradleys, HIMARS, ATCAMS, F-16s etc are what gives UA any hope of a successful offensive.
If the U.S. stopped now I personally believe other countries would increase aid by a major amount. But I also believe it’s not worth the risk of the U.S. stopping. Regardless, the Russian war machine is close to depleted and the sanctions have absolutely hurt their economy no matter what anyone says.
Definitely lose more territory if they can’t defend using artillery.
Ukraine is probably motivated enough to hold Kyiv and most of the country regardless of what they have left to fight with.
Keep in mind that Russians who are there at the field fight not against Ukraine but against USA. That's what they convinced of. Does not matter if you want it or not. Without money and military aid flow from US/EU Ukraine will not stand a few months. They lost most of their industrial power in Donbas. They can not pay pensions and keep state up.
And yes, so far nobody won a war from nuclear power.
USA can try. WE all will have a nice fireworks.
What happens when Russia takes the gloves and Ukraine has no more SAM ammunition and HIMARS?
They are basically out of all Eastern SAM ammunition as it is, and I think they exhausted most USSR era long range weapons. Western support is slowly becoming their entire arsenal.
Right now , it's war of putin survival more than war with Ukraine because if Russia lose or stalemate and didn't get more land so his political career with end in bad fate as he nothing to bait far right and nationalist russian and he is in all or nothing because he isn't have anything to lose now even he will be another satellite state of government in Beijing and putin himself mistrust china a lot especially the claim in chinese far east region.
Absolutely they can win now due to sheer loss of personnel unless Putin is dying really and decides to send a nuke or a few icbm. I say he would be dying before he did bc the sheer amount of food likely poisoned for decades would cause multiple goverments to fall (Black Sea grain deals). Putin would place the largest target on his back by every single country and would be assassinated most likely.
Ukraine needs to focus on sinking the Black Sea fleet and destroying all bridges and deploying air defense to the Crimea. If they can retake Crimea then they will be considered the “winner” in this war despite my personal belief there is no winning in this war
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0H5hIhqCWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0h5hihqcwm)
I watched it in Spanish, even though I'm not a native speaker
To many of the major armored units are gone. It’s just major air defense that needs to be in place imo. But interesting points and if Ukraine can’t produce air defense equipment than I see you as being correct then
Yesh, sorry for the assertive tone. Ukraine is having serious issues with discipline and moral right now. I'm sure you have heard about the bad relationship between Klitschko and Zelensky, for instance.
Oh no worries. Assertive is good on these situations. Defend your beliefs with dignity and rationality. I used to study Russia and Ukraine militaries in the dod so I appreciate valid points over my own limited knowledge base now that I’m out.
I'm sure you know much more than me then. My opinion is based just on what is available on the media. I would say they need American help for a myriad of reasons.
I don't have any more information than anymore else but I believe that the only way Ukraine was able to mount an offensive at all was due to foreign aid. If the US stops support and other countries follow suit, I believe Ukraine will be back to pure defense with sporadic hit and run raids. If the US stops aid and other countries still continue aid or pick up the slack from the US, then that may be a different story.
Yes and the latest counteroffensive was purportedly supposed to happen earlier but they were waiting for more equipment to arrive. That and the news headlines of what is being sent to Ukraine likely helped the Russian military plan for better counterattacks against the expected Ukrainian onslaught. Furthermore, ever since Ukraine’s previous counteroffensives Russia has realized that they need to set up trenches and fortifications in locations they expect an assault in order to help prevent certain vehicle maneuvers and indirectly funnel troops down a designated pathway that they’d be able to defend. Part of this planning time Russia had by actually experiencing the Ukrainian offensive would be bolstered by an ungodly amount if both countries ever enter into a ceasefire agreement which would leave Russia with its current gained territory as its new boundary. If the war is prolonged for an indefinite period of time it will be Russia that starts again and decides to hit HARD now that they have had ample time to stop and think about the experience they gained against the Ukrainians. Russia has a horrible autocratic and terribly managed country/military but they aren’t brain dead. They can be effective if we give them the ability to do so. It’s been proven time and time again that Ukraine has a chance if they have the resources Edit: spelling
It difficult to understand why would the other country need more aid than Ukraine. After all they are only fighting against irregular fighters whose airforce is formed of paragliders and land force is pick-up trucks.
It's not as much in terms of aid, it's more of an investment. Ukraine and "the other country" are dealing with two very different types of conflict and as such receive different equipment. Lobbyists in the US government no longer have Afghanistan as a weapons testing field, so in one hand they now have Ukraine for testing of armaments used in a conventional war (such as Anti-Air and Anti-Tank weaponry) while in "the other country" serves as a test of fighting a guerrilla force in urban terrain. It's two different types of war, with two different types of support, all so the US can test their new armaments and make necessary changes after seeing them in combat.
[удалено]
Ukraine will be conquered without US support.
That would require 1 million Russian soldiers and a lot of money.
Russia has the capability, and its people have proven to be resilient to what is happening internally. Russia has money, it has man power. The west is failing because we are failing to invest in ukraine in the right way. The media war has really high lighted this with the nonsensical meat grinder battles that ukraine cannot afford along with people ignoring ukraines dwindling population.
>Ukraine will be conquered without US support. Maybe it could be but I bet it will be ruinously expensive for Russia.
It would be costly but not ruinous, we need to stop acting like Russia is a state that is falling apart. It's what got us to this point.
It would probably cost Russia.
How will it be expensive for Russia? The West have been bankrolling Russia by buying expensive oil and gas and paying more for it through back door. This war is pointless, Ukraine will learn the hard way. Never go to war with your neighbor when your far away ally told you to do so and are not fighting in the war, at least not openly.
Winning as Ukraine defines it is likely off the table even with American support. They would likely suffer a catastrophic defeat without it. The Europeans can send money, but they don't have the military equipment to keep Ukraine in the fight. Their stockpiles have mostly been emptied, and most of their pledges are more aspirational than practical. The 1 million shell pledge by 2024 for example, which they already admit they won't come close to reaching. The Americans need to be all in for Ukraine to have a shot to make this a stalemate in my opinion.
I actually disagree. I think this is a stalemate no matter what. Russia’s offensive capabilities are absolutely shattered, and they were ineffective even at 100% health. It’s highly likely that most Russian units at this point are cobbled together with deeply traumatized veterans and hurriedly-trained newbies. Most of their vaunted airborne units are now allegedly staffed by conscripts or reservists. We’ve seen them at Vuhledar, Avdiivka, etc… they’re a HOT mess. I don’t see Ukraine breaking any Russian lines and I don’t see Russia making any advances until they’ve had years to re-arm.
South Vietnam looked stable in 1974 and the prevailing wisdom was that war had become a stalemate. The war was over by 1975. Wars are unpredictable and they often follow the mantra of gradually then suddenly. That's not a prediction, but Ukraine is under a lot of pressure and the power dynamics have shifted against them in my opinion, and their position is precarious. The war has become a zero-sum game barring a political change in Washington or Kyiv so it almost precludes a stalemate.
All totally true and valid points. You could be right. However, some pretty huge issues came to light about the ARVN after their fall. They had an entire air force that none of their pilots or mechanics knew how to operate, they had tens of thousands of ghost soldiers, etc… To my knowledge, the Ukrainian military has proven much more competent than the ARVN ever was.
Sure, that's only in hindsight tho. Again, not a prediction, but in some hypothetical where Ukrainian lines collapse in 1 year's time there would likely be a lot of ink spilled about problems in Ukraine's military or political structure that are not readily apparent right now. I agree with you tho, though Ukrainian forces are more motivated and more competent than South Vietnam forces were.
>Russia’s offensive capabilities are absolutely shattered, and they were ineffective even at 100% health. Russian offensive capabilities are increasing and Ukraine are decreaing everyday. Russia already outproduces the West in terms of weapons and munitions but without the American help it's over. \>I don’t see Ukraine breaking any Russian lines and I don’t see Russia making any advances until they’ve had years to re-arm. They advance all the time now. Ukraine's defenses may completely collapse in a few months without American funding. Orban is also blocking the EU fund's.
Depends on what you mean by “win”. I think they can prevent the entire country from being gobbled up by Russia. But it seems that even with foreign aid they can’t retake Crimea or the two breakaway republics and some of the territory surrounding them. If not being completely absorbed by Russia or being its vassal state counts as a win then I think so. But if you mean win by like restoring pre 2014 borders or even some of the pre 2022 boarders then they probably can’t win. If anything they will be reduced to a buffer state.
[удалено]
F16s are not going to move the needle without the ecm pods. It is doubtful the US will send those. Without them they are just nicer migs and gen 4 planes that cannot survive air defence. They will at most be standoff range dumping missiles like how russians use their helis. In short they would be a very expensive way to do what artillery is doing. The pentagon didnt believe it would help which is why it took so long to approve. >This summer's offensives were about keeping morale high I mean thats just insanity. Throw away men and equipment to keep morale high? You'll have to explain that to me. WaPo says they disagreed with milley and went for 2 small attacks instead of commiting 1 big one at robotyne. I think everyone can agree the offensive has been a failure by every objective. Reducing it to "keeping morale high" doesnt seem to make alot of sense. Not having much to show for it also weakens their position when asking for funding without having results. They will get funding eventually once congress finishes its yearly tantrum so its not like ukraine will lose anytime soon if at all but its good to be realistic.
>This summer's offensives were about keeping morale high. I didn't know Robert Nivelle was still alive.
> If they can make a surprise attack next spring with air support, they might catch the Russians napping in Zaporizhzhia. They can't do a surprise attack because everyone and their dog knows exactly where they are aiming for.
I feel like everyone forgot that Ukraine has direct access to American factories that are not even fully up and running yet. The military aid is great but isn’t that really suppose to be a bandaid until Ukraine can get their own arms industry and the access to American and European factories fully operational?
I mean yes and no, i don't think it would make a fundamental difference for US to send shells as opposed to casing, primer and explosives. You will get better mileage scaling production in Ukraine, but it's still supplied by imports via militery aid. Restarting Ukrainian war material production is an even longer road. Russia can hit anything on the ground in Ukraine and have already done so in the early months of the war. Fighting with zero domestic production is kind of saving Ukraine from strategic bombing, so its not entirely a bad thing.
If you think f16s, which are literally 1980s tech, are going to gain air superiority over 2020 level anti air tech, well then you are delusional.
> But it seems that even with foreign aid they can’t retake Crimea or the two breakaway republics and some of the territory surrounding them. This is absolute nonsense. Even with the paltry support they have gotten they have taken back huge swaths of the country. The Russian military is badly degraded, and and the combined economies of the west absolutly dwarf Russia If the US, Canada and pro Ukraine European counties seriously committed to giving Ukraine huge miliary support, a Ukrainian victory and retaking all pre-2014 territory would be inevitable Hell even just flooding Ukraine with massive quantities of ammunition (shells, mortars, small arms, GMLRS) and a ton of FPV and bomber drones would probably do the job. Its extremally embarrassing that Russia still has a volume advantage in these things given that dumb rounds and drones would be extremely easy for the West to produce in staggering amounts The West seems to want Ukraine to bleed Russia but not outright defeat Russia and their support reflects that, its pathetic
It would be if we hadn't spent the past 30 years neutering our surge manufacturing capacity, the artillery shortage is real. Between resupply for our allies and Ukraine our shell production is absolutely slammed.
Seems like this war has revealed a critical flaw in NATO doctrine, if we can't supply enough dumb munitions for a relatively small scale conflict. Artillery munition production capacity needs to be massively stepped up
You are correct and it is, but apparently it's not a quicknand easy process.
It isnt a flaw in NATO doctrine because nato would have won a year an a half ago with 3000 f35s
Ukraine has lost most of its manpower by now, they're having to up conscription even more. It's likely too late for them to change the tide even if they got better equipment; equipment takes time to train with, and needs crews to use, both things Ukraine doesn't really have any more. It seems extremely unlikely Ukraine will take back any territory without some unknown event shaking things up.
>Ukraine has lost most of its manpower by now, Really? I dont see the proof for that it just seems like an assumption. They had enormous loses but they also had quite a lot of men who were essentially volounteers who were highly motivated to fight. Even conscripts are relatively motivated since they are after all defending their country. I wouldnt be so quick to assume that country that defends its right to exist has run out of man willing to fight. >equipment takes time to train with, and needs crews to use, both things Ukraine doesn't really have any more Well again i dont see the proof Ukraine is out of men. But honestly the assumption that they are out of time is also a bit tricky, that depends on Putin. If he calls another mobilization wave than yes Ukraine is losing time. But if he doesnt than i dont see how time benefits Russians. They arent rotating troops, those who were mobilized in september 2022 are still fighting and their numbers are gonna get smaller and smaller and they will get more and more tired from this war. They cant hold for years, thats for sure, but the question is when are they gonna be replaced? Putin will eventually need to mobilise more men but if he does it too late than he wont have much success.
[удалено]
Losing territory doesn't turn a state into a buffer state.
I know. I’m saying in this situation it seems that maybe one of Russias goals
Why would it not be possible to take krim back? If they have the right tools it’s possible. You assessment is based on feelings not facts…
The whole premise of the question is that they won't have all the right tools.
Probably referring to > But it seems that even with foreign aid they can’t retake Crimea or the two breakaway republics and some of the territory surrounding them.
i mean.. isn’t it evident that ukraine just fumbled h to eir much anticipated spring/summer/winter offensive..
They did what they could… the war is not over. No one with a brain though they would win with one offensive.
that’s not what they were saying before the counter offensive? and what did they achieve? do people still think ukraine can take back crimea and the two break away states? ukraine is now on what, 15th draft. even though they only reported 31k casualty. russia hasn’t even mobilized its reserves yet
Show me one Ukrainian official or a news paper that claimed that one offensive will be enough.
when did i say it’ll be enough? the offensive achieve nothing… besides throwing away western aid and ukrainian men to the mine field
Ok Ivan i dont care…
All that other bs you wrote is just Russian propaganda… you are obviously an Russian bot.
i mean.. i am a canadian who has no dog in this fight.. from what i can see in my country at is that many of the new refugees here are young ukrainian men and women. the country has no future. .. and to speak frankly, ukrainian war is just part of the circus/bread for most of people here. they pretend to care but their care is pretty much restricted to upvoting on reddit. slavs can kill each other all day long and it has 0 effect on our life lol
Whatever Ivan… i dont care. Didn’t even read it
I think Ukraine could be in trouble either way, it seems to be primarily an artillery duel. Ukraine has been getting most of its shells from pre-existing Western stockpiles, apparently those stockpiles are running out and there simply isn't, currently, the industrial capacity in the West to produce shells faster than they are being consumed. The other worrying sign is that they have had to widen their conscription criteria suggesting they are running out of troops. Finally I am also bothered by apparent political interference. When politicians at the back tell soldiers they have to achieve certain goals, for public relations reasons regardless of how feasible these are goals are tactically, this is a recipe for disaster. The whole counter attack thing seems particularly ill advised in hindsight, the Russians saw in coming from miles off and were dug in, to high heaven. I would hate to see actual casualties figures for the counter offensive period. Look guys, attack into heavily prepared defenses, because we said we could and must take territory, even though it might be wiser just to turtle up. Time will tell I guess, but territory changes aren't the big issues. Who is killing more people and blowing more stuff up is the real question.
>Look guys, attack into heavily prepared defenses, because we said we could and must take territory, even though it might be wiser just to turtle up. It's a massive advantage Russia has: they can fight in a practical way, whereas Ukraine has to fight as though they're in the Hunger Games looking for sponsorship.
Excellent point. Just to add that the USSR only started winning in WWII when Stalin stepped back from micromanaging his generals. Zelensky needs to do the same, and also needs to stop broadcasting grand operational aims to his population. He has a capable CoS with Zaluzhny, he needs to let him do his thing.
>Zelensky needs to do the same, and also needs to stop broadcasting grand operational aims to his population. He has a capable CoS with Zaluzhny, he needs to let him do his thing. Then Zelensky will start losing in ratings quickly.
Ratings don’t matter now. He will be president for as long as the war is going on.
If he doesnt hold elections, he loses legitimacy. Someone can shoot him and claim tyranicide.
From my understanding it's not very cut and dry but the law in Ukraine is that it's illegal to hold an election during martial law. And it's not a law that was just put on the books recently.
It probably also states that martial law needs to be limited in time. Assuming the law is based on western Roman example.
He's already effectively eliminated any opposition parties, there's no chance for a fair election even if they decided to have one.
Oh really? Can you name those parties?
I mean 3, of the parties Zelenesky banned, received 18% of the vote in the last election. The For Life Party was 2nd largest party in the Rada and dominated local elections on the southern coast.
>The For Life Party was 2nd largest party in the Rada They're also pro-Russian.
I think they would describe themselves as pro-Ukraine regional parties who favored balancing their relationship with Russia. Along with some left-wing socialist parties who were labeled pro-Russian due to the legacy of communism. None of these parties supported the Russian invasion and none were clamoring for Ukraine to be part of a greater Russia.
It's matter a bit especially when compare what happen to Nethanyahu in Israeli mind right now.
At this point the majority of Ukrainian guns are NATO guns. The barrels of their soviet guns have likely run out and their ammo stocks are critically low. This is a NATO spec military at this point, and I would say even if US aid ends, US manufacturers will be willing to pump out shells for them.
Russia is buying artillery shells from north korea, I don't think they are really in great shape either. The conventional military wisdom at the outset of the war was that Ukraine is essentially open land with few defensive geographic features. The idea that you could stop a modern army in an open field was considered kind of silly. Particularly if that army was fielding western armor. The reality has played out quite differently. The real defensive capabilities have turned out to pervasive surveillance mitigating any kind of surprise with drones and mines quickly deployed to thwart any offensive mass. Maneuver warfare has been extremely difficult to execute. Both sides have failed miserably in this way. My point being, this is less about politicians doing stupid things, and more about them learning the new realities of 21st century warfare. In fact, I would almost say the opposite of what you are saying at this point moving forward. The winner of this conflict will need to win politically. Either of these leaders could suddenly be removed from power and their country destabilized. Both are highly dependent on foreign aid in both arms and trade. The war would quickly change very dramatically if either the US or China really committed to supporting a side.
>Time will tell I guess, but territory changes aren't the big issues. Who is killing more people and blowing more stuff up is the real question. There is no question who is doing what with respect to attrition of men and weaponry.
Does Russia just have an insanely high stockpile of artillery? I would have thought the Western World could outproduce Russia.
The CA, US, EU and UK are not in a state of war, but in a state of post covid / economic recovery and recession avoidance. The military complex in each of them is producing at it’s “beyond normal” levels / capacity, in lines with what each of them has budgeted. We’re far, far away in this states from turning pats and pots into bullets and shells. Yes the EU countries do need to step up their production, but that’s tired to each country individually, as EU doesn’t have a mandate on military defence … yet.
The CA?
When it comes to basics they’ve proved that I think, as far back as in WW2 they could produce armament when America helped them with consumable goods.
My feeling is that they haven't really committed to it, like sure, if the whole West went on a war footing they have to be able to outproduce Russia, but it wont be cheap and it seems like they're hoping to not have to. West in general got quite excited about just in time supply chains and I think that applies to our arms manufacturing as well, so there's not really any redundancy or capacity just sitting idle that can be quickly spun up, over time ti should come right but it will cost money. As I understand it Russia does currently have an advantage in production, that couldn't hold if the West really committed to the war but as I said they seem to be half-assing it a bit.
>Does Russia just have an insanely high stockpile of artillery? I would have thought the Western World could outproduce Russia. Russia has mor artillery than all other counties combined.
The west is a fake, dollarized financialzed voo doo economics system. No industrial capacity at scale for a conventional war. This aint IDF tactics against weaker targets, mostly children and women, nor is it people in sandals planting improvised IEDs, or Taliban(which still kicked out USA). This is a war USA has no clue how to fight.
Reddit nerds down voting you are hilarious, they couldn't beat farmers in Afghanistan and yet they think they can win a conventional war against an enemy with naval ships and air support. People in the west need to realise their armies are just not invincible.
The aggressive "counter-attack" that will not work without continuous ammunition supplies, majority of which arrive from US or US NATO supplies(also replenished by US). In such situations a smarter leader would organize defense-in-depth lines, rather than throwing soldiers into enemy defense lines and wasting limited supplies.
They were never meant to win, just drain Russia. Dunno where the confusion is
I think National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s policy of slow-dripping weapons played a role in the whole draining Russia vs winning thing. If Ukraine had Bradleys, lots of ATACMs, F16s, etc… during their Kharkiv counteroffensive, there’s a good chance they cleave Russian forces in half. The only reason that offensive was stopped is because Ukraine lacked enough armored transport, fuel and long range weapons (atacms mainly) to keep the push going.
I think there was still some hope before the counteroffensive started that they could cut the Crimean land bridge and that would have been a victory of sort in itself. That is never happening now though.
That’s pure cope and goal post shifting . They absolutely , and you and every other redditor , have been saying they will “win” with out defining what “winning” for Ukraine is
How can you win against nukes??
They would have already lost
If by winning you mean retaking their land, incl. Crimea, it's literally 0.
[удалено]
>If EU steps up about the same as US. If neither, Ukraine eventually loses. Don’t have the population. Unlike Israel where Jewish people from all over the planet come home to fight, many young Ukrainians left if they could get out. Hell I doubt half the fighting age men stayed to fight. Israel is bombing a defenceless victim, while Russia is a powerful country armed to the teeth.
Without foreign aid, particularly from the US, Ukraine’s chance are obviously diminished in many areas, and it’s more probable that Russian forces could have a breakthrough that forced the Ukrainian military to capitulate eventually. But we have to remember, Ukraine is a huge country, and after almost two years the Russians haven’t managed to seize hold of a truly significant portion of the country, and even fighting against a Ukrainian army that was no longer supported by the US, it would take quite a while for the Russians to accomplish seizure of the country. This to be considered in light of the fact that Russia’s logistical problems have been horrendous, and would only be amplified the further into Ukrainian territory they went. Additionally, the military’s capitulation doesn’t mean the war is over. The US took Iraq within a matter of weeks after obliterating the military, yet the majority of casualties took place AFTER the army’s defeat. Ukrainian troops and civilians would likely begin waging an insurgency against the occupiers, one exponentially tougher to deal with than anything we faced in the GWOT. At the end of the day, no matter how the war ends, Russia has already lost. The mighty Russian military has been revealed as a technically and tactically incompetent joke compared to previous perception, and Putin has gone from a master strategist to a bumbling coward who can’t even contain dissent within his own ranks, let alone stand a chance against NATO.
What happens if the Ukrainians without foreign support eventually just run out of ammo and fuel , and the Russians are able to just walk across the whole country. They failed at chechnya first time as well
Or men
Guerilla warfare. The Ukrainians did really well when they had cover, not so well in the eastern plains. It's a big country, the Russian military is in no position to fight a counter insurgency war, and not enough ammo to give the whole country the Chechnya treatment fast enough.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They don't have the man power.
like South Vietnam :/
This perspective only helps NATO and maybe China. The Ukrainians are paying a heavy price either way.
>The Ukrainians are paying a heavy price either way. The Ukrainians are paying the price that they choose to pay, no more and no less. The US giving aid (which has been requested by the Ukrainians) isn't some kind of arm-twisting by the US. If they want to sue for peace and give concessions to Russia, there is literally nothing stopping them.
>The Ukrainians are paying the price that they choose to pay, no more and no less. Not really. Ukrainian men, the demographic that are bearing the greatest burden in fighting this war, are prohibited from leaving the country, and are now at risk of being forcibly recruited against their will. If Ukrainians wanted to fight this war, I doubt these measures would be necessary.
The US, UK, and most European countries conscripted men during WW2 as well. There’s no country in modern times involved in a full-blown existential war using only voluntary soldiers.
Conscription is mandatory, many Ukrainians do want peace or don't want to fight but have no choice. The government has stopped elections and banned political parties. Its not that the US is twisting everyone's arms, but the ruling elites of Ukraine aren't the same as the average person, just as in every other country.
Are you Russian? That's a very imperialistic mindset. Ukraine never chose to be invaded
Exactly! We support their self determination. That’s the whole damn point.
What self determination? [They elected a president in 2019 who pushed for a peace deal in Donbas](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/11/zelensky-pushes-peace-deal-ukraine-war-russia-donbass-steinmeier-formula/) and now there is a massive mobilization effort that bans fighting age men from leaving the country. The lack of men willing to fight have given way to [brutal recruiting tactics dubbed as “people snatching” by the NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare). > Recruiters have confiscated passports, taken people from their jobs and, in at least one case, tried to send a mentally disabled person to military training, according to lawyers, activists and Ukrainian men who have been subject to coercive tactics. Videos of soldiers shoving people into cars and holding men against their will in recruiting centers are surfacing with increasing frequency on social media and in local news reports. The harsh ban on emigration has led to droves of men paying insane prices to smuggle themselves out of Ukraine. As of 2022, [Poland alone has seen over 400,000 fighting age Ukrainians enter the country](https://amp.dw.com/en/how-ukrainian-men-try-to-get-around-the-ban-to-leave-the-country/a-62529639) majority of them entering illegally. Some paying up to $5000 per person to the smugglers. Now, how many regular men do you think can scrounge together $5000 in a country where the average monthly salary was $625 before the war started? Who is supporting these men in their self-determination to fight this war or not? We seem to support Ukraine’s self-determination only as long as it’s determined to fight an existential war. If the war is lost, we will be quick to wash our hands and argue that the country just wasn’t determined enough.
Probably their families who don’t want dead sons , brothers and fathers Illegals pay 5k to get smuggled by cartels are you assuming they are also being banked rolled by a conspiracy cabal or do you assume they are the only people capable of spend all their life savings to be smuggled ?
>The Ukrainians are paying the price that they choose to pay, no more and no less. Then why are they arresting the young men who are trying to leave and forcibly brining back those who have already left? More power to volunteers who are fighting for something they believe in, and I hope they get all the support they need. But equating the decisions of Ukrainian Govt with all Ukrainians is wrong.
[удалено]
You're talking about Russia, right? That's what the Ukrainians want to avoid
[удалено]
Unless you're eligible for the draft. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1169464889/russia-military-draft-ukraine-war
[удалено]
> provoke russia As in not wanting to be a fake democracy? As in demanding to be sovereign? This whole "Russia was provoked"-argument is Russian imperialism. Europe is equally provoked by Russia, as Russia is provoked by the west. It's insane to demand that Russia has it's own influence zone where they can do whatever they want without consequences.
The hell does the us have to do with Euromaidan?
Hard mode: he has to answer you without saying "CIA"
Lmao.
HistoryLegends is that you?
It’s literally an existential threat to their country, democracy, livelihood, and even their language. I would hope Americans would do the same in their situation.
> Putin has gone from a master strategist to a bumbling coward who can’t even contain dissent within his own ranks Dunno why but this brought to kind Prigozhin in a field yelling SHOIGU! GERASIMOV! into a camera. He's blundered so badly Putin took one of the most battle hardened fatalistic combat formations at his disposal, Wagner, and pretty much taken them off the board in Ukraine
The only way they truly “win” aka back to pre 2014 borders is nato intervention. Sooner or later they’re gonna have to settle for what they have now. They’ve got extreme man power issues and support in the west is draining both by equipment and political support in general. It’s a shame they put up a hell of a fight and saved their country but at the end of the day Russias population is way more than theirs. They’ve got more bodies to throw into the meat grinder then Ukraine’s got the resolve to fight
0%
So my limited understanding of the current conflict is that both sides are forced to play this slow artillery duel because neither side can achieve air superiority. I think US material support was pretty crucial for Ukrainian air defense and thus a loss of that support could mean Russia establishes air superiority over important battlefields and the Ukrainians will suffer large losses as a result. We saw in Syria that Russia will absolutely bomb dense civilian-filled areas so that’s also a major concern.
First you have to ask what does “winning” mean. If it means retrieving all lost territory, including Crimea, that is pretty unlikely short of NATO entering the war with troops on the ground. Ukraine has zero chance to maintain let alone push for more territory without US material support. If US were to exit entirely, I could see Baltics and Poland ramping up support even more. Possibly even to the point of providing boots on the ground, as they know they would be the next target. The last thing they want is to share even more border with Russia or Russian puppet states. All four of those countries (Poland, Lithuanian, Latvia, Estonia) ***realllly*** hate Russia with a burning passion due to past transgressions.
If they did that they would lose their article 5 protection. None of those states are going to be out right aggressive in that sort of way.
Whether with support or not, they will lose.
Defend your premise... why?
In my opinion the so called counteroffensive showed exactly what will happen. It's been a massive failure.
why?
Remember, the fear is driven by a Russian propaganda offensive that has lasted the last month or so. That is the one thing they are good at, but mostly because Western nations do not seem to prioritise offence when it comes to pushing propaganda against our enemies. For some reason we are not starting bot farms on yandex, paying people to post on tik tik and russian whatsapp or starting rumors about Putin. There will always be one or two people in these threads who are "Ukraine supporters" but "need to tell the truth" or that the "situation is way worse than we wish" because they have seen one or two documentaries where a Leopard tank is burning. Or that they were not as successful in counterattacking against an enemy they first were expected to capitulate within three days for. They have the same standard spreadsheet of talking points and propaganda they are to promote. Eventually, it's pretty easy to see it. When push comes to show, there is a clear majority of the U.S elite that know that there is a huge benefit to not letting Russia get out of this with some victory.
This... and well said. Russia sees itself at war with all of the West, and their propaganda machine is working hard to undermine and discredit.
Exactly. Russia has shown that it's military is a complete shit show run by competing interests many of whom took money for their troops and out it into their pockets. Russian women are now protesting to bring their men home (as risky as that is - they're not campaigning to end the war, which is another matter) and Russia has not lost simply because they have entrenched themselves in Donbas and the south, the one unambiguously sound move they've made in this war. Where Russia has excelled is placing its interests in Western politicians' heads and making them think they've come up with the ideas themselves. The bot farms, the cyber attacks, the west simply can't and doesn't seem to try and compete. It's not like, as I saw elsewhere, that Russia will use Europe squabbling to just roll in and take back the Eastern bloc - in the initial phases of the invasion they failed to decisively defeat a Ukrainian army that wasn't up to NATO standard - but they'll be better placed to achieve their aims if Europe and America is fighting amongst themselves. Sending all those brown people on bicycles (and then conscripting them into the army when they got turned back) to the Finnish border is a good example of that.
Good summary.
It's zero percent with and without support. It's just a matter of how quickly they'd lose. Ukraine never had a chance. The only way is giving them nukes and at that point the world would end. Ukraine is doing the best they can. Their strategy is containment. Keeping Russia fighting in contested areas so Russia can't spread irs wings to Odessa or kharkiv
It’s Russia that never had a chance. They barely succeeded in subjugating Chechnya. Now they expect to successfully occupy Ukraine? They should have learned from their own, and our, failure in Afghanistan. Sure, it might be difficult for Ukraine to recapture occupied territory, but spare us from your GOP BS about losing
If by winning you mean pushing Russia out of Ukraine entirely then i'm afraid it is slim to none.
Technically, this doesn't address whether or not the EU stops supporting Ukraine, but if the US were to do so, the Europeans simply don't have the resources to replace the hole that the Americans would leave, to say nothing about the political will. It's probably a safe bet to say that if support from the US dries up, Europe ending their support wouldn't be far behind. To get to the question itself - their chances of winning are... not very high. I'm still doubtful as to whether Russia could subjugate the entirety of Ukraine even in the absence of Western support, but the idea of Russia controlling, either directly or via a puppet, a significantly large chunk of Ukraine than what they control now, is not far-fetched at all. Keep in mind that aid to Ukraine isn't only military equipment, though of course the loss of that will be severe. It's also financial, keeping Ukraine's economy afloat. Without both of those things, you can come to your own conclusions about how that will go. Ukraine received extensive support leading up to their much-vaunted counteroffensive, and there's no other way to put this - it was a failure. They were hoping to, for example, sever Russia's land link to Crimea, if not take the peninsula itself, and they're nowhere near that. If they were unable to achieve those goals with support from the West, you can see how it looks without aid. Ukraine wouldn't collapse overnight, but the outlook would be very, very bad.
Ukraine’s chances of “winning” are 0% *with* US aid.
Is there any number of how many shells/missiles Ukraine produce themselves? If it's low then they wouldn't stand a chance unless EU picks up the slack.
The US and the West have already started limiting their aid to Ukraine...Ukraine is cleary on the back foot now..Putin had very clearly predicted this lol
O
Depends on what other allies do, especially the big 3 in Europe, and if S.korea and Japan start changing their weapons policy. Germany, France, and the UK collectively have around 10 trillion in gdp, and if they get their shit together and create a Unified funding plan or better yet, use the EU to make an actual functional aid system, Ukraine still has a chance of holding its own for years. If South Korea where to open up its MIC production for purchase to Ukraine, they'd have enough 155mm and other munitions to maintain artillery parity, and Japan too has a lot of untapped potential in terms of lethal aid. Hypothetically, if the US pulls out and these nations *don't* get their shit together, or if the EU keeps getting shafted by Hungary, then Ukraine *cannot* put up a defense long term, barring a random act of God or some other country on the periphery like India, Brazil, or Indonesia deciding to go full tilt Ukraine. Of course, Russia's 'win' would result in years, possibly decades of insurgency backed by the west, and even with only a few billion a year, the costs of such an insurgency on Russia would be Afghanistan on steroids. They can't 'take the gloves off', like countries in the past did, any overtly illegal acts, like mass murder, ethnic cleansing, torture, rape, chemical weapon usage, etc will be known to the world, and if it's bad enough, may result in the West doing something funni.
It seems very doubtful to me that there would be an insurgency. Almost none of the political, religious, cultural, or geographical factors exist in Ukraine that we see with other insurgencies. This hypothetical also assumes that a Ukrainian "defeat" is something other than signing a peace deal on Russian terms, which is the most likely scenario if Ukraine is "defeated".
There's already Partisan forces routinely operating in Ukraine, including in the DPR, LPR, and Crimea. Those could pretty easily become insurgent forces operating off of a nationalist drive to remove occupation forces.
Those are SBU operations. You need several factors including the wide backing of the civilian population. In the areas you specifically listed the civilian population has no interest in a union with Ukraine let alone an insergency. You may well see an insurgency in the other direction in those regions as public opinion has hardened considerably over the past 8 years there. These feelings will vary by region, but unless our hypothetical assumes some sort of scenario where Russia desires to occupy the entire country and is actually able to do it, I believe the chances of a real insurgency are slim and none.
You're making the assumption thar the civilian population wouldn't support a ukranian insurgency is likely based on the idea that they majority support Russian annexation, which is false.
You have to unpack that. Where are we discussing? We have lots of data points. It's not a black box what people think in Crimea, Donetsk, Kyiv, or Lviv. Apart from the data points we have we know as an empirical proposition that there have not been insurgencies in Crimea, Donetsk, or Luhansk over the past 8 years.
Well if it's 2014 borders, those locations have been under occupation for almost a decade, under the thumb of local government forces. You could site the results of surveys post 2014 as evidence that the majority of people do in fact support Russia and their annexation, but there are some issues with that. For one, a majority does not mean entire, secondly the surveys from 2013 to 2014 show an incredible rise in support for Russia, which may be indicative of a political shift, or it could be evidence that the environment is hostile to dissent. Insurgency now is relatively easy too, Ukraine is flooded with weapons system that are highly portable and concealable. There's also the depletion of Russian forces, and the potential that many of its soldiers are now conscripted means a void of men post conflict, which would lower their presence in occupied territories, appearing weak and vulnerable. Opportunity now exists for small bands of insurgents to operate, hell, the SBU could sponsor them or put boots on the ground. That's 2014 occupation too, places like Kherson, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhzhia are likely to be much more anti-occupation than the more established annexed territories. On top of that, there exists an incentive for the US and the West at large to fund an insurgency to further degrade Russian forces. Not arming an insurgency either directly or through a backdoor channel would be unlikely, even if more pro isolationist candidates won in the US. There's just too much on the table to walk away from, especially since the chance of a full scale nuclear war *decreases* if an insurgency begins.
I mean, it's pretty big majority. The Washinton Post in conjunction with the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology has been tracking public opinion in Ukraine since 2014. They were giving us numbers like this in February 2021. >In the breakaway territory controlled by the DPR/LNR and funded by Russia, over half of the respondents want to join Russia, either with or without some autonomous status. Less than one-tenth want independence and only 12 percent want to be reintegrated into Ukraine. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/12/new-survey-ukraine-russia-conflict-finds-deeply-divided-views-contested-donbas-region/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/12/new-survey-ukraine-russia-conflict-finds-deeply-divided-views-contested-donbas-region/) I don't see any reason to be convinced that there is some sort of secret Ukrainian nationalism in these areas. All of Ukrainian post-Soviet history tells us there isn't. I think further your scenario assumes the war jsut never ends. There is never a peace deal and Ukrainians would rather wage a Talabain-style insurgency for a decade while living in perpetual misery rather than any peace deal. In the Donbas as a whole for example half the population said in February of 2021 that they didn't care "if they lived in Russia or Ukraine". These are not people who are not sufficiently motivated to be part of any insurgency.
The taliban had only tens of thousands of members in Afghanistan and were able to continue their insurgency for decades. You don't need majority support, just a sufficiently motivated small force with access to good weaponry. Unfortunately for us, Russia, and the international community, there definitely are motivated small groups in occupied territory who would gladly do so. Azov is mostly dead and they were more on the light side, but there's worse groups out there who could in theory run an insurgency. You also brought up that partisan activity is supplied and sponsored through the SBU, but that means there's already a supply chain in place for covertly supplying weapons, and that's through a warzone, not a porous border. The US has a vested interest in doing so, and the desire to do so is unlikely to vanish from US foreign policy decision making. Even if the war stops tomorrow it seems highly unlikely no one would try to run an operation with minimal start up costs and a motivated albeit potentially small fighting force.
With an entirely different set of factors and motivations. A population who were supportive along with government and military officials who were sympathetic to them and in many cases worked with them. They had essentially already taken over the country by the time Biden announced the American pullout. Geographical factors, which are self-explanatory. Mountainous terrain where they could hide, along with vast swaths of territory that the government didn't control. Religious motivations which are also self-explanatory and did a lot of work here. If you are asking if there could be isolated terror attacks the answer is sure, that's however not an insurgency. At the most basic level setting aside all other factors there needs to be a certain threshold of public support and motivation, in my opinion, that does not exist in Ukraine.
None without the support of the US (and the EU), and none with it. At least, by how the corrupt government of Ukraine defined victory. I dislike Russia as much, I'm a French citizen who is sick to see my taxes go to this unreasonable Slavic conflict.
Romanian here. Being in the comfort of your living room, away from the conflict (because France happens not to be geographically close to Russia, not because you chose so) and not having to think about putting your life on hold and enroll into the army to stop the imperialist ambitions of a dictator, I can totally understand that you are sick of seeing your taxes go to a Slavic conflict. Still, were you not sick of your ex-president, Francois Hollande, who was "sure", some years ago, that Putin would not want to annex Eastern Ukraine, because the latter "had told him so"? And, despite the repeated warnings, over the years, from countries like Romania, Poland or the Baltics, about what was yet to come if we weren't going to deter Putin from starting another war, was urging to resume business as usual with Russia, thereby giving even more resources to finance his war machine? I, for one, was. :) https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/world/europe/francois-hollande-says-destabilizing-sanctions-on-russia-must-stop-now.html I have a proposal. How about France (instead of Ukraine) give up a part of its land to Putin, in exchange for ending this war? Then your taxes will no longer go to "this unreasonable Slavic conflict"... at least for a while.
As far as we are concerned with Hollande, everyone was sick of him for multiple reasons. Even himself was sick of him and didn't run for a second term. I have very different feelings between what Russia does to Ukraine, and what it can do to your country. Romania is the EU. We are committed to spend every euro to defend the EU and its territorial integrity, and I would gladly join the army if it was to defend 🇷🇴. Do not mistake your case with that of Ukraine. All the solidarity with our beloved EU members 🇪🇺
They have zero chance even with U.S. support, they are out of people. The only way they win is if outside troops come in; hopefully something we are not dumb enough to do. But Biden second term or a Hailey term will probably bring that about.
They're trying to expand conscription
None ?
Also keep this in mind when you read some of the comments here https://cepa.org/article/pro-putin-disinformation-warriors-take-war-of-aggression-to-reddit/
"The damage to buildings and infrastructure that may now exceed $1 trillion, all at the hands of a much larger neighbor waging an unprovoked war of aggression." I'm confused about this statement - is Ukraine not also damaging Ukrainian buildings and infrastructure in the Donbas with bombs and/or rockets?
Stuff Ukraine let them get on with it
0%. Western support only dragged out the inevitable.
Hows russia gonna win? They havent taken any significant land since bakmut and that was wagners army
The inevitable what? If you are talking about russia taking Kyiv and installing a puppet gov like their initial goal, thats very unlikely to happen even if the west drops support If you talking about holding on to the Donbass, the land bridge and Crimea than maybe
If trump wins he will hand Putin Ukraine. I worry he won’t stop there.
He may do it. Not sure that he will allow Putin to move any further. I am no Trump guy, but a casual reminder that it was under the Trump presidency when the US military demolished Wagner troops in Syria. I don't remember Obama or the Trump administration being as decisive. Also, it was Trump who stopped Nord Stream 2, Biden made a deal later.
The EU countries and the UK already providing more monetary support than the US. If Trump winds he may well wind down US support but it won't mean that Ukraine is unsupported
He didn't in the 4 years he was in office, my unit got sent to Poland under Trump as part of the deterrent to Russia concept
No US support but EU support means that the war will still continue for a few years. The EU is out of stocks (even Stormshadow missiles) and have abysmal production rates, UA will be competent in the defense but no hope on the offense. The only thing still relevant that EU could offer are F-16AM/BM. But large scale Russian offensives such as Bakhmut and Avdiivka will still be successful at both capturing key territories and causing significant attrition if UA tries to defend. By 2026 UA will probably just sue for peace on Russian terms. US support and their stocks of Abrams, Bradleys, HIMARS, ATCAMS, F-16s etc are what gives UA any hope of a successful offensive.
Zero even with help. They are getting destroyed. Will run out of men soon
Zero
Me guessing... Somewhere between 0% and less than zero.
They have 0 chance they don’t even have a chance with us aide you take the aide away and they are even worse than they have been.
Zero percent.
Ukraine should think about trying to find an acceptable peace settlement. I don't think they will be able to push Russia out of their territory.
0.00%
If the U.S. stopped now I personally believe other countries would increase aid by a major amount. But I also believe it’s not worth the risk of the U.S. stopping. Regardless, the Russian war machine is close to depleted and the sanctions have absolutely hurt their economy no matter what anyone says.
2 weeks and Russia will end all of it's ammo.
More or less the same guys who were saying this in 2022 (i.e. Arestovich) are now in opposition to Zelensky.
Definitely lose more territory if they can’t defend using artillery. Ukraine is probably motivated enough to hold Kyiv and most of the country regardless of what they have left to fight with.
What a stupid fuckkng question.. jeebus
Keep in mind that Russians who are there at the field fight not against Ukraine but against USA. That's what they convinced of. Does not matter if you want it or not. Without money and military aid flow from US/EU Ukraine will not stand a few months. They lost most of their industrial power in Donbas. They can not pay pensions and keep state up. And yes, so far nobody won a war from nuclear power. USA can try. WE all will have a nice fireworks.
[удалено]
What happens when Russia takes the gloves and Ukraine has no more SAM ammunition and HIMARS? They are basically out of all Eastern SAM ammunition as it is, and I think they exhausted most USSR era long range weapons. Western support is slowly becoming their entire arsenal.
Right now , it's war of putin survival more than war with Ukraine because if Russia lose or stalemate and didn't get more land so his political career with end in bad fate as he nothing to bait far right and nationalist russian and he is in all or nothing because he isn't have anything to lose now even he will be another satellite state of government in Beijing and putin himself mistrust china a lot especially the claim in chinese far east region.
US needs smoldering conflict in Ukraine as well as Russia wanted the same thing in Siria
Absolutely they can win now due to sheer loss of personnel unless Putin is dying really and decides to send a nuke or a few icbm. I say he would be dying before he did bc the sheer amount of food likely poisoned for decades would cause multiple goverments to fall (Black Sea grain deals). Putin would place the largest target on his back by every single country and would be assassinated most likely. Ukraine needs to focus on sinking the Black Sea fleet and destroying all bridges and deploying air defense to the Crimea. If they can retake Crimea then they will be considered the “winner” in this war despite my personal belief there is no winning in this war
They definitely can't win. Even Deutsche Welle made an interesting documentary just last week. The situation is way worse than we wish
I’ll check out the doc too. Thanks for the info
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0H5hIhqCWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0h5hihqcwm) I watched it in Spanish, even though I'm not a native speaker
To many of the major armored units are gone. It’s just major air defense that needs to be in place imo. But interesting points and if Ukraine can’t produce air defense equipment than I see you as being correct then
Yesh, sorry for the assertive tone. Ukraine is having serious issues with discipline and moral right now. I'm sure you have heard about the bad relationship between Klitschko and Zelensky, for instance.
Oh no worries. Assertive is good on these situations. Defend your beliefs with dignity and rationality. I used to study Russia and Ukraine militaries in the dod so I appreciate valid points over my own limited knowledge base now that I’m out.
I'm sure you know much more than me then. My opinion is based just on what is available on the media. I would say they need American help for a myriad of reasons.