6 ms·

Ukraine has the time, in the sense that each day that the Russian army is delayed there are more chances that someone in Russia will decide to get rid of Putin.

Ukraine has the time, in the sense that each day that the Russian army is delayed there are more chances that someone in Russia will decide to get rid of Putin. This is roughly what happens to every dictator that doesn't know when to stop, and usually dictators are so much self confident that they soon lose any contact with reality. Putin has gone too far and now he can't withdraw because that would be his political death, and can't drag things for too long because of the above reason, therefore he hopes to bring Ukrainians to their knees as quick as possible, but that can't be achieved without hitting indiscriminately lots of civilians, therefore no matter how it ends, he's already fucked. Also, he presumably knows all skeletons in the closet kept by the oligarchs, so it's very likely that if an international arrest warrant is issued, he'll rather be executed in Russia than surrendered.

Bayart 5y ago
That is wishful thinking. Despite the initial blunders, Russia is advancing in Ukraine at the same pace Germany was in Poland. And it's unlikely they'll get worse as time goes on (the Wehrmacht in its time used Poland to massively improve their operational readiness). Dictators in times of war, in countries subjected to isolation, tend to stick around. And even then, the absence of Putin doesn't mean the general trajectory of Russia would change. I really don't see much hope for Ukraine, and considering the size of the NATO fast response teams, I expect more countries to fold before Russia starts stalling. I'd say every country without its own autonomous nuclear arsenal is at risk. That's includes everyone under America's umbrella.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  You and the parent comment are operating on totally different time scales. Russia will "win" the invasion. But so long as enough Ukrainians (it need only be a small minority) would prefer to die than be subjugated and there are enough others to materially support them the conclusion is a forgone one. The Russian people will run out of fucks to give long before Ukraine runs out of people.
  - Bayart 5y ago
    Poland is also a good reference point for the argument you're making. They had a long lasting resistance movement, hundreds of thousands of diehard fighters. Yet it had to wait until 1989 for any sort of independence. As for material support, it assumes both ability and willingness on the part of sympathizers. The ability might be gone were the Baltics or Finland be invaded, and the willingness might vanish when the war takes a sufficiently heavy toll.
    - vba616 5y ago
      >Yet it had to wait until 1989 for any sort of independence. Is it not fair to say the nuclear deterrent has weakened, and the reason Poland had to wait was because NATO was afraid of supporting the resistance too much?
- geoka9 5y ago
  > And even then, the absence of Putin doesn't mean the general trajectory of Russia would change. You never know. You could see, in the broadcast Putin's security council meeting the fidgeting and fear of its members. And those are supposedly the people who will take over if Putin croaks.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Russia can and in a way has won 'stage 1', the quick advance. But now they have to keep it, supply their troops and maintain presence and that is a very expensive operation in a country that really doesn't want you. Extra hard when it's cold you have no food and you're running out of fuel. Vehicles are being abandoned and there is plenty of evidence for self sabotage.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Like watching a snake attempt to eat a porcupine.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      That's a fairly good analogy. The amount of hand held weaponry flowing into the Ukraine must beat some kind of record.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        It is my understanding that a neighboring country has also provided MiG jet fighter aircraft to the Ukrainian air force. Good show on their part.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Contradicting stories about that, some say that deal fell through, which given the publicity they initially attached to it makes it seem as though that was conditional on something, which I have no idea about.
  - qiskit 5y ago
    > supply their troops Supply their troops right across their border? Where do you think ukraine is? The side that will have problems with supplies is the one that had their armories, oil refineries, storage facilities, etc destroyed. > maintain presence Something they've done for centuries? They don't have to maintain a presence. The ukrainian army will. Notice how there aren't any major battles? Ever wonder why Zelensky is asking the civilians to fight? Because most of the ukranian army is not fighting. > that is a very expensive operation in a country that really doesn't want you. Half the country is russian to begin with. More than half the country voted to align with russia. That's why the West staged a coup. > Extra hard when it's cold you have no food and you're running out of fuel. It's only going to get warmer and Russia is not going to run out of food nor fuel. You do realize russia is the largest fossil fuel producer right? > Vehicles are being abandoned and there is plenty of evidence for self sabotage. Then how come major ukrainian cities are under seige? Read what you wrote and ask yourself, is it really what's happening or is it what you wish was happening? I don't think the ghost of kiev is going to save ukraine. Unless a major power steps in to help ukraine, it'll be "liberated" in the next few weeks. And then ukranians will go on with their lives. No country is going to step in to fight russia.
greeneggs 5y ago
This perspective seems to be incredibly optimistic. Oil-rich dictators can live a long time, even as they drive their countries to ruin. I don't know that there is much of a power base against him, and he still seems to have broad support from the populace (which might or might not matter). Take for example Saddam Hussein. His 1980-1988 failed invasion of Iran cost 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqi lives (plus wounded and 70,000 Iraqi POWs held by Iran). Then the 1990-1991 failed invasion of Kuwait cost another 20,000 to 50,000 Iraqi lives… And yet he might well have never lost control, short of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

Bayart 5y ago

That is wishful thinking. Despite the initial blunders, Russia is advancing in Ukraine at the same pace Germany was in Poland. And it's unlikely they'll get worse as time goes on (the Wehrmacht in its time used Poland to massively improve their operational readiness). Dictators in times of war, in countries subjected to isolation, tend to stick around. And even then, the absence of Putin doesn't mean the general trajectory of Russia would change. I really don't see much hope for Ukraine, and considering the size of the NATO fast response teams, I expect more countries to fold before Russia starts stalling. I'd say every country without its own autonomous nuclear arsenal is at risk. That's includes everyone under America's umbrella.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
You and the parent comment are operating on totally different time scales. Russia will "win" the invasion. But so long as enough Ukrainians (it need only be a small minority) would prefer to die than be subjugated and there are enough others to materially support them the conclusion is a forgone one. The Russian people will run out of fucks to give long before Ukraine runs out of people.
- Bayart 5y ago
  Poland is also a good reference point for the argument you're making. They had a long lasting resistance movement, hundreds of thousands of diehard fighters. Yet it had to wait until 1989 for any sort of independence. As for material support, it assumes both ability and willingness on the part of sympathizers. The ability might be gone were the Baltics or Finland be invaded, and the willingness might vanish when the war takes a sufficiently heavy toll.
  - vba616 5y ago
    >Yet it had to wait until 1989 for any sort of independence. Is it not fair to say the nuclear deterrent has weakened, and the reason Poland had to wait was because NATO was afraid of supporting the resistance too much?
geoka9 5y ago
> And even then, the absence of Putin doesn't mean the general trajectory of Russia would change. You never know. You could see, in the broadcast Putin's security council meeting the fidgeting and fear of its members. And those are supposedly the people who will take over if Putin croaks.
jacquesm 5y ago
Russia can and in a way has won 'stage 1', the quick advance. But now they have to keep it, supply their troops and maintain presence and that is a very expensive operation in a country that really doesn't want you. Extra hard when it's cold you have no food and you're running out of fuel. Vehicles are being abandoned and there is plenty of evidence for self sabotage.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Like watching a snake attempt to eat a porcupine.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    That's a fairly good analogy. The amount of hand held weaponry flowing into the Ukraine must beat some kind of record.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      It is my understanding that a neighboring country has also provided MiG jet fighter aircraft to the Ukrainian air force. Good show on their part.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Contradicting stories about that, some say that deal fell through, which given the publicity they initially attached to it makes it seem as though that was conditional on something, which I have no idea about.
- qiskit 5y ago
  > supply their troops Supply their troops right across their border? Where do you think ukraine is? The side that will have problems with supplies is the one that had their armories, oil refineries, storage facilities, etc destroyed. > maintain presence Something they've done for centuries? They don't have to maintain a presence. The ukrainian army will. Notice how there aren't any major battles? Ever wonder why Zelensky is asking the civilians to fight? Because most of the ukranian army is not fighting. > that is a very expensive operation in a country that really doesn't want you. Half the country is russian to begin with. More than half the country voted to align with russia. That's why the West staged a coup. > Extra hard when it's cold you have no food and you're running out of fuel. It's only going to get warmer and Russia is not going to run out of food nor fuel. You do realize russia is the largest fossil fuel producer right? > Vehicles are being abandoned and there is plenty of evidence for self sabotage. Then how come major ukrainian cities are under seige? Read what you wrote and ask yourself, is it really what's happening or is it what you wish was happening? I don't think the ghost of kiev is going to save ukraine. Unless a major power steps in to help ukraine, it'll be "liberated" in the next few weeks. And then ukranians will go on with their lives. No country is going to step in to fight russia.

greeneggs 5y ago

This perspective seems to be incredibly optimistic. Oil-rich dictators can live a long time, even as they drive their countries to ruin. I don't know that there is much of a power base against him, and he still seems to have broad support from the populace (which might or might not matter). Take for example Saddam Hussein. His 1980-1988 failed invasion of Iran cost 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqi lives (plus wounded and 70,000 Iraqi POWs held by Iran). Then the 1990-1991 failed invasion of Kuwait cost another 20,000 to 50,000 Iraqi lives… And yet he might well have never lost control, short of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.