7 ms·

An interesting perspective. Based on this and other sources, it seems there is no way Ukraine's resistance lasts more than a few weeks at best. On the other han

by spupe 5y ago

An interesting perspective. Based on this and other sources, it seems there is no way Ukraine's resistance lasts more than a few weeks at best. On the other hand, it's totally unclear what Russia thinks it will achieve in the long run. This can turn into a scenario like Afghanistan, with the difference that Russia's GDP is over 10x smaller than the US, and crumbling under sanctions.

deepsun 5y ago
Resistance heavily depends on supplies (ammo, weapons etc). With virtually unlimited supplies from EU, I wouldn't be so sure about "a few weeks".
gerikson 5y ago
The Soviet Union managed to hang on in Afghanistan for 10 years...
- was_a_dev 5y ago
  Russia isn't the Soviet Union
- deepsun 5y ago
  Russia already lost half of the casualties than much bigger USSR had in Afghanistan.
marius_k 5y ago
Nuke everything in few weeks? Yes, possible. Take over hearts and souls of Ukrainians in the next 30 years? Maybe. Long-term resistance in Ukraine is now guaranteed.
- MrDisposable 5y ago
  Putin is assembling another Security Counsil today. We'll see how it goes, but, in my opinion, an announce of a series of nuclear tests is not off the (comically long) table.
MrDisposable 5y ago
In the long run, even if they win (and that's a pretty big if), they'll have to: 1) Neutralize and disarm the "territorial defence" militias who currently have about 30K assault rifles. 2) Maintain police precence on a large and hostile territory. 3) Provide food, shelter, and medical aid to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people displaced by the war. And they'll have to do that without oil and gas money, and without western medical supplies (which I assume will not be readily available anymore).
- jmpman 5y ago
  Isn’t Western Europe still taking Russian oil and gas? Why wouldn’t Ukraine attack the Russian gas pipelines? I understand that a conventional strike with an army is never going to happen, but there are many other options.
  - MrDisposable 5y ago
    Yes they still buy our oil and gas, and neither side attacks the pipeline despite the war, but I think it's a matter of time. In a couple of years Europe will stop buying our energy, but the consequences of this war (police presence, peacekeeping, rebuilding) will last for decades.
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    If they blow up the gas pipelines that transit Ukraine, Europe would be forced to turn on Nord Stream 2, which is 100% complete and just waiting for regulatory approval. Then Ukraine would be cut out entirely. It's in their best interest to leave the pipelines alone.
    - martin_a 5y ago
      > Europe would be forced to turn on Nord Stream 2, which is 100% complete and just waiting for regulatory approval. Nord Stream 2 is history. The company behind it went bankrupt two days ago or sth. like this. Everybody who still held to that project in Germany has turned it down. Nord Stream 2 won't happen, instead NLG from Saudi Arabia seems to be a thing now, anything but supporting Russia and its war. Also, Germany declared that it wants to be energy-independent by 2035, 15 years earlier than planned as a result of the Russian aggression.
trashtester 5y ago
In principle, if the Ukrainian people is willing to fight till the end, they could turn the Zakarpattia province into a fortress. Protected behind the Carpathian mountains and with Nato countries on either side, and given continued arms deliveries from Nato countries, Russia may never be able to take that province
baybal2 5y ago
Don't think so. 60% of Russian big name military assets on the paper are stuck in Ukraine, and Belarus. Stuck in the mud, forests, without food, fuel, and comms. Russia is already mobilising its reserves from all the way back as Vladivostok (7000km away,) which means they had a very, very, very serious, life-threatening reason to do so. We can also conclude that Russia didn't commit its fancy new weapons to the assault, making the claim that most of them exist only on paper, and to appear on parades so more stronger. The state or Russian military hasn't changed at large since the Second Chechnya War, except now they lack military veterans from Soviet era. Russia is blessed by only having NATO as its only adversary, and this gives them ability to concentrate on Ukraine. If we had a hostile to Russia regime at least in Belarus, Georgia, or Kazakhstan, they would've gone for landgrab in Russia WITHOUT HESITATION now given just how weak is the Russian conventional military. People die, and go, cities fall, and are built again, but borders stay for centuries. This would've been a once in a century opportunity for them. Kazakhstan can return to being a nuclear state overnight if they capture Orenburg. 50% of Russian nuclear potential is a taxi ride away from Kazakhstan border.
tucnak 5y ago
This analysis is completely wrong. Street fights benefit Ukrainian military, if anything. What we learned from the first week of war is that Ukrainian military is becoming increasingly efficient at this. The vast majority of damage dealt by Russians is done by means of air strike targeted at regional centres and metropolia (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa.) and it usually doesn't impede Ukrainian military, but simply wrecks havoc upon civilian population. All the major battles are happening on the outskirts of regional centres (Bucha, Hostomel, Mariupol, etc.) with only but marginal number of Russian military reconnaissance-diversion groups puncturing deep into the cities themselves. In the street fight, Ukrainian military has the upper hand. Ukrainian territorial defence is already running at 30K+ assault rifles and plenty of ammo, this stuff is rapidly dispensing down to smaller towns in which fights will soon take place. The top priority (and in fact where much of the damage comes from) for Ukrainian military is to contest the airspace efficiently, which it can only achieve by means of Buk/S-300 air defence systems and the limited fleet of MiG-/Su- fighters available to them, but you have to see that it might just prove enough. Russian officers (Air force) are reluctant to fight this war, after all. They wouldn't want to lose their head in this... If anything, Ukraine is winning this war. And it _will_ win this war, unless Russia is able to achieve air superiority over the skies pronto, which is very, very unlikely.
- allisdust 5y ago
  That's just pro Ukraine propaganda rehashed by Western press to keep up the morale. While admirable, this will result in disbelief when major cities do fall. Its not easy to win against enemies that don't care about the lives of their own soldiers. They want Ukraine (or at least major portions of it including resource rich east and the coastal areas) and they have the staying power (despite crazy articles proposing that war is costing costing Russia 20 billion usd per day).
  - tucnak 5y ago
    Source: I'm Ukrainian, and my family members serve in the Ukrainian military / Territorial defence. So no, this isn't just rehashed pro-Ukraine Western propaganda.
webmobdev 5y ago
Here's another neutral perspective from 2 senior indian generals, who have trained with the Russian Army - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHUDDqTgdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHUDDqTgdI - explaining why NATO / EU is being very careful in engaging militarily with Russia in Ukraine.
more_corn 5y ago
How were you able to read the article with that little thing moving in the corner of your eye?
naruvimama 5y ago
It is fool hardy to believe that the Russian forces are "not militarily capable" of doing to Ukraine what the US did in Iraq. Reduce cities to rubble, given the logistical advantage compared to what the US did in Iraq. I guess their objectives are pretty straight forward and since they are ethnically same as the Ukrainians do not target civilians. What worries me is the use of civilians as human shields, even reports of Indian students being locked up by the Ukrainian forces to be used as human shields. Let us remember that the US was ' ' close to carpet bombing Cuba during the cuban missile crisis. If you share borders with a regional superpower, stop dreaming about getting in bed with their enemies, let alone military ties.
- blunte 5y ago
  You should investigate bold claims like the human shield one. Not only does it sound like Russian propaganda, multiple major news sites state that there is no evidence that this is true.
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    If you can not see through how people with rifles are going to defeat the world's second or third strongest military. It is not like the Russians have a logistics disadvantage, they are literally surrounding Ukraine. As much as I might be disillusioned, the very fact of pressing citizens to carry rifle, and making them believe they are "winning" is my definition of human shield.
    - artem247 5y ago
      You have no clue what is happening on the ground. Nobody is pressing citizens to join territorial defense, they do auxiliary duties, they are not surrogate for proper army. Ukrainian army uses artillery, attack drones extensively, so your point of people with rifles has no value. Whatever, you don’t get what is happening in Ukraine.

by spupe 5y ago

deepsun 5y ago

Resistance heavily depends on supplies (ammo, weapons etc). With virtually unlimited supplies from EU, I wouldn't be so sure about "a few weeks".

gerikson 5y ago

The Soviet Union managed to hang on in Afghanistan for 10 years...

was_a_dev 5y ago
Russia isn't the Soviet Union
deepsun 5y ago
Russia already lost half of the casualties than much bigger USSR had in Afghanistan.

marius_k 5y ago

Nuke everything in few weeks? Yes, possible. Take over hearts and souls of Ukrainians in the next 30 years? Maybe. Long-term resistance in Ukraine is now guaranteed.

MrDisposable 5y ago
Putin is assembling another Security Counsil today. We'll see how it goes, but, in my opinion, an announce of a series of nuclear tests is not off the (comically long) table.

MrDisposable 5y ago

In the long run, even if they win (and that's a pretty big if), they'll have to: 1) Neutralize and disarm the "territorial defence" militias who currently have about 30K assault rifles. 2) Maintain police precence on a large and hostile territory. 3) Provide food, shelter, and medical aid to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people displaced by the war. And they'll have to do that without oil and gas money, and without western medical supplies (which I assume will not be readily available anymore).

jmpman 5y ago
Isn’t Western Europe still taking Russian oil and gas? Why wouldn’t Ukraine attack the Russian gas pipelines? I understand that a conventional strike with an army is never going to happen, but there are many other options.
- MrDisposable 5y ago
  Yes they still buy our oil and gas, and neither side attacks the pipeline despite the war, but I think it's a matter of time. In a couple of years Europe will stop buying our energy, but the consequences of this war (police presence, peacekeeping, rebuilding) will last for decades.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  If they blow up the gas pipelines that transit Ukraine, Europe would be forced to turn on Nord Stream 2, which is 100% complete and just waiting for regulatory approval. Then Ukraine would be cut out entirely. It's in their best interest to leave the pipelines alone.
  - martin_a 5y ago
    > Europe would be forced to turn on Nord Stream 2, which is 100% complete and just waiting for regulatory approval. Nord Stream 2 is history. The company behind it went bankrupt two days ago or sth. like this. Everybody who still held to that project in Germany has turned it down. Nord Stream 2 won't happen, instead NLG from Saudi Arabia seems to be a thing now, anything but supporting Russia and its war. Also, Germany declared that it wants to be energy-independent by 2035, 15 years earlier than planned as a result of the Russian aggression.

trashtester 5y ago

In principle, if the Ukrainian people is willing to fight till the end, they could turn the Zakarpattia province into a fortress. Protected behind the Carpathian mountains and with Nato countries on either side, and given continued arms deliveries from Nato countries, Russia may never be able to take that province

baybal2 5y ago

Don't think so. 60% of Russian big name military assets on the paper are stuck in Ukraine, and Belarus. Stuck in the mud, forests, without food, fuel, and comms. Russia is already mobilising its reserves from all the way back as Vladivostok (7000km away,) which means they had a very, very, very serious, life-threatening reason to do so. We can also conclude that Russia didn't commit its fancy new weapons to the assault, making the claim that most of them exist only on paper, and to appear on parades so more stronger. The state or Russian military hasn't changed at large since the Second Chechnya War, except now they lack military veterans from Soviet era. Russia is blessed by only having NATO as its only adversary, and this gives them ability to concentrate on Ukraine. If we had a hostile to Russia regime at least in Belarus, Georgia, or Kazakhstan, they would've gone for landgrab in Russia WITHOUT HESITATION now given just how weak is the Russian conventional military. People die, and go, cities fall, and are built again, but borders stay for centuries. This would've been a once in a century opportunity for them. Kazakhstan can return to being a nuclear state overnight if they capture Orenburg. 50% of Russian nuclear potential is a taxi ride away from Kazakhstan border.

tucnak 5y ago

This analysis is completely wrong. Street fights benefit Ukrainian military, if anything. What we learned from the first week of war is that Ukrainian military is becoming increasingly efficient at this. The vast majority of damage dealt by Russians is done by means of air strike targeted at regional centres and metropolia (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa.) and it usually doesn't impede Ukrainian military, but simply wrecks havoc upon civilian population. All the major battles are happening on the outskirts of regional centres (Bucha, Hostomel, Mariupol, etc.) with only but marginal number of Russian military reconnaissance-diversion groups puncturing deep into the cities themselves. In the street fight, Ukrainian military has the upper hand. Ukrainian territorial defence is already running at 30K+ assault rifles and plenty of ammo, this stuff is rapidly dispensing down to smaller towns in which fights will soon take place. The top priority (and in fact where much of the damage comes from) for Ukrainian military is to contest the airspace efficiently, which it can only achieve by means of Buk/S-300 air defence systems and the limited fleet of MiG-/Su- fighters available to them, but you have to see that it might just prove enough. Russian officers (Air force) are reluctant to fight this war, after all. They wouldn't want to lose their head in this... If anything, Ukraine is winning this war. And it _will_ win this war, unless Russia is able to achieve air superiority over the skies pronto, which is very, very unlikely.

allisdust 5y ago
That's just pro Ukraine propaganda rehashed by Western press to keep up the morale. While admirable, this will result in disbelief when major cities do fall. Its not easy to win against enemies that don't care about the lives of their own soldiers. They want Ukraine (or at least major portions of it including resource rich east and the coastal areas) and they have the staying power (despite crazy articles proposing that war is costing costing Russia 20 billion usd per day).
- tucnak 5y ago
  Source: I'm Ukrainian, and my family members serve in the Ukrainian military / Territorial defence. So no, this isn't just rehashed pro-Ukraine Western propaganda.

webmobdev 5y ago

Here's another neutral perspective from 2 senior indian generals, who have trained with the Russian Army - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHUDDqTgdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHUDDqTgdI - explaining why NATO / EU is being very careful in engaging militarily with Russia in Ukraine.

more_corn 5y ago

How were you able to read the article with that little thing moving in the corner of your eye?

naruvimama 5y ago

It is fool hardy to believe that the Russian forces are "not militarily capable" of doing to Ukraine what the US did in Iraq. Reduce cities to rubble, given the logistical advantage compared to what the US did in Iraq. I guess their objectives are pretty straight forward and since they are ethnically same as the Ukrainians do not target civilians. What worries me is the use of civilians as human shields, even reports of Indian students being locked up by the Ukrainian forces to be used as human shields. Let us remember that the US was ' ' close to carpet bombing Cuba during the cuban missile crisis. If you share borders with a regional superpower, stop dreaming about getting in bed with their enemies, let alone military ties.

blunte 5y ago
You should investigate bold claims like the human shield one. Not only does it sound like Russian propaganda, multiple major news sites state that there is no evidence that this is true.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  If you can not see through how people with rifles are going to defeat the world's second or third strongest military. It is not like the Russians have a logistics disadvantage, they are literally surrounding Ukraine. As much as I might be disillusioned, the very fact of pressing citizens to carry rifle, and making them believe they are "winning" is my definition of human shield.
  - artem247 5y ago
    You have no clue what is happening on the ground. Nobody is pressing citizens to join territorial defense, they do auxiliary duties, they are not surrogate for proper army. Ukrainian army uses artillery, attack drones extensively, so your point of people with rifles has no value. Whatever, you don’t get what is happening in Ukraine.