14 ms·

Russia Cannot Win The War

98 points by optimalsolver 5y ago

jleyank 5y ago
No, they can win the war. The question is whether they can win the peace and/or survive the fallout from starting it. Assuming others don’t forget it happened in 6 months.
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Russia scholar Stephen Kotkin, in a recent interview, explains the definition of 'win' may not be what we think it is. https://www.hoover.org/research/5-questions-stephen-kotkin https://www.hoover.org/research/5-questions-stephen-kotkin He believes, and I agree, that it might be enough for Russia to have "ruined" Kyiv, etc., and to have significantly degraded Ukraine's military. And, militarily speaking, Russia lacks the precision weapons to do much else. Put another way, I think Russia has made its point, that perceived (or contrived) threats on its border will be addressed. One hopes, having made the point, they will withdraw; otherwise Putin is facing regime change or worse IMHO. EDIT: I should probably add that Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Not as a justification for its invasion, but as a legitimate security and *influence* concern. Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Again, not an invasion justification, but an important consideration for a lasting diplomatic resolution... that doesn't require further fighting, escalation or heaven forbid WMD use.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  The day after which, Ukraine will submit its NATO membership application.
  - chillingeffect 5y ago
    It virtually has but NATO doesn't universally want Ukraine. It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers.
    - throwthere 5y ago
      Legitimate question— why does everyone kind of not mention Estonia and Latvia when talking about NATO-Russia border states?
      - watwut 5y ago
        Because it shows how ridiculous "buffer zone" argument is.
    - simion314 5y ago
      >It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers I am not a strategist so why is this? And why for example wouldn't Russia tried to sign an alliance with this countries where they promise to respect each other territories and not participate in aggressive actions against each other. Isn't this a good enough buffer? it won't work if you don't want to renounce at teritory claims though
      - mnw21cam 5y ago
        They already did sign such a treaty with Ukraine.
        simion314 5y ago
        So I am biased since I am from Romania, but IMo is clear Russia wants the natural resources and the strategical position from the Black Sea not to defend itself from the small easter European countries but just from pure greed, like in a cmputer game you rush to grab the natural resources to prevent the others to use them and grow, after you grow you invade and destroy their shit until they surrender. Defensive alliances would make sense if you want to protect yourself and this is what the eastern european countries want from NATO.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        30% of Ukraine is Russians. The border conflict is deeply rooted and unavoidable, just like with India and Pakistan.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    NATO membership requires territorial integrity. A lot would have to change first. And I think even with all the excitement, clear heads will seriously question how well this strategy has worked.
    - sgjohnson 5y ago
      > NATO membership requires territorial integrity. A lot would have to change first. That’s the Schengen area, not NATO.
      - euroderf 5y ago
        But NATO does require that there are no outstanding territorial disputes. So Russian occupation of part of Georgia is a tactic. Furthermore, to say that this NATO "requirement" was papered over when Greece and Turkey were admitted would be an understatement.
        sgjohnson 5y ago
        Is it really a formal requirement? I’ve only heard of Cyprus as an example, but this Cyprus is a flawed example, because NATO accession vote has to be unanimous, and Turkey is likely to veto it. Also if that was the case, then Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were dead as soon as Russia took Crimea, making this entire ordeal completely pointless.
        euroderf 5y ago
        Good point. Probably Ukraine would be asked to renounce their claims ?
        sgjohnson 5y ago
        It wouldn’t be renouncing claims, it would be de jure ceding territory (that is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine) to Russia, and there’s no way that would be okay.
  - howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
    Already submitted and de-facto rejected. Nobody wants Article 5 triggered over the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
  - pydry 5y ago
    That ship sailed in 2008 with the Bucharest conference. The membership process was stalled and unstalled but it's been underway for a while now. The NATO incursion in Libya leading to Gadaffi getting a rusty bayonet up his backside in 2011 seems to be the point where Putin viewed further expansion as red line though. Zelensky has spent the last two years begging them to hurry the membership application up.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  Which point did Russia make exactly, if this causes Finland and Sweden to join NATO?
  - belter 5y ago
    They better hurry: "Four Russian fighter jets violate Swedish airspace over Baltic Sea" https://www.thelocal.se/20220302/four-russian-fighter-jets-violate-swedish-airspace-over-baltic-sea/ https://www.thelocal.se/20220302/four-russian-fighter-jets-v...
    - stefanfisk 5y ago
      They do that all the time.
      - iso1631 5y ago
        https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/19/su-24-violated-swedish-airspace/ https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/19/su-24-violated-swedish... for example They also violate NATO airspace https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-fighter-jet-violates-nato-airspace/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-fighter-jet-violates... And more https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29956277 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29956277
      - emj 5y ago
        It's quite rare, it makes headlines everytime they do it. If you think that it's a common occurence and just shrug you shoulders then you are wrong. Especially since it was political this time.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      To be fair this type of border probing is something that's happened every now and then since the cold war.
      - belter 5y ago
        Yes but the timing here is not an accident. Four airplanes at the same time lost of where they are?
- phphphphp 5y ago
  Damaging a few buildings and killing some civilians and then leaving seems like the worst possible outcome for Russia, unless the goal is to appear so weak that Ukraine don’t join NATO because they believe they can beat Russia just with their citizens. I like your optimism but it seems unmoored from reality. I hope you’re right though.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    The whole point of the war was to sabotage Ukraine prosperity on the long term and increase Putin's approval on the short term. Ukraine and Russia are very close culturally and it's prosperity is a powerful message against Putin's regime. Undeniably this war is ravaging Ukraine but the sanctions will be far much worse for Russia on the long term. He already lost on all his goals. If Russia doesn't agree or at least move forward with a ceasefire today this will be a signal that Putin is really insane.
- NoPie 5y ago
  Ukraine was never a threat to Russia's borders. Quite the opposite, Ukraine lost territory due to Russia's aggression.
  - howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
    A facts based explanation of Russia's perspective can be found here: https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/moscows-compellence-str https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/moscows-compellence-str...
    - NoPie 5y ago
      Judging by the protests against this war in Russia itself, it is more likely the perspective of the Russian government not the Russian people.
      - thiagoharry 5y ago
        Protests means that a minimal discontentment exist. But not necessarily more than this. The fact that there are protests do not mean that the manifestants are the majority or have much power. They can be, but they can be not.
      - moonchrome 5y ago
        Really? From what I've seen reported it seems like there were minor protests and the rest is either scared or support the move.
      - goldsteinq 5y ago
        It’s complicated. There’re people who support war because the Russian government maintains an information blockade about the topic. Saying anything about the war that was not previously said by the government is going to become a criminal offence tomorrow. Two independent media (TV Rain and Echo of Moscow) were recently banned for telling too much. At the same time, every state-controlled media is spreading propaganda non-stop. Many citizens genuinely think that Ukraine is ruled by Nazis, and Russian military is successfully removing these Nazis without damaging non-combatants. It’s hard to spread the truth because government is going all-in on stopping opposition.
- krige 5y ago
  Not really, Russia's previous aggressions in 2014 are the reason Ukraine even has a military in the first place and from the past few days it appears that said military's existence came as a shock to the invader. It is fair to say that Putin expected another special operation like in Chechenya, Syria, etc., where he would just bomb the terrorists for a while with no actual opposition showing up. There's a decent analysis thread outlining the background and doing a lot of historical legwork. [0] This is a real problem and a cause for worry though since insane escalation may very well occur with the singular goal of saving faces of russian heads of state. [0] https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204
- stemc43 5y ago
  - chillingeffect 5y ago
    True. Many intl relations professors have deeply nuanced and interesting perspectives from msm. Chomsky has a lot to say too: https://youtu.be/mqSjiwfO4Xo https://youtu.be/mqSjiwfO4Xo Princeton: https://youtu.be/xWYHzDDs93A https://youtu.be/xWYHzDDs93A UChicago: https://youtu.be/Nbj1AR_aAcE https://youtu.be/Nbj1AR_aAcE
    - shmageggy 5y ago
      Do you have any written sources that summarize their points? 3 hours of video is prohibitively long.
  - shmageggy 5y ago
    Is there an automatic way to translate these? Otherwise they are useless to this English-speaking audience
    - stemc43 5y ago
      you can probably open in web-telegram and have google translate do its work. there are a lot of unique information you wont find anywhere else. lots of fake news debunked as well.
  - trhway 5y ago
    the "both sides" ceased to exists once Putin started the aggression against the whole country, and specifically its population. While it is true that there had existed a Donbass issue, it doesn't matter right now as under excuse of that issue, Putin started an ethnic cleansing and genocide against Ukrainians. There is no other side in genocide. Putin is extremely clear laying his approach and goals specifically in his 2 last Ukraine speeches. The possible NATO expansion/Ukraine joining is also just an excuse (solving it is a kind of "nice-to-have" side effect) and the West attention's misdirection. Putin's direct goal in the current action and a major corner stone of his overall policy is non-existence of Ukraine and Ukrainians (in the idiosyncrasy of the "Russian world" philosophy the Ukrainians are the traitors who chose West side and thus have to be punished a-la "Taras Bulba" style). According to him only Ukrainians who are ready to deny their ethnicity and recognize themselves as Russians are allowed to exist. It is a great tragedy that many Russians do partially or fully subscribe to that view without fully recognizing the catastrophic reality it leads too. Putin's policy is clear fascism. It isn't well recognized on the West as West plays coy when it comes to fascism and isn't yet direct target of Putin. In Ukraine and other directly targeted countries the term "russism" ['rashizm'] for "russian fascism" has been a normal everyday word as they have been feeling its threat for years.
- brabel 5y ago
  > it might be enough for Russia to have "ruined" Kyiv, etc., and to have significantly degraded Ukraine's military. Well, that's more or less what Putin said he wanted to do, right? De-militarize and "de-nazify" (he actually means change the regime to one that, like the Ukrainian government prior to 2014, supports Russia) Ukraine.
- optimalsolver 5y ago
  Ah, so this is the goalpost-shifting that will allow Putin to save face.
  - google234123 5y ago
    Better him saving face than going farther!
  - hyperbovine 5y ago
    Totally, that is called diplomacy.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    Hopefully. I'm totally fine with Putin saving face to end his BS war and avoid escalating.
  - ninkendo 5y ago
    “Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.” -- Sun Tzu
- klelatti 5y ago
  > Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not as much as Russia imposed on Eastern Europe after WWII.
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  John Mearscheimer said the same in 2016[1]. Stephen Cohen apparently said the same. They don't need to "take" Ukraine. They just want it as a buffer zone. The Q/A at the end of John Mearscheimers talk is actually quite interesting. Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West. If it had been they would have integrated it into NATO already. They tried the same with Georgia and right away Russia attacked Georgia. More importantly he said that the west actually needs Russia against China, because once China becomes an actual threat it will become incomparable to any previous threat. Throwing Russia into China's arms over something that is not of vital interest to the US is insane. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
  - lanstin 5y ago
    I argue that the preservation and expansion of democratic societies and the diminution of autocracies is a vital interest to the US. A free Ukraine strengthens the power of people to rule themselves rather than be ruled by elites without jeopardizing the people of Russia. It does threaten those that wish to give autocracies more of a chance in the modern world. Not invade with conventional troops vital but publish all the intel around the invasion and send money missiles and veterans.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    By recent events, Mr John Mearscheimer joins the list of pundits who were hilariously, massively wrong. > More importantly he said that the west actually needs Russia against China But based on this, was also completely out of touch to start with.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > They don't need to "take" Ukraine. They just want it as a buffer zone. They want it tho, the argument is not that they need it. The argument is that they want it. And the "just want it as a buffer" is completely unsupported and hard to believe. > Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West. When they decide they want part of Poland and Estonia too, will you say those countries dont matter for the west too? Will their membership in NATO then matter?
  - sampo 5y ago
- watwut 5y ago
  > I should probably add that Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Not as a justification for its invasion, but as a legitimate security and influence concern. Now, there is of course point of view of Eastern European countries who see Russia as legitimate security and influence concern. These are NATO members and became NATO members specifically to be protected against what you call legitimate security concern of Russia (read inability to expand). > Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now, how much of that "imposition" is Poland not wanting to be occupied by Russia anymore?
- sampo 5y ago
  > Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Eastern Europe (and now especially Ukraine) has a point-of-view on Russia that you seem to be ignoring.
stemc43 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- EliRivers 5y ago
  Well then I guess we're relying on the common decency and humanity of the Russia war planners not to start just killing civilians and destroying cities in pursuit of these "radicals". There do seem to be an awful, awful lot of new radicals having been made in the last week. Lots and lots of ordinary Ukrainians, who last week wouldn't have dreamed of picking up a rifle and shooting at a Russian soldier, have been radicalised and are now prepared to do some pretty radical things. If the aim was to remove radicals, this has backfired horrifically.
thisisnotatest1 5y ago
toyg 5y ago
The author underestimates the effects that increased military investment can have. Russia is already selling a lot of weapons around the world - they are typically not as good as American counterparts (in most fields, at least), but they tend to be cheaper; further investment would see prices fall even further, effectively flooding all markets where the Russians play. A lot of African and Asian countries might well jump at the chance, resulting in profits for Russia and increased worldwide instability. Already the successful Russian intervention in Syria was meant to be a showcase of the latest Russian tech. Putin's Russia might not be able to afford a 10- or 20-year conflict like the US could, but I fear it can afford more than enough to produce very bad outcomes for the world at large. And I still don't see how they'd fail to take Kyiv, at the very least, which might well be all they want.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Difficult to produce that stuff while the whole world is against you. Hard to make a good profit from weapons when much of their other exports don't go up. Not a winning strategy.
- kadoban 5y ago
  Why wouldn't Russia already have been doing that? What was stopping them from selling all the cheap weapons that the market could bear?
  - toyg 5y ago
    We are discussing what the author of the piece says, i.e. that Russia will invest more in arms manufacturing. This will likely create surplus they can sell even cheaper, hence moving the needle.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Whereas before they didn't like money?
      - toyg 5y ago
gorgoiler 5y ago
What do you need money for when you can dig everything you need out of the ground? Aha: the article explains further down. It’s all very well being able to dig up thousands of tonnes of oil and iron but that’s no use when your citizens want TVs and jeans.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > no use when your citizens want TVs and jeans. So I wondered this as well... Given the vast resources within Russia there's no reason why they can't build their own TVs or make their own Jeans. Obviously that's currently not the case, but a society that has a space programme can surely achieve this?
  - Schiendelman 5y ago
    A fairly large amount of the Russian space program was designed (and maybe built) by Ukrainians in Ukraine. Russia doesn’t have much capability to update their designs anymore.
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    There's little incentive to start a business when the government or mafia-like oligarch can shut down or take your business or profits at their whim. Also capitalism and startups are a culture. People who don't grow up around others that think like that don't ever learn how to think in that way.
    - CodeGlitch 5y ago
      > the government or mafia-like oligarch can shut down or take your business or profits at their whim That's up to Putin. I think the Oligarchs have perhaps lost there power and leverage within the last 10 days. > Also capitalism and startups are a culture. People who don't grow up around others that think like that don't ever learn how to think in that way. This is where China steps in. They offer to build factories / infrastructure in exchange for oil & gas. This is what they have been doing in Africa.
Mizza 5y ago
Does Putin prevent Shell from ever mining the Ukranian shale gas deposits? Then he "wins".
- juliushuijnk 5y ago
  I don't get your point, but Shell just stopped doing business in Russia: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-exit-russia-operations-after-ukraine-invasion-2022-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-exit-russia-op... There are ever shrinking pathways for putin to even claim a win as this evolves. When all paths are closed, we'll see who's willing to stick with him.
  - Mizza 5y ago
    Ukraine has huge, untapped gas reserves. If they start mining them - which they were about to before the Crimean invasion - then there's no reason for Germany and western Europe to keep doing business with Russia, effectively bankrupting the Russian state. I don't know what effect western companies leaving Russia now will have, given that the plants are already there - Russia will certainly still keep producing its own gas, with our without the west's help. This is fundamentally another petro-war, all of the media/ideological stuff about de-nazification or the mighty Russian ethno-state is bullshit. It's money and oil.
optimalsolver 5y ago
"The second pillar of Russia’s power is, of course, its nuclear arsenal. Nuclear bombs do not win a conventional war, but one can destroy a country with them, in the blink of an eye. And here lies a great risk for the rest of the world. What will a dictator do when he realises that he cannot win the war by conventional means but by other means? That remains the most terrifying question today." -- I do wonder how operational Russia's nuclear arms currently are, though. The US has spent many billions on the maintenance of its nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War. I'm highly skeptical that the Russians have been anywhere near as meticulous in keeping their own in good working order.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  You only need a handful of them to work to remain a threat. It’s not like a tank battalion.
- newsclues 5y ago
  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.1885869 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.18...
- cosmodisk 5y ago
  Having read about this some years ago, I'd suggest that the majority are in a very poor shape because of lack on investment in maintenance, upgrades,etc. However, even if all their bombs are rusty and barely work, It'd be enough to drop just one of them on my country that would make it completely inhabitable.
  - chillingeffect 5y ago
    This view of decaying Russian military predominates, but they're smart scientists and engineers. They also steal tech through spying. They're the pioneers of hypersonic weapons. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/russias-hypersonic-weapons-arsenal-all-four-platforms-explained/ https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/russias-hypersonic-weapo...
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
omega3 5y ago
They've already lost strategically. In very short time they've managed: German rearmament, unified all parts of Ukraine, permanent stationment of US troops in frontier countries, pushed Sweden and Finland to Nato membership, started the real process of energy diversification in Europe, unified EU countries and destroyed Russia economy.
- aenis 5y ago
  +made themselves wholly dependent on the brutally pragmatic China.
  - omega3 5y ago
    In one week they've freed the US from the burden of defending Europe against non-atomic war with Russia: rearmament of Germany, forced Poland to reorganize and modernize their army (going up to 300k), Sweden, Finland, forcing Turkey to get of their fence. This allows US to concentrate on Pacific theater. I'm sure China is furious.
- heikkilevanto 5y ago
  Not so quick. Finland and Sweden have not (yet?) joined NATO. There has been quite some discussion, especially in Finland. The public opinion has tilted towards joining NATO, and maybe we will. Such things take time.
  - sgjohnson 5y ago
    Doesn’t really matter. Finland and Sweden can join NATO in an instant. Their forces are compatible, and they meet all of the entry requirements.
    - aynyc 5y ago
      It does matter. Putin can invade Finland and Sweden now, and NATO can’t do anything other than supply weapons. If Finland and Sweden are in NATO, article 5 is automatically triggered and NATO will have to respond militarily immediately.
barrenko 5y ago
The recent behaviour from Russia is idiotic, but makes sense because they are in panic mode. It (Russia) will need to be seriously declawed and this only makes sense because of that. You cannot have imperialistic ambitions of this scale in 2022 via warlike means, only possible are via US-like "export" of the Silicon Valley ethos all over the world.
- mikro2nd 5y ago
  > You cannot have imperialistic ambitions of this scale in 2022 via warlike means Really? I'd like to see the reaction if you were to suggest this to the USA.
  - emj 5y ago
    The US has two big nations at it's borders I do not think they believe they can win over Canada and Mexico. It is implied elsewhere in this thread that "win" might not be what Russia expects to do either.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Which territory has the US annexed recently?
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    When is the last time the US annexed territory or cluster bombed residential neighborhoods of cities? There is no comparison to what Russia is doing.
    - shawabawa3 5y ago
      Maybe not annexing, but the US did drop cluster bombs on inhabited villages in Afghanistan
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        When?
sgt101 5y ago
It took > 19 days to win the conventional phase of GW2. For the non-conventional phase the US / UK lacked the will to do what was required to win that. Exemplary executions, retaliation, assassination. Putin does not lack that will. He has longer than 19 days. If the conventional phase of the war takes 40 days then he will see that as fine. He can see the summer in and wait for the Europeans to return to chasing butterflies and playing with their children. He will wait for another year. All the while the Ukrainian resistance will be being dragged into carparks and playgrounds to be executed. All the while the Russian army will be repairing, refueling and restocking. What comes next is in Putin's hands. All the wishing for a good outcome in the world does not change this. What could have changed it is if the Dutch, the Belgians and most of all the Germans had acted like adults in the world. Instead they have been dancing on the edge of a disaster. Now they have fallen off into the chasm and we all will have to pay for those happy summer afternoons and heady evenings of dance, drugs and song now. We are in dark times friends.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Sober reality. Social media is making it seem like Russia is losing, when in reality they are just winning more slowly than they expected.
  - sgt101 5y ago
    I think that they blinded themselves with their warped world view. More importantly they blinded the military with it - leading to early blunders. If I was an airborne general in Russia I would have a fairly large grudge about what happened in the first three days which I would nurse for a long, long time. I think that they've also had a long history of stealing from defence procurement which has not helped either. But now the kit that doesn't work is discounted and parked and no one expects cheering flower throwing welcome. The Russian Army will deliver - even if the airforce won't / can't, if boys die doing what they were trained to do then that's expected. The Motherland is grateful. There will be a reckoning though. They won't forgive or forget this. Unfortunately they all do agree with the war aims, but the set up will not be allowed to happen twice. I expect adults wearing uniforms to grab the reigns when this is over.
Borrible 5y ago
Isolation from the decadent West, Ukraine crippled, a land corridor to the Krim that secures its water supply, a nuclear warning that is taken serious [1], the coming fallout for Europe and a bleeding wound at its side. And of course other parts of the world will suffer because of rising inflation, possible short-time shortage of gas, fertilizers and following food shortages. Planting season is coming. Like they say in the Marine Corps, create and exploite opportunities on the battlefield. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting.pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa... Some already do: https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-bolsonaro-uses-ukraine-war-to-support-extraction-on-indigenous-land/a-60990812 https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-bolsonaro-uses-ukraine-war-to-s... The bear probably won't go over the mountain long term this time, but he showed up quite angry and vile. Who knows? What is a win for Russia from Putins and his cronies perspective? Or for him and his cronies, in case Russia is just a tool for them. Surely not from ours, but they don't care about that anymore, anyway. We obviously should adapt our theory of their mind fast. That is the whole point. [1] https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/ukraine/2022/03/02/pentagon-postpones-nuclear-missile-test-launch-amid-ukraine-crisis/ https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/ukraine/2022/03/02...
ukraineally 5y ago
[flagged]
stevespang 5y ago
martythemaniak 5y ago
Indeed they can't, the only question is how much senseless slaughter they're willing to inflict before they admit it. The Ukraninians are extremely motivated and they'll have an unlimited flow of advanced weapons and local support. What does it mean for a town to "fall"? All someone has to do is smuggle in a Javelin within 1 mile of an armoured vehicle and destroy it. Parking your APC in the middle of a town after you've "captured" it isn't going to make the Russians safe. To get a sense of the dire condition of the Russian army, check out this thread: https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1499164245250002944 https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1499164245250002944 Tldr: an advanced missile launcher (one of their most expensive vehicles) was so badly maintained, the tires just shred apart and it was captured. If thats the state of a 15 million dollar piece of equipment, what's everything else like?
aurizon 5y ago
The question is:- will he explode? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_and_the_Ox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_and_the_Ox
ineedasername 5y ago
This assumes that Russia will not resort to a much more rapid and brutal campaign: large scale destruction, especially or urban areas with concentrated populations of resistance. They can kill, capture, or chase away political leadership. They can buy off or kill capture etc military leadership. Then they can install their own government. There would be pockets of resistance for years, but they've dealt with smoldering conflicts of that sort before. They problem with that strategy would probably be massively increased sanctions and Europe that gradually weans itself off of Russian fissile fuels, their main source of income. However they could shift to selling all of it to China, along with their new revenue from the agricultural breadbasket of in the Ukraine. At a steep discount I'm sure because they would not be in a bargaining position, and the other sanctions would still hurt a lot. It would leave them weakened for decades, but they (Putin) may either not believe that outcome or be willing to accept it. Other powerful forces (the oligarchs) might not like this, and could work to remove Puting from power, or maybe they receive assurances that they'll maintain their status and wealth under the new order. Hard to say. It would leave them closer to a North Korea model of existence though, which can hardly be their plan A. My guess is that right now they're still pushing to see just how much further the west itself is willing to push back. If they can regroup, escalate the violence and rapidly and be done in another week or two then maybe maybe they can still mostly get away with this. If not, I think the most likely outcome (at least more likely than the bleaker one outlined above) is that they, Ukraine, and Europe try to find any figleaf of face-saving they can ti allow Russia to declare their goals accomplished. And Russia will still have succeeded in significantly reducing Ukraine with much more empowered and entrenched separatist groups. Second to that would be an Oligarch-driven removal of Putin. At least, I think those are the best case scenarios. Once Russia's "done in a week and back home to watch football this weekend" plan failed, these seem to be the options they're left with.
- tuyiown 5y ago
  > What will a dictator do when he realises that he cannot win the war by conventional means but by other means? That remains the most terrifying question today. The scenario you're describing is basically the one they can't afford, it's simply too costly in men and weapons, without guarantees of outcome, military is not concentrated is the cities, and can expect a lot of help from the west. The level of incompetence display is incredible, which increases the danger of worse scenario, that don't make sense either.
rbanffy 5y ago
If we start from the principle that everything makes sense, there is a hole here - this war makes no sense. There's no upside for either Russia or Putin. It follows that we are missing something. I have no idea of what we are missing, but I'm sure "Putin is an idiot" is not the most plausible explanation. So, what are we not seeing?
- koheripbal 5y ago
  It WOULD have made sense if it had gone as planned and Ukrainian defense fell apart.
- benlumen 5y ago
  Demonic possession?
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  If I believed in gambling I would put good money on 'putin has terminal cancer' bet
- NateEag 5y ago
  > If we start from the principle that everything makes sense... > > So, what are we not seeing? Not everything makes sense. Humans are not rational creatures. We are complicated things that are far more driven by emotions than by dispassionate analysis. Even when we do engage in dispassionate analysis, we get it wrong a whole lot. See the number of software bugs in the world.
- tuyiown 5y ago
  There is a mistakenly published article that explains the ideology, an article that should have been published after successful occupation of Ukraine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20... Basically: Russian people and territory re-unification before letting the cultural erosion making it impossible, which is seemingly insufferable. Then there is some rambling about a new order due the coordination of Ukraine Bielorussia and russia would make Europe autonomy crumble. Then the world was expected to be in awe in such a display of power, and that would have made all countries realize that west dominance is in jeopardy. It's that a simple madness. french translation here: https://www.fondapol.org/decryptage/la-russie-na-pas-seulement-defie-loccident-elle-a-montre-que-lere-de-la-domination-occidentale-mondiale-peut-etre-consideree-comme-completement-et-definitivement-revolue/ https://www.fondapol.org/decryptage/la-russie-na-pas-seuleme...
codedokode 5y ago
I think that the author is wrong in trying to estimate military force by economy size. What matters in the war is not how many dollars you have but how many soldiers, bullets, tanks, bombs you have. And the costs to produce them might be different. In the West its high wages and strict safety requirements inflate the cost of production, but if in your country people are motivated to work for food for the victory then you can produce much more with the same expenses.
polycaster 5y ago
> Moreover, these high commodity prices are a temporary phenomenon. “What goes up must come down”. Gas prices, oil prices and commodity prices will fall again and will shrink the resources available to the Russian government and make a protracted conventional war impossible. That's kind of a weak argument imho. Artifical shortage (sanctions), uncertainty (war), and peak oil (someday) don't seem unlikely to raise the oil price continuously. It's against my intuition that a switch to renewable energy will compensate for that. What's the reasoning behind „What goes up must come down”?
t_mann 5y ago
One potential scenario that's not being discussed much yet is the possibility of Putin going "Full Stalin" and having his own generals executed. Once the generals consider this a real risk, they might decide to try to move first.
gampleman 5y ago
Saying cannot win without specifying what the supposed objectives of the campaign are to be is pointless.

98 points by optimalsolver 5y ago

No, they can win the war. The question is whether they can win the peace and/or survive the fallout from starting it. Assuming others don’t forget it happened in 6 months.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

Russia scholar Stephen Kotkin, in a recent interview, explains the definition of 'win' may not be what we think it is. https://www.hoover.org/research/5-questions-stephen-kotkin https://www.hoover.org/research/5-questions-stephen-kotkin He believes, and I agree, that it might be enough for Russia to have "ruined" Kyiv, etc., and to have significantly degraded Ukraine's military. And, militarily speaking, Russia lacks the precision weapons to do much else. Put another way, I think Russia has made its point, that perceived (or contrived) threats on its border will be addressed. One hopes, having made the point, they will withdraw; otherwise Putin is facing regime change or worse IMHO. EDIT: I should probably add that Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Not as a justification for its invasion, but as a legitimate security and *influence* concern. Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Again, not an invasion justification, but an important consideration for a lasting diplomatic resolution... that doesn't require further fighting, escalation or heaven forbid WMD use.

FeepingCreature 5y ago
The day after which, Ukraine will submit its NATO membership application.
- chillingeffect 5y ago
  It virtually has but NATO doesn't universally want Ukraine. It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers.
  - throwthere 5y ago
    Legitimate question— why does everyone kind of not mention Estonia and Latvia when talking about NATO-Russia border states?
    - watwut 5y ago
      Because it shows how ridiculous "buffer zone" argument is.
  - simion314 5y ago
    >It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers I am not a strategist so why is this? And why for example wouldn't Russia tried to sign an alliance with this countries where they promise to respect each other territories and not participate in aggressive actions against each other. Isn't this a good enough buffer? it won't work if you don't want to renounce at teritory claims though
    - mnw21cam 5y ago
      They already did sign such a treaty with Ukraine.
      - simion314 5y ago
        So I am biased since I am from Romania, but IMo is clear Russia wants the natural resources and the strategical position from the Black Sea not to defend itself from the small easter European countries but just from pure greed, like in a cmputer game you rush to grab the natural resources to prevent the others to use them and grow, after you grow you invade and destroy their shit until they surrender. Defensive alliances would make sense if you want to protect yourself and this is what the eastern european countries want from NATO.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      30% of Ukraine is Russians. The border conflict is deeply rooted and unavoidable, just like with India and Pakistan.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  NATO membership requires territorial integrity. A lot would have to change first. And I think even with all the excitement, clear heads will seriously question how well this strategy has worked.
  - sgjohnson 5y ago
    > NATO membership requires territorial integrity. A lot would have to change first. That’s the Schengen area, not NATO.
    - euroderf 5y ago
      But NATO does require that there are no outstanding territorial disputes. So Russian occupation of part of Georgia is a tactic. Furthermore, to say that this NATO "requirement" was papered over when Greece and Turkey were admitted would be an understatement.
      - sgjohnson 5y ago
        Is it really a formal requirement? I’ve only heard of Cyprus as an example, but this Cyprus is a flawed example, because NATO accession vote has to be unanimous, and Turkey is likely to veto it. Also if that was the case, then Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were dead as soon as Russia took Crimea, making this entire ordeal completely pointless.
        euroderf 5y ago
        Good point. Probably Ukraine would be asked to renounce their claims ?
        sgjohnson 5y ago
        It wouldn’t be renouncing claims, it would be de jure ceding territory (that is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine) to Russia, and there’s no way that would be okay.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
  Already submitted and de-facto rejected. Nobody wants Article 5 triggered over the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
- pydry 5y ago
  That ship sailed in 2008 with the Bucharest conference. The membership process was stalled and unstalled but it's been underway for a while now. The NATO incursion in Libya leading to Gadaffi getting a rusty bayonet up his backside in 2011 seems to be the point where Putin viewed further expansion as red line though. Zelensky has spent the last two years begging them to hurry the membership application up.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
snovv_crash 5y ago
Which point did Russia make exactly, if this causes Finland and Sweden to join NATO?
- belter 5y ago
  They better hurry: "Four Russian fighter jets violate Swedish airspace over Baltic Sea" https://www.thelocal.se/20220302/four-russian-fighter-jets-violate-swedish-airspace-over-baltic-sea/ https://www.thelocal.se/20220302/four-russian-fighter-jets-v...
  - stefanfisk 5y ago
    They do that all the time.
    - iso1631 5y ago
      https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/19/su-24-violated-swedish-airspace/ https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/19/su-24-violated-swedish... for example They also violate NATO airspace https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-fighter-jet-violates-nato-airspace/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-fighter-jet-violates... And more https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29956277 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29956277
    - emj 5y ago
      It's quite rare, it makes headlines everytime they do it. If you think that it's a common occurence and just shrug you shoulders then you are wrong. Especially since it was political this time.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    To be fair this type of border probing is something that's happened every now and then since the cold war.
    - belter 5y ago
      Yes but the timing here is not an accident. Four airplanes at the same time lost of where they are?
phphphphp 5y ago
Damaging a few buildings and killing some civilians and then leaving seems like the worst possible outcome for Russia, unless the goal is to appear so weak that Ukraine don’t join NATO because they believe they can beat Russia just with their citizens. I like your optimism but it seems unmoored from reality. I hope you’re right though.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  The whole point of the war was to sabotage Ukraine prosperity on the long term and increase Putin's approval on the short term. Ukraine and Russia are very close culturally and it's prosperity is a powerful message against Putin's regime. Undeniably this war is ravaging Ukraine but the sanctions will be far much worse for Russia on the long term. He already lost on all his goals. If Russia doesn't agree or at least move forward with a ceasefire today this will be a signal that Putin is really insane.
NoPie 5y ago
Ukraine was never a threat to Russia's borders. Quite the opposite, Ukraine lost territory due to Russia's aggression.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
  A facts based explanation of Russia's perspective can be found here: https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/moscows-compellence-str https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/moscows-compellence-str...
  - NoPie 5y ago
    Judging by the protests against this war in Russia itself, it is more likely the perspective of the Russian government not the Russian people.
    - thiagoharry 5y ago
      Protests means that a minimal discontentment exist. But not necessarily more than this. The fact that there are protests do not mean that the manifestants are the majority or have much power. They can be, but they can be not.
    - moonchrome 5y ago
      Really? From what I've seen reported it seems like there were minor protests and the rest is either scared or support the move.
    - goldsteinq 5y ago
      It’s complicated. There’re people who support war because the Russian government maintains an information blockade about the topic. Saying anything about the war that was not previously said by the government is going to become a criminal offence tomorrow. Two independent media (TV Rain and Echo of Moscow) were recently banned for telling too much. At the same time, every state-controlled media is spreading propaganda non-stop. Many citizens genuinely think that Ukraine is ruled by Nazis, and Russian military is successfully removing these Nazis without damaging non-combatants. It’s hard to spread the truth because government is going all-in on stopping opposition.
krige 5y ago
Not really, Russia's previous aggressions in 2014 are the reason Ukraine even has a military in the first place and from the past few days it appears that said military's existence came as a shock to the invader. It is fair to say that Putin expected another special operation like in Chechenya, Syria, etc., where he would just bomb the terrorists for a while with no actual opposition showing up. There's a decent analysis thread outlining the background and doing a lot of historical legwork. [0] This is a real problem and a cause for worry though since insane escalation may very well occur with the singular goal of saving faces of russian heads of state. [0] https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204
stemc43 5y ago
- chillingeffect 5y ago
  True. Many intl relations professors have deeply nuanced and interesting perspectives from msm. Chomsky has a lot to say too: https://youtu.be/mqSjiwfO4Xo https://youtu.be/mqSjiwfO4Xo Princeton: https://youtu.be/xWYHzDDs93A https://youtu.be/xWYHzDDs93A UChicago: https://youtu.be/Nbj1AR_aAcE https://youtu.be/Nbj1AR_aAcE
  - shmageggy 5y ago
    Do you have any written sources that summarize their points? 3 hours of video is prohibitively long.
- shmageggy 5y ago
  Is there an automatic way to translate these? Otherwise they are useless to this English-speaking audience
  - stemc43 5y ago
    you can probably open in web-telegram and have google translate do its work. there are a lot of unique information you wont find anywhere else. lots of fake news debunked as well.
- trhway 5y ago
  the "both sides" ceased to exists once Putin started the aggression against the whole country, and specifically its population. While it is true that there had existed a Donbass issue, it doesn't matter right now as under excuse of that issue, Putin started an ethnic cleansing and genocide against Ukrainians. There is no other side in genocide. Putin is extremely clear laying his approach and goals specifically in his 2 last Ukraine speeches. The possible NATO expansion/Ukraine joining is also just an excuse (solving it is a kind of "nice-to-have" side effect) and the West attention's misdirection. Putin's direct goal in the current action and a major corner stone of his overall policy is non-existence of Ukraine and Ukrainians (in the idiosyncrasy of the "Russian world" philosophy the Ukrainians are the traitors who chose West side and thus have to be punished a-la "Taras Bulba" style). According to him only Ukrainians who are ready to deny their ethnicity and recognize themselves as Russians are allowed to exist. It is a great tragedy that many Russians do partially or fully subscribe to that view without fully recognizing the catastrophic reality it leads too. Putin's policy is clear fascism. It isn't well recognized on the West as West plays coy when it comes to fascism and isn't yet direct target of Putin. In Ukraine and other directly targeted countries the term "russism" ['rashizm'] for "russian fascism" has been a normal everyday word as they have been feeling its threat for years.
brabel 5y ago
> it might be enough for Russia to have "ruined" Kyiv, etc., and to have significantly degraded Ukraine's military. Well, that's more or less what Putin said he wanted to do, right? De-militarize and "de-nazify" (he actually means change the regime to one that, like the Ukrainian government prior to 2014, supports Russia) Ukraine.
optimalsolver 5y ago
Ah, so this is the goalpost-shifting that will allow Putin to save face.
- google234123 5y ago
  Better him saving face than going farther!
- hyperbovine 5y ago
  Totally, that is called diplomacy.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  Hopefully. I'm totally fine with Putin saving face to end his BS war and avoid escalating.
- ninkendo 5y ago
  “Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.” -- Sun Tzu
klelatti 5y ago
> Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not as much as Russia imposed on Eastern Europe after WWII.
rjzzleep 5y ago
John Mearscheimer said the same in 2016[1]. Stephen Cohen apparently said the same. They don't need to "take" Ukraine. They just want it as a buffer zone. The Q/A at the end of John Mearscheimers talk is actually quite interesting. Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West. If it had been they would have integrated it into NATO already. They tried the same with Georgia and right away Russia attacked Georgia. More importantly he said that the west actually needs Russia against China, because once China becomes an actual threat it will become incomparable to any previous threat. Throwing Russia into China's arms over something that is not of vital interest to the US is insane. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
- lanstin 5y ago
  I argue that the preservation and expansion of democratic societies and the diminution of autocracies is a vital interest to the US. A free Ukraine strengthens the power of people to rule themselves rather than be ruled by elites without jeopardizing the people of Russia. It does threaten those that wish to give autocracies more of a chance in the modern world. Not invade with conventional troops vital but publish all the intel around the invasion and send money missiles and veterans.
- XorNot 5y ago
  By recent events, Mr John Mearscheimer joins the list of pundits who were hilariously, massively wrong. > More importantly he said that the west actually needs Russia against China But based on this, was also completely out of touch to start with.
- watwut 5y ago
  > They don't need to "take" Ukraine. They just want it as a buffer zone. They want it tho, the argument is not that they need it. The argument is that they want it. And the "just want it as a buffer" is completely unsupported and hard to believe. > Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West. When they decide they want part of Poland and Estonia too, will you say those countries dont matter for the west too? Will their membership in NATO then matter?
- sampo 5y ago
watwut 5y ago
> I should probably add that Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Not as a justification for its invasion, but as a legitimate security and influence concern. Now, there is of course point of view of Eastern European countries who see Russia as legitimate security and influence concern. These are NATO members and became NATO members specifically to be protected against what you call legitimate security concern of Russia (read inability to expand). > Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now, how much of that "imposition" is Poland not wanting to be occupied by Russia anymore?
sampo 5y ago
> Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Eastern Europe (and now especially Ukraine) has a point-of-view on Russia that you seem to be ignoring.

stemc43 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
EliRivers 5y ago
Well then I guess we're relying on the common decency and humanity of the Russia war planners not to start just killing civilians and destroying cities in pursuit of these "radicals". There do seem to be an awful, awful lot of new radicals having been made in the last week. Lots and lots of ordinary Ukrainians, who last week wouldn't have dreamed of picking up a rifle and shooting at a Russian soldier, have been radicalised and are now prepared to do some pretty radical things. If the aim was to remove radicals, this has backfired horrifically.

thisisnotatest1 5y ago

toyg 5y ago

The author underestimates the effects that increased military investment can have. Russia is already selling a lot of weapons around the world - they are typically not as good as American counterparts (in most fields, at least), but they tend to be cheaper; further investment would see prices fall even further, effectively flooding all markets where the Russians play. A lot of African and Asian countries might well jump at the chance, resulting in profits for Russia and increased worldwide instability. Already the successful Russian intervention in Syria was meant to be a showcase of the latest Russian tech. Putin's Russia might not be able to afford a 10- or 20-year conflict like the US could, but I fear it can afford more than enough to produce very bad outcomes for the world at large. And I still don't see how they'd fail to take Kyiv, at the very least, which might well be all they want.

panick21_ 5y ago
Difficult to produce that stuff while the whole world is against you. Hard to make a good profit from weapons when much of their other exports don't go up. Not a winning strategy.
kadoban 5y ago
Why wouldn't Russia already have been doing that? What was stopping them from selling all the cheap weapons that the market could bear?
- toyg 5y ago
  We are discussing what the author of the piece says, i.e. that Russia will invest more in arms manufacturing. This will likely create surplus they can sell even cheaper, hence moving the needle.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Whereas before they didn't like money?
    - toyg 5y ago

gorgoiler 5y ago

What do you need money for when you can dig everything you need out of the ground? Aha: the article explains further down. It’s all very well being able to dig up thousands of tonnes of oil and iron but that’s no use when your citizens want TVs and jeans.

CodeGlitch 5y ago
> no use when your citizens want TVs and jeans. So I wondered this as well... Given the vast resources within Russia there's no reason why they can't build their own TVs or make their own Jeans. Obviously that's currently not the case, but a society that has a space programme can surely achieve this?
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  A fairly large amount of the Russian space program was designed (and maybe built) by Ukrainians in Ukraine. Russia doesn’t have much capability to update their designs anymore.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  There's little incentive to start a business when the government or mafia-like oligarch can shut down or take your business or profits at their whim. Also capitalism and startups are a culture. People who don't grow up around others that think like that don't ever learn how to think in that way.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    > the government or mafia-like oligarch can shut down or take your business or profits at their whim That's up to Putin. I think the Oligarchs have perhaps lost there power and leverage within the last 10 days. > Also capitalism and startups are a culture. People who don't grow up around others that think like that don't ever learn how to think in that way. This is where China steps in. They offer to build factories / infrastructure in exchange for oil & gas. This is what they have been doing in Africa.

Mizza 5y ago

Does Putin prevent Shell from ever mining the Ukranian shale gas deposits? Then he "wins".

juliushuijnk 5y ago
I don't get your point, but Shell just stopped doing business in Russia: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-exit-russia-operations-after-ukraine-invasion-2022-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-exit-russia-op... There are ever shrinking pathways for putin to even claim a win as this evolves. When all paths are closed, we'll see who's willing to stick with him.
- Mizza 5y ago
  Ukraine has huge, untapped gas reserves. If they start mining them - which they were about to before the Crimean invasion - then there's no reason for Germany and western Europe to keep doing business with Russia, effectively bankrupting the Russian state. I don't know what effect western companies leaving Russia now will have, given that the plants are already there - Russia will certainly still keep producing its own gas, with our without the west's help. This is fundamentally another petro-war, all of the media/ideological stuff about de-nazification or the mighty Russian ethno-state is bullshit. It's money and oil.

optimalsolver 5y ago

"The second pillar of Russia’s power is, of course, its nuclear arsenal. Nuclear bombs do not win a conventional war, but one can destroy a country with them, in the blink of an eye. And here lies a great risk for the rest of the world. What will a dictator do when he realises that he cannot win the war by conventional means but by other means? That remains the most terrifying question today." -- I do wonder how operational Russia's nuclear arms currently are, though. The US has spent many billions on the maintenance of its nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War. I'm highly skeptical that the Russians have been anywhere near as meticulous in keeping their own in good working order.

ceejayoz 5y ago
You only need a handful of them to work to remain a threat. It’s not like a tank battalion.
newsclues 5y ago
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.1885869 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.18...
cosmodisk 5y ago
Having read about this some years ago, I'd suggest that the majority are in a very poor shape because of lack on investment in maintenance, upgrades,etc. However, even if all their bombs are rusty and barely work, It'd be enough to drop just one of them on my country that would make it completely inhabitable.
- chillingeffect 5y ago
  This view of decaying Russian military predominates, but they're smart scientists and engineers. They also steal tech through spying. They're the pioneers of hypersonic weapons. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/russias-hypersonic-weapons-arsenal-all-four-platforms-explained/ https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/russias-hypersonic-weapo...
- spywaregorilla 5y ago

omega3 5y ago

They've already lost strategically. In very short time they've managed: German rearmament, unified all parts of Ukraine, permanent stationment of US troops in frontier countries, pushed Sweden and Finland to Nato membership, started the real process of energy diversification in Europe, unified EU countries and destroyed Russia economy.

aenis 5y ago
+made themselves wholly dependent on the brutally pragmatic China.
- omega3 5y ago
  In one week they've freed the US from the burden of defending Europe against non-atomic war with Russia: rearmament of Germany, forced Poland to reorganize and modernize their army (going up to 300k), Sweden, Finland, forcing Turkey to get of their fence. This allows US to concentrate on Pacific theater. I'm sure China is furious.
heikkilevanto 5y ago
Not so quick. Finland and Sweden have not (yet?) joined NATO. There has been quite some discussion, especially in Finland. The public opinion has tilted towards joining NATO, and maybe we will. Such things take time.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  Doesn’t really matter. Finland and Sweden can join NATO in an instant. Their forces are compatible, and they meet all of the entry requirements.
  - aynyc 5y ago
    It does matter. Putin can invade Finland and Sweden now, and NATO can’t do anything other than supply weapons. If Finland and Sweden are in NATO, article 5 is automatically triggered and NATO will have to respond militarily immediately.

barrenko 5y ago

The recent behaviour from Russia is idiotic, but makes sense because they are in panic mode. It (Russia) will need to be seriously declawed and this only makes sense because of that. You cannot have imperialistic ambitions of this scale in 2022 via warlike means, only possible are via US-like "export" of the Silicon Valley ethos all over the world.

mikro2nd 5y ago
> You cannot have imperialistic ambitions of this scale in 2022 via warlike means Really? I'd like to see the reaction if you were to suggest this to the USA.
- emj 5y ago
  The US has two big nations at it's borders I do not think they believe they can win over Canada and Mexico. It is implied elsewhere in this thread that "win" might not be what Russia expects to do either.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Which territory has the US annexed recently?
- koheripbal 5y ago
  When is the last time the US annexed territory or cluster bombed residential neighborhoods of cities? There is no comparison to what Russia is doing.
  - shawabawa3 5y ago
    Maybe not annexing, but the US did drop cluster bombs on inhabited villages in Afghanistan
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      When?

sgt101 5y ago

It took > 19 days to win the conventional phase of GW2. For the non-conventional phase the US / UK lacked the will to do what was required to win that. Exemplary executions, retaliation, assassination. Putin does not lack that will. He has longer than 19 days. If the conventional phase of the war takes 40 days then he will see that as fine. He can see the summer in and wait for the Europeans to return to chasing butterflies and playing with their children. He will wait for another year. All the while the Ukrainian resistance will be being dragged into carparks and playgrounds to be executed. All the while the Russian army will be repairing, refueling and restocking. What comes next is in Putin's hands. All the wishing for a good outcome in the world does not change this. What could have changed it is if the Dutch, the Belgians and most of all the Germans had acted like adults in the world. Instead they have been dancing on the edge of a disaster. Now they have fallen off into the chasm and we all will have to pay for those happy summer afternoons and heady evenings of dance, drugs and song now. We are in dark times friends.

koheripbal 5y ago
Sober reality. Social media is making it seem like Russia is losing, when in reality they are just winning more slowly than they expected.
- sgt101 5y ago
  I think that they blinded themselves with their warped world view. More importantly they blinded the military with it - leading to early blunders. If I was an airborne general in Russia I would have a fairly large grudge about what happened in the first three days which I would nurse for a long, long time. I think that they've also had a long history of stealing from defence procurement which has not helped either. But now the kit that doesn't work is discounted and parked and no one expects cheering flower throwing welcome. The Russian Army will deliver - even if the airforce won't / can't, if boys die doing what they were trained to do then that's expected. The Motherland is grateful. There will be a reckoning though. They won't forgive or forget this. Unfortunately they all do agree with the war aims, but the set up will not be allowed to happen twice. I expect adults wearing uniforms to grab the reigns when this is over.

Borrible 5y ago

Isolation from the decadent West, Ukraine crippled, a land corridor to the Krim that secures its water supply, a nuclear warning that is taken serious [1], the coming fallout for Europe and a bleeding wound at its side. And of course other parts of the world will suffer because of rising inflation, possible short-time shortage of gas, fertilizers and following food shortages. Planting season is coming. Like they say in the Marine Corps, create and exploite opportunities on the battlefield. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting.pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa... Some already do: https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-bolsonaro-uses-ukraine-war-to-support-extraction-on-indigenous-land/a-60990812 https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-bolsonaro-uses-ukraine-war-to-s... The bear probably won't go over the mountain long term this time, but he showed up quite angry and vile. Who knows? What is a win for Russia from Putins and his cronies perspective? Or for him and his cronies, in case Russia is just a tool for them. Surely not from ours, but they don't care about that anymore, anyway. We obviously should adapt our theory of their mind fast. That is the whole point. [1] https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/ukraine/2022/03/02/pentagon-postpones-nuclear-missile-test-launch-amid-ukraine-crisis/ https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/ukraine/2022/03/02...

ukraineally 5y ago

[flagged]

stevespang 5y ago

martythemaniak 5y ago

Indeed they can't, the only question is how much senseless slaughter they're willing to inflict before they admit it. The Ukraninians are extremely motivated and they'll have an unlimited flow of advanced weapons and local support. What does it mean for a town to "fall"? All someone has to do is smuggle in a Javelin within 1 mile of an armoured vehicle and destroy it. Parking your APC in the middle of a town after you've "captured" it isn't going to make the Russians safe. To get a sense of the dire condition of the Russian army, check out this thread: https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1499164245250002944 https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1499164245250002944 Tldr: an advanced missile launcher (one of their most expensive vehicles) was so badly maintained, the tires just shred apart and it was captured. If thats the state of a 15 million dollar piece of equipment, what's everything else like?

aurizon 5y ago

The question is:- will he explode? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_and_the_Ox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_and_the_Ox

ineedasername 5y ago

This assumes that Russia will not resort to a much more rapid and brutal campaign: large scale destruction, especially or urban areas with concentrated populations of resistance. They can kill, capture, or chase away political leadership. They can buy off or kill capture etc military leadership. Then they can install their own government. There would be pockets of resistance for years, but they've dealt with smoldering conflicts of that sort before. They problem with that strategy would probably be massively increased sanctions and Europe that gradually weans itself off of Russian fissile fuels, their main source of income. However they could shift to selling all of it to China, along with their new revenue from the agricultural breadbasket of in the Ukraine. At a steep discount I'm sure because they would not be in a bargaining position, and the other sanctions would still hurt a lot. It would leave them weakened for decades, but they (Putin) may either not believe that outcome or be willing to accept it. Other powerful forces (the oligarchs) might not like this, and could work to remove Puting from power, or maybe they receive assurances that they'll maintain their status and wealth under the new order. Hard to say. It would leave them closer to a North Korea model of existence though, which can hardly be their plan A. My guess is that right now they're still pushing to see just how much further the west itself is willing to push back. If they can regroup, escalate the violence and rapidly and be done in another week or two then maybe maybe they can still mostly get away with this. If not, I think the most likely outcome (at least more likely than the bleaker one outlined above) is that they, Ukraine, and Europe try to find any figleaf of face-saving they can ti allow Russia to declare their goals accomplished. And Russia will still have succeeded in significantly reducing Ukraine with much more empowered and entrenched separatist groups. Second to that would be an Oligarch-driven removal of Putin. At least, I think those are the best case scenarios. Once Russia's "done in a week and back home to watch football this weekend" plan failed, these seem to be the options they're left with.

tuyiown 5y ago
> What will a dictator do when he realises that he cannot win the war by conventional means but by other means? That remains the most terrifying question today. The scenario you're describing is basically the one they can't afford, it's simply too costly in men and weapons, without guarantees of outcome, military is not concentrated is the cities, and can expect a lot of help from the west. The level of incompetence display is incredible, which increases the danger of worse scenario, that don't make sense either.

rbanffy 5y ago

If we start from the principle that everything makes sense, there is a hole here - this war makes no sense. There's no upside for either Russia or Putin. It follows that we are missing something. I have no idea of what we are missing, but I'm sure "Putin is an idiot" is not the most plausible explanation. So, what are we not seeing?

koheripbal 5y ago
It WOULD have made sense if it had gone as planned and Ukrainian defense fell apart.
benlumen 5y ago
Demonic possession?
cuteboy19 5y ago
If I believed in gambling I would put good money on 'putin has terminal cancer' bet
NateEag 5y ago
> If we start from the principle that everything makes sense... > > So, what are we not seeing? Not everything makes sense. Humans are not rational creatures. We are complicated things that are far more driven by emotions than by dispassionate analysis. Even when we do engage in dispassionate analysis, we get it wrong a whole lot. See the number of software bugs in the world.
tuyiown 5y ago
There is a mistakenly published article that explains the ideology, an article that should have been published after successful occupation of Ukraine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20... Basically: Russian people and territory re-unification before letting the cultural erosion making it impossible, which is seemingly insufferable. Then there is some rambling about a new order due the coordination of Ukraine Bielorussia and russia would make Europe autonomy crumble. Then the world was expected to be in awe in such a display of power, and that would have made all countries realize that west dominance is in jeopardy. It's that a simple madness. french translation here: https://www.fondapol.org/decryptage/la-russie-na-pas-seulement-defie-loccident-elle-a-montre-que-lere-de-la-domination-occidentale-mondiale-peut-etre-consideree-comme-completement-et-definitivement-revolue/ https://www.fondapol.org/decryptage/la-russie-na-pas-seuleme...

codedokode 5y ago

I think that the author is wrong in trying to estimate military force by economy size. What matters in the war is not how many dollars you have but how many soldiers, bullets, tanks, bombs you have. And the costs to produce them might be different. In the West its high wages and strict safety requirements inflate the cost of production, but if in your country people are motivated to work for food for the victory then you can produce much more with the same expenses.

polycaster 5y ago

> Moreover, these high commodity prices are a temporary phenomenon. “What goes up must come down”. Gas prices, oil prices and commodity prices will fall again and will shrink the resources available to the Russian government and make a protracted conventional war impossible. That's kind of a weak argument imho. Artifical shortage (sanctions), uncertainty (war), and peak oil (someday) don't seem unlikely to raise the oil price continuously. It's against my intuition that a switch to renewable energy will compensate for that. What's the reasoning behind „What goes up must come down”?

t_mann 5y ago

One potential scenario that's not being discussed much yet is the possibility of Putin going "Full Stalin" and having his own generals executed. Once the generals consider this a real risk, they might decide to try to move first.

gampleman 5y ago

Saying cannot win without specifying what the supposed objectives of the campaign are to be is pointless.