10 ms·

> Failed spectacularly. Do people really still believe this? Look at the actual facts on the ground: land-bridge to Crimea, Luhansk 100% under Russian contro

> Failed spectacularly. Do people really still believe this? Look at the actual facts on the ground: land-bridge to Crimea, Luhansk 100% under Russian control, Donetsk most probably getting there, also some chunks of Kharkiv province, about 7 million Ukrainian refugees, Ukrainian's army potential drastically reduced (i.e. "demilitarisation" that seemed to have worked), how is all this "failing spectacularly"?

bigDinosaur 4y ago
Originally there were many predictions about how Ukraine would fall in 2-3 weeks at most (Putin even said a few years ago he could take Kiev in 14 days). With respect to that goal it has been a miserable failure, but I think most people expect Russia to still 'win' at least in some sense even if not 100% of Ukraine.
actionfromafar 4y ago
If it's working so great, why are 100s of thousands (maybe millions) of educated Russians leaving for other countries? Russia is now set up for long-time decline, with even worse demographics than it had before the war.
- chii 4y ago
  People leaving russia is not an indication that they are definitely losing the war in ukraine. Russia may be in demographic decline - but there's still tonnes of time before that problem becomes insurmountable. The regime doesn't care about that anyway.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Ukrainian's army potential drastically reduced (i.e. "demilitarisation" that seemed to have worked) Ukraine’s army is being modernised by backers that eclipse Russia’s industrial capacity many times over. This is a war of attrition Russia is spending decades-old back catalog on to fuel a domestic narrative.
- gpderetta 4y ago
  It is very much a war of attrition, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a war that Russia is going to lose. So far Russia is slowly progressing on their primary objective. They have had significant losses but they have a huge amount of dumb rockets and artillery that they can throw at the problem. They have have failed in most blitz actions with highly mobile forces, but the slow grind seem to work for them, although obviously with high costs for both sides. They lack manpower but, unfortunately for their victims, they seem to be managing by conscripting the occupied population. The key will be on whether the West will lose interest in supporting Ukraine before Russia runs out of resources.
  - whatever1 4y ago
    Maybe Russia can win the war of attrition. It certainly cannot win the long term guerrilla war with an occupied Ukraine. They will never be able to unify the region in their favor, so I really don’t get what is the point in their operation anymore.
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      Well, thing is they might not care. As long as they can leave dealing with insurgency mostly to the new "independent" government and not have to report the losses at home, while still controlling the resources and enjoying the buffer zone they might be ok to returning to the previous lower intensity warfare of the last decade. Obviously toppling the government proved to be well beyond Russia's means, but I wouldn't be surprised if they might try to take advantage of the post war hardships for a coup. It will be important for the West to help Ukraine with reconstruction to avoid this.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > while still controlling the resources Except they’re not. And they won’t be able to. For the time being, light insurgency and the threat of shelling all but foreclose resource development in eastern Ukraine for years to come. This is Russia’s Afghanistan. Except unlike the U.S. or USSR, Russia is not a superpower. (Its economy is eclipsed by California’s. And its military struggles even miles off its border.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lordnacho 4y ago
Failure against expectations is what people mean. A lot of commentators thought the Russians would be in Kyiv after a few days. Putin might well have thought so as well. Now a quick knockout punch has turned into a long grappling match, that's failure.
- hef19898 4y ago
  A grappling match one of the opponents is better prepared for and working of a well rehearsed game plan.
pjc50 4y ago
Original objective of a decapitation strike in Kyiv failed. All the forces committed to the north of the country have been destroyed or retreated. Ukrainians have slowly been driven out of the south, but have generally held the Russians at the Siverskyi Donets river. Spectacular footage exists of the failed attempt to cross it with two BTGs which were entirely destroyed. And the big failure is political: Sweden and Finland have been driven to immediately join NATO. Attacking Ukraine has moved NATO's border eastwards. Countries adjoining Russia and Ukraine and Belarus have decided they need to arm themselves rapidly. Russia has been cut off from replacement supplies of Western goods, and can no longer e.g. make cars. The war will continue for the forseeable future, like the war in Syria, but with gradually reducing intensity and slow pushing back by the Ukranians.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  From the same facts I have the completely opposite reading that you have. Despite the constant propaganda telling you otherwise in the USA, Ukraine has been a major defeat for NATO. Economic sanctions on Russia were useless. China didn’t budge nor did India nor did most of Africa and South America highlighting the new irrelevance of the USA. Ukraine failed to properly negotiate after stopping the Kiev advance when it would have been advantageous to do so because the USA was a poor steward and is now sure to lose significant territories in the south. The war will not be allowed to keep going for long because it has a significant impact on Ukraine allies economies and these allies are already significantly pushing for new negotiations to take place. Sweden and Finland joined NATO at significant cost to them in their negotiations with Turkey. It’s not far from a complete debacle honestly.
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    > Ukraine has been a major defeat for NATO. In a war everybody loses. Blowing up buildings and killing people how could that not be a defeat for everybody. The question is who started it? Who is the aggressor?
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago

bigDinosaur 4y ago

Originally there were many predictions about how Ukraine would fall in 2-3 weeks at most (Putin even said a few years ago he could take Kiev in 14 days). With respect to that goal it has been a miserable failure, but I think most people expect Russia to still 'win' at least in some sense even if not 100% of Ukraine.

actionfromafar 4y ago

If it's working so great, why are 100s of thousands (maybe millions) of educated Russians leaving for other countries? Russia is now set up for long-time decline, with even worse demographics than it had before the war.

chii 4y ago
People leaving russia is not an indication that they are definitely losing the war in ukraine. Russia may be in demographic decline - but there's still tonnes of time before that problem becomes insurmountable. The regime doesn't care about that anyway.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Ukrainian's army potential drastically reduced (i.e. "demilitarisation" that seemed to have worked) Ukraine’s army is being modernised by backers that eclipse Russia’s industrial capacity many times over. This is a war of attrition Russia is spending decades-old back catalog on to fuel a domestic narrative.

gpderetta 4y ago
It is very much a war of attrition, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a war that Russia is going to lose. So far Russia is slowly progressing on their primary objective. They have had significant losses but they have a huge amount of dumb rockets and artillery that they can throw at the problem. They have have failed in most blitz actions with highly mobile forces, but the slow grind seem to work for them, although obviously with high costs for both sides. They lack manpower but, unfortunately for their victims, they seem to be managing by conscripting the occupied population. The key will be on whether the West will lose interest in supporting Ukraine before Russia runs out of resources.
- whatever1 4y ago
  Maybe Russia can win the war of attrition. It certainly cannot win the long term guerrilla war with an occupied Ukraine. They will never be able to unify the region in their favor, so I really don’t get what is the point in their operation anymore.
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    Well, thing is they might not care. As long as they can leave dealing with insurgency mostly to the new "independent" government and not have to report the losses at home, while still controlling the resources and enjoying the buffer zone they might be ok to returning to the previous lower intensity warfare of the last decade. Obviously toppling the government proved to be well beyond Russia's means, but I wouldn't be surprised if they might try to take advantage of the post war hardships for a coup. It will be important for the West to help Ukraine with reconstruction to avoid this.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > while still controlling the resources Except they’re not. And they won’t be able to. For the time being, light insurgency and the threat of shelling all but foreclose resource development in eastern Ukraine for years to come. This is Russia’s Afghanistan. Except unlike the U.S. or USSR, Russia is not a superpower. (Its economy is eclipsed by California’s. And its military struggles even miles off its border.)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lordnacho 4y ago

Failure against expectations is what people mean. A lot of commentators thought the Russians would be in Kyiv after a few days. Putin might well have thought so as well. Now a quick knockout punch has turned into a long grappling match, that's failure.

hef19898 4y ago
A grappling match one of the opponents is better prepared for and working of a well rehearsed game plan.

pjc50 4y ago

Original objective of a decapitation strike in Kyiv failed. All the forces committed to the north of the country have been destroyed or retreated. Ukrainians have slowly been driven out of the south, but have generally held the Russians at the Siverskyi Donets river. Spectacular footage exists of the failed attempt to cross it with two BTGs which were entirely destroyed. And the big failure is political: Sweden and Finland have been driven to immediately join NATO. Attacking Ukraine has moved NATO's border eastwards. Countries adjoining Russia and Ukraine and Belarus have decided they need to arm themselves rapidly. Russia has been cut off from replacement supplies of Western goods, and can no longer e.g. make cars. The war will continue for the forseeable future, like the war in Syria, but with gradually reducing intensity and slow pushing back by the Ukranians.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
From the same facts I have the completely opposite reading that you have. Despite the constant propaganda telling you otherwise in the USA, Ukraine has been a major defeat for NATO. Economic sanctions on Russia were useless. China didn’t budge nor did India nor did most of Africa and South America highlighting the new irrelevance of the USA. Ukraine failed to properly negotiate after stopping the Kiev advance when it would have been advantageous to do so because the USA was a poor steward and is now sure to lose significant territories in the south. The war will not be allowed to keep going for long because it has a significant impact on Ukraine allies economies and these allies are already significantly pushing for new negotiations to take place. Sweden and Finland joined NATO at significant cost to them in their negotiations with Turkey. It’s not far from a complete debacle honestly.
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  > Ukraine has been a major defeat for NATO. In a war everybody loses. Blowing up buildings and killing people how could that not be a defeat for everybody. The question is who started it? Who is the aggressor?
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago