4 ms·

Ukraine lost the minute they refused to take Putin's early offer to eschew NATO membership. No power is going to tolerate a hostile actor on their doorstep - Ru

by jkic47 3y ago

Ukraine lost the minute they refused to take Putin's early offer to eschew NATO membership. No power is going to tolerate a hostile actor on their doorstep - Russia won't with Ukraine, China won't with Taiwan, and the US didn't with Cuba trying to host Russian missiles. Western arms still require soldiers, who are in short supply, with Ukraine resorting at times to forced conscription of young men. Tough outlook... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-mili...

khokhol 3y ago
Ukraine lost the minute they refused to take Putin's early offer to eschew NATO membership. Putin's demand list at the time was clearly stated, and went well beyond simply requiring that Ukraine eschew NATO membership. And no, Russia is not simply invincible and impossible to defeat. In fact it has lost plenty of wars - and my its own leaders' telling, would have lost WW 2 had it not been for massive assistance from the United States. So you're off way off base, and on multiple counts here.
- jkic47 3y ago
  You are correct that there were more demands than the one I referred to. The point I was making was that Ukraine sadly appears to be devastated by this war and is arguably worse off today by the choice they made to engage instead of finding a peaceful solution. I don't see any mention of Russia being invincible in my comment - little confused by your comment there. I am stating, however, that it is increasingly obvious that Ukraine is running out of young men to fight with. A quick internet search gave me these results: "The average age of Russian soldiers in the last two years is not explicitly mentioned in the provided search results. However, it is noted that at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the average age of Russian soldiers was reported to be 20-25 years old. Additionally, there is a mention of reports indicating that the average age of Ukrainian forces is around 43 years old" This is an increase of between 27% and 43% depending on how you calculate it, in the age of Ukrainian soldiers over the last 2 years. Not a winning proposition. Under those circumstances, donor countries like the US will either have to provide their own young men to die supporting Ukraine, or provide more expensive weapons to a country that has continued to lose ground in spite of the weapons we did provide.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    > I am stating, however, that it is increasingly obvious that Ukraine is running out of young men to fight with. A quick internet search gave me these results: Ukraine doesn't send young men to frontline. :-/
  - khokhol 3y ago
    Ukraine sadly appears to be worse off today by the choice they made to engage instead of finding a peaceful solution. I'd say that's for Ukrainians to decide. They might just have more information on the costs and risks (and infinitely more actual stake in the matter) than you would, after all. I don't see any mention of Russia being invincible in my comment You said "Ukraine lost the minute they refused to accept Russia's demands", which immediately implies "They lost the minute Russia invaded". Nevermind the fact that nobody has "lost" yet by this stage. The outcome is far from clear or assured for either party, and will likely be for quite some time.
    - jkic47 3y ago
      Actually, I'd say at this point, it is for the donors more than the Ukrainians to decide, since Ukraine wasn't doing too well on its own (see below). I found an interesting study quoting 400 years of US Military Studies, that claims: "The average advance rate across the Russian front ... is 7.8 km per day – still putting Russia well ahead of pre-1990 historical averages" (this was at the start of the war). 7.8 km per day was well above historic averages of advance against peer forces, suggesting Ukraine's army was not a peer army as the Western media proclaimed, and would likely not have lasted more than a couple of months without western support. https://www.leidensecurityandglobalaffairs.nl/articles/keeping-pace-the-russian-advance-rate-in-ukraine-in-historical-perspective https://www.leidensecurityandglobalaffairs.nl/articles/keepi... NATO weapons slowed the Russian advance down by making Ukraine more of a "peer", at least until the weapons dried up. Now that they have, Russia seems to be steadily and rapidly taking territory back while the West is distracted with Israel and the Houthis. Ukraine will last as long as the West is willing to give it (expensive) weapons in the middle of an election season. And Russia will gleefully watch us burn taxpayer money while they ensure there is no one left to give those weapons to.
- lavren1974 3y ago
  Nonsense... Complete nonsense!!! Russia would have won anyway, even without allies. The Allies only accelerated the victory!

by jkic47 3y ago

khokhol 3y ago

Ukraine lost the minute they refused to take Putin's early offer to eschew NATO membership. Putin's demand list at the time was clearly stated, and went well beyond simply requiring that Ukraine eschew NATO membership. And no, Russia is not simply invincible and impossible to defeat. In fact it has lost plenty of wars - and my its own leaders' telling, would have lost WW 2 had it not been for massive assistance from the United States. So you're off way off base, and on multiple counts here.

jkic47 3y ago
You are correct that there were more demands than the one I referred to. The point I was making was that Ukraine sadly appears to be devastated by this war and is arguably worse off today by the choice they made to engage instead of finding a peaceful solution. I don't see any mention of Russia being invincible in my comment - little confused by your comment there. I am stating, however, that it is increasingly obvious that Ukraine is running out of young men to fight with. A quick internet search gave me these results: "The average age of Russian soldiers in the last two years is not explicitly mentioned in the provided search results. However, it is noted that at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the average age of Russian soldiers was reported to be 20-25 years old. Additionally, there is a mention of reports indicating that the average age of Ukrainian forces is around 43 years old" This is an increase of between 27% and 43% depending on how you calculate it, in the age of Ukrainian soldiers over the last 2 years. Not a winning proposition. Under those circumstances, donor countries like the US will either have to provide their own young men to die supporting Ukraine, or provide more expensive weapons to a country that has continued to lose ground in spite of the weapons we did provide.
- oneshtein 3y ago
  > I am stating, however, that it is increasingly obvious that Ukraine is running out of young men to fight with. A quick internet search gave me these results: Ukraine doesn't send young men to frontline. :-/
- khokhol 3y ago
  Ukraine sadly appears to be worse off today by the choice they made to engage instead of finding a peaceful solution. I'd say that's for Ukrainians to decide. They might just have more information on the costs and risks (and infinitely more actual stake in the matter) than you would, after all. I don't see any mention of Russia being invincible in my comment You said "Ukraine lost the minute they refused to accept Russia's demands", which immediately implies "They lost the minute Russia invaded". Nevermind the fact that nobody has "lost" yet by this stage. The outcome is far from clear or assured for either party, and will likely be for quite some time.
  - jkic47 3y ago
    Actually, I'd say at this point, it is for the donors more than the Ukrainians to decide, since Ukraine wasn't doing too well on its own (see below). I found an interesting study quoting 400 years of US Military Studies, that claims: "The average advance rate across the Russian front ... is 7.8 km per day – still putting Russia well ahead of pre-1990 historical averages" (this was at the start of the war). 7.8 km per day was well above historic averages of advance against peer forces, suggesting Ukraine's army was not a peer army as the Western media proclaimed, and would likely not have lasted more than a couple of months without western support. https://www.leidensecurityandglobalaffairs.nl/articles/keeping-pace-the-russian-advance-rate-in-ukraine-in-historical-perspective https://www.leidensecurityandglobalaffairs.nl/articles/keepi... NATO weapons slowed the Russian advance down by making Ukraine more of a "peer", at least until the weapons dried up. Now that they have, Russia seems to be steadily and rapidly taking territory back while the West is distracted with Israel and the Houthis. Ukraine will last as long as the West is willing to give it (expensive) weapons in the middle of an election season. And Russia will gleefully watch us burn taxpayer money while they ensure there is no one left to give those weapons to.
lavren1974 3y ago
Nonsense... Complete nonsense!!! Russia would have won anyway, even without allies. The Allies only accelerated the victory!