4 ms·

At the moment, Russia has fully conquered (and integrated into their nation) 20% of the largest country in Europe. They seem intent on going for about 50% of it

At the moment, Russia has fully conquered (and integrated into their nation) 20% of the largest country in Europe. They seem intent on going for about 50% of it. US cannot claim a single victory in the past 4 decades, it's been debacle after debacle.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> US cannot claim a single victory in the past 4 decades, it's been debacle after debacle Militarily? You've got to be joking. Russia is still struggling with the military part of the campaign. Russia's "top of the line" weapons are routinely being potted by decades-old NATO kit. They are a spent force, conventionally. The military turned from a fighting force into a propaganda tool, aimed at projecting masculinity to a domestic audience over maintaining martial capability. The problem in the West is there are a lot of Soviet-era talking heads who make money when Russia gets attention. There is no money to be made if Russia is a loser. So it's in the interest of that foreign policy wing to trump up Moscow as if it's a competent military versus the dumpster fire that it is without Pyongyang and Tehran.
- chgs 2y ago
  Looks to me that Russia is winning the war of attrition. Is that view inaccurate?
  - nradov 2y ago
    Yes, that's basically accurate. Russia has a huge advantage in manpower and equipment, and has been using that to gradually take more territory. Ukraine will have to achieve about an 8:1 casualty ratio in order to achieve an outright battlefield victory, which they haven't been able to do even with foreign military aid. A more realistic goal is basically to inflict enough Russian casualties that domestic political and economic pressures force a withdrawal from most of the occupied territory. That's not impossible but it's kind of a long shot. Another approach which is more likely to work is for NATO countries to step up and really hurt Russia through every means short of war. That mainly means finding a way to reduce their fossil fuels export income.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      > That mainly means finding a way to reduce their fossil fuels export income Which is happening now. EU is about to impose sanctions on the shadow fleet of Russian tankers. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IPR25341/parliament-calls-for-an-eu-crackdown-on-russia-s-shadow-fleet https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IP...
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Is that view inaccurate? Technically no, but a more forthright assessment would be: "Russia has been winning the war of attrition, but very slowly, and only for the past year. At current rates, it would take several decades to reach Kyiv. Meanwhile, for the sake of these extremely modest gains, it's spending about 10 percent of its GDP." Context it is everything.
toast0 2y ago
I don't remember desert storm being a debacle, but maybe I missed it. Certainly arming Iraq in the 80s and fighting them in the 90s was problematic, but you know things happen. The 2000s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were pretty successful. The holding of Afghanistan and Iraq, not so much. Russia doesn't seem to be having nearly the level of success in invading Ukraine (although invading Crimea seemed to be pretty successful).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> US cannot claim a single victory in the past 4 decades, it's been debacle after debacle Militarily? You've got to be joking. Russia is still struggling with the military part of the campaign. Russia's "top of the line" weapons are routinely being potted by decades-old NATO kit. They are a spent force, conventionally. The military turned from a fighting force into a propaganda tool, aimed at projecting masculinity to a domestic audience over maintaining martial capability. The problem in the West is there are a lot of Soviet-era talking heads who make money when Russia gets attention. There is no money to be made if Russia is a loser. So it's in the interest of that foreign policy wing to trump up Moscow as if it's a competent military versus the dumpster fire that it is without Pyongyang and Tehran.

chgs 2y ago
Looks to me that Russia is winning the war of attrition. Is that view inaccurate?
- nradov 2y ago
  Yes, that's basically accurate. Russia has a huge advantage in manpower and equipment, and has been using that to gradually take more territory. Ukraine will have to achieve about an 8:1 casualty ratio in order to achieve an outright battlefield victory, which they haven't been able to do even with foreign military aid. A more realistic goal is basically to inflict enough Russian casualties that domestic political and economic pressures force a withdrawal from most of the occupied territory. That's not impossible but it's kind of a long shot. Another approach which is more likely to work is for NATO countries to step up and really hurt Russia through every means short of war. That mainly means finding a way to reduce their fossil fuels export income.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > That mainly means finding a way to reduce their fossil fuels export income Which is happening now. EU is about to impose sanctions on the shadow fleet of Russian tankers. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IPR25341/parliament-calls-for-an-eu-crackdown-on-russia-s-shadow-fleet https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IP...
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Is that view inaccurate? Technically no, but a more forthright assessment would be: "Russia has been winning the war of attrition, but very slowly, and only for the past year. At current rates, it would take several decades to reach Kyiv. Meanwhile, for the sake of these extremely modest gains, it's spending about 10 percent of its GDP." Context it is everything.

toast0 2y ago

I don't remember desert storm being a debacle, but maybe I missed it. Certainly arming Iraq in the 80s and fighting them in the 90s was problematic, but you know things happen. The 2000s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were pretty successful. The holding of Afghanistan and Iraq, not so much. Russia doesn't seem to be having nearly the level of success in invading Ukraine (although invading Crimea seemed to be pretty successful).