-Russian casualties are in the neighborhood of 50k, with about 20k KIA, of which maybe one third are from the LPR and DPR, Donbass rebel armies.

-Ukrainian KIA are somewhere between 120k-150k, with about the same number of injured.

-Russia is going to win this war of attrition. They are starting this new phase with about 2.5 times as many troops as in February, while Ukraine has lost more than half of its army, including most of its better trained soldiers.

Two important facts in this war, that can easily be corroborated from NATO sources as weii:

1-Over 90% of casualties in this war have come from shrapnel wounds, ie artillery bombing. Only a tiny number died from rifle wounds

2-Russia has consistently outgunned Ukraine in ammunition volume, by a factor of 8-10 to 1.

==> Ergo, Ukrainian casualties have been much higher so far, and that lopsided ratio is likely to become even more pronounced as Russia now has the edge in manpower, and NATO is running out of ammunition. Russia has stepped up its ammo production, and has no issues in terms of shipping it to the frontline via rail. Ukraine is struggling to keep up, both at the sourcing level as NATO stocks are depleted and production won`t ramp up till maybe 2024, and at the logistical level, as Russia has stepped up its long range drone usage.

As well, Ukraine has had a hard time getting to its wounded, because the areas are under constant Russian shelling, and also because they lack ambulances. As a result, a lot of Ukrainian injured are just left to bleed to death; its ratio of injured to killed to is much higher than the usual wartime ratio which is about 3-4 to 1.

Knowing all these items, this is definitely not a free ride for NATO, there is an exorbitant cost to this war, that is being borne by Ukraine. In trying to bleed Russia, we have been destroying Ukraine and bleeding them at a much higher rate. Russia is going to keep grinding away until they hit Ukraine`s breaking point.

This war is a large scale massacre, it needs to be stopped right now.

The difference between my position on this war vs the mainstream position is that the facts I have stated above have been shrouded by the fog of war. Overall Ukraine has won the propaganda war, by a large margin, their narrative has been taken at face value.

With time, the truth is eventually going to emerge.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

One data point that`s hard to refute because it was stated by Milley and von der Leyen alike, is that Ukrainian soldiers KIAs are 100,000. That will of course be the lower bound for the real number.

Von der Leyen cut off that bit about the number of KIAs shortly after posting that speech, which is rather telling.

Russia-Ukraine war at a glance: what we know on day 295 of the invasion


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/15/russia-ukraine-war-at-a-glance-what-we-know-on-day-295-of-the-invasion?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

Ukraine could have stayed intact had they abided by Minsk II, or if shortly after the war, given autonomy to the two Donbass rebel provinces, which would have spared its infrastructure and the lives of over 100,000 soldiers. They can still take the deal right now to freeze the borders and spare the lives of another 100,000 soldiers.

Ukraine already went through the majority of its trained soldiers and experienced officers. They still have a reserve of tens of thousands of shock troops, mostly far right militias, which are stationed in Kiev, and in strategic peripheric cities like Odessa and Kharkov where the population could turn against the central government, in addition to the 30,000-strong SBU internal police apparatus.


As it is, Russia is going to continue fighting the war on its own terms, either continuing their slow grind using their overwhelming artillery advantage, or restarting big arrow manoeuvres just as in February, but this time they will be the side with numeric advantage, as well as experience conducting these manoeuvres, and now also with the cover of a full assortment of drones. They are in control of the war, it is being conducted on their own terms.

As well vs last Spring Ukraine is now running low on AA missiles, the last several rounds of drone attacks have depleted their stocks both by hitting their batteries and by having Ukrainians fire at these drones, which cost a lot less than S-300 missiles or even MANPADS. As a result, Russia is going to step up its air sorties. The Iron Dome system is less mobile than the S-300 and more vulnerable too anti-radiation missiles. NATO crews that will be operating these batteries will be at great risk.

Bakhmut, a key hub in the Donbass, is about to fall, which will make the rest of Ukrainian positions behind it difficult to hold. Expect Russia to recapture all of the Donetsk oblast by Spring. Zaporozhie and/or Kharkov would be next, the Russians would not invest Kharkov directly, but instead apply their Syrian tactics, encircling the city and squeezing out slowly any holdovers whose supplies have been cut off.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

No one in their right mind thinks my acknowledgment of how poorly Russia's military is performing has any impact on the war.

---

I am just glad know it alls in California declaring Russia defeated aren't actually leading the Ukraine army.

This is not directly related to Ukraine-russia but it provides a detailed analysis of a position paper from the US government on the security threats and policy. Basically it's a not-so-short summary of the US' current geopolitical view and strategy.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

---

Absolutely not true.

As well Minsk II was not in any shape or form an existential threat to Ukraine. It only affected the two Donbass provinces, the great majority of Ukrainians could have lived with the Donbass having autonomy and being master of their culture and language, exactly like Quebec or the Spanish Basque Country has been for decades. How is that an existential threat?!? In fact, the majority of Ukrainians voted for some kind of accommodation that would lead to a permanent peace settlement in the Donbass.

The only people under existential threat the last few years were the people of the Donbass, with Ukrainain president Poroshenko and far right MPs openly advocating for their extermination, and a military campaign being waged against them since 2014.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

No one in their right mind thinks my acknowledgment of how poorly Russia's military is performing has any impact on the war.

---

I am just glad know it alls in California declaring Russia defeated aren't actually leading the Ukraine army.

---

We're all thankful to have a contentless contrarian here to make sure everyone knows he holds no defensible positions but is here to provide irrelevant asides from on high. Credit to you for at least not providing mountains of misinformation in this thread, we have enough of that here already.

---

I enjoy real dialog. Not babble from a know it all. I am interested in the truth.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Ukraine could have stayed intact had they abided by Minsk II, or if shortly after the war, given autonomy to the two Donbass rebel provinces, which would have spared its infrastructure and the lives of over 100,000 soldiers. They can still take the deal right now to freeze the borders and spare the lives of another 100,000 soldiers.

Ukraine already went through the majority of its trained soldiers and experienced officers. They still have a reserve of tens of thousands of shock troops, mostly far right militias, which are stationed in Kiev, and in strategic peripheric cities like Odessa and Kharkov where the population could turn against the central government, in addition to the 30,000-strong SBU internal police apparatus.


As it is, Russia is going to continue fighting the war on its own terms, either continuing their slow grind using their overwhelming artillery advantage, or restarting big arrow manoeuvres just as in February, but this time they will be the side with numeric advantage, as well as experience conducting these manoeuvres, and now also with the cover of a full assortment of drones. They are in control of the war, it is being conducted on their own terms.

As well vs last Spring Ukraine is now running low on AA missiles, the last several rounds of drone attacks have depleted their stocks both by hitting their batteries and by having Ukrainians fire at these drones, which cost a lot less than S-300 missiles or even MANPADS. As a result, Russia is going to step up its air sorties. The Iron Dome system is less mobile than the S-300 and more vulnerable too anti-radiation missiles. NATO crews that will be operating these batteries will be at great risk.

Bakhmut, a key hub in the Donbass, is about to fall, which will make the rest of Ukrainian positions behind it difficult to hold. Expect Russia to recapture all of the Donetsk oblast by Spring. Zaporozhie and/or Kharkov would be next, the Russians would not invest Kharkov directly, but instead apply their Syrian tactics, encircling the city and squeezing out slowly any holdovers whose supplies have been cut off.

---

You've been saying Russia was winning a slow grinding artillery war based on greater firepower since about April of last year and that the Ukrainian defeat was inevitable. In the last 8ish months, Russia has not been winning a slow grinding artillery war, the donbass front has remained mostly steady since June and russia lost substantial territory on the northern and southern edges of the line (kharkiv and kherson). Therefore, Russia has not been winning a slow artillery war over the last 6 to 8 months.

What were the incorrect assumptions you made 8 months ago, and what has happened since then to correct or change those assumptions?

---

I appreciate this dialog.

dimitrig said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

No one in their right mind thinks my acknowledgment of how poorly Russia's military is performing has any impact on the war.

---

I am just glad know it alls in California declaring Russia defeated aren't actually leading the Ukraine army.

---

Russia cannot win. This war is pointless.

This comment from above is exactly right:

"Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop."

If the US military could not subdue Afghanistan how will the Russian military subdue Ukraine? Add in the international support for Ukraine and this makes it even more clear that Russia cannot hold and occupy Ukraine even if they eventually defeat the Ukrainian military on the battlefield.

---

If Afghanistan were right on the US border, and that country was a technologically advanced modern civilization with a huge stockpile of enriched uranium while also a center of rocket engineering know how, and its leaders were openly hostile to the US and intent on getting or building nukes, the US would never have left. As well in this case the locals would be mostly english-speaking anglos, not a foreign culture from halfway around the world. The US would have forced that hostile neighbor to be ruled by a friendly or at the very least neutral government.

Cal88 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

No one in their right mind thinks my acknowledgment of how poorly Russia's military is performing has any impact on the war.

---

I am just glad know it alls in California declaring Russia defeated aren't actually leading the Ukraine army.

---

Russia cannot win. This war is pointless.

This comment from above is exactly right:

"Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop."

If the US military could not subdue Afghanistan how will the Russian military subdue Ukraine? Add in the international support for Ukraine and this makes it even more clear that Russia cannot hold and occupy Ukraine even if they eventually defeat the Ukrainian military on the battlefield.

---

If Afghanistan were right on the US border, and that country was a technologically advanced modern civilization with a huge stockpile of enriched uranium while also a center of rocket engineering know how, and its leaders were openly hostile to the US and intent on getting or building nukes, the US would never have left. As well in this case the locals would be mostly english-speaking anglos, not a foreign culture from halfway around the world. The US would have forced that hostile neighbor to be ruled by a friendly or at the very least neutral government.

---

The US could has made friends with their neighbors Russia is making enemies which is why their former Soviet bloc countries are afraid of them. This is why sweden and Finland, traditionally neutral countries have determined Russia is too much of an untrustworthy and existential threat that they need to drop neutrality and join nato.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Ukraine could have stayed intact had they abided by Minsk II, or if shortly after the war, given autonomy to the two Donbass rebel provinces, which would have spared its infrastructure and the lives of over 100,000 soldiers. They can still take the deal right now to freeze the borders and spare the lives of another 100,000 soldiers.

Ukraine already went through the majority of its trained soldiers and experienced officers. They still have a reserve of tens of thousands of shock troops, mostly far right militias, which are stationed in Kiev, and in strategic peripheric cities like Odessa and Kharkov where the population could turn against the central government, in addition to the 30,000-strong SBU internal police apparatus.


As it is, Russia is going to continue fighting the war on its own terms, either continuing their slow grind using their overwhelming artillery advantage, or restarting big arrow manoeuvres just as in February, but this time they will be the side with numeric advantage, as well as experience conducting these manoeuvres, and now also with the cover of a full assortment of drones. They are in control of the war, it is being conducted on their own terms.

As well vs last Spring Ukraine is now running low on AA missiles, the last several rounds of drone attacks have depleted their stocks both by hitting their batteries and by having Ukrainians fire at these drones, which cost a lot less than S-300 missiles or even MANPADS. As a result, Russia is going to step up its air sorties. The Iron Dome system is less mobile than the S-300 and more vulnerable too anti-radiation missiles. NATO crews that will be operating these batteries will be at great risk.

Bakhmut, a key hub in the Donbass, is about to fall, which will make the rest of Ukrainian positions behind it difficult to hold. Expect Russia to recapture all of the Donetsk oblast by Spring. Zaporozhie and/or Kharkov would be next, the Russians would not invest Kharkov directly, but instead apply their Syrian tactics, encircling the city and squeezing out slowly any holdovers whose supplies have been cut off.

---

You've been saying Russia was winning a slow grinding artillery war based on greater firepower since about April of last year and that the Ukrainian defeat was inevitable. In the last 8ish months, Russia has not been winning a slow grinding artillery war, the donbass front has remained mostly steady since June and russia lost substantial territory on the northern and southern edges of the line (kharkiv and kherson). Therefore, Russia has not been winning a slow artillery war over the last 6 to 8 months.

What were the incorrect assumptions you made 8 months ago, and what has happened since then to correct or change those assumptions?

---

Every time Russia was militarily under pressure, they have chosen to retreat rather than lose troops at a higher than necessary rate. In fact in Kherson, they retreated preemptively for fear of Ukraine bombing the main dam upstream, which would have isolated tens of thousands of their troops on the right bank. This is an age-old Russian military doctrine, that of trading land for time/soldiers, which they have applied successfully against the French Grande Armee and the German Wehrmacht, destroying both.

By contrast, Ukraine has been holding on at any cost on several fronts throughout the war, in the Donbass broadly speaking and before that, in Mariupol, where they fought (and died) to the last few hundreds. Ukraine is more driven by the propaganda war, and can`t afford to be seen as losing. Ukraine actually lost a lot of personnel and equipment gaining ground in Kherson, moving in an open field and under heavy long range fire.

The real problem here is that we are not being told the extent of Ukrainian losses, you have to read between the lines. I think the Ukrainian official numbers are still in the 10,000 KIA range, whereas it`s been revealed that their KIAs are at least ten times as high. The political fallout is being hidden by their successful domestic and international propaganda war.

The primary goal of Russia is to destroy Ukraine`s military, or to bring Ukraine to its breaking point, whichever comes first. At this point for them, territory is only a short term consideration, because once they achieve that breaking point, they will be able to move back in with far greater ease.

Once again, it is a known fact that the Russians have been using a far greater volume of ammunition than the Ukrainians, at a very lopsided ratio of around 8 or 9 to 1. It is also known that over 90% of casualties have been from shrapnel wounds. Most of the soldiers dying never even see their opponents. So looking at this with some lucidity, it is quite clear that Ukraine has been bleeding at a far higher rate.

golden sloth said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

No one in their right mind thinks my acknowledgment of how poorly Russia's military is performing has any impact on the war.

---

I am just glad know it alls in California declaring Russia defeated aren't actually leading the Ukraine army.

---

Russia cannot win. This war is pointless.

This comment from above is exactly right:

"Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop."

If the US military could not subdue Afghanistan how will the Russian military subdue Ukraine? Add in the international support for Ukraine and this makes it even more clear that Russia cannot hold and occupy Ukraine even if they eventually defeat the Ukrainian military on the battlefield.

What is in this for Russia except a lot of dead Russians and a ruined Russian world standing?

---

I do think it is an under acknowledged point that conquering a country is simply phase one of what Russia wants to do. Phase two involves occupation, and the occupying is far more difficult. This is when the fight becomes a battle with local partisans that slowly drains an army. Even if Russia conquers Ukraine tomorrow, they will still need a military presence meaning continued cost and casualties.

---

The partisans would be in hostile territories, in the Ukrainian heartland west of the Dniepr. I don`t think the Russians are planning on holding these regions, they would get into serious guerrilla situations in places like Lviv or the rest of Gallicia. The eastern and southern third of the country on the other hand are majority Russophone and the majority of people there would not object to going under Russian management, which comes with better pension plans and more stable economic conditions.

It's a bit like the US in Syria and Iraq, US occupation is only in Kurdish-held areas, where US troops are welcome and the locals are friendly, it wouldn't be the case in Damascus or Aleppo.

Mariupol has been under Russian control for several months now, yet there is no significant "partisan" activity there. The Russians have put in place a comprehensive pension program and are slowly rebuilding the city. There has not been any significant partisan operations in Crimea either since 2014, and that region has had a huge economic boom since its annexation by Russia. The Russians invested heavily into Crimean infrastructure, on tourism and agriculture, roads airports bridges hotels etc.

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

No one in their right mind thinks my acknowledgment of how poorly Russia's military is performing has any impact on the war.

---

I am just glad know it alls in California declaring Russia defeated aren't actually leading the Ukraine army.

---

Russia cannot win. This war is pointless.

This comment from above is exactly right:

"Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop."

If the US military could not subdue Afghanistan how will the Russian military subdue Ukraine? Add in the international support for Ukraine and this makes it even more clear that Russia cannot hold and occupy Ukraine even if they eventually defeat the Ukrainian military on the battlefield.

What is in this for Russia except a lot of dead Russians and a ruined Russian world standing?

---

I do think it is an under acknowledged point that conquering a country is simply phase one of what Russia wants to do. Phase two involves occupation, and the occupying is far more difficult. This is when the fight becomes a battle with local partisans that slowly drains an army. Even if Russia conquers Ukraine tomorrow, they will still need a military presence meaning continued cost and casualties.

---

The partisans would be in hostile territories, in the Ukrainian heartland west of the Dniepr. I don`t think the Russians are planning on holding these regions, they would get into serious guerrilla situations in places like Lviv or the rest of Gallicia. The eastern and southern third of the country on the other hand are majority Russophone and the majority of people there would not object to going under Russian management, which comes with better pension plans and more stable economic conditions.

It's a bit like the US in Syria and Iraq, US occupation is only in Kurdish-held areas, where US troops are welcome and the locals are friendly, it wouldn't be the case in Damascus or Aleppo.

Mariupol has been under Russian control for several months now, yet there is no significant "partisan" activity there. The Russians have put in place a comprehensive pension program and are slowly rebuilding the city. There has not been any significant partisan operations in Crimea either since 2014, and that region has had a huge economic boom since its annexation by Russia. The Russians invested heavily into Crimean infrastructure, on tourism and agriculture, roads airports bridges hotels etc.

---

Give it time. Right now Ukraine is still busy fighting a war. Eventually the survivors and whatever equipment they salvage, save, or acquire from the West will go underground.

https://news.yahoo.com/mariupol-partisans-set-fire-house-183800509.html

https://news.yahoo.com/mariupol-residents-attack-policemen-attempting-094620354.html

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/08/29/7365275/

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

---

Absolutely not true.

As well Minsk II was not in any shape or form an existential threat to Ukraine. It only affected the two Donbass provinces, the great majority of Ukrainians could have lived with the Donbass having autonomy and being master of their culture and language, exactly like Quebec or the Spanish Basque Country has been for decades. How is that an existential threat?!? In fact, the majority of Ukrainians voted for some kind of accommodation that would lead to a permanent peace settlement in the Donbass.

The only people under existential threat the last few years were the people of the Donbass, with Ukrainain president Poroshenko and far right MPs openly advocating for their extermination, and a military campaign being waged against them since 2014.

---

In a vacuum, maybe. But Russia had previously annexed Crimea, Putin goes around pining for the good old days of the Soviet Union when all the satellite states were part of mother Russia and talking about how there is no Ukraine. That context matters. Who could trust that Putin would ever stop in the Donbass?

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Sounds like the proxy war is a good thing for us?

---

It would be better for all concerned if Russia withdrew and made reparations for all of the harm they've caused Ukraine. Until such time as they withdrew, supporting Ukraine is more in our interest than any other marginal military spend.

---

It is obvious that Russia is not going to withdraw and make reparations unless they are actually defeated. Considering reality, what is the realistic move that is better for all concerned? Continuing to fight them via proxy war until they are defeated? It certainly could be the best move... that is what you are championing, correct?

---

This is a logical fallacy. You think reality is that Russia is going to win unless defeated and so we shouldn't try to defeat them. You're assuming the Kremlin's narrative.

Let's flip it. Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with unlimited NATO support, which to date has been an abject failure for Russia. The best time to stop the war for Russia was before it started. The second best time was yesterday. The next best time is today, tomorrow or the day after. Because Putin can't win this war, he should get out as soon as possible.

What we know is that with every passing day, Putin and Russia's military continues to prove that it has nowhere near the capabilities that the world thought they had and that continuing to wage war against Ukraine is not in Russia's long-term interests.

I'm for supporting Ukraine (together with the worldwide coalition) so long as they are asking for support. Russia is a pariah on the world stage with no friends outside of perhaps Iran. This war has done more to disabuse the world of the notion that NATO is weak, that Russia is capable of building a coalition to wage a world war or anything else. War sucks, but this war has proven that WWIII is not a risk we need to worry about right now. After seeing what a disaster this has been for Russia, does anyone think China or India wants to hold hands and destroy their economies in order to join in the misery?

---

I am not assuming anything. Yes, Putin should "realistically" accept that he can't win this war unless he's prepared to defeat Ukraine with NATO support.

---

By any reasonable inference, Russia has already been defeated. In the 10 months since they've invaded they've achieved no strategic goals and they have suffered massive looses to their troops, their equipment and their economy. Any other leader would have accepted this is an unwinnable war and moved on. But Putin doesn't care about any of that.

They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200k casualties (roughly equal to their original force), they've lost half of their tanks (and the remaining ones are even worse than the ones they lost), they can't equip and support their troops - most of whom now are untrained and uninterested, they're the number one weapon supplier to Ukraine due to their incredibly high desertion rate combined with numerous messy retreats and they are increasingly forced to rely on Iranian support.

Instead, Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop.

And speaking of Iran, I can't help but think that Iran wouldn't be lifting a finger for Russia if we still had the JCPOA in effect. Because Trump killed it, Iran has very little reason to play nice with us and it's entirely possible that Putin has agreed to provide nukes to them in exchange for military support. But at least the GOP can buy Trump NFTs lol.

---

Oleksandr Syrsky says you are heading for defeat.

https://www.economist.com/syrsky-interview

---

Another logic failure. He doesn't say I'm underestimating Russia. He says combatants shouldn't do so. You have once again assumed a conclusion in order to make your argument.

I agree with him that Ukraine shouldn't underestimate Russia but that doesn't mean we should pretend that Kremlin gaslighting, as often seen in this thread, is the barometer. And kudos to him for being pragmatic but that has no bearing on this conversation which is intended to be grounded in observations by us non-combatants.

Even many Russian propagandists concede that this war hasn't gone as planned by the Kremlin and that they've underperformed. There can certainly be a debate about what happens next but there is very little meaningful debate about the broad strokes of what has already occurred, other than for the most committed gaslighters.

---

Agree that Russia has underperformed. Disagree with the rest of your gibberish. I know you know that I wasn't saying you were personally going to be defeated. Thank you for the laugh.

---

Your message was pointless. Clearly Ukraine is treating this was as an existential threat to their existence - because it is. Russia wants to erase Ukraine from the map and exterminate much of their population, they have said as much.

No one in their right mind thinks my acknowledgment of how poorly Russia's military is performing has any impact on the war.

---

I am just glad know it alls in California declaring Russia defeated aren't actually leading the Ukraine army.

---

Russia cannot win. This war is pointless.

This comment from above is exactly right:

"Russia is going to fight until the Russian people make them stop."

If the US military could not subdue Afghanistan how will the Russian military subdue Ukraine? Add in the international support for Ukraine and this makes it even more clear that Russia cannot hold and occupy Ukraine even if they eventually defeat the Ukrainian military on the battlefield.

What is in this for Russia except a lot of dead Russians and a ruined Russian world standing?

---

I do think it is an under acknowledged point that conquering a country is simply phase one of what Russia wants to do. Phase two involves occupation, and the occupying is far more difficult. This is when the fight becomes a battle with local partisans that slowly drains an army. Even if Russia conquers Ukraine tomorrow, they will still need a military presence meaning continued cost and casualties.

---

The partisans would be in hostile territories, in the Ukrainian heartland west of the Dniepr. I don`t think the Russians are planning on holding these regions, they would get into serious guerrilla situations in places like Lviv or the rest of Gallicia. The eastern and southern third of the country on the other hand are majority Russophone and the majority of people there would not object to going under Russian management, which comes with better pension plans and more stable economic conditions.

It's a bit like the US in Syria and Iraq, US occupation is only in Kurdish-held areas, where US troops are welcome and the locals are friendly, it wouldn't be the case in Damascus or Aleppo.

Mariupol has been under Russian control for several months now, yet there is no significant "partisan" activity there. The Russians have put in place a comprehensive pension program and are slowly rebuilding the city. There has not been any significant partisan operations in Crimea either since 2014, and that region has had a huge economic boom since its annexation by Russia. The Russians invested heavily into Crimean infrastructure, on tourism and agriculture, roads airports bridges hotels etc.

---

I read that Ukrainians were killed / jailed and that Russia moved @1M Russians into Crimea.

One million Russian might have moved there, but it's not like their government moved them there. Crimea has great weather, pretty much mediterranean, while most of Russia has crappy to horrid weather. Russia has a relatively older population, with low retirement age, 61 for men and 56 for women, so the movement of that segment to Crimea follows the general pattern that we also observe in the US and Europe, with more people moving from the Ice Belt to the Sun Belt. Much like Florida or the south of France, the economy is also booming there, also attracting younger Russian migrants:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/06/03/crimean-economy-named-fastest-growing-in-russia-a65851

Russia is significantly richer than Ukraine per capita, so I would imagine that real estate prices in Crimea must have been attractive for Muscovites or St Petersburgers, a lot more affordable than Russian resort cities like Sochi.

Ukrainians are about 10% of Crimean population. Crimea was historically a Russian peninsula since the late 18th century, it only became part of Ukraine under Khrushchev. The Russians did ethnically cleanse some of the Tatar population in 1790, Turkish ethnics who fought with the ottoman Empire against Russia. The northern coast of the Black Sea was the interface between these two empires, and Russia had the upper hand, annexing and settling the region known as Novorossiya (New Russia) in the late 1700s. There was what looks like another mass deportation of Crimean Tatars in WW2.

BREAKING: FIFA have rejected a request by Ukrainian President Zelensky to broadcast a live speech to the World Cup Final before the game.

— SGM World News (@SGMWorldnews) December 16, 2022

movielover said:

---

I'm agnostic and keep hearing divergent feedback. Ritter worked for our country in Russia, but I guess you consider him a traitor.

---

Believe what you want, but it's good to know where people's personal incentives are.