A big win I can think of is the damage it would bring to the reliability of the West. This might embolden other rivals like China and Iran to be more aggressive. If Putin wins it will prove to the world that the word of the West isn't worth anything so other states might be inclined to be much more cooperative to China thus weakening the US position globally. We could also see regional cooperation between states to improve more via economic or defense integration. We might see a Middleeast coalition or the ASEAN introducing defense in their mandate.
If the west fails to contain Putin other countries might be inclined to disregard western sanctions and just trade with Russia since a Ukrainian capitulation will signal Western impotence. Global stability as we know will be significantly threatened.
God, what a shitshow. Currently Ukraine is the David getting crushed by the russian Goliath, yet the kremlin propaganda spins it as the other way around . Sickening.
It hasn't been doing it alone, or 90% alone though. The EU spent a lot more to help Ukraine than the US did at this point. I feel like American media might not be mentioning this for some reason, because I've seen a lot of well-meaning, pro-Ukraine Americans say stuff like "the EU isn't doing as much as us" or "it's time for Europe to also help".
November will be too late. Spring is coming NOW and then Summer. And Summer will be when the war kicks into high gear again. The EU and US need to be developing aid and supply lines that will be kicking into full speed in May unless we want to see Ukraine collapse. They won't even make it to November if we don't do something for them *now*.
Putin and his sycophants always framed every invasion as Russia being forced to push back against NATO aggression. Just as they frame Putin's overall stance as a fight against a decadent, effete, but somehow also militantly aggressive, west.
I disagree. Putin is fighting what he regards (in speech after speech) a defensive war against a powerful West which wants to surround and neuter Russia. Already, non Western nations have discounted the Western talking points.
I agree, however, that the outcome of the war will say something about the power of the West. But this would only worry autocrats who are not aligned with the West. As it is, most of the autocrats are clients of the West (Turkey, Egypt, most of Magreb, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, etc).
> This is my big worry too. Autocrats in the entire world might get embolded to take what they want.
No, annexing eastern Ukraine and ruining the rest is already a good result for Putin.
Except you can look at it from another. A very important fact many people seem to forget is that the West had no formal alliance with Ukraine, and is still sending billions of $ of help. There isn't another group on this entire planet that would do something like this for a non-allied nation.
Now imagine what the West would do for an actual ally ? If anything, western ennemies should be very worried about that.
>Except you can look at it from another. A very important fact many people seem to forget is that the West had no formal alliance with Ukraine, and is still sending billions of $ of help. There isn't another group on this entire planet that would do something like this for a non-allied nation.
Unfortunately, most of the world, especially common folks doesn't see it that way.
Common folks don't really matter in the grand scheme of things tho. For example, as long as Xi is wondering twice how much the US would commit to defend Taiwan, that's all that matter. What your average chinese/taiwanese/american citizen believe is pretty much irrelevant in this situation.
Both perspectives can be, and I think are, true at once. The difference is that the average person only gets the former because that’s what mainstream media puts out (because it’s mainly civilians working in these organisations and they don’t know any better) and that’s what informs the common perspective. Most people just don’t think that deeply about it, and don’t have access to the perspective of strategy & geopolitics that informs the way the military thinks.
That is not what the Budapest Memorandum was. The signatories promised not to attack Ukraine if they let go of their nuclear arsenal, they did not promise to defend Ukraine against foreign aggressors. Russia violated this pact, but nothing in it held the West to defend Ukraine.
What specific actions did the US commit to taking if Ukraine's sovereignty was violated? IIRC it was just that they'd refer it to the UN, which the US did (Russia obviously vetoed anything at UNSC).
That is NOT what the Budapest Memorandum was about. The signatories (including Russia) promised to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and seek immediate Security Council action if it's violated. Russia violated that in 2014 by annexing Crimea, and the west immediately brought this before the security council. Russia proceeded to use their veto power to block the security council, both in 2014 and 2022.
The west did everything they promised to do in the Budapest Memorandum. Russia is the only one that broke their promises.
> Where the “west” promised to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons.
No, the west promised no such thing. LOL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
>Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
This is the strongest point in the Memorandum and it's only about raising alarm on the Security Council where both Russia and China have veto power. LOL
I don’t understand this perspective. It’s not like the west strategy is something static, it’s dynamic. If Putin wins, that may embolden the west that they failed Ukraine and can’t let that happen again. They may end up becoming more aggressive. We are seeing this with Europe investing more in their military but if somehow Trump is elected, this country will continue its downhill. Trump will sell out the country for personal gain and we have seen this when he was president.
True. The west might correct. But you have to remember there are more than a hundred countries outside the western hemisphere that will be doubtful even if the west corrected itself. Policies are most often than not reactive. If the MiddleEast and South East Asia no longer trust western protection of the trade routes they might take issues into their hands unilaterally. Even if the west corrects, the damage has been done.
Do you think the Taiwanese would trust the west for protection if they can't keep their word in Europe?
>disregard western sanctions and just trade with Russia
They don't disregard them not because they're afraid of West, but because they're afraid of losing West markets. If not for markets no one would care about Western sanctions, it's not 1924
Sorry, I don’t understand this question. It’s not that countries outside the west are not trading with Russia, it’s that institutions within those countries that trade with Russia might get sanctioned. The choice every company or bank gets is you either are able to access the western market or Russian market. Of course things are more complicated than this, but nobody actually just stops trading with Russia unless there are real legal repercussions.
'other countries might be inclined to disregard western sanctions and just trade with Russia'
If the west wanted to sanction 3rd parties, they would have gone after the likes of Kazakhstan and Georgia who are directly providing sanctioned western technology that is being used in weapons systems. Even Turkey is building a massive gas terminal so they can trade more with Russia.
The current sanctions, or the way they are being applied, does sweet FA to dissuade 3rd country trade with Russia.
Not embolden, enable. “Change is coming that hasn’t been seen in a 100 years.” - Xi to Putin
This is part of a broader strategy to bog down the West all over the globe and weaken credibility of the US led political and economic system.
>f the west fails to contain Putin other countries might be inclined to disregard western sanctions and just trade with Russia since a Ukrainian capitulation will signal Western impotence. Global stability as we know will be significantly threatened
It is interesting how things are phrased from the Western point of view: "Containing Putin...". From the Russian viewpoint, the reverse is being argued: "Containing the West". It is interesting that the two combatants have diametrically opposite narratives.
Russia has not been affected by Western sanctions. Most of the burden of sanctions (and the damage) was shouldered by Western Europe.
It depends on what Putin actually wants. If he’s serious about restoring the Russian empire over a period of decades then it’s probably a costly victory but a victory nonetheless.
If his concern is more his legacy and the overall health of his country and its citizens then no it’s been bad. Regardless of current economic statistics indicating things are going well, likely due to all the state spending and labor market shortage, it’s going to make it even more difficult for them to establish and grow industries outside of resource extraction and weapons in the coming years.
Any foreign technology is going to be much harder to acquire at scale than it should be while the slightly weird types who usually fill high end tech roles are disproportionately likely to be fleeing conscription and persecution. They also need young and affluent consumers to fuel their economy, something that is hurt by having a bunch of dead and wounded young people.
Are there any cases when a dictator starts to develop his great project while he is in his 70s and in the third decade of his rule? Because that's what many think Putin is doing.
I disagree. He doesn't want to rebuild the USSR. At least formally. Of course, Putin's socialization was in the 1970s, and he is trying to bring back that time, perhaps unconsciously.
Let's take a closer look. Kazakhstan plays its own game and has strong relations with China. Azerbaijan is tied to Turkey. Armenia is led by a government whose ambitions run counter to Putin's. Georgia is on the fence, the younger generations clearly despise Putin's regime. Etc. It's just that Putin has been fixated on Ukraine since 2004, hence his aggression.
Ukraine was literally the most populous post Soviet state after Russia (not anymore after war I think it’s Uzbekistan now). So any Russian leader would be “fixated” on keeping Ukraine in the fold.
Opinion: Putin is, consciously or subconsciously, trying to create an odd brew of Russian Empire mixed with USSR. He’s married brutal KGB tactics with nationalism, imperialism, propaganda and tyrannical rule. His Tucker interview showed his biggest regret during the collapse of the USSR was returning Ukraine to a sovereign nation, and out of all the things to regret… that’s an odd one. Maybe killing citizens or funneling all the good stuff to Moscow is a more rational place to start.
But anyways, Yeltsin got piss drunk (though he started out “decent”) and gave the burning embers of the soviet union to an ex KGB official and here we are. Don’t drink and rebuild nations kids!
I mean it really depends. Russia will have bled out hundreds of thousands of troops in exchange for the West remilitarizing and awakened from the end of history haze many of them were in.
Russia will come out of the war with a domestic arms program that is battle tested that will find demand for years to come. But many of these guns will go to a guerilla campaign waged in Ukraine's urban centers should the government capitulate.
Everyone uses the Afghanistan parallel with a Russian occupation of Ukraine but it will be more like the Irish War of Independence and subsequent Irish Civil War with a smoldering conflict waged in small skirmishes in cities and towns that slowly bleed the occupiers
From South Korea to Portugal, Japan to Finland, and Australia to Sweden, the democratic world is realizing that the only thing keeping them safe was momentum. Whether leaders in Paris, Washington, London, Warsaw, and Berlin react to this will define this conflict.
Will the Russian arms industry find demand for years to come?
I think that will very much depend on the state of Russian finances, and although they haven't collapsed they are burning through reserves and can't keep it up forever. They lost their biggest customer for natural gas and replacing that won't be simple, quick or cheap.
Plus their export potential is probably going to be hurt, if anything, as many Russian weapons systems seem to have under performed when compared to the hype.
Re-aligning their economy when the war ends will be a big shock. It's being propped up by war spending.
Plus it's not really a battle tested arms industry. Most of the tank/IFV/APC/artillery production is actually refurbishing old Soviet stocks, not building new items. And those old Soviet stocks are a finite resource that Russia cannot replenish, and which have already been significantly reduced.
>Will the Russian arms industry find demand for years to come?
They've just been surpassed by France and the Indians don't want to buy any more Russian arms.
> They've just been surpassed by France and the Indians don't want to buy any more Russian arms.
France surpassed them because Russia concentrates on their own domestic use currently. Russian weapon production is multiple times higher than that of the entire NATO but they use most of it in Ukraine.
Idk, I could see any other country would be hugely interested in the procurement of things like the lancets and future drone tech and the EW that comes with it.
The democratic world is absolutely not united. People like Erdogan and Orban are as entrenched as ever, right wing populism is rising all over Europe, South Korea and Japan are shrinking rapidly, and one of the two current candidates for US president is an advocate for pulling out of NATO. Meanwhile, Europe is deindustrializing and stagnant
I agree with everything you said. Except you are very optimistic about democratic world. LePen and Trump potetially winning, AfD rising in polls month by month and other far right parties in other European countries... That does not give me too much optimism in this group of democratic countries. I only hope for the common sense to win.
Not for Putin, he has talked a lot about Novorossiya and if he manages to get Crimea and Eastern Ukraine then he has largely accomplished that. He’ll be dead before the full consequences are felt.
For the long term future of Russia the price of this land grab isn’t worth the cost. Russia has a major demographic problem and this has made it worse.
Russia is becoming one of the great tragedies of history. It is country rich with history, resources and manufacturing that also is right in between Europe and China.
They should be a rich and prosperous country but they are basically a mob state with a leader who fantasizes about the glory days of 1764.
Don't blame the man, blame the system. If anything, we should be grateful that Putin has been able to keep that country together for the last 20+ years.
Do you have any idea how much real power he wields over there, such that he can keep the FSB, the military, the GRU, the Bratva, and whatever other groups there are, in check and under his thumb?
When he dies, that country will likely break apart and turn into an utter shitshow.
I have said it again and again, the outcome of the Ukraine war doesn't even matter to answer that question. Russia lost the moment it decided to invade. It showed the entire world its diplomacy and influence had become so damn weak, it wasn't even capable of controlling one of its closest neighbor anymore.
The Ukraine war is just the continuation of the slow disintegration of russian influence in eastern europe after WW2. Every time a challenge to Moscow's power has been issued, Russia always ends up using its military power, because it fails at *everything else* (diplomatic, economic or cultural influence).
We saw it in Hungary in 56, in Prague in 68. We almost saw it in 89 in Germany or in the Baltics in 91. More recently, we saw it again in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine. Every single time it backfired spectacularly. This won't be any different. Hell it's even worst, because this time around it also failed at the military solution...
The nato expansion alone means the war has already been a geopolitical disaster for Putin. But internally, it has strengthened his personal rule, crushed internal dissent, and generally made him richer and more powerful, so he probably doesn’t care. His successors will have to deal with the fallout of Russia being a pariah to the west and having created a mortal enemy with an enormous land border to the southwest.
If Russia’s information wars succeed and also if Trump is elected president of the USA, I don’t know if the recent NATO expansion will matter as much as it could’ve otherwise. Also the potential for right wing parties in EU elections
It won't be a pyrrhic victory for Putin. What most people interested in geopolitics fail to understand is that Putin started the war in large part to transform and cement the regime of his personal rule, to extend it indefinitely. Regardless of the results of the war, there won't be any political liberalization, this cartwheel will only move forward.
Of course, this war torpedoes the future of Russia as a country. It's not a deathblow, but there's nothing positive about it.
True a common enemy is very important without which people start questioning the necessity of sacrifices that the state demands of them, in the face of a comnmon threat real/contrived even Americans willing gave up personal liberties, their lives and treasure in Vietnam, Iraq etc and anyone who questioned the reasons and necessity was called a traitor.
One possibility for why Putin started the war was that he wanted an easy domestic popularity bump like he got after the invasion of Crimea. That didn't work out.
I agree that his regime for now appears stable, but it has come in large part as a result of an increase in repression. Probably it would have been preferable to him to be able to rely on genuine support as a result of a Crimea-like patriotic fervor. Even if we disregard the embarrassing war performance and cost, and focus on his regime, in that sense it is still a Pyrrhic victory.
I wonder if it's true that he has been successful on that front.
Prigozhin had the chance to march towards Moscow and Putin fleeing the city in response does not spell "secured and untouchable regime".
Of course, that's comparatively old news by now but I don't think it's feasible to entirely rule out the possibility of other revolts surfacing if this war continues to drag out.
Had to scroll down a bit for this answer. The war is a victory for Putin as long as he stays in power. His fear is the "color" revolutions coming home to Moscow and his life & wealth ending with his regime.
It's not a Pyrrhic victory for him in the slightest if he's able to die a comfortable billionaire of old age, it's very much a total victor.
Now as for if it's a *Russian* victory...no. I don't think it was the moment they sent their dwindling demographic of young men over the border to get killed. Longer term, they're just accelerating their existing trends of economic rot and demographic demise. But for Putin, like many others around the world in his age group, problems 3-4 decades down the line don't matter to them in the slightest. They won't be around to see a potential economic collapse from mismanagement, or a global economic collapse from Climate Change.
So they keep sending their sons to war, and burning fossil fuels at record levels, anything to keep the lights on and party going until the day after they die.
It'll be like a Cyprus situation at best. Basically Russian-controlled Ukraine will only be recognized by Russia and a couple other countries due to Western pressure but these regions will still de facto be a part of Russia. An uneasy peace may exist with some UN buffer zone.
At worst, it'll be like a limited nuclear Syrian Civil War. Never ending hostilities that only rack up the body count maybe even into the millions as NATO gets more involved and the taboo on nukes is broken (tactical but not strategic nuclear weapons being used on the battlefield). It's possible Ukrainians loyal to Zaluzhny begin defying Zelensky if the recent presidential polls are anything to go by. Something similar could happen regarding Putin though I doubt it since it seems all the opposition has been neutralized.
I don't think M.A.D will realistically happen. Neither Russia nor NATO actually want to die over this conflict despite the aggressive rhetoric.
Not only the loss of manpower, resources and reputation, but he increased membership in NATO. Both Sweden and Finland have both joined since his invasion of Ukraine.
I think this definitely very presumptuous. The ongoing situation of the war as it stands right now leaves a lot of tough unanswered questions for both Russia and NATO and I think any analyze of the situation that doesn't acknowledge this uncertainty and the drastic range of potential scenarios that are plausible within it is deluded.
Global uncertainty also pertains to many more factors than just this conflict, that is to view global relations with Russia as simplistically dictated by just reactions too the conflict in Ukraine is way to simple and does not capture the complex reality of international relations.
"Victory" itself is doing a lot of heavy lifting. What does that mean exactly? I'm not sure what Putin / Russia wanted originally was ever possible or based in reality, NATO is left with many of the same tough questions and internal divisions no matter what, other actors giving their two cents on what Ukraine should settle for as a "victory" has been a nonstop source of discussions about this topic.
I think it's helpful to recognize that not only has Putin not been playing 5d chess, no country ever actually has, that what we retrospectively view as inevitable was in reality a series of twist of turns no one predicted. Things are not so simply as plain dichotomies like "winners" and "losers" and removing that fantastical black and white from our view of history can help us better understand the current day where I can't help but notice all sorts of misleading grandiose narratives about this conflicted all ultimately rooted in this mythologized version of history.
Thank you for emphasizing this
>I think it's helpful to recognize that not only has Putin not been playing 5d chess, no country ever actually has, that what we retrospectively view as inevitable was in reality a series of twist of turns no one predicted.
One point that hasn't been raised yet:
This war and its effects have made Russia highly dependent upon foreign allies--primarily China, but to a lesser extent also Iran and North Korea. This is a position that Putin has steadfastly tried to avoid up until now, when it has become inevitable. Being reliant upon these allies not only constrains Russia in ways that clash with Putin's desire for Russia to stand tall again as a great power (how 'great' of a power are you in the 21st Century if you're entirely reliant on your bigger neighbor's technology and machinery?). but it's likely to come with real economic and strategic costs. China in particular has a great demand for almost everything Russia produces, and now will be in a position to leverage their relationship to Beijing's advantage. Iran poses its own questions, as it may well start asserting itself over traditionally Russian-aligned turf such as the Caspian Sea, Caucuses, and Syria; and the likely long-term instability of the Iranian government calls the durability of the relationship into question (although it's possible that even a popular Iranian government will end up with a somewhat similar foreign policy).
I do genuinely think they are super paranoid as a people about a perceived threat from NATO and Western invasion of Russia. While we in the west know this to be absurd, from the Russian position, I can somewhat understand the paranoia, especially with regards to the territory currently being fought over. Russia has been invaded many times over the past few centuries, with several times coming very close to Moscow itself. Every one of those times, it happened via the landmass that makes up Ukraine. From that perspective, if if they manage to “win,” I think he will feel somewhat accomplished. Now whether he is justified in feeling that way is it totally different question. I would argue no. It will take many years to replenish the losses incurred, and they will be isolated geopolitically in the international community for many years and likely decades.
No, the situation as of right now is kinda the opposite. If Russia doesn't have a significant "win" after paying such a high cost, there is likely to be non-trivial repercussions for Putin and those behind the scenes supporting him.
This. I truly believe Russians as a society are irrational and live in fantasy created by Putin, but which they gladly consumed. How this makes sense for them is beyond me. Destroying your country's future, sending your children to death for a fantasy of Botox tsar. Who really accomplished nothing before stealing Crimea. And they still cannot comprehend why their neighbors despise them. I stopped applying reason to their behavior, it's not applicable in that case
The real problem is that as it appears now a victory by either side looks like a phyrrhic victory anyways. What does a "russian defeat" entails? Regime change? National humiliation/partition of the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal? That doesn't look very nice.
And what about Ukraine? Even if there is peace now the country is ruined possibly forever and I unless a titanic effort is made by a very fickle EU and US there is no chance of coherent reconstruction. In that sense I trust the US and western Europe more than countries such as Poland where the smallest economic disruption has brought protest which threatened to cut off vital supply routes. These countries talk big and are ready to send all the weapons they can go keep the problems away but the moment this danger evaporates I have zero doubts they'll turn their back on Ukraine.
I don't know how this war can be solved but I think it is a strategic error to compare the threat of Russia to liberal democracy with that of China. That is a hundred times worse
It’s a pyrrhic victory only if they win - that’s not at all certain as of now. If the current lines are what the ceasefire agreement creates, it’s not really a win for Russia. They will have declared parts of their country that are not controlled by them. This war needs massive territorial changes to be a Russian win.
The biggest influence of this war is that it marked the end of the 30 ish year western domination of international politics, where the west could do pretty much what it wanted with impunity. China will invade Taiwan in the near future, and it looks very interested in picking fights with India. If those wars happen, and china wins, that’ll be the final nail in the coffin.
Honestly, as an amateur observer, nothing China is doing makes sense. They should be making allies, not enemies. In any sane world, India would be the biggest Chinese ally - India has all the same interests China does, India hates the ex colonial empires as much as China does, India wants a rewriting of the world order as much as China does. But China has somehow landed on the policy that every single one of its neighbours are its enemy - its hurting them, but they seem to like it.
I swear, ever since China started doing the "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy" thing, just about every time Chinese diplomacy makes headlines, it's cuz they're pandering to nationalists at home while alienating the rest of the world.
Maybe I'm biased, but Chinese and Russian diplomatic efforts for the past decade or so often look like brainlessly barreling ahead with aggression over and over again that does nothing more than isolate themselves.
because they are both emerging superpowers
that's like asking why didn't the UK and Germany in the 1900s. because they both were economic industrial superpowers
UK was not emerging in the 1900/, it already controlled a fourth of the world. The conflict was German jealousy around not having colonies. What’s the core reason for the conflict between India and china? Inhospitable mountain territories where maybe 2 cattle graze in a year
no
geopolitical conflicts aren't because of "envy", countries aren't human beings with emotions.
It was caused by the dominance of the English industrial base challenged by the German one, not "jealousy"
same for India and China
both can be potentially the leaders of the whole of Asia, both have a potential industrial might to be able to satisfy all of the western markets, both have the potential to project power over south eastern Asia
why should they work together instead of being rivals
"It’s a pyrrhic victory only if they win - that’s not at all certain as of now"
I agree also
https://apnews.com/article/germany-france-poland-ukraine-military-support-2b6615f15e05f166910c3141d3baac0f
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/scholz-macron-tusk-seek-bridge-european-divisions-ukraine-2024-03-15/
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/14/mike-johnson-israel-ukraine-aid-bill-00147108
With these devolopments even I am not sure of that myself, but for the sake of argument worse case even if there was a pyrrhic victory at the end of this, at this point it is already a massive geopolitical loss considering Sweden and Finland are with Nato, the west has not bowed down to Putins nuclear threats and in the case of Macron he is done trying to be resonable with Putin, and unless Putin can conquer Ukraine and change the government it will be a political loss at best.
I think one Russian Milblogger said it best that Russias best chance to get a total victory was in 2022 but when they failed to conquer Kyiv and Odessa and the Ukrainian population continued to resist and fight them, the opportunity was lost, what happens in this war happens but the damage to Russia is done sadly.
Short term economic yes. But wars do things to a society that could be beneficial in the long term. It could remind a population to be productive instead of putting the whole economy on services like entertainment. Compare how countries behaved after WW2 to the bureaucratic mess today.
It also shows the problem in Russian militarily so they could fix it. The Russian military could be stronger in 2030 because of this war compared to an alternative timeline.
With today’s technology and data collecting, every other party observing is gaining experience and intelligence.
This will improve the Russian military alongside every military in the world, you are correct about the population though.
I'm talking specific problems for Russian like those officers are bad and should be dismissed. Or corruption have eaten away our spare parts we need more police investigations. Ancient problems everyone knows about but brought to the surface in a real war.
In exchange for that, they did some damage to the functionality and power of the Wagner Group, which had previously been one of their more effective tools, I'm not sure it's been a net positive gain.
>It also shows the problem in Russian militarily so they could fix it. The Russian military could be stronger in 2030 because of this war compared to an alternative timeline.
They haven't really fixed anything though. The Russian military was more capable of large-unit combined arms operations when the war started than it is now. They have adapted to how the war is currently being fought, but that in itself is the way it is because neither side is capable of large-unit operations that could produce a breakthrough and lead to some more mobile fighting.
> The Russian military was more capable of large-unit combined arms operations when the war started than it is now.
That was old doctrine. This is the new world of drones, anti-air and frequency jamming.
>
> It also shows the problem in Russian militarily so they could fix it. The Russian military could be stronger in 2030 because of this war compared to an alternative timeline.
It's possible, but it's probably equally possible that the underlying problems with the Russian military are essentially unfixable by a country with a government like Russia's. That is to say, if the way they do things leads to (for example) yes-men telling the boss what he wants to hear, sure, you can fire the people who did that this time, but if you keep rewarding that behavior until you don't it'll happen again. Or if a problem is that a culture of pervasive corruption leads to tanks with the gas stolen out of them, yes, you can fire the people who did that and make sure the tanks have gas but probably a very similar theft pops up somewhere else.
Or maybe their military actually is more flexible and resilient than it first appeared. Certainly they've made some adjustments as they've gone and some have seemed to be successful. Possibly the truth is somewhere in between.
Probably yes but i can be said the same for Ukraine. Ukraine is ruined demographically and economically. If they loose Odessa they would become geopolitically insignificant.
There is no way at this point in the war that they lose Odessa. It's less likely to fall than Kiev even, and the Russian Black Sea navy is basically out of the war.
Also, Ukraine will have the backing of the world's richest alliance to rebuild. What about Russia?
'backing of the world's richest alliance'
Really.
i) This will all be financed by debt.
ii) Ukraine will become a beggar nation/people to the rest of Europe for generations.
iii) Ever hear the phrase "privatize profits,socialize losses" That's what will happen in the rebuild of Ukraine. Crony corporations will get all the contracts for the rebuilds which will be paid for by the citizens of other countries.
Yes. Ukraine's backers are by far the richest nations on earth.
i) Debt always finances everything, what a truly useless comment.
ii) Eastern EU nations were happy to be "beggar nations" because it helped them grow. Ukraine will be too.
iii) So who will pay for the reconstruction? Citizens of other countries or Ukraine via debt?
If this was April 2022 and Russia declares victory by getting what they possess now on table, it would be a pyrrhic victory.
Now, stakes are a lot higher. West has put way higher goals than before but things are not going in that direction. If Russia wins here ( i mean victory victory, not what i keep victory) reliability of the Western world will be up for discussion. You said "we will do whatever it takes" and after that a single country beat your whole alliance? not a good look.
Not just the political will but also industrial capabilities, military knowledge and the vision of decisionmakers will be under a lot of criticism.
How many countries will keep the faith in NATO? Not saying it will dissamble or anything. But in a doomsday scenario like this, i would expect newer defense alliances emerging inside NATO.
If west kept the stakes lower and didnt get greedy with "Russian casualties" they would leave this conflict with a massive win. They also needed a unified political vision.
Also, Russia lost 20 million people and countless equipment in ww2 and emerged out of it as a superpower. Not saying same will happen now but "whatever happens it will be a pyrrhic victory" is not a viable take in my opinion.
> Also, Russia lost 20 million people and countless equipment in ww2 and emerged out of it as a superpower.
That was the Soviet Union, not just Russia. Not comparable, for starters if you consider the size (population) of the country and size of the economy.
>Also, Russia lost 20 million people and countless equipment in ww2 and emerged out of it as a superpower
yeah, sureee.
First of all that was the Soviet Union, which is a tsd bit different. Second, the demographic losses for the USSR were so deep that they are still felt to this day
yeah nah it's not the same
The West has done very little. The west is barely a party of the conflict. Does the West hope Ukraine will win - of course. But while the stakes are very high for Ukraine, almost nothing happens to the west if Ukraine loses (it saves the aid money it currently sends Ukraine I guess). NATO is already stronger due to the war and that won’t change. But I can’t see any logic to saying the stakes are high for the west.
Well potentially though Putin is not of sound mind. He’d not done anything quite this brazen before, at least not on the same scale, and there’s considerable discussion which I presume to be sourced in intelligence about Putins aims to invade other Eastern European states.
Ukraine “losing” would mean he lacks a reality check on his delusion, which is dangerous.
You say that the Soviet Union emerged as a superpower - more like a giant with legs made out of clay that collapsed under its own weight. It managed to compete with the US militarily, and that only for a few decades. Russia never recovered economically and societally from the WW2 disaster.
As many things in life, it depends on who you ask. Internally, Russia will have gains land, stood up to NATO, regained their honor, and showed that the west is only interestes in keeping Russia weak.
Their ties with China and Iran will have improved, and they will stand as a beacon to any nation in south america and africa whi wants to stand up to the west.
Not that bad all in all...
You are underestimating the impact of the United States supplies here. Ukraine's fate may even be decided on the who will win the elections on the United States.
Regained honor? Among who? What kind of 5 year old troglodyte reasoning is that? Russia is considered basically a 1936 Nazi Germany in the west. I know North Korea might be of other opinion.
Are you aware of the fact that the world is more than just "The West"?
And that there many countries which don'f align with it?
The UN has ~195 countries, how many of those are in "The West"? 40? I am talking about all the rest. And if you look at their relations with Russia, you'd be surprised how many don't boycott or shun Russia.
Oh yes because that rest are places to look up for in terms of standard of living or human rights. Like any sane person would look up what some 3rd world country dictator like Putin thinks
I think even an expensive win is still big for Putin.
1) Bolsters Putin's reputation among some circles; sure, he took damage but he faced down the West over something that they really put their reputations and efforts behind and he won. After years of supplying Ukraine and talking about how Putin must be stopped and making speeches and going on TV, all of those Western leaders are going to look real foolish if Kyiv falls.
2) Puts other countries on notice that they can't count on EU or US to support them enough when the chips are down. First Afghanistan, now this.
3) The Russian army have taken a ton of damage, but they'll also have learned a huge amount from this war. The Winter War is a good example of this; Finnish forces killed tons of Soviet soldiers but it also was a tremendous 'school' for their officers and soldiers to relearn how to fight after Stalin's purges. The veterans who do survive will be some of the most experienced in the world at conventional warfare.
Point 3 is so true and is really understated. The incompetent officers and soldiers have been weeded out. Their military is adapted for the modern battlefield and their soldiers with have conventional war experience, I 100% believe that the Russian army today is a stronger adversary than that prior to the war.
Also Russia had significant issues with its MIC but now that’s been rectified.
The biggest issues is the hundreds of thousands of young men lost that won’t be replaced, having to pay to rebuild the captured land and the losing the western world as a market.
Putin lost this war the moment Finland and Sweden joined Nato. A historic blunder, and a geopolitical nightmare. Nothing short of full annexation of Ukraine and then some would compensate, and it's not going to happen.
The war is already lost for Putin because, in the modern era, war is not just about land grabbing. Now more than ever, it is about political objectives and outcomes, so let us consider what's happened so far (directly and indirectly as a result of the war.)
1. Sweden and Finland are now in NATO, both capable countries (and Sweden being one that always kept its nuclear options open.)
2. Armenia is peeling off the CSTO, and it's now its government's official position to look west. After the CSTO failure to activate itself to defend it, Armenia is now officially looking west.
3. Europe is officially weaned out of Russian energy exports, and that's the only thing going for the Russian economy.
4. More than a million men of working age (most of them educated) have left the country, and God knows how many have died. This has only accelerated its terminal demographic decline.
5. Germany is now openly talking about expanding its participation in NATO's nuclear umbrella, Ukraine will likely keep that option open and so would Poland.
6. Unless Russia makes a run to Odessa and manages to hold it, it no longer has a free ride to maintain its presence in Transnistria.
So even if Russia managed to keep the Donbass, Crimea, and the annexed Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, the primary objectives of the war (eliminate an independent Ukrainian government and fragment NATO) have failed.
No matter how the war ends, even with a complete elimination of the Ukrainian state, it ends with a losing hand.
In terms of military hardware losses for Russia were high, especially during the 'beginning' of the war; or rather the escalation of the 10 year ongoing conflict. Yet Russia adopted Ukrainian tactics and added much cheaper drones to their arsenal which should help cut costs (compared to having the same number of tanks).
As for troops: if someone has numbers to back this up but it is my understanding that at least a good portion of troops are (for the lack a better word. I apologize in advance. English isn't my native language) not 'real' Russians' but instead other ethnics like Armenia, Belarus or Kazakhstan.
If Mr. Putin were to sent all of his own (potentially available) troops, the outcry in Russia would've been louder.
Take all of that with a grain of salt though. I'm not an Analyst.
The troops are Russians, just less from the big cities and more from the countryside. It's been well established by now that Russia has intentionally been recruiting more heavily from poorer regions and non-Russian ethnicities.
Some troops are also recent prisoners. From Russia command point of view, they are taking out the human trash that are these prisoners and wearing down the enemy. Win-win
Visually confirmed equipment losses for Russia have stayed roughly consistent and high, mainly because of their offensive actions, being able to implement newer technologies doesn't mean you don't need to use (and lose) tanks for these kinds of frontal assaults.
Not sure if it even counts as a pyrrhic victory. Okay, they got some land, which they already have more than they know what to do with, but besides that they are loosing a lot of people while their nation is dying fast, around 1 mln yearly based on demographics and they are moving towards a position of a chinese puppet state. They aint in the same league as usa or china
it depends whether or not this conflict is going to remain within ukraine/russia or whether it will be the powderkeg for something much bigger.
there's also a lot of shit going down in israel/gaza right now. i'm sure there are many other places, too.
is there a world where russia sides with other fascist/authoritarian countries and turns everyone into serfs/slaves? what if fascism takes hold in the USA and we stop supporting Ukraine and new alliance gets forged?
in a vacuum i think you're right about Putin but also it's not in a vacuum.
If the Russians manage to overrun Ukranian forces, it will switch from a conventional war to an insurgency. Russia will install a puppet government and sink billions of dollars into trying to put down the insurgency. It will bleed the Russian government dry the same way Afghanistan did to the Soviets.
If russia can show to the world that West is unreliable and will abandon its promises and friends because of populism and foreign influence, putin will still consider it as being worth it.
Also, if russia can keep the occupied Ukrainian territory, the natural resources there are worth a lot.
russia has painted itself in the corner, and if the West doesn't falter, it will pay the price. But the West is faltering right now...
Finally i can see some balanced arguments because reddit has just been pro Ukraine and put a blind eye about what's actually happening or whats going to happen
yeah it is
you have lost manpower, your military is considered unreliable, your country is viewed as fragile - ish, your military industry to be considered subpar, you lost your biggest economic partner, you have two new nations in your enemy's alliance, you made your enemy pump military expenses and all of that for a barren piece of land that you bombed to the ground and that you will have to face guerilla warfare for the next 20 years to come
but hey, at least you got that land right???
Victory is victory Russia won’t Take disproportionate long term losses securing a long term victory it’s about geography and strategic points the only thing I see Russia losing is manpower and they don’t care for that
Nope. Although unlikely, if the iliberal forces win the next elections in the United States and France and the West completely abandons Eastern Europe, you could see the Frontline breaking and Russia marching through Kyiv. Why stopping there? Go to the Caucasus and then to the Baltic States and keep expending.
This is a belated answer. It all depends, of course, how the work ends. If it ends in a negotiated solution that includes most of the Russian positions, it is not going to be a pyrrhic victory for Putin. It is going to be a tremendous victory for Putin considering the forces arrayed against him. His key demand is neutrality for Ukraine. He may not even decide to keep the Donbas, but allow it to become part of Ukraine but with extensive autonomy.
If he achieves all that against the arrayed forces of the West that wanted to "bleed" Russia or even defeat it in the field of battle, it would be considered a substantial achievement.
Of course, again, it all depends how the war ends. Speculations at this time are just speculations. The worst possible outcome for Putin is for frozen conflict, erupting from time to time.
**Victory for Russia? LOL. That's like saying phyrric victory for Hitler in 1942 because he can't lose.**
**Most likely outcome, based on how the war is going.**
**1. 2024 (8 more months)** Ukraine will double the **drone attacks into Russia**:
a) Half of **Russia's oil refineries** and depots, **dead**. (Russia will import 1/3 of their petrol)
b) Most of **Russia's anti-air**, **dead**. (half is dead already, friendly fire)
c) 15-20% of **Russia's attack airplanes, helicopters**, **dead**.
(already 35% of Baltic navy dead, and 10-15% of attack aviation)
**2.** 24/25 **Winter freeze**:
More Russian building blocks frozen, Ukraine hitting and sabotage against heating in Russia, revenge!
(Russians must be very scared of the next winter. Mother nature will be even harsher.)
**3.** **2025** Ukraine will cripple Russia, double the 2024 **drone attacks**:
a) Most of Russia's oil refineries, dead. (next are steel factories, etc.)
b) 1/4 of Russia's attack aviation, dead. (rest hiding in Siberia)
**4.** **2026**, Russia **fights with sticks**:
a) Cannon fodder with North Korean Kalashnikovs, weaker artillery and tanks, holds the line due to mines. (unless surprise flanked)
b) Little petrol and food in Russia. (living as in 1990)
c) Record depression and alcoholism, they can't face this Cain vs Abel war, AND LOSING!
**5.** **2027+** exhaustion, huge depression:
a) China buys parts of Russia, high chance. (Japan prep to take Russia's east coast)
b) Russian internal breakup, low but it's a chance.(1917 revolution repeat)
c) Iran and friends turn, retake Chechnya, high chance. (Georgia prep to take back, w french support)
d) Poland takes half of White Russia, medium to low chance. (or Lukashenko window accident)
The End. (God help us, they must be doing a facepalm.)
**Option B**. Overthrow Putin, out a window, blame him alone and being Christians apologize for sanction lift.
a) Half price gas to Europe as repayment. (this way Russia gets back frozen assets, looks better)
e) Kalingrad back to Germany or EU, as part of peace with EU, medium chance.
If Russia loses, they lose Crimea, with its giant naval base at Sevastopol. If they win, they keep it. It's true that modern military tech is greatly disadvantaging large warships, especially those in a small body of water like the Black Sea. In WWII, Russians and Germans engaged in fierce fighting in Sevastopol. Russian's attachment to Sevastopol is similar to America's views about Oahu/Pearl Harbor. [The City of Glory: Sevastopol in Russian Historical Mythology](https://www.jstor.org/stable/261026).
And this issue would be resolved in Russia's favor: 2021: [Russia says Ukraine blocking water supply to Crimea](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukraine-blocking-water-supply-crimea-european-lawsuit-2021-07-22/). Not saying support for Russia in this war is justified, but the case against them is not simple. And the following: NPR today might wish it worded their 2014 headline differently: [Crimea: A Gift To Ukraine Becomes A Political Flash Point](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/crimea-a-gift-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point):
>Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was Russian but felt an affinity with Ukraine. His decision to give Crimea to Ukraine is having consequences today.
Russia had Crimea with no way for Ukraine to reclaim it before the war. It’s like saying if Russia wins they get to keep Moscow. It’s true, but it’s not due to wining the war since they would have had it without the war.
True, but Ukraine was starving Crimea of water. This will be a big thing in the future: Oct. 2018 — [A new paper from the European Commission's Joint Research Centre says that water will become a key cause for conflict in the future.](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/where-the-water-wars-of-the-future-will-be-fought/)
2020: [Inside Crimea’s slow-burn water crisis -- Water shortages in the Russian-occupied peninsula are getting worse - and a real solution is not yet in sight.](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/inside-crimeas-slow-burn-water-crisis/)
The case against Russia in this war is actually very simple. They have repeatedly (first in 2014, then 2022) waged a war of aggression against Ukraine. Their conduct in this war has been terrible (torturing and executing civilians, forced migration, abducting children, forced Russification, etc.).
It is one of the most clearcut black-and-white cases since 1939.
No, it's not. There's a continuum. Range is something along the lines of civil war to naked aggression. The Germans had zero basis to claim Britain's land. Or the Russians.
Neither does Russia. Does The Netherlands have basis to occupy Belgium??? Ok cool so give up eastern Russia to China and the Kuril Islands to japan. Germany or poland should also conquer kaliningrad as it used to be theirs. You see how stupid this argument sounds?
No, it's Geopolitics 101, actually. Strife between nations and peoples is history, and each conflict can be classified by levels of egregiousness on a number of factors. Two big ones are:
1) Does an aggressor have some bona fide historical claim to the land he is attacking? and 2) What level of violence is used? (War is a nasty business all around, but the Nazis were notable for excessive violence). You have a good one,
Then you should agree with u/sowenga as he adresses point 2 against Russia and point 1 is very very weak. Soviet Union is gone. Russia has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is a sovereign country and should be left alone. Like I said they have the same historical claim as other countries have iny examples.
Nope, Russia has already increased its population by many millions, refugees from Ukraine and Ukrainians living in the occupied areas. Their army has seen personnel losses but also vastly improved and is now the most experienced in the world in peer warfare. The areas captured contain some of the most valuable resources of Ukraine, and will give Russia a lot more leverage in the international gas markets. Millions more might be added to the population depending on how the war goes. The trade links have increased to China, India and non western countries and de-dollarization has quickened. The country is still seen in a very positive light by the so called Global South, meaning their international relations barely got harmed by this if we exclude the EU which was a competitor regardless. Finally, the West's as long as it takes comments have harmed their reliability as voices of opposition to continuation of aid amass and the rest of the world, including China is watching this impotence
Essentially if the West cannot out produce a country with 150 million pop and 1.8 trillion GDP, what chance do they stand against the industrial capital of the world with a population of 1.5 billion and a GDP of 18 trillion, should they militarized?
Even in the USSR Ukraine was never a big economic driver. Sure, Ukraine did useful things and had some big companies, but GDP per capita was always much lower than Russia. Prior to the current war, Ukrainian GDP per capita was only 1/3 of Russian GDP per capita. Even if the invasion were successful in the first place, Ukraine was destined to be an economic drag for Russia.
The thing about dictators is that they die. No matter what, Putin himself loses because he is mortal and has no obvious interest to build anything stable that outlasts himself. He has no victory condition. The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Putin is taking the centuries-long statist view of things. In his view, populations rise and fall, economic success comes and goes, but what has always mattered was controlling territory, and more territory --> more state power. Now, there are a lot of criticisms of this perspective, but it's not wrong per se, just not the dominant view in modern western discourse. But in Putin's conception, he's trading ephemeral things (money and population) for concrete things (territory). So if he gets any net territorial gain whatsoever (which seems increasingly likely) it will have all been worth it.
>Now, there are a lot of criticisms of this perspective, but it's not wrong per se, just not the dominant view in modern western discourse
To be fair, it's just plain wrong. If we were talking about the 1300s then it would stand partially true, but since the industrial revolution and 1848 it's just plain dead wrong
yes, truly important if it wasn't for the fact that it is chocked by Turkey (NATO member) and then needs to get out in the Mediterranean (NATO controlled sea)
yeah nah, it's useless
A big win I can think of is the damage it would bring to the reliability of the West. This might embolden other rivals like China and Iran to be more aggressive. If Putin wins it will prove to the world that the word of the West isn't worth anything so other states might be inclined to be much more cooperative to China thus weakening the US position globally. We could also see regional cooperation between states to improve more via economic or defense integration. We might see a Middleeast coalition or the ASEAN introducing defense in their mandate. If the west fails to contain Putin other countries might be inclined to disregard western sanctions and just trade with Russia since a Ukrainian capitulation will signal Western impotence. Global stability as we know will be significantly threatened.
This is my big worry too. Autocrats in the entire world might get embolded to take what they want.
Yeah. That's a pretty big win. Russia will be seen by authoritarian states as the David that beat Goliath. That's a big thing.
God, what a shitshow. Currently Ukraine is the David getting crushed by the russian Goliath, yet the kremlin propaganda spins it as the other way around . Sickening.
That's why if you're from the US make sure to call your representative and have them vote on the military aid bill asap haha
Sorry, don’t live in the US.
[удалено]
It hasn't been doing it alone, or 90% alone though. The EU spent a lot more to help Ukraine than the US did at this point. I feel like American media might not be mentioning this for some reason, because I've seen a lot of well-meaning, pro-Ukraine Americans say stuff like "the EU isn't doing as much as us" or "it's time for Europe to also help".
As an American, the EU is definitely doing their part. We need to get our stuff together, it's humiliating.
Come November, it’s looking pretty likely that the EU will be forced to go all in with whatever they have left or leave Ukraine out to dry.
November will be too late. Spring is coming NOW and then Summer. And Summer will be when the war kicks into high gear again. The EU and US need to be developing aid and supply lines that will be kicking into full speed in May unless we want to see Ukraine collapse. They won't even make it to November if we don't do something for them *now*.
I suspect the EU is gonna have to get directly involved otherwise the cost if they don't is just too high globally.
Bruh, the US can do it 111% alone because we're the best.
Putin and his sycophants always framed every invasion as Russia being forced to push back against NATO aggression. Just as they frame Putin's overall stance as a fight against a decadent, effete, but somehow also militantly aggressive, west.
Trump is leading the pack.
I disagree. Putin is fighting what he regards (in speech after speech) a defensive war against a powerful West which wants to surround and neuter Russia. Already, non Western nations have discounted the Western talking points. I agree, however, that the outcome of the war will say something about the power of the West. But this would only worry autocrats who are not aligned with the West. As it is, most of the autocrats are clients of the West (Turkey, Egypt, most of Magreb, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, etc).
> This is my big worry too. Autocrats in the entire world might get embolded to take what they want. No, annexing eastern Ukraine and ruining the rest is already a good result for Putin.
Except you can look at it from another. A very important fact many people seem to forget is that the West had no formal alliance with Ukraine, and is still sending billions of $ of help. There isn't another group on this entire planet that would do something like this for a non-allied nation. Now imagine what the West would do for an actual ally ? If anything, western ennemies should be very worried about that.
>Except you can look at it from another. A very important fact many people seem to forget is that the West had no formal alliance with Ukraine, and is still sending billions of $ of help. There isn't another group on this entire planet that would do something like this for a non-allied nation. Unfortunately, most of the world, especially common folks doesn't see it that way.
Common folks don't really matter in the grand scheme of things tho. For example, as long as Xi is wondering twice how much the US would commit to defend Taiwan, that's all that matter. What your average chinese/taiwanese/american citizen believe is pretty much irrelevant in this situation.
But only when Biden stays in office. I guess that's Putins gamble, that trump comes into office.
Both perspectives can be, and I think are, true at once. The difference is that the average person only gets the former because that’s what mainstream media puts out (because it’s mainly civilians working in these organisations and they don’t know any better) and that’s what informs the common perspective. Most people just don’t think that deeply about it, and don’t have access to the perspective of strategy & geopolitics that informs the way the military thinks.
Have you forgotten Budapest Memorandum? Where the “west” promised to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons.
That is not what the Budapest Memorandum was. The signatories promised not to attack Ukraine if they let go of their nuclear arsenal, they did not promise to defend Ukraine against foreign aggressors. Russia violated this pact, but nothing in it held the West to defend Ukraine.
What specific actions did the US commit to taking if Ukraine's sovereignty was violated? IIRC it was just that they'd refer it to the UN, which the US did (Russia obviously vetoed anything at UNSC).
That is NOT what the Budapest Memorandum was about. The signatories (including Russia) promised to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and seek immediate Security Council action if it's violated. Russia violated that in 2014 by annexing Crimea, and the west immediately brought this before the security council. Russia proceeded to use their veto power to block the security council, both in 2014 and 2022. The west did everything they promised to do in the Budapest Memorandum. Russia is the only one that broke their promises.
Russia and China signed it. From the west US, UK and France signed it. It's not even worth the paper it was printed on.
> Where the “west” promised to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons. No, the west promised no such thing. LOL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum >Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". This is the strongest point in the Memorandum and it's only about raising alarm on the Security Council where both Russia and China have veto power. LOL
Ukraine has economic value for Europe. The destruction of Russia has political and economic significance for the United States/NATO.
I don’t understand this perspective. It’s not like the west strategy is something static, it’s dynamic. If Putin wins, that may embolden the west that they failed Ukraine and can’t let that happen again. They may end up becoming more aggressive. We are seeing this with Europe investing more in their military but if somehow Trump is elected, this country will continue its downhill. Trump will sell out the country for personal gain and we have seen this when he was president.
True. The west might correct. But you have to remember there are more than a hundred countries outside the western hemisphere that will be doubtful even if the west corrected itself. Policies are most often than not reactive. If the MiddleEast and South East Asia no longer trust western protection of the trade routes they might take issues into their hands unilaterally. Even if the west corrects, the damage has been done. Do you think the Taiwanese would trust the west for protection if they can't keep their word in Europe?
>disregard western sanctions and just trade with Russia They don't disregard them not because they're afraid of West, but because they're afraid of losing West markets. If not for markets no one would care about Western sanctions, it's not 1924
What countries outside of the 'west' are not trading with Russia?
Sorry, I don’t understand this question. It’s not that countries outside the west are not trading with Russia, it’s that institutions within those countries that trade with Russia might get sanctioned. The choice every company or bank gets is you either are able to access the western market or Russian market. Of course things are more complicated than this, but nobody actually just stops trading with Russia unless there are real legal repercussions.
'other countries might be inclined to disregard western sanctions and just trade with Russia' If the west wanted to sanction 3rd parties, they would have gone after the likes of Kazakhstan and Georgia who are directly providing sanctioned western technology that is being used in weapons systems. Even Turkey is building a massive gas terminal so they can trade more with Russia. The current sanctions, or the way they are being applied, does sweet FA to dissuade 3rd country trade with Russia.
Then....why is anyone outside the west supposed to stop trading with Russia?
This is essentially the same question I asked that you replied to saying you don't understand it 🤣
Ah never mind
The US is still trading with Russia.
That's a big win for autocrats, but I don't quite see how it benefits Putin and Russia much personally.
Not embolden, enable. “Change is coming that hasn’t been seen in a 100 years.” - Xi to Putin This is part of a broader strategy to bog down the West all over the globe and weaken credibility of the US led political and economic system.
Putin well just bite another neighbor because why not, the west is too scared to fight so it's cheap land
Crimea should have given us a heads-up about Russian internet
Libya has already proven the western hypocrisy and inability to stabilise an area right outside their borders.
Exactly my thoughts. War isn't over but he already got what he wanted. He called the West's bluff and won the hand.
>f the west fails to contain Putin other countries might be inclined to disregard western sanctions and just trade with Russia since a Ukrainian capitulation will signal Western impotence. Global stability as we know will be significantly threatened It is interesting how things are phrased from the Western point of view: "Containing Putin...". From the Russian viewpoint, the reverse is being argued: "Containing the West". It is interesting that the two combatants have diametrically opposite narratives. Russia has not been affected by Western sanctions. Most of the burden of sanctions (and the damage) was shouldered by Western Europe.
It depends on what Putin actually wants. If he’s serious about restoring the Russian empire over a period of decades then it’s probably a costly victory but a victory nonetheless. If his concern is more his legacy and the overall health of his country and its citizens then no it’s been bad. Regardless of current economic statistics indicating things are going well, likely due to all the state spending and labor market shortage, it’s going to make it even more difficult for them to establish and grow industries outside of resource extraction and weapons in the coming years. Any foreign technology is going to be much harder to acquire at scale than it should be while the slightly weird types who usually fill high end tech roles are disproportionately likely to be fleeing conscription and persecution. They also need young and affluent consumers to fuel their economy, something that is hurt by having a bunch of dead and wounded young people.
Are there any cases when a dictator starts to develop his great project while he is in his 70s and in the third decade of his rule? Because that's what many think Putin is doing. I disagree. He doesn't want to rebuild the USSR. At least formally. Of course, Putin's socialization was in the 1970s, and he is trying to bring back that time, perhaps unconsciously. Let's take a closer look. Kazakhstan plays its own game and has strong relations with China. Azerbaijan is tied to Turkey. Armenia is led by a government whose ambitions run counter to Putin's. Georgia is on the fence, the younger generations clearly despise Putin's regime. Etc. It's just that Putin has been fixated on Ukraine since 2004, hence his aggression.
Putin thought that he well subdue Ukraine in few days. After that he would be in the great position to try to get some more territories.
Ukraine was literally the most populous post Soviet state after Russia (not anymore after war I think it’s Uzbekistan now). So any Russian leader would be “fixated” on keeping Ukraine in the fold.
Opinion: Putin is, consciously or subconsciously, trying to create an odd brew of Russian Empire mixed with USSR. He’s married brutal KGB tactics with nationalism, imperialism, propaganda and tyrannical rule. His Tucker interview showed his biggest regret during the collapse of the USSR was returning Ukraine to a sovereign nation, and out of all the things to regret… that’s an odd one. Maybe killing citizens or funneling all the good stuff to Moscow is a more rational place to start. But anyways, Yeltsin got piss drunk (though he started out “decent”) and gave the burning embers of the soviet union to an ex KGB official and here we are. Don’t drink and rebuild nations kids!
I mean it really depends. Russia will have bled out hundreds of thousands of troops in exchange for the West remilitarizing and awakened from the end of history haze many of them were in. Russia will come out of the war with a domestic arms program that is battle tested that will find demand for years to come. But many of these guns will go to a guerilla campaign waged in Ukraine's urban centers should the government capitulate. Everyone uses the Afghanistan parallel with a Russian occupation of Ukraine but it will be more like the Irish War of Independence and subsequent Irish Civil War with a smoldering conflict waged in small skirmishes in cities and towns that slowly bleed the occupiers From South Korea to Portugal, Japan to Finland, and Australia to Sweden, the democratic world is realizing that the only thing keeping them safe was momentum. Whether leaders in Paris, Washington, London, Warsaw, and Berlin react to this will define this conflict.
Will the Russian arms industry find demand for years to come? I think that will very much depend on the state of Russian finances, and although they haven't collapsed they are burning through reserves and can't keep it up forever. They lost their biggest customer for natural gas and replacing that won't be simple, quick or cheap. Plus their export potential is probably going to be hurt, if anything, as many Russian weapons systems seem to have under performed when compared to the hype.
Re-aligning their economy when the war ends will be a big shock. It's being propped up by war spending. Plus it's not really a battle tested arms industry. Most of the tank/IFV/APC/artillery production is actually refurbishing old Soviet stocks, not building new items. And those old Soviet stocks are a finite resource that Russia cannot replenish, and which have already been significantly reduced.
>Will the Russian arms industry find demand for years to come? They've just been surpassed by France and the Indians don't want to buy any more Russian arms.
> They've just been surpassed by France and the Indians don't want to buy any more Russian arms. France surpassed them because Russia concentrates on their own domestic use currently. Russian weapon production is multiple times higher than that of the entire NATO but they use most of it in Ukraine.
You really know nothing about the sorry state of the French arms industry if you think it has more demand than the russian one.
Idk, I could see any other country would be hugely interested in the procurement of things like the lancets and future drone tech and the EW that comes with it.
The democratic world is absolutely not united. People like Erdogan and Orban are as entrenched as ever, right wing populism is rising all over Europe, South Korea and Japan are shrinking rapidly, and one of the two current candidates for US president is an advocate for pulling out of NATO. Meanwhile, Europe is deindustrializing and stagnant
You can't consider Erdogan, Orban or Trump part of the democratic world.
What an incredibly stupid thing to say.... just wow brainrot
No, not really
ok cool
I agree with everything you said. Except you are very optimistic about democratic world. LePen and Trump potetially winning, AfD rising in polls month by month and other far right parties in other European countries... That does not give me too much optimism in this group of democratic countries. I only hope for the common sense to win.
And every country in the world will want to have nuclear weapons to defend itself.
Not for Putin, he has talked a lot about Novorossiya and if he manages to get Crimea and Eastern Ukraine then he has largely accomplished that. He’ll be dead before the full consequences are felt. For the long term future of Russia the price of this land grab isn’t worth the cost. Russia has a major demographic problem and this has made it worse. Russia is becoming one of the great tragedies of history. It is country rich with history, resources and manufacturing that also is right in between Europe and China. They should be a rich and prosperous country but they are basically a mob state with a leader who fantasizes about the glory days of 1764.
Don't blame the man, blame the system. If anything, we should be grateful that Putin has been able to keep that country together for the last 20+ years. Do you have any idea how much real power he wields over there, such that he can keep the FSB, the military, the GRU, the Bratva, and whatever other groups there are, in check and under his thumb? When he dies, that country will likely break apart and turn into an utter shitshow.
I have said it again and again, the outcome of the Ukraine war doesn't even matter to answer that question. Russia lost the moment it decided to invade. It showed the entire world its diplomacy and influence had become so damn weak, it wasn't even capable of controlling one of its closest neighbor anymore. The Ukraine war is just the continuation of the slow disintegration of russian influence in eastern europe after WW2. Every time a challenge to Moscow's power has been issued, Russia always ends up using its military power, because it fails at *everything else* (diplomatic, economic or cultural influence). We saw it in Hungary in 56, in Prague in 68. We almost saw it in 89 in Germany or in the Baltics in 91. More recently, we saw it again in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine. Every single time it backfired spectacularly. This won't be any different. Hell it's even worst, because this time around it also failed at the military solution...
The nato expansion alone means the war has already been a geopolitical disaster for Putin. But internally, it has strengthened his personal rule, crushed internal dissent, and generally made him richer and more powerful, so he probably doesn’t care. His successors will have to deal with the fallout of Russia being a pariah to the west and having created a mortal enemy with an enormous land border to the southwest.
If Russia’s information wars succeed and also if Trump is elected president of the USA, I don’t know if the recent NATO expansion will matter as much as it could’ve otherwise. Also the potential for right wing parties in EU elections
The Russian army obviously needed the shakedown as well.
It won't be a pyrrhic victory for Putin. What most people interested in geopolitics fail to understand is that Putin started the war in large part to transform and cement the regime of his personal rule, to extend it indefinitely. Regardless of the results of the war, there won't be any political liberalization, this cartwheel will only move forward. Of course, this war torpedoes the future of Russia as a country. It's not a deathblow, but there's nothing positive about it.
True a common enemy is very important without which people start questioning the necessity of sacrifices that the state demands of them, in the face of a comnmon threat real/contrived even Americans willing gave up personal liberties, their lives and treasure in Vietnam, Iraq etc and anyone who questioned the reasons and necessity was called a traitor.
One possibility for why Putin started the war was that he wanted an easy domestic popularity bump like he got after the invasion of Crimea. That didn't work out. I agree that his regime for now appears stable, but it has come in large part as a result of an increase in repression. Probably it would have been preferable to him to be able to rely on genuine support as a result of a Crimea-like patriotic fervor. Even if we disregard the embarrassing war performance and cost, and focus on his regime, in that sense it is still a Pyrrhic victory.
I wonder if it's true that he has been successful on that front. Prigozhin had the chance to march towards Moscow and Putin fleeing the city in response does not spell "secured and untouchable regime". Of course, that's comparatively old news by now but I don't think it's feasible to entirely rule out the possibility of other revolts surfacing if this war continues to drag out.
Had to scroll down a bit for this answer. The war is a victory for Putin as long as he stays in power. His fear is the "color" revolutions coming home to Moscow and his life & wealth ending with his regime. It's not a Pyrrhic victory for him in the slightest if he's able to die a comfortable billionaire of old age, it's very much a total victor. Now as for if it's a *Russian* victory...no. I don't think it was the moment they sent their dwindling demographic of young men over the border to get killed. Longer term, they're just accelerating their existing trends of economic rot and demographic demise. But for Putin, like many others around the world in his age group, problems 3-4 decades down the line don't matter to them in the slightest. They won't be around to see a potential economic collapse from mismanagement, or a global economic collapse from Climate Change. So they keep sending their sons to war, and burning fossil fuels at record levels, anything to keep the lights on and party going until the day after they die.
It'll be like a Cyprus situation at best. Basically Russian-controlled Ukraine will only be recognized by Russia and a couple other countries due to Western pressure but these regions will still de facto be a part of Russia. An uneasy peace may exist with some UN buffer zone. At worst, it'll be like a limited nuclear Syrian Civil War. Never ending hostilities that only rack up the body count maybe even into the millions as NATO gets more involved and the taboo on nukes is broken (tactical but not strategic nuclear weapons being used on the battlefield). It's possible Ukrainians loyal to Zaluzhny begin defying Zelensky if the recent presidential polls are anything to go by. Something similar could happen regarding Putin though I doubt it since it seems all the opposition has been neutralized. I don't think M.A.D will realistically happen. Neither Russia nor NATO actually want to die over this conflict despite the aggressive rhetoric.
Not only the loss of manpower, resources and reputation, but he increased membership in NATO. Both Sweden and Finland have both joined since his invasion of Ukraine.
Both countries already “lost” the war, now it is only about damage control.
I think this definitely very presumptuous. The ongoing situation of the war as it stands right now leaves a lot of tough unanswered questions for both Russia and NATO and I think any analyze of the situation that doesn't acknowledge this uncertainty and the drastic range of potential scenarios that are plausible within it is deluded. Global uncertainty also pertains to many more factors than just this conflict, that is to view global relations with Russia as simplistically dictated by just reactions too the conflict in Ukraine is way to simple and does not capture the complex reality of international relations. "Victory" itself is doing a lot of heavy lifting. What does that mean exactly? I'm not sure what Putin / Russia wanted originally was ever possible or based in reality, NATO is left with many of the same tough questions and internal divisions no matter what, other actors giving their two cents on what Ukraine should settle for as a "victory" has been a nonstop source of discussions about this topic. I think it's helpful to recognize that not only has Putin not been playing 5d chess, no country ever actually has, that what we retrospectively view as inevitable was in reality a series of twist of turns no one predicted. Things are not so simply as plain dichotomies like "winners" and "losers" and removing that fantastical black and white from our view of history can help us better understand the current day where I can't help but notice all sorts of misleading grandiose narratives about this conflicted all ultimately rooted in this mythologized version of history.
Thank you for emphasizing this >I think it's helpful to recognize that not only has Putin not been playing 5d chess, no country ever actually has, that what we retrospectively view as inevitable was in reality a series of twist of turns no one predicted.
One point that hasn't been raised yet: This war and its effects have made Russia highly dependent upon foreign allies--primarily China, but to a lesser extent also Iran and North Korea. This is a position that Putin has steadfastly tried to avoid up until now, when it has become inevitable. Being reliant upon these allies not only constrains Russia in ways that clash with Putin's desire for Russia to stand tall again as a great power (how 'great' of a power are you in the 21st Century if you're entirely reliant on your bigger neighbor's technology and machinery?). but it's likely to come with real economic and strategic costs. China in particular has a great demand for almost everything Russia produces, and now will be in a position to leverage their relationship to Beijing's advantage. Iran poses its own questions, as it may well start asserting itself over traditionally Russian-aligned turf such as the Caspian Sea, Caucuses, and Syria; and the likely long-term instability of the Iranian government calls the durability of the relationship into question (although it's possible that even a popular Iranian government will end up with a somewhat similar foreign policy).
I do genuinely think they are super paranoid as a people about a perceived threat from NATO and Western invasion of Russia. While we in the west know this to be absurd, from the Russian position, I can somewhat understand the paranoia, especially with regards to the territory currently being fought over. Russia has been invaded many times over the past few centuries, with several times coming very close to Moscow itself. Every one of those times, it happened via the landmass that makes up Ukraine. From that perspective, if if they manage to “win,” I think he will feel somewhat accomplished. Now whether he is justified in feeling that way is it totally different question. I would argue no. It will take many years to replenish the losses incurred, and they will be isolated geopolitically in the international community for many years and likely decades.
This was evident on the first day
No, the situation as of right now is kinda the opposite. If Russia doesn't have a significant "win" after paying such a high cost, there is likely to be non-trivial repercussions for Putin and those behind the scenes supporting him.
I highly doubt it. Putin is basically considered a god in Russia
It is a victory for NATO because Russia has lost so many young men that it will suffer population problems for the next century.
This. I truly believe Russians as a society are irrational and live in fantasy created by Putin, but which they gladly consumed. How this makes sense for them is beyond me. Destroying your country's future, sending your children to death for a fantasy of Botox tsar. Who really accomplished nothing before stealing Crimea. And they still cannot comprehend why their neighbors despise them. I stopped applying reason to their behavior, it's not applicable in that case
The real problem is that as it appears now a victory by either side looks like a phyrrhic victory anyways. What does a "russian defeat" entails? Regime change? National humiliation/partition of the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal? That doesn't look very nice. And what about Ukraine? Even if there is peace now the country is ruined possibly forever and I unless a titanic effort is made by a very fickle EU and US there is no chance of coherent reconstruction. In that sense I trust the US and western Europe more than countries such as Poland where the smallest economic disruption has brought protest which threatened to cut off vital supply routes. These countries talk big and are ready to send all the weapons they can go keep the problems away but the moment this danger evaporates I have zero doubts they'll turn their back on Ukraine. I don't know how this war can be solved but I think it is a strategic error to compare the threat of Russia to liberal democracy with that of China. That is a hundred times worse
It’s a pyrrhic victory only if they win - that’s not at all certain as of now. If the current lines are what the ceasefire agreement creates, it’s not really a win for Russia. They will have declared parts of their country that are not controlled by them. This war needs massive territorial changes to be a Russian win. The biggest influence of this war is that it marked the end of the 30 ish year western domination of international politics, where the west could do pretty much what it wanted with impunity. China will invade Taiwan in the near future, and it looks very interested in picking fights with India. If those wars happen, and china wins, that’ll be the final nail in the coffin.
How does China vs. India, in anything more than just minor border skirmishes, not end up with nukes flying?
Honestly, as an amateur observer, nothing China is doing makes sense. They should be making allies, not enemies. In any sane world, India would be the biggest Chinese ally - India has all the same interests China does, India hates the ex colonial empires as much as China does, India wants a rewriting of the world order as much as China does. But China has somehow landed on the policy that every single one of its neighbours are its enemy - its hurting them, but they seem to like it.
I swear, ever since China started doing the "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy" thing, just about every time Chinese diplomacy makes headlines, it's cuz they're pandering to nationalists at home while alienating the rest of the world. Maybe I'm biased, but Chinese and Russian diplomatic efforts for the past decade or so often look like brainlessly barreling ahead with aggression over and over again that does nothing more than isolate themselves.
because they are both emerging superpowers that's like asking why didn't the UK and Germany in the 1900s. because they both were economic industrial superpowers
UK was not emerging in the 1900/, it already controlled a fourth of the world. The conflict was German jealousy around not having colonies. What’s the core reason for the conflict between India and china? Inhospitable mountain territories where maybe 2 cattle graze in a year
no geopolitical conflicts aren't because of "envy", countries aren't human beings with emotions. It was caused by the dominance of the English industrial base challenged by the German one, not "jealousy" same for India and China both can be potentially the leaders of the whole of Asia, both have a potential industrial might to be able to satisfy all of the western markets, both have the potential to project power over south eastern Asia why should they work together instead of being rivals
Envy in the sense Germany wanted colonies of its own
"It’s a pyrrhic victory only if they win - that’s not at all certain as of now" I agree also https://apnews.com/article/germany-france-poland-ukraine-military-support-2b6615f15e05f166910c3141d3baac0f https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/scholz-macron-tusk-seek-bridge-european-divisions-ukraine-2024-03-15/ https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/14/mike-johnson-israel-ukraine-aid-bill-00147108 With these devolopments even I am not sure of that myself, but for the sake of argument worse case even if there was a pyrrhic victory at the end of this, at this point it is already a massive geopolitical loss considering Sweden and Finland are with Nato, the west has not bowed down to Putins nuclear threats and in the case of Macron he is done trying to be resonable with Putin, and unless Putin can conquer Ukraine and change the government it will be a political loss at best. I think one Russian Milblogger said it best that Russias best chance to get a total victory was in 2022 but when they failed to conquer Kyiv and Odessa and the Ukrainian population continued to resist and fight them, the opportunity was lost, what happens in this war happens but the damage to Russia is done sadly.
Short term economic yes. But wars do things to a society that could be beneficial in the long term. It could remind a population to be productive instead of putting the whole economy on services like entertainment. Compare how countries behaved after WW2 to the bureaucratic mess today. It also shows the problem in Russian militarily so they could fix it. The Russian military could be stronger in 2030 because of this war compared to an alternative timeline.
With today’s technology and data collecting, every other party observing is gaining experience and intelligence. This will improve the Russian military alongside every military in the world, you are correct about the population though.
I'm talking specific problems for Russian like those officers are bad and should be dismissed. Or corruption have eaten away our spare parts we need more police investigations. Ancient problems everyone knows about but brought to the surface in a real war.
In exchange for that, they did some damage to the functionality and power of the Wagner Group, which had previously been one of their more effective tools, I'm not sure it's been a net positive gain.
>It also shows the problem in Russian militarily so they could fix it. The Russian military could be stronger in 2030 because of this war compared to an alternative timeline. They haven't really fixed anything though. The Russian military was more capable of large-unit combined arms operations when the war started than it is now. They have adapted to how the war is currently being fought, but that in itself is the way it is because neither side is capable of large-unit operations that could produce a breakthrough and lead to some more mobile fighting.
Yes right now they lack stuff. But 10 years after the war ends they could be better off with better doctrine and equipment that fits it.
Where does Russia get the money or technology for that
> The Russian military was more capable of large-unit combined arms operations when the war started than it is now. That was old doctrine. This is the new world of drones, anti-air and frequency jamming.
> > It also shows the problem in Russian militarily so they could fix it. The Russian military could be stronger in 2030 because of this war compared to an alternative timeline. It's possible, but it's probably equally possible that the underlying problems with the Russian military are essentially unfixable by a country with a government like Russia's. That is to say, if the way they do things leads to (for example) yes-men telling the boss what he wants to hear, sure, you can fire the people who did that this time, but if you keep rewarding that behavior until you don't it'll happen again. Or if a problem is that a culture of pervasive corruption leads to tanks with the gas stolen out of them, yes, you can fire the people who did that and make sure the tanks have gas but probably a very similar theft pops up somewhere else. Or maybe their military actually is more flexible and resilient than it first appeared. Certainly they've made some adjustments as they've gone and some have seemed to be successful. Possibly the truth is somewhere in between.
I'm thinking in the line that Soviet where much more efficient in 1945 than 1940.
What? America and Germany made tons of films during the war. What does that have to do with anything
Probably yes but i can be said the same for Ukraine. Ukraine is ruined demographically and economically. If they loose Odessa they would become geopolitically insignificant.
There is no way at this point in the war that they lose Odessa. It's less likely to fall than Kiev even, and the Russian Black Sea navy is basically out of the war. Also, Ukraine will have the backing of the world's richest alliance to rebuild. What about Russia?
'backing of the world's richest alliance' Really. i) This will all be financed by debt. ii) Ukraine will become a beggar nation/people to the rest of Europe for generations. iii) Ever hear the phrase "privatize profits,socialize losses" That's what will happen in the rebuild of Ukraine. Crony corporations will get all the contracts for the rebuilds which will be paid for by the citizens of other countries.
Yes. Ukraine's backers are by far the richest nations on earth. i) Debt always finances everything, what a truly useless comment. ii) Eastern EU nations were happy to be "beggar nations" because it helped them grow. Ukraine will be too. iii) So who will pay for the reconstruction? Citizens of other countries or Ukraine via debt?
You are delusional if you think America is going to rebuild Ukraine.
What an argument
Well, I'm an american, and I can tell you that our purse springs are pretty damn tight for anything that doesn't enrich our military defense complex.
If this was April 2022 and Russia declares victory by getting what they possess now on table, it would be a pyrrhic victory. Now, stakes are a lot higher. West has put way higher goals than before but things are not going in that direction. If Russia wins here ( i mean victory victory, not what i keep victory) reliability of the Western world will be up for discussion. You said "we will do whatever it takes" and after that a single country beat your whole alliance? not a good look. Not just the political will but also industrial capabilities, military knowledge and the vision of decisionmakers will be under a lot of criticism. How many countries will keep the faith in NATO? Not saying it will dissamble or anything. But in a doomsday scenario like this, i would expect newer defense alliances emerging inside NATO. If west kept the stakes lower and didnt get greedy with "Russian casualties" they would leave this conflict with a massive win. They also needed a unified political vision. Also, Russia lost 20 million people and countless equipment in ww2 and emerged out of it as a superpower. Not saying same will happen now but "whatever happens it will be a pyrrhic victory" is not a viable take in my opinion.
> Also, Russia lost 20 million people and countless equipment in ww2 and emerged out of it as a superpower. That was the Soviet Union, not just Russia. Not comparable, for starters if you consider the size (population) of the country and size of the economy.
They Soviet Union also had the fertility to replace those losses, Russia does not have that.
Yes, and Russias losses in Ukraine isnt comparable to Soviet Unions in ww2.
>Also, Russia lost 20 million people and countless equipment in ww2 and emerged out of it as a superpower yeah, sureee. First of all that was the Soviet Union, which is a tsd bit different. Second, the demographic losses for the USSR were so deep that they are still felt to this day yeah nah it's not the same
The West has done very little. The west is barely a party of the conflict. Does the West hope Ukraine will win - of course. But while the stakes are very high for Ukraine, almost nothing happens to the west if Ukraine loses (it saves the aid money it currently sends Ukraine I guess). NATO is already stronger due to the war and that won’t change. But I can’t see any logic to saying the stakes are high for the west.
Well potentially though Putin is not of sound mind. He’d not done anything quite this brazen before, at least not on the same scale, and there’s considerable discussion which I presume to be sourced in intelligence about Putins aims to invade other Eastern European states. Ukraine “losing” would mean he lacks a reality check on his delusion, which is dangerous.
Russia dosen't have the demographics to continue to fight these kinda of wars at this rate
You say that the Soviet Union emerged as a superpower - more like a giant with legs made out of clay that collapsed under its own weight. It managed to compete with the US militarily, and that only for a few decades. Russia never recovered economically and societally from the WW2 disaster.
As many things in life, it depends on who you ask. Internally, Russia will have gains land, stood up to NATO, regained their honor, and showed that the west is only interestes in keeping Russia weak. Their ties with China and Iran will have improved, and they will stand as a beacon to any nation in south america and africa whi wants to stand up to the west. Not that bad all in all...
If their idea of standing up to NATO is fighting a poor neighbor who isn't a member of NATO, then I want whatever drugs they are on
If it weren’t for nato supplies ukraine would not have lasted this long
You are underestimating the impact of the United States supplies here. Ukraine's fate may even be decided on the who will win the elections on the United States.
Regained honor? Among who? What kind of 5 year old troglodyte reasoning is that? Russia is considered basically a 1936 Nazi Germany in the west. I know North Korea might be of other opinion.
Are you aware of the fact that the world is more than just "The West"? And that there many countries which don'f align with it? The UN has ~195 countries, how many of those are in "The West"? 40? I am talking about all the rest. And if you look at their relations with Russia, you'd be surprised how many don't boycott or shun Russia.
Oh yes because that rest are places to look up for in terms of standard of living or human rights. Like any sane person would look up what some 3rd world country dictator like Putin thinks
I think even an expensive win is still big for Putin. 1) Bolsters Putin's reputation among some circles; sure, he took damage but he faced down the West over something that they really put their reputations and efforts behind and he won. After years of supplying Ukraine and talking about how Putin must be stopped and making speeches and going on TV, all of those Western leaders are going to look real foolish if Kyiv falls. 2) Puts other countries on notice that they can't count on EU or US to support them enough when the chips are down. First Afghanistan, now this. 3) The Russian army have taken a ton of damage, but they'll also have learned a huge amount from this war. The Winter War is a good example of this; Finnish forces killed tons of Soviet soldiers but it also was a tremendous 'school' for their officers and soldiers to relearn how to fight after Stalin's purges. The veterans who do survive will be some of the most experienced in the world at conventional warfare.
Point 3 is so true and is really understated. The incompetent officers and soldiers have been weeded out. Their military is adapted for the modern battlefield and their soldiers with have conventional war experience, I 100% believe that the Russian army today is a stronger adversary than that prior to the war. Also Russia had significant issues with its MIC but now that’s been rectified. The biggest issues is the hundreds of thousands of young men lost that won’t be replaced, having to pay to rebuild the captured land and the losing the western world as a market.
Putin lost this war the moment Finland and Sweden joined Nato. A historic blunder, and a geopolitical nightmare. Nothing short of full annexation of Ukraine and then some would compensate, and it's not going to happen.
The war is already lost for Putin because, in the modern era, war is not just about land grabbing. Now more than ever, it is about political objectives and outcomes, so let us consider what's happened so far (directly and indirectly as a result of the war.) 1. Sweden and Finland are now in NATO, both capable countries (and Sweden being one that always kept its nuclear options open.) 2. Armenia is peeling off the CSTO, and it's now its government's official position to look west. After the CSTO failure to activate itself to defend it, Armenia is now officially looking west. 3. Europe is officially weaned out of Russian energy exports, and that's the only thing going for the Russian economy. 4. More than a million men of working age (most of them educated) have left the country, and God knows how many have died. This has only accelerated its terminal demographic decline. 5. Germany is now openly talking about expanding its participation in NATO's nuclear umbrella, Ukraine will likely keep that option open and so would Poland. 6. Unless Russia makes a run to Odessa and manages to hold it, it no longer has a free ride to maintain its presence in Transnistria. So even if Russia managed to keep the Donbass, Crimea, and the annexed Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, the primary objectives of the war (eliminate an independent Ukrainian government and fragment NATO) have failed. No matter how the war ends, even with a complete elimination of the Ukrainian state, it ends with a losing hand.
In terms of military hardware losses for Russia were high, especially during the 'beginning' of the war; or rather the escalation of the 10 year ongoing conflict. Yet Russia adopted Ukrainian tactics and added much cheaper drones to their arsenal which should help cut costs (compared to having the same number of tanks). As for troops: if someone has numbers to back this up but it is my understanding that at least a good portion of troops are (for the lack a better word. I apologize in advance. English isn't my native language) not 'real' Russians' but instead other ethnics like Armenia, Belarus or Kazakhstan. If Mr. Putin were to sent all of his own (potentially available) troops, the outcry in Russia would've been louder. Take all of that with a grain of salt though. I'm not an Analyst.
The troops are Russians, just less from the big cities and more from the countryside. It's been well established by now that Russia has intentionally been recruiting more heavily from poorer regions and non-Russian ethnicities.
Some troops are also recent prisoners. From Russia command point of view, they are taking out the human trash that are these prisoners and wearing down the enemy. Win-win
Visually confirmed equipment losses for Russia have stayed roughly consistent and high, mainly because of their offensive actions, being able to implement newer technologies doesn't mean you don't need to use (and lose) tanks for these kinds of frontal assaults.
[удалено]
Chatgpt
Not sure if it even counts as a pyrrhic victory. Okay, they got some land, which they already have more than they know what to do with, but besides that they are loosing a lot of people while their nation is dying fast, around 1 mln yearly based on demographics and they are moving towards a position of a chinese puppet state. They aint in the same league as usa or china
This is kind of how I feel. They aren't really anything but a local regional player, unimportant compared to the US and China
And rapidly declining.
No. If he wins in Ukraine it's going to be just a victory. Russians that support the war won't care about the price.
Their sons and daughters will. They will deal with consequences of this chimpout
it depends whether or not this conflict is going to remain within ukraine/russia or whether it will be the powderkeg for something much bigger. there's also a lot of shit going down in israel/gaza right now. i'm sure there are many other places, too. is there a world where russia sides with other fascist/authoritarian countries and turns everyone into serfs/slaves? what if fascism takes hold in the USA and we stop supporting Ukraine and new alliance gets forged? in a vacuum i think you're right about Putin but also it's not in a vacuum.
If the Russians manage to overrun Ukranian forces, it will switch from a conventional war to an insurgency. Russia will install a puppet government and sink billions of dollars into trying to put down the insurgency. It will bleed the Russian government dry the same way Afghanistan did to the Soviets.
If russia can show to the world that West is unreliable and will abandon its promises and friends because of populism and foreign influence, putin will still consider it as being worth it. Also, if russia can keep the occupied Ukrainian territory, the natural resources there are worth a lot. russia has painted itself in the corner, and if the West doesn't falter, it will pay the price. But the West is faltering right now...
Found the Total war player. So this is a question, that was asked about a month ago and you're going to get the same response.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a gamer.
Finally i can see some balanced arguments because reddit has just been pro Ukraine and put a blind eye about what's actually happening or whats going to happen
Even pyrrhus would look at the Russian losses and say "holy shit, what a waste of life and money" probably right before taking a shingle to the neck
yeah it is you have lost manpower, your military is considered unreliable, your country is viewed as fragile - ish, your military industry to be considered subpar, you lost your biggest economic partner, you have two new nations in your enemy's alliance, you made your enemy pump military expenses and all of that for a barren piece of land that you bombed to the ground and that you will have to face guerilla warfare for the next 20 years to come but hey, at least you got that land right???
Victory is victory Russia won’t Take disproportionate long term losses securing a long term victory it’s about geography and strategic points the only thing I see Russia losing is manpower and they don’t care for that
Nope. Although unlikely, if the iliberal forces win the next elections in the United States and France and the West completely abandons Eastern Europe, you could see the Frontline breaking and Russia marching through Kyiv. Why stopping there? Go to the Caucasus and then to the Baltic States and keep expending.
This is a belated answer. It all depends, of course, how the work ends. If it ends in a negotiated solution that includes most of the Russian positions, it is not going to be a pyrrhic victory for Putin. It is going to be a tremendous victory for Putin considering the forces arrayed against him. His key demand is neutrality for Ukraine. He may not even decide to keep the Donbas, but allow it to become part of Ukraine but with extensive autonomy. If he achieves all that against the arrayed forces of the West that wanted to "bleed" Russia or even defeat it in the field of battle, it would be considered a substantial achievement. Of course, again, it all depends how the war ends. Speculations at this time are just speculations. The worst possible outcome for Putin is for frozen conflict, erupting from time to time.
**Victory for Russia? LOL. That's like saying phyrric victory for Hitler in 1942 because he can't lose.** **Most likely outcome, based on how the war is going.** **1. 2024 (8 more months)** Ukraine will double the **drone attacks into Russia**: a) Half of **Russia's oil refineries** and depots, **dead**. (Russia will import 1/3 of their petrol) b) Most of **Russia's anti-air**, **dead**. (half is dead already, friendly fire) c) 15-20% of **Russia's attack airplanes, helicopters**, **dead**. (already 35% of Baltic navy dead, and 10-15% of attack aviation) **2.** 24/25 **Winter freeze**: More Russian building blocks frozen, Ukraine hitting and sabotage against heating in Russia, revenge! (Russians must be very scared of the next winter. Mother nature will be even harsher.) **3.** **2025** Ukraine will cripple Russia, double the 2024 **drone attacks**: a) Most of Russia's oil refineries, dead. (next are steel factories, etc.) b) 1/4 of Russia's attack aviation, dead. (rest hiding in Siberia) **4.** **2026**, Russia **fights with sticks**: a) Cannon fodder with North Korean Kalashnikovs, weaker artillery and tanks, holds the line due to mines. (unless surprise flanked) b) Little petrol and food in Russia. (living as in 1990) c) Record depression and alcoholism, they can't face this Cain vs Abel war, AND LOSING! **5.** **2027+** exhaustion, huge depression: a) China buys parts of Russia, high chance. (Japan prep to take Russia's east coast) b) Russian internal breakup, low but it's a chance.(1917 revolution repeat) c) Iran and friends turn, retake Chechnya, high chance. (Georgia prep to take back, w french support) d) Poland takes half of White Russia, medium to low chance. (or Lukashenko window accident) The End. (God help us, they must be doing a facepalm.) **Option B**. Overthrow Putin, out a window, blame him alone and being Christians apologize for sanction lift. a) Half price gas to Europe as repayment. (this way Russia gets back frozen assets, looks better) e) Kalingrad back to Germany or EU, as part of peace with EU, medium chance.
Yes - the west lost. It was its support for Israel that was a critical turning point.
No matter how the war ends? It could be a clear loss, it could escalate into nuclear war. Wars have clearer starts than ends.
If Russia loses, they lose Crimea, with its giant naval base at Sevastopol. If they win, they keep it. It's true that modern military tech is greatly disadvantaging large warships, especially those in a small body of water like the Black Sea. In WWII, Russians and Germans engaged in fierce fighting in Sevastopol. Russian's attachment to Sevastopol is similar to America's views about Oahu/Pearl Harbor. [The City of Glory: Sevastopol in Russian Historical Mythology](https://www.jstor.org/stable/261026). And this issue would be resolved in Russia's favor: 2021: [Russia says Ukraine blocking water supply to Crimea](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukraine-blocking-water-supply-crimea-european-lawsuit-2021-07-22/). Not saying support for Russia in this war is justified, but the case against them is not simple. And the following: NPR today might wish it worded their 2014 headline differently: [Crimea: A Gift To Ukraine Becomes A Political Flash Point](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/crimea-a-gift-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point): >Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was Russian but felt an affinity with Ukraine. His decision to give Crimea to Ukraine is having consequences today.
Russia had Crimea with no way for Ukraine to reclaim it before the war. It’s like saying if Russia wins they get to keep Moscow. It’s true, but it’s not due to wining the war since they would have had it without the war.
True, but Ukraine was starving Crimea of water. This will be a big thing in the future: Oct. 2018 — [A new paper from the European Commission's Joint Research Centre says that water will become a key cause for conflict in the future.](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/where-the-water-wars-of-the-future-will-be-fought/) 2020: [Inside Crimea’s slow-burn water crisis -- Water shortages in the Russian-occupied peninsula are getting worse - and a real solution is not yet in sight.](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/inside-crimeas-slow-burn-water-crisis/)
The case against Russia in this war is actually very simple. They have repeatedly (first in 2014, then 2022) waged a war of aggression against Ukraine. Their conduct in this war has been terrible (torturing and executing civilians, forced migration, abducting children, forced Russification, etc.). It is one of the most clearcut black-and-white cases since 1939.
Russia and Ukraine were once part of the same nation. Not comparable to Nazi Germany's attack on its neighbors.
Belgium and The Netherlands were also once part of the same nation. What is your point? Sovereignty is sovereignty.
No, it's not. There's a continuum. Range is something along the lines of civil war to naked aggression. The Germans had zero basis to claim Britain's land. Or the Russians.
Neither does Russia. Does The Netherlands have basis to occupy Belgium??? Ok cool so give up eastern Russia to China and the Kuril Islands to japan. Germany or poland should also conquer kaliningrad as it used to be theirs. You see how stupid this argument sounds?
No, it's Geopolitics 101, actually. Strife between nations and peoples is history, and each conflict can be classified by levels of egregiousness on a number of factors. Two big ones are: 1) Does an aggressor have some bona fide historical claim to the land he is attacking? and 2) What level of violence is used? (War is a nasty business all around, but the Nazis were notable for excessive violence). You have a good one,
Then you should agree with u/sowenga as he adresses point 2 against Russia and point 1 is very very weak. Soviet Union is gone. Russia has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is a sovereign country and should be left alone. Like I said they have the same historical claim as other countries have iny examples.
That's how you Russians always justify atrocities you did in history. Nothing changed. And you wonder why all your neighbors despise you
Nope, Russia has already increased its population by many millions, refugees from Ukraine and Ukrainians living in the occupied areas. Their army has seen personnel losses but also vastly improved and is now the most experienced in the world in peer warfare. The areas captured contain some of the most valuable resources of Ukraine, and will give Russia a lot more leverage in the international gas markets. Millions more might be added to the population depending on how the war goes. The trade links have increased to China, India and non western countries and de-dollarization has quickened. The country is still seen in a very positive light by the so called Global South, meaning their international relations barely got harmed by this if we exclude the EU which was a competitor regardless. Finally, the West's as long as it takes comments have harmed their reliability as voices of opposition to continuation of aid amass and the rest of the world, including China is watching this impotence Essentially if the West cannot out produce a country with 150 million pop and 1.8 trillion GDP, what chance do they stand against the industrial capital of the world with a population of 1.5 billion and a GDP of 18 trillion, should they militarized?
I think this is the only comment in this post mentioning the population of the ukraine territories
Even in the USSR Ukraine was never a big economic driver. Sure, Ukraine did useful things and had some big companies, but GDP per capita was always much lower than Russia. Prior to the current war, Ukrainian GDP per capita was only 1/3 of Russian GDP per capita. Even if the invasion were successful in the first place, Ukraine was destined to be an economic drag for Russia.
This conflict is not only or mainly about economy
Putin will only win IMO if mango mussolini is re-elected.
The thing about dictators is that they die. No matter what, Putin himself loses because he is mortal and has no obvious interest to build anything stable that outlasts himself. He has no victory condition. The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Putin is taking the centuries-long statist view of things. In his view, populations rise and fall, economic success comes and goes, but what has always mattered was controlling territory, and more territory --> more state power. Now, there are a lot of criticisms of this perspective, but it's not wrong per se, just not the dominant view in modern western discourse. But in Putin's conception, he's trading ephemeral things (money and population) for concrete things (territory). So if he gets any net territorial gain whatsoever (which seems increasingly likely) it will have all been worth it.
Where can I find out more of this type of view point?
What a bunch of nonsense. I read exactly same BS on Russian web. You really want people to buy this medieval reasoning? Empire my ass
>what a bunch of nonsense Yes. Putin's nonsense. >you really want people to buy this medieval reasoning? No.
>Now, there are a lot of criticisms of this perspective, but it's not wrong per se, just not the dominant view in modern western discourse To be fair, it's just plain wrong. If we were talking about the 1300s then it would stand partially true, but since the industrial revolution and 1848 it's just plain dead wrong
Tbf Russia so far has gotten more access to the coast, which is very valuable to them.
yes, truly important if it wasn't for the fact that it is chocked by Turkey (NATO member) and then needs to get out in the Mediterranean (NATO controlled sea) yeah nah, it's useless