23 days ago:

As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"?

Western media takes it as a foregone conclusion that this was a "miscalculation" by Putin ... because it's played so poorly in the Western press and Western nations have flocked to offer moral support and a bit of hardware and economic sanctions.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West since 2014, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China.

Of course, Oligarchs are punished via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, — boethius

Also 23 days ago:

Oh, and the most ludicrous, that "declaring" renewables are now a priority is sticking it to the Russians somehow. "In 50 to 100 years will be independent on Russian natural resources. Haha! take that Russia!". I work in the renewable energy sector ... and this idea is so insanely idiotic, it severely discredits every politician that repeats it. — boethius

22 days ago:

The large size of Ukraine makes total occupation difficult / impossible, but, the large size of Ukraine makes a lot of land grabbing easy. For the same reason Russia can't easily occupy all of Ukraine, Ukraine cannot easily defend all of Ukraine. — boethius

20 days ago:

The problem with the "boohoo commodity price increase global economic disaster; the war is such a terrible disaster" is that if you provide no incentive for Russia to participate in the global economy ... but are going to buy their commodities anyways, and China isn't going to leave a fellow tyrant hanging, then this isn't a "bad result" for the Kremlin. Certainly immoral to cause such a disaster, but if the world plays hardball with Putin ... what's the argument that Putin should play softball back.

And indeed, once the war is over and Western leaders are dealing with even worse inflation, people may not accept the argument "their suffering is necessary for Ukrainians to have prolonged a war for a true apex of virtue signaling on social media; literal victory through defeat" for long. — boethius

Literally yesterday:

That’s why — (applause) — that’s why I came to Europe again this week with a clear and determined message for NATO, for the G7, for the European Union, for all freedom-loving nations: We must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul. We must remain unified today and tomorrow and the day after and for the years and decades to come. (Applause.)

It will not be easy. There will be costs. But it’s a price we have to pay. Because the darkness that drives autocracy is ultimately no match for the flame of liberty that lights the souls of free people everywhere. — Remarks by President Biden on the United Efforts of the Free World to Support the People of Ukraine

We will fight to the last Ukrainian!! — (applause) — There will be costs — (applause) — mostly to Ukrainians and all poor people around the world affected by food and fuel price increases!!! — (applause) — But it's a price I'm willing to let Ukrainians and poor people pay!!! — (applause) — For the long haul!!! — (applause) —

Every Ukrainian soul literally lit on fire — (applause) — by Russian artillery and air strikes and hyperbaric munitions I literally masterbate over when the US drops them on brown people — (applause) — lights the way to freedom!!!!! — (applause) —

— (applause) — Just like those torch lit marches by neo-Nazi's — (applause) — lit the way to freedom!!! in 2014!!! — (applause) — (applause) — (applause)

19 days ago:

For the overall outcome on the war of all these measures, I personally don't see Russia losing.

Their strategy is pretty simple:

1. Keep pressure on all fronts.
2. Advance each day on weakest fronts
3. Avoid urban combat unless necessary
4. Cutoff all supply lines and wait things out
5. Build out their logistics methodically — boethius

The situation now is they've occupied key highways, and can degrade Ukrainian logistics on the remaining roots by air and missile strikes. As mentioned previously, the Dombas front is 1000 km away from the Polish border and may be effectively cutoff from supplies already.

In the meantime, Russia has consolidated its fronts (why they have transformed into straight lines on maps) and worked out its logistics in Ukraine (something that simply takes time, linking / building rail and even tactical pipelines), and absolutely recking Azov battalion in Mariupole ("de-nazification").

And Chechnya is literally part of Russia. Saying using your own citizens who are literally soldiers as soldiers is some form of weakness ... is just stupid. Russia is a culturally diverse place, so it's as unusual as seeing Latin-Americans and African-American's in the US army. OMG they're using their own citizens with arguably the most experience in urban combat to fight Azov in urban combat!

Luckily Ukrainians under siege know how to win on social media instead, and so dipped their bullets in lard and posted that to twitter, so I'm sure the Chechnians now have servere moral problems, as we've been hearing about in Russian forces for a month, and will lose any day now.

20 days ago:

"""
LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia has told Ukraine it is ready to halt military operations "in a moment" if Kyiv meets a list of conditions, the Kremlin spokesman said on Monday.

Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
— Reuters
"""

There's zero reason to assume this offer isn't genuine.

Unless Ukraine has some way to "win", then Russia will simply implement these conditions by force. — boethius

Biden: Tough talk.
The Whitehouse: No, no, we didn't mean it!

If anyone thinks this is going to scare the Russians...

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/white-house-us-president-biden-unscripted-speech-not-calling-for-russian-regime-change-1541866

Meanwhile...

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-steps-back-impractical-russia-oil-embargo-2022-03-25/

Honestly, most of this 'support' for Ukraine appears to be for public consumption only. My guess is in the background Europe and many in the American administration just want this to stop and know Russia isn't going to back down.

But...

I think Biden is actually leading the team right now and he wants to bruise Putin. — frank

His latest speech and the fact he went unscripted suggests that he genuinely has a personal interest in trying to get the better of Putin. I don't think he's on the same page as most European leaders though who are more in control of their messaging.

No, no, no, Whitehouse is just taking a page out of the Kremlins playbook, and gonna beat Putin at his own game:

The firehose of falsehood, or firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin. — Firehose of falsehood

That's why you hear the Whitehouse contradicting itself, and Western media declaring victory everyday, they're just winning the information war, just as literally the director of the CIA unironically explained to us on live television that Ukraine is winning the information war ... and also everything Russia says is false.

And people have good reason to take what the director of the CIA says at face value, for the unofficial motto (i.e. something not admitted to but a covert action) of the CIA is "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free," and people just want to be free after all, so obviously CIA only tells them the God honest truth in all circumstances.

I guess he was speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union. Wasn't also Ukraine a large part of it, or is just the Russian federation the only successor state of the Union? Just asking.. — ssu

No, this was in 1997. So, he was specifically referring to the post Soviet era.

I agree there have been fuckups on the Russian side. I just don't think there's been anything that would result in them not achieving their major objectives as outlined by Boethius. And their significance will be ovestated by our propaganda and understated or denied by theirs.

I personally fear that the war will just continue for far longer even if a conclusion could be made earlier. — ssu

I'm on board with this. There is a solution there imo, i.e. acquiesce to basic Russian demands with maybe a bit of face-saving negotiation around them. The alternative is try to hurt Russia, but probably not enough to make it withdraw. And while that's happening its demands are effectively being met anyway and Ukraine is being hurt even more. The biggest danger though is that Zelensky hopes that the longer he draws out the war, the more there is a chance of some kind of accident or spark that gets NATO involved on his side. He may feel it's worth the gamble if he's painted himself into a corner of not accepting any loss of Ukraine sovreignty.

I don't think he's on the same page as most European leaders though who are more in control of their messaging — Baden

Maybe they aren't on the same paragraph, but they're standing together on the same sanctions page, which are geared toward squashing the Russian economy flat.

@StreetlightX addresses the USA:

I think Vlad is right to be nervous. It may be more serious than the FSB having just erred in their assessment.

The US had access to tiptop intel prior to the war about what was planned (even though few believed their predictions of an all out aggression, even in Ukraine). Possibly they were tipped from the FSB (or another source). And two weeks ago the Ukrainian side said they fought back a Wagner force aiming to kill Zelensky, thank to tips coming directly from the FSB. — Olivier5

A dictator can interpret the "yes"-men behaviour of giving rosy pictures that then backfires as intentionally done deception. Add here that it really does seem that the Western intelligence did get tips about the invasion will make nearly anyone paranoid about the mole.

Of course, the pre-war intel was crucial here.

The invasion would have made total sense assuming the Ukrainians wouldn't have put up a fight. If they would have been as paralyzed as they were in 2014 (when from 160 000 army could only muster up a fighting force of 6000 men and had a handful of combat capable fighter aircraft) or would have caved like the Afghan Army and the Ukrainian leadership would have flown to the West, then indeed it would have been the way to go. Otherwise the invasion plan simply went against even basic Russian military doctrine. You don't attack an enemy force of 200 000 with 190 000 men.

Yet now the question is what to do now in this situation. And it might be now one possibility is simply to organize those reserves (which can take several months) and during that time take a time out and defend your positions and hope that you inflict losses to Ukraine if it counterattacks and only try advancing in the most favorable areas.

addresses the USSR:

Putin is a response to Western society's shift to the left, in this instance its influence on European nations. The modern media a vector for emotion can't but help depicting patriarchs as bad guys. When Putin is gone the Left will be all conquering its ultimate victory and goal symbolized with the elimination of the last male on earth. The 'x' chromosomes attempt to eliminate the mutant 'Y' complete. — Gregory A

Who will save us from this fate? Democracy? War? Maybe there is a way to put us on the right side of history.

“We have the president of Russia mentioned the N-word... the nuclear word,” Trump said.“The nuclear word is a very dangerous, dangerous word and it’s being thrown around very cavalierly.” — RT

I have to agree. From the man who maybe invented cavalier.

To the more powerless nations watching this thing, any outcome is acceptable, it has to be.

No, this was in 1997. So, he was specifically referring to the post Soviet era. — Baden

Ok. Then I stand corrected.

I just don't think there's been anything that would result in them not achieving their major objectives as outlined by Boethius. And their significance will be ovestated by our propaganda and understated or denied by theirs. — Baden

I understand that one has to be sceptical about Western media, however one shouldn't forget that:
a) Ukraine is a huge country, b) It has large armed forces, c) it has shown the will to fight and d) it is supported by a huge alliance and finally e) Russia isn't Soviet Union and hasn't the former's resources.

All the above facts make it totally possible that the outcome is a standstill with neither side reaching it's rosiest objectives. To assume that Russia will inevitably win and reach it's objectives is a long shot.

I'm on board with this. There is a solution there imo, i.e. acquiesce to basic Russian demands with maybe a bit of face-saving negotiation around them. — Baden

Neither side is yet, after a month, is really willing to cease operations and declare that their objectives have been met. Of course both sides will declare victory...but when and at what cost. Thinking that either side will abruptly now collapse isn't realistic.

The biggest danger though is that Zelensky hopes that the longer he draws out the war, the more there is a chance of some kind of accident or spark that gets NATO involved on his side. He may feel it's worth the gamble if he's painted himself into a corner of not accepting any loss of Ukraine sovreignty. — Baden

I think that NATO and US are far more timid than they were in the proxy wars during the Cold War. The Polish MiG-29 debacle clearly shows that. In truth if the fighters would have been painted to Ukrainian colours and flown by Ukrainian pilots to Ukraine wouldn't have resulted in WW3.

And note that Zelensky would be all too happy about a "no-fly-zone" made up with Ukrainian manned Soviet legacy system (that would have been imported from NATO countries).

I think this war will go on far longer than anybody anticipated and be more bloody and ruinous for both sides than anybody thought. At least Ukraine has the nice prospect of refurbishing all that old infrastructure after the "urban renovation" from the Russian Army and Air Force with Western aid.

For Russia this might be an ordeal like the Russo-Japanese war, which didn't go so well afterwards in the domestic scene for the Czar.

Capitalism is a wonder to behold. — Banno

Raytheon CEO:

"I think again recognizing we are there to defend democracy and the fact is eventually we will see some benefit in the business over time. Everything that’s being shipped into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at DoD or from our NATO allies, and that’s all great news. Eventually we’ll have to replenish it and we will see a benefit to the business over the next coming years. We don’t make a huge margin on these products. This is all cost-based pricing. But again, the idea here is to make sure that you have the capabilities to deal with whatever threat might be out there, and that has been the mission of Raytheon Technologies since our inception."

https://hbr.org/2022/03/raytheon-ceo-gregory-hayes-how-ukraine-has-highlighted-gaps-in-us-defense-technologies

Once more for those in the back: Dead Ukrainians are Western opportunities.

So is Cynicism — FreeEmotion

Is it? What multi-billion dollar industry does cynicism prop up?

I don't think he's on the same page as most European leaders though who are more in control of their messaging. — Baden

Right on cue:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/27/russia-ukraine-war-latest-zelenskiy-calls-on-west-for-planes-and-tanks-biden-says-butcher-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-live

"In a speech in Warsaw, Poland, last night, Biden said Putin is a “butcher” and said “this man cannot remain in power”. However, the White House later clarified that the US was not calling for regime change.

"Macron told broadcaster France 3: “I would not use those words.”

He added that “everything must be done to stop the situation from escalating” if there is to be any hope of stopping Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Macron also told France 3 he saw his task as “achieving first a ceasefire and then the total withdrawal of [Russian] troops by diplomatic means. If we want to do that, we can’t escalate either in words or actions.”

So much for the 'NATO has never been more unified' line.

Of course, on the other side military industry is part of culture, with much admired cultural icons like Mikhail Kalashnikov:

Kalashnikov's daughter, Yelena, unveiled the statue Tuesday at a square off Garden Ring Road, a busy thoroughfare in Russia's capital city. - Tuesday's ceremony included military music and a blessing by a Russian Orthodox priest, The Guardian reports. Russian Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky said the gun had become a "cultural brand of Russia."

So the issue of war being a racket is a far more clear in the Russian case. Which I think people rarely care about:

Corruption in Russian defense is not limited to the military-industrial complex. It penetrates the political level as well, likely altering the incentive structure for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top security officials. Recent investigations show that top officials in the Russian Defense Ministry own property that significantly outmatches their income, pointing to possible involvement in corrupt deals.

Maintaining a luxurious lifestyle disincentivizes top security officials from giving expert advice that might disappoint the autocrat and cost them access to corruption networks. In the case of Ukraine, this would have meant the risk of reporting to Putin that the country he wanted to invade would put up a fight, that civilians were not looking forward to joining the “Russian world” and would likely greet troops with Molotov cocktails rather than bread and salt, as per local tradition. In this way, the corrupt loyalty of Putin’s top officials might have backfired and contributed to intelligence failures and erroneous risk assessments in Ukraine.

Of course, corruption in the Russian security sector does not predetermine the outcome of the war. Russia still has extensive capabilities and numerous troops to be thrown into combat. But whatever gains the military might make, they will have done so while battling the challenges caused by rampant corruption, from erroneous risk assessment at the top to expired military rations on the ground.

I understand that one has to be sceptical about Western media, however one shouldn't forget that:
a) Ukraine is a huge country, b) It has large armed forces, c) it has shown the will to fight and d) it is supported by a huge alliance and finally e) Russia isn't Soviet Union and hasn't the former's resources. — ssu

Again, the effectiveness of asymmetric handheld systems against Russian armor (without which NATO pouring into Urkaine, would have been totally routed already) ... does not mean Ukraine can somehow rout the Russians without armor.

That Russia has plentiful armor and fuel and logistics isn't somehow a disadvantage, even if Ukrainians can inflict losses on Russian advances.

The core utility of tracked armor is mobility and just being able to get to the front in the first place.

All the above facts make it totally possible that the outcome is a standstill with neither side reaching it's rosiest objectives. To assume that Russia will inevitably win and reach it's objectives is a long shot. — ssu

Sure, Urkainian total capitulation would have been the most rosiest outcome, but there is no evidence Russia's core objectives aren't exactly what it's stated, and will be accomplished with the collapse of the Dombas front (which seems to me in the process of collapsing).

Neither side is yet, after a month, is really willing to cease operations and declare that their objectives have been met. Of course both sides will declare victory...but when and at what cost. Thinking that either side will abruptly now collapse isn't realistic. — ssu

How does Ukraine just declare victory if its territory is being occupied and it's set for itself the objective of zero territorial concessions?

True, Russia can just declare victory at each step, as the only goals its ever stated have already been achieved and so all further objectives are just bonus.

If Ukrainians cannot, regardless of the amount of ATGM's and Manpads poured into Ukraine, actually push the Russians back to their borders ... how does a war of attrition (in a "stalemate") work in Ukraines favour?

I think that NATO and US are far more timid than they were in the proxy wars during the Cold War. The Polish MiG-29 debacle clearly shows that. In truth if the fighters would have been painted to Ukrainian colours and flown by Ukrainian pilots to Ukraine wouldn't have resulted in WW3. — ssu

Proxy wars during the cold war were not on Russia's border, only Afghanistan was even on the USSR's border ... and, only hand held missiles were supplied, same as we see now.

Vietnam saw US pilots up against Russian pilots, but this was far from either of their borders.

And note that Zelensky would be all too happy about a "no-fly-zone" made up with Ukrainian manned Soviet legacy system (that would have been imported from NATO countries). — ssu

This is simply impossible to achieve from any practical perspective.

I think this war will go on far longer than anybody anticipated and be more bloody and ruinous for both sides than anybody thought. — ssu

There's really no reason to assume the Kremlin did not think of the current possibility more-or-less.

The initial "failed" invasion (that occupied some 15-20% of the country in a day) was achieved with less than half the amassed force (some estimate a third) ... of which the only logical interpretation was that the rest of the force was in reserve for plan B.

Even Western media just end their "Russia is bogged down" narrative with "grumble-grumble Russia has made gains in the South" ... well, maybe it was the South that had the strategic objectives and sophisticated planning went into that operation, other fronts the objective of just advancing until resistance and then tying up Ukrainian forces (as there is no long-term plan of occupying territory in the North, just pressure the capital).

At least Ukraine has the nice prospect of refurbishing all that old infrastructure after the "urban renovation" from the Russian Army and Air Force with Western aid. — ssu

I do not think any Ukrainian views this as a "win" ... and I fear Western generosity may run into all those "realists" after all, when it comes to pouring in tangible love rather than arms.

For Russia this might be an ordeal like the Russo-Japanese war, which didn't go so well afterwards in the domestic scene for the Czar. — ssu

It's possible ... but, again, if this is the likely "cost" to the Russians, how does that help any Ukrainian?

If this is the basic logic, NATO is just cutting off Ukrainian's nose to spite Ukrainians face.

Sure, fun times for NATO, they're definitely excited about it.

Sure, Urkainian total capitulation would have been the most rosiest outcome, but there is no evidence Russia's core objectives aren't exactly what it's stated, — boethius

That is illogical.

You simply wouldn't attack like that if you would have alternative objectives. If the objective would never have been Kyiv, why then attack there? Then those Combined Arms Armies in Belarus / Russian border opposing Ukraine from the north would have just by existence prevented Ukraine from sending those brigades in defense of the Capitol into the Donbas or the South. And they could be still then act as reserves.

There's no question about the primary objectives that Russia had. They failed to be met as intended at the start of the invasion. And now Putin surely can come up with smaller objectives.

will be accomplished with the collapse of the Dombas front (which seems to me in the process of collapsing). — boethius

OK, on what do you base this assumption on? That's the area where Russia isn't yet on the defensive an making some progress? Not yet an imminent collapse.

If Ukrainians cannot, regardless of the amount of ATGM's and Manpads poured into Ukraine, actually push the Russians back to their borders ... how does a war of attrition (in a "stalemate") work in Ukraines favour? — boethius

Well, just like it worked with Finland both in the Winter War and the Continuation War. War of attrition does work.

I do not think any Ukrainian views this as a "win" ... and I fear Western generosity may run into all those "realists" after all, when it comes to pouring in tangible love rather than arms. — boethius

I don't think anybody considers it a win. Not even the future contractors that will build (again) Ukrainian cities after this war.

It's possible ... but, again, if this is the likely "cost" to the Russians, how does that help any Ukrainian? — boethius

Jingoistic imperialism usually fades away after wars that have been failures. Don't forget that Putin views independent Ukraine as an "artificial construct". If those kind of delusional attitudes can be changed, that would be a good start.

So the issue of war being a racket is a far more clear in the Russian case. — ssu

Lol, no one who has looked at where the proportion of money - the only thing that counts - has flowed can say this without being a complete joke.

Maybe they aren't on the same paragraph, but they're standing together on the same sanctions page, which are geared toward squashing the Russian economy flat. — frank

Yes, but to your earlier point about other countries not being so enthusiastic:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/27/russia-ukraine-war-latest-zelenskiy-calls-on-west-for-planes-and-tanks-biden-says-butcher-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-live

"India is likely to continue to import coking coal from Russia, Reuters reports.

On Sunday, the country’s steel minister appeared to shun the global trend of limiting Russian imports in response to its invasion of Ukraine.

Ramchandra Prasad Singh told a conference in New Delhi:

We are moving in the direction of importing coking coal from Russia."

This type of thing does undermine that effort.

That is illogical. — ssu

Why would it be "illogical" to assume someone's states objectives aren't their real objectives?

Now, of course everyone always rather things go even better than achieving their goals, the rosy outcome as you say, but there is a difference between objectives and what one would prefer to happen.

OK, on what do you base this assumption on? — ssu

There's a lot fog of war and certainly anything is "possible", but while everything else has being going on in Ukraine, Russia has been bombarding and bombing the Dombas front for a month now.

There's a material and man-power degradation of these lines that is reasonable to assume is pretty severe.

There's also a psychological affect on these front line Ukrainian soldiers.

And then there is the fact that the Dombas line is 17 hour continuous drive from resupply in Poland but only 1 and half hour drive from Russia.

Of the news that comes from this area, it seems Russia has broken through in key places already.

Well, just like it worked with Finland both in the Winter War and the Continuation War. War of attrition does work. — ssu

The Winter war ended because of the Nazi's invading the Soviet Union.

Finland accepted defeat to end the continuation war. Finland did not "win" against Russia.

War of attrition for the purposes of a negotiated resolution on better terms, accepting defeat and giving up 20% of territory, "works".

But Ukraine keeps taking off the table even the possibility of any negotiated settlement because of "the views" as far as I can tell.

What better outcome can Ukraine fight for, compared to accepting Crimea is now Russian (something everyone agrees won't change), that Ukraine will not join NATO (something NATO told Zelensky would never happen before the war ... yet Zelensky chose to fight to join NATO anyways), and accepting the Dombas as independent states (again, no one argues these regions aren't massively pro-Russian nor that there's any way to militarily take them back)?

I don't think anybody considers it a win. Not even the future contractors that will build (again) Ukrainian cities after this war. — ssu

Then we agree it's not a win, and also yet to be seen the Wests generosity when it comes to rebuilding rather than destroying things. I didn't see all that much actual building anything in Afghanistan these last 20 years ... definitely felt more like a destructive process than an act of love, as was advertised until literally a few months ago.

Of course, Afghani's aren't white, so that's certainly a big factor in comparing their current state and Ukraine's future state after the West "is done playing with their toys".

Jingoistic imperialism usually fades away after wars that have been failures. Don't forget that Putin views independent Ukraine as an "artificial construct". If those kind of delusional attitudes can be changed, that would be a good start. — ssu

One can disagree, but it's not delusional. The West's own scholars call borders imposed by the great powers "artificial" and just cause internal division and civil wars, without benefiting any of the internal ethnicities, all the time ... just as we've seen play out in Ukraine.

Kim Dotcom ...

Now there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time.

A long time.

So the issue of war being a racket is a far more clear in the Russian case. — ssu

I was suprised too! But the charts are legit, I checked just in case lol.

But Putin bad so who needs reality when ssu can just make shit up.

Lol, no one who has looked at where the proportion of money - the only thing that counts - — StreetlightX

And in a smaller economy, which is one tenth of the size of the US GDP, those Russian arms manufacturers are far more important that in the US for the US economy.

Russia's defense industry employs 2.5 – 3 million people and accounts for 20% of all manufacturing jobs in Russia.

Add then in the corruption in the society. If you don't understand that the link to the "military-industrial complex" is bigger in Russia to the Russian economy and politics, well...

And in a smaller economy, which is one tenth of the size of the US GDP, those Russian arms manufacturers are far more important that in the US for the US economy. — ssu

Yeah, sure, and this has any bearing on the laughable claim that compared to the US, war as a racket is clearer in the Russian case. Have you lived in the 20th or 21st century? Do you think people were going, 'war is racket - just look at Russia'? Seriously, stop saying stupid things.

There's a lot fog of war and certainly anything is "possible", but while everything else has being going on in Ukraine, Russia has been bombarding and bombing the Dombas front for a month now.

There's a material and man-power degradation of these lines that is reasonable to assume is pretty severe.

There's also a psychological affect on these front line Ukrainian soldiers.

And then there is the fact that the Dombas line is 17 hour continuous drive from resupply in Poland but only 1 and half hour drive from Russia.

Of the news that comes from this area, it seems Russia has broken through in key places already. — boethius

I wouldn't say that would be reason to assume they are collapsing.

Finland accepted defeat to end the continuation war. Finland did not "win" against Russia. — boethius

Yet Finland existed, wasn't occupied. What else is there for Ukraine? Likely there won't be Ukrainian tanks on the Red Square either, so they can't "win" in the traditional sense.

didn't see all that much actual building anything in Afghanistan these last 20 years ... definitely felt more like a destructive process more than an act of love, the advertised. — boethius

Something was done, even if what the West did was to produce an extremely corrupt system which was totally unsustainable. One generation of women were educated, at least, now to face unemployment and being confided to the kitchen again. The simple fact was that Afghanistan couldn't in any way uphold such a government and a public sector (including the military) as it had without Western aid. It simply didn't add up. And hence when the Americans were constantly reminding everyone that they were going away ...and with Trump basically capitulated to the Taleban, then it was no wonder what happened.

Yes, when you pour money into a poor country, you will create corruption and theft. And such will happen in Ukraine, but Ukraine is still in a far better situation than Afghanistan was. Even after this war.

Russia exported Mig29s and such, but these were 'export versions' I think. I don't think they have a lot of allies to supply, and not a lot of bases, but I would be happy to be wrong.

I think everyone is sickened by the war so close to home, and also sickened by the profits made.

If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting. Curtis LeMay

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.

That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it. — Curtis LeMay

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/curtis-lemay-quotes

He is reported to have said that "if in the end we have only two Americans and one Russian standing, we have won". At least his objectives were clear.

And in a smaller economy, which is one tenth of the size of the US GDP, those Russian arms manufacturers are far more important that in the US for the US economy. — ssu

In Ampthill, Bedfordshire, where they have a massive factory in my country, Lockheed Martin are far more important relative to the local economy than they are globally too.

So?

Apart from the obvious attempt at derailment, what was the point? We're talking about global influence, not doing a Geography project.

Yeah, sure, and this has any bearing on the laughable claim that compared to the US, war as a racket is clearer in the Russian case. — StreetlightX

The real racket would be I guess the war in Iraq and Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Halliburton already became the largest construction company in the US during the Vietnam war ...because of the Vietnam war.

But one should not forget that Russia has this phenomenon too. Just my point. If you find that laughable, then laugh as hard as you want...

I wouldn't say that would be reason to assume they are collapsing. — ssu

My original phrasing is simply that this is the last remaining objective on Russia's list of objectives, and it's certainly seems achievable.

Yet Finland existed, wasn't occupied. What else is there for Ukraine? Likely there won't be Ukrainian tanks on the Red Square either, so they can't "win" in the traditional sense. — ssu

Exactly why Finland accepted defeat and negotiated a peace with significant territorial concessions, including Finland losing its biggest fresh water body (Lake Ladoga, even if only counting by half!), and Finland's access to the Arctic Ocean ... and also a agricultural and cultural heartland from which comes a large part of Finland's nation defining epic book:

The Kalevala (Finnish: Kalevala, IPA: [ˈkɑleʋɑlɑ]) is a 19th-century work of epic poetry compiled by Elias Lönnrot from Karelian and Finnish oral folklore and mythology — Kalevala, Wikipedia

Finnish Karelia was a historical province of Finland — Karelia, Wikipedia

Key word "was".

I would not say the wars with the Soviet Union was winning anything, but a great loss.

These were major concessions for the sake of peace because:

A. The cost of war is very real.
B. There was no way to "win" against the Soviet Union.

Something was done, even if what the West did was to produce an extremely corrupt system which was totally unsustainable. — ssu

... Yes, indeed, I see what you're saying, and I do indeed think it's wise to predict the same process in Ukraine.