Don't know why you keep saying that. Maybe we just have totally irreconcilable ideas of what that word means. — Wayfarer

OK, the fact that they are holding Ukrainian territory and Ukraine has admitted they can't take back that territory by force. Apparently that is an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia in your book. If you don't think it mitigates the disaster for Russia that they have taken and continue to control a large chunk of Ukraine and are forcing them to the negotiating table as a result, we will just have to agree to differ.

OK, the fact that they are holding Ukrainian territory and Ukraine has admitted they can't take back that territory by force. Apparently that is an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia in your book. — Baden

It's a disaster because they can't meaningfully hold that territory. The Russian version of 60 Minutes last week descended to a shouting match because their invited experts had to concede it might take 15 or 20 years to subdue Ukraine, instead of the one-week campaign that had been expected. The hosts were forced to acknowledge that rather than the easy victory that had been promised, what they had was a major international disaster.

The real consequences of the economic sanctions hasn't even really began to bite yet. Or maybe it has but we can't see it. But in a month, six months, a year, two years, the population of Russia will be queuing for essentials again, like the bad ol' days of Soviet Communism. They won't be able to travel, buy foreign goods, import anything from the West. How is that a victory? Who is 'winning' in this scenario? It's not a victory.

There is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory after all.

You can win the battle, but lose the war. But there is no indication why Russian would spend 15-20 years to subdue the Ukraine. Russia's concern is to get those lands back... once it's ratified, they will have no more aggressive tendencies, since they reached their goal.

That's what Baden calls victory. I don't know how that could escalate into a twenty-year war. Nobody has more claims, nobody has an issue with the other, aside from vengeance and bitterness.

On the other hand, it is a major international disaster for Russia. They won the war against the Ukraine, but the reverberations of this drastically aggressive move will hurt Russia for some time to come.

The bluster and distraction won't detract from the fact that I've never spoken in absolutist terms. It's not an unmitigated victory for Russia (I've emphasized this over and over) but nor is it an unmitigated disaster. An 'unmitigated disaster' in this context would be Ukraine retaking all their own territory and Russia having to retreat to Russia without getting any meaningful concessions, i.e. Ukraine convincingly winning the war. This is such an obvious point, it's embarrassing to have to say it.

If Russia remains in Ukraine for the next 10 years, murdering its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, and (further) killing it's economy, I wonder if Western observers will still proclaim that "Russia isn't winning" - because their metric of success is simply 'how good or bad is Russia doing' and not 'how much are the Ukrainians getting fucked', because these people have been so obsessed with Putin and Russia that Ukrainian lives are simply by-products of 'sticking it to Russia'.

If Russia remains in Ukraine for the next 10 years, murdering its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, and (further) killing it's economy, — StreetlightX

I highly doubt this will happen. Russia, if it gets the lands it claims, will withdraw, and the war will be over.

Of course, neither you or I can tell the future. But there are some indications... and reasonable conjectures.

I won't bet with you, because we are anonymous participants on this forum, but my take is that if the ukraine gives the lands up, the war will be over.

Oh, the thought experiment is a comment on the spectators, not a prediction about how things may turn out. By the by, I think I agree with you.

Yes, agree also. Russia's not trying to occupy the whole of Ukraine for the next ten years. That's not feasible and I'm pretty sure they know that. That Wayfarer thinks that's the plan maybe helps explain how he managed to get so far detached from reality here.

If Russia remains in Ukraine for the next 10 years, murdering its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, and (further) killing it's economy, I wonder if Western observers will still proclaim that "Russia isn't winning" - because their metric of success is simply 'how good or bad is Russia doing' and not 'how much are the Ukrainians getting fucked' — StreetlightX

The question of how successful or not the invasion is from a Russian standpoint is not equivalent to the question of how many Ukrainian lives are lost. These are two different questions. Even if the Russians killed millions of people in Ukraine (god forbid), it will not translate into a 'win' for the executioners. In fact in 'special operations', a classic factor of success is how FEW casualties are incurred by both the attackers and the defenders.

As different from a war, a good 'special op' destroys as little as possible beyond its specific target. So paradoxically, killing so many civilians is a sign of significant strategic problem in this 'special operation'.

The question of how successful or not the invasion is from a Russian standpoint is not equivalent to the question of how many Ukrainian lives are lost. These are two different questions. — Olivier5

My point exactly. But of course, my other point of course is that I don't think people like you give a shit about the latter question.

I wish the war was an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia, but the fact that they're winning, despite their problems, mitigates the disaster somewhat for me from any reasonably objective perspective. It still puzzles me how you'd refer to the war if Russia was losing or looked like any of its major goals (Ukranian neutrality, autonomy for Donbass) were under threat. But, whatever, we'll just have to agree to differ on that. — Baden

I think here it should be proper to consider a successful Russian military operation: that is the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. There was a) total strategic surprise, b) extremely successful information campaign, c) swift overtaking of objectives and d) successful joint operations with the intelligence services and the army, which was then solidified politically by a referendum for Crimea to join Russia. And Russians were very happy about it! Nothing like the scenes below happened then:



Sanctions against Russia weren't similar as now, and we didn't see changes in policy like has happened with Germany. Yes, the time of the West "resetting" the Russian ties was indeed over. But I guess Putin had to show a lot for it. Or think it other way. How many Russian generals were fired, killed, put into house arrest? None.

If now the objectives are basically issues that Russia had already: a) Ukraine wasn't joining NATO and b) it held portion of the Donbas, then that is quite little to show for a war. I think Putin needs far more than that.

Once Russia captures Mariupol, then it can start to consolidate it's position and get the initiative firmly in it's hands. It hasn't happened yet... can happen tomorrow or next week.

My point exactly. But of course, my other point of course is that I don't think people like you give a shit about the latter question. — StreetlightX

What makes you think something so outlandish? And also, why does this debate has to be about what I care for? I don't care what you care for or not, Street. It's none of my business and I don't let it bother me.

Because this war is a video game for you.

This is a lie, one of many that your side spread, all the while crying us a river about western propaganda. Stop your propaganda first.

This thread is not about me, remember? No need to make it personal.

Hey you asked the question. Am happy to ignore you entirely next time.

Please do so. I will spare you my presence as well.

Yes, Crimea was quite close to being an unmitigated victory for Putin, whereas this will be a problematic victory at best with quite a bit of downside in the short term.

Amazing how people can get dirty on a message board, make it all personal, lie through their teeth to score a point, and still expect to be taken seriously when they complain about 'Western propaganda' and 'flag waving'.

Yes, Crimea was quite close to being an unmitigated victory for Putin, whereas this will be a problematic victory at best with quite a bit of downside in the short term. — Baden

Victorious military operations that went perhaps even better than planned typically later breed hubris and overconfidence.

Agreed.

Wouldn't waste your time with propaganda deniers on this thread though. That type of person simply cannot think beyond what their trusted media feeds them. — Baden

Stop being an Isaac.

I agree that CNN circa gulf War was a vehicle for American propaganda. They even had the secretary of state giving briefings.

I was talking about the present scene. It's a little different.

Amazing how people can get dirty on a message board, make it all personal, lie through their teeth to score a point, and still expect to be taken seriously when they complain about 'Western propaganda' and 'flag wavin — Olivier5

Very true.

Kyiv, Ukraine -- Municipal workers cover the statue of the Italian poet and philosopher Dante Alighieri with sandbags to protect it from shelling in Kyiv. The statue, by Luciano Massari, was inaugurated in 2015 to mark 750 years since Dante’s birth
Photograph: Vadim Ghirdă/AP

Stop being an Isaac. — frank

:lol: . I wasn't really referring to you. I don't think there's much to argue `about between us except the terminology.

Oh. Okey doke. :up:

Some more on propaganda/misinformation/bias or whatever we choose to call it re Russia vs Ukraine's military successes/failures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Total_casualties

"With respect to Russian military losses, Ukrainian estimates tended to be high, while Russian estimates of their own losses tended to be low. Combat deaths can be inferred from a variety of sources, including satellite imagery and video image of military actions. According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, Ukraine’s government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was “probably” downplaying its own casualties. Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities. According to BBC News, Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well. Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact, as Western countries were emphasizing the Russian military's toll, while Russia wanted to downplay its losses."

This is not so much a criticism of Ukraine for making stuff up to boost morale. I can understand why they would do that and why the Western media would go along with it. It's only to say you can't take Ukrainian figures (either directly from them or through Western news sources) any more seriously as a basis for judging Russian military success or failure than the Russian ones parroted by the Russian media, and reliable figures will probably require some kind of academic study after the war is over.

I wish the war was an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia, but the fact that they're winning, despite their problems, mitigates the disaster somewhat for me from any reasonably objective perspective. It still puzzles me how you'd refer to the war if Russia was losing or looked like any of its major goals (Ukranian neutrality, autonomy for Donbass) were under threat. But, whatever, we'll just have to agree to differ on that. — Baden

Such assessments are rather pointless without reference to an outcome in the dispute over Crimea. As far as I know, Ukraine has insisted on sovereignty over Crimea, and this steadfast position, with support from the west, has been an irritant to Russia. You mention Russia's goals without mention of Ukraine's goals. A war has two sides.

Yes, Ukraine will have to give up claims of sovereignty over Crimea too.