Ukraine Always Get What You Want

[BTExpress]

More than you'll ever know, since I live with one. Sigh.

 

[Justin_Rice]

More than you'll ever know, since I live with one. Sigh.

Is she like, "this war is terrible! Why won't the Ukrainians just roll over and take it, and then we can have peace?"

 

[BTExpress]

Her dream is the independent country of Novorossiya.

 

[Bubbler]

I hate writing this. I really do. But there's a reality here that I think a lot of well-meaning people are not facing. A damn harsh reality too.

Nearly all wars are won on availability of resources. Whether it's manpower, firepower, materiel, will of the people, whatever. It's rare that a war is not eventually won without it.

Russia, sanctions or no, has a significant resource advantage over Ukraine. Russia has a population of 146 million, Ukraine is 32.9 million. Russia has a major advantage in manufacturing, availability of resources, the works.

They also have enough of a green light from fellow world powers - China, India, now us - to move about more or less as they please. Or at the very least, economic partners that blunt the effect of the sanctions.

The will of the Russian people? I'm sure there are many there that oppose all of this much as there are people here who oppose everything Trump stands for, but jerking off to some notion of a popular rebellion against Putin is wishful thinking.

Remember that everyone thought in 2022 that Russia was going to roll into Ukraine and essentially take it over in short order. The hope was that Ukraine could spring up guerrilla resistance - although that's tough in a country that is essentially a giant Kansas in terrain. This is not Afghanistan and those comparing it to that are misguided.

What no one counted on was the sheer dysfunction of the Russian military, their deep-seated corruption, and the fighting spirit of Ukraine. What Ukraine did to not only fend off Russia, but push them back in some cases was amazing and remains so.

That Russia has not been able to steamroll Ukraine is an indictment of Russia. It also makes it unlikely that Russia is going to be able to roll into Europe in waves no matter what people may fear. (Not a permanent reality of course.)

But as it relates purely to Ukraine, relying on Russia to collapse out of their own dysfunction is not a winning proposition. Ukraine has a finite amount of resources. It needs help to survive. Planes, missiles and drones, all great, but none win you a war, they just sustain a defensive position. To achieve what so many want to achieve, to push Russia out of the 2014 boundaries - cannot happen without massive manpower - something Ukraine doesn't have in comparison to Russia.

Maybe Europe has been awakened to helping in more of a direct way, but I doubt it. Right-wing populism is on the rise there too, witness recent election results. I still deeply question the commitment of most of those countries to provide meaningful manpower to the fight. And that's what it's going to take. Until they're willing to send their troops to die on the battlefield, the reality isn't going to change. (And it might not change even if they did.)

Russia has somewhat seemingly gotten its shirt together on the battlefield too, very slowly mind you, and they have a useful idiot in North Korea willing to augment their manpower. They also don't give one single fork about killing their own people in whatever numbers it takes to achieve an objective.

So the reality you're faced with is sending waves of Ukrainians into the meat grinder. Russia knows full well that they can win a war of attrition, so they're more than happy to engage in one. Ukraine cannot win this way.

I just don't see any viable option - apart from mass military help there is little political will to provide by those nations on Ukraine's side - that changes that reality.

So odious though it is given Russia's invasion, negotiation needs to happen.

The way Trump is going about it is predictably forked. What should have happened is we should have approached India and perhaps even China in an effort to get both sides to negotiate. There needs to be guarantees put in place by powers who have the motivation and the means to enforce it that protects Ukraine's side in a negotiation. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening. We have two grifters trying not to be out-conned by the other with one grifter holding all of the fait accompli cards in his hand.

But it doesn't change the reality. It's a horseshirt reality. Ukraine does not remotely deserve it, but the alternative is worse. Ukraine is most likely fighting a losing battle. At some point, that reality has to be faced before the reality changes to the point of no return.

Keep up the fight feels good and is nice to say, but what good does it do if you lose what you're fighting for?

 

[Justin_Rice]

I hate writing this. I really do. But there's a reality here that I think a lot of well-meaning people are not facing. A damn harsh reality too.

Nearly all wars are won on availability of resources. Whether it's manpower, firepower, materiel, will of the people, whatever. It's rare that a war is not eventually won without it.

Russia, sanctions or no, has a significant resource advantage over Ukraine. Russia has a population of 146 million, Ukraine is 32.9 million. Russia has a major advantage in manufacturing, availability of resources, the works.

They also have enough of a green light from fellow world powers - China, India, now us - to move about more or less as they please. Or at the very least, economic partners that blunt the effect of the sanctions.

The will of the Russian people? I'm sure there are many there that oppose all of this much as there are people here who oppose everything Trump stands for, but jerking off to some notion of a popular rebellion against Putin is wishful thinking.

Remember that everyone thought in 2022 that Russia was going to roll into Ukraine and essentially take it over in short order. The hope was that Ukraine could spring up guerrilla resistance - although that's tough in a country that is essentially a giant Kansas in terrain. This is not Afghanistan and those comparing it to that are misguided.

What no one counted on was the sheer dysfunction of the Russian military, their deep-seated corruption, and the fighting spirit of Ukraine. What Ukraine did to not only fend off Russia, but push them back in some cases was amazing and remains so.

That Russia has not been able to steamroll Ukraine is an indictment of Russia. It also makes it unlikely that Russia is going to be able to roll into Europe in waves no matter what people may fear. (Not a permanent reality of course.)

But as it relates purely to Ukraine, relying on Russia to collapse out of their own dysfunction is not a winning proposition. Ukraine has a finite amount of resources. It needs help to survive. Planes, missiles and drones, all great, but none win you a war, they just sustain a defensive position. To achieve what so many want to achieve, to push Russia out of the 2014 boundaries - cannot happen without massive manpower - something Ukraine doesn't have in comparison to Russia.

Maybe Europe has been awakened to helping in more of a direct way, but I doubt it. Right-wing populism is on the rise there too, witness recent election results. I still deeply question the commitment of most of those countries to provide meaningful manpower to the fight. And that's what it's going to take. Until they're willing to send their troops to die on the battlefield, the reality isn't going to change. (And it might not change even if they did.)

Russia has somewhat seemingly gotten its shirt together on the battlefield too, very slowly mind you, and they have a useful idiot in North Korea willing to augment their manpower. They also don't give one single fork about killing their own people in whatever numbers it takes to achieve an objective.

So the reality you're faced with is sending waves of Ukrainians into the meat grinder. Russia knows full well that they can win a war of attrition, so they're more than happy to engage in one. Ukraine cannot win this way.

I just don't see any viable option - apart from mass military help there is little political will to provide by those nations on Ukraine's side - that changes that reality.

So odious though it is given Russia's invasion, negotiation needs to happen.

The way Trump is going about it is predictably forked. What should have happened is we should have approached India and perhaps even China in an effort to get both sides to negotiate. There needs to be guarantees put in place by powers who have the motivation and the means to enforce it that protects Ukraine's side in a negotiation. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening. We have two grifters trying not to be out-conned by the other with one grifter holding all of the fait accompli cards in his hand.

But it doesn't change the reality. It's a horseshirt reality. Ukraine does not remotely deserve it, but the alternative is worse. Ukraine is most likely fighting a losing battle. At some point, that reality has to be faced before the reality changes to the point of no return.

Keep up the fight feels good and is nice to say, but what good does it do if you lose what you're fighting for?

What percentage of Ukraine should Ukraine be made to surrender to buy peace?

If Ukraine declines to give away a quarter of its country, should we knee cap them until they capitulate?

 

[Bubbler]

What percentage of Ukraine should Ukraine be made to surrender to buy peace?

If Ukraine declines to give away a quarter of its country, should we knee cap them until they capitulate?

Like I wrote, it's a horseshirt reality, but what's the plan to change it? All I hear is a lot of hope without any actionable plan.

 

[Starman]

Fatfork has ruminated on several occasions, "why do we have nukes if we're not going to use them??"

 

[Justin_Rice]

Like I wrote, it's a horseshirt reality, but what's the plan to change it? All I hear is a lot of hope without any actionable plan.

I think the first step of the plan is to not give up? Or at least, stop trying to give up on Ukraine's behalf?

Let's play fill in the blank: The country who should decide when it is time for Ukraine to surrender is __________?

 

[Azrael]

Probably worth mentioning here that Russia hasn't done well enough to have "won" this "war."

The aggressor - bigger, wealthier, better armed - has managed only to fight to a stalemate, even in the areas of its greatest interest.

Why reward Russia for fighting a smaller, poorer neighbor to a draw?

 

[LanceyHoward]

I hate writing this. I really do. But there's a reality here that I think a lot of well-meaning people are not facing. A damn harsh reality too.

Nearly all wars are won on availability of resources. Whether it's manpower, firepower, materiel, will of the people, whatever. It's rare that a war is not eventually won without it.

Russia, sanctions or no, has a significant resource advantage over Ukraine. Russia has a population of 146 million, Ukraine is 32.9 million. Russia has a major advantage in manufacturing, availability of resources, the works.

They also have enough of a green light from fellow world powers - China, India, now us - to move about more or less as they please. Or at the very least, economic partners that blunt the effect of the sanctions.

The will of the Russian people? I'm sure there are many there that oppose all of this much as there are people here who oppose everything Trump stands for, but jerking off to some notion of a popular rebellion against Putin is wishful thinking.

Remember that everyone thought in 2022 that Russia was going to roll into Ukraine and essentially take it over in short order. The hope was that Ukraine could spring up guerrilla resistance - although that's tough in a country that is essentially a giant Kansas in terrain. This is not Afghanistan and those comparing it to that are misguided.

What no one counted on was the sheer dysfunction of the Russian military, their deep-seated corruption, and the fighting spirit of Ukraine. What Ukraine did to not only fend off Russia, but push them back in some cases was amazing and remains so.

That Russia has not been able to steamroll Ukraine is an indictment of Russia. It also makes it unlikely that Russia is going to be able to roll into Europe in waves no matter what people may fear. (Not a permanent reality of course.)

But as it relates purely to Ukraine, relying on Russia to collapse out of their own dysfunction is not a winning proposition. Ukraine has a finite amount of resources. It needs help to survive. Planes, missiles and drones, all great, but none win you a war, they just sustain a defensive position. To achieve what so many want to achieve, to push Russia out of the 2014 boundaries - cannot happen without massive manpower - something Ukraine doesn't have in comparison to Russia.

Maybe Europe has been awakened to helping in more of a direct way, but I doubt it. Right-wing populism is on the rise there too, witness recent election results. I still deeply question the commitment of most of those countries to provide meaningful manpower to the fight. And that's what it's going to take. Until they're willing to send their troops to die on the battlefield, the reality isn't going to change. (And it might not change even if they did.)

Russia has somewhat seemingly gotten its shirt together on the battlefield too, very slowly mind you, and they have a useful idiot in North Korea willing to augment their manpower. They also don't give one single fork about killing their own people in whatever numbers it takes to achieve an objective.

So the reality you're faced with is sending waves of Ukrainians into the meat grinder. Russia knows full well that they can win a war of attrition, so they're more than happy to engage in one. Ukraine cannot win this way.

I just don't see any viable option - apart from mass military help there is little political will to provide by those nations on Ukraine's side - that changes that reality.

So odious though it is given Russia's invasion, negotiation needs to happen.

The way Trump is going about it is predictably forked. What should have happened is we should have approached India and perhaps even China in an effort to get both sides to negotiate. There needs to be guarantees put in place by powers who have the motivation and the means to enforce it that protects Ukraine's side in a negotiation. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening. We have two grifters trying not to be out-conned by the other with one grifter holding all of the fait accompli cards in his hand.

But it doesn't change the reality. It's a horseshirt reality. Ukraine does not remotely deserve it, but the alternative is worse. Ukraine is most likely fighting a losing battle. At some point, that reality has to be faced before the reality changes to the point of no return.

Keep up the fight feels good and is nice to say, but what good does it do if you lose what you're fighting for?

I see what you you are saying.

But General Westmoreland's strategy in Viet Nam was to out last the North Vietnamese, which had far less resources than the Ukrainians. Obviously it did not work. And the Afghans repeatedly have driven out countries with far fewer resources than the Ukrainians have. Because it is damned hard to outlast the locals in their own country. Russia is progressing very slowly in the Ukraine and at the current rate it will 80 years or so to conquer the whole country.

If the West keeps providing enough arms I think there is a pretty good chance the Russians will accept a reasonable treaty. I think right now with the current administration the Russians are waiting the see if Trump would ever fund a new arms package. Until then I don't think the Russians feel they have any reason to stop the war.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

I don't really see Russia or Belarus clamoring for any deal, but . . .

Maybe the Ukrainian people would like to see a deal made. They rejected lowering the conscription age from 25 to 18 (It used to be 27 --- how many people even know their conscription age is so high?) despite an urgent need for more men. Not to mention the 18-25 age group is the nation's weakest in numbers---which means in a few years the conscription-age group will be the weakest. Mothers are sending their kids abroad to avoid military service when they come of age. And 46% of Ukrainians say there is no shame in draft dodging. Seems, uh, rather high for a nation fighting for its existence.

Why Do Ukrainians Oppose Lowering The Conscription Age?

Suggestions by U.S. politicians that Ukraine lower the conscription age from 25 to 18 are deeply unpopular in the country.

www.rferl.org

Maybe what's actually happening there is that they'd like U.S. politicians to butt out of their country in general

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I hate writing this. I really do. But there's a reality here that I think a lot of well-meaning people are not facing. A damn harsh reality too.

Nearly all wars are won on availability of resources. Whether it's manpower, firepower, materiel, will of the people, whatever. It's rare that a war is not eventually won without it.

Russia, sanctions or no, has a significant resource advantage over Ukraine. Russia has a population of 146 million, Ukraine is 32.9 million. Russia has a major advantage in manufacturing, availability of resources, the works.

They also have enough of a green light from fellow world powers - China, India, now us - to move about more or less as they please. Or at the very least, economic partners that blunt the effect of the sanctions.

The will of the Russian people? I'm sure there are many there that oppose all of this much as there are people here who oppose everything Trump stands for, but jerking off to some notion of a popular rebellion against Putin is wishful thinking.

Remember that everyone thought in 2022 that Russia was going to roll into Ukraine and essentially take it over in short order. The hope was that Ukraine could spring up guerrilla resistance - although that's tough in a country that is essentially a giant Kansas in terrain. This is not Afghanistan and those comparing it to that are misguided.

What no one counted on was the sheer dysfunction of the Russian military, their deep-seated corruption, and the fighting spirit of Ukraine. What Ukraine did to not only fend off Russia, but push them back in some cases was amazing and remains so.

That Russia has not been able to steamroll Ukraine is an indictment of Russia. It also makes it unlikely that Russia is going to be able to roll into Europe in waves no matter what people may fear. (Not a permanent reality of course.)

But as it relates purely to Ukraine, relying on Russia to collapse out of their own dysfunction is not a winning proposition. Ukraine has a finite amount of resources. It needs help to survive. Planes, missiles and drones, all great, but none win you a war, they just sustain a defensive position. To achieve what so many want to achieve, to push Russia out of the 2014 boundaries - cannot happen without massive manpower - something Ukraine doesn't have in comparison to Russia.

Maybe Europe has been awakened to helping in more of a direct way, but I doubt it. Right-wing populism is on the rise there too, witness recent election results. I still deeply question the commitment of most of those countries to provide meaningful manpower to the fight. And that's what it's going to take. Until they're willing to send their troops to die on the battlefield, the reality isn't going to change. (And it might not change even if they did.)

Russia has somewhat seemingly gotten its shirt together on the battlefield too, very slowly mind you, and they have a useful idiot in North Korea willing to augment their manpower. They also don't give one single fork about killing their own people in whatever numbers it takes to achieve an objective.

So the reality you're faced with is sending waves of Ukrainians into the meat grinder. Russia knows full well that they can win a war of attrition, so they're more than happy to engage in one. Ukraine cannot win this way.

I just don't see any viable option - apart from mass military help there is little political will to provide by those nations on Ukraine's side - that changes that reality.

So odious though it is given Russia's invasion, negotiation needs to happen.

The way Trump is going about it is predictably forked. What should have happened is we should have approached India and perhaps even China in an effort to get both sides to negotiate. There needs to be guarantees put in place by powers who have the motivation and the means to enforce it that protects Ukraine's side in a negotiation. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening. We have two grifters trying not to be out-conned by the other with one grifter holding all of the fait accompli cards in his hand.

But it doesn't change the reality. It's a horseshirt reality. Ukraine does not remotely deserve it, but the alternative is worse. Ukraine is most likely fighting a losing battle. At some point, that reality has to be faced before the reality changes to the point of no return.

Keep up the fight feels good and is nice to say, but what good does it do if you lose what you're fighting for?

Think back to the run-up and the early days of the war. Russia was talking about conquering Ukraine in three days and Ukrainians were talking about how they would rather die than be ruled by Russia and that they would take to the streets and fight to the last person standing.

Now we're three years later. Russia has failed miserably in its ultimate goal. Ukraine has immeasurably suffered. The problem with talking about "reality" is that Ukraine can't trust one thing out of Putin's and Trump's mouths. Putin has proved that he doesn't act in good faith. So why would Ukraine, after all they have been through, want to trust any sort of deal that Putin and Trump concoct?

So the war continues until either Russia finally folds or Ukraine agrees to submit to Russia rule.