640
‘We Cannot Win’ Says Top Russian Commander
(www.kyivpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
640 points (94.4% liked)
World News
32101 readers
423 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Russia does not have the resources for that. A reminder this isn't a proxy war for them, even though it is for the West. Russia is there in person conventionally and is somehow losing to a minor Western ally.
The Ukrainians aren't going to run out of stuff within the next year for sure, and maybe not ever because even if the US gets bored Europe is highly invested. Russia has negligible productive capacity of it's own, and is bound to have serious problems eventually, unless they convince China to help and China has so far been uninterested. They could theoretically win by population attrition, I guess, but nobody's really talking about that yet. And, to do anything, they need political stability, after already having one mostly-failed coup.
How are you defining "losing" here? They're occupying the separatist parts of Ukraine and can do so indefinitely.
Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev, and they've gotten fairly continuously further from that. Saying they're winning has "Mission Accomplished!" energy at this point.
They're occupying Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea if that's what you mean, although it's in question if they can do that or anything else including exist indefinitely.
According to who? If you read the article from U.S. military analysts posted elsewhere in this thread, not even they think that was the point of the early war thrust towards Kiev.
Interesting you mention "Mission Accomplished" -- would you say the U.S. and its media did a good job of accurately informing the public about the War on Terror? Would you say they had good intentions?
What did they decide the Kiev thing was about? Was it a botched attempt at a decapitation strike to prevent basically everything else that happened?
It's very much worth a read. The broad strokes are:
The Kiev attack's goal appears to have been "disrupt, divert, and if you see opportunities, take them." I bet if the Ukrainian government had shown signs of folding or if the defense of Kiev had been weaker they would have pushed for more, but that didn't happen, the separatist regions were taken successfully, and the Russian Kiev column had no more reason to be there.
Okay, sure. That fits.
All I see is a chain of threads that go mostly nowhere. No, a wargame from 2002 is not relevant.
Here is the comment with the article I referred to.
Yeah, that's the one I'm talking about. Is it buried somewhere in the tiny print of the image of some magazine that somebody has highlighted all over?
Had you bothered to read the article you'd see it's not talking about a 2002 war game, but the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Man where the fuck is that forest, all I can see around here are a bunch of trees.
Citation needed.
Here's a map of the invasion a few weeks in. Kiev (Киев if you can't read Cyrillic) is the capital of the nation. What does it look like they tried to achieve right off the bat?
Edit: Oooh, Wikipedia has an animation if it's still not clear.
Lmao, okay.
Well, there war goals were to protect Donbass, kill a shitload of Nazis, and de-militarize Ukraine. Plans change but it still looks like they're doing what they set out to do.
It is funny how you critical thinkers uncritically regurgitate Putin propaganda without any hesitation.
Ukraine is looking plenty militerised, and more pro-Western than ever.
There are a finite number of 18-35 year old men.
"Kill nearly every young man in Ukraine" is their main path to victory, but Russia has only about 4x the population of Ukraine, so they'll have to mind their casualty ratios pretty well. And avoid any more coups.
Presumably the young men of Ukraine will realize that throwing themselves on to the enemy guns is a losing proposition at some point before that but who knows?
It's not though. Russia, even assuming continued political unity, may well run out of weapons to give to it's troops, and then their K:D ratio will pass 4:1 easily.
Apologies if we already discussed this, I've spent way too much time in this thread already and it's blending together.
Pentagon said last year in a press briefing that Russia could keep up this war for 40 years at current rate. You sure USA and Europe can last even one year? Russia also has allies in China and India, in case West thought for even one moment about uniting.
Depends what you're talking about. This war started in 2014 so its already been 9 years.
Press X to doubt.
Could you link that? It goes against everything I've read and I can't find it myself.
India ramping up trade in oil and gas with Russia while refusing to even offer the most milquetoast condemnation of Russia's invasion on the world stage haven't clued you in?
Call me when they do more than not get involved.
India and China are fair-weather friends to Russia. India is also an increasingly close fair-weather friend of the West. Both the West and India see themselves as adversaries with China.
Russia's economy would have collapsed a year ago without India buying their gas.
So you think the neutral action would be an embargo, then? Buying gas at a heavy discount doesn't seem very political to me, or to the Western leaders for that matter.
I do not think you are capable of learning anything, if you seriously say things that are opposite of reality.
Right back at you, although I assume you're plenty capable at learning other things.
Nobody who has even a modicum of understanding of geopolitics doubts this. India and Russia have a very strong relationship that goes back to the days of USSR which was one of the biggest forces that helped liberate India from western colonization. Meanwhile, Russia losing the war would be an utter disaster for China. US is very openly trying to surround China militarily, and Russia acts as a shield in the west. The worst possible outcome for China would be the west managing to destabilize Russia and put a pro western government in power. If there was even the slightest chance that Russia could lose this conflict then China would step in.
I disagree. The Cold War is ancient history and China's probably just as happy carving up Russia as living beside it.
Honestly it's amazing to me coming out of the hexbear bubble for the last three years how uninformed westerners actually are about geopolitics. There no reason at all to belive this besides you want it to be true.
I don't think I have ever seen such a clear cut example of projection as your comment.
Ancient history is when less thsn 35 years ago
Every major head of state lived through the Cold War.
For example, Joe Biden was literally born when the battle of Stalingrad of World War 2 was occurring. Biden's literally old enough to have lived in the same era as the generation that lived during the American Civil War were dying out.
Anyone that was born in the 70s, for a brief time, lived on the same earth at the same time as the last living emancipated American slaves still drew their breath.
"Ancient history" is closer to us who are alive than we can truly perceive and comprehend. The past's heavy hands rest on our shoulders, burdening the present with the acts performed hitherto each passing minute.
A quote:
US literally says it wants to prevent China from developing and has surrounded it with military bases, but whatever you say buddy. The brains of Chinese leaders aren't as smooth as yours.
Give any example or argument that shows China would want to carve up Russia
More territory is good, if the opportunity would present itself this would make China stronger. They also don't want another Xinjiang they have to genocide, though, so I imagine they wouldn't actually annex much. Maybe just take back the old Qing cities and puppet the rest.
Like actual material evidence that China would want to do it and not just fantasy theory crafting in your mind
This is pure projection on what you'd do if you ran a country
They fight over territory with India all the time. And some of their other neighbors too, I think.
If I ran China, I'd make nice with the West, accept immigrants, put in a low wealth cap and expand the size and scope of their basic income. I would get executed by a coup early in the processes. The guys that do run China are allowed to do so because they feed nationalist, protectionist ideas that actually appeal to both the masses and the elite. So yeah, if it advances China's position with low risks, they'll probably do it.
PS before anyone comes at me for being dictator of China, that was specified in the scenario.
Yea cause colonial era borders drawn by the British are dumb and only colonizers would respect those
Did China used to own all of the Russia empire?
What do you base this on besides vibes?
Nah. That was basically Cold War propaganda, partly spread by ex-Nazis covering their asses after losing to "subhumans". Russia fought the same way every country did in it's recent wars.
Man I miss AskHistorians.
No, not at all; that's a myth started by Nazi propagandists to explain why they were losing to the Soviets, and it was picked up by USA propagandists during the cold war.
Pretty much every assuming USians have about Russia comes from Nazi propaganda.
Oh, and Ukraine is also populous. It has a quarter of Russia's population, about, so human wave wouldn't win anyway.