Anyone still think Ukraine can defeat Russia?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Most lies have a sliver of truth to them to add credibility. If you can distill out the BS, you can get closer to the truth, but there are very few absolute truths
You bring up some good points. The question is, would Russia be better off if it did nothing and allowed NATO to move into Ukraine, and Urkaine to attack and ethicanilly cleanse Donbas. The reason Russia held off for so long and then move against Donbas is that an attack was imminent. (well they claim it was we will never know for sure) there certainly was a large number of troops massing and entrenched outside donbas. And this is where the war is being fought and decided. I think the stature of Russia in the non-western world has grown immeasurably. Of course in the west there is hatred against Russia but they were never accepeted as equals or partners anyway. So partnership with the west has very limited potential. In Asia, Africa and LATAM Russia has more potential. Russia is doing quite well under sanctions as Russian captial cannot flow abroad, so it stays there to build Russia. The end game of the Urkaine war is unclear, but its pretty clear that Russia will dictate the terms. But even that may not lead to clean win for them. So the future is murky, but war is never a predictable beast.
Ukraine won't win, they never were going to win, they don't have the money or the time. Not anti-ukrainian they are good people but this is a ridiculous battle of resources. How much has been invested into the ukraine war almost 1/4 Trillion and where are they at?
US funding is on its deathbed and with Israel in high murder mode with US backing that's definitely going to take everyone away from the Ukraine issue. Lebanon in the mix - if Iran becomes intolerant WW3 will edge even closer.
US funding is on its deathbed and with Israel in high murder mode with US backing that's definitely going to take everyone away from the Ukraine issue. Lebanon in the mix - if Iran becomes intolerant WW3 will edge even closer.
Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine is contrary to international law. If the UN was anything other than another trough for politicians to dip into, the world would have rallied around Ukraine and forced Russia out.
Nevertheless, Ukraine cannot force a military withdrawal by Russia at this time. What seems far more likely is that, over time, Russia will realize it has spent a lot of money for very little tangible benefit, and like they did in Afghanistan, there will be a shift of power in the Kremlin and the Russians will withdraw from the Ukrainian territories it now controls.
Do I call that a "win" for Russia? No.
Do I call what is going on now a win, or winning, for Ukraine? No.
I call it the idiocy of wars that have been going on in this part of the world for at least a thousand years. Every generation some leader comes along with an idea he thinks no one has had before (or couldn't execute upon like only he can). Of course, it's the same old bad idea that has been pursued before. There is a reason that ethnic Ukrainians break from Russian control, again and again, and a reason why Russia repeatedly tries to bring them back into their sphere. The real question is how much a country like Canada should spend (when we have to borrow every dollar we would spend) on this idiocy. If the problem is really the Putin regime, and there is a fear is that he will continue to try to expand Russian territory, I think the money being spent on military support would be better spent on undermining Putin's hold on the Kremlin in Russia.
Nevertheless, Ukraine cannot force a military withdrawal by Russia at this time. What seems far more likely is that, over time, Russia will realize it has spent a lot of money for very little tangible benefit, and like they did in Afghanistan, there will be a shift of power in the Kremlin and the Russians will withdraw from the Ukrainian territories it now controls.
Do I call that a "win" for Russia? No.
Do I call what is going on now a win, or winning, for Ukraine? No.
I call it the idiocy of wars that have been going on in this part of the world for at least a thousand years. Every generation some leader comes along with an idea he thinks no one has had before (or couldn't execute upon like only he can). Of course, it's the same old bad idea that has been pursued before. There is a reason that ethnic Ukrainians break from Russian control, again and again, and a reason why Russia repeatedly tries to bring them back into their sphere. The real question is how much a country like Canada should spend (when we have to borrow every dollar we would spend) on this idiocy. If the problem is really the Putin regime, and there is a fear is that he will continue to try to expand Russian territory, I think the money being spent on military support would be better spent on undermining Putin's hold on the Kremlin in Russia.
There are ethnic Russians all over Ukraine. There is no ethnic cleansing. The ICC investigated that claim and found no evidence. The regions had also tentatively agreed to a deal that would've ceased all hostilities and ended the insurgency with Ukraine.
You said that the reason was to denazify Ukraine. Now you're saying it was solely about NATO? So if Ukraine ends up joining NATO, will it be a Russian loss in your opinion? Is that now the only victory condition?
And yes, Russia would have been better off. As I'll discuss, even if Russia secures the Donbas in a peace deal, it won't be adequate compensation for what's been lost.
Oh? It had nothing to do with the autonomous republics in the Donbas reaching a deal with Ukraine to reintegrate?
I'm not sure if you think this is a insightful remark, but yes; wars are indeed fought and decided in the front lines. Interesting how the front line used to be based for Kyiv but now it's just Donbas though, isn't it?
I disagree with all that. (Edit to clarify that even India, which is definitely in "the non-Western world", has deepened relations with the US since invasion and has a roadmap for a US-India bilateral defense agreement while resoundingly rejecting such an agreement with Russia despite being part of a purely economic bloc with Russia)
It sure isn't, as we've seen. Putin predicted a swift victory and resumption of a large puppet state buffering him from southern Europe. Instead he's fighting to hold on to a region that he's devastated and which used to be pro-Russian but had since turned against him after the invasion and exposed how the corruption in the Russian officer corps has decimated what should have been the 2nd most powerful military in the would. He's pushed 2 new nations into NATO, one of whom poses the 2nd greatest threat to him after the US in the event of a war with NATO.
Unpredictable indeed. It's been an unmitigated disaster for Russia. Even the Donbas won't be adequate compensation for what's been lost, especially since the value of the Donbas was in the metallurgy and manufacturing which Putin's Folly has completely destroyed.
Last edited:
You've hit the nail on the head but also completely missed the mark.
The ONLY lawful reason to engage in offensive military operations under Article VII of the UN Charter is when you're enforcing a Resolution of by the UNSC. The permanent members of the UNSC have veto power. Therefore the UNSC will be forever unable to pass a Resolution against any permanent members unless for whatever reason they abstain from the vote.
This is what makes NATO so powerful; an attack on any member states pulls all members in to war, and defence justifications including casus foederis (being called in by an ally) are also lawful under Article VII.
By UN and international law, Russia's invasion is unlawful, as you said. But by international law only countries with a casus foederis, meaning a treaty of defence, or a military alliance, can come to their aid UNLESS the UNSC can pass a Resolution calling other nations in. But because Russia can veto, the UN can't pass that resolution. And since Ukraine had no defence agreements or military alliances, no one is allowed to declare war on Russia to help them.
This is where Russia fails though: Poland has said they'd sign a mutual defense agreement with Ukraine. So even if Russia forces Ukraine to promise to not join NATO, and even if Ukraine keeps that promise, if they sign a defence agreement with Poland (or any other NATO member), they effectively still enter a defense agreement with NATO without needing to join NATO. This is Russia's only chance to keep Ukraine neutral, and they only way they can do it is to control Kyiv and re-integrate Ukraine as a puppet.
But given that the UN was created specifically to provide a place for nuclear powers to talk things out to avoid nuclear war, any action, including ignoring or removing the veto, causes the whole thing to collapse because every single permanent member would leave if the happened. Take away the Chinese or US veto and they'll pull out too, as would Russia.
And so the UN is in this weird state where it's never going to be used to resolve issues with the permanent members, leading many to say it's useless. But it will resolve issues with general members (and we've seen it done in the past, multiple times) and it does still provide a table for the nuclear powers to talk rather than nuke each other, and therefore it continues to fulfill its purpose.
There was a deal with Germany and France endorsed by Russia and the UNSC. But Urkaine refused to speak to the rebel leaders and Merkel and Hollande admitted later it was just to buy time to arm Ukraine. So it was a farce.
The ICC is just a farce as well, they file charges against Russia for "kidnapping" when they evacuate children to safety while no chargess thus far as Israel slaughters women and children. So of course the ICC will just ignore shelling of civilians if they are Russian. The OSCE did document many incidents. somehow several thousand people died.
You talk about what Russia lost but not what they gained. They gained a lot more then they, but the final tally will take a while to become clear.
The laws of the UNSC have been so utterly violated by the west they are no longer valid. Was it legal to attack syria, Iraq Afganistan, Libya?
Defence and right to protect are both legal reasons for war. In this case Russia claimed right to protect AFIK i.e the need to secure the saftey of the civilian populations of the donbas. This is why when the AFU started using himars Russia said that only means they will have to take more of Ukraine to drive them back out of range. So now with cruise missiles and drones its essentially the whole thing. Russia has decoupled from the West, and so far the rest of the world seems to have embraced Russia war as a fight against western tyranny. The welcome Putin received in the UAE was unprecedented.
The Gaza war further highlights the inequities and hypocrisy of the west. the rest of the world knows they cannot get a fair shake under the current system, and that the USA is a fading empire.
Only time will tell if they can pull it off, but it seems the USA has over extended itself, and the Russian military, after a slow start, is performing better by the day, They are currently using less then 20% of their military power.
Last edited:
Misquoted. What Merkel said, and Hollande later backed up, was that the Minsk Agreement bought time for Ukraine, not that this was always the intention. Zelensky had followed through on a few steps, but paused when Russia didn't follow up on any of theirs. But then you'll just say these are just part of Western lies.
They filled charges against Russia before withdraw withdrew from the Rome statute, when they were subject to the ICCs authority. Israel has never been a signatory to the Rome statute. Palestine is, and so activities in Palestine are under their jurisdiction and they may file charges against Israel yet, but we won't know until they investigate and they don't investigate inside active war zones; the go on after the conflict is over. Ukraine is also a signatory of the Rome Statute so both Ukraine and actions in Ukraine fall under ICC jurisdiction, but as stated the ICC won't investigate in active war zones. The only reason they didn't have to investigate the kidnapped children is because Russia admitted to doing it while still a signatory of the Rome Statute.
You can call them biased, but they were on the verge of coming charges against Bush when the US withdrew. Coming charges against the US pretty much proves they have no pro-West bias.
Russia hasn't been charged with shelling civilians either. War crimes like that are harder to investigate and will only take place after the conflict is over.
What have they gained?
The only thing Russia has taken so far is heavy casualties and the loss of billions in military equipment. The main driver of Russian aggression now is the prospect of the stable genius winning in 24. He knows that if that happens his waiting game will have paid off. If Joe or almost any other republican wins Putin will realize that that his strategy had not worked and look for a way out, it is now more important than ever for the west collectively to show its support for Ukraine.
The UN stood up to Red China over Korea. The reason was that the Security Council voted with Russia absent to cast a veto. Russia vetoes anything that would stop the war in Ukraine and the US vetoes initiatives to stop the war in Gaza.
And the beat goes on...In an interview with Die Zeit, Merkel openly stated that "the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine."
Neither Germany nor France made any effort to push both sides to implement the agreements and they also had the UNSC (which endorsed the Minsk agreements) to help drive it forward. When Ukraine disavowed the agreements there was not a finger lifted by anyone in the west to get them back on track. The evidence of intent is more in what was NOT done vs what was done. One of the KEY steps was for Ukraine to engage the rebel leaders which they refused to do. Without that there was never any chance it would work. I also read some of the legislation Ukraine passed and it was clearly in violation of the spirit of the accord .So yeah, its not just a knee jerk reaction that NATO BAD Russia good.
What charges against the USA the ICC will never dare to charge the USA. The US has an anti ICC law that threatens any measure including military action against the ICC if they press charges against the USA. Basically the USA said, try it and we will kill you. lol.
BBC Mediazona says about 45K KIA so that means 150K in total killed and injured. Most accounts are Urkaine has 6-10x more KIA. The summer offensive alone was 110KIA. They have much less artillery and no effective evac of casualties. Last month 10% of AFU dead were from hypothermia. The billions in military gear is just GDP as Russia replaces and repairs it. What it has done is honed the Russia MIC to a well oiled machine. The war will end before the US election. Biden is not gonna wanna have to run with Putin having the abilaty to escalate during the campaign. Getting rid of Mccarthy was the Dem plan to abandon Ukraine and blame it on the GOP. Biden can easily get 10B through yet he demands 61B or nothing. Its clear as day what is afoot. I
Last edited:
So what defines a Ukrainan victory? Do they need to survive as a state? You really think Russia will stop at the donbas? i do agree if they stop there it can be said to be a non victory as there will be another war within a decade. Now if they take Kiev, Ossesa, carve of chunks that leave independant enclaves for Hungary to absorb at a later date when no one is looking and set Livov and galicia up as rump states and prohibit Ukriane from owning any heavy weapons, that would be a victory.
To the Ukrainians this is an existential threat. They will not give up regardless of the us position. The difference is that without us aid the fight will be one sided. The stable genius will hand Ukraine to Putin and if he makes good on his threat to either withdraw from nato or not honour the joint defence provisions Putin will continue to try and rebuild the former Soviet Union. Do instead of providing money for Ukraine the us will be ultimately drawn into American boots on the ground. The chosen one is not only a threat to the American democracy but also the world order. Look for a trump hotel in Moscow in the future if he can find enough suckers to finance it. Mitchy start saving your pennies.
Russia has control of only a tiny bit more land than they had before this war, don't they?
Given the Donbas had voted to join Russia they could have done so without all the death and destruction.
That's a lot of waste for hardly any new territory.
That's up to Ukraine to decide for Ukraine, and everyone else to decide for themselves. For me, anything short of being puppeted is a victory because that was Russia's goal. A marginal victory, but a victory all the same. Pushing Russia out of the Donbas would be a decisive victory. Taking Crimea back as well would be an absolute victory.
Are it saying that's on question? Are you saying you think Russia will defeat Ukraine so soundly it will cease to exist? Is that the condition required for a Russian victory?
I think they might have no choice. If the West continues funding and modernizing the Ukrainian military, Russia has no chance at taking more.
You've been championing the Russian cause... You're now saying Russia is going to take Kyiv? It's interesting to hear you say Russia only taking the Donbas would be a Russian defeat. I feel like not like ago you were talking like that was the main objective, though admittedly I don't read most of your posts so I may be misremembering.
Last edited:
The war has evolved. If Russia only takes Donbas, then all that means is there will be another war in 5-10 years. As Shoigu said, they have no choice. NATO wanted to startegically defeat Russia, and there will be absolutely no secuirty if they don't utterly defeat Ukraine. As for NATO, they are spent. They are low on ammo, low on troops and they know Russia will not go past Ukraine. If they really thought Putin was coming they would be in the midst of a panicked mobilization now. I think Putin would have been satisfied with Minsk, but now the war has escelated and a lot of blood has been spilled. So Putin will keep going until he is satified that Ukraine will not be a threat again. If you think he is whacked. look at the Cuban Missile crisis and also hos Canada shit its pants over the Chinese Police setting up an office to serve Chinese citizens in Canada.
