I'd go further.
Traditionally, losing or gaining land is the major metric where you decide if someone "won".
So if Russia ends up with ANYTHING outside of the 2014 border it gets to claim it won.
Ukraine updates
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
- Status
Traditionally, losing or gaining land is the major metric where you decide if someone "won".
So if Russia ends up with ANYTHING outside of the 2014 border it gets to claim it won.
Only if we lived in the 15th century. Today it is more about achieving your political objectives than land. The best way to consider Russia defeated is for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO even if they lose land.
If you want to use "achieved their political objectives" then they lost almost immediately.
If you believe "it was all about NATO expansion" then this had more countries joined and re-unified NATO in a way it hasn't been for years.
If you believe it was shoring up Putin's domestic position, then it doesn't look like a success.
If you believe it was restoring Russia as a Great Power that must be invited to the table, it exposed their weakness and reduced their prestige.
If you believe it was about seizing the Ukrainian government or reasserting sufficient power to effectively control its foreign policy, then that is still possible but looks unlikely.
No they have not. It is why I said that for them to lose politically Ukraine has to be admitted to NATO, or Russia will have to be militarily defeated, which does not look likely.
What you are talking about is political legitimacy and that does not matter, because that negative opinion about Russia is only held amongst one half of the population in North America and Europe.
Ukraine was already not in NATO and no one thought they would be likely admitted to NATO in the near future.
The attack made that admission more likely.
So even if you limit the political objective to "Keep Ukraine out of NATO" this looks like a loser. (More of a loser if you take it as "curb NATO expansion" since it led directly to Sweden and Finland joining.)
The political legitimacy question does matter and it matters to Russia a lot.
It isn't about "Do people like us" it is about "Do they have to treat us like a major power".
Russia getting in this mess has reduced its standing internationally. Countries that would have been afraid to piss it off are willing to do so now. Countries that thought it's military could crush them in days no longer believe that. Perception matters, and managing that perception is important to the Putin regime. (It is important to most regimes.)
"We told you we wouldn't accept this, we walked in and took over Ukraine in 3 days because you didn't listen" sends a message to the world.
Trying that and failing sends a different one.
Interesting, very interesting.You sure do like to write a lot Valcazar
You know I dont read more than 2 lines
Hmmmmmm
Russia is very good at killing civilians, less so at taking on armed resistance. With Russia's population in free fall how long can it sustain casualties.
As for being a man, Marta Kostyuk doesn't like spaghetti Putinesca. Interesting she shook hands with the Moscow born Elena Rybakina, who represents Kazakhstan.
As for being a man, Marta Kostyuk doesn't like spaghetti Putinesca. Interesting she shook hands with the Moscow born Elena Rybakina, who represents Kazakhstan.
Thread by @ChrisO_wiki on Thread Reader App
@ChrisO_wiki: 1/ The Commander of the Eastern Group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrskyi, has given an interesting interview to Interfax-Ukraine. The full interview is worth reading, but...…
threadreaderapp.com
- Status
