LordsFire
Internet Wizard
There are two ways to win a war.
1. Destroy the enemy's will to fight.
2. Destroy the enemy's means to fight.
Which of these is Russia going to win by?
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
1. Destroy the enemy's will to fight.
2. Destroy the enemy's means to fight.
Which of these is Russia going to win by?
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
both
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Thats my definition of complete victory. There are levels below that. Most wars arent fought to complete victory. if Russia can impose a peace on Ukraine that limits NATO, demilitarises Ukraine and allows it to keep the areas it has already seized, that is also victory, but of a more limited sort.
For Ukraine to "win" it would have to completely eject Russia.
As for being no where near the Dnieper, well, the current situation is an unstable equilibrium not a stalemate. Ukraine's lines will crumble a little, then all at once.
Buba
A total creep
Well, you are entitled to have an opinon.
In Putin Russia, the opinion is entitled to you.
Russia cannot impose anything on Ukraine without instituting a puppet government or taking it over completely. Anything less than that would be phrased closer to "Ukraine gets a case of stupid, accepts a shitty deal offer from Russia for reasons". Which, fun fact, is the kind of deals Russia offered Ukraine multiple times, were refused multiple times, and then said refusal was blamed by Russia simps on US and UK influences bullying those poor Ukrainian politicians who just really want to surrender but bloodthirsty westerners are making them stand and fight.
And even if that happened, it's plain Russian wishful thinking to automatically imply it would limit NATO, which is separate from Ukraine, rather than increase its activity and relevance in reaction to the Russian threat getting bigger and closer.
Funny enough, you are kinda close to what leaked documents say Putin expected to happen when he started the "short and victorious" special military operation, before it turned out to be not short at all and not very victorious either, with such fantasies as giving NATO ultimatums and getting a no-fly zone over Poland and Baltics from such, finally resulting in collapse of NATO, possibly EU, and Russia becoming a superpower again like back in the days of USSR.
Deluded Putin thought Ukraine invasion would break up NATO, leaked docs show
VLADIMIR Putin believed NATO would disintegrate and Western countries beg Russia not to harm them after he invaded Ukraine, leaked spy docs show. As the Russian death toll in the Ukraine war passes…
www.thesun.ie
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Russia cannot impose anything on Ukraine without instituting a puppet government or taking it over completely. Anything less than that would be phrased closer to "Ukraine gets a case of stupid, accepts a shitty deal offer from Russia for reasons". Which, fun fact, is the kind of deals Russia offered Ukraine multiple times, were refused multiple times, and then said refusal was blamed by Russia simps on US and UK influences bullying those poor Ukrainian politicians who just really want to surrender but bloodthirsty westerners are making them stand and fight.
And even if that happened, it's plain Russian wishful thinking to automatically imply it would limit NATO, which is separate from Ukraine, rather than increase its activity and relevance in reaction to the Russian threat getting bigger and closer.
Funny enough, you are kinda close to what leaked documents say Putin expected to happen when he started the "short and victorious" special military operation, before it turned out to be not short at all and not very victorious either, with such fantasies as giving NATO ultimatums and getting a no-fly zone over Poland and Baltics from such, finally resulting in collapse of NATO, possibly EU, and Russia becoming a superpower again like back in the days of USSR.
Deluded Putin thought Ukraine invasion would break up NATO, leaked docs show
VLADIMIR Putin believed NATO would disintegrate and Western countries beg Russia not to harm them after he invaded Ukraine, leaked spy docs show. As the Russian death toll in the Ukraine war passes…
I imagine he did think it would be a short victorious war. Ukraine didnt put up a great fight during crimean invasion nor did it cover itself in glory when the donbass rebelled. He had every reason to think he could blitz the capital and then negotiate a peace.
But you also believed Putler would run out of ammunition, Russias economy would collapse and the government would be overthrown and russia turned into another liberal-democratic yankee vassal state ripe for the pillaging like Ukraine.
You all honestly thought the so-called counteroffensive would be smashing success, and Ukraine would be in mariupol by now because "Ukraines crack divisions" with NATO wonderwaffles would show those orks how to fight the NATO way.
Well that didnt happen either did it? NATO wonderwaffles arent that wonderful, NATO training isn't especially special and Ukraines crack divisions are full of old men and walking wounded.
Turns out we all played on faulty assumptions.
He did. If he didn't, he would not be spending perfectly good money on North Korean ammunition, which is not worth such money.
North Korean Arms Shipments to Russia Continue With 500K Munitions – Bloomberg - The Moscow Times
Continuing North Korean arms shipments to Russia this winter are allowing Moscow to maintain pressure on Ukraine as it faces the risk of losing critical Western supplies, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, citing satellite imagery.
www.themoscowtimes.com
Arms contract shows Iran has sold Russia ammunition for Ukraine war, says security source
An informed source has claimed the document is "100% authentic". It shows various types of ammunition worth just over $1m (£800,000).
news.sky.com
Just like pro-Ukrainian commentators were always willing to admit that Ukraine would not have done nearly as well in the war as it did without getting arms from the West, Russia stronk people need to admit that Russia would be up the shit creek without a paddle without getting supplies from Iran and North Korea, which doesn't make them sound that stronk at all.
Give the economy time, and your worldview - a reexamination.
On the contrary, i always criticized NATO for not sending as much of these "wunderwaffes" as it should, so the chances were up in the air.
They would be more wonderful if they were sent in meaningful numbers...
Biden Announces Abrams Tanks to be Delivered to Ukraine
President Joe Biden announced that the United States will provide Ukraine with 31 M1 Abrams tanks, which is the required number to equip an entire Ukraine tank battalion.
www.defense.gov
Where are the F-16's? Still not there.
Where are the ATACM? Oh, there were 20 sent and had some successes with just that...
United States sent about 20 ATACMS missiles to Ukraine
The United States has sent about 20 ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. One of the conditions for the delivery is that they will not be used for attacks on Russian territory. Source: The New York Times with reference to two Western officials, and a US official Quote from NYT: "After many reports that a...
Contrary to what Biden admin and Russian simps want to claim (curious alliance right there), they aren't even nearly such huge champions of Ukrainian war effort as some like to think.
Last edited:
When did anyone else in this current discussion using the term "NATO Wonder-anything" besides you or that the Counteroffensive would be a "smashing success." It sounds like someone is establishing a strawman to cover up the fact that they've been wrong on almost everything but are trying to achieve some sort of equilibrium of reliability when in fact one person (you) has been completely wrong on almost everything while everyone else has been at worst, partially wrong with some things of far less importance.
Statements on Russia collapsing or being overthrown sound about as long term as your now safe, binary statement that "Russia Will Win" with all of the vagaries associated with that.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Most likely by moving as many goal posts as possible.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Completely eject Russia from what it took starting with the full scale invasion, or completely retake everything lost since 2014?
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Winning conditions have been set by ukraine themselves. The complete ejection of Russia from territory claimed by Ukraine.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Yeah OK and Russia's win condition of conquer 100% of Ukraine has been set by Russia. If you want to say that anything less than absolute victory is no victory at all then you're entitled to that opinion but please at least make it a consistent opinion.
(Well, maybe that wasn't the goal they set but different goals have been articulated over time. Which of them is the "real" one to measure victory by? Can Ukraine also adjust its victory condition?)
Last edited:
I for one think that there is a considerable chance for this to become more of a Korea or Taiwan style situation, with no formal peace treaty and occasional flare-ups of war and surprise attempts at border changes, minor or major, especially before Ukraine joins any major formal military alliance, or Russia has a major political upheaval resulting in change of management. In such scenario it's hard to talk of some sort of definitive victory and defeat, because technically it ain't over.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
It's not impossible that this will end up like Korea but I seriously doubt it: I think essentially all of Ukraine's allies will prefer the conflict to end rather than merely freeze. As for settling into a sort of dull roar that both sides find both sustainable and preferable to peace, without an ocean to separate them like China and Taiwan I find it unlikely that there would be a stable equilibrium there.
Really, if the latter situation did happen it would probably be as a fulfillment of the isolationists' accusations: the west stringing along Ukraine, cutting off supplies when it looks like they're going to win and then giving more aid when it looks like they're going to lose. Heck, let's throw in China doing the same on the other side just for fun. Real 1984 shit.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
That's largely because Russia's pawns (for the US, the GOP; for Germany, the Neo-Nazis; the like) are gumming up the works.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Russia's stated objectives have been set out since the beginning of the war, and they never included the conquest of 100% of Ukraine. Unless they explicitly change those objectives, we must use them as the yardstick of victory.
If I were a Ukrainian, my definition of victory would have been forcing the Russians to the table on my terms and minimising my losses.
Interesting theory,BUT - putin started war to take Kiev in week,becouse he belive that ukrainians are lesser russians.
Victory mean taking Ukraine and turning ukrainians into russians for him.
Not possible now.
Ukrainian victory mean surviving as state and nation - and notching except nukes could change that.
But,even nukes do not mean moscov victory - they want turn ukrainians into their serfs,not burn them.
That sounds more like opposition to Ukraine in Ukraine friendly states.
The other side also gets a veto, and for one it values the technical state of war as excuse for some internal restrictions and other policy matters, and would much rather keep trying than admit defeat by ceasing.
It wasn't like that for first few decades, there were skirmish flareups in the 50's with hundreds dead and attempts to seize islands, regular artillery exchanges until late 70's, and eventually US Navy showing up prevented another crisis in the 90's...
And that's with ocean to separate them and US Navy being around to look angrily at the events.
Isolationists are being manipulative dicks in saying that, for they are the ones who always whine that the West should cut off supplies to begin with and spend inordinate amount of lobbying resources and airtime trying to promote this view, so they are trying to fulfill their very own accusation and blame everyone else for planning that all along.
For one China is stingy towards Russia with assistance, people struggle to imagine how much China technically *could* do for Russia but doesn't. North Korea and Iran possibly do more than China, but they can do only so much.