Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[History Learner]

I was working up a big long response with lots of links and support. Then I saw that you've been posting on the thread in The War College.

If you're going to actively ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative on that thread, there's no point in trying to get you to pay attention to evidence you don't like here.

The onus is on you to show where I did that. I have provided links, where am I misquoting them or misrepresenting them? What you're doing here is the exact same type of behavior I've seen you accuse "Leftists" of; you're not actually engaging in an argument with facts or reason, but instead casting aspersions of a moral nature. I'm amused, certainly, but not deterred because I can see the total lack of an argument here.

Ukraine has already won.

Because their win condition was making it impossible for Russia to win.

Based on what? It's easy to claim, but I've yet to see any of you actually show any real evidence?

20 million?
Why hasn't Russia mobilized yet?

Because they don't need to, they're winning and have plenty of volunteer professionals to use anyway. Ukraine now claims they have over 300,000 in action and that's why the Ukrainian offensives have failed and Russia is making steady progress.

 

[History Learner]

Who are your "economical and historical circles", a circle of voodoo shamans?

Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?

There were many factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, including political policies, economics, defense spending, and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Find out more about how this political entity dissolved.

www.britannica.com

You really continue to prove everything I've ever said about your ability to argue, in that you continuously fail to even read your own sources:

It is a widely held belief that Soviet defense spending accelerated dramatically in response to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and proposals such as the Strategic Defense Initiative. In fact, the Soviet military budget had been trending upward since at least the early 1970s, but Western analysts were left with best guesses in regard to hard numbers. Outside estimates of Soviet military spending ranged between 10 and 20 percent of GDP, and, even within the Soviet Union itself, it was difficult to produce an exact accounting because the military budget involved a variety of government ministries, each with its own competing interests. What can be said definitively, however, is that military spending was consistently agnostic of overall economic trends: even when the Soviet economy lagged, the military remained well-funded. In addition, the military took priority when it came to research and development talent. Technological innovators and would-be entrepreneurs who could have helped support Gorbachev’s partial transition to a market economy were instead funneled into defense industries.​

By fucking common sense...
The west has developed superior military technology, including stuff like stealth aircraft and tanks of such expensive and complex design that Russia is only now trying to come up with something competitive to them in form of T-14, practical application of AESA radars, starting out on missile defense technology that Russia cannot even dream of matching to this day, computer technology with all its military applications and so on and so on. And to make the defeat stick it did that with an easily sustainable fraction of the crushing effort Soviets took to try keep up as described above.

Which is something I've yet to see you demonstrate you actually have, so perhaps you shouldn't use that as the basis of your arguments. Specific to what is at hand, you've again shifted the goalposts; we were talking about the Arms Race in the 1980s between the USSR and the West, not the modern status of Russian forces, which is outside the historical timeframe and even direct context. As such, I'm asking again: what evidence is there the USSR was defeated by the West in the Arms Race? Give me some specific conditions and objective standards.

If you want to white knight for someone else, don't bullshit me, i will mock you for it.
If you don't, don't butt in into conversations you don't track properly.

You've yet to prove to me you can even hold a conversation, much less a debate. Let's not pretend we can mock another when you prove consistently when I engage you your own lackings, shall we?

Or we can agree that this is a valid way to compare military potential of countries for 14 year old nerds. Correction, most 14 year old nerds would probably think it too simplistic on second thought. Yet you are proposing it here, and i am laughing at you.
Of course its a completely pointless analogy because these are countries with vastly different industries, economies, political systems and per capita GDP and wealth.

Or we can agree you clearly don't understand what you've been trying to argue upon with me, I've pointed out the obvious error you made and now you're attempting a cop out. Seems just as good to me, what say you? I'd agree most "14 year old nerds" would know better, which is why you don't is worth all the mockery I feel like giving you. Case in point is how you know so little you try to claim there's no way to compare economies by giving a list of objective measurements created to compare economies objectively.

It's not that the tools don't exist, you just completely lack the understanding of how to use them.

What funding do you think prompts a whole lot of this construction?
What does building oil extraction, refining and transfer infrastructure count as?
What do you think oil refining counts as?
What companies are famous for doing all of the above?

I'll gladly answer all of that when you answer the question of how Germany is better for having 29% Industry GDP at ~80 Million than Russia with 35% at 148 Million, but Russia isn't compared to the United States at 18% with 330 Million. Either it is, by your own self proclaimed standard, or it's time for you to start admitting you're wrong. I'm no longer cutting you any slack when you see fit to pretend you have an intellect that enables you to mock others when you're self evidently unable to even do a modicum of what you pretend.

This is a direct parallel to Russian industry's major automotive sector having a considerable contribution from such Russian companies as Renault and Volkswagen.

All of which is applicable to those companies, which have had to slow and stop production given the lost sub component facilities from Russia. We can also talk about the other difficulties in other fields for other companies; do we need to add the term Globalization and its impacts to things you don't seem to understand because it's not the one sided issue you see here? Just ask Boeing who has been forced to reduce its production here in the States because of the loss of components and materials from Russia.

 

[Arch Dornan]

So we should buy Russian oil?

Has Biden administration successfully got the Saudis to pump more oil?

Their options are really limited putting a stop to fracking and the keystone pipeline.

I saw them negotiate with Venezuela and Iran too. Countries they antagonised a lot and now they want to negotiate for their oil.

 

[Marduk]

You really continue to prove everything I've ever said about your ability to argue, in that you continuously fail to even read your own sources:

It is a widely held belief that Soviet defense spending accelerated dramatically in response to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and proposals such as the Strategic Defense Initiative. In fact, the Soviet military budget had been trending upward since at least the early 1970s, but Western analysts were left with best guesses in regard to hard numbers. Outside estimates of Soviet military spending ranged between 10 and 20 percent of GDP, and, even within the Soviet Union itself, it was difficult to produce an exact accounting because the military budget involved a variety of government ministries, each with its own competing interests. What can be said definitively, however, is that military spending was consistently agnostic of overall economic trends: even when the Soviet economy lagged, the military remained well-funded. In addition, the military took priority when it came to research and development talent. Technological innovators and would-be entrepreneurs who could have helped support Gorbachev’s partial transition to a market economy were instead funneled into defense industries.​

Are you perhaps a victim of America's infamous, marxist infiltrated public school system?
Because either you are fucking around, or you genuinely fail at most basic reading comprehension here. That's the whole bloody argument me and Britannica are making here. The Soviets have bankrupted themselves by, among other things, keeping insane 10-20% GDP military spending levels (for scale the average EU country is almost at 2%, US, Russia and Israel are in 4-6% territory, and North Korea is estimated at between 12-24%) up no matter how poorly their economy was doing and regardless of whether they could afford to keep neglecting other sectors.
And then you accuse me of not reading my sources, bolding the part stating exactly this point.

Which is something I've yet to see you demonstrate you actually have, so perhaps you shouldn't use that as the basis of your arguments. Specific to what is at hand, you've again shifted the goalposts; we were talking about the Arms Race in the 1980s between the USSR and the West, not the modern status of Russian forces, which is outside the historical timeframe and even direct context. As such, I'm asking again: what evidence is there the USSR was defeated by the West in the Arms Race? Give me some specific conditions and objective standards.

Sod off with your discount rhetorics, no one cares about your imagined goalposts.
If you want to make an argument that Soviet Union didn't lose the arms race, make it, or link a respectable military source claiming otherwise, if i wanted to mess around trying to make up conditions and standards for quantifying it, i would do so with someone more intelligent and less annoying, who has better ways of doing that than spouting silly wordgames at me, or i'd be just designing a strategy game.

You've yet to prove to me you can even hold a conversation, much less a debate. Let's not pretend we can mock another when you prove consistently when I engage you your own lackings, shall we?

Its hard to hold a debate with someone who goes into multi reply argument against commonly recognized historical theories after being called out on claiming that the consensus of experts is totally against them and then wants to collaboratively design a whole system for quantifying military power while clearly not having much of an idea about the matter of fact and just trying to grind an axe and annoy people.

Or we can agree you clearly don't understand what you've been trying to argue upon with me, I've pointed out the obvious error you made and now you're attempting a cop out. Seems just as good to me, what say you? I'd agree most "14 year old nerds" would know better, which is why you don't is worth all the mockery I feel like giving you. Case in point is how you know so little you try to claim there's no way to compare economies by giving a list of objective measurements created to compare economies objectively.

Pfff. I'm not saying that no such system of comparisons within certain parameters and caveats exist. I claim that the one you proposed sucks for the purpose you are using it for.

It's not that the tools don't exist, you just completely lack the understanding of how to use them.

Its that you are trying to use a hammer to do microchip repair.

I'll gladly answer all of that when you answer the question of how Germany is better for having 29% Industry GDP at ~80 Million than Russia with 35% at 148 Million, but Russia isn't compared to the United States at 18% with 330 Million. Either it is, by your own self proclaimed standard, or it's time for you to start admitting you're wrong. I'm no longer cutting you any slack when you see fit to pretend you have an intellect that enables you to mock others when you're self evidently unable to even do a modicum of what you pretend.

29% of Germany's GDP and also 18% of US GDP is far more than 35% of Russia's GDP, and even more so in GDP per capita. And even then you have to correct for roughly 21% of Russian GDP being the energy sector, which falls under industry, so do the math yourself.
You are right, you spout so much useless wordage that mocking you is pointless, i should just let you continue to mock yourself, i wouldn't waste my keyboard typing out so much mockery.

All of which is applicable to those companies, which have had to slow and stop production given the lost sub component facilities from Russia. We can also talk about the other difficulties in other fields for other companies; do we need to add the term Globalization and its impacts to things you don't seem to understand because it's not the one sided issue you see here? Just ask Boeing who has been forced to reduce its production here in the States because of the loss of components and materials from Russia.

Sub-component? Are you randomly making up arguments or mistake assembly plants for sub-component factories, and export ones at that?
Materials are a different matter, metals are, after energy resources a major export of Russia...
Also adding up to that "big" industry GDP.

 

[Cherico]

If Russians were competent and/or followed their hardliners, declared outright full mobilization and attacked conventionally with a near million strong army from day one you would be right.
Now, however, with the failed special operation turned into slow, limited scale invasion with peacetime military, they are at severe risk of defeat in detail.
Their are bleeding the hell out of their quality specialist units, closest they have to professionals, due to lack of numbers and support forces, especially in infantry, while Ukraine gets strengthened by the slowly incoming western hardware. If this keeps up long enough their army will be in shambles for a decade, even mobilization will no longer be surefire victory.

It's good to be a very hard fight for the Ukrainians if their lucky they might pull out it off but I doubt it. I'd give them a 20 percent chance of winning the conventional war and a 40 percent chance of winning the guruallia war after they lose a conventional war.

 

[Marduk]

It's good to be a very hard fight for the Ukrainians if their lucky they might pull out it off but I doubt it. I'd give them a 20 percent chance of winning the conventional war and a 40 percent chance of winning the guruallia war after they lose a conventional war.

Russia can't win unless it does full mobilization or dramatically cuts its ambitions. Politically its leadership is so far unwilling to do either. They just simply don't have enough boots on the ground in the theater to occupy the amount of territory they want to occupy.

 

[LordsFire]

The onus is on you to show where I did that. I have provided links, where am I misquoting them or misrepresenting them? What you're doing here is the exact same type of behavior I've seen you accuse "Leftists" of; you're not actually engaging in an argument with facts or reason, but instead casting aspersions of a moral nature. I'm amused, certainly, but not deterred because I can see the total lack of an argument here.



Based on what? It's easy to claim, but I've yet to see any of you actually show any real evidence?

This nonsense is incredibly rich coming from you. I made this:

You have one take, from one specific unit.

Let's see how many sources I can easily pony up on the Russians getting shellacked?

Artillery strike on Russian positions as they're pushed back near Chuhuiv.

Disastrous Russian attempt at a river crossing near Bilohorivka. Postive IDs on a minimum of 90 military vehicles lost, likely end count will be 100-150. This happened ~3 weeks ago. Still shots of the wreckage of same

A generally useful map of the war in action. Note that there is no longer a front by Kyiv or Chernihiv. Because the Russians were driven all the way back across the border. The Russians are advancing on the eastern front, but they were crushed on the western; keeping both fronts in mind gives a much more balanced image of the war.
Russian APC hit by ATGM fire. [/URL] Tank getting hit. Another.
Another vehicle hit.
Another.
Three destroyed Russian AFVs.
Russian supply convoy ambush, footage from a drone.
Russian base hit by Ukrainian artillery.
Russian ammo dump hit by Ukraiian artillery.
Some Russian SPGs destroyed, claimed by counter-battery fire.

I could go on, and on, and on, because there's hundreds of images and videos of Russian hardware getting destroyed. There is not equivalent volume of video of Ukrainian hardware being destroyed. This isn't merely stuff 'Ukrainian government claims' either, this is material from a broad base of sources (such as the famous videos of Ukrainian farmers hauling tanks and other AFVs away with tractors), that has been evaluated by a broad variety of people around the world for validity and location.

You get things like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=10YK14-QB25penu8jeS4hBVarzGKZsVgj&ll=50.68866530201274%2C30.330052436734093&z=9

A resource created by independent parties on the internet, showing confirmed locations of various footage and still shots. Have a look around, see what you find.

In the end, I'm pretty confident none of this will convince you. Why?



This is a religious statement. It's not just 'Things look bad for the Ukrainians,' it's not just 'Russians have overwhelming advantages,' it's a 'no matter what.'

You have placed your faith in the Russians winning.

I, on the other hand, think it's entirely possible either side could win. I think the Russians are less likely to win, due to the sheer will to fight that the Ukrainians are demonstrating, but that's far from being certain.

Also, I am making a note that you've claimed Russian total victory will happen, as of May 31st 2022. I'm going to expect you to be eating crow at least on the 'total' part some time down the line, possibly on the 'victory' part too.

Post eighteen days ago, and you completely disappeared from the thread.

You've provided what, 2-4 links total in the last month? At best you could be said to have framed half of an argument, that being 'Ukrainian losses are bad.' You've completely failed to demonstrate that said losses are on par with, much less worse, than Russian losses, and when you're confronted with records demonstrating that Russian losses are fairly serious, you ghost the thread for two weeks.


Arguments have been presented. Evidence has been presented. You just refuse to address it.

 

[History Learner]

This nonsense is incredibly rich coming from you. I made this:

I've made multiple posts filled with data points from you to draw from, would you like to try again?

Post eighteen days ago, and you completely disappeared from the thread.

I'm sorry I'm not a NEET with time to sit around and post every day, but it is odd to claim I disappeared when I'm here right now responding to you and have been.

You've provided what, 2-4 links total in the last month? At best you could be said to have framed half of an argument, that being 'Ukrainian losses are bad.' You've completely failed to demonstrate that said losses are on par with, much less worse, than Russian losses, and when you're confronted with records demonstrating that Russian losses are fairly serious, you ghost the thread for two weeks.

Laughably false. Let's run through what I've done in the last two weeks, shall we:

As a reminder, the KIA rate was 60-100 per day for Ukraine about two weeks ago.

To quote Zelensky himself, from June 1st:

“The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk,” Zelensky said in an interview with Newsmax that was published on Tuesday.

“The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters,” he added.

Zelensky advisers, as the situation continues to develop, are now admitting to far higher losses as of June 10th:

A senior Ukrainian presidential aide has told the BBC that between 100 and 200 Ukrainian troops are being killed on the front line every day.

To put this into historical perspective:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine is now losing 60 to 100 soldiers each day in combat. By way of comparison, just short of 50 American soldiers died per day on average in 1968 during the Vietnam War’s deadliest year for U.S. forces.

It would certainly come as shock for Kherson, Melitopol, Mariupol, Lyman and 90% of Severodonetsk last I checked that the Russians have failed to make any serious advances. It would equally come as a shock to the men of the JTO, around 70,000 men before the war, they were not a large grouping given they were the largest deployment of Ukrainian servicemembers in February. As for the idea the Russians have been getting bloodied, that's been disabused by the BBC:

Based on the open sources of the BBC, the names of more than 3,500 Russian soldiers who died in the war in Ukraine are already known. Not all the dead are reported by local authorities. Every week we find new evidence of Russian military funerals in cemeteries in different cities of Russia, which are not publicly reported.

The BBC Russian Service maintains a list of casualties of Russian servicemen in Ukraine jointly with Mediazona (recognized in Russia as a "media-foreign agent") and a team of volunteers. As of June 10, we were able to confirm information about 3,502 dead soldiers and officers.

Already we're at five different links just from two posts within the last week, also of note is at the end of this one I tackle the claims about Russian losses and show them to be completely false, but let's continue:

Not supported by any evidence and is being openly admitted by both Western Press and the Ukrainians themselves:

Western officials prefer not to discuss the impact of the war on the defenders, instead highlighting the problems for the Russians in their briefings. This week, one of those officials said their estimate was that the invaders had lost “15,000 to 20,000 dead”, out of an invasion force that was 150,000 or more. Yet despite this, Moscow’s army has still not lost its offensive capability.

But they chose not to provide similar estimates for Ukraine, which can create a lopsided impression that the Russians are faring worse. In fact, with an artillery overmatch of 10 or 15 to one, according to the Ukrainians, it may well be that the invaders’ casualty rate is far lower at the moment, because they are able to deal death from a greater distance to defenders who cannot see them.

Ammunition is certainly running short on the Ukrainian side, again by their own admission. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, has said Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, and has “almost used up” its stockpile of Soviet 152mm standard shells. It is now relying on Nato-standard 155mm howitzers; it is unclear how many of these it has.

Commanders have told the Guardian that Ukraine struggles for some basic equipment such as encrypted radios (where mobile phones work, it is not uncommon to rely on the secure Signal app instead) or advanced sights and optics of the types commonly used by western militaries.

Ukraine is not short on bravery and determination. Western support is still in place, as shown by the UK announcement to supply a handful of – perhaps three – multiple rocket launchers this week, even if Kyiv said almost immediately it wanted many times more. But it is Russia’s forces that have found a way to advance in the Donbas, raising the question of whether the three-month war is at another turning point.

Not only another link-we're at seven in a week when the claim was two to four in a month according to you-but also another one directly saying Ukrainian losses are exceeding Russian losses and how they are doing so. We're not done yet, however:

I generally stopped replying to these kind of threads because I knew time would prove me right soon enough, and indeed it has.

Ukraine is running out of ammunition as prospects dim on the battlefield:

[T]he odds against the Ukrainians are starting to look overwhelming, said Danylyuk, the government adviser.
“The Russians are using long-range artillery against us, often without any response, because we don’t have the means,” he said. “They can attack from dozens of kilometers away and we can’t fire back. We know all the coordinates for all their important targets, but we don’t have the means to attack.”

Ukraine has now almost completely run out of ammunition for the Soviet-era weapons systems that were the mainstay of its arsenal, and the Eastern European countries that maintained the same systems have run out of surplus supplies to donate, Danylyuk said. Ukraine urgently needs to shift to longer-range and more sophisticated Western systems, but those have only recently been committed, and in insufficient quantities to match Russia’s immense firepower, he said.

Russia is firing as many as 50,000 artillery rounds a day into Ukrainian positions, and the Ukrainians can only hit back with around 5,000 to 6,000 rounds a day, he said. The United States has committed to deliver 220,000 rounds of ammunition — enough to match Russian firepower for around four days.

Ukraine forces outgunned up to 40 to one by Russian forces, intelligence report reveals

Ukrainian troops are suffering massive losses as they are outgunned 20 to one in artillery and 40 to one in ammunition by Russian forces, according to new intelligence painting a bleak picture of the conflict on the frontline.

A report by Ukrainian and Western intelligence officials also reveals that the Ukrainians are facing huge difficulties responding to Russians shelling with their artillery restricted to a range of 25 kilometres, while the enemy can strike from 12 times that distance.

For the first time since the war began, there is now concern over desertion. The report, seen by The Independent, says the worsening situation in the Donbas, with up to a hundred soldiers being killed a day, is having “a seriously demoralising effect on Ukrainian forces as well as a very real material effect; cases of desertion are growing every week”.

Anyone at this point claiming the Ukrainians are winning or even having an easy time of it are deluding themselves and ignoring even what the Ukrainians themselves are admitting to. To quote Zelensky himself, from June 1st:

“The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk,” Zelensky said in an interview with Newsmax that was published on Tuesday.

“The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters,” he added.

Zelensky advisers, as the situation continues to develop, are now admitting to far higher losses as of June 10th:

A senior Ukrainian presidential aide has told the BBC that between 100 and 200 Ukrainian troops are being killed on the front line every day.

To put this into historical perspective:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine is now losing 60 to 100 soldiers each day in combat. By way of comparison, just short of 50 American soldiers died per day on average in 1968 during the Vietnam War’s deadliest year for U.S. forces.

Just to really hammer it home:

Any way you count it, the figures are stark: Ukrainian casualties are running at a rate of somewhere between 6oo and 1,000 a day. One presidential adviser, Oleksiy Arestovych, told the Guardian this week it was 150 killed and 800 wounded daily; another, Mykhaylo Podolyak, told the BBC that 100 to 200 Ukrainian troops a day were being killed.

It represents an extraordinary loss of human life and capacity for the defenders, embroiled in a defence of the eastern city of Sievierodonetsk that this week turned into a losing battle. Yet the city was also arguably a place that Ukraine could have retreated from to the more defensible Lysychansk, across the Siverski Donets River, the sort of defensive situation that Ukraine has fared far better in.

Further:

Western officials prefer not to discuss the impact of the war on the defenders, instead highlighting the problems for the Russians in their briefings. This week, one of those officials said their estimate was that the invaders had lost “15,000 to 20,000 dead”, out of an invasion force that was 150,000 or more. Yet despite this, Moscow’s army has still not lost its offensive capability.

But they chose not to provide similar estimates for Ukraine, which can create a lopsided impression that the Russians are faring worse. In fact, with an artillery overmatch of 10 or 15 to one, according to the Ukrainians, it may well be that the invaders’ casualty rate is far lower at the moment, because they are able to deal death from a greater distance to defenders who cannot see them.

Ammunition is certainly running short on the Ukrainian side, again by their own admission. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, has said Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, and has “almost used up” its stockpile of Soviet 152mm standard shells. It is now relying on Nato-standard 155mm howitzers; it is unclear how many of these it has.

Commanders have told the Guardian that Ukraine struggles for some basic equipment such as encrypted radios (where mobile phones work, it is not uncommon to rely on the secure Signal app instead) or advanced sights and optics of the types commonly used by western militaries.

Ukraine is not short on bravery and determination. Western support is still in place, as shown by the UK announcement to supply a handful of – perhaps three – multiple rocket launchers this week, even if Kyiv said almost immediately it wanted many times more. But it is Russia’s forces that have found a way to advance in the Donbas, raising the question of whether the three-month war is at another turning point.



They have half of the combat brigades Ukraine had in February and their own war games found the Russians would crush them in less than a week.

Another two links that had not been shown in other posts are contained in this one, with one of them showing that PoW totals for the Russians was only about 900 in Ukrainian custody as opposed to 6,500 in Russian hands for the Ukrainians. So no, I've made by case with an immense amount of sources and repeatedly shown Russian losses are less than Ukrainian. Either you've not been paying attention, and thus should not speak on generalities you do not know of, or you're acting in bad faith here to even claim such.

Arguments have been presented. Evidence has been presented. You just refuse to address it.

As I've shown above, not only did I address them I demolished them. Even the argument you presented from late May basically consisted of showing pictures of Russian tanks to make sweeping general statements about the conflict that are not supported by any evidence. I have presented the evidence as of yet have failed to see any counters that use the same objective standards.

 

[LordsFire]

I'll be fair; it does look like I missed one of your larger posts with several links. That's my bad.


Your 'counter' to the idea that Russia has lost substantial amounts of forces is incredibly weak though.

You cite the Vietnam war for 'historical perspective,' comparing roughly 50 US soldiers lost per day during its deadliest year for US forces. Given that the US military when it was actually committed to the fighting, was inflicting crushing military defeats on the North Vietnamese, that's really not saying much at all.

You want some actual proportional historical perspective? D-day saw 156k soldiers on the Allied side (not counting naval personnel), and a little over 50k on the German side. The allied casualties were over 10k, with 4,414 confirmed dead. That's in a single day of combat; the Ukrainians losing 60-100, or even 100-200 per day with the more mid-range estimate, is not some horrific rate of losses, it's about the range you'd expect for heavy sustained fighting.

By the links you cite yourself, the Russians have lost 15k-20k soldiers as fatalities. Meanwhile, that same link has Ukrainian fatalities as of June 10th at 10k.

This would mean that by your own sources, the Russians are actually losing more men than the Ukrainians are.

Further, when you count the actual mobilized strength, the Ukrainians actually have more manpower available than the Russians, and as has been amply demonstrated on the field of battle, that manpower is better trained and more determined to fight as well. Not to mention benefiting from superior strategic leadership.

Also, what about the losses to their puppet states? What kind of losses have they suffered?


It's fair to criticize me for missing one of your posts.

It's also fair to say that you have not remotely 'demolished' arguments about lopsided losses.

Even your own links suggest this war is a tightly-run thing, rather than a one-sided inevitable march towards victory. Which, if you weren't willfully ignoring the implications of the Kyiv and Chernihiv offensives being completely routed, you'd already be aware of.

 

[History Learner]

Are you perhaps a victim of America's infamous, marxist infiltrated public school system?
Because either you are fucking around, or you genuinely fail at most basic reading comprehension here. That's the whole bloody argument me and Britannica are making here. The Soviets have bankrupted themselves by, among other things, keeping insane 10-20% GDP military spending levels (for scale the average EU country is almost at 2%, US, Russia and Israel are in 4-6% territory, and North Korea is estimated at between 12-24%) up no matter how poorly their economy was doing and regardless of whether they could afford to keep neglecting other sectors.
And then you accuse me of not reading my sources, bolding the part stating exactly this point.

Yes you didn't read it and you failed to understand it, that was obvious. Any mildly competent 14 year old would understand that the bolded portion says the opposite of what you're claiming it to, unless of course in your own head the word "agnostic" means something else; in the real world, with real definitions, it means the following in the context used:

adjective​

of or relating to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.​

asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.​

not taking a stand on something, especially not holding either of two usually strongly opposed positions (often used in combination):to take an agnostic view of technological progress; fuel agnostic energy policies.​

In other words, your own source states there is no ability to link military spending to overall economic trends. It might be useful for you, as I have often said, to learn what the terms mean before even trying to argue upon them.

Sod off with your discount rhetorics, no one cares about your imagined goalposts.
If you want to make an argument that Soviet Union didn't lose the arms race, make it, or link a respectable military source claiming otherwise, if i wanted to mess around trying to make up conditions and standards for quantifying it, i would do so with someone more intelligent and less annoying, who has better ways of doing that than spouting silly wordgames at me, or i'd be just designing a strategy game.

And yet here you are, after multiple posts, still doing that. Doesn't seem to be that this is actually the case, rather you know I'm better at debating this stuff then you so you have to maintain ambiguity less it become obvious. That's happened enough now between us that I can tell exactly what you're pulling and yes, I'm going to call attention to it to mock you for it.

Its hard to hold a debate with someone who goes into multi reply argument against commonly recognized historical theories after being called out on claiming that the consensus of experts is totally against them and then wants to collaboratively design a whole system for quantifying military power while clearly not having much of an idea about the matter of fact and just trying to grind an axe and annoy people.

As opposed to someone who cited one of the first results on Google, can't cite anything else to back up a proclaimed "commonly recognized historical theory" and apparently doesn't know what the word agnostic means? Adorable on your part, certainly, and I did get a good chuckle out of reading this. The best part was in claiming the consensus of experts is totally against me, yet you can't cite any of them by name; perhaps they reside in your head alone, then? As for quantifying military power, you say you have no system but just tried to do that in the last post with your assertions?

Very curious indeed all these obvious contradictions, it's almost as if you don't know anything you're talking about and making it up as you go to try to hide that. Let us, however, turn to what some real experts say and I'll even name them too instead of these undisclosed individuals you purport contradict me! Gorbachev vs. Deng: A Review of Chris Miller’s The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy:

As oil prices fell, Gorbachev tried to maintain living standards which resulted in major growth in the budget deficit. Before Gorbachev came to power, the budget was balanced or even had a small surplus. In 1985, the deficit grew to 2% GDP, by 1990, it reached 10% GDP. In 1991, the last year of the Soviet Union, the deficit exceeded astronomical 30% GDP (p. 152).​

​

The fiscal crisis was partly explained by a collapse in global oil prices but was partly handmade. First, Gorbachev’s anti-alcohol campaign reduced revenues from excise taxes. Second, in order to keep the industrial and agricultural lobbies happy, the government continued to subsidize their inputs and raise prices for their outputs. At the same time, in order to pacify the general public, consumer prices were kept low. Gorbachev also avoided cutting expenditure on public goods and tried to maintain living standards. He decided that–unlike Deng–he would not use force to suppress protesters and therefore tried to avoid the situation where people took to the street to voice their economic grievances.​

​

To fund the deficit, the government resorted to borrowing. The foreign debt increased from 30% of GDP in 1985 to 80% of GDP in 1991 (p. 152). As the markets were growing increasingly reluctant to lend, the government funded the deficit by printing money. The official prices were still controlled, so the monetization of budget deficit resulted in “repressed inflation”, increased shortages and higher prices in black markets. Eventually Soviet Union ran out of cash and collapsed.​

Defense spending had nothing to do with it, rather oil prices fail and tax collections due to the Anti-Alcohol campaign fail, which was compounded by Gorbachev embarking a massive subsidy campaign that contributed to massive inflation and budget deficits. Before this, in 1985, the budget deficit was only 2% despite these massively high defense spending. Was such good for standards of living? Of course not, but it also wasn't the cause of the Soviet collapse.

Pfff. I'm not saying that no such system of comparisons within certain parameters and caveats exist. I claim that the one you proposed sucks for the purpose you are using it for.

Except you did exactly that in your previous post, do I need to re-quote you?

Its that you are trying to use a hammer to do microchip repair.

29% of Germany's GDP and also 18% of US GDP is far more than 35% of Russia's GDP, and even more so in GDP per capita. And even then you have to correct for roughly 21% of Russian GDP being the energy sector, which falls under industry, so do the math yourself.
You are right, you spout so much useless wordage that mocking you is pointless, i should just let you continue to mock yourself, i wouldn't waste my keyboard typing out so much mockery.

So you've goal post shifted on your own previous claims here, so I take that as you conceding you were wrong before and thus couldn't own up to it? As for me, given you took the time to type this entire post, it's rather odd to claim I've not worth it despite you specifically seeking out my posts in other threads too in addition to replying here. It's almost as if you are, indeed, coping and seething over me pointing out exactly how much you get wrong.

Sub-component? Are you randomly making up arguments or mistake assembly plants for sub-component factories, and export ones at that?
Materials are a different matter, metals are, after energy resources a major export of Russia...
Also adding up to that "big" industry GDP.

No, I'm not making up claims because Aerobus gets 50% of its needs from Russia and Boeing had a third.

 

[History Learner]

I'll be fair; it does look like I missed one of your larger posts with several links. That's my bad.

For what it's worth, I believe you. So far out of everyone here I've debated here you've actually maintained an effort to debate on the merits rather than degenerating into personal attacks, which is why I've tried to not be as snarky with you as I am with others and why I even @ on that one link today; I wasn't trying to be a dick, I was actually trying to show you some of the sources that have lead me to my conclusions. Over the last few weeks a lot has come out that has, overwhelmingly in my opinion, shown my views to be correct.

Your 'counter' to the idea that Russia has lost substantial amounts of forces is incredibly weak though.

You cite the Vietnam war for 'historical perspective,' comparing roughly 50 US soldiers lost per day during its deadliest year for US forces. Given that the US military when it was actually committed to the fighting, was inflicting crushing military defeats on the North Vietnamese, that's really not saying much at all.

You want some actual proportional historical perspective? D-day saw 156k soldiers on the Allied side (not counting naval personnel), and a little over 50k on the German side. The allied casualties were over 10k, with 4,414 confirmed dead. That's in a single day of combat; the Ukrainians losing 60-100, or even 100-200 per day with the more mid-range estimate, is not some horrific rate of losses, it's about the range you'd expect for heavy sustained fighting.

Okay, for one, Ukraine losses are now up to 200 to 500 KIA a day, as of last statements by senior Ukrainian officials. General rule of thumb is to assume 4 WIA to every KIA, so we're looking at up to 1,500 KIA/WIA a day, not including MIA or POW losses. To put that into perspective in the here or now, that means every day Ukraine is loosing an entire brigade in losses; they started the war with 59 of them IIRC. Basic math should say a lot about that alone.

As for WWII historical comparisons, the casualty figures only sound tiny when you fail to adjust for the fact Army sizes were bigger than. In WWII, Germany mobilized over 13 Million men, the United States did 16 million. Vietnam War army sizes are much closer to what is in play in Ukraine, and thus relevant.

By the links you cite yourself

, the Russians have lost 15k-20k soldiers as fatalities. Meanwhile, that same link has Ukrainian fatalities as of June 10th at 10k.

This would mean that by your own sources, the Russians are actually losing more men than the Ukrainians are.

A Ukrainian official claimed their losses are 10,000 KIA and that Russian losses are at 15-20k; I don't believe them on either because they have ever reason to downplay their own losses while claiming higher losses for the enemy. The BBC looked into Russian KIA, and only found they could confirm 3,500 with associated evidence to back it up, whether that be an announcement in a local or official source, or literally going to the graveyards in question to find the graves. They did find undeclared graves, which leads them to think their model is detecting 40-70% of Russian KIA, which means Russian KIA could be between 8,000 to 9,000 personnel.

Further, when you count the actual mobilized strength, the Ukrainians actually have more manpower available than the Russians, and as has been amply demonstrated on the field of battle, that manpower is better trained and more determined to fight as well. Not to mention benefiting from superior strategic leadership.

And yet, they have categorically failed to stop the Russians from overrunning their critical areas, and in recent weeks have lost Mariupol, Lyman and Severodontesk. If you believe ISW, by the way, you might need to revise your entire thinking on Russian strength:

Ukrainian officials stated that Russian forces have already committed about 330,000 servicemen to their invasion of Ukraine without conducting partial or full-scale mobilization in Russia. Ukrainian General Staff Main Operations Deputy Chief Oleksiy Gromov stated that Russian forces grouped 150,000 servicemen into battalion tactical groups (BTGs) and other formations and involved additional 70,000 troops from air and sea elements, with the remaining personnel staffing non-combat support units.[6] Gromov noted that Russian forces committed more than 80,000 servicemen of the mobilized reserve, up to 7,000 reservists of the Russian Combat Army Reserve (BARS-2021), up to 18,000 members of the Russian National Guard (Rosguardia), and up to 8,000 troops from private military companies. Gromov did not specify if Ukrainian officials included information about forcibly mobilized servicemen in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DNR and LNR) in these numbers. Gromov noted that the Kremlin may still increase the number of Russian military personnel in Ukraine by executing covert or full mobilization.[7] Gromov noted that while it is unknown if the Kremlin will declare mobilization, Russian forces will still need time to execute the deployment and training of the new personnel whether or not the Kremlin announces full mobilization.​

Without even conducting a partial mobilization, according to ISW, the Russians have achieved 60% of the force size of their poorly trained and equipped Ukrainian opponents. Given increasing reports of desertion and surrenders, it seems they're not much more motivated to fight either now, too.

Also, what about the losses to their puppet states? What kind of losses have they suffered?

Contained within the BBC article; DPR and LPR post their losses publicly online. If you take the worst case scenario for the Russians the BBC projects, which is 8,000 to 9,000 KIA and add the losses for the DPR/LPR, you get to around 12,000.

It's fair to criticize me for missing one of your posts.

It's also fair to say that you have not remotely 'demolished' arguments about lopsided losses.

How so? I'm genuinely asking, what data are you looking for or on what point specifically?

Even your own links suggest this war is a tightly-run thing, rather than a one-sided inevitable march towards victory. Which, if you weren't willfully ignoring the implications of the Kyiv and Chernihiv offensives being completely routed, you'd already be aware of.

It really doesn't; the CNN article you cite literally has Zelensky saying the War is being decided in the Donbass where the Russians have local superiority in manpower and firepower, to the tune of doing WWI-style artillery fires with 50,000+ shells which Ukraine can only answer with 5-6,000 per day. When you have more resources in general, both in firepower and manpower, the verdict of history is clear in conventional conflicts.

 

[Marduk]

Yes you didn't read it and you failed to understand it, that was obvious. Any mildly competent 14 year old would understand that the bolded portion says the opposite of what you're claiming it to, unless of course in your own head the word "agnostic" means something else; in the real world, with real definitions, it means the following in the context used:

adjective​

of or relating to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.​

asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.​

not taking a stand on something, especially not holding either of two usually strongly opposed positions (often used in combination):to take an agnostic view of technological progress; fuel agnostic energy policies.​

In other words, your own source states there is no ability to link military spending to overall economic trends. It might be useful for you, as I have often said, to learn what the terms mean before even trying to argue upon them.

This is worse than i thought, is perhaps English your third language?
Because for me its the second, yet somehow i can fully understand the term "spending agnostic of x".
It means that defense spending was independent of economic fortunes at any time, as in it was consistently very high regardless of whether Soviets had the money to spare or not at the time.
Britannica staff was even nice enough to explain it in simpler terms in the next sentence, trying to idiot-proof their work, but here we are...
Learn your own damn native language you bloody joke and then talk to me...

And yet here you are, after multiple posts, still doing that. Doesn't seem to be that this is actually the case, rather you know I'm better at debating this stuff then you so you have to maintain ambiguity less it become obvious. That's happened enough now between us that I can tell exactly what you're pulling and yes, I'm going to call attention to it to mock you for it.

No, contrary to what you think, this is not what being good at debating means. And yes, you try to substitute making random rhetorical tricks while avoiding making any factual argument like a rabid dog avoids water often enough between you, me and many others that i know exactly what is your SOP and will mock you for it.

As opposed to someone who cited one of the first results on Google, can't cite anything else to back up a proclaimed "commonly recognized historical theory" and apparently doesn't know what the word agnostic means? Adorable on your part, certainly, and I did get a good chuckle out of reading this. The best part was in claiming the consensus of experts is totally against me, yet you can't cite any of them by name; perhaps they reside in your head alone, then? As for quantifying military power, you say you have no system but just tried to do that in the last post with your assertions?

>Encyclopedia Britannica
>"first random result on Google, can't cite anything else"
What are you smoking are you sure that it is legal in your state?
WTF do you want me to cite if Britannica is not good enough for your tastes, secret CIA documents?

Very curious indeed all these obvious contradictions, it's almost as if you don't know anything you're talking about and making it up as you go to try to hide that. Let us, however, turn to what some real experts say and I'll even name them too instead of these undisclosed individuals you purport contradict me! Gorbachev vs. Deng: A Review of Chris Miller’s The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy:

As oil prices fell, Gorbachev tried to maintain living standards which resulted in major growth in the budget deficit. Before Gorbachev came to power, the budget was balanced or even had a small surplus. In 1985, the deficit grew to 2% GDP, by 1990, it reached 10% GDP. In 1991, the last year of the Soviet Union, the deficit exceeded astronomical 30% GDP (p. 152).​

​

The fiscal crisis was partly explained by a collapse in global oil prices but was partly handmade. First, Gorbachev’s anti-alcohol campaign reduced revenues from excise taxes. Second, in order to keep the industrial and agricultural lobbies happy, the government continued to subsidize their inputs and raise prices for their outputs. At the same time, in order to pacify the general public, consumer prices were kept low. Gorbachev also avoided cutting expenditure on public goods and tried to maintain living standards. He decided that–unlike Deng–he would not use force to suppress protesters and therefore tried to avoid the situation where people took to the street to voice their economic grievances.​

​

To fund the deficit, the government resorted to borrowing. The foreign debt increased from 30% of GDP in 1985 to 80% of GDP in 1991 (p. 152). As the markets were growing increasingly reluctant to lend, the government funded the deficit by printing money. The official prices were still controlled, so the monetization of budget deficit resulted in “repressed inflation”, increased shortages and higher prices in black markets. Eventually Soviet Union ran out of cash and collapsed.​

Defense spending had nothing to do with it, rather oil prices fail and tax collections due to the Anti-Alcohol campaign fail, which was compounded by Gorbachev embarking a massive subsidy campaign that contributed to massive inflation and budget deficits. Before this, in 1985, the budget deficit was only 2% despite these massively high defense spending. Was such good for standards of living? Of course not, but it also wasn't the cause of the Soviet collapse.

>Defense spending was in 10-20% real GDP range
>Defense spending was agnostic of economic trends
>30% GDP deficit was the problem
>Economic trends were bad
>Defense spending was still in 10-20% real GDP range
>Financial disaster happens due to excessive spending
>Defense spending had nothing to do with it.
>Meanwhile other countries, some even with great economies, are too stingy for 2% GDP defense spending
Apparently your math skills are equal to your language skills.

So you've goal post shifted on your own previous claims here, so I take that as you conceding you were wrong before and thus couldn't own up to it? As for me, given you took the time to type this entire post, it's rather odd to claim I've not worth it despite you specifically seeking out my posts in other threads too in addition to replying here. It's almost as if you are, indeed, coping and seething over me pointing out exactly how much you get wrong.

Go play soccer if you like your goalposts. Perhaps it's something more suited to your talents than language or math.

No, I'm not making up claims because Aerobus gets 50% of its needs from Russia and Boeing had a third.

Yes, titanium is a a kind of metal Russia exports, what did i say?
But what about the sub-components you claimed?

 

[Husky_Khan]

Kazakhstan's Dear Leader Tokayev stated he refused acceptance of an Alexander Nevsky Order of Merit due to alleged existing pokicy. In response Russia replied it was never offered. Kaxakhstan then reportedly confirmed the offer.

 

[Bacle]

Kazakhstan's Dear Leader Tokayev stated he refused acceptance of an Alexander Nevsky Order of Merit due to alleged existing pokicy. In response Russia replied it was never offered. Kaxakhstan then reportedly confirmed the offer.

Where's those Borat memes about Kazakhstan.


Somebody needs to photo shop Borat doing some of his dumb shit to Putin, and put Tokayev's face on Borat.

Man, theI never thought I'd see the day the president of Kazakhstan was in a better negoatiating and political position that the head of Russia, particularly Putin.

All those Chad Putin memes from years ago are so much dust in the wind now.

 

[Zachowon]

This is worse than i thought, is perhaps English your third language?
Because for me its the second, yet somehow i can fully understand the term "spending agnostic of x".
It means that defense spending was independent of economic fortunes at any time, as in it was consistently very high regardless of whether Soviets had the money to spare or not at the time.
Britannica staff was even nice enough to explain it in simpler terms in the next sentence, trying to idiot-proof their work, but here we are...
Learn your own damn native language you bloody joke and then talk to me...


No, contrary to what you think, this is not what being good at debating means. And yes, you try to substitute making random rhetorical tricks while avoiding making any factual argument like a rabid dog avoids water often enough between you, me and many others that i know exactly what is your SOP and will mock you for it.


>Encyclopedia Britannica
>"first random result on Google, can't cite anything else"
What are you smoking are you sure that it is legal in your state?
WTF do you want me to cite if Britannica is not good enough for your tastes, secret CIA documents?

>Defense spending was in 10-20% real GDP range
>Defense spending was agnostic of economic trends
>30% GDP deficit was the problem
>Economic trends were bad
>Defense spending was still in 10-20% real GDP range
>Financial disaster happens due to excessive spending
>Defense spending had nothing to do with it.
>Meanwhile other countries, some even with great economies, are too stingy for 2% GDP defense spending
Apparently your math skills are equal to your language skills.



Go play soccer if you like your goalposts. Perhaps it's something more suited to your talents than language or math.


Yes, titanium is a a kind of metal Russia exports, what did i say?
But what about the sub-components you claimed?

Dude must have some really good sources that even I dont know about.
CIA! CURSE YOU!!

 

[LordsFire]

As for WWII historical comparisons, the casualty figures only sound tiny when you fail to adjust for the fact Army sizes were bigger than. In WWII, Germany mobilized over 13 Million men, the United States did 16 million. Vietnam War army sizes are much closer to what is in play in Ukraine, and thus relevant.

And here you show that you are not, in fact, paying attention to things you just don't want to. I didn't just cite the casualty figures, I also cited the size of the forces involved in that fighting. Specifically, 150k on the Allied side, and ~50k on the German side. Those were the forces actually involved in the fighting that took place that day in that battle, and the attendant figure of 4,414 allied KIA.

Yet you ignore this and try to compare it to 16 and 13 million, because that fits your narrative better. That you are being deliberately myopic is obvious.

A Ukrainian official claimed their losses are 10,000 KIA and that Russian losses are at 15-20k; I don't believe them on either because they have ever reason to downplay their own losses while claiming higher losses for the enemy.

And here we get to the meat of it. You will quote part of a source if you like how it fits the position you've already taken, and ignore other parts if it doesn't fit what you want to believe is true.

The funny part here, is that yes, the Ukrainians do have motivation to distort the numbers. That doesn't mean they have, but they do have a motivation to do so, which means that there's good reason to be skeptical.

For the same reason, one should be skeptical of reports from the Russian side of thing, yet you seem to only apply this skepticism in one direction.

And yet, they have categorically failed to stop the Russians from overrunning their critical areas, and in recent weeks have lost Mariupol, Lyman and Severodontesk. Given increasing reports of desertion and surrenders, it seems they're not much more motivated to fight either now, too.

And here is your blatant bias coming in for another round. What is the major battle that the Ukrainians won a complete victory on?

The battle for Kyiv. The capital of Ukraine. Where the actual government and leadership of the nation was.

That was the single most important battle of the war, and was Russia's one chance for a swift and decisive victory. They committed elite units and large amounts of very expensive war material to this offensive.

And they were utterly crushed.

Yes, the Ukrainians have lost Mariupol and Lyman; last I checked they're still holding on to part of Severodonetsk, but the Russians have control of most of the city, so that part is clearly going in their favor right now. However, the Ukrainians also won around Chernihiv, and are advancing on Kherson.

If you look at the actual track record of who has won on what front, and listen to positives and negatives for both forces, it's clear this could go either way. I can look at things that have gone well for Russia and poorly for Ukraine, and say 'this matters, this is relevant towards the course of the war.' You are apparently incapable of doing the same for things that have gone well for Ukraine, and poorly for Russia.

Because you aren't looking at this from an even perspective, you're blinded by your own bias.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Where's those Borat memes about Kazakhstan.


Somebody needs to photo shop Borat doing some of his dumb shit to Putin, and put Tokayev's face on Borat.

Man, theI never thought I'd see the day the president of Kazakhstan was in a better negoatiating and political position that the head of Russia, particularly Putin.

All those Chad Putin memes from years ago are so much dust in the wind now.

Yeah must've been a very interesting meeting. I'm sure there's more proper transcripts available since what we're getting is shaded by journalists but Putin apparently considers Kazakhstan a 'Brother Nation' while also being a part of 'Historic Russia.'

Not awkward, but kinda awkward.

Putin ‘threatens action’ against ex-Soviet states if they defy Russia

The Russian president hinted they could meet the same fate as Ukraine.

metro.co.uk

In a more positive note Putin expects the restoration of normal relations with Ukraine after the Special Military Operation is over, so that's nice.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I've heard some reports of Russia having suffered fifty thousand casualties since the invasion began about four months ago. For a force one hundred and ninety thousand strong, that's a goddamn catastrophe. That is multiple corps/half a dozen divisions worth of Russia's best cut to pieces for very little gain, plenty of stalemate, and a few disastrous reversals.

Why are they even still there? Just withdraw you daft cunts. This isn't worth it anymore.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I've heard some reports of Russia having suffered fifty thousand casualties since the invasion began about four months ago. For a force one hundred and ninety thousand strong, that's a goddamn catastrophe. That is multiple corps/half a dozen divisions worth of Russia's best cut to pieces for very little gain, plenty of stalemate, and a few disastrous reversals.

Why are they even still there? Just withdraw you daft cunts. This isn't worth it anymore.

If they can keep bits of Ukraine then Putin can have a legacy that will outlive petty things like sanctions, Cold Wars, tens of thousands of deaths and his own mortal coil.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If they can keep bits of Ukraine then Putin can have a legacy that will outlive petty things like sanctions, Cold Wars, tens of thousands of deaths and his own mortal coil.

If he does that, he'll establish a legacy that'll last all of ten years. When Russia implodes after he dies, the Ukrainians can just waltz in. It would still have been all for nothing.