Sure,Mithridates. You have a brilliant mind, and I'm stupid.
According to John Quigley, an idiot appointed in 1994 by the US Department of State and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, "Ukraine has already lost Crimea and is unlikely to regain it under any scenario. Acquiescence would be a recognition of the inevitable. Russia is unlikely to relinquish Crimea".
Lets see how it ends. In the end,nuclear powers do not lose major wars. Everybody knows that the risk of nuclear weapons use is higher than at any time since cold war.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
Define a sample size and define major and provide a list on that.Lets see how it ends. In the end,nuclear powers do not lose major wars. Everybody knows that the risk of nuclear weapons use is higher than at any time since cold war.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
While a major power can lose nearby colonial land (France in Algeria is a good example), this only happened due to France not being willing to eradicate anyone who was suspect of terrorist attacks (buses being blown in Oran etc) and permanently place an army in Algeria.
Russia isn't France, and they can do both (similar to Israel in that, but massively more powerful).
Besides, imagine how it would be if Ukraine tried to run large-scale terrorist attacks as a means to take back Crimea.
So I think we should only discuss "military defeat". Which is indeed ridiculous, because if you have actual war, and nukes, and you are next to the other country, you run no risk of being militarily defeated. At best case for Ukraine, its fight is viable for as long as there isn't another war US has to be involved in - while Russia can keep up indefinitely.
So according to someone whom even you call an "idiot", Ukraine has already lost Crimea and is unlikely to regain it under any scenario. ...and the "idiot" said that.
okay
So, how would Russia prevent Ukraine from achieving all its strategic objectives?
Let me guess: *crickets*
Lets just say that on the 463rd day of Putin's 3 day war "only a view divorced from reality can believe" that Russia can stop Ukraine from achieving all its strategic objectives.
edit:
Russia will eventually run out of T-55 tanks.
(just pause for a second to think about how ridiculous this statement is, they cant keep up because they are running out of museum pieces)
Last edited by Mithradates; June 02, 2023 at 12:33 PM.
You believe that NATO discouraging Ukraine from openly attacking Russian territory is a hindrance to Ukraine? I wouldn't be so certain. How could Ukraine win on the offensive? Russia would fully mobilise and then perhaps the Russians would start caring about fighting this war too diminishing Ukraine's morale advantage. Besides Russia is huge, does Ukraine even have the numbers necessary for successful offensives, much less to hold territory? Especially while trying to keep their own defense lines from crumbling? Finally and also crucially, what would stop Russia then from nuking Ukraine? Russia's nuclear doctrine does not prohibit a nuclear response to conventional attacks.
For all of Ukraine's posturing and barely hidden glee at those supposedly martian attacks on Russia proper, not letting the war fully spill over there, is the smart move. As long as they keep it contained, Russians can keep pretending it's just a little adventure outside the motherland and we can keep pretending this isn't a naked attempt to damage Russia, that leaves more potential exit avenues. If it spreads, then all these bets are off.
Last edited by Alastor; June 03, 2023 at 05:13 AM.
Eh I know everyone knows the incursions are an attempt to force Russia to place troops in the region instead of having reserves in Ukraine for whenever the Ukrainian offensive starts. And if people are so angry at Ukraine just saying they are Russians fighting in Russia to mirror the Crimea and Donbas actions by Russia in 2014-> The same people now complaining about this are the ones that kept trying to "obfuscate" the Russian origin of the little green men in Crimea and the "miners of donbas". Noone actually thought those weren't mostly Russians from Russia.
Must say Russians "limited" war must be going well when they have to start defending actual Russian territory. Major Power my ass, regional at best.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
https://www.politicalcompass.org/ana...2.38&soc=-3.44 <-- "Dangerous far right bigot!" -SJWs
@StarDreamer
Why are you quoting me? You have clearly not read my post.
Fair poioints. It also unfortunately stops Ukraine from say making some kind of hooking maneuver based out the Kharkiv area to bypass Russia deployments and as we can see Russia knows this and thus there is nobody about to stop it. If there were would even if Ukraine did not do it thin their line in Ukraine. I mean looking at the map in pure military terms its hard not think a two pronged attack in the north with even if small being a road trip trough Russia would the most quick fist step to an offensive and pushing Russia back to the DOnbas and exposing the northern Donbas board which probably the least fortified.I wouldn't be so certain. How could Ukraine win on the offensive? Russia would fully mobilise and then perhaps the Russians would start caring about fighting this war too diminishing Ukraine's morale advantage. Besides Russia is huge, does Ukraine even have the numbers necessary for successful offensives, much less to hold territory? Especially while trying to keep their own defense lines from crumbling? Finally and also crucially, what would stop Russia then from nuking Ukraine? Russia's nuclear doctrine does not prohibit a nuclear response to conventional attacks.
But I have to agree it would be a real escalation risk even if Ukraine was just passing through.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
I agree with Alastor and don't think anyone has answered yet how Russia will be defeated, when even in the scenario it is conventionally defeated it can still keep whatever.
I fear that many simply hope Russia will have a revolution, but that tends to happen only when Lenin is sent with german money, to allow Germany to win in ww1. They expect, in other words, that if Russia loses enough troops or territory it controls in Ukraine, it won't have a patriotic war mobilization nor use nukes. But we are given no reasons why neither would happen.
I think Ukraine has crossed so many nuclear red lines that Putins bluff is called. I maintain the most likely power to use nukes us the US, and Putin had better watch out.
In any case Ukraine doesn't need to invade Russia, raiding it is enough to damage the Russian invaders strategic and propaganda positions.
As for Russia fully mobilizing, they tried that and a hilarious proportion of the mobilised soldiers left the country. "Full mobilisation" isnt going improve Russian morale, quite the reverse.
Currently the Russians are deploying T55s, even if there were more soldiers what do they equip them with?
Are there any wunderwaffen left in Putins cupboard? They need something special, right now they're on a trajectory to get their arses kicked.
I don't see the "trajectory" either. Russia isn't the one having a large part of its country under foreign control.
And let's not act like if the US used nukes against Russia, it wouldn't be the end of both as even second-tier powers.
How are they in that trajectory? Russia is still occupying a big chunk of Ukraine, not the other way around. Well, unless you accept Putin's claim to those oblasts in which case you are right, Ukraine is occupying parts of Russia, but I bet you don't. Before the war, we made the mistake of overestimating Russia, now it seems we are making the mistake of underestimating Russia. I do wonder if we are simply unable to properly estimate Russia.
Raiding Russia, would not leave its population unaffected, or do you believe Ukrainians by nature to simply be braver and more patriotic than Russians are? And no Russia did not attempt to fully mobilise. Where did you see that? Their mobilisation was always a partial one. 300k soldiers is not a full mobilisation by a long shot. And who said Russia failed at mobilising those troops? Did it go perfectly? Hardly, but was it a failure? I think we need to be careful not to believe our own propaganda here. Same goes about Russia not having any tanks but museum pieces left. It's simply not accurate.
Finally, regarding nukes, if their own country is under attack, much more so, in the unlikely event this was done successfully, don't you think that's a situation orders of magnitude different to nuclear posturing for the sake of it? Again, their own nuclear doctrine actually supports first use in response to conventional attacks. And no btw, the US is not nuking Russia for Ukraine. It would be utterly insane to do so.
My understanding at least is that Ukraine is massing up troops for an offensive in Zaporizhzhia. At least, that's where all the modern NATO tank battalions it acquired seem to be located. The aim in that case likely would be to cut off Crimea by aiming for Berdyansk. If that succeeds it will become very hard for Russia to hold territory west of Mariupol and increase the pressure on Crimea. That's probably a less risky strategy than attempting to outflank the Russians in the Donbas from the northeast via Russia proper would be. Politically it would also make more sense and it would severely undermine Putin's attempts to enhance Russia's war effort, unlike an attack within Russia which could be a catalyst for increased war fervour among Russians. So if the Russians are not completely incompetent they would have heavily fortified the frontier west of Vuhledar to prepare for that eventuality. Anyway, this is my amateur estimation as a war gamer, I'm not a pro military analyst. So take it with a few pinches of salt.
Last edited by Alastor; June 03, 2023 at 10:00 AM.
That is always a bit of problem with closed societies.How are they in that trajectory? Russia is still occupying a big chunk of Ukraine, not the other way around. Well, unless you accept Putin's claim to those oblasts in which case you are right, Ukraine is occupying parts of Russia, but I bet you don't. Before the war, we made the mistake of overestimating Russia, now it seems we are making the mistake of underestimating Russia. I do wonder if we are simply unable to properly estimate Russia.
I don't But like I said I think calculated moves through russia and out and strikes on AA or CnC oherwise assumed safe in Russia make operanal sensce even if politically risky.Raiding Russia, would not leave its population unaffected, or do you believe Ukrainians by nature to simply be braver and more patriotic than Russians are?
On the former they are seemingly having issues.And no Russia did not attempt to fully mobilise. Where did you see that? Their mobilisation was always a partial one. 300k soldiers is not a full mobilisation by a long shot. And who said Russia failed at mobilising those troops? Did it go perfectly? Hardly, but was it a failure? I think we need to be careful not to believe our own propaganda here. Same goes about Russia not having any tanks but museum pieces left. It's simply not accurate.
https://theins.ru/news/262263
Analyzed here.
https://twitter.com/ABarbashin/statu...on-sea-of-azov
I agree you technically correct Russia has not declared war and gone mass mobilization. But that would be costly in its own right. But they are in fact struggling in their current mix of special mobilization and regular drafting and contract recruitment drives. I think the sporadic and isolated winter effort makes it clear that after Ukraine's second counter offensive culminated Russia could not generate sufficient units for more than fairly isolated counter attacks.
On the latter point. I can't see how you can claim that. Given they are deploying T-54/55s. not upgraded T-62 and not upgraded T-72 urals and BMP -1s (and raiding T-90S intended for export) that all certainly implies their capability to built new or to repair or recover or pull from store anything like a force of T-14s or T-90s or the latests T-72 variant has hit the wall and is either not real or only available at the most limited level. So also the their sporadic missile salvos wich seem never enough to achieve any persistent strategic or operational effect. And would look even less impressive without having to use gear from Iran.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
If someone would invade Russia deep and would start massacring civilians like what Nazi Germany did THEN Russia could have a patriotic war mobilization. Anything less than that will not work, the war needs to be defensive to gather support and at the moment Russians dont support it, there are no masses of Russian volunteers joining the army.
(Raids by Russian rebels are not an invasion.)
Nukes, what would Russia nuke? Eastern-Ukraine? They would lose ALL support from the locals. Western-Ukraine? If the wind blows to the wrong direction the fallout will end up over NATO land.
With the nukes its not about whether Russia could win the war by nuking Ukraine, its about what would happen after they use nukes because it isnt just the West and NATO, China, India etc would be pissed too, the diplomatic and economic price they would have to pay would not be worth it.
I'm not saying Russia is not facing shortages. They wasted so much armour in doomed offensives like that on Kiev, as well as poorly thought battles like Vuhledar that it makes sense there would be shortages. Do reread what I said, I said "Same goes about Russia not having any tanks but museum pieces left. It's simply not accurate." Which I think is significantly different to "they are not facing shortages". If I'm not mistaken Russia has yet to commit its most modern tanks, they are not numerous but they exist. And I'm fairly confident they also retain units with their better tanks in the reserve. Strategically at least it would make sense if they do. Use the older tanks in attrition warfare and keep more modern equipment for concentrated strikes when they decide to go again on the offensive. Hopefully for them, with better tactics.
I think I would disagree. Not sure how you reach this conclusion..If I'm not mistaken Russia has yet to commit its most modern tanks, they are not numerous but they exist. And I'm fairly confident they also retain units with their better tanks in the reserve. Strategically at least it would make sense if they do. Use the older tanks in attrition warfare and keep more modern equipment for concentrated strikes when they decide to go again on the offensive. Hopefully for them, with better tactics.
They have at best some 1 or 2 dozen T-14s that don't work and cannot even complete a Mayday parade and and have never been in combat. That have deployed the T-90M their most advance working tank (*) (and the A AK S variants) and lost verifiably around ~65 of them (destroyed or captured). They are not hiding some fancy stockpile. Some of their best units were tossed into the failed 3 day victory plan and they took with them the best stuff and got it all broken.
Take the T-90 pre war estimates were Russia had ~400 active and ~200 (or maybe 150 or maybe more than 200) in storage all types.
So question why are units that started out with T-90s of any type being reconstituted at the front with relic T-62s or relic T- 72 variants. One begins to thing those 200 storage were a myth. and given ORYX is an under count and over 10% percent of its count is unidentifiable... There really is hidden brigade or two with any T-90s. seeing as they need wester equipment and chips to be made or repaired that Russia does not have.
* Note its still pop top and seemingly has not active defense unlike claims.
Last edited by conon394; June 03, 2023 at 11:07 AM.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.