It’s Time to End Magical Thinking About Russia’s Defeat

It is the definition for all armed conflicts, whether it is Russia or any other country. We were in a quagmire in both Afghanistan and Iraq as well. And in both cases, we withdrew. But we did not "win" but we did obtain our military objectives within the first two years of Afghanistan and several months in Iraq. But Russia never achieved its military objectives, hence why they are in a worse situation than we were in Afghanistan for 20 some odd years and Iraq for more than a dozen years.

 

You need to look at the deployment of troops in Russia. Russia still have 200k of troops on the Baltics region, still have troops in several other areas, including the Moscow Military District. They are literally drafting people, giving them less than a week of "basic training," and sending them to fight.

For Russia, their main problem is corruption and their lack of logistics. With those massive beasts eating up fuel, they literally did not have the logistics to maintain that, or the incompetence, or both. Quite literally, dozens upon dozens of armored vehicles from the T14 to the T72M were abandoned, on the road, because they ran out of fuel, and they are still having that problem now. They have resorted back to the type of warfare that Russia had with the Chechens in their second war which eventually led to a Russian victory because they won the war of attrition. It lasted a hell of a lot longer than any Russian nor you would have imagined from 1999 to 2009 officially and unofficially until 2017.

As with NATO, the plan is to give both military and economic assistance to Ukraine. So far, that plan is working, slowly, to defeat the Russians. There is captured cell phone communications and video of how bad it really is on the front lines for Russian troops as one military expert said it is worse than the trench warfare in WW1

 

It was not until 2022 that Ukraine wanted to join NATO for obvious reasons, that damn invasion. However, what started it all was the Russian puppet Yanukovych who, up until that point, was negotiating for Ukraine to join the EU, said no while at the negotiating table. And that is when the Maidan Revolution, or Revolution with Dignity began. Ukraine, since 2000, and all previous administrations, wanted to join EU, even Russia at one time or another. But EU is not NATO, and never has been. So, after the Revolution, Russia invaded the first time, as punishment to Ukraine, by taking over Crimea and Russian-speaking citizens, urged and propagated by Russian intelligence and Security forces, to secede from Ukraine in the Donetsk region. Then in early 2022, Russia invaded again and tried to use three different arguments, propaganda, to justify the invasion, none of which the international community, not even China, believed.

 

For starters, Ukraine was already autonomous and neutral as a soverign country. It just does not want to be a puppet to Moscow, period. They wanted to join the EU, which would help their economy. Joining the EU is not joining NATO. And I think you don't understand the difference between the two.

Because of the invasion, Russia has united NATO, now NATO is on Russia's Northern Sea Region with Finland, Sweden, and Norway. You also have Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, the baltic countries, already joined NATO since around 2004, and they have not threatened Russia, have they? Kazastan and Ubekistan is distancing itself from Moscow and siding with NATO. Care to guess where nuclear facilities are located in one of those two countries? Ukraine does have an international legion, mostly made up of citizens whose country is a member of NATO or part of Europe. Russia is trying to recruit citizens from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, but these countries are making sure that does not happen.

Putin misjudged the NATO response and thought they would be divided and not economically nor militarily support Ukraine. But all in all, Russia already has NATO on its borders. Russia may not like it, but that is what those countries chose as a sovereign nation, right?

Russia tried to use three different excuses to jusify their invasion. Their first excuse was that they were fighting "nazis" in the Ukranian government, even called Zelensky a Nazi even though he is part Jewish. The Israeli Government, who are at good terms with Russia, pretty much blasted that reason. Then it was the argument that Ukraine violated the Munich treaties, which also was rejected. He then went to the vaccine argument, and that was rejected by the international community.

To understand the reason why now that Russia invaded Ukraine is based on three things. First, Putin wants to redraw the post-Cold War security architecture, namely NATO, and to reassert Russian influence to its neighbors and beyond. The has been unsuccessful with Ukraine for more than 20 years and Ukraine does not have anything to do with Russia in terms of doing their bidding, unlike Belarus. He does not see Ukraine as a separate, sovereign country. He saw Ukraine's government as weak and divided with its government. He has centralized his power now within the Kremlin with former security operatives who view the world outside with ultimate suspicion. To achieve this goal of Moscow's authority in the Baltics and beyond, Ukraine is key to Putin's plan. He viewed NATO also as weak and divided with the US fixated on its rival China. In summary, Putin played victimhood, did not think Ukraine should be independent, resentful that Ukraine chose independence instead of being part of the Russian Federation after the fall of the CCP, and the imperial nostalgia that brings pride to every Russian today. The second reason why he invaded was because he thought it was the right time now. Moscow has given up, since 2015, any influence towards Ukraine through the Minsk treaty. He was provacative in 2021 just outside of Ukraine territory, and the West does not respect Russia's, and Putin's ambitions. The third reason was his close relaitonship with China, which can give him maneuvering room from the invasion. But China has not exactly been totally committed to Russia's invasion, although some solidarity, mostly nostalgic communist ties, remains. But China is playing a tightrope in its efforts to neutralize any US homogeny in the region. And that is the only reason why China is siding with Russia, nothing else.

For more detailed analysis, read the links below:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/russia-s-invasion-ukraine-why-why-now
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/why-did-russia-invade-ukraine-b2374515.html
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia

 

YOU obviously don't understand what this war is about:
- The Ukrainians voted in 1991, with a majority in ALL provinces, including Crimea, to confirm their choice to be a free and independant country;
- The Russians sure wanted Ukraine to remain under their control; ask yourself what right do they have to impose their will on the Ukrainians.

Until the russian invasion in February 2022, NATO was not considering accepting Ukraine in its alliance.
Until the russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Finland and Sweden were not even considering applying for NATO membership; they both applied since then, despite or, rather, because of Putin threats.

These are verifiable facts; inform yourself.

 

You're changing your definition of victory again.

Please map out a scenario in which this could actually happen. Thank you.

 

No I am not. My definition is the same. It is by definition a quagmire until one of the two outcomes are perceived. I just gave you examples, nothing more, nothing less.

Which one are you referring to? Ukraine? Or Russia?

For any peace deal, it takes two to tangle. What I argued is Ukraine's position. If there is a peace deal, Most, if not all of Ukraine must be returned, namely the Crimea. But since Russia is not interested, truly interested, in any type of peace deal, I don't see this happening anytime soon and seeing the conflict going on for another year or two.

 

I'm not arguing that the current conflict isn't a quagmire; that seems self evident. It's a World War I-like scenario of fixed defenses on one side and various attempts at great cost to break those defenses on the other. But that's rather irrelevant to the central issue of this thread. Russia simply isn't going to lose this war, and you can whine that it's a defeat for Russia if they don't annex the entirety of Ukraine, but the fact is if Russia simply keeps the territory that it's already grabbed, Ukraine has lost.

I asked you to describe a scenario in which Ukraine could win back all of it's territory plus Crimea, which you tried to pretend I wasn't clear on, but I was:



You are the one who set the conditions for victory, so I want to know how exactly that can be achieved without dragging NATO directly into the war.

Go ahead, I'm listening.

 

Bribed Joe's failures are piling up. Afghanistan, soon Ukraine. What will bribed Joe wreck next?

Not a single American Hostage released by Hamas?

 

The US. The numbers of immigrants legal or otherwise is big enough to count as an invasion.

Maybe that will be America's defeat.

 

To define winning or losing it is useful to know what caused the war in the first place.

'Expanding NATO to Ukraine, which Biden has long promoted, is a U.S. gambit that has failed. The neocons, including Biden, thought from the late 1990s onward that the US could expand NATO to Ukraine (and Georgia) despite Russia’s vociferous and long-standing opposition. They didn’t believe that Putin would actually go to war over NATO expansion.

Yet for Russia, NATO enlargement to Ukraine (and Georgia) is viewed as an existential threat to Russia’s national security, notably given Russia’s 2,000-km border with Ukraine, and Georgia’s strategic position on the eastern edge of the Black Sea. U.S. diplomats have explained this basic reality to U.S. politicians and generals for decades, but the politicians and generals have arrogantly and crudely persisted in pushing NATO enlargement nonetheless.' Prof. Jeffrey Sachs

If there hasn't been mission drift, then I would suggest preventing NATO from moving into Ukraine and Georgia was Russia's objective.

 

The good bit is I've heard the claim from the US side that V. Putin is the same
height as Napoleon and that his dream is to reestablish the USSR and to take
over the areas once part of the USSR and therefore his dream has ended in
Ukraine.

And I'll go with that claim also because ending with Ukraine neutral, in the model
of Austria, will allow both sides to claim victory.

Like if the US wanted all the streets in the city painted blue and Russia wanted
all the buildings painted red then both sides could achieve their dreams.

 

More of the same.

You could always just say "I don't read anything but the headlines".

 

I tried referring you to the substantive articles.

Apparently, you prefer to cling to your baseless prejudices.

 

Who in the GOP defended Russian "policies", whatever that means.

One cannot compare the Dems of the 60's and 70's to the Dems of today.

"Dems becoming more conservative" gave me a good laugh though.

 

I already read them.

I asked you to explain, or to even try and develop, an argument based on your own thoughts as to why Israeli judicial reforms were bad.

You seem to be unable to do anything besides copy/paste links.

That's not a debate. That's just propaganda using headlines.

If you can't come up with your own thoughts, just say so.

 

Good to know I'm not the only one who sees how foolish this is.

How do WE win it? We might not even win it WITH NATO, if pro-Putin elements in our country get their way.

 

Where did I ever opine that they were "bad"?

My personal opinion of the rightist power grab has no bearing on the corrupt Netanyahu's unpopularity in Israel.

What is significant and germane was that freedom-loving Israelis in great numbers were protesting against Big Bibi's authoritarian agenda, an attack upon judicial independence.

March 27, 2023

Stores, restaurants and the biggest airport in Israel were closing their doors on Monday amid an escalation in protests that have kept the nation's attention for weeks. Tens of thousands -- perhaps hundreds of thousands -- of people filled the streets in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and elsewhere. The country's stock exchange is set to close on Tuesday as part of a strike.

The country's biggest union, Histadrut, announced on Monday that it would begin a "historic" strike, with most of its 800,000 members stopping work in protest of Netanyahu's reform plan.

Israelis are protesting against a judicial reform plan proposed by Netanyahu's hardline nationalist government -- a plan that some see as a consolidation of power, with parliament increasing its oversight of the court system...

The changes would allow lawmakers at the Knesset -- Israel's parliament -- to override many decisions made by the country's Supreme Court. It would also give ruling lawmakers more control over appointments to the high court. Opponents of the plan say it amounts to a power grab.

Some officials have said Netanyahu, who is currently on trial for charges including corruption and bribery, should bow out of the discussions over the reform, calling his participation a conflict of interest.

[https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...icial-reform-plan-explained/story?id=98148726]​

His horrific security failures have only compounded his political plight.

Israelis turn against Netanyahu amid month of war, hostage crisis

American Jews are distancing themselves from Netanyahu’s government

The End of Netanyahu
​

If you crave my personal opinion based upon credible reporting, it is that Israelis will be giving Bibi the boot.

 

More oversight of where the aid is going is a good thing. Keep the aid flowing.

 

Ah the "the turning of the blind eye" solution.

 

Do you deny Bibi's dismal political prospects after his authoritarian attack on an independent judiciary and the horrific exposure of his falsely claiming that he was successfully maintaining national security?

Poll finds Netanyahu would be trounced by Gantz were elections held today
​

A survey published Thursday found that the Benjamin Netanyahu-led coalition that won 64 seats in the November 2022 elections would crash to just 45 seats in the 120-strong Knesset were elections held today.

​

The anti-Netanyahu, so-called “change” parties would soar to 70 seats, with the Hadash-Taal alliance winning the other five, Channel 12 reported. Benny Gantz’s National Unity party would win 36 seats, the survey found, more than double the 17 for Netanyahu’s Likud...

At the same time, it noted that usually in wars, prime ministers got a popularity boost, while their survey showed the opposite.

THE TIMES OF ISRAEL​

 

Heh, so you're totally clueless. Not surprising however. None of your fellow social media soldiers have a clue either.

 

More oversight is turning a blind eye. How Orwellian of you.

 

Hmmmmm. Considering the source, your comment suggesting your understanding is better than anyone else's is right up there with Trump's, "I alone can fix it."

 

No, I'm claiming that the "problem" isn't fixable, except by means that would be pretty devastating to the world. If you think the Ukrainians can win the war, please let's hear this grand strategy of yours.