Ukraine is making massive headway against Russia right now. Putin’s forces are crumbling all over the front line. So my question is this.
Should Ukraine keep hammering Russia even after they have regained all of their territory?
Because all Putin will do is lick his wounds and rebuild. (if his own people haven’t taken him out that is)
I’m not saying stepping onto Russian soil, but simply continue to destroy Russia’s military until they’re so broken they will never recover quickly. If at all.
What do you think?
Its a bit more than a good week. Maybe a good 3-5 weeks. It coincides with Russia front-line forces loosing access to Starlink, and effectively going into disarray. Now, does that disarray continue going into March/ April? Will Russia adapt, and regain an approach to coms that gets around not having starlink? Will they regain access to starlink? Can they simply do without?
Much of Ukraines ability to fight this war is their ability to maintain a perception that they can fight this war. If the US and Europe would have just fully supported Ukraine from minute 0, there would be a line 50 km into Russian territory that no russian would ever be able to cross. But the bloodless leadership of both the US and Europe at that time didn’t believe Ukraine could fight, so they didn’t support them.
Small shifts in momentum like this support a narrative to countries in Europe that supporting Ukraine is actually, perhaps, the most viable strategy to ending the war and securing their own security. I think Europe has shifted and now recognizes their own need to have access to a non-US controlled military industrial producer. Ukraine can act not only as Europes bread basket, but also its drone and munitions factory.
I think we both agree this is quite “tittering at the edges” gains. But its consistent small gains in one direction, and with a credible mechanism for as to why (lack of coms for Russian forces).
To be clear, Russia didn’t have access to Starlink to begin with. They captured terminals and hacked their way into the network. They used it, sure, but they didn’t build their entire front line operations on it. I doubt they had enough terminals for all of their battle groups. And I highly doubt they built their strategy and logistics on it. So the idea that now Russia is in total disarray because they don’t have it seems like a lot of storytelling without a lot of thinking behind it.
As for the last 3 - 5 weeks, in total Russia has gained about 50 square miles, so I don’t know what you mean by “a good 3 - 5 weeks”.
I really don’t think the idea that Ukraine can win the war if only everyone else would support them is a position that says “Ukraine can win this war”. What it means is that Russia can lose the war against the combined forces of the West, not that Ukraine would be the victor. As in most proxy wars, the proxy suffers the most and takes the losses when the primary actor decides the proxy isn’t worth saving. That’s happening here.
It’s mostly happening because the US is fighting on multiple fronts simultaneously and clearly has massive shortages of munitions that they have not been able to address in the last 5 years. Europe is also not going to be able to address it, as energy prices have skyrocketed, steel foundries have closed, rare earths have been held back, and now Europe is commiting it’s limited forces to the multi-front conflict.
And if you don’t think this geopolitics and war by proxy, why are Ukrainian forces in Sudan, Libya, South Africa, Somalia, and Mali? Shouldn’t they all be at home trying to secure that 50km buffer zone deep in Russian territory?
The reality is that the US has been calling the shots for the Western use of force, including in Ukraine, for a very long time. And what they say goes. Europe might try to fill in the gaps, but the US will direct anything Europe develops sufficiently to further the USA’s aims. That includes weakening Russia, which has been the USA’s goal with Ukraine from the beginning. Lloyd Austin established this as the objective, not stopping the war. They don’t want the war to stop because then Russia could rebuild its forces, maintain more secrecy, and replenish its stockpiles. The US, and by extension the rest of Western Europe, want Russia to continue being bogged down in Ukraine, and that means more Ukrainians dies, and more of Ukraine gets destroyed. And that’s a sacrifice the US and Western Europe are willing to make.
You sure seem like you’ve got an axe to grind. And I don’t think your points are invalid, but you clear have an objective.
Yes, to establish a sober analysis of the state of the world so I can navigate it more effectively. I have zero need for inflated senses of hope for a conflict based on cherry picking facts, ignoring history and reality, and flat out knowingly choosing to believe “our glorious” propaganda.
And I hope others can give up that need to cling to falsehoods as well.
Sure, and i think its important to be sober about outcomes. But what I’m saying is you seem to have a team you are rooting for, which is contradictory with your first claim.
Two questions to follow.
One, do you (currently) believe Ukraine will lose this war?
What would you need to see happen to update your belief that Ukraine will win this war?
I believe Ukraine will lose this war. I do not believe Ukraine can win the war, it is too small and has lost too many soldiers. The only way to win the war with a Russian defeat is through a coalition of countries pooling their resources, or for a country stronger than Russia (which right now looks like only China and the USA) to engage directly. China won’t do that. I don’t believe the US will do it either.
So what would have to happen for me to update my belief would be for other countries to form an alliance with Ukraine, amass materiel, and send their troops to the front line. Otherwise, the US and Western Europe will continue to feed only enough support to keep Russia threatened sufficiently that it will not choose to voluntarily end the war, and enough to keep the Ukrainians in this constant win-a-little-lose-a-little space that keeps them all fighting and not willing to negotiate a surrender.
Do you think Russia continues their invasion if Putin dies?
I think this is an accurate assessment of the past 3 years.
Depends entirely on the circumstances of his death. His death alone? No. War is not primarily driven by an individual’s psychology. Not Russia/Ukraine. Not US/Venezuela, nor Iran, nor Syria, nor Somalia, nor Nigeria, nor Cuba.
I don’t agree with that whatsoever. And I don’t think any one should. This is 100% a war coming directly from an explicit effort to transform the character of Russia.