|
Post by stevez51 on Aug 23, 2023 6:46:19 GMT -5
JIM you need to stop treating this like some video game where you move troops and have tank battles. This isn't Call of Duty. These are real people dying. No $hit $herlock. Why don't you go over to the other thread and learn a little about the ethnic cleansing campaign Russia is conducting in the occupied territories. baltimoresunreunited.freeforums.net/thread/13815/russia-committing-genocide-ukraine-reportThere's a reason the Ukrainians are fighting so hard to liberate their fellow citizens from Moscow's brutal repression You still want to be the propaganda spokesperson for them. Like you are cheering on people getting killed.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Aug 23, 2023 6:58:45 GMT -5
You still want to be the propaganda spokesperson for them. Like you are cheering on people getting killed. That is so not the case. No one here is "cheering on people getting killed." Come on.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Aug 23, 2023 8:29:25 GMT -5
You still want to be the propaganda spokesperson for them. Like you are cheering on people getting killed. That is so not the case. No one here is "cheering on people getting killed." Come on. There’s a lot of cheerleading for offensives that are getting lots of Ukrainians killed or their limbs amputated without acknowledging that they’re paying a heavy human cost. www.economist.com/europe/2023/08/20/ukraines-sluggish-counter-offensive-is-souring-the-public-moodAnd yes, Ukraine has other options. They could cut their territorial losses and focus on defending the territory that remains under their control from Russian attacks rather than continuing to send their soldiers to try to take back territory that is covered with land mines and artillery. Sometimes the ends aren’t worth the cost.
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Aug 23, 2023 9:00:54 GMT -5
A thought experiment. Let me ask you a question. Let's say Ukraine follows your lead and trades some land for peace. Fast forward 15 years and let's say that Ukraine is stronger and Russia is weaker. Ukraine attacks these new Russian territories in an attempt to reclaim them. Is Ukraine justified in doing so?
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Aug 23, 2023 9:22:25 GMT -5
A thought experiment. Let me ask you a question. Let's say Ukraine follows your lead and trades some land for peace. Fast forward 15 years and let's say that Ukraine is stronger and Russia is weaker. Ukraine attacks these new Russian territories in an attempt to reclaim them. Is Ukraine justified in doing so? Ukraine only gets stronger by being allowed to join the EU & NATO. NATO is a no no for Russia. If they allow that land to become a part of Russia or it forms its own country & government, then Ukraine is attacking another country.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Aug 23, 2023 9:24:32 GMT -5
You still want to be the propaganda spokesperson for them. Like you are cheering on people getting killed. That is so not the case. No one here is "cheering on people getting killed." Come on. Ukranian cluster shells massacre Russian troops. Yeah go get em baby. Actually they're US cluster bombs.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Aug 23, 2023 9:38:25 GMT -5
That is so not the case. No one here is "cheering on people getting killed." Come on. Ukranian cluster shells massacre Russian troops. Yeah go get em baby. Actually they're US cluster bombs. Russia could end this war in one hour by withdrawing and stop their troops from being massacred.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Aug 23, 2023 9:41:45 GMT -5
That is so not the case. No one here is "cheering on people getting killed." Come on. There’s a lot of cheerleading for offensives that are getting lots of Ukrainians killed or their limbs amputated without acknowledging that they’re paying a heavy human cost. www.economist.com/europe/2023/08/20/ukraines-sluggish-counter-offensive-is-souring-the-public-moodAnd yes, Ukraine has other options. They could cut their territorial losses and focus on defending the territory that remains under their control from Russian attacks rather than continuing to send their soldiers to try to take back territory that is covered with land mines and artillery. Sometimes the ends aren’t worth the cost. I imagine being invaded, raped, tortured and murdered -- and then fighting back against those invaders for almost 2 years is not great for morale. The only alternative is to cede a quarter of Ukrainian territory to Russia in hopes that it's enough to end the fighting and then prepare for the next invasion.
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Aug 23, 2023 9:43:02 GMT -5
A thought experiment. Let me ask you a question. Let's say Ukraine follows your lead and trades some land for peace. Fast forward 15 years and let's say that Ukraine is stronger and Russia is weaker. Ukraine attacks these new Russian territories in an attempt to reclaim them. Is Ukraine justified in doing so? Ukraine only gets stronger by being allowed to join the EU & NATO. NATO is a no no for Russia. If they allow that land to become a part of Russia or it forms its own country & government, then Ukraine is attacking another country. That isn't necessarily true. So, Ukraine needs to continue fighting now in order to maintain the moral high ground if they want to get the territory back, right?
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Aug 23, 2023 9:59:43 GMT -5
There’s a lot of cheerleading for offensives that are getting lots of Ukrainians killed or their limbs amputated without acknowledging that they’re paying a heavy human cost. www.economist.com/europe/2023/08/20/ukraines-sluggish-counter-offensive-is-souring-the-public-moodAnd yes, Ukraine has other options. They could cut their territorial losses and focus on defending the territory that remains under their control from Russian attacks rather than continuing to send their soldiers to try to take back territory that is covered with land mines and artillery. Sometimes the ends aren’t worth the cost. I imagine being invaded, raped, tortured and murdered -- and then fighting back against those invaders for almost 2 years is not great for morale. The only alternative is to cede a quarter of Ukrainian territory to Russia in hopes that it's enough to end the fighting and then prepare for the next invasion. Those areas were being fought over in a civil war since 2016. Except for the southern areas that Russian troops moved into. The eastern areas are more ethnic Russian and don't agree with the Ukranian govt that's controlled by the western half. If they allowed the eastern side to go maybe there is no invasion.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Aug 23, 2023 10:03:20 GMT -5
A thought experiment. Let me ask you a question. Let's say Ukraine follows your lead and trades some land for peace. Fast forward 15 years and let's say that Ukraine is stronger and Russia is weaker. Ukraine attacks these new Russian territories in an attempt to reclaim them. Is Ukraine justified in doing so? Absolutely not.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Aug 23, 2023 10:12:19 GMT -5
Ukraine only gets stronger by being allowed to join the EU & NATO. NATO is a no no for Russia. If they allow that land to become a part of Russia or it forms its own country & government, then Ukraine is attacking another country. That isn't necessarily true. So, Ukraine needs to continue fighting now in order to maintain the moral high ground if they want to get the territory back, right? Only way they get that ground back is for the US & European countries to send in troops. Ukraine has been trying to get into the EU for years but cannot reach the criteria. Unless they want to keep slugging it out with a stubborn adversary they need to think about a peace deal. The money is going to end.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Aug 23, 2023 10:20:27 GMT -5
I imagine being invaded, raped, tortured and murdered -- and then fighting back against those invaders for almost 2 years is not great for morale. The only alternative is to cede a quarter of Ukrainian territory to Russia in hopes that it's enough to end the fighting and then prepare for the next invasion. Those areas were being fought over in a civil war since 2016. Except for the southern areas that Russian troops moved into. The eastern areas are more ethnic Russian and don't agree with the Ukranian govt that's controlled by the western half. If they allowed the eastern side to go maybe there is no invasion. It's been going on longer than 2016 and in more countries than just Ukraine. Read up on Russia/Georgia conflicts. Russia is always trying to steal land from other counties for one reason or another. Still bitter over the USSR breakup I guess. But say Mexico decided they wanted Texas and New Mexico back and some of the residents living there were in favor. Do you think the US would allow them to rejoin Mexico without a fight? Should Ukraine hand over a chunk of their land to Russia? And keep in mind a hungry dog is always going to want more.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Aug 23, 2023 10:23:18 GMT -5
Those areas were being fought over in a civil war since 2016. Except for the southern areas that Russian troops moved into. The eastern areas are more ethnic Russian and don't agree with the Ukranian govt that's controlled by the western half. If they allowed the eastern side to go maybe there is no invasion. It's been going on longer than 2016 and in more countries than just Ukraine. Read up on Russia/Georgia conflicts. Russia is always trying to steal land from other counties for one reason or another. Still bitter over the USSR breakup I guess. But say Mexico decided they wanted Texas and New Mexico back and some of the residents living there were in favor. Do you think the US would allow them to rejoin Mexico without a fight? That's an incomplete analogy. Has Mexico invaded Texas and New Mexico? Mexico can want those two States back, and France can want the Louisiana Purchase area back and Russia can want Alaska back. An invasion changes the dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Aug 23, 2023 10:25:13 GMT -5
A thought experiment. Let me ask you a question. Let's say Ukraine follows your lead and trades some land for peace. Fast forward 15 years and let's say that Ukraine is stronger and Russia is weaker. Ukraine attacks these new Russian territories in an attempt to reclaim them. Is Ukraine justified in doing so? Yes, but what would be the point? The territory will largely be de-occupied for decades (see Cambodia’s problems with land mines for example) and the few populated areas will likely be occupied by majorities of pro-Russian Ukrainians and Russian civilians. I’ve long said that Ukraine’s national identity would be stronger by cutting ties with the 1/5 or 1/4 of their population that remains sympathetic to Russia. Which includes the majority of people who live in Crimea. I’ll ask you for a thought experiment now. Would Mexico be justified in taking back the territories that we took from them in the 1800s? If not then why?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Aug 23, 2023 10:29:26 GMT -5
There’s a lot of cheerleading for offensives that are getting lots of Ukrainians killed or their limbs amputated without acknowledging that they’re paying a heavy human cost. www.economist.com/europe/2023/08/20/ukraines-sluggish-counter-offensive-is-souring-the-public-moodAnd yes, Ukraine has other options. They could cut their territorial losses and focus on defending the territory that remains under their control from Russian attacks rather than continuing to send their soldiers to try to take back territory that is covered with land mines and artillery. Sometimes the ends aren’t worth the cost. I imagine being invaded, raped, tortured and murdered -- and then fighting back against those invaders for almost 2 years is not great for morale. The only alternative is to cede a quarter of Ukrainian territory to Russia in hopes that it's enough to end the fighting and then prepare for the next invasion. Human lives matter more than lines on a map. And I honestly think you and Jim are overstating the “genocide” and rape stuff. Not that torture and rape hasn’t happened at times in this war (like nearly every other war), but it’s a stretch to argue that this war is in some ways unique from nearly every other war. To me, those things are unfortunate consequences of wars of occupation and the only way to stop them from happening is to bring the war to an end. The problem is, some like Jim and I assume you, won’t accept peace in Ukraine without a Ukrainian victory. Given that victory increasingly looks distant for Ukraine, I have to question how much you want there to be peace, if you don’t think compromises should be tried…
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Aug 23, 2023 10:33:08 GMT -5
Those areas were being fought over in a civil war since 2016. Except for the southern areas that Russian troops moved into. The eastern areas are more ethnic Russian and don't agree with the Ukranian govt that's controlled by the western half. If they allowed the eastern side to go maybe there is no invasion. It's been going on longer than 2016 and in more countries than just Ukraine. Read up on Russia/Georgia conflicts. Russia is always trying to steal land from other counties for one reason or another. Still bitter over the USSR breakup I guess. But say Mexico decided they wanted Texas and New Mexico back and some of the residents living there were in favor. Do you think the US would allow them to rejoin Mexico without a fight? Should Ukraine hand over a chunk of their land to Russia? And keep in mind a hungry dog is always going to want more. Those whole states wouldn't agree with that and Mexico would never ask the US. I've read where parts of eastern Washington state want to join Idaho because of politics.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Aug 23, 2023 10:50:58 GMT -5
It's been going on longer than 2016 and in more countries than just Ukraine. Read up on Russia/Georgia conflicts. Russia is always trying to steal land from other counties for one reason or another. Still bitter over the USSR breakup I guess. But say Mexico decided they wanted Texas and New Mexico back and some of the residents living there were in favor. Do you think the US would allow them to rejoin Mexico without a fight? That's an incomplete analogy. Has Mexico invaded Texas and New Mexico? Mexico can want those two States back, and France can want the Louisiana Purchase area back and Russia can want Alaska back. An invasion changes the dynamic. Sometimes, even if you’re morally in the right, you still shouldn’t do it if it doesn’t make practical sense. And yes, the US would be morally right in defending itself against Mexico invading to recapture territory that we took from them. However, Two wrongs don’t make things right. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Aug 23, 2023 11:01:55 GMT -5
I imagine being invaded, raped, tortured and murdered -- and then fighting back against those invaders for almost 2 years is not great for morale. The only alternative is to cede a quarter of Ukrainian territory to Russia in hopes that it's enough to end the fighting and then prepare for the next invasion. Human lives matter more than lines on a map. And I honestly think you and Jim are overstating the “genocide” and rape stuff. Not that torture and rape hasn’t happened at times in this war (like nearly every other war), but it’s a stretch to argue that this war is in some ways unique from nearly every other war. To me, those things are unfortunate consequences of wars of occupation and the only way to stop them from happening is to bring the war to an end. The problem is, some like Jim and I assume you, won’t accept peace in Ukraine without a Ukrainian victory. Given that victory increasingly looks distant for Ukraine, I have to question how much you want there to be peace, if you don’t think compromises should be tried… I've said before it's up to Ukraine what they are willing and unwilling to accept in ending the war since it's their lives and sovereignty on the line. What you or I think about what they should do is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Aug 23, 2023 11:05:34 GMT -5
It's been going on longer than 2016 and in more countries than just Ukraine. Read up on Russia/Georgia conflicts. Russia is always trying to steal land from other counties for one reason or another. Still bitter over the USSR breakup I guess. But say Mexico decided they wanted Texas and New Mexico back and some of the residents living there were in favor. Do you think the US would allow them to rejoin Mexico without a fight? Should Ukraine hand over a chunk of their land to Russia? And keep in mind a hungry dog is always going to want more. Those whole states wouldn't agree with that and Mexico would never ask the US. I've read where parts of eastern Washington state want to join Idaho because of politics. So what is different about the heavily ethnic Russian parts of Ukraine you think Ukraine should just hand over? I am sure not all of the people who live there want to rejoin Russia... And I don't think Idaho is going to be invading Oregon to liberate those people who want to be Idahoans anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Aug 23, 2023 11:20:58 GMT -5
Human lives matter more than lines on a map. And I honestly think you and Jim are overstating the “genocide” and rape stuff. Not that torture and rape hasn’t happened at times in this war (like nearly every other war), but it’s a stretch to argue that this war is in some ways unique from nearly every other war. To me, those things are unfortunate consequences of wars of occupation and the only way to stop them from happening is to bring the war to an end. The problem is, some like Jim and I assume you, won’t accept peace in Ukraine without a Ukrainian victory. Given that victory increasingly looks distant for Ukraine, I have to question how much you want there to be peace, if you don’t think compromises should be tried… I've said before it's up to Ukraine what they are willing and unwilling to accept in ending the war since it's their lives and sovereignty on the line. What you or I think about what they should do is irrelevant. Given that we’re paying for their war, we have a right to have an opinion. Not that they have to listen to us. Just saying, we have a right to voice our opinions if we’re adding to our national debt to subsidize the war.
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Aug 23, 2023 11:29:37 GMT -5
A thought experiment. Let me ask you a question. Let's say Ukraine follows your lead and trades some land for peace. Fast forward 15 years and let's say that Ukraine is stronger and Russia is weaker. Ukraine attacks these new Russian territories in an attempt to reclaim them. Is Ukraine justified in doing so?Yes, but what would be the point? The territory will largely be de-occupied for decades (see Cambodia’s problems with land mines for example) and the few populated areas will likely be occupied by majorities of pro-Russian Ukrainians and Russian civilians. I’ve long said that Ukraine’s national identity would be stronger by cutting ties with the 1/5 or 1/4 of their population that remains sympathetic to Russia. Which includes the majority of people who live in Crimea. I’ll ask you for a thought experiment now. Would Mexico be justified in taking back the territories that we took from them in the 1800s? If not then why? No, and just like the hypothetical above, once you agree to a treaty you should abide by it. Which is why Ukraine will continue to fight. Unless some agreement can be had to place the disputed territories under the UN for a decade or so before a referendum to establish its ultimate fate, settling the war means permanent loss of the territories.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Aug 23, 2023 11:38:06 GMT -5
Yes, but what would be the point? The territory will largely be de-occupied for decades (see Cambodia’s problems with land mines for example) and the few populated areas will likely be occupied by majorities of pro-Russian Ukrainians and Russian civilians. I’ve long said that Ukraine’s national identity would be stronger by cutting ties with the 1/5 or 1/4 of their population that remains sympathetic to Russia. Which includes the majority of people who live in Crimea. I’ll ask you for a thought experiment now. Would Mexico be justified in taking back the territories that we took from them in the 1800s? If not then why? No, and just like the hypothetical above, once you agree to a treaty you should abide by it. Which is why Ukraine will continue to fight. Unless some agreement can be had to place the disputed territories under the UN for a decade or so before a referendum to establish its ultimate fate, settling the war means permanent loss of the territories. Look at the rate of casualties. They’ve suffered higher casualties in less than two years than our military suffered in ten years in Vietnam. The rate of death and destruction over there can’t realistically be sustainable for much longer. It’s easy to ignore the human costs when we don’t see the growing numbers of graves at the cemeteries and wounded soldiers that the people who live in Ukraine are seeing. Hence why the public mood over there is shifting and becoming more pessimistic. I doubt that a peace treaty can be reached between the two countries but I think the frontlines can be frozen if Ukraine shifts to a defense oriented strategy. They may not be able to recover the territory that they’ve lost but they’ve proven capable of defending their remaining territory against Russia’s advances.
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Aug 23, 2023 12:17:28 GMT -5
No, and just like the hypothetical above, once you agree to a treaty you should abide by it. Which is why Ukraine will continue to fight. Unless some agreement can be had to place the disputed territories under the UN for a decade or so before a referendum to establish its ultimate fate, settling the war means permanent loss of the territories. Look at the rate of casualties. They’ve suffered higher casualties in less than two years than our military suffered in ten years in Vietnam. The rate of death and destruction over there can’t realistically be sustainable for much longer. It’s easy to ignore the human costs when we don’t see the growing numbers of graves at the cemeteries and wounded soldiers that the people who live in Ukraine are seeing. Hence why the public mood over there is shifting and becoming more pessimistic. I doubt that a peace treaty can be reached between the two countries but I think the frontlines can be frozen if Ukraine shifts to a defense oriented strategy. They may not be able to recover the territory that they’ve lost but they’ve proven capable of defending their remaining territory against Russia’s advances. So, do you honestly think that a frozen conflict will not be a Russian opportunity to build up for the next wave? That the tanks don't get unleashed again 5 years down the road? If so, how did you arrive at that assessment while looking at recent and past history? In my opinion the only way that scenario holds (maybe) is if the remaining Ukrainian state is a full member of NATO.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Aug 23, 2023 12:20:06 GMT -5
You still want to be the propaganda spokesperson for them. Like you are cheering on people getting killed. They are not willing to hand over their form of government to a foreign state. That's a tough one to grasp for trump republicans.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Aug 23, 2023 12:24:39 GMT -5
Look at the rate of casualties. They’ve suffered higher casualties in less than two years than our military suffered in ten years in Vietnam. The rate of death and destruction over there can’t realistically be sustainable for much longer. It’s easy to ignore the human costs when we don’t see the growing numbers of graves at the cemeteries and wounded soldiers that the people who live in Ukraine are seeing. Hence why the public mood over there is shifting and becoming more pessimistic. I doubt that a peace treaty can be reached between the two countries but I think the frontlines can be frozen if Ukraine shifts to a defense oriented strategy. They may not be able to recover the territory that they’ve lost but they’ve proven capable of defending their remaining territory against Russia’s advances. So, do you honestly think that a frozen conflict will not be a Russian opportunity to build up for the next wave? That the tanks don't get unleashed again 5 years down the road? If so, how did you arrive at that assessment while looking at recent and past history? In my opinion the only way that scenario holds (maybe) is if the remaining Ukrainian state is a full member of NATO. I’m looking at the recent history of how neither side in this war has been able to advance more than a few kilometers in almost a year. The Ukraine war maps are mostly unchanged since last November. Ground Offensives are difficult to impossible without air superiority and on land covered by land mines and artillery. Both sides are capable of defending the land they occupy but struggle to advance without suffering devastating losses under the current circumstances. Satellite intelligence and drones take away any element of surprise that maybe existed in past conflicts. So while I doubt that Ukraine can successfully get through all the obstacles they’re facing and capture all the territories that they’ve lost, I’m more confident that they can stop future attempts by Russia to capture more of their territory. We’ll see if I’m correct about that soon enough as there are rumors of another Russian offensive this Fall. If they try and fail, that would further prove my point.
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Aug 23, 2023 12:32:04 GMT -5
So, do you honestly think that a frozen conflict will not be a Russian opportunity to build up for the next wave? That the tanks don't get unleashed again 5 years down the road? If so, how did you arrive at that assessment while looking at recent and past history? In my opinion the only way that scenario holds (maybe) is if the remaining Ukrainian state is a full member of NATO. I’m looking at the recent history of how neither side in this war has been able to advance more than a few kilometers in almost a year. The Ukraine war maps are mostly unchanged since last November. Ground Offensives are difficult to impossible without air superiority and on land covered by land mines and artillery. Both sides are capable of defending the land they occupy but struggle to advance without suffering devastating losses under the current circumstances. Satellite intelligence and drones take away any element of surprise that maybe existed in past conflicts. So while I doubt that Ukraine can successfully get through all the obstacles they’re facing and capture all the territories that they’ve lost, I’m more confident that they can stop future attempts by Russia to capture more of their territory. We’ll see if I’m correct about that soon enough as there are rumors of another Russian offensive this Fall. If they try and fail, that would further prove my point. No it really wouldn't. As you have said, Russia is too large and too full of resources. They may not be able to push forward now but give them 5 years of relative inactivity and watch as they build up their air superiority and amass another several battalions for an offensive 5-10 years down the road.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Aug 23, 2023 12:35:23 GMT -5
That's an incomplete analogy. Has Mexico invaded Texas and New Mexico? Mexico can want those two States back, and France can want the Louisiana Purchase area back and Russia can want Alaska back. An invasion changes the dynamic. Sometimes, even if you’re morally in the right, you still shouldn’t do it if it doesn’t make practical sense. And yes, the US would be morally right in defending itself against Mexico invading to recapture territory that we took from them. However, Two wrongs don’t make things right. 🙂 Sorry, I don't understand your first line. The US would be morally and legally in the right for defending itself from an attack. Giving land back from wars fought years ago is simply nonsense. Get over it and move on.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Aug 23, 2023 12:43:05 GMT -5
I’m looking at the recent history of how neither side in this war has been able to advance more than a few kilometers in almost a year. The Ukraine war maps are mostly unchanged since last November. Ground Offensives are difficult to impossible without air superiority and on land covered by land mines and artillery. Both sides are capable of defending the land they occupy but struggle to advance without suffering devastating losses under the current circumstances. Satellite intelligence and drones take away any element of surprise that maybe existed in past conflicts. So while I doubt that Ukraine can successfully get through all the obstacles they’re facing and capture all the territories that they’ve lost, I’m more confident that they can stop future attempts by Russia to capture more of their territory. We’ll see if I’m correct about that soon enough as there are rumors of another Russian offensive this Fall. If they try and fail, that would further prove my point. No it really wouldn't. As you have said, Russia is too large and too full of resources. They may not be able to push forward now but give them 5 years of relative inactivity and watch as they build up their air superiority and amass another several battalions for an offensive 5-10 years down the road. Russia I think can sustain the war at this intensity longer than Ukraine due to their population size and the fact that they’re self-sufficient. They’re able to produce enough hardware and ammo to sustain their operations in Ukraine. So it may take the Russians longer to reach the point where they give up on trying to take more territory. The risk for Ukraine in a long war of attrition though is, what happens if they run dangerously low on manpower? Would they even be able to put up an adequate defense if they burn through too many of their soldiers in these offensive operations? I think that’s a real question that they have to be considering at this point.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Aug 23, 2023 12:52:50 GMT -5
No it really wouldn't. As you have said, Russia is too large and too full of resources. They may not be able to push forward now but give them 5 years of relative inactivity and watch as they build up their air superiority and amass another several battalions for an offensive 5-10 years down the road. Russia I think can sustain the war at this intensity longer than Ukraine due to their population size and the fact that they’re self-sufficient. They’re able to produce enough hardware and ammo to sustain their operations in Ukraine. So it may take the Russians longer to reach the point where they give up on trying to take more territory. The risk for Ukraine in a long war of attrition though is, what happens if they run dangerously low on manpower? Would they even be able to put up an adequate defense if they burn through too many of their soldiers in these offensive operations? I think that’s a real question that they have to be considering at this point. I think if Ukraine is going to lose this war and most of the country gets absorbed into Russia, Ukraine is essentially telling Russia, "Pry it from our cold dead fingers." Maybe it's better to die on your feet than get executed down the road by Putin while sitting on the ground.
|
|