• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has Putin Lost Already?

All that is happening is that Putin's rivals will feel emboldened - I don't mean in Russia but the ones in other nations he is threatening or has bombed. They will ask for western military trainers and equipment and as long as they can keep artillery forces at bay - tanks and helicopters are now not as effective as they were even 10 years ago.

Tanks and helicopters are still effective, but the rise in AD and AT systems, means that an army has to be more careful on how they are deployed.
 
Putin has to win in Ukraine.

He will use nukes if he needs to.

I said this while dolts were still wondering if he would attack or not.

This stuff is obvious.
 
Putin has to win in Ukraine.

He will use nukes if he needs to.

I said this while dolts were still wondering if he would attack or not.

This stuff is obvious.

He needs to win, or have someone he can blame for defeat.

Using tactical nuclear or chemical weapons, won't secure victory, it will just steel the West's resolve.
 
Tanks and helicopters are still effective, but the rise in AD and AT systems, means that an army has to be more careful on how they are deployed.

We are kind of saying the same thing. The bit I am focusing on here is that the effectiveness of Russian tanks and helicopters is very much in question especially without the support systems keeping them safe to operate with impunity.
 
He needs to win, or have someone he can blame for defeat.

Using tactical nuclear or chemical weapons, won't secure victory, it will just steel the West's resolve.

Wrong and wrong.

Putin needs to win. This is fact no matter how much you don't want to belive it.
And nuking Kiev will collapse the government and give Russia a victory.
The west's resolve is of no consequence nor does it need further resolve.
 
Wrong and wrong.

Putin needs to win. This is fact no matter how much you don't want to belive it.
And nuking Kiev will collapse the government and give Russia a victory.
The west's resolve is of no consequence nor does it need further resolve.

Did Saddam need to win in Gulf War I, in 1990/91 to remain in power ?

When you say "nuking Kiev", what exactly do you mean ?
A 152mm nuclear artillery shell, or 10, or 100 ?

Or a Hydrogen Bomb in an ICBM ?

The West, while, unified in opposing Russian aggression, if far from unified regarding a potential response to Russian use of chemical or nuclear weapons.
 
Best case scenario for Russia at this point is to secure the Donbass and complete their land bridge to Crimea. Go home and call it a domestic win, Putin can retire as a hero of Russia, the new Russian government can claim they were against Putin's war and try to get sanctions lifted.
Too late for that. Perhaps if he had concentrated his invasion on that region, he might have held onto it. Going after Kyiv right out the gate was a colossal mistake.
 
Too late for that. Perhaps if he had concentrated his invasion on that region, he might have held onto it. Going after Kyiv right out the gate was a colossal mistake.

In hindsight yes

But who predicted that Ukrainian resistance would be so strong ?
 
In hindsight yes

But who predicted that Ukrainian resistance would be so strong ?
Not many outside of Ukraine. Even our dementia addled president was originally resigned to and comfortable with Ukraine falling in three days. His original plan was token sanctions based on how much of Ukraine Putin swallowed.
 
We are kind of saying the same thing. The bit I am focusing on here is that the effectiveness of Russian tanks and helicopters is very much in question especially without the support systems keeping them safe to operate with impunity.

Tanks are no longer effective when an army tries to use them in shock action...the Israelis learned that way back in the 1973 Yom Kippur War

They, and armed helicopters, have to be used in coordination with other arms

It is the same lesson that French knights and men-at-arms learned in at the battle of Crecy in 1315.
 
Not many outside of Ukraine. Even our dementia addled president was originally resigned to and comfortable with Ukraine falling in three days. His original plan was token sanctions based on how much of Ukraine Putin swallowed.

EVEN president Biden...wow, you must really think highly of his political/military perception !!!
 
EVEN president Biden...wow, you must really think highly of his political/military perception !!!
No....actually not. Dementia Joe does not have any perceptions. He just does what he is told and mostly says what he is told to say. When he goes off script he says he gets in trouble.
 
We are kind of saying the same thing. The bit I am focusing on here is that the effectiveness of Russian tanks and helicopters is very much in question especially without the support systems keeping them safe to operate with impunity.

Yes we are a bit
I'm not so much questioning the effectiveness of Russian tanks and helicopters, so much as their deployment.
 
No....actually not. Dementia Joe does not have any perceptions. He just does what he is told and mostly says what he is told to say. When he goes off script he says he gets in trouble.

...and who do you think is telling him what to do ?
 
If Russian success was annexation of Ukraine (which russia has never stated) then yes. But though Russia has not emerged victorious over Ukraine the terms must change as now the entire western world is aligned against it. So in effect the new metric for Russia's winning or losing will be the ability to maintain a functioning state and continue having an army that is intact (let alone resuming the offensive). It is obvious this is not the battle the russians prepared for but that doesn't mean they are losing.

Even if the Russians don't advance another inch in Ukraine, if they are still a functioning country in a year they will have already weathered the storm and will effectively be a walled off supplier of energy and food east and south, and there will effectively be another economic trading system that exists outside of the western world. Many rising powers that see what has happened to Russia will join this and hedge their bets against integrating with the west, and if russia has not collapsed a viable alternative would be present even if the war in Ukraine is a stalemate.

Further within the western coalition itself, if supporting Ukraine means ending payments for Russian gas then that will be the end of cheap energy for Europe, and a Europe without cheap energy loses the beating heart of industry and would be in a far weakened position.
 
If Russian success was annexation of Ukraine (which russia has never stated) then yes. But though Russia has not emerged victorious over Ukraine the terms must change as now the entire western world is aligned against it. So in effect the new metric for Russia's winning or losing will be the ability to maintain a functioning state and continue having an army that is intact (let alone resuming the offensive). It is obvious this is not the battle the russians prepared for but that doesn't mean they are losing.

Even if the Russians don't advance another inch in Ukraine, if they are still a functioning country in a year they will have already weathered the storm and will effectively be a walled off supplier of energy and food east and south, and there will effectively be another economic trading system that exists outside of the western world. Many rising powers that see what has happened to Russia will join this and hedge their bets against integrating with the west, and if russia has not collapsed a viable alternative would be present even if the war in Ukraine is a stalemate.

Further within the western coalition itself, if supporting Ukraine means ending payments for Russian gas then that will be the end of cheap energy for Europe, and a Europe without cheap energy loses the beating heart of industry and would be in a far weakened position.
And the four are less profitable today. No supporting links included in your post.

"Four production activities account for more almost 50% of production-related energy use while contributing only 5.8% of the EU’s GDP..."
 
Probably!

It may just be a matter of someone finally deciding and getting the nerve to shoot him in the back.

Since I have no idea how the Russian government really works there is no telling how much mayhem and confusion that will cause.
 
If Russian success was annexation of Ukraine (which russia has never stated) then yes. But though Russia has not emerged victorious over Ukraine the terms must change as now the entire western world is aligned against it. So in effect the new metric for Russia's winning or losing will be the ability to maintain a functioning state and continue having an army that is intact (let alone resuming the offensive). It is obvious this is not the battle the russians prepared for but that doesn't mean they are losing.

Even if the Russians don't advance another inch in Ukraine, if they are still a functioning country in a year they will have already weathered the storm and will effectively be a walled off supplier of energy and food east and south, and there will effectively be another economic trading system that exists outside of the western world. Many rising powers that see what has happened to Russia will join this and hedge their bets against integrating with the west, and if russia has not collapsed a viable alternative would be present even if the war in Ukraine is a stalemate.

Further within the western coalition itself, if supporting Ukraine means ending payments for Russian gas then that will be the end of cheap energy for Europe, and a Europe without cheap energy loses the beating heart of industry and would be in a far weakened position.
Huh? Are you seriously trying to say that Russia who started this war by invading Ukraine can claim it as a win it if it manages to survive the war?
 
a Europe without cheap energy loses the beating heart of industry and would be in a far weakened position.

There are plenty of alternate sources of energy. Much of the Northern EU chose Russia as their main external supplier.
 
so much as their deployment.

As was I. They have done a pretty crap job so far and lost a lot of equipment due to over-confidence, poor logistical supply and training.
 
If
Huh? Are you seriously trying to say that Russia who started this war by invading Ukraine can claim it as a win it if it manages to survive the war?

Yes. If Russia is still standing in a year and Ukraine is still an armed camp under siege they will be winning. The storm will have been weathered and within Russia it will be understood they are in an existential struggle.

The Russians now understand they will never integrate with the west again. This changes everything for them. Unless Russia implodes it will be the west who’s increasingly isolated as the East, South, and Middle East have no issues dealing with Russia.

The enormous costs on European industry to keep this up will come to bear. LNG is simply not a competitive replacement for Russian energy. Of course, that would be assuming the Europeans would find a way to stop funding the Russian invasion, which they haven’t.
 
There are plenty of alternate sources of energy. Much of the Northern EU chose Russia as their main external supplier.
There are none that will be nearly as cheap or that easy to get to. It’s likely that European industry would become uncompetitive if alternate sources had to be relied on.

If they were easy to get I imagine the Europeans would have stopped financing this war by now.
 
Just have to point out as well that if a fifth of my country was occupied with the occupiers launching a new offensive today I wouldn’t be celebrating.
 
Back
Top Bottom