[W:718] The west must hold its nerve on Ukraine

[Rogue Valley]

The west must hold its nerve on Ukraine

5.30.22
Is the Ukraine war finally turning Vladimir Putin’s way? The Russian army is grinding forwards in the Donbas. If Putin’s military can capture Ukraine’s industrial heartlands and cut the country off from the sea, Ukraine’s survival as a viable state would come into question. That grim scenario is certainly possible. But it is not inevitable — or even likely. However, to prevent Russia achieving a semblance of victory, the western alliance backing Ukraine has to hold its nerve and increase its support for Kyiv. The momentum in the war must shift back towards Ukraine before there is any prospect of an acceptable peace settlement. The war in Ukraine is essentially being fought on three fronts and among three protagonists. The first front is the battlefield itself. The second front is economic. The third front is the battle of wills. The three participants are Russia, Ukraine and the western alliance backing Ukraine. The Ukrainians are increasingly edgy because they worry that western support is going soft. They know that, in a straight fight with Russia, Ukraine has the advantage only on the third front — the battle of wills. As a country fighting for its freedom and independence, the Ukrainians are much better motivated.

When it comes to firepower and economics, however, the bilateral advantage tilts towards Moscow. Russia has more heavy artillery and more aircraft than Ukraine and it is finally making that tell in the Donbas. Other than higher morale, Ukraine’s great advantage is western support. If the western alliance gives the Ukrainians the weapons and the economic aid they need, then the balance of the war will switch back towards Kyiv. The Ukrainians are alarmed by the slowness of weapons deliveries from the US and Germany, which is making it harder to push back the Russian advance. They fear that some countries — probably led by France or Germany — will grab on to illusory peace negotiations and drastically reduce support to Ukraine. German Chancellor Scholz’s speech in Davos showed a clear understanding of what is at stake in Ukraine. The chancellor argued that Russia is waging an imperialist war and stated that “Putin must not win”. Importantly, the Germans say the same thing in private — insisting that they have no intention of forcing Ukraine to cede territory and fully intend to deliver the promised weaponry. The prospect of a prolonged war is horrifying. But until the Russian government abandons its goal of conquering new territory in Ukraine, there can be no prospect of real peace talks. That may only be possible when Putin’s troops run out of equipment and his government runs out of money.

The question has become, which military can outlast the other? Sans any major developments, I think Ukraine has the overall long-term advantage.

Advantages in motivation, an intimate knowledge of the terrain, the backing of the population, and advanced heavy weapons from the West. Due to necessity, Ukraine is rapidly switching over to NATO weaponry. This is advantageous and something that the Russians cannot do. There are no meaningful sanctions on Ukraine. International law and sentiment favors Ukraine. Russia is waging a war of aggression and employing barbaric war crimes.

 

[anatta]

how about cannon fodder? does Ukraine have enough bodies to get blown up
while blowing up Russians? can you say "attrition?"

 

[Fledermaus]

how about cannon fodder? does Ukraine have enough bodies to get blown up
while blowing up Russians? can you say "attrition?"

Ukrainians are not in "cannon fodder" mode while it appears the Russians are.

 

[anatta]

Ukrainians are not in "cannon fodder" mode while it appears the Russians are.

Ukrainians aren't getting blown up by Russian artillery and hypersonic missiles, and GRAD launchers?
Gee I guess it's just a peaceful picnic..

 

[lwf]

how about cannon fodder? does Ukraine have enough bodies to get blown up
while blowing up Russians? can you say "attrition?"

Attrition warfare favors the invaded rather than the invader. There is a much higher tolerance of giving up your life as cannon fodder to attrition warfare when the only alternative is losing your country to a foreign invader. This is nothing but a personal war of opportunity for Vladimir Putin, and the Russian soldiers are fighting like it. Soldiers coming home in body bags impact Russian morale to a greater degree than Ukrainian morale.

 

[Fledermaus]

Ukrainians aren't getting blown up by Russian artillery and hypersonic missiles, and GRAD launchers?
Gee I guess it's just a peaceful picnic..

That isn't "cannon fodder" mode.

Gee, I guess you can't comprehend the term "cannon fodder".

 

[anatta]

Attrition warfare favors the invaded rather than the invader. There is a much higher tolerance of giving up your life as cannon fodder to attrition warfare when the only alternative is losing your country to a foreign invader. This is nothing but a personal war of opportunity for Vladimir Putin, and the Russian soldiers are fighting like it. Soldiers coming home in body bags impact Russian morale to a greater degree than Ukrainian morale.

attrition is attrition. it's a physical loss of manpower and war material.
Uk isn't going to run out of weapons - we give them more then they need and even dwindle our strategic stockpile (Running low on Javelin, and parts arent easy to come by)

But i mean strictly manpower..Russian soldiers seem to be doing OK in the east and south
They couldn't use armor columns because of Javelin.
I'll leave your delusions of the war being a "personal opportunity" for Putin as I cant read minds

 

[anatta]

That isn't "cannon fodder" mode.
Gee, I guess you can't comprehend the term "cannon fodder".

Whatever you say. since you see fit to make your own definitions despite massive artillery attacks
being the very definition of "cannon fodder" - no point in discussing it

 

[Juin]

The west must hold its nerve on Ukraine



The question has become, which military can outlast the other? Sans any major developments, I think Ukraine has the overall long-term advantage.

Advantages in motivation, an intimate knowledge of the terrain, the backing of the population, and advanced heavy weapons from the West. Due to necessity, Ukraine is rapidly switching over to NATO weaponry. This is advantageous and something that the Russians cannot do. There are no meaningful sanctions on Ukraine. International law and sentiment favors Ukraine. Russia is waging a war of aggression and employing barbaric war crimes.

Provided, and that is not an idle condition, the west stays the course

 

[Juin]

Attrition warfare favors the invaded rather than the invader. There is a much higher tolerance of giving up your life as cannon fodder to attrition warfare when the only alternative is losing your country to a foreign invader. This is nothing but a personal war of opportunity for Vladimir Putin, and the Russian soldiers are fighting like it. Soldiers coming home in body bags impact Russian morale to a greater degree than Ukrainian morale.

We also have to carefully identify who considers themselves invaded, and who is considered invader.

The poor ethnic Russian minorities in eastern and southern Ukraine have been totally canceled in the western narrative. Yet they exist. To not factor them in in an analysis leads to conclusions full of faults.

To the ethnic Russian minorities of Donbass and Mariupol it is the government in Kyiv that is the invader

 

[anatta]

We also have to carefully identify who considers themselves invaded, and who is considered invader.

The poor ethnic Russian minorities in eastern and southern Ukraine have been totally canceled in the western narrative. Yet they exist. To not factor them in in an analysis leads to conclusions full of faults.

To the ethnic Russian minorities of Donbass and Mariupol it is the government in Kyiv that is the invader

those pesky Russian separatists that dont take kindly to Kyiv's yoke

 

[multivita-man]

The west must hold its nerve on Ukraine

The question has become, which military can outlast the other? Sans any major developments, I think Ukraine has the overall long-term advantage.

Advantages in motivation, an intimate knowledge of the terrain, the backing of the population, and advanced heavy weapons from the West. Due to necessity, Ukraine is rapidly switching over to NATO weaponry. This is advantageous and something that the Russians cannot do. There are no meaningful sanctions on Ukraine. International law and sentiment favors Ukraine. Russia is waging a war of aggression and employing barbaric war crimes.

It has an advantage, yes, but this can get more complicated the longer this continues -- for both sides of the conflict. It's important to keep in mind that Russia's leadership (I think this goes even beyond Putin) has goals beyond just Ukraine; Ukraine is one spot on its chessboard.

In that sense, Russia's longer-term goal is the same as China's: end (mostly) Western geopolitical dominance. It's the same as China's goal. Where China differs is that the West is, for now, still quite important for its longer-term ambitions - it's not willing to cut itself away from the international order. China's less anti-Western and more anti-American, as it sees the U.S. as the main roadblock to its power.

 

[anatta]

It has an advantage, yes, but this can get more complicated the longer this continues -- for both sides of the conflict. It's important to keep in mind that Russia's leadership (I think this goes even beyond Putin) has goals beyond just Ukraine; Ukraine is one spot on its chessboard.

In that sense, Russia's longer-term goal is the same as China's: end (mostly) Western geopolitical dominance. It's the same as China's goal. Where China differs is that the West is, for now, still quite important for its longer-term ambitions - it's not willing to cut itself away from the international order. China's less anti-Western and more anti-American, as it sees the U.S. as the main roadblock to its power.

Putin cant take Kyiv and he's gonna take a NATO state???

 

[lwf]

attrition is attrition. it's a physical loss of manpower and war material.
Uk isn't going to run out of weapons - we give them more then they need and even dwindle our strategic stockpile (Running low on Javelin, and parts arent easy to come by)

But i mean strictly manpower..Russian soldiers seem to be doing OK in the east and south
They couldn't use armor columns because of Javelin.
I'll leave your delusions of the war being a "personal opportunity" for Putin as I cant read minds

Then you don't understand attrition warfare. Attrition warfare at the national level between warring countries with militaries the size of Ukraine's isn't about killing every last military aged man and woman in the other side's armies. It's simply about which side's families can tolerate more funerals for their sons. The word "decimate" means to reduce the number of enemy soldiers by one tenth. We use this as a synonym for utter military domination, because a 10% loss of soldiers on a national level tends to be absolutely catastrophic to a country's morale all things being equal.

But all things are not always equal. Losing our sons to a foreign war in another country that we care little about has a much more profound effect on our morale than losing our sons in defense of their homeland from foreign invaders. Humans tolerate much more of the latter than the former. And without going nuclear, Russia has little chance of actually killing enough Ukrainians to simply eliminate the opposition.

 

[Juin]

those pesky Russian separatists that dont take kindly to Kyiv's yoke

The omission by the western media of the separatist tendencies in east and south Ukraine is what reduces their submissions to mere propaganda.

There is a Russophone population in Ukraine which is pro Russia and want out of the Kyiv project. It is far more convenient for big media in west to pretend they don't exist. Hey, Putin is there to blame. Even though Russian presence as far west as Odessa predates Putin by centuries

 

[anatta]

Then you don't understand attrition warfare. Attrition warfare at the national level between warring countries with militaries the size of Ukraine's isn't about killing every last military aged man and woman in the other side's armies. It's simply about which side's families can tolerate more funerals for their sons. The word "decimate" means to reduce the number of enemy soldiers by one tenth. We use this as a synonym for utter military domination, because a 10% loss of soldiers on a national level tends to be absolutely catastrophic to a country's morale all things being equal.

But all things are not always equal. Losing our sons to a foreign war in another country that we care little about has a much more profound effect on our morale than losing our sons in defense of their homeland from foreign invaders. Humans tolerate much more of the latter than the former. And without going nuclear, Russia has little chance of actually killing enough Ukrainians to simply eliminate the opposition.

im not talking morale .or killing everyone. Interesting on the 10% = decimate. TY
But Uk isn't all in on on attrition either. Zelensky in a moment of clarity the other day
said "face it we have to talk to Putin" - before he changed his face

 

[multivita-man]

And without going nuclear, Russia has little chance of actually killing enough Ukrainians to simply eliminate the opposition.

Not in all of Ukraine but what they could do, conceivably anyway, is to make large swaths of Ukraine uninhabitable for Ukrainians. They could eventually take Odesa and effectively block Ukraine from the seas. They could continue to wreck Ukraine's rail infrastructure. If Ukraine's goal is to drive Russia out of Ukraine entirely, that's going to be hard unless NATO starts getting involved. Unfortunately, they've waited too long already and this gets more and more complicated the longer we wait because then Russia gets to redefine what 'Russia' is, and attacking what we think of as Ukraine can be seen as the sort of provocation that could lead to a much wider and costlier war.

 

[lwf]

We also have to carefully identify who considers themselves invaded, and who is considered invader.

The poor ethnic Russian minorities in eastern and southern Ukraine have been totally canceled in the western narrative. Yet they exist. To not factor them in in an analysis leads to conclusions full of faults.

To the ethnic Russian minorities of Donbass and Mariupol it is the government in Kyiv that is the invader

Then those minorities will also be immune to the effects of attrition warfare on their morale while fighting for the Russians. But how big of a percentage of the Russian armed forces fighting in Ukraine do you think they actually represent?

 

[lwf]

Not in all of Ukraine but what they could do, conceivably anyway, is to make large swaths of Ukraine uninhabitable for Ukrainians. They could eventually take Odesa and effectively block Ukraine from the seas. They could continue to wreck Ukraine's rail infrastructure. If Ukraine's goal is to drive Russia out of Ukraine entirely, that's going to be hard unless NATO starts getting involved. Unfortunately, they've waited too long already and this gets more and more complicated the longer we wait because then Russia gets to redefine what 'Russia' is, and attacking what we think of as Ukraine can be seen as the sort of provocation that could lead to a much wider and costlier war.

I'm sure this is Plan C. But like plans A and B, it appears to have been formulated by someone with very little understanding of warfare. (Possibly someone who was awarded a government position as a favor or reward for loyalty under the misguided assumption that their wealth made them qualified to plan military strategy?)

Even an uninhabitable home is home, especially when the party who forcibly made it that way moves in and stakes claim on it. The most powerful armed forces on the planet couldn't maintain control over a desert country, and their goal wasn't even conquest. When would you stop fighting for your home? If someone burned your house to the ground and killed your family, would you surrender your property to their control and submit to them as your new landlord?

 

[Irredentist]

The omission by the western media of the separatist tendencies in east and south Ukraine is what reduces their submissions to mere propaganda.

There is a Russophone population in Ukraine which is pro Russia and want out of the Kyiv project. It is far more convenient for big media in west to pretend they don't exist. Hey, Putin is there to blame. Even though Russian presence as far west as Odessa predates Putin by centuries

The ethnic Russian presence in the Ukraine is a result of historic Russian colonization of the area, at the expense of the previous inhabitants. Something pro-russian media conveniently elects to ignore. Historical Russia imperialism in no way justifies modern Russian expansionism.

 

[Juin]

The ethnic Russian presence in the Ukraine is a result of historic Russian colonization of the area, at the expense of the previous inhabitants. Something pro-russian media conveniently elects to ignore. Historical Russia imperialism in no way justifies modern Russian expansionism.

As equally there is no justification for ethnic Ukrainian subjugation of ethnic Russian minorities in the east and south. Or are you suggesting ethnic Russian minorities have no right to rid themselves of Ukrainians the same way Ukrainians rid themselves of Russians?

 

[Irredentist]

As equally there is no justification for ethnic Ukrainian subjugation of ethnic Russian minorities in the east and south. Or are you suggesting ethnic Russian minorities have no right to rid themselves of Ukrainians the same way Ukrainians rid themselves of Russians?

Ethnic Russian minorities have every right to hop across the border and return to their motherland. They do not have the right to annex Ukrainian territory to the Russian state.

 

[Juin]

Then those minorities will also be immune to the effects of attrition warfare on their morale while fighting for the Russians.

It's hard. And there are also ethnic Ukrainians in the Donbass and South of Ukraine as well. They probably will make-up the nucleus of anti Russian partisan warfare. While the ethnic Russians will conduct the anti Kyiv partisan warfare. I agree with your thesis. My objection was only to the dominant narrative in the west which totally ignores the complexity on the ground.

But how big of a percentage of the Russian armed forces fighting in Ukraine do you think they actually represent?

Actually the Ukrainian Army is facing three Armies in the Donbass: the regular Army of the Russian Federation, the Army of the Peoples Republic of Lunansk and the Army of the Peoples Republic of Donetsk. The latter two are manned by ethnic Russian minorities in Ukraine's Donbass.

 

[Juin]

Ethnic Russian minorities have every right to hop across the border and return to their motherland.

Their homeland is in the Donbass

They do not have the right to annex Ukrainian territory to the Russian state.

Says who?

 

[Fledermaus]

Whatever you say. since you see fit to make your own definitions despite massive artillery attacks
being the very definition of "cannon fodder" - no point in discussing it