I’m surprised this isn’t discussed and considered. Before Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, russia was considered 1 of 2 of our biggest adversaries. removing them as a major military concern is extremely valuable. And without our soldiers directly involved. Not to mention the wealth of information regarding military tactics.
But never forget it’s only valuable if Russia loses. If they gain strategic victory, even bloodied, this will all have been worse than if we had done nothing (instead of next to nothing, which is what we’ve done). The worst thing we could do here is almost defeat Russia.
It’s a War for the World and Empire is losing the world ... These concerns are generating considerable anti-Western sentiment across much of the Global South. While a nuclear-armed Russia shows no willingness to end a war its leaders cannot afford to lose; the West is rapidly losing the rest and thus undermining the very rules-based international order it has sought to create. Our most promising solution to this dilemma is likely to be some sort of diplomatic compromise. Nearly 90 Percent of the World Isn't Following Us on Ukraine
Sorry for the hiatus folks had to rebuild my laptop. You should have posted the link to PDF analysis. I've included it at the bottom of this post. Please reference this analysis. I know it is a long read but it is well worth it if you intend to understand where both sides are coming from and what the resulting consequences of the end game. The report takes into account both sides of this war and the affects on US interests. A discussion of five points in this report are presented with pro's and con's. I readily admit that I am not a foreign policy advisor and there are points made in this paper that never crossed my mind; however, it is clear to me that whatever the end result the path we are currently on is not the best of solutions for the US much less our allies. @uftaipan given your position on the conflict I think you might be interested in this report as well as it makes clear my reasons for absolute victory and occupation which we will never do. U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict How does this end? Increasingly, this question is dominating discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington and other Western capitals. Although successful Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson in fall 2022 renewed optimism about Kyiv’s prospects on the battlefield, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement on September 21 of a partial mobilization and annexation of four Ukrainian provinces was a stark reminder that this war is nowhere near a resolution. Fighting still rages across nearly 1,000 km of front lines. Negotiations on ending the conflict have been suspended since May. The trajectory and ultimate outcome of the war will, of course, be determined largely by the policies of Ukraine and Russia. But Kyiv and Moscow are not the only capitals with a stake in what happens. This war is the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences for the United States. It is appropriate to assess how this conflict may evolve, what alternative trajectories might mean for U.S. interests, and what Washington can do to promote a trajectory that best serves U.S. interests. ............ Numerous analysts have posited scenarios for the war’s short-term trajectory—or even for endgames. Although such scenarios are important constructs for thinking about the future, they are less helpful for determining what possible developments matter most to the United States. It is perhaps more useful for U.S. policymakers to consider which particular aspects of the conflict’s future development will have the most significant impact on U.S. interests. In lieu of rich, descriptive scenarios, we examine five key dimensions that define alternative war trajectories: • possible Russian use of nuclear weapons • possible escalation to a Russia-NATO conflict • territorial control • duration • form of war termination. ................... One form of war termination is an absolute victory. This outcome involves one state “permanently removing the (interstate) threat posed by its adversary.” Absolute victory, as Dan Reiter notes, can be accomplished through “the victor installing a new leadership in the defeated state, occupying or annexing the adversary’s territory, or at worst annihilating the adversary’s entire population.” Although it might entail an agreement, an absolute victory’s defining feature is “a war outcome that essentially removes the possibility of the defeated state reneging on a war-ending settlement.” Since an absolute victory is highly unlikely, there will probably be a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine war at some point. But, given current trends, the prospects for such an agreement are poor in the near term, as we discuss in the following sections. A political settlement might be more difficult to reach than an armistice agreement since the latter would be narrowly focused on maintaining a cease-fire, not resolving the increasingly deep and broad set of issues disputed between Ukraine and Russia.
I didn't read the whole report but curious why they think an absolute victory is highly unlikely for Russia here? Given that NATO has shown that forces will not be committed (since it is a defensive alliance this makes sense) and the fact that Russia has 3x as many soldiers that they are more than willing to deploy it would seem that Russian victory is really only a matter of time. I think a lot of people in the west make assumptions that Russia won't be able to grind out a victory that are based upon thinking like a person from the west. While I'm no fan of Russia I don't really see any scenario where Russia is forced to stop advancing by the Ukrainian military. No matter the amount of weapons and hardware we provide will win it as Russia does have weapons and hardware to match, and although it is substandard they have literally 3x the military to throw into the fire. As far as I can tell countries are still buying Russian products and they aren't being starved out. Why would they stop the war?
for the same reason the US could never have total victory over Iraq. And russia does not have the equipment to supply the forces that are engaged now, let alone equipment to supply more troops. Last time I checked, they couldn't raise the initial 500k they wanted and there was a mass exodus from the country of draft eligible men. Since then, it has become even more apparent to the russian people that anyone sent to the front will be nothing more than dead bodies for others to crawl over so I suspect that the next draft will have even more trouble hitting their goals. Not to mention the Ukrainian resolve continues to increase everyday as more and more war crimes are documented. At some point, their prisons will be empty and then what? Send the prison guards?
The US could have had a total victory in Iraq, but we chose not to due to things like rules of engagement, not being OK reducing entire cities to rubble regardless of civilian casualties, not targeting their entire leadership structure down to town mayors for assassination, and not considering Iraq part of our sovereign territory. We also would not have been ok with losses of 150,000+. It's quite obvious Russia isn't waging the same type of war we did in Iraq. I'm under no false impression that we were some saviors of Iraq, we obviously didn't treat them very well, but the two wars don't really have much in common in my opinion. The US never invaded Iraq with the intent of ruling it, for one. Do you really think if the US felt that Iraq was it's sovereign territory that it wouldn't be so in 2023? Anyways, as I said I'm no pro-Russian guy I just see a lot of sentiments that don't seem to be based in reality. Russia sucks, is losing way more soldiers than would be acceptable by western standards and looks like a complete clown show but again they have 3x the military of Ukraine, similar technologies to what the west is sending, and they don't seem to mind losing men. What makes anyone think they won't just keep losing men until they win?
No, the US was never prepared to go to war against Russia. Indeed, we are well nigh past the time in which the US could engage in high-intensity warfare against near-peer foes, never mind the Russias and China’s. It’s why the US is now content to fight through proxies. And the world is getting tired of it.
Russia could have total victory - but it would cost literally millions of lives on both sides. They would have to essentially reduce Ukraine to 0 and start over.
I know the report is 35 pages in total of which the last 10 pages are references and acknowledgements. It is not highly unlikely for Russia to be victorious. It is highly unlikely for Ukraine to be victorious. Russia is not going to break apart nor will Ukraine take any of Russia's territory. The report makes this clear in it's description of victory. What the report does address is what an outcome would be if it were probable for Ukraine to be victorious which they argue is not in the cards without significant help from allies. Meaning a full fledged war with NATO and other nations potentially stepping up to the plate. In this case it is not a Ukrainian victory it is a multinational victory in the same vein as WW II. On that we both agree as does the report. The report also addresses sanctions that have been levied against Russia (to no avail) and makes it clear that Russia understands no matter how this turns out sanctions relief is highly improbable. The other point the report makes is other nations may well refuse to do business with the US as first choice due to the probability of sanctions.
Oh ok, I read it wrong then. I took 'absolute victory is highly unlikely' to mean an absolute victory by either side. In the case where it just means for Ukraine I'd agree with that. I don't really think the path that the west is taking here is the best path, I don't pretend to know what the best path is as I'm not an experienced politician or foreign affairs guy, but it just seems to me we're showing the world that yes, countries that have a large military can do what they please. They can threaten us with nuclear weapons freely. They can continue to trade around the world freely. The only real consequence that has been imposed is being superficially locked out of our financial markets, which I'd think would just encourage the movement to a Chinese sponsored financial market. Once that's done we'll have no real leverage over anyone. I know that lots of people seem to have bought into the Ukraine is winning propaganda but I just don't see any way to spin what is happening in a positive light if you look at what is actually happening rather than what you see on twitter or facebook. Russia, China and much of the world's population still live in a world where usage of force solves problems and all we've done is confirm that - which isn't a surprise because in the real world that is how things work. The west operates under it's own superficial system where a cost of any type upon a population is unacceptable (ie... the EU still buys Russian oil exports) whereas Russia/China don't. If Russians have to heat their homes by chopping wood or freeze they'll chop wood, which many have to do anyway. In France this would result in a total surrender. This is why sanctions don't work and we have to start looking at things from the other perspective if we want to actually win.
After many months of annoying breast-beating and playground taunting and regurgitated Ukrainian propaganda, Die Welt is preparing its readers for the impossibility of a Russian defeat.
That is exactly what the report argues as a negative against using sanctions as we have done through out the decades. Not only have we sanctioned Russia we have confiscated the assets of Russian citizens and have imposed sanctions on other nations for not supporting the Ukraine and western allies. Remaining neutral from the US perspective is the same as supporting Russia. This in my opinion is insane. I also agree that Russia is not going away nor are they being severely disabled because of sanctions. In short what NATO and allies have done is hired Ukraine to fight this war. We pay for their government, army and weapons of destruction. The Ukrainians pay for the support with their lives and economic despair. In the end Ukraine will be hollowed out if we continue down this path. Yes the rah rah complex of Goliath versus the giant (who doesn't root for the underdog) and all the propaganda that goes with it. Strictly reading US publications will certainly portray that view. In the end the answer will be it is Ukraine's fault and we did everything we could to prevent such a loss. As for Ukraine, they will suffer death by a thousand cuts yet in the end there will be negotiations that take place regardless if Ukraine is to survive in any sense of the word and cede some of its' territory to Russia. Splitting Ukraine at this juncture is most likely out of the question for various reasons outlined in the report. European nations and the US will have to give up something in the end as it is not possible to inflict the same manner of pain on Russia that the globe inflicts on North Korea. How the US deals with Russia when the war concludes is another matter all together. There is no doubt that the US will never recognize Ukraine as Russian territory or part of the Russian motherland and sanctions will not be lifted when the war concludes. This however does not address how European Nations will react with hopes of maintaining peaceful relations as the paper only deals with the United States and our specific interests.
I also think it will be interesting to see what side of this some of the other larger developing nations end up on. India, Brazil and others as without the availability of labor and resources the west could be in trouble here in the medium to long term. China has seemingly all but purchased Africa and is enough of a power to take what it wants from the rest of the Asian continent for the most part. The US has Central and South America still but the countries that matter in Central/South America seem to be more friendly towards Russia/China than us. The west meanwhile expensive and limited labor, and really no labor if you look at skilled manufacturing, as well as an aversion to natural resources that are harvested within its borders and aversion to taking them from others. Should be a neat century where the west basically does a re-enactment of that picture where the kid puts a stick into his own bike wheel and blames the world. I don't really see a overarching reason why countries would choose to ally with the US/EU over China/Russia. At least China/Russia haven't demonstrated that they'll confiscate your money if you disagree with them and neither seeks to impose it's value system on you.
Europeans are not as soft as you might think. I recently talked to a German retiree who has a nice-sized woodpile for his fireplace, and he split it himself (not with a hydraulic splitter, but with an axe/maul), in spite of his heart condition (or maybe because of it). Germany stopped buying Russian oil and gas in December. Which country in Europe (besides maybe Hungary or Turkey) is still buying oil or gas from Russia? The sanctions are working in general (not completely as well as we'd hoped, but in general they are working). The U.S. has been able to force Russia to accept prices below $40/bbl for its oil. Russia has had to greatly reduce its manufacture of a lot of consumer items to focus on making ammunition for Ukraine. We are strangling Russia on things like computer chips, so Russia is running out of Iskander missiles, for example. (That's why Russia fires ship's missiles at cities.) Russia's economy has only shrunk 3.5% from last year, but a lot of that was because Germany continued to buy oil up to the December deadline. Germany also bought additional oil and sold it to other countries, like Britain. Europe now has plenty of natural gas, so the threat of freezing Europe until they caved on Ukraine will not happen. China and India are now Russia's biggest customers for oil and gas. I suspect that Russia's economy is shrinking much faster now. And I would not assume, based on what we've seen so far, that Ukraine cannot win this war. The odds are against them, but the odds have been against them since the invasion started. Provide them with the right hardware and keep them from running out of ammo, and they might surprise you. Ukraine is fighting like their lives depend on them winning, and Russia is not. Russian troops are fighting like they don't want to be there. Russian troops are demotivated, poorly trained, poorly equipped, and lacking discipline. The army doesn't get along with the mercenary contractor, and neither get along with the Chechens, who are there to live in nice houses and loot whatever they can. Russia's military is dysfunctional. Ukraine doesn't have these issues. Ukraine also gets a lot of help from local citizens, while Russia gets very little help from locals. I can't say at what point Russia's economy or its war factories reach their breaking point. Both are in rough shape. However, Putin is stubborn and determined. Russia has been preparing for this war for 20-30 years. Ukraine has done a remarkable job staying in this fight for over 11 months. If they can make it until the tanks arrive, and they can make good use of the tanks and their other weapons, they may be able to start to push Russia out of their country this year. Warfare is not always a pure numbers game. Superior technology can neutralize a lot of the numbers disparity. And so can tactics and motivation. Ukraine has all three going their way at the moment.
Lest we forget, the aim of sanctions (13,000 and counting) was to bring Russia to its knees and so incite its citizens to the point where Putin was displaced as head of state. Sanctions have failed. Utterly. Spectacularly.
neither citizenry would have ever subjugated themselves to the rule of others that they consider to be war criminals. Russia does not have similar tech, not even close, and that has been shown over and over again. It will become more apparent as even more advanced western systems make their way onto the battlefield. 1 man fighting for his home and family is worth 5 men not wanting to be there. Motivation and superior tech and leadership prevents Russia from winning or they would have already won.
I disagree. The worst thing we could do here is defeat Russia so soundly they start considering their own existence. At that point, Putin says screw it, and pushes the red button.
You are probably correct on that, but I don’t see that as a real possibility. Russia needs to be humbled to the degree that they’re back in their own borders and not contemplating anymore adventurism for another generation (with the implied message it sends to China). I do not and have never advocated beating Russia so badly that they interpret it as an existential threat and kick over the game board.
