Ukraine Cannot Win

 

Since the start of the invasion of Ukraine, I have wondered what the end game would be. I have never understood the West’s goal with intervention. I understand sending a message and “this will not stand” and we don’t want China getting ideas, etc. What I have not understood is a path to victory for Ukraine. I have asked in these pages what that looks like, and the answer ranged from unclear to getting Russia to leave to Russia leaving and paying reparations. There have even been talks of regime replacement and coups.

The facts are, there is no way to force an aggressor to leave if you cannot attack its base. It has to choose to give up. I have seen nothing proposed that would get Russia to give up. The idea that this is all Putin has struck me as unsupported at best and nonsense at worst. It does not matter how many years of weapon stockpiles we burn through to help the people of Ukraine. It does not matter how many weapons we put into the hands of Ukrainian people (leaving aside the question if they are not mostly ending up in the hands of organized crime in Ukraine). There is no way that Ukraine can win this war. They are going to lose. They have always been going to lose. Russia was always going to get what it wanted or, failing that, destroy the nation. Either way, the outcome is a loss for Ukraine.

Now I see this report and it seems to back up my darker thoughts. Its closing paragraph has a truth that was clear from the start:

Zelensky and the Ukrainian people will soon come face-to-face with the ugly prospect that continuing to fight will only bring more death and destruction to its people, cities, and armed forces – but be insufficient to stave off defeat. The truth is, military fundamentals and simple capacity are in Moscow’s favor. It is unlikely those factors change in time to avoid defeat for Kyiv and its brave people. That is the ugly, bitter reality of war.

Life is not fair. The West should not have encouraged Ukraine to fight Russia. This outcome was always as it was going to be.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 656 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Thank you Marshal Petain. As in too defeatist at this point, too accommodating. Without Churchill, Britain would have agreed with your outlook- but thank God they had Churchill.

    • #1
  2. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    I think you’re probably right. This has hurt Russia more than Putin thought it would, but it still has the size and resources to keep at it longer than Ukraine does.

    Victor Davis Hanson said once that wars eventually confirm what was clear at the beginning, that the side with the advantage wins. The agricultural American South was never going to win against the industrial North. Germany was never going to prevail against the rest of the West plus Russia. But a lot of bodies pile up along the way.

    • #2
  3. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    We should have “encouraged” them to surrender??   Your position is, if Russia invades a country of more than 40 million people, those people should just let them do it because to resist might be tough?   The fact is, most everyone (especially Putin apologists) thought Russia would run right through Ukraine and take the capital immediately and that didn’t happen.  That in itself is a defeat for Russia.  They have taken huge numbers of causalities and seem to have demonstrated that their military is a long way from being as fearsome as predicted.  That they are willing to suffer massive losses isn’t endless or they wouldn’t have pulled back from Kyiv. 

    Russia is our geopolitical enemy, and I say arming the country they attacked is both morally and strategically a good thing.  What we don’t need to do is have a TikTok attention span and think this thing will be decided in a matter of weeks.  

    • #3
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bryan G. Stephens: Now I see this report  and it seems to back up my darker thoughts. Its closing paragraph has a truth that was clear from the start:

    That’s not a report. That’s an opinion piece.  

    • #4
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Thank you Marshal Petain. As in too defeatist at this point, too accommodating. Without Churchill, Britain would have agreed with your outlook- but thank God they had Churchill.

    I am more than happy to be proved wrong. I found the article linked quite compelling. I welcome your outline on how Ukraine can win against this invasion. 

     

    • #5
  6. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    The truth is, military fundamentals and simple capacity are not always enough to secure victory.   Our own history shows that  …   The American revolution, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.

    And it’s not just us.   Consider the French in Vietnam and Algeria, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Arab States vs Israel.

    Whether or not Ukraine continues to fight is their choice, not ours.

     

    • #6
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    I think you’re probably right. This has hurt Russia more than Putin thought it would, but it still has the size and resources to keep at it longer than Ukraine does.

    Victor Davis Hanson said once that wars eventually confirm what was clear at the beginning, that the side with the advantage wins. The agricultural American South was never going to win against the industrial North. Germany was never going to prevail against the rest of the West plus Russia. But a lot of bodies pile up along the way.

    Indeed, and Japan could not beat the US and they knew it. They wanted to have a big battle to get us to the table to negotiate peace. For them to win, the West and America had to give up the fight.

    • #7
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens: Now I see this report and it seems to back up my darker thoughts. Its closing paragraph has a truth that was clear from the start:

    That’s not a report. That’s an opinion piece.

    Sorry for not being perfectly precise in my use of words. 

    Do you have any other comments on said opinion piece? As I say above, I am more than happy to hear how you think that Ukraine can prevail. 

    • #8
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    We should have “encouraged” them to surrender?? Your position is, if Russia invades a country of more than 40 million people, those people should just let them do it because to resist might be tough? The fact is, most everyone (especially Putin apologists) thought Russia would run right through Ukraine and take the capital immediately and that didn’t happen. That in itself is a defeat for Russia. They have taken huge numbers of causalities and seem to have demonstrated that their military is a long way from being as fearsome as predicted. That they are willing to suffer massive losses isn’t endless or they wouldn’t have pulled back from Kyiv.

    Russia is our geopolitical enemy, and I say arming the country they attacked is both morally and strategically a good thing. What we don’t need to do is have a TikTok attention span and think this thing will be decided in a matter of weeks.

    Resistance here is not tough, it is futile. I do not think that Ukraine can win. Russia will either take the land they want or they will grind Ukraine into a horrible mess, setting them back generations. Russia can just bomb the nation, including Kiev, into rubble. Unlike us, the Russian people will back such a move. 

    I am against using up our stockpiles in a proxy war against Russia. I am against leading the people of Ukraine on, that somehow we have their backs when the reality is we don’t. I am against sending troops to Ukraine or meeting Russia head on. Which has been suggested by some in this nation. Oh, maybe not you, but since you want to invoke “Putin Apologists” then I feel justified in pointing that out. 

    As with the others, I am again, more than happy to hear your outline of how Ukraine can defeat Russia. 

    • #9
  10. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    The truth is, military fundamentals and simple capacity are not always enough to secure victory. Our own history shows that … The American revolution, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.

    And it’s not just us. Consider the French in Vietnam and Algeria, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Arab States vs Israel.

    Whether or not Ukraine continues to fight is their choice, not ours.

     

    We have encouraged them to fight and we have helped. Their choice has been based on us. 

    The American Revolution was against a democratic nation whose people decided in large part enough was enough. 

    • #10
  11. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    I believe the problem is what does Putin want, what will he do to get what he wants, and what does he think he can do to accomplish his goals.

    Does he really believe that Ukraine, the Baltic States, Finland, Norway, Poland, or anyone else has plans to march on Moscow?

    Are we just seeing a repeat of Hitler’s Lebensraum? Perhaps Putin will be satisfied when Russian generals are standing on a French beach gazing at Britain. Or will a piece of Poland and Finland satisfy him? 

    • #11
  12. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Biden’s goal is to keep the focus off China which is actually a serious threat but they own him.    Why 40 million?  I suppose  he has folks that like lots of spending and certainly doesn’t want to spend anything on our own border. not that that would be a risk.   Ten would have been a lot and wouldn’t change the outcome one way or the other.  

    • #12
  13. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    I agree.  I a toe to toe, straight up, strategic war, Russia wins.  They have more resources, military and industry as well as never being much concerned about casualties both their side and their enemy.  The West could not fight this type of battle with the modern day communication environment.  

    Outside that I have listened to a few podcasts of Ukrainians politics before this.  They understand full well what they are facing and have been expecting this eventually.  They have talked about a long drawn out fight with serious destruction of Ukraine.  They seem to understand what they were heading into and thought they could get through it.  It is possible that their war of bleeding Russia may work.  Now it is all down to the will.  

    • #13
  14. Cato Coolidge
    Cato
    @Cato

    Sisu.

    • #14
  15. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bryan, my own view is, and has been, that Ukraine’s best course is to negotiate an end of the war.  I think that such a negotiation will involve, at a minimum: (1) territorial concessions, and (2) agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO.  I may be incorrect about this, but it is my impression of Russia’s fundamental demands.

    I do think that there is an alternative for Ukraine, which might eventually lead to victory.  Ukraine could slowly lose the ground war, and engage in protracted insurgency.  This is likely to take many years.  It is possible, but not certain, that Russia would eventually decide that the cost of occupation is too high to justify the gains.  It’s essentially the strategy adopted by the Afghans, both against the Soviets and against us.

    The cost of this would be very high for the Ukrainians, too. 

    It could be high for the rest of the world, as well, particularly if the US and EU sanction Russian energy exports.  In this case, oil and other energy prices, as well as wheat prices, could remain very high for an extended period of time.

    • #15
  16. No Caesar Thatcher
    No Caesar
    @NoCaesar

    Will is the primary ingredient for victory.  At this point Putin and Zelensky have shown equal will.  Ukraine has been provided arms for resisting and is demonstrating that it learns fast on the battlefield.  The traditional strengths and weaknesses of Russia are in plain view.    I don’t recall the Afghani’s attacking Mother Russia, yet they managed to kick out the Soviets.

    If all you see are the costs of war then you shouldn’t be leading a war.  War kills and destroys.  Once you’ve started down that path you must prepared to follow it to the end.  

    • #16
  17. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Thank you Marshal Petain. As in too defeatist at this point, too accommodating. Without Churchill, Britain would have agreed with your outlook- but thank God they had Churchill.

    MiMac, I don’t think that this is a good analogy.

    There was one key difference between Britain and France in WWII.  I don’t think that it was Churchill.  I think that it was the English Channel.

    The Confederacy is another example of capitulation to the stronger power.  Do you think that they should have gone on fighting?  Personally, I’m glad that they did not.

    • #17
  18. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    FWIW, I note the absence of certain stories that we kept hearing at the beginning:

    • Russian soldiers didn’t know they were going to Ukraine to fight an actual war
    • Russian soldiers don’t want to fight Ukrainians
    • Russian soldiers are deserting in large numbers
    • Russia suffering disproportionate losses
    • Putin in danger of being removed from office
    • Once the body bags start coming home, Putin will lose popular support

    I don’t hear any of these anymore. Russian soldiers surely know by now what they’re meant to do, and they seem quite willing to do it. If there are large-scale protests from the Russian people, I haven’t heard of them. Putin seems secure as long as his health holds up, about which there are many rumors but no proof.

    It does seem that Russia has failed to achieve air superiority, but they have artillery that can destroy cities from a distance, and it looks like they are just going to keep doing that as long as they need to.

     

    • #18
  19. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    I believe the problem is what does Putin want, what will he do to get what he wants, and what does he think he can do to accomplish his goals.

    Well, What Putin wants has been pretty well outlined by the man himself. However, just like how they behave with everything, our Intel Community and the media outlets (but I repeat myself), are spouting paranoia. The very same people who claim that January 6 was an insurrection, are claiming the invasion of Ukraine was the first step in Putin’s grand plan to rule the world. They have played the paranoid/alarmism/hatred song on repeat for half-a-decade now, and I for one have stopped listening. 

    Putin has already accomplished his goals.

    It may have come with a higher cost. That would be something to takeaway, but for the fact that this ‘cost’ also affected us just as much and that the silver lining of the “costs” for Putin was a re-definition of economic alliances and work-arounds which hardens our potential enemies resistance to any form of coercion in the future. And of course there were costs in human life which could be rationalized for the price of ‘freedom’ but sadly that reason will soon look like other outcomes like Afghanistan. 

    Does he really believe that Ukraine, the Baltic States, Finland, Norway, Poland, or anyone else has plans to march on Moscow?

    No. This is another red herring. It’s absurd. But our intelligence agencies use this as a double-edged sword in propaganda. See Putin is crazy! And see, we have to stop him now! Or else it’s just like WWII !

    Putin doesn’t believe that, they know he doesn’t believe that, but they can get the American people who watch their propaganda shows to believe that. 

    It’s nothing like the beginnings of World War Two. It’s more like the beginnings of every other war in history.  

    Are we just seeing a repeat of Hitler’s Lebensraum? Perhaps Putin will be satisfied when Russian generals are standing on a French beach gazing at Britain. Or will a piece of Poland and Finland satisfy him?

    This is more absurdity. Putin and Russia do not need “legroom”. They do need (or like) access to warm water ports. There was a hot civil war in the east ongoing for years (almost wholly unreported) with ethnic Russians and forces that included avowed nazi’s fighting on the Ukrainian side. 

    Biden is weak. The USA is weak – on full demonstration when we put our tail between our legs and ran away from Afghanistan-  and so are the Europeans who allowed themselves crucial energy dependence on Russia. But that certainly can’t be something uttered out loud on our media outlets. 

    Moreover this opportunistic move was all but encouraged by our side with our participation in the pervasive corruption of Ukraine, and needless dithering on whether Ukraine should or shouldn’t join NATO. 

    • #19
  20. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Thank you Marshal Petain. As in too defeatist at this point, too accommodating. Without Churchill, Britain would have agreed with your outlook- but thank God they had Churchill.

    I am more than happy to be proved wrong. I found the article linked quite compelling. I welcome your outline on how Ukraine can win against this invasion.

     

    Most propaganda is. Meanwhile, the Bear is bleeding out. 

    Battalion tactical groups (BTGs) are, like the Greek phalanxes, Roman legions, or Spanish tercios, the basic unit of maneuver and combat. Every regiment or brigade in the Russian army has three: two combat BTGs and one for training. The training BTG consists of trainers and raw recruits. They are not combat ready, and yet it seems that they are to be fed into the maw, ready or not.

    Russian forces continue to struggle with generating additional combat-capable units. The UK Ministry of Defense reported on June 12 that Russian forces have been trying to produce more combat units by preparing to deploy third battalion tactical groups (BTGs) from some units over the last few weeks.[1] The UK MoD noted that Russian brigades and regiments normally can generate two BTGs, but doing so leaves the parent units largely hollow shells. The UK MOD concluded that these third BTGs will likely be understaffed and rely on recruits and mobilized reservists. Their deployment will likely adversely impact the capacity of their parent units to regenerate their combat power for quite some time. BTGs generated in this fashion will not have the combat power of regular BTGs. It will be important not to overestimate Russian reserves produced in this way by counting these third BTGs as if they were normal BTGs.

    More from ISW:

    Russia continues to deploy insufficiently prepared volunteer and reserve forces to reinforce its ongoing operations. Kremlin-sponsored outlet Izvestia released footage showing Russian artillery reservists undergoing training with old D-20 howitzers reportedly within 10 days of their deployment to Ukraine.[4] The reservists focused on learning how to operate hand-held weapons, despite being reportedly only days away from deploying. Social media footage also showed Russian forces transporting Russian volunteer and reserve units with T-80BV tanks (a variant produced in 1985, as opposed to the modernized T-80 BVM operated by the 1st Guards Tank Army) and BMP-1 armored personnel carriers (which have largely been phased out in favor of the BMP-2) to Belgorod Oblast on June 9.[5] Additional social media footage showed Russian forces transporting T-80BV tanks removed from storage in Moscow Oblast on June 9.[6]

    Green troops humping obsolete gear being deployed while training future replacements all but ceases. If you try to call that “winning”, people will giggle.

    • #20
  21. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    I believe the problem is what does Putin want, what will he do to get what he wants, and what does he think he can do to accomplish his goals.

    I think Putin has made it clear that his long term goal is to reclaim lands that were part of the Soviet Union, if not the Russian Empire.

    In comments on the 350th anniversary of the birth of Peter the Great, he said:

    Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them. He did not take anything from them, he reclaimed [what was Russia’s]

    And:

    “Apparently, it also fell to us to reclaim [what is Russia’s] and strengthen [the country],” he told his audience. “And if we proceed from the fact that these basic values form the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in solving the tasks that we face.”

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    Does he really believe that Ukraine, the Baltic States, Finland, Norway, Poland, or anyone else has plans to march on Moscow?

    No, but taken with the comments above, I suspect that he sees the Baltic states, as well as Ukraine, as Russian lands. They were all part of the USSR (thought the Baltics were only taken in WWII). I wouldn’t be surprised to see him make a move on Moldova as well.

    As for Finland, I think he’ll take “Finlandization” as a decent goal. Depends on if he’s trying to reclaim all the Soviet Socialist Republics, or the Russian Empire.

    (Edited to add link and correct typos)

    • #21
  22. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Thank you Marshal Petain. As in too defeatist at this point, too accommodating. Without Churchill, Britain would have agreed with your outlook- but thank God they had Churchill.

    In case you haven’t noticed, Ukraine isn’t Britain. Geographically, historically or in any other way. The US is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly like Ukraine – corrupt, no rule of law, jailing political opposition, and ruled by oligarchs who don’t care about their country.

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Whether or not Ukraine continues to fight is their choice, not ours.

     

    True. But why should it be on our dime?

    Concretevol (View Comment):
    Russia is our geopolitical enemy,

    Only if we make them our enemy. Which we have been doing a very job at. 

    The entire strategy of the Biden administration has been to cripple the Russian economy. It is never going to work on a country that is essentially an autarky and supplies the rest of the world with vitally needed resources. Oil and gas are obvious and all the Biden administration has achieved is increasing the price and thus financing the war. Food – there was going to be a problem with many of the fields in Ukraine being taken out of production. But the unwillingness of Ukraine to de-mine Odessa has only exacerbated the problem. Neon – can’t produce microchips without neon. It’s a stupid, self-defeating policy.

     

    • #22
  23. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    What this war is about is the end of the US as a global hegemon and the end of globalization. For me, good riddance. The world will be many regional powers. Good. Far more desirable.

    • #23
  24. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I don’t think MiMac is referring to World War II but rather to Marshal Stalin’s grab of Poland and other small bordering countries in the wake of World War II. Churchill was disgusted with Stalin’s after-war plans, and during the Yalta conferences, he told Stalin that Britain had a long-standing tradition of respecting small countries and their right to exist. FDR was so busy kissing up to Stalin that Stalin got away with territory gram, which set the stage for big countries’ taking their smaller bordering countries by force–Mao embraced the attitude as well. Hence Korea and Vietnam and others.

    If that is what MiMac is referring to, then I see that too. Putin has a lot in common in terms of attitude toward power and force with Marshal Stalin. Stalin was not terribly interested in spreading communism. He wanted power that goes with controlling resources.

    • #24
  25. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I don’t think MiMac is referring to World War II but rather to Marshal Stalin’s grab of Poland and other small bordering countries in the wake of World War II. Churchill was disgusted with Stalin’s after-war plans and told Stalin that Britain had a long-standing tradition of respecting small countries and their right to exist. FDR was so busy kissing up to Stalin that Stalin got away with it and set the stage for the big countries taking the bordering little countries by force–Mao embraced the attitude as well. Hence Korea and Vietnam.

    If that is what MiMac is referring to, then I see that too. Putin has a lot in common in terms of attitude toward power and force with Marshal Stalin.

    Nah, he’s definitely referring to Marshal Petain (though he’s free to clear that up). As you know, at the end of the Battle of France Petain sided with Weygand in seeking an armistice with Germany. When Reynaud resigned as PM, Petain became head of government and sought terms with Germany. An armistice was signed on 22 June 1940. Petain assumed near-absolute power soon after as the Third Republic was dissolved. Thus began the shameful history of Vichy France.

    • #25
  26. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    I believe the problem is what does Putin want, what will he do to get what he wants, and what does he think he can do to accomplish his goals.

    Does he really believe that Ukraine, the Baltic States, Finland, Norway, Poland, or anyone else has plans to march on Moscow?

    Are we just seeing a repeat of Hitler’s Lebensraum? Perhaps Putin will be satisfied when Russian generals are standing on a French beach gazing at Britain. Or will a piece of Poland and Finland satisfy him?

    Again with the comparison to WWII. This seems much more 19th Century to me. 

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I agree. I a toe to toe, straight up, strategic war, Russia wins. They have more resources, military and industry as well as never being much concerned about casualties both their side and their enemy. The West could not fight this type of battle with the modern day communication environment.

    Outside that I have listened to a few podcasts of Ukrainians politics before this. They understand full well what they are facing and have been expecting this eventually. They have talked about a long drawn out fight with serious destruction of Ukraine. They seem to understand what they were heading into and thought they could get through it. It is possible that their war of bleeding Russia may work. Now it is all down to the will.

    I hope that is the thinking they have made, and not depending on the West to save them.

    • #26
  27. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    The truth is, military fundamentals and simple capacity are not always enough to secure victory. Our own history shows that … The American revolution, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.

    And it’s not just us. Consider the French in Vietnam and Algeria, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Arab States vs Israel.

    Whether or not Ukraine continues to fight is their choice, not ours.

     

    We have encouraged them to fight and we have helped. Their choice has been based on us.

    The American Revolution was against a democratic nation whose people decided in large part enough was enough.

    Ukraine’s desire to fight is their own.   Yes – We have enabled them.   And I think that is in our interest.  Undeterred, I believe Putin would move against the Baltics and Poland.     Recall, if having NATO border on Russia directly constitutes an existential threat, Estonia and Latvia are NATO members that directly border on Russia.    I’d much rather provide equipment to non-NATO Ukraine than be required by treaty to send American soldiers to fight Russians in NATO  members Estonia and Latvia. 

    • #27
  28. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Bryan, my own view is, and has been, that Ukraine’s best course is to negotiate an end of the war. I think that such a negotiation will involve, at a minimum: (1) territorial concessions, and (2) agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO. I may be incorrect about this, but it is my impression of Russia’s fundamental demands.

    I do think that there is an alternative for Ukraine, which might eventually lead to victory. Ukraine could slowly lose the ground war, and engage in protracted insurgency. This is likely to take many years. It is possible, but not certain, that Russia would eventually decide that the cost of occupation is too high to justify the gains. It’s essentially the strategy adopted by the Afghans, both against the Soviets and against us.

    The cost of this would be very high for the Ukrainians, too.

    It could be high for the rest of the world, as well, particularly if the US and EU sanction Russian energy exports. In this case, oil and other energy prices, as well as wheat prices, could remain very high for an extended period of time.

    I think that makes sense. I hate to see the high cost for Ukrainians. It is a mess. The thing about the Afgans is they did not have a real nation to lose. Ukraine is a real nation. 

    • #28
  29. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    I am not sure I understand the whole Russia is our enemy thing that the Biden Administration is into.  Did he not belong to the Obama Great Russian reset bunch?  They sent HRC over with a reset button and organized junkets with every US business people that would go.  Why the change?

    • #29
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Percival (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

     

    Green troops humping obsolete gear being deployed while training future replacements all but ceases. If you try to call that “winning”, people will giggle.

    I am not talking about Russia winning. That is not a lock. I am talking about Ukraine. See, Russia can both fail to achieve its objectives and Ukraine can still lose. There can be but rubble and starving people left behind. Russia can easily do that to Ukraine. 

    But, they have control of most of the territory they seem to want control of now so I am not sure Russia will lose. 

    So what does a win look like for Ukraine. If it is Russia leaves and the whole of the nation has devastation that will take a generation to repair is a win, then I guess Ukraine can win. I would not call that a win though. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.