Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
Russia “hacking” the DNC? Just a question…
I think you are right on the facts, but wrong on the sentiment. Many powers leads to many wars.
I guess I disagree that Russia would attack a NATO nation.
I hope so too. Anybody expecting somebody else to defend them or save them are destined to be disappointed.
To be honest I am surprised the West as responded as it has as long as it has. Figured the West would have caved by now. Makes me wonder what they see I do not. They are hiding something or protecting something.
I think you are right. :)
Strangely when I heard some of the politicals in Ukraine talking before this thing they viewed that as a win.
BINGO
There is nothing more important than keeping the price of oil between $40 and $70 or something.
When commodities start dominating over finance and money printing, it is not ideal for the West.
It would be nice if somebody in power could do some integrated thinking about all of this.
American taxpayers have been paying for this war and will be paying for the repair.
American citizens, your government doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you.
This is why I hate globalists.
You may be right, but thing is that populations are going to be falling fast. I think Russia has tried to get out in front of this, which is partially what the war in Ukraine is about.
But I really doubt China is going to invade Taiwan, for instance. Their economy is totally dependent on manufacturing cheap crap for the rest of the world. They don’t have the ability to protect their sea lanes very far out. China’s demography is going to lead to a population implosion in the very near future. China will get much poorer also because of Xi and his idiotic ideology.
The other “big kid” is India. But India will not flex its muscles in the way Russia or China have. They will profit from China’s demise in southeast Asia. But it will not be military, but economic.
Britain is toast. It’s going to devolve. United Ireland. Independent Scotland. Maybe Wales too.
Other regional powers are going to be France, Turkey, Nigeria , Brazil, and Argentina.
The US will have some stormy years with inflation and re-industrialization. But will wind up a far stronger country. Lots of regulations are going to be sidelined because of reality.
Oh, I think in 20 years, America will still be dominate. I think China will break up as is normal for China. There is no real reason for America to split up. It will control a continent.
I am less sure on Britain breaking up. I don’t think the sentiment in NI is to leave the UK. Scotland might be another matter. I cannot imagine leaving to do anything other than Join the EU, which I expect to fail.
I hope you’re right, but I just don’t see it — unless we can forcibly disband the Democrat Party and outlaw its existence.
Reality should be hitting them hard right now, with skyrocketing energy costs and inflation that make the Carter years seem pleasant by comparison — but it’s full steam ahead with the Great Reset anyway.
Thank you, @BrianGStephans, for trying yet again to bring a little light into the Ukraine war fiasco.
The article you linked was sobering. I recommend this podcast from May, an interview with a Swiss military professional that sheds light on some issues never mentioned in the US press.
I am reminded of a comment Bush 43 is reputed to have made to a General briefing him early in the Afghanistan war: “We’re not playing for a tie here, are we?”.
Sadly I think Dr. Bastiat answers that with his latest post, “When Faced with the Failures of Leftism, Leftists Want More Leftism. But with Different Leftists.”
At this point there are too many revenue streams to protect in supporting the Ukraine war. Look at where the 40 billion actually went.
Putin is cannibalizing his training structure in an attempt to maintain the number of troops in Ukraine. Putin is “all in” to borrow a phrase from poker. You can’t win a war of attrition if you’ve sacrificed your ability to train replacements.
Can’t see the Democrats getting behind that.
Those idiot Bostonians should surrender immediately, apologize to the governor, send the king a nice fruit basket, and stop gumming up relations with the empire. They are blockaded, for heaven’s sake. What do they hope to accomplish? Preserving their rights as British citizens? What piffle. What utter arrogance. They have the rights Parliament grants them and nothing more. And that Adams family. They need a good term in the stocks, they do. Uppity guttersnipes.
No one celebrates it, but March 17 used to be called Evacuation Day:
The distance from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston is about 200 miles. It was a long slog through the snow. Whenever I have been in those woods in that part of Massachusetts, I feel as though I’m surrounded by the determined ghosts of the Revolutionary War heroes. :)
Those in which every analogy is a World War II analogy.
Based on what in particular? The well known stability of Putin and the ruling class in Russia?
Russia isn’t Nazi Germany either (ie a nation with a highly proficient military). They are similar in that they are led by men with delusions. But Russia isn’t nearly as powerful as Nazi Germany in the summer of 1940-1941. Russia’s economy is 3rd rate. In 1939 German was the 2nd largest economy in the world (with a significant edge over the #3 the UK)- today Russia isn’t in the top 10 and is barely larger than that of Australia or Spain or Brazil.
I wasn’t comparing geography- but will to fight and it is critical. Britain was on the edge of negotiating with Nazi Germany, bu Churchill leadership was vital- just like Zelensky to date.
You (and Bryan and Jerry) have been too defeatist from the onset. Such views will only be self confirming. The West needs to step up its aide and help Ukraine to defeat Russia. It is all of our interests.
I guess you never heard of nuclear weapons…..
I have long been, and pretty much remain, a fan of Churchill.
I have been reconsidering WWII. The facts are very strange, if you look at the overall conflict.
There was little or no indication that Hitler wanted to invade France, or the Low Countries, or take on Britain. He seemed to want Poland and Ukraine. He wanted to defeat the Soviet Union, which he accurately viewed as a monstrous tyranny.
The war actually started over Poland. Hitler and Stalin conspired to partition Poland. For some reason, Britain and France found it imperative to fight for Poland, but only against Hitler. Britain and France did not declare war on the Soviet Union. The Soviets also seized the Baltic States, and invaded Finland. Still, Britain and France did not declare war on the Soviets.
The fall of France was unexpected and catastrophic. I am sympathetic to the Frenchmen who tried to salvage their country of of that disaster. They were utterly defeated, and forced to capitulate.
But the end of the war is strange, isn’t it? Britain went to war for the independence of Poland. In the end, Poland was moved about 100-odd miles to the west. The new Poland was part of the old Poland, plus part of pre-war Germany, and this was left under Soviet occupation and domination. The eastern part of the old Poland became Soviet. Most of it is now part of Belarus and Ukraine.
That looks, to me, like a pretty big failure. On the bright side, Britain survived, though its empire didn’t. France and the Low Countries were liberated. We forced a favorable government on Italy and the western portion of Germany. But the Russians were in the heart of Europe for about 45 years. We were stuck defending the rest of Europe from the Russians.
Ironically, the western part of Ukraine, including the major city of Lvov (previously Lemberg), was formerly Polish. A sizeable portion of the current Ukraine consists of land seized by Stalin from Poland. No one seems to be complaining about this.
Sorry to ramble. I think that things are much more complicated than: “It’s Munich 1937 again, and you’re Chamberlain, you big coward.”
It would help if commodities and particularly oil and natural gas would go down in price.
The EU and Germany made so many mistakes getting hooked on Russia’s fossil fuels. We should nuke them on general principles.
I don’t get why any Republican is positive towards the EU idiots. The EU is overwrought and is run by idiots. The EMU was a terrible idea.
The English Channel wasn’t the difference- it was the will of the British to fight on after the Fall of France and the destruction of the cream of the British army (at least in material). Recall, that France accepted defeat rather than fight on as did Britain-they even refused a Franco-British union to fight on-that refusal lead to the Petain government and the surrender. By mid-June 1940, when the French gave up, most of France was not occupied by the German forces. French acquiesce to surrender greatly aided the Germans- they didn’t need to fight for most of France and did not even need to occupy much of it. The French cooperation in the surrender spared the Germans much blood and freed up German soldiers to invade others (since they did not need to physically occupy much of France since the Vichy government was an active collaborator and not a mere puppet). The difference between the French and British was stark and was mainly due to the leadership of Churchill- at the time Halifax thought the Brits should negotiate. At the time the British army did not think Britain could win with out the US assistance.
The US Civil War is a very bad comparison-
1)nobody thought the Union would exterminate the Confederate soldiers after the war- and Russia has overtly said all Ukraine soldiers are Nazis and Ukraine is to be denazified. Therefore, Ukraine has a greater incentive to fight on.
2)Ukraine has been independent for a generation- the South was a new creation. Russian aggression since 2014 has essentially created the Ukrainian identity. The South had no existing institutions to support the state and they had to be created on the fly.
3) The North was able to create a cadre of effective military leaders during the war while the South failed. The North got Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas-the South only was well lead on one front- Lee’s. The Russians haven’t demonstrated any effective leadership. The Russian gains in the Donbas are based on the Soviet tactics of 1944-once summarized as “line up the artillery, destroy the village then sending the peasant conscripts to rape and kill anything left alive”. Putin probably doesn’t want any innovative and effective generals to arise.
4) many European nations thought the South could succeed in defeating the North- much like Washington held off the British. The South had strategic depth and many natural barriers and the advantages of fighting defensively on their own soil- but failed b/c its people gave up and it was poorly led. Ukraine, on the other hand, was written off by most of Europe but its people have rallied to the cause. The Ukraine government has shown leadership, stamina and resilience. Ukraine has been able to enlist more aide than the South (deservedly so-it cause is just).
So I guess that would mean having a NATO member state directly border Russia isn’t the existential threat I’ve been hearing and voids any pretence for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Look at the western response to Ukraine. You really think Germany and France and Turkey would go to war with Russia over Estonia and Latvia?
I think they are going to be irrelevant for a generation.
What you and other neocons never seem to consider is that Britain LOST World War 2. They were no longer a world power of any consequence. They were bankrupt. They couldn’t hold their empire together. They had to ration food until 1952. 1952! This is your idea of winning?
There were plenty of things Britain did before the war that caused them to be in this predicament. We’ve copied them in one very important respect: they deindustrialized and became far too dependent on imports.
And all this will stuff sounds like Leni Riefenstahl.
Exactly. Because of nuclear weapons.
Lost? Versus what alternative? The alternative you are suggesting is they should have surrendered to Hitler in mid 1940. Then the outcome would have been far, far worse-it isn’t even close.