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 829 comments.

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

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    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?

    Russia “hacking” the DNC? Just a question…

    • #31
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Hang On (View Comment):

    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.

    I think you are right on the facts, but wrong on the sentiment. Many powers leads to many wars. 

    • #32
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    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.

    I guess I disagree that Russia would attack a NATO nation. 

    • #33
  4. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    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.

    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.  

    • #34
  5. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    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 soon after as the Third Republic was dissolved. Thus began the shameful history of Vichy France.

    I think you are right. :)

    • #35
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    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.

    Strangely when I heard some of the politicals in Ukraine talking before this thing they viewed that as a win.

    • #36
  7. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #37
  8. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #38
  9. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    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.

    I think you are right on the facts, but wrong on the sentiment. Many powers leads to many wars.

    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.

    • #39
  10. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    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.

    I think you are right on the facts, but wrong on the sentiment. Many powers leads to many wars.

    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. 

    • #40
  11. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #41
  12. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    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?”.

    • #42
  13. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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.”

    • #43
  14. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    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.

     

    At this point there are too many revenue streams to protect in supporting the Ukraine war. Look at where the 40 billion actually went.

    • #44
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    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?”.

    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.

    • #45
  16. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    Can’t see the Democrats getting behind that.  

    • #46
  17. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Bryan G. Stephens: 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.

    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.

    • #47
  18. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Sisyphus (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens: 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.

    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 11-month siege of Boston ended when the Continental Army, under the command of George Washington, fortified Dorchester Heights in early March 1776 with cannons captured at Ticonderoga. British General William Howe, whose garrison and navy were threatened by these positions, was forced to decide between attack and retreat. To prevent what could have been a repeat of the Battle of Bunker Hill, Howe decided to retreat, withdrawing from Boston to Nova Scotia on March 17, 1776.

    The British evacuation was Washington’s first victory of the war. It was also a huge morale boost for the Thirteen Colonies, as the city where the rebellion began was the first to be liberated.

    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. :)

    • #48
  19. Joseph Stocks Member
    Joseph Stocks
    @JosephStocks

    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.

    Those in which every analogy is a World War II analogy. 

    • #49
  20. AMD Texas Coolidge
    AMD Texas
    @DarinJohnson

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    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.

    I guess I disagree that Russia would attack a NATO nation.

    Based on what in particular? The well known stability of Putin and the ruling class in Russia?

    • #50
  21. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Hang On (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.

    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.

     

    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.

    • #51
  22. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Hang On (View Comment):

    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.

    I guess you never heard of nuclear weapons…..

    • #52
  23. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Joseph Stocks (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.

    Those in which every analogy is a World War II analogy.

    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.”

    • #53
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Russia’s economy is 3rd rate.

     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.

    • #54
  25. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (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.

    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.

    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).

    • #55
  26. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    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.

    I guess I disagree that Russia would attack a NATO nation.

    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?

    • #56
  27. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):
    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.

    Can’t see the Democrats getting behind that.

    I think they are going to be irrelevant for a generation. 

    • #57
  28. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Hang On (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.

    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.

     

     

    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.

    • #58
  29. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    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.

    I guess you never heard of nuclear weapons…..

    Exactly. Because of nuclear weapons.

    • #59
  30. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Hang On (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Hang On (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.

    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.

     

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.