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
I’m not saying this is going to happen, but this is clearly the history is of this type of thing.
At the rate Russian troops are surrendering or abandoning their equipment to run for their lives, Ukraine isn’t going to have to be supplied by the West for very long.
Russia has been beaten badly and doesn’t have the means to recover. Assistance to Russia from North Korea and Iran isn’t going to cut it.
And what he saying still survives as a lesson to everybody. It’s 100% accurate.
It’s certainly true that willingness of the West to supply Ukraine with weapons and training is one of the main reasons why Ukraine is going to win this war within 6 months to a year.
Russian troops near the Dnipro river have contacted the Ukrainian military saying that they are willing to lay down their arms and surrender.
Putin might want to keep fighting, but the Russian military doesn’t have much fight left in them.
I’m really glad that you think the ruling class Democrats and possibly some globalists in Europe are going to start doing the right things. I’m just not going to talk like this, yet.
You said cannot, pretty much a declarative sentence & obviously untrue- unless your definition of “ winning” is so peculiar that it is meaningless in a conventional sense. Hence why some have believed you are shifting the goalposts.
Marshal Petain was, in fact, a war hero until he became too pessimistic about France’s ability to carryon against the Nazis- hence that phrase. He didn’t fail in WW1 under adverse circumstances, but he did in WW2. You are too pessimistic & thereby would concede defeat too readily- Zelensky & Ukraine have shown that victory is possible (not certain but possible). We should rally to their side and support their efforts.
addendum- I never said liar.
You called my arguments sophistry.
Fancy word for lying as the definition demonstrated.
You said “Ukraine can’t win,” only to using a rather unorthodox definition of “win.”
Did you read the OP? I am very clear about what I mean. There is no hiding it.
I take it your argument is with my headline. OK, the headline is shorter than the post. You got me.
Your headline stated clearly, “Ukraine can’t win.”
But they not only can Ukraine win, it seems very likely that they will win, if we define “win” as recapturing territory lost since earlier this year or perhaps territory lost since 2014.
But then you have this unorthodox usage of “win,” such that even if Ukraine does recapture all of the territory it lost to Russia, Ukraine doesn’t win.
OK. I don’t think saying a pyrrhic victory is not a “win” is all that unorthodox, but your mileage may very.
I think it is unorthodox to say that Ukraine didn’t win its war against Russia even if Ukraine pushes the Russian military out of all of Ukraine’s territory.
You are taking a “heads I win; tails you lose” approach and that does seem to be a bit of sophistry.
Calling me a liar as well.
That’s the way to win me over.
Over 800 posts, you have failed to refute my point, and thus accuse me of deception.
You could have started with that. After all, your side open3r this thread with a personal attack.
Confirmed: Putin wanted this war and the claims of Western provocation are bunk along with the claims the US & UK vetoed a compromise:
Western weakness is what let him do it. Would not have happened if we were acting strong.
That is not absolving Putin, but it is part of the formula.
But you said “The West should not have encouraged Ukraine to fight Russia. This outcome was always as it was going to be”- isn’t that promoting weakness? Isn’t that Petain’s position- the enemy is too powerful hence we must comply? Petain didn’t want the destruction of France and thought surrender the better option ( as you do here-it isn’t an insult, it is a mistaken appraisal of the situation). You interpret it as an insult- I think it is a historical analogy. Petain loved France, he was just wrong in 1940.
To be clear, I’m talking about the general provocation of Putin with NATO. Those little tiny countries are ridiculous.
I mean it seems like we were sort of hostile partly, and then dumb enough to get hooked on his natural gas.
Does anybody know why Putin didn’t take Zelenskyy’s deal to stay out of NATO?
That is exactly what I meant: Encouraged Russia because it showed weakness. I have decried the weakness of Biden and the West for some time now. Maybe I was unclear on that. Not sure.
As far as the quote, I am not sure what your point is. It fits in the rest of my post quite well. I explain what I mean.
The reality is, though, you are not at all interested in open and honest discussion on this topic. Your behavior in this thread has demonstrated that, so it is not worth serious engagement with you.
The reality is you have misjudged the situation- Putin seeks not only to eliminate the Ukrainian state, rather he further seeks to eliminate Ukraine as a nation. He has stated they are one people and was part of Russia’s “own history, culture”. The Ukrainians realize this & that is why they have fought so fiercely. That is why he refused a peace deal.
addendum- I know you think it an insult to point to historical parallels- but you make the same mistake that many did in the 1930s ( like Chamberlin and Petain). You can’t make conventional deals with people like Hitler or Putin- they aren’t leaders of “normal” regimes -they seek to overthrow the existing order. The people who misunderstood the nature of those regimes weren’t evil- just mistaken.