I haven't followed the war closely or at all since the first few months but do tell me how much land have the Russkies added to their 2014 conquest ? I'm guessing not very much .
Can Putin sell it as a win ? Sure he can for a loss only means he loses all his gains since 2014. I assume that's what you're referring to when you claim the West wants Ukraine to win, in which case this becomes a totally different scenario & what I suggested in my previous post comes into play.
Zelensky can demand what he wants . He's not known as the comedian out here just like that .
Russia has gained a lot since their invasion in 2022. Crimea was previously not secured via land, they built a bridge which has been bombed numerous times since. Formalizing a land corridor will greatly strengthen their grasp. They seized Mariupol and other towns along the way. They have also destroyed various dams and stations along the Dneiper that the Ukrainians were using to limit water/power to Crimea.
What I hope to see is a permanent ceasefire where the lines stand. Putin can sell the security of Crimea as a win and whatever other propaganda he needs to. Zelensky will step down after this as his mandate will be up.
How has Russia lost ? The war is still being waged on Ukrainian soil. Unless you subscribe to binaries . It's the kind of propaganda we hear from Paxtanis on a daily basis on SM that Paxtan has won because it has survived to fight another day only to get it's a r s e whooped again. You're seeing that exact situation being replicated by Hamas in its encounter with the Israel unless you're of the opinion Hamas has won.
There is a perception which is being conveyed that Russia has lost because Ukraine has survived 2+ years of war against Russia with nothing much to show by the latter. I'm sorry that's just a cope.
For Ukraine to win this war it should be reclaiming all those lands that Russia's seized from it or conquer a proportionate piece of Russian territory , give or take , preferably both ,which they seem to have embarked on .
Right now , I'd say it's a stalemate . Period.
Russia lost this was because it gave NATO purpose. After the collapse of the USSR, the alliance didn't have much reason for existing. With Russia having bared it's fangs against Europe, NATO again has purpose.
Not to mention that now Finland and Sweden are officially NATO members. Ukraine will never fall and will become a NATO staging ground. Russia's border with NATO has never been larger, their geographic weaknesses haven't been threatened like this in living memory.
Russia today is in a far worse position economically, strategically, geopolitically, & demographically than near anytime in the past few centuries.. how has Russia not lost this war?
They already did that in 2014 if I'm not mistaken.
No, they did not have a land corridor prior to 2022.
A total military collapse is what will happen when Ukraine is winning . For Ukraine to win it must first liberate the Crimea & other territories the Russians have occupied in Eastern Ukraine.
Post that they must launch a massive counter offensive against Russia , seize & hold on to significant chunks of land there.
That's crossing Russian red lines. I don't think I need to add how Putin would respond.
In case you think I'm rooting for Russia , let me categorically state that for Russia to win this war it must replicate all what I've typed above for Ukraine , in Ukraine.
Is the West worried Ukraine will achieve victory , hence isn't arming Ukraine with the kind of weapons they require or the quantum they should be arming Ukraine with ?
I don't think the West seriously thinks Ukraine has any chance of winning this war irrespective how much they arm Ukraine , no matter what fluff they give out in public. They're just surprised Ukraine has lasted as long as it has & taken the fight to the Russians.
And because the Ukrainians have survived as long as they did giving a good account of themselves they figured why not bleed Russia more !
Of course this comes with a caveat of not over extending themselves by arming Ukraine to the extent that they cause great damage to Russia else the latter would be tempted to go in for nukes. And I mean real material damage here not a conquest of land . I've already delineated that scenario above.
And it's occurred to me , I've also just about covered everything Ukraine is capable of doing in this conflict.
Already answered this above. Let me categorically reiterate this if it isn't clear - No nuclear power can be defeated by a non nuclear power till they have themselves voluntarily accepted their defeat & withdrawn.
I've already described why Russia hasn't been defeated as of the present , why Putin cannot be defeated along with his red lines & in case Russia's military collapses which is a red line how would Putin respond .
I've said this before but the only person who thinks Ukrainian victory means the return of everything is Zelensky. Most people understand that Ukraine surviving and remaining pro-west, integrating into the EU/NATO, and generally showing that the LIO is still strong/relevant is a victory. For many Russia being exposed as a paper tiger, getting a bloody nose and economically isolated are just cherries on top.
The real reason why Western nations (the US especially) do not want to just open to flood gates all at once is because they do worry that Putin will be unhinged and lose his cool. Hence the salami slicing of red lines. Ukraine has been getting all the equipment they've requested.. just a little later than they asked for. There's also an election around the corner, a massive escalation isnt needed at this time. Trump getting elected is Putin's Hail Mary. Kamala winning means Ukraine will be emboldened for the next 4 years. You think ATACMS won't be raining down deep into Russia if Kamala is sworn in next year?
The war isn't sustainable for the Russians. At the end of the day, they are going up against the collective industrial and economic might of the West (i.e. the majority of economy of the world) and they are doing it with "allies" that are taking advantage of their weakness at every step.
I hope you realise what you're proposing will not only be construed by Russia but the rest of the world as NATO entering the war on Ukraine's side immaterial how you choose to describe it ? That's the reddest of all red lines.
If I was a bookie I'd say all bets are off.
Yea, it's a fat chance. I personally don't want US troops being killed overseas when the fight I'd basically over. Only if Ukraine seriously breaks somehow.
I propose this because it'll be in Russia's interest too. Rather than losing a million men for nothing over the next 4-5 years, instead a swift defeat would lead their nation to somewhat better outcomes. A quick and decisive defeat might even lead to Putin getting overthrown and replaced with a more moderate? At the very least, preventing the needless deaths of hundreds if thousands of young men is not a bad thing.
www.twz.com
www.euronews.com
