Ukraine is losing

According to the top-secret documents dumped on Discord by whistleblower Jack Teixeira, the Ukraine is in dire straights. Once again, it looks like the media has been lying to the people. The Ukraine will probably turn into another huge failure in the same way as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

My favorite television personality is Tucker Carlson.

Tucker Carlson shared made-up casualty figures from 'leaked intelligence' to argue Ukraine is losing the war

^ What LI said.

According to the top-secret documents dumped on Discord by whistleblower Jack Teixeira, the Ukraine is in dire straights. Once again, it looks like the media has been lying to the people. The Ukraine will probably turn into another huge failure in the same way as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Also, Vietnam and Iraq directly involved the US (as well as with Afghanistan, which has been a major catastrophe to a half dozen different world-power invaders to date).
If Russia does end up getting its way, the rest of the world can console itself that it was a small country being overrun by a much larger one, and that the loss was inevitable. That's a nice thing about proxy wars: one can shrug off a loss and say that you weren't really involved that much. 

Regardless of the veracity of the leaked documents, it would be surprising if they weren't losing.

The (coalition's) strategy in Ukraine isn't to defeat the Russians outright but to slow the Russian advance on as many fronts as possible and make it a painful war of attrition, hopefully making the Russians reconsider the price that would come with victory.

Unfortunately, what will likely happen is a prolonged stalemate followed by Russia taking away a consolation prize, as a return to status quo ante bellum would be an admission of failure; something I think we can agree the Russian regime won't let happen (or the war probably would've never started in the first place).

Seems reasonable.
As things currently stand, what, in your opinion, do you think would be the absolute minimum concessions that Russia would accept for a victory?

Minimum condtions- Annexation of Crimea, Donbass, Luhansk, Zaporozhzhia (except perhaps the city itself), Kherson on the east bank of the Dneiper, possibly Kharkiv, complete demilitarization of the East Bank for Ukraine. No further armament and military supply by NATO.

I don't think people in the West get what this means for Russia. This is like Canada allying with Russia and then wondering why the U.S. is reacting violently. It is an existential matter and one they WILL bring the house down over.

Also, the West's word is sh*t at this point. They've all but admitted to completely being dishonest in the Minsk Agreements and the Russians believe that NATO reneged on promises not to expand. Why negotiate with someone who acts in bad faith? And it is not just there but things like turning their back on Ghadaffi, the Iraq War etc. Why should anyone trust the U.S.-led Western security establishment on anything?

The problem is that I don't think the current leadership in the U.S. and Europe is fully aware of things. We know Russia's failures in thinking it would be a roll-over victory (although in some sense they still had to at least try for a quick victory). The West's planning seems more haphazard. From issues with energy reliance, to underestimating the demand on equipment and resources an extended war would take, to miscalculating the economic damage and the shakiness that would ensue, to miscalculating how much of "the world" would support them and not be neutral or nominally supportive of Russia, the West has had some serious problems that I don't think it really considered.

It seems much of their leadership seems to be run by people who think ideology/morality first and practicalities second. The problem is that not everyone shares their ideology and they don't seem to grasp this. When they talk about "human rights" what they really mean are "Western values" and when they talk about "The world" they basically mean North America, Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, Taiwan, SK, and Latin America if the election cycle has been friendly.

"Why is Africa not against Russia?" Gee, I dunno  you ever look at the history of Ethiopia, its significance in African colonization and as a symbol of freedom in Africa and who backed them while you colonizing bastards were brutalizing everyone else?

And as if you didn't need any more signs of delusion, some think-tanks are now calling for regime change in India. If you want something that would be an absolute disaster, it would be the West becoming hostile towards India.

Seems reasonable.
As things currently stand, what, in your opinion, do you think would be the absolute minimum concessions that Russia would accept for a victory?

I'll be the first to admit I know little about the conflict, and if the Russians were smart enough to know when to call it a day, it probably would've happened by now instead of doubling down and recruiting all sorts to fuel their war effort.

But I think the minimum they would accept would be what they currently have - the eastern front stretching up to the southern Belarus border. I can only assume they want to build a buffer between themselves and Ukraine for when it inevitably joins NATO ASAP after any meaningful end of conflict.

I'll be the first to admit I know little about the conflict, and if the Russians were smart enough to know when to call it a day, it probably would've happened by now instead of doubling down and recruiting all sorts to fuel their war effort.

Why should they quit? Their major problems are trying to maintain a "guns and butter" war where the costs aren't felt much by the civilian population. So far, they've succeeded. However they have gone through A LOT of equipment. Now, it can be replaced but it's certainly not at an ideal rate and will take a significant amount of time to recover.

Otherwise the sanctions are having a non-crippling effect. As long as the Middle-East, China, and India will trade, they'll be able to keep things decent enough. Diplomatically they are doing well enough in peeling of countries and playing on anti-Western sentiment.

Meanwhile their enemy is dealing with serious issues. France could well end up de facto knocked out of the war due to social unrest. There are worries of a banking crisis and serious recession and inflation is an issue. If there is some serious disruption in the Western global economy the whole Ukraine project could collapse and funding evaporate.

At the end of the day, this is an existential issue for Russia and an opportunistic one for the West. That's not to say it hasn't been worth if so far (it has accomplished multiple things for the Wesr), but any serious economic or diplomatic catastrophe will change that.

Why should they quit? Their major problems are trying to maintain a "guns and butter" war where the costs aren't felt much by the civilian population. So far, they've succeeded. However they have gone through A LOT of equipment. Now, it can be replaced but it's certainly not at an ideal rate and will take a significant amount of time to recover.

Otherwise the sanctions are having a non-crippling effect. As long as the Middle-East, China, and India will trade, they'll be able to keep things decent enough. Diplomatically they are doing well enough in peeling of countries and playing on anti-Western sentiment.

Meanwhile their enemy is dealing with serious issues. France could well end up de facto knocked out of the war due to social unrest. There are worries of a banking crisis and serious recession and inflation is an issue. If there is some serious disruption in the Western global economy the whole Ukraine project could collapse and funding evaporate.

At the end of the day, this is an existential issue for Russia and an opportunistic one for the West. That's not to say it hasn't been worth if so far (it has accomplished multiple things for the Wesr), but any serious economic or diplomatic catastrophe will change that.

Russia doubling down on its Ukraine campaign is possibly the biggest geopolitical f*** up of our era. There is no way they come out of the conflict in a better position than they were 15-20 years ago. If they were hellbent on pursuing these binary "us vs them," "ja superpower now blyat" USSR tactics, they should've stuck with soft power influence and political meddling.

As for Russia's figures of the ineffectiveness of sanctions, we only have their word. They're just like China, they'd boast about record harvests and prosperity for all while the populous are literally eating each other. Although I'm sure Russia would be able to sustain itself fairly easily, I can imagine it would only extend to the bare necessities. For luxuries and technology, they're not capable of producing it to any decent level in-country. But that's where China comes in.

China being proactive in the relationship shows how big of a blunder it is. If you know anything about Chinese geopolitical strategy since XJP's premiership, it is to find any weakness that can be exploited. They're never allies with anyone they perceive as equals (but what country is?).

Mark my words, the Chinese are only in this "friendship without limits" because they have an angle against Russia, and they will use it. Russia will be left holding the bag.

Russia doubling down on its Ukraine campaign is possibly the biggest geopolitical f*** up of our era. There is no way they come out of the conflict in a better position than they were 15-20 years ago. If they were hellbent on pursuing these binary "us vs them," "ja superpower now blyat" USSR tactics, they should've stuck with soft power influence and political meddling.

That's not what this is. This is how the West views it, not as Russia views it. Russia views Ukraine as the United States would view a Russian alliance and encroachment into Canada or Mexico. It is hyper-aggressive and is putting a threat right on your very doorstep. The U.S. already tried to have Putin toppled (and likely killed) by attempting to meddle in internal Russian politics. Combine that with this and the fact that they undertook the Minsk Agreement in bad faith, and you have to ask "What option was left to Russia?" From a realistic standpoint, that was what was left.

The position they were in 15-20 years ago was recovering of the disaster of Yeltsinism in which it became that rather than being some partner that would help Russia develop, the United States would come in there as carpet-baggers and attempt to ransack the country, bringing with it horrific corruption. Understandably the Russian people rejected this. Russia at the time was cooperating with the U.S. in the global war on terror and had even sought entry into NATO, which was rebuffed. Seeing that they would only be allowed entry on their knees, they went in a different direction.

As for Russia's figures of the ineffectiveness of sanctions, we only have their word.

We also have our word as to the effectiveness of them in Russia, and even we are admitting the sanctions haven't been effective.

Mark my words, the Chinese are only in this "friendship without limits" because they have an angle against Russia, and they will use it. Russia will be left holding the bag.

I think Russia and China understand the deal and that in some ways they are natural partners. China provides manpower, manufacturing and tech. Russia provides raw materials, experienced military equipment development and massive amounts of nuclear weapons. That's not to say they won't try to get an edge on each other, but I think they understand right now that they essentially have to stand together or fall divided. I think India is also realizing that whatever dudgeon they have with China, it's nothing compared to what the U.S. could try to do to it if they got out of line.

What's the alternative? Go alone? They can't align with the West without total capitulation, so....

Except that it was Russia -- not Ukraine -- who triggered the abolishment by ratifying DPR and LPR independance during a period of perceived Ukrainian instability, where they though that a quick invasion would yield the most reward.
Not saying that NATO et al are blameless, but the lion's share of the responsibility for that action rests with Russia. They gambled on a quick profit, and unfortunately (for them) rolled a 1 for initiative.

Russia would be f@cked in Ukraine, if not for Wagner.

Mark my words, the Chinese are only in this "friendship without limits" because they have an angle against Russia, and they will use it. Russia will be left holding the bag.

Absolutely, the CCP is only their BFF because it suits their agenda. If, in the future, it doesn't they will drop Russia like a hot cake and in fact they wouldn't think twice of annexing parts of Russia that they deem 'historically' part of China.

Except that it was Russia -- not Ukraine -- who triggered the abolishment by ratifying DPR and LPR independance during a period of perceived Ukrainian instability, where they though that a quick invasion would yield the most reward.
Not saying that NATO et al are blameless, but the lion's share of the responsibility for that action rests with Russia. They gambled on a quick profit, and unfortunately (for them) rolled a 1 for initiative.

Yeah, this sort of thing is really hard when it comes to blame, but I agree that ultimately blame for aggressive military action falls on Russia in an ideal sense.

In a realist sense, it is much murkier. Look at it from Russia's perspective- They peacefully ended the Cold War and granted independence to a host of countries, rather than attempting to go down fighting. Upon doing so they attempted to join the community of nations. The result of which was basically the wholesale exploitation of their country by outside forces working with internal ones, which proved disastrous. After stabilizing under the current leader, they then attempted to join with the global community in fighting terrorism and even joining their alliance. The result was them being rebuffed and the U.S. even attempting regime change and what would be tantamount to the death of said leader if it were to happen. All the while they kept moving their "defensive" alliance closer and closer to Russia's borders while becoming increasingly hostile.

Like, seriously, what do people expect them to do? That being said it's not exactly like they were Mr. Rogers living next door and there's justifiable reason countries are leery of them and want to join NATO.

Russia would be f@cked in Ukraine, if not for Wagner.

Wagner certainly is certainly an able force for them, but I think the perception of that vs. reality is a bit overstated. From what soldiers on both sides are saying, much of the fighting and casualties are due to artillery/drones/heavy weapons and very little is actual face to face fighting. They may see each other on a display, but actual face-to-face is still fairly rare. That being said there is of course close quarters fighting.

The whole "The Russians are fools", I don't think any serious soldier in Ukraine is saying that ATM. They know it's now a fight in deadly earnest and the slightest mistake on either side gets you killed.

The longer a war drags on, the more and more certain myths, especially those regarding an opponent's stupidity, tend to go away.

Absolutely, the CCP is only their BFF because it suits their agenda. If, in the future, it doesn't they will drop Russia like a hot cake and in fact they wouldn't think twice of annexing parts of Russia that they deem 'historically' part of China.

I think it's dangerous to make assumptions that our adversaries will behave in the exact way that is most beneficial for us and least beneficial for them. The logic for this basically amounts to "They'll do something stupid and short-sighted. Why? Because they're evil and will act in an evil comic-villain fashion."

I think the far safer assumption would be that they will understand that they will have to work cooperatively and stand together lest each be separately destroyed and be torn apart over petty squabbles over chunks of Siberian wasteland, which would be incredibly foolish.

It would be like the Russians and Chinese counting on Britain's historical power games on the continent of Europe to come into play in any conflict in Ukraine or Taiwan, thus causing divides, with Britain doing what they always focus on doing- preventing a strong, united Europe. If Russia and China are making plans expecting that to happen, then that would be absurdly stupid. Past performance is NOT an indicator of future results and national stereotype is not a basis for sound decisions.

Yeah, this sort of thing is really hard when it comes to blame, but I agree that ultimately blame for aggressive military action falls on Russia in an ideal sense.

In a realist sense, it is much murkier. Look at it from Russia's perspective- They peacefully ended the Cold War and granted independence to a host of countries, rather than attempting to go down fighting. Upon doing so they attempted to join the community of nations. The result of which was basically the wholesale exploitation of their country by outside forces working with internal ones, which proved disastrous. After stabilizing under the current leader, they then attempted to join with the global community in fighting terrorism and even joining their alliance. The result was them being rebuffed and the U.S. even attempting regime change and what would be tantamount to the death of said leader if it were to happen. All the while they kept moving their "defensive" alliance closer and closer to Russia's borders while becoming increasingly hostile.

Like, seriously, what do people expect them to do? That being said it's not exactly like they were Mr. Rogers living next door and there's justifiable reason countries are leery of them and want to join NATO.
Wagner certainly is certainly an able force for them, but I think the perception of that vs. reality is a bit overstated. From what soldiers on both sides are saying, much of the fighting and casualties are due to artillery/drones/heavy weapons and very little is actual face to face fighting. They may see each other on a display, but actual face-to-face is still fairly rare. That being said there is of course close quarters fighting.
The whole "The Russians are fools", I don't think any serious soldier in Ukraine is saying that ATM. They know it's now a fight in deadly earnest and the slightest mistake on either side gets you killed.
The longer a war drags on, the more and more certain myths, especially those regarding an opponent's stupidity, tend to go away.

I can't really disagree. Geopolitics is always murky, and this conflict has been especially complex. Soooo many different agendas at play.

But I do want to note that it's possible to place blame even when understanding why the actions were considered necessary by those who planned it.

Also, while I don't  have much sympathy for the Russians, I don't think that the invasion was stupid. It was organized for a quick win, which at the time must have seemed very likely. They were (obviously) mistaken, and the drawn out conflict exposed some alarming logistic weaknesses in the Russian forces. Weaknesses that, had the initial attacks gone even slightly better, would, imho, never have had any relevancy.

True, true, true. Russia came very close to taking Kyiv quickly. If it hadn’t been for the United States, they would have. American military intelligence, weaponry, and training thwarted the plan. Had the United States not been involved, Kyiv would have fallen in a matter of days. USA: best military in the world by far. In 2023, there is no close second. Why is Ukraine free today and Russia weakened? Because of the United States. Bad guys across the globe got the message to not take over other countries. The more Russia loses in Ukraine, the safer the world will be going forward.

Ok, but I think it was American financial aid that helped more than the rest, at least initially. The first American material support didn't occur until a month after the February invasion.

Also, the conflict has had a very polarizing effect. I think that the longer this conflict goes on, the more entrenched and divided the various world powers will become.
I'm not sure I entirely agree, but there is an argument to be made that it might have been better for global safety had the initial invasion been a resounding success.

The USA has been training the Ukrainian military a lot since 2014, providing weapons, intel, and defense strategies. They correctly predicted a future possibility and planned against it.

Had Russia taken Ukraine, they’d have moved on to Moldova. Then maybe more places beyond that?

Since World War 2, country borders have been more or less static. That’s what we want. Empire expansion land grabs are gone. The amount of warfare has gone down. Way down.

Putin underestimated the United States. He’s now paying a heavy price. Xi sees this and is going to steer clear of invading Taiwan.

No one can convince me that it is a good idea to attempt a land war in Eastern Europe in winter.

They must have known it would become a drawn out slogging match.
They must have known Ukraine would be provided with the collective intelligence and military tech of 'free' world.
They must have known that it would bolster the West's position on Russia (and China).
They must have known it would garner unprecedented support for NATO.
They must have known it would lead to more NATO members.

Even if it was part of a wider plan to (1) capitalize on and further strain weaker economies coming out of COVID; (2) stretch the West's resources; and (3) test the waters and lay the foundations for a Chinese assault on Taiwan, I won't be persuaded that it was anything but a colossal mistake.