Ukraine

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
It's still a victory. Ukraine is forced to give land. Same thing happened in the Winter War. Soviets original plan was to conquer Finland in couple of weeks, that didn't happen but they still forced Finland to sign a humiliating peace treaty and give up land. Which then led to the Continuation war and more humiliating treaty and more land lost.
If land is what victories are all about. This seems to me potentially quite an archaic view.

Russia might claim some territory heavily populated by a lot of people who might not like Russia very much, which might make them very unproductive. It's got to pay to rebuild them, and it may never be thanked for it by those people, who generations down the line will still resent Russia, so it's got to pay to repress them, too. Even more so should theose Ukrainians look across a border at a free Ukraine that has integrated with the West and enjoyed plentiful development and increased wealth. In the end, Russia might simply lose those provinces anyway, or otherwise find that they are more trouble than they are worth.

Meanwhile, I think everyone would recognise that the war has been an abject humiliation for the Russian armed forces, and a massive diplomatic reverse. It's still enduring demographic decline, it's still industrially backward and entirely reliant on a fuel source the world is trying to move away from. I don't doubt as time goes on some of the sanctions will weaken and so on, but Russia will still be a country largely cut off from the richest and most powerful parts of the world, reducing its development opportunities and setting it even further back.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,671
643
118
Sure, the war is not good for Russia. Which is why most people didn't believe it would happen.

But despite all the drawbacks for Russia, those still pale in comparison to the damage it caused to the Ukraine. And considering that, Russia ending up with conquered territory i would still count it as a Russian win. A Phyrric victory maybe, but a victory nonteless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom

Putin's officially declared property and wealth portfolio is quite modest, with a flat, a garage, a few vintage cars etc.

Email leaks and investigation indicate that he actually oversees a gigantic network of undeclared wealth and interests, rising above 4 billion dollars, and including a gigantic Palace for personal use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom

Lithuania is currently blockading railway freight of any sanctioned items between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a notably poor enclave.

Russia has threatened to take action, though hasn't detailed what that would be. Lithuania is a member of NATO, so any military act by Russia on Lithuanian soil would trigger Article 5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156 and bluegate

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Lithuania is currently blockading railway freight of any sanctioned items between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a notably poor enclave.

Russia has threatened to take action, though hasn't detailed what that would be.
I think that action will be to huff out the same hot air they've been venting for the last four months whenever someone does something they don't like.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male

Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)

Get the point
Legacy
Aug 1, 2011
2,946
523
118
Cretaceous
Country
USA
Gender
Dinosaur

Don't know what to believe anymore. Honestly, everything I've read seems to indicate that the war in Ukraine's east seems to have become one of attrition. Wouldn't have thought that would work in Ukraine's favor, but meh.
no military expert but If i had to guess...

The sanctions are hurting their ability to make military equipment which means that they're on a timer (They also have military in Syria, which is not helping man power). They know the Ukrainians are also low on supplies but they know the Ukrainians are going to get supplied soon. So Russia is going "Fuck it." and just brute forcing this as fast as they can. It's allowing them to move forward and inflict heavy losses but when that momentum goes down it will really crippled them and its causing a massive loss of life on their side as well. This just screams that Putin wants this war over quick.

This war is a control deck vs. an aggro deck and we still don't know how it will play out.

once again I'm not an expert but this is my guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,626
1,655
118
Country
United States
This is basically about natural resources. Similar to what Russia did with Kazakhstan. I don't see Russia giving up until they get what they want geographically. Once they get there I would imagine they'll treaty with Ukraine for the provinces they've taken. I'm sure the plan was originally to just take all of it, but it seems increasing unlikely that Ukraine will fully surrender and Russias resources for this battle seem increasingly finite. That would be where I'd put my money. I don't see this going into 2023 honestly. On the scale its at anyway.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,228
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
no military expert but If i had to guess...

The sanctions are hurting their ability to make military equipment which means that they're on a timer (They also have military in Syria, which is not helping man power). They know the Ukrainians are also low on supplies but they know the Ukrainians are going to get supplied soon. So Russia is going "Fuck it." and just brute forcing this as fast as they can. It's allowing them to move forward and inflict heavy losses but when that momentum goes down it will really crippled them and its causing a massive loss of life on their side as well. This just screams that Putin wants this war over quick.

This war is a control deck vs. an aggro deck and we still don't know how it will play out.

once again I'm not an expert but this is my guess.
One also has to ask that if they're taking such heavy losses in Ukraine, just how badly the Russian Military is being affected by this. Even if the war to end right now, I can only imagine it's gonna take YEARS for them to rebuild their forces. They are in no position to seriously threaten NATO at this point considering their performance thus far.

It does make it bizarre when Russia keeps threatening NATO, which begs the question "With What, Vlad?" Sure, they have Nukes but so does NATO and if those start flying it won't matter much at that point.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,906
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Wars are very rarely launched with only one acceptable operational objective. They will have an "ideal" scenario to pursue if possible (the fall of Kyiv, and regime change) and a fall-back scenario they would still count as a win.
I'll buy that, sure. I'm just not seeing how any of this translates into any kind of strategic victory.

If we're looking at this in terms of a wider conflict between Russia and NATO, Sweden and Finland abandoning neutrality is such a colossal win for NATO that it basically makes anything happening in Ukraine irrelevant.

They have already begun addressing the issue of the local populace being unsympathetic to Russia, by forcibly bussing them out and replacing them. And the strategic value of the land is in forming a land corridor between Russia and Crimea.
That seems like a terrible way to make the region productive though, in the short term it seems like just increasing the already prohibitive cost of integrating new territory. The people you're bussing out might be willing to accept living in a economically devastated warzone because it's their home, the people getting bussed in are going to want things like jobs and infrastructure.

Crimea itself is of pretty questionable value. Its pre-annexation economy was predominantly based on tourism, which is not happening now. It mostly seems to be propped up by Russian government investment. In short, I'm not sure where the expected return (economic or strategic) on any of this is. It seems like the goal is to create some kind of Greater Russia, but all that really means is incorporating some of the poorest lands and people in Europe into an already poor state. Ask the Germans how much that costs.

And I definitely don't believe the Russian economy is "in the bin". They have ready alternative sources for most imports, and the price rise in oil is compensating for the fewer buyers. It's causing some pain for consumers through lack of access & choice, sure-- but the Russian government has never cared about that. They're presumably thinking that once the war is over, and Russia has carved away more annexed land, the Western governments will eventually lose interest in continuing sanctions, and will let them drop.
Sanctions don't take effect immediately because there are various methods governments can use to delay their impact, particularly if they've prepared as Russia clearly has. For example, Russia has incredibly brutal capital controls which are helping to pump up the price of the ruble, but it's not going to last. Eventually the government will run out of foreign currency to keep buying rubles with, the Western companies that pulled out of Russia won't have any assets left to plunder and Russians are going to get tired of being forced to buy rubles every time they export something.

Russia isn't going to keel over and die tomorrow, but there will be a price to pay at some point and that price is likely to be equivalent to many years of economic development, even in the best case scenario.

And this is assuming Europe doesn't actually honor its pledge to cut Russian natural gas imports. If it does, that's going to be devastating.

Russia will be counting on that being even less acceptable to Ukraine than it is to Russia.
Considering Ukraine, again, has been willing to fully mobilize its population and devote the entire country to fighting a war of national defense, while Russia seems reluctant to even declare war, I can't see that happening.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Crimea itself is of pretty questionable value.
There's a sentimental value to it. It's been Russian for centuries, and is viewed by Russians (with not inconsiderable justification) as homeland.

From a military perspective, it has Sevastopol and the naval facilities there. I'm sure Russia could build a grand new naval base in somewhere like Sochi, but it probably feels it shouldn't have to go to all the fuss. Without an appropriate naval base it has no effective naval force projection over the Black Sea and (if Turkey allows passage) Mediterranean. Plus of course that Crimea leaves the easy ability to really screw with Ukraine's shipping, as from Crimea it's easy to interdict anything coming from the north coast of the Black Sea. Of course the reverse is also true: If Ukraine held Crimea, it could pose a huge threat to Russian shipping. So Crimea is a very strategically advantageous territory from a military perspective.

That seems like a terrible way to make the region productive though, in the short term it seems like just increasing the already prohibitive cost of integrating new territory.
Well, yes. But I don't think Russia thought that far.

They planned a lightning assault to depose the Ukrainian government and install a puppet regime. Now things have gone very badly, they have to rethink - and a territorial grab is a crude, imperialist way to claim some kind of victory. Taking territory might be pathetically medieval, but it's easily sold as a win. That's it's a devastated wasteland that Russia - which can't even adequately populate it's existing territory and is in demographic decline - can't usefully populate or rebuild is besides the point.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Sanctions don't take effect immediately because there are various methods governments can use to delay their impact, particularly if they've prepared as Russia clearly has. For example, Russia has incredibly brutal capital controls which are helping to pump up the price of the ruble, but it's not going to last. Eventually the government will run out of foreign currency to keep buying rubles with, the Western companies that pulled out of Russia won't have any assets left to plunder and Russians are going to get tired of being forced to buy rubles every time they export something.
To give an idea here, Russian civilian air travel is already in trouble. They are reportedly already out of a lot of spares and will soon be cannibalising planes to keep others flying. Estimates are a lot of internal flights in Russia will be stopped in ~6 months just because there aren't planes in condition to fly them. Russia has a civilian aerospace industry, but their planes are pretty rubbish, never mind issues accessing certain resources. It either won't cope, or leave Russia with seriously second class air travel.

Sanctions aren't going to suddenly end very soon. They may gradually slip, but every year they exist they restrict Russian access to technology and development. Russia is already underdeveloped, and under sanctions it will only slip ever backwards.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,240
3,062
118
Country
United States of America
Russia has threatened to take action, though hasn't detailed what that would be. Lithuania is a member of NATO, so any military act by Russia on Lithuanian soil would trigger Article 5.
Joy.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Yeah, but think about poor Russia, how far have we as humanity fallen if Russia can't even bully its neighboring countries anymore.

Somebody, think of the poor Russians.
I think the only way we can respect Russia is to give it the entire southern part of Lithuania, so its Kaliningrad enclave can have a direct land bridge to the rest of the country. And then we also need to remember that this is hard to defend and may make Russia insecure, so let's give it the rest of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, too. And why not another chunk of Finland, just to be on the safe side?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki and bluegate

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,576
3,532
118
One also has to ask that if they're taking such heavy losses in Ukraine, just how badly the Russian Military is being affected by this. Even if the war to end right now, I can only imagine it's gonna take YEARS for them to rebuild their forces. They are in no position to seriously threaten NATO at this point considering their performance thus far.
Yep, and not just the machinery of war, but the people. Unless you are just going to throw more conscripts at the enemy, you can't get a trained and experience army (especially in regards to leadership positions) in a hurry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Nielas

Senior Member
Dec 5, 2011
263
5
23
I think the only way we can respect Russia is to give it the entire southern part of Lithuania, so its Kaliningrad enclave can have a direct land bridge to the rest of the country. And then we also need to remember that this is hard to defend and may make Russia insecure, so let's give it the rest of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, too. And why not another chunk of Finland, just to be on the safe side?
Blah. If you really want to appease the Russians, just give them Alaska, Texas and Florida.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
Alaska and Texas already vote for Russia's proxies in the US; perhaps we can take the above suggestion as an expression of democratic will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock