[RD] Russia invades Ukraine V: The Turning Tide

[FriendlyFire]

They aren't willing to commit the best lines when some assessments seem to veer towards direct conflict with the PRC in two to four years. Autocracies are looking at drone fleets and state of the art manufacturing lines, then downgrading the amount of public support needed to control the peoples of the earth.
New lines more appropriate for checking the Russian state will be produced. The arms buildup for round III is on and it's the only sane decision. God have mercy on our children.

More likely that all the Nations that are now threatened by a resurgent and more aggressive china will just build there own nuclear deterrent
Countries like Taiwan, South Korean, Japan and Australia will be able to do so in as little as a years time, ending any threat of Russian style invasion and land grab.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I think we may need to start talking about what happens if Russia wins. Sure, they're not nearly as competent or well-equipped as some people are fantasising, and this military adventure will be far from anything but a phyrric victory at best. But they have a lot of meat to throw to the grinder. And apparently Russians either support or acquiesce to the war and being part of it. So if Western aid is too little and too slow, Ukraine might eventually bleed out.

Now, what would the impact be on the West? We know that sanctions on Russia will probably continue and it will continue crawling towards becoming a failed state. But would we also see political crises in the West? Would fascists become emboldened and start making political gains? Will the US take an isolationist turn after the failure to keep Russia from winning?

If Russia wins I would imagine a puppet government in Ukraine and their borders arranged to Russia's satisfaction.

The politics of Europe would change, but I'm not sure what it would take for US to change in any manner.

**Edit**
Ya, maybe everyone will get themselves some nice nuclear weapons and we can move on to humanities' final act.

Not that hard once the Uranium 235 is extracted.

 

[Akka]

We should, but its not happening. Western help contributed in Ukrainian miracle, but "too little too late" is the main characteristics. When Ukraine needs 300-500 to tanks we promise something like 20 till year.
If there would be not lend lease from Russia, Ukraine is over.

Ukraine would be in a very bad shape without outside help, but I'm not sure it would be "over". It would probably fall back to more guerilla warfare rather than conventional forces though.

The possibility of Russia winning does not go away because you refuse to accept or acknowledge it, unfortunately.

It's not about ignoring that Russia can win, it's about not considering that Russia winning is among the policies that should be discussed.
The West can have Ukraine winning at the cost of just material comfort and a bit of courage. Russia winning means a much higher cost in the long run just in dissuasive military budget, for a long time and with emboldened dictatorships all over the world.
Allowing Russia to win is just complete stupidity due to lazy myopa, and it should not be something even considered.

 

[Verbose]

If Russia wins I would imagine a puppet government in Ukraine and their borders arranged to Russia's satisfaction.

Expect a "referendum" and annexation.

 

[Farm Boy]

More likely that all the Nations that are now threatened by a resurgent and more aggressive china will just build there own nuclear deterrent
Countries like Taiwan, South Korean, Japan and Australia will be able to do so in as little as a years time, ending any threat of Russian style invasion and land grab.

Then you better anticipate they will. Or the USA will feed them arms and not talk about it(more likely). Non-profileration died with Gaddafi. I'll blame Obama, but the tech was 70 years old, it may have been a Great Filter Excuse for small and rapacious men. Like the Hitlershadow that is the central theme of misery in this thread.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not about ignoring that Russia can win, it's about not considering that Russia winning is among the policies that should be discussed.
The West can have Ukraine winning at the cost of just material comfort and a bit of courage.

Perhaps. I think your argument is basically circular in the sense that you think the West must "allow" Russia to win whereas I am not so sure about this: it still seems possible for Russia to grind the Ukrainian army out of existence even with the West arming Ukraine to the teeth.

I could well be wrong about that, but I am not yet willing to take for granted that Ukraine will win with Western help.

In turn this means planning for the possibility of Russian victory is simply elementary prudence on the part of a policmaker. All contingencies should be planned for.

 

[Zardnaar]

Perhaps. I think your argument is basically circular in the sense that you think the West must "allow" Russia to win whereas I am not so sure about this: it still seems possible for Russia to grind the Ukrainian army out of existence even with the West arming Ukraine to the teeth.

I could well be wrong about that, but I am not yet willing to take for granted that Ukraine will win with Western help.

All of this is somewhat academic as I think we should arm Ukraine as long as Ukraine is willing to fight. I just don't think that arming Ukraine guarantees a Ukrainian victory.

Armed to the teeth is not quite accurate.

 

[Akka]

Perhaps. I think your argument is basically circular in the sense that you think the West must "allow" Russia to win whereas I am not so sure about this: it still seems possible for Russia to grind the Ukrainian army out of existence even with the West arming Ukraine to the teeth.

No, that's just not possible. Ukrainians are fighting for survival, so they won't break anytime soon. Western weaponry is MASSIVELY better than Russia's one, over one full generation ahead, possibly two - just look at the absurd impact a tiny number of HIMARS have had on the war. Russia has lost COLOSSAL amount of material, including most of its current-tech equipment, and is now only relying on overwhelming numbers to carry the day. And these casualties have been suffered when fighting against a foe with mostly the same technological level, not fielding a full array of Western gear.
If the West stop being stupidly slow and pusillanimous and actually provide quickly and massively current-tech weaponry to Ukraine, Russia is going to be crushed, at the cost of just a fraction of the NATO defense budget anyway. The problem is entirely about political will and short-sightedness.

I could well be wrong about that, but I am not yet willing to take for granted that Ukraine will win with Western help.

In turn this means planning for the possibility of Russian victory is simply elementary prudence on the part of a policmaker. All contingencies should be planned for.

All contingencies should be planned for, but policies should not consider unacceptable options especially when it's (comparatively to the importance of the subject) pretty easy to succeed.

 

[red_elk]

If Russia wins I would imagine a puppet government in Ukraine and their borders arranged to Russia's satisfaction.

That's unlikely at this point. The scenario where the frontline is moved to the administrative borders of Donbass but Ukraine remains independent is much more probable and may constitute "winning" too, depending on people's definition of winning.

Perhaps. I think your argument is basically circular in the sense that you think the West must "allow" Russia to win whereas I am not so sure about this: it still seems possible for Russia to grind the Ukrainian army out of existence even with the West arming Ukraine to the teeth.

I could well be wrong about that, but I am not yet willing to take for granted that Ukraine will win with Western help.

That's basically one of conclusions of the RAND article I posted earlier.

 

[Gedemon]

Perhaps. I think your argument is basically circular in the sense that you think the West must "allow" Russia to win whereas I am not so sure about this: it still seems possible for Russia to grind the Ukrainian army out of existence even with the West arming Ukraine to the teeth.

I could well be wrong about that, but I am not yet willing to take for granted that Ukraine will win with Western help.

In turn this means planning for the possibility of Russian victory is simply elementary prudence on the part of a policmaker. All contingencies should be planned for.

Those contingencies plan have a very different meaning depending on which side of the Atlantic ocean you're living, in one case you have more choices and they are less painful.

And, I mean, military budgets are already rising, new countries are applying for NATO membership, what other elementary prudent decisions should be planned ? Already review the European Defense (and UK position) in case NATO is disbanded ? including replacing nuclear weapon's in European NATO countries by UK/France warheads ?

and yes, what is "winning" anyway ?

 

[Verbose]

In turn this means planning for the possibility of Russian victory is simply elementary prudence on the part of a policmaker. All contingencies should be planned for.

Prudent defense planning should include the contingency of the US turning out to be an unreliable partner, by not taking European security fully into consideration, and the need to restructure European security without it.

It might be suggested to the US that elementary prudence lies in maintaining its actual alliances. It makes everything so much easier, even if it means the US doesn't get bragging rights for being the only country that matters.

There is a need to plan for how to help Ukraine win the war Russia forced onto it. Then there is a need for contingency planning for what to do if unsuccessful at this. But the priority before that, is planning how to not fail at it in the first place.

And then there should also be contingency planning for how to handle things like a collapse and fracturing of the Russian state.

There are many contingencies that can/need to be planned for. They do however vary in apparent popularity of toying with the idea.

 

[Yeekim]

The scenario where the frontline is moved to the administrative borders of Donbass

Sure. Eastern border of Donbass.
Also, no filtration camps are needed to identify quislings.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1621803146501554176

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

and yes, what is "winning" anyway ?

For Russia, succesfull landgrab where they get to "re-educate" Ukrainians and deport and replace those who won't comply.

For Ukraine there is no win. There is minimizing losses. Russia has inflicted too many casualties and caused too much damage to speak of wins. Best case scenario is they drive the Russians out of their land, but the reconstruction will take a long while.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please stop with the speculation in this thread. Speculation post deleted. If you wish to have such a discussion, please start a new thread on the topic. Back to the news.

 

[Lexicus]

No, that's just not possible. Ukrainians are fighting for survival, so they won't break anytime soon.

I'm not talking about a break in Ukrainian morale, I'm talking about Ukraine simply running out of manpower.

I believe someone else upthread said the Ukrainians need a casualty ratio of something like 1:3 just to keep things even. Is that being achieved? From the casualty estimates for each side that I've seen, it seems doubtful.

Prudent defense planning should include the contingency of the US turning out to be an unreliable partner, by not taking European security fully into consideration, and the need to restructure European security without it.

I agree completely. It would be foolish indeed for European states not to plan for the possibility of the US public being dumb enough to, for example, elect Trump again.

Anyway I agree that the priority, as it were, should be to help Ukraine win. But the possibility of Russian victory doesn't disappear because we ignore it.

 

[Akka]

I'm not talking about a break in Ukrainian morale, I'm talking about Ukraine simply running out of manpower.

I believe someone else upthread said the Ukrainians need a casualty ratio of something like 1:3 just to keep things even. Is that being achieved? From the casualty estimates for each side that I've seen, it seems doubtful.

I already implied the answer to that in the very post you quote.

If NATO send actual serious amount of current-tech weapons and expand training facilities for Ukraine, Russia is going to get smoked with far more than 3:1 casualties ratio. More importantly, if enough hardware and training are provided quickly enough, Ukraine will simply be able to retake its lands, and then can bunker in and get accepted into NATO.
Russia can only win through LONG attrition, by trying to bury Ukrainians under bodies, but it can do it only if its own lines are holding to channel the meat through the meatgrinder. If Ukraine control the skies and has fast modern armored units, then Russia won't be able to send its conscripts through.

It's the dragging of the war along which makes the attempted attrition from Russia to be possible to begin with.

 

[aelf]

If NATO send actual serious amount of current-tech weapons and expand training facilities for Ukraine, Russia is going to get smoked with far more than 3:1 casualties ratio. More importantly, if enough hardware and training are provided quickly enough, Ukraine will simply be able to retake its lands, and then can bunker in and get accepted into NATO.

Well, this isn't happening yet. If it doesn't happen before Ukraine runs out of manpower, then Russia 'wins'. It might turn out as empty as US victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in the meantime, we would probably have to deal with the resurgence of fascist movements and increasing aggression from belligerent countries. No?

 

[Lexicus]

Well, this isn't happening yet. If it doesn't happen before Ukraine runs out of manpower, then Russia 'wins'. It might turn out as empty as US victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in the meantime, we would probably have to deal with the resurgence of fascist movements and increasing aggression from belligerent countries. No?

I doubt it'll make much difference in the US.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Prisoner swap completed.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/04/1154489958/russia-ukraine-prisoner-swap-soldiers-released

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I wonder how their health is (?).