Ukraine--Winning? Losing? Stalemate?

Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
It has been a while since we have had a thread on Ukraine.

It seems like it is still hanging in there, but from here it seems like a stalemate. The Russians do not seem to be gaining ground, but neither are the Ukrainians. Russians seem to like to use missiles to cause civilian terror. Ukrainians seem to hit mostly military targets. Ukrainians have developed some very sophisticated drones and missiles. Russians are still relying on imports.

In the US we are being told Russians are getting tired of the war. Ukrainians are seemingly just as weary.

Some Russian drones seem to have wondered into Poland and Romania who shoot them down.

Now there are reports Putin wants to commit 500,000 more men. Where is he going to get them?

I would like to hear what other people are thinking about this war.

Comments

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Putin’s pride is more important than military realism. He doesn’t seem to care how many Russian or Ukrainian lives his pride costs.

    I suppose Zelenskyy may lose power to some settle at any cost group.

    But either way, without leadership change, this seems destined to drag on.

    I don’t want Zelenskyy to lose power but it depends on the quality and reliability of military support he continues to receive.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I do not see an endgame which does not include Ukraine ceding territory.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Zelenskyy has already said, correctly. that any territory conceded now will not cause the Russians to say “stick” and mean it. They will twist and come back for more
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    And they already ceded the Crimean peninsula, so they know whereof they speak.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Jane R wrote: »
    And they already ceded the Crimean peninsula, so they know whereof they speak.

    They haven't ceded Crimea, as far as I'm aware.

    I suspect we're in a certain amount of fog-of-war. I think it's likely that the apparent stalemate will continue until one side rapidly collapses. I don't think we have enough verifiable information to say which side that will be.
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    Nobody is talking about giving Crimea back, so I assumed it had been formally ceded (I know, never assume). I wouldn't bet against either side at this stage.
  • Apparently-reliable-but-maybe-on-the-high-side estimates have the Russian military losing around 1200 men and 400-500 trucks/tankers a day, for the last few months. Ukrainian casualties are unknown but are estimated at a ratio of perhaps 1:3 with those of the Russian forces, and with a considerably more optimistic balance between evacuated wounded and fatalities. Ukraine has quite a few wealthy economies behind it, for now. Russia has, to some degree, China. The most recent phase of the war has seen widespread Ukrainian drone attacks on oil refineries and now 'Wildberries', the Russian 'Amazon' which sells lines in military equipment. Crimea is without fuel; drone attacks on the road and sea routes mean imports have become impossible. After recent political bumpiness, Ukraine has replaced its chief-of-staff with a known moderniser with considerable public and military support.

    What this means as regards what happens next, I am not qualified to judge.

    All this info comes from reading 'Arrse' - a UK military site once mentioned by the late lamented (as far as the Ship goes) @betjemaniac .
  • FrolloFrollo Shipmate Posts: 19
    Russia has set such a high bar for 'victory' that it's hard to see that being accomplished. Thus Ukraine classically wins by not losing - cf Iran.
    The desperate sadness is the continuous loss of lives in pursuit of old men's vainglory. But 'twas ever thus.
    Add the nature of proxy war by the West in support of Ukraine; ditto China\ N Korea for Russia.
    And the respective cultural tolerance levels. Russia has long and deep visceral coping mechanisms for suffering - both it's own and others'. The West, not so much.
    Me - I can only mourn and pray for the lost on both (all) sides... Whilst hoping the cities of Europe that have burned before may yet not burn again (pace Billy Bragg).
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    edited July 30
    Russia can afford to continue its war all the time it can sell its oil and gas.
    Some of the diesel sold in the UK may even have originated in Russia?
    And Wimbledon allows Russian tennis players to compete -I think because if they didn't allow them then the players' points wouldn't count towards world ranking.
    Russia has powerful friends.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited July 30
    Jane R wrote: »
    Nobody is talking about giving Crimea back, so I assumed it had been formally ceded (I know, never assume). I wouldn't bet against either side at this stage.
    Certainly not "formally ceded", but more that in 2014 there was little Ukraine could do about it except the constant refrain that Crimea is part of Ukraine while Putin claimed to have "recovered" Crimea for Russia (and, to an extent he's right that Crimea was historically part of Russia, but given to Ukraine in the 1950s). The justification for Putin saying it's now Russia is a highly dubious referendum in 2014 claiming the people of Crimea want to be part of Russia. The status of Crimea, whether part of Russia or Ukraine, isn't going to be solved while there's active conflict between the two nations. And, very unlikely to be resolved while Putin is still President of Russia (the only way it can be resolved is if Ukraine formally cedes Crimea back to Russia ... and that's not going to happen without a massive shift from anti-Russian sentiments in the Ukrainian people, which is IMO definitely not going to happen while Putin has influence in Russia). I can see a scenario where a peace deal includes Ukraine concessions including an internationally lead negotiation on the future of Crimea, but very unlikely that a peace treaty would actually cede Crimea to Russia.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    In response to the question in the OP, Russia lost as soon as the armoured columns approaching Kyiv stopped and most of those initial gains were rapidly recovered. That's not the same as saying Ukraine won.

    But, of course, as I've frequently repeated in war no one wins - the best you can hope for is to not lose as badly as the other side.
  • That's a good point. Russia is losing.
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    Actually both sides are now trapped in the Sunk Cost Fallacy. 😭
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Frollo wrote: »
    Russia has set such a high bar for 'victory' that it's hard to see that being accomplished. Thus Ukraine classically wins by not losing - cf Iran.
    The desperate sadness is the continuous loss of lives in pursuit of old men's vainglory. But 'twas ever thus.
    Add the nature of proxy war by the West in support of Ukraine; ditto China\ N Korea for Russia.
    I think to me a proxy war implies that the patron's intention is to use the proxy as a pawn to defeat the opponent rather than to defend the proxy. In this case, Ukraine wants to not be invaded, and the West's goal is to stop Ukraine being invaded. I don't think the West has any particular strategic interest in the area beyond an interest in global economic activity unimpeded by war. The West wants to disincentivise invading other countries unprovoked.
    Sadly, that the West has an interest in a global economic order where countries don't invade other countries is not something understood by the current US government (hawks or isolationists).
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Jane R wrote: »
    Actually both sides are now trapped in the Sunk Cost Fallacy. 😭

    It's hard to see how that's true for Ukraine, unless you're arguing that annexation by Russia is better than the ongoing war?
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    True. Perhaps I should have said Russia is trapped in the Sunk Cost Fallacy and Ukraine doesn't have the firepower to push them back over the border.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited July 30
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Frollo wrote: »
    Russia has set such a high bar for 'victory' that it's hard to see that being accomplished. Thus Ukraine classically wins by not losing - cf Iran.
    The desperate sadness is the continuous loss of lives in pursuit of old men's vainglory. But 'twas ever thus.
    Add the nature of proxy war by the West in support of Ukraine; ditto China\ N Korea for Russia.
    I think to me a proxy war implies that the patron's intention is to use the proxy as a pawn to defeat the opponent rather than to defend the proxy. In this case, Ukraine wants to not be invaded, and the West's goal is to stop Ukraine being invaded.

    There have been people who from the beginning have promoted support for
    Ukraine as a cheap way of destroying Russian military capability and getting Russia involved in a Iraq/Afghanistan style quagmire. Whether they actually believe these arguments themselves or are making what they feel to be a pragmatic appeal is somewhat besides the point.
  • A ' West vs Russia' view is actually not a useful model in this context. There is Europe, Russia and the United States. The US started to pivot away from Europe towards Asia starting in George H W Bush's Administration. By the Obama Administration China had clearly become the primary strategic opponent. Both the Biden and Trump Administrations treated and continue to treat the Ukraine War mostly as an unwelcome distraction.

    Europe on the other hand desperately wants to uphold the post-1945 political settlement and is terrified of legitimizing border changes by force and returning to something like the 1938-39 period. They want Russia defeated and the pre-2014 borders preserved to deter anyone else from pursuing such ideas ever again.

    Russia, specially the Russian government is a prisoner of dreams of empire, the sunk cost fallacy and a chronic inability to separate Russia's history and identity from that of the Soviet Union, Russia was not the Soviet Union,
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Russia was not the Soviet Union,

    In a very real sense it was. The Russian Federation is the internationally recognised successor state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was itself (eventually) the internationally recognised successor state of the Russian Empire. The Okhrana became the Cheka became the NKVD became the KGB became the FSB.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    Ukraine inherited a lot of the USSR's nuclear weapons, and was then persuaded to give them up. Also, you need to look back to at least the 18th and possibly the 10th century to understand the territorial relationship between Russia and Ukraine, never mind the issue of Crimea and other specific areas such as the Donbass. In particular, there are forced mass migrations ordered by Stalin and, I think, various Tsars, which mixed up populations, almost certainly irrevocably. So there is a stalemate, and it's been gong on for at least 80 years.
Sign In or Register to comment.