Avdiivka, Longtime Stronghold for Ukraine, Falls to Russians

Second paragraph you mentioned is key.

And RuZZia will have to pay the price to de-mine that land to get back to production and rebuild if it can be bothered "??

Big question....if they can remember where all those mines are to begin with?....I guess they'll find out when someone steps on one and are blown halfway to the moon?

Mafiosi now has a bigger headache with 2 more new NATO members in the Baltic with Sweden/Finland....which will cost trillions of rubles....and being under heavy sanctions will be hugely difficult.

The occupied areas will have a hostile population that won't be easily pacified....just another decrepit enclave like Abkazia and South Ossetia....or Konigsberg where 80% residents shop in the EU.

While rest of Ukraine is in EU/NATO and gets massive investment $$$ and defense structures.

Like East/West Germany before reunification.

 

I'm sorry, but this is first class cope. You are making it sound as if Russia is doing Ukraine a favor by taking a lot of obsolete industrial parks off their hands.

 

NO. That's not what I mean at all! What I'm trying to make you understand is that Russia started this war with the intention of getting the whole pie to which end it put down it's money expecting to get the whole thing pronto! Instead it got handed one meager slice, served late, mashed up and very cold.

Its the consequences Russia's decision to invade which have and will change Ukraine's trajectory. Prior to the war Ukraine's accession to the EU and NATO were at best decades away from becoming reality because there was no pressure on either side to accelerate the process. Because of the Russian invasion now there is. As a direct result of that invasion? Russia has lost access to western markets and to its technology and investment capital. As a result of that invasion its defense forces have been gutted of high tech weapons and Europe has been pushed back into rearming itself. As a direct result of the invasion global sales of all but the most basic and unprofitable Russian armaments have collapsed and aren't going to recover to pre-war levels because buyers (India mainly) have seen the performance of western systems in action against Russian systems. Lots of consequences, the vast majority of which are bad for Russia and if not great for Ukraine then at least for the most part certainly better than they are for Russia.

Russia is not doing Ukraine a favor it is simply facing the consequences of its own actions!

The only likely variable I can currently see on the table that will change a lot of that? Is Trump winning the election and even then things like joining the EU etc aren't his to deny.

 

I simply don't remember them saying they were going to take the whole country. My memory of it is that they were going to overthrow the government to get rid of it's "Nazi" problem, not that they were going to annex the entirety of Ukraine.

In any case, your argument that Ukraine wins even if they lose territory is simply laughable. You are spinning and trying as hard as you can to cover up that one salient fact. And you somehow think that Russia will think they lost if they walk away with big chunks of Ukraine torn from it?

But...maybe it's me. The idea that Ukraine is the real winner even if Russia grabs large chunks of Ukrainian territory simply doesn't compute to me, but you are probably not the only one who will somehow declare that a victory for Ukraine.

 

I would argue that firstly if they took all the big cities they do 'take the country' especially since those same lines of advance also severed all the major road and rail links in the country Western Europe. You tell me. Whats left to 'take' after a hostile force has done all that? If a foreign enemy took every large city in the USA, closed or severed all its major internal transport links and controlled the skies above it? Everything else is just mopping up! Same thing with Ukraine or any other modern nation for that matter. Also Putin has never couched this war in terms of conquest, never. He literally couldn't speak in terms of a war of aggression without totally invalidating the war in the first place and painting Russia as the aggressor. Putin has always painted Russia as the the victim, defending the interests of its own citizens and fellow Russians in Ukraine (even if most of them didn't want his help).

In addition I'm not suggesting the end result of this war will be the collapse of Russia or anything similar to that. Just that their 'win' has the potential to inflict some serious, long term damage on the Russian economy and by default it's people. If Putin is prepared to make concessions to Ukraine in terms of a peace deal then there is an incentive for the west to respond in kind and help reduce the severity of those impacts. On the other hand little or no concessions on Russia's part means there's little incentive for the West to assist it is there? That part of the situation is pretty much a zero sum game.

I'd also question the reality of assuming Russia is still a major world power in the classic sense. Oh it's definitely a major nuclear power but that's not quite the same thing as being a major world power. In terms of demographics, economic power, global influence, geopolitical power and even conventional military power its in decline and has been fora while. (Despite what Putin might like to project to the world) And it's also not self sufficient in any real sense either, who is these days? It's government's finances are totally dependent on exports of oil, gas and a few other raw materials to foreign customers and its industry was heavily dependent on imports of advanced western technologies such as aeronautical components and microchips - which one of the reason rebuilding the army is going to be so hard. Without those exports the Russian state as it currently operates would be unsustainable especially the military. I think your example of the British Empire post WW2 is a actually good analogy for Russia's situation. In decline but going down swinging.

Oh, and before I forget there's also not many Russians to gain from the captured ground either. The majority of ethnic Russians in Ukraine supported Ukrainian independence and voted with their feet if they could once the invasion started. A sizeable minority did support Russia of course, particularity in the far west and south of the country but most of that population is gone with only the elderly left. The fighting since 2014 saw many of the males drafted and killed (charging Ukrainian lines clutching a bolt action Mosin-Nagant if I remember correctly) and the woman and children were evacuated. So in terms of a population growth? The impact will be largely insignificant, especially once start you including all those Russians from other regions inside the country who have been killed and wounded in the fighting.

 

Is this a continuation of your argument that Ukraine wins the war even if they lose territory and Russia loses the war even if they gain territory? I don't think you are making any points in that favor.

I asked you specifically if there were any public pronouncements that the goal of the war is the annexation of Ukrainian territory and you couldn't come up with anything. Instead, you came up with exactly the opposite, "Also Putin has never couched this war in terms of conquest, never. He literally couldn't speak in terms of a war of aggression without totally invalidating the war in the first place and painting Russia as the aggressor."

So where did you get the idea that Russia's goal was the annexation of the entire country? Because your entire argument that Russia loses even if they win rested on that; that they didn't accomplish their stated goals.

If we took these same circumstances and simply changed country names, no one would question that a nation taking territory from an enemy is the winner and the country losing territory is the loser, but with Russia, why is there such the need to come up with such ridiculous rationalizations? I just don't get it.

I really think this is simply the power of propaganda. In spite of the claim of many members of this forum that they are "critical thinkers," when given the opportunity to actually do some critical thinking they simply punt to the talking points.

 

Oh please that's disingenuous. You said it yourself ' Oh they were definitely going for the big cities, including Kiev. No one has questioned that.' To which my response was (in part) 'If a foreign enemy took every large city in the USA, closed or severed all its major internal transport links (Which would happen a result of the capture of those cities) and controlled the skies above it? Everything else is just mopping up!' A point you ignored answering. The initial campaign map and Western analysis of that plan during the early days of the war make it clear what Putin's intentions were. Explain to me how, if (as you admit) Putin clearly intended to seize and occupy all the major cities in Ukraine he wasn't by default intent upon taking over the entire country. How does that work?

And don't try to argue that this was just a temporary means to an end. A strategy designed simply to force the Ukrainian State to surrender after which the Russians would quickly withdraw. Because even if Putin's intention was to simply force concessions out of Ukraine re the EU and NATO etc and then withdraw and not to install pro-Russian regime? He would still have to leave an occupation force behind, for an extended period of time in order to make sure Ukraine honored the agreement and didn't renege.

As for 'I asked you specifically if there were any public pronouncements that the goal of the war is the annexation of Ukrainian territory and you couldn't come up with anything.' I took that to refer to the period just prior to and after the war commenced and gave the reason why Putin made no such claim during that period. As to what he actually thinks of Ukraine's right to exist as separate, independent nation state? Prior to that period he wrote 5000 word essay on the topic that was published in July 2021. In summery? Putin denies Ukraine has a separate national identity to that of Russia (regardless of whatever Ukrainians themselves might believe). Put simply, he believes Ukraine has no legitimate right to exist as an independent nation state. Be prepared for a long read. The article below is a 'fact check' by a historian of Putin's 'belief's' on the topic. Inside it near the start is another link to a Putin's essays and his view of Ukraine.

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ukraine-history-fact-checking-putin-513812/

Oh, and BTW Putin also doesn't have a very high opinion of the legal validity of the Alaska Purchase just so you know.

 

Sigh, OK so you are still arguing that Ukraine wins even if it loses, and Russia loses even if it wins. I don't think I should have had to spend as much time highlighting the obvious as I have, and it doesn't seemed to have mattered anyway. Continue to wait for the glorious Ukrainian victory then.

 

A glorious ukrainian victory indeed, when the capital is in Lviv.

 

No, I'm arguing that 'winning' depends solely on how you define the victory conditions and that the consequences of a war on both sides can and often do have serious long lasting impacts for good or ill. You for some reason choose to believe that victory is and can only be measured by how many square miles of territory one side or the other gains or loses. I keep trying to point out that it's more complex than that. And you still haven't acknowledged let alone addressed the points I raised in my last couple of posts. (One of which obviously ruffled Bills feathers.)

 

I'm not sure I'm aware of what "points" you were referring to. I thought all of your points were in service to your larger argument that Ukraine will be the real winner. On that regard you seem (at least to me) totally unconvincing. I'm not sure that you've successfully made the case that Ukraine, with large chunks missing, as well as 100's of thousands dead, will be the real winner in this. It's easy for me to imagine Putin holding up the new Greater Russia map on TV to make the case to the populace that he won, but what will Zelenskyy hold up on TV to show he really is the winner?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not getting it.

 

Read my post again. The first point was how attempting to take over every major city in a country yarda, yarda, yarda, does not (according to you) amount to taking attempting to take over the entire country. The second point was that there was no way Putin's pre war intentions could never be achieved without the total takeover and long term occupation of Ukraine. The third point was that based on his own essay Putin clearly does not recognize the right of Ukraine to exist as a sovereign nation. This point simply reinforces the first two points I raised about what the original battle plan showed i.e. that Putin's intention was to conquer the entire country.

Which takes us back to the main point i.e. the vast difference between Putin's intentions (the four 'victory conditions' I listed previously) before he started this war and the outcomes he has achieved since then. And above all else the price Russia has paid (and will continue to pay) just to achieve even that! Simply put if this war were to end tomorrow? My assertion is that the gains made by Russia to date (i.e. some 18 % of Ukraine and no large population centers) will have ended up costing Russia far more than they are worth. This makes the war a net loss for Russia. Do I need to point to the allied occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as a comparison or do you still think those 'victories' were worth the price paid.

 

Unquestionable proof? thought not

 

2015
https://www.france24.com/en/20150417-hundreds-us-military-trainers-arrive-ukraine

 

Those troops were invited in Bill, not placed. The former implies the consent on the part the government of the day. The latter implies their arrival was a 'fait accompli' and therefore inevitable regardless of whether the Ukrainian Government wanted them there or not. Your confusing the western presence in Ukraine with the Russian one. Try to stay focused Bill, it shouldn't be this hard for a grown (for want of abetter word) 'man' such as yourself to get their ducks in a row.

 

Wars involve a lot of different winners and losers from the micro to the macro level.

Winners and losers of Ukraine war

1. Russia v NATO winner? (ToBeDecided) (earlier, I would have said advantage NATO, but right now those advantages are being reversed)
2. Russia v Ukraine winner? (Russia, but at substantial cost)
3. Ukraine war a Win/loss for Russian people generally? (losses>gains)
4. Ukraine war a Win/loss for Ukrainian people generally? (losses>>>gains)
5. Ukraine war a Win/loss for Putin? (TBD)
6. Ukraine war a Win/loss for Zelensky? (TBD)

 

You're so lost dealing with @Lil Mike I don't think you want to step in it with me.

If you are referring to the Budapest Memorandum, the US violated 3 conditions of it. Political sovereignty, economic coercion and communication with the other signatories.

Invited or not, US troops violated the Minsk Accords.

These are separate issues.

Try to learn something and keep up.

 

All your points have been dealt with previously Bill in other threads. There were no legal violations of either document. There's just you insisting there was. Case closed.

Prove otherwise.

 

I'm not here to prove to you things you don't understand to begin with. You ran your mouth, got brake checked and now you're upset. Mike will go easier on you than I will, FYI. Now run along.

 

How's that 3 day op Bill?

3 more orc planes downed earlier yesterday.....RuZzian air force going down faster than Maria Zakharova in the men's room at the RuZZian Foreign Ministry.

 

You don't have an argument because you've never read the Minsk Protocols. Run along, you're boring me.

 

"Worth the price paid" is a fairly difficult calculus. But I'll try: Britain and France paid a price for victory in World War I that is simply not "worth the price paid," however guess what? They still won the war. Think of the price the Soviets paid in World War II; 20 million dead. Was it "worth the price paid?"

These are difficult questions, but what's not difficult is this: If the war ends tomorrow, Russia has won and Ukraine has lost. You can do all the calculus later about costs paid and was that worth it or not (for most wars the answer would probably be no) but who won the war isn't usually in doubt (until now apparently).

 

Complain again did you Bill? What a pity.

Again your the one who made the claim, not me. Show us all the specific sections of both documents that your so confident America breached. It's not up to everyone else on the board to run off and do your job for you. By rights you could and should have referenced the specific sections you think support your claim and then simply added added a link to both documents so anyone who wanted to could read it for themselves.

 

Get off your ass and do your own research. Either that, or don't make bogus claims. Besides, I don't like foreigners that try to provoke US involvement in foreign conflicts.

 

"You don't like foreigners"

So you're admitting you're not American....I think most knew that here.