Avdiivka, Longtime Stronghold for Ukraine, Falls to Russians

Please post like a normal person. Because at the moment your post looks and and reads like it was uploaded by someone coming down of a hefty dose of psilocybin. It's literally painful to look at.

 

No, my statement is fine, but you accepting a definition of winning that is actually defeat is crackers, but because that's what the "experts" told you to accept, you swallow it uncritically.

 

Your ad Homs are a result of your ignorance. I know some basic Russian from my travels. There are 4-5 fluent Russian posters here, most of which are pro neo-nazi ukie. Part of the Bandera cheer team. As you for, well, you're not alone in falling for the West's propaganda. That's where the real ignorance can be found.

 

It's what's called a pyrrhic victory. In layman's terms, call it coping. The hopes of the Ukrainian counteroffensive and the reality on the ground is distressing to us all.

 

4-5 fluent RuzZian posters here?....is this an admission on your part?....that's kinda been an open secret....Bill.

 

Secret?

 

I quite like Bandera. He was great in the Mask of Zorro!

 

Speaking of ignorance Mikey boy (yours BTW not mine) here are a couple of short articles on the nature of 'victory'. All came from academic journals and forums used by read by American military officers, historian and defense specialists all thoughtfully provided to me by by a group of US officers who have gone through various stints at American and European command and leadership programs and conferences and who also happen to share a deep interest in and knowledge of the history of warfare. In other words people who earned a living and are knowledgeable on topics relating to the military. I've been given sources to tap and get more info if you need it.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA490503.pdf

https://www.ausa.org/articles/meaning-victory (Captain Anderson again.)

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/lost-in-translation-the-american-way-of-war (bit on the heavy side.)

The point of commonality? The professionals view of 'victory' in any war is the antithesis of yours. It may comfort you to think you know more than anyone else on the topic of 'victory' but put simply? You have no idea.

 

I think this ad hom toilet paper was meant for you @Lil Mike

And just so you know Mike, a landlocked rump state is now victory

 

How is it landlocked Bill....Western Black Sea has been cleared of Orc tubs.


BTW....the "rebs" are establishing quite a presence in Belgorod and Kursk.....Pootler can't establish border security....that's not cool....Bill.


BTW....did you hear that NATO is building one of the biggest bases in Europe....in Romania....7000+ acres, 10000 personnel....2 large airfields, ....I suspect Putlerstan is fidgety.

 

I'm just surprised you know what toilet paper is!

 

Just thought it was an interesting fact, and I often come here to let my ADD act unregulated for a few minutes before returning to work.

 

I really thought you were over this topic, but it seems to have pissed you off in some way that you are trying to make some sort of response using experts. Two things become obvious from your sources:

1. You didn't actually read the articles you posted
2. You failed to prove that "The professionals view of 'victory' in any war is the antithesis of yours"

First I'll let you off the hook on the first one, as it's quite long and I'll have to get to it at another time. I'll come back to it at a later point and maybe you will have read it by then and we can have a real discussion on it's contents.

As for the other two...

On The Meaning of Victory seems merely asking the questions, not providing the answers. It states that there should be some metrics for victory, but doesn't actually provide any. I suppose this is the Ur document that you got your "defeat equals victory" thesis from. It meanders about questioning if we actually won World War I (yes obviously) or Korea or Vietnam (no one ever claimed we did). That was a point you were trying to make in this thread last week. This essay asks the question, it doesn't answer it.

Lost in Translation: The American Way of War isn't even on the topic of defining victory or defeat, so I know for a fact you didn't read this. If I end up reading your first link and it doesn't have anything to do with the topic either, I'll just declare victory and move on, because once a poster shows that they have no idea what they are talking about and just post random articles to try to throw the topic off the track, I know not to waste time with them anymore. Heh, a certain poster with his Russian Collusion obsession comes to mind!

 

Your the one who revived this discussion not me (your post 554). Before then I'd moved on (or rather would have if Bill the Cossack hadn't stuck his two rubles in). And I shall quote Anderson to you again i.e. 'To know if one has won, one must know what the goal was. If it’s unknown how a war is supposed to end, then how can it be known if, or when, the endgame has been achieved?' Which basically summarizes my point at the start of this debate.

For the rest? All the articles contend that 'victory' is a complex subject with multiple axis/points to consider and they each approach the topic from different angles. The one your reading now is heavy on the psychology and the need to change Americans view of victory (specifically in asymmetric conflicts like Afghanistan). But thank you for reading anyway.

The point is that victory is not so black and white as you seem to think by those who have studied war. Certainly the authors of the articles I linked to don't agree with your definition. Three different articles addressing the issue from three different directions with few, sometimes no definite conclusions i.e. complexity. If necessary I can get more . Oh and asking questions in a paper like Anderson did is a valid, often used means getting the reader to reflect on the points the authors raise.

 

OK how will Ukraine know it won?

 

I think I've commented on this before and to clarify. My answer in based largely on Russia's initial deployments and actions at the start, comments made by Putin about his view of Ukraine and his intentions for the Ukrainian State when he initiated the war plus western analysis of Putin's intentions for the country when he launched his invasion. Please note however that when I say victory its a victory of degree because 'victory is a spectrum'. At one end you have total victory (think the WW2 defeat of the Axis powers), below that are decisive but not complete victories, (think the revolutionary war) close/hard fought victories (lots of examples in history like the Napoleonic wars) and of course at the other end pyrrhic victories (we won but just barely).

In summery I think Ukraine will know they have 'won' when a peace treaty is signed and most of Ukraine is still a sovereign, independent State with a pro-western government. It will have won by holding off a far superior enemy (albeit at great cost) while inflicting losses on that enemy totally out of proportion to the size of its own armed forces. It will have won by having access to the EU and western investment which it did not have before the war started and wouldn't have had for decades if it hadn't commenced. Indeed chances are that once peace is declared the Ukrainian economy will bounce back and start to grow at a rate that would not have been possible but for the war! And of course it will have 'won' by being tied into NATO which was also not on the cards for decades if Putin hadn't pushed so hard.

Also importantly it will have 'won' by weakening the chances of Russia (well Putin) being able to launch a successful invasion of Ukraine in the future - at least in the medium term. This is because it will take Russia many years to rearm and equip its military. That's the 'win'. The cost of that victory? (And there's always a cost of course even with a total victory - after all how many US servicemen died in WW2?) The cost will be paid in military and civilian casualties and the loss of territory. Possibly more than they've lost already but not a whole lot more. And of course I've listed more damage the war has caused Russia previously so I won't go into the details again now.

So I see the outcome as less than decisive but still strong victory for Ukraine because despite the loss of territory and lives it's new 'default' position once peace is declared will be a path to accelerated prosperity, democracy and engagement with the west and future military strength. This of course contrasts to its future in the event of even a moderate Russian victory which at the least would split the country in half. One vitally important hinge point on this assessment though, the 2024 election. If Trump wins? This assessment could change radically as it would for instance if Russia decided to nuke Kiev.

 

Nothing but ad homs and flame baits from a that doesn't even know proper English after playing the Russia Russia card.

It's you're or you are, not 'your'.

Пожалуйста (You're welcome)

 

So if I understand correctly, victory for Ukraine (at least as you understand it) consists of:

1. "Most" of Ukraine is still independent. So if Russia keeps the 18% or so of the territory it's occupied in the war, that is still a success for you, correct?

2. Be tied to the West in general and the EU in particular. I'm not sure how you count this If they continue to have political and economic relations with the West but not be a formal member of the EU (say as part of the peace treaty) is that acceptable to you?

3. Tied to NATO. Do you mean being a member of NATO?

OK we've seen your conditions, now let's check in on Zelenskyy.

Speaking on Wednesday to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Zelensky seemed to say Russian forces must pull back to where they were on Feb. 23 to show Moscow is prepared to “shift from the bloody war to diplomacy.” To start proper talks, in other words.

Negotiations can happen “if Russia shows at least something,” he said. “When I say ‘at least something,’ I mean pulling back troops to where they were before February 24.”

“Ukraine will fight until it reclaims all its territories,” he said. “It’s about our independence and our sovereignty.”

Zelenskyy may have other conditions, but it seems he draws a red line on giving up any territory (Crimea not included). Reading further down in the article I linked, other Ukrainian military and political officials have reiterated that giving up any territory is a non starter.

In other words, what you have decided to call a victory for Ukraine, giving up territory, the Ukrainians seem to regard as an unacceptable defeat.

So I agree with the Ukrainians that your view of "victory" would actually be a defeat for Ukraine. But on the other hand, you have Western experts on your side (allegedly-no actual proof yet) and I only have Ukraine on my side of the argument.

 

As I said it's complicated but importantly (and I can't stress this enough) all victories impose a cost on the victor. And generally the greater the costs incurred the less 'great' the victory ends up being. Lets assume for instance that Russia's initial invasion had more or less gone to plan with Kiev and most of Ukraine being overrun in the first few days of the conflict. That scenario would have amounted to what I refer to as a 'total' victory for Russia but it would still have imposed costs on the victory even inf only minor ones. Firstly via the loss lives and equipment , no matter how slight but secondly through indirect costs like sanctions and penalties imposed by the west (even if only temporarily) and finally the not insignificant costs of establishing new security services and garrisoning it for as long as was needed to ensure stable government. If that had happened? We'd both agree it was a victory for Russia. But it would still cost them something.

Now looking at the Ukraine and the current situation? Firstly I do not see Ukraine achieving total victory i.e. recovering territory lost since 2014 as Zelenskyy likes to talks about from time to time. I never have. But he's a politician and in wartime it's part of their job to sustain morale and hold out visions of success to the general populous. After all how many times since the war started has Putin claimed the war is 'all going according to plan'? But all that said at this stage and depending on events like the 2024 election in the US? There's no reason why Ukraine can't win something less than total victory but certainly far more than a Pyrrhic one. I say this for all the reasons previously mentioned but in summary Russia has still to capture a single major city or most of the counties industrial base and the vast majority of its population lives in on Ukraine's side of the conflict zone. In contrast most of what Russia holds is agricultural land. If the war ends tomorrow? Ukraine is still perfectly functioning and potentially quite wealthy and democratic state. Not so Russia.

I also would largely disregard Zelenskyy's quote because to be quite clear he's not the only one who has a say in how or when the war ends. NATO does as well, particularly the US. Which is why the outcome of this years election is IMO so important. A Democrat win won't ensure complete victory for Ukraine on anywhere near the terms he stated in that quote. It will however make continuing the war indefinitely impracticable for Russia. That said? Putin has to be able to take home some 'gains' out of all the suffering he can sell to his domestic audience as a 'win' for Russia. I've said this from the get go.Putin has to be able to take home some 'gains' out of all this suffering that he can sell to his domestic audience as a 'win' for Russia (tremendous cost be dammed).

I also note the Western powers hold the cards on a lot of those potential wins, not Zelenskyy. They decide if or when Ukraine joins the EU or NATO . They decide whether sanctions stay in place and they decide whether Russia gets its foreign assets unfrozen and trade with the west normalized over time. Zelenskyy has no say over any of that! So sorry, but I think it's an act of mental gymnastics to claim that a politicians public statements (in this case Zelenskyy's) are the key metric for determining who wins and loses a war. Neither Putin or Zelenskyy are going to get all they want. But as things stand? Zelenskyy will dam sure get a whole lot closer to it than Putin will given what he wanted to start with.

Finally as for the whole NATO and EU Membership thing. NATO membership is negotiable. In an ideal world yes Ukraine would be a member but there's nothing Russia can do to prevent Ukraine training with NATO members forces and being equipped like them. Nor can they stop Ukraine signing treaties (even defense treaties) with other individual nations. It's their sovereign right to do so. And that's why in this regard I count the end of this war as a win for Ukraine. Fine, lets not have Ukraine join NATO - ever! That won't stop it having a modern well equipped western style army or military allies in the west, which is a win for them.

The EU? Its not a military pact, its a trade pact. But OK, even if that was a concession made to Putin (which I doubt) the same rule applies. There's nothing to stop the EU or just individual member states from extending soft loans and generous trade deals to Ukraine. Whats Putin going to say? 'I want Russia to be able to trade and do business with the west but not Ukraine'? So again Ukraine 'wins'. It will get much needed investment regardless of what the final peace deal looks like.

I hope this helps and you see the basis for my reasoning.

 

Wow, just wow. Lots of cope and hopium with a good bit of projection.

But this:

"If the war ends tomorrow? Ukraine is still perfectly functioning and potentially quite wealthy and democratic state. Not so Russia."

That's just downright hilarious.

 

Sorry, you posted something Bill? Your posts sort of have the same effect as Eadora's do.

 

Well that's good since @Eadora 's postings are usually spot on...in other words....not like your's.

 

Translation 'she agrees me'...... zzzzzzzzzz

 

NO -- I will NOT. .. For my writing style is the result of the WAY I think, feel and
perceive my world. It is Synesthesia, - where all word, sound and even ideas
have colour, form & iNTENSITY. I enjoy & suffer with the blending of sensory
modalities. I do NOT think in a dull featureless Black & White monotone. So I
categorically refuse to write in one. & I do NOT accept YOUR so called NORMAL
................................................................................................................ person constraints

& perhaps the pain that YOU are experiencing is the PAIN induced by a strong dose
of Cognitive Dissonance, brought on by YOUR own a purposed Willful Ignorance.

It is obvious in your post as to which sort of experts YOU are appealing to.
as from YOUR post

And "Mike" was clear as to exactly which experts that he found untrustworthy

And YOUR rather lame attempts to conflate these so called experts in Propaganda
with the more honorable expertise involved in dentistry, and car & home repair
is clearly seen as being unreservedly dishonest. A debate technique known as
a CHEAP SHOT -- I am sure Mr Asimov would view it as exemplary of the
growing American Anti Intellectual Pathology that he so eloquently speaks to.

I can only quote Issac Asimov.
'The strain of anti-intellectualism (in the US) has been a constant thread winding
it's way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'



.

 

How's the 3 day op?

I'm seeing Kursk area now being evacced...Bill?

How's this possible?....any thoughts?