Avdiivka, Longtime Stronghold for Ukraine, Falls to Russians

I wish this helped understand your "reasoning" but I find your "reasoning" so convoluted that I can affirm that I was right the first time when I called your "losing is winning" ideas about victory as cope. It absolutely is. I've highlighted a few points I'll elaborate on.

"all victories impose a cost on the victor." I could draw out a long treatise on this but the quickest and simplest response I could reply with is simply "duh." This applies to each and every war from the beginning of history and no doubt will continue to to the end of history. The key point in that phrase is the word "victor."

"... he's not the only one who has a say in how or when the war ends. NATO does as well, particularly the US." That seems a rather brazen bit of imperial hubris. We are not technically a party to this war, nor or we a disinterested bystander, so if it some point Zelenskyy decides he's thrown an entire generation into the woodchipper and can no longer support it then what? What exactly do you expect NATO/US to do? Say "oh no buddy boy, it's not over until we say it's over." I'm honestly not getting what stakes you think NATO has in this beyond Ukraine?

" 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." This seems exactly opposite of what you earlier claimed in this thread that if Putin's plan to completely annex Ukraine (not sure that was intention but anyway) didn't happen then he lost the war. You claimed that victory should absolutely be based on the nation's goals for the war, and I just gave you Zelenskyy's statements to that effect and it's like never mind? He's the President of Ukraine, not you so I think his statements on what he sees as the goals of the war are pretty important.

"...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."

These are much of what the war seems to be about and I think Ukraine signing treaties and their relationship to the West will be on the negotiation table when we get to that point.

 

Corporate bankruptcies are up 60% in Russia and include several arms manufacturers such as the largest ship builder in the country. It is rather impressive to be an arms manufacturer which goes bankrupt in the middle of a war.

 

If Russia makes specific cease fire demands of NATO/US like having trade sanctions lifted, SWIFT access restored, an other signs of normalcy with Western economic systems, then that is clearly Russia drawing in the West into negotiations on purpose. If it does have specific demands on the West, then it does want to draw the US into negotiations. I just don't think that's obvious that Russia would want to do that. If they don't, then what is the Western leverage on influencing the negotiations?

You may think victory is a spectrum and in some conflicts that may be the case, like Korea, but I don't think a cease fire or peace treaty that leaves 18% of Ukraine in Russian hands is going to be considered a victory by the Ukrainian people who've paid a terrible price to prevent just that. In any case, you've not made a great case for that, so maybe you should talk some of your military buddies into signing on the forum and we can have a thread about it. Should be an interesting discussion!

 

It is funny how Little Mike has been extremely supportive of Putin's illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine and he has never once called for a ceasefire or for Putin's fascist forces to withdraw. He does seem to have a special double standard just for the Jews though who are trying to defend themselves from an Islamic terrorist group who openly advocates for genocide.

I wonder why that is? Oh, well, it will be fun watching the usual excuse making suspects flip flop away.

 

You're free to repost any comments that I've made that show I'm "extremely supportive of Putin's illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine."

I'm also curious what posts you think I've made that make you think I "seem to have a special double standard just for the Jews though who are trying to defend themselves from an Islamic terrorist group who openly advocates for genocide." I would like to see those too.

Narrator: You'll never see them.

 

@Lil Mike seems we are the target of the usual flame baiting ad homs.......which means they've lost the argument (as if they had a clue to begin with)

 

What argument is that Bill?....is this deflecting?

How's that 3 day op?....seems like the "rebs" are expanding their area in the RuZZfascists Federation.....this ain't looking good for Pootlers image.

 

All of the conditions you've listed severely hamper the Russian economy in the long term, if nothing else they'll want their frozen rubles back (because God knows they'll need them). The only thing keeping the economy afloat at the moment is war spending by the government on the defense sector and social security payments. All of which is being paid for by tax increases and draw downs from their sovereign wealth funds. This war has already also cost them their biggest export earner which prior it's start which was gas sales to Europe. To have any hope of getting even a small percentage of that market back they need the EU to negotiate. Yes they have found other buyers but there are limits on how many joules of gas Russia can ship east until it manages to build the pipelines needed to shift it, that's expensive, very expensive. Same thing for western tech. China is the obvious substitute but then they're reliant on one and only one source of supply. Prior to the war they had access to the global market in such goods. China is probably one of the big winners out for this conflict because as long as no resolution is reached with the west they have Putin by the balls economically speaking. Russia, like everyone else needs open access to the global economy to prosper.

As for how the Ukrainians consider the loss of 18% of their territory? Of course they won't like it but it's far, far better than the prospect they faced the day the war started i.e. complete occupation by Russia! Besides which most of the population was already resigned to the the loss of the territory including Crimea that was annexed back in 2014 and Russia hasn't added much to that since it invaded in 2022! They'll come out the other end of this having held off an opponent with 3 times their military strength at the cost of ceding just a little more (agricultural land) that they had previously. And then? We're back to adding on all the benefits that come from closer economic ties to the west as discussed previously. And the pace at which they start to see those benefits arriving will have been dramatically increased as a result of the war. The EU is pushing forward with integration talks now at pace that would never have been seen but for the invasion.

So I call it a Ukrainian 'victory' because they will benefit more from the peace on a per capita basis than Russia will and because they will have denied the enemy most if it's original objectives when it started the war. Russia can claim a 'win' or sorts to if it wants to (And Putin will). It will have secured it's hold on Crimea and gained some small 5/6 %? of territory over the 2014 starting position (yeah just what Russia needed - more farm land). It victory however will be a Pyrrhic one. So Ukraine's victory trumps Russia's.

Now on to your remaining claims.

To answer you point about. Firstly, just for clarification my statement about Putin's intentions to occupy the entire country comes not just from statements made by him (although they do tend to corroborate my viewpoint) but rather from the initial deployments and lines of advance/objectives of the Russian army in the opening days of the invasion. Kiev was clearly a key target. As was Odessa and major cities in the west of the country. Left to it's on devices? All those objectives would have been in Russian hands within the first week. Once that was the case though there would have been little if any of Ukraine left two take. For context it would be like a foreign invader seizing the east and west coasts of America and linking up through Texas and Arizona but not (yet) having seized the Northern Central States. At that point? Everywhere else in the US would be mopping up too given the disparities in population and industry between the occupied and unoccupied regions. Same thing with Ukraine. If the invasion had worked as it was intended to? Everything else would have been 'mopping up' because virtually all of Ukraine's population and its industrial base would be in Russian hands by the end of days 7 to 10.

But to go on and regarding Zleneskyy's statements. The thing is he didn't initiate this war! He could claim he wanted all of the territory seized by Russia in 2014 back but as of 2022? He hadn't done anything that would achieve that end.(Ukraine did lose the war in 2014 BTW). But the thing is that in any war the aggressors starting objectives tend to define the defenders response i.e. the defenders initial objective must be to prevent the enemy achieving his objectives. After that your own objectives/goals come into play. To date Ukraine has proved to be very effective at denying Putin his objectives (the reasons he started the war in the first place). And they've done so in a manner that has imposed huge losses on the Russian army and the Russian economy in general. (Bill is going to ape **** over this bit BTW - I'm looking forward to it .) IMO Those are the big win's for Ukraine with the accelerated integration into the west and the increased prosperity that will come with that being the icing on the cake! Yes Zelenskyy want's all of Ukraine back. No, hes not going to get it. But he didn't start this war intending to. If by some miracle he did get it all back? Well that would be a total victory for Ukraine then - end of story. That's not going to happen.

Your last point? Yes I agree. Future treaties with the west will be on the table. As I keep saying those are valuable chips that Ukraine can bring to the table. The thing though there are limits on how tightly any one country can bind another sovereign nations right to negotiate treaties with other nations or international bodies. Especially when it comes to free trade and the movement of people and goods. Russia can demand Ukraine not join NATO and Ukraine can accede to that request. What Russia will have a much harder time doing though (and at international law I think it's probably illegal)
is demanding that NATO Nations don't sell weapons and equipment to Ukraine or engage in exchanges of military personnel. That's generally a matter for the parties involved.

 

Too many uninformed comments, too little time. I always enjoy these Eastern European 'experts' who've never been to Eastern Europe.

 

Now now Zoomer ..,, Who is the one deflecting from the collapse of near the entire front line .. pinning hopes on terrorist attacks on civilians way up north.

Soldiers Of The 59th Brigade Surrender En Masse


The Soldiers asked not to be put on the Prisoner Swap list for fear of being put in Jail or sent to the front teeth of the meat grinder.

 

It seems fairly typical. Since the war began it's been pretty standard to assume anything that doesn't support the current thing is pro Russian.

 

Well what can I say? I remain unconvinced by your argument and at this point you are simply repeating points that have already been made, so I don't know really what to say at this point. To me, giving up 18% of your country but oh the remainder gets to trade with the West sounds like an extremely bad deal. It's like saying Mexico actually won the US-Mexican war because even though they lost a lot of territory, the got NAFTA 150 years later.

All you've demonstrated is that there are no conditions under which you will accept that Ukraine has been defeated. No matter what happens, it's the real winner.

 

I keep repeating what I said because you keep renewing the argument. There are no really new points to add. The entire debate only started because I questioned your claim that victory is defined simply who holds the most land when the shooting stops and instead pointed to other factors history shows are relevant. And the NAFTA example is just absurd BTW, 150 years? Really? It should be obvious that any indirect gains/rewards (like EU membership) derived from fighting a war have to be realized/eventuate proximate to the end of that war. Otherwise no-one could claim there was a direct relationship between the two. Same thing for any indirect negative consequences that result from involvement in a war for instance say a sudden economic crisis. You can argue for example that the recession of 1919 was a direct consequence of WW1. It's much harder to argue the same for the Great Depression of 1930! The greater the distance in time between two events the less impact the prior event can be said to have had on the later one because other 'stuff' gets in the way.

 

Well we'll see how long after the war you continue to attribute things to Ukraine's victory.

 

Meah! Ukraine's victory such as it is (and yes a lot could still change especially post Nov 2024) will be work in progress. They won't for instance get EU Membership the same day the ink drys on any peace deal with Russia because EU membership applications are a lengthy process. Point is though that before this war started Ukraine was perhaps a generation away from meeting the requirements e.g. financial probity and anti-corruption measures etc.

As a result of this war? The ground work for Ukraine's membership has has been accelerated by the EU, in fact statements have already been made to this effect by the organization. If the war ends next year? They could be a member within a decade. Rebuilding/re-equipping the army along western lines? That could start almost immediately after it ends but it's still going to be a work in progress for years to come. The key thing though is that both processes, assuming they eventuate will have been directly accelerated by the fighting.

Form Putin's perspective? This is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. (As is Sweden's and Finland's accession to NATO.)

 

Oh and before I forget?

 

You should go back and notice who started this thread. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. BTW, this thread is old news as your beloved Azov nazis have retreated much farther to the West.....winning all the way retreating

 

Sounds like a second fronts opened at Belgorod and Kursk.....buffer zone just like P.Zeihan on YT mentioned....ain't looking good for the orcs Bill.......yesterday RDK wiped out a company of Spetznaz in Bgorod....that's like almost 100 bodies....what's up with that?.....I figured the Spetzies were bad a$$.....to get schwacked like that.....jeepers!!

 

And we're back!

Time is short so I'll a a couple of your points and come back later for the others. As for the rest? I'm sorry you find my reasoning to 'complex' to understand. As I said the military people I chatted with had no problem with it. I on the other hand had no problem with you heads you win, tails you've lose approach to war and geopolitics.

Firstly the point about the 'cost of victory' to the winner goes to the heart of my point that victory falls on a spectrum something which you've apparently had a problem visualizing from the start. (If Dummies produced a 'Victory for Dummies" EBook I send you a copy.) Secondly the reason NATO and the EU have a 'say' in the peace accords should be obvious to even a simpleton. I can only assume your deliberately choosing to ignore them. To begin with Putin will want Russia's foreign exchange reserves unfrozen. Ukraine doesn't hold them. He'll want the trade sanctions lifted, Ukraine didn't impose them, he'll want to import the high tech goods the Russian economy badly needs. Ukraine doesn't produce those products. And finally, one of Putin's primary motivations for starting the war was to prevent Ukraine joining NATO? NATO has a say in that. And since we're talking about peace negotiations NOT surrender negotiations (which even you should be able to understand are two entirely different things) that means all those issues require input from the western powers.

It should also be obvious to all but the least perceptive forum members that America and the EU have a vested interest in seeing the war end as much as the belligerents do, if only due to the economic disruption and uncertainty it's causing. Meanwhile Ukraine will also want ongoing support from the West once a peace deal is sighed. So both Russia and Ukraine want something from third parties that neither are in a position to get by themselves. Its not 'imperial hubris' as you put it, its cold, hard headed self interest. A peace deal means everybody want's the war over and hence all parties are involved. Unless you've been living under a rock you'll have seen third parties involved in paces talks all the time. News flash! They're not

 

I doubt they teach much history to US Army personnel anymore, at USMA or elsewhere. Thus it makes sense that you as a veteran would be completely unaware that since about 2014 with Nuland and Maidan and Minsk, Putin has been trying to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Donbas and Ukraine. Diplomacy is not among the US skill sets, but deception and overthrowing legitimate governments very much is.

Thus your claim that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal and unjustified is empty and hollow, and of course false. Russia tried to find a diplomatic solution, but NATO would not allow it. Neither would Boris Johnson, if you were paying attention to that one.

 

Still waiting on those posts from @USVet showing how I'm "extremely supportive of Putin's illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine."

 

You seem to be cheering the Russians on

 

How so? You're free to find posts of my siding with Russia too. It's a challenge that's not just open to USVet.

 

What you (and many) call "a diplomatic solution" is radically different than how the Russians define the term.