Europe under extreme duress

[Spekkio]

IMO, I am thinking that this may well end in a total Russian defeat.

That's really not possible unless Ukraine manages to mount an offensive into Moscow and remove Putin and his inner circle of oligarchs from political power, which I don't think they're capable of doing.

Which means 'winning' for Ukraine is that Putin gets tired of pouring resources into the conflict and accepts a new status quo (also see: Afghanistan, Vietnam, the American Revolution, etc.).

 

[Hotdogs]

IMO, I am thinking that this may well end in a total Russian defeat. Remember, this war is only seven months old and it is to a good degree a conventional war, with clearly-defined fronts and countries. By contrast, Iraq wasn't really a country in the conventional sense, just a "country" that the European powers had cobbled together that was held together by a dictatorship, so after Saddam fell, it collapsed. So the U.S. had to try to create a working country and defeat the terrorists. And then Afghanistan, again not a country in the normal sense and terrorists who are difficult to defeat in a conventional manner.

Whereas with this, Ukraine is very much a country with an established government and a very patriotic sense of self and very clear borders. Russia is also a country in this sense. However, Ukraine has the backing of the West while Russia is mostly isolated, and Ukraine now seems to now be winning against Russia and Russia's military seems to be reaching the end of its rope in terms of capabilities. The Ukrainians may well have permanently knocked them onto the defensive even. They can get some degree of supplies from China and Iran but only so much. Ukraine has destroyed and/or captured a tremendous amount of their tanks and trucks. And because of the artillery provided by the West, they have been able to keep hitting Russian supply depots and command posts, which inhibits the ability of the Russian artillery to operate (itself which probably has been a good deal worn out now as they've likely worn out the barrels greatly).

The Ukrainians dealt severe damage to what is supposed to have been the elite Russian tankers, tasked with defending Moscow and leading the charge against NATO forces in a war, 4th Guards Tank Division of 1st Guards Tank Army. 4th is supposed to have been the most elite division of the most elite tank army, and they just flat abandoned their equipment and ran away. Not even a fighting retreat at all, just ran. So I don't think the Russians are going to be able to hang on for any years-worth considering they're pulling up 45 year-old men and up now. Those people are going to be trained or equipped properly as they can't train or properly equip their supposedly professional forces.

Conflict has a weird way of surprising everyone. The problem is double edged.

-If Ukraine is outright victorious then how does Putin respond? I would suspect not in a rational manner.

-If the conflict ends up in a stale mate then how long can Russia and the west hold out support?

I’m optimistic but this conflict is going to result in a lot of losers with little gain on either side. The worst affected will be those that arise from the second and third order impacts. If Putin is overthrown - estimates are that an even more radical and dangerous successor will take his place. That will create even more long term problem sets for the current global order.

 

[Random8145]

Care to define that? Total Russian defeat means Zelensky stepping on Putin's neck in the halls of the Kremlin as he signs articles of unconditional surrender. I presume you mean something short of that.

By "total Russian defeat," I meant Russia gets totally kicked out of Ukraine, not Ukraine marches into Moscow and takes over.

 

[Random8145]

That's really not possible unless Ukraine manages to mount an offensive into Moscow and remove Putin and his inner circle of oligarchs from political power, which I don't think they're capable of doing.

Which means 'winning' for Ukraine is that Putin gets tired of pouring resources into the conflict and accepts a new status quo (also see: Afghanistan, Vietnam, the American Revolution, etc.).

Unlike Afghanistan, Vietnam, the American Revolution, etc...I do not think Putin has the resources to continually keep pouring into the conflict. This is much more a conventional war, not an unconventional war featuring a great conventional military power versus an insurgency using guerilla warfare. The Ukrainians are fighting the Russians with conventional warfare and kicking their butts.

 

[Random8145]

Conflict has a weird way of surprising everyone. The problem is double edged.

-If Ukraine is outright victorious then how does Putin respond? I would suspect not in a rational manner.

-If the conflict ends up in a stale mate then how long can Russia and the west hold out support?

I’m optimistic but this conflict is going to result in a lot of losers with little gain on either side. The worst affected will be those that arise from the second and third order impacts. If Putin is overthrown - estimates are that an even more radical and dangerous successor will take his place. That will create even more long term problem sets for the current global order.

If outright victorious, then hopefully Putin is kept somewhat in check by China, as they are his only real lifeline at the moment. The CCP is very conscientious of its public image, and I do not think they'd want to be seen as complicit in Putin say lobbing nukes into Ukraine. The Europeans can look the other way on China regarding Hong Kong, Tibet, Uyghurs, etc...but will not if nukes are going off in their backyard. Also the United States as well can hopefully keep him in check to some degree. I think what would happen is he'd be forced to come to the negotiating table.

If a stalemate, well the West can likely support longer than Russia and the United States probably definitely so, but with the winter coming, that is going to complicate things some if Europeans are freezing. I am really wondering how it could become a stalemate though because the Russian forces seem to be losing so much that they cannot replace, whereas the Ukrainians are continually getting more stuff. It will take some time for them to push the Russians out because they have to build up the appropriate supply lines and plan a proper attack and all that, then after a successful attack, they can only advance so far before having to stop to rest, recover, and replenish and rebuild their supply lines again. But seeing how only seven months in, the Russian military already seems to be getting pushed onto its last legs, I am optimistic. Of course a great mistake in military history is to assume the enemy is a spent force and then you get a major counter-attack, but usually that is with a skilled force suffering resource losses, not an incompetent force like the Russians.

Would have to disagree there will be little gain for either side. It seems, thus far, that with continued proper support, the Ukrainians can have tremendous gain. I agree with you that a more radical leader could possibly replace Putin, and so maybe the West shouldn't punish too badly (i.e. like Germany after WWI), but allow them to integrate back into the world economy.

 

[Brett327]

By "total Russian defeat," I meant Russia gets totally kicked out of Ukraine, not Ukraine marches into Moscow and takes over.

Yeah, I'd revise your terminology... you're going to confuse people about what you're saying.

 

[Hotdogs]

If outright victorious, then hopefully Putin is kept somewhat in check by China, as they are his only real lifeline at the moment. The CCP is very conscientious of its public image, and I do not think they'd want to be seen as complicit in Putin say lobbing nukes into Ukraine. The Europeans can look the other way on China regarding Hong Kong, Tibet, Uyghurs, etc...but will not if nukes are going off in their backyard. Also the United States as well can hopefully keep him in check to some degree. I think what would happen is he'd be forced to come to the negotiating table.

If a stalemate, well the West can likely support longer than Russia and the United States probably definitely so, but with the winter coming, that is going to complicate things some if Europeans are freezing. I am really wondering how it could become a stalemate though because the Russian forces seem to be losing so much that they cannot replace, whereas the Ukrainians are continually getting more stuff. It will take some time for them to push the Russians out because they have to build up the appropriate supply lines and plan a proper attack and all that, then after a successful attack, they can only advance so far before having to stop to rest, recover, and replenish and rebuild their supply lines again. But seeing how only seven months in, the Russian military already seems to be getting pushed onto its last legs, I am optimistic. Of course a great mistake in military history is to assume the enemy is a spent force and then you get a major counter-attack, but usually that is with a skilled force suffering resource losses, not an incompetent force like the Russians.

Would have to disagree there will be little gain for either side. It seems, thus far, that with continued proper support, the Ukrainians can have tremendous gain. I agree with you that a more radical leader could possibly replace Putin, and so maybe the West shouldn't punish too badly (i.e. like Germany after WWI), but allow them to integrate back into the world economy.

That is not how any of this works. You’re assuming Putin is a rational actor, and time an again he has shown that he is not. I know you’re trying to Clausewitz the shit out of this situation but there are to many variables. The PRC has little ability to control Putin. They actually gain from a reduced Russian global status in most means of national power.

Russians have never shown a penchant for the value of human life - especially so with their own military. The west has the attention span of a gnat and as precious 1st world problems mount - You will start to see dissent for continuing a war with nebulous relative gains for the western way of life. Simply put Russian state stability while sitting on 3000 nukes is probably slightly more important than adding a broken country into the EU. As much as I’d like to see Ukraine victorious - It is going to come with a hidden bill. I don’t know if Europe or America fully realizes that or is willing to pay (Either in lives or national treasure). But as long as it makes us feel good right?

 

[Random8145]

That is not how any of this works. You’re assuming Putin is a rational actor, and time an again he has shown that he is not. I know you’re trying to Clausewitz the shit out of this situation but there are to many variables. The PRC has little ability to control Putin. They actually gain from a reduced Russian global status in most means of national power.

Russians have never shown a penchant for the value of human life - especially so with their own military. The west has the attention span of a gnat and as precious 1st world problems mount - You will start to see dissent for continuing a war with nebulous relative gains for the western way of life. Simply put Russian state stability while sitting on 3000 nukes is probably slightly more important than adding a broken country into the EU. As much as I’d like to see Ukraine victorious - It is going to come with a hidden bill. I don’t know if Europe or America fully realizes that or is willing to pay (Either in lives or national treasure). But as long as it makes us feel good right?

Where/when has Putin behaved in an irrational manner? He seems pretty rational to me. He also has specifically stated that he cannot envision a world without Russia existing. He said the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster in history. He strikes me as 100% rational, a super Russian nationalist who has devoted his life to rebuilding the Russian state and empire. I think his invasion of Ukraine was 100% rational, just he did not realize the state of his own military, the Ukrainian military, and that the Ukrainians really do not want to be under Russian rule.

And yes I understand that the Russians have little regard for human life with their own military, but the issue is can they actually continue to fight. If they lose the ability to really field their military, then nonchalance about sending folks into a meat grinder becomes irrelevant.

I disagree that China has no influence over Putin. China is Putin's main lifeline right now. I do not see him wanting that to end. Yes China can benefit from a weaker Russia, but I cannot imagine them wanting to he seen as complicit in him lobbing nukes.

Also Ukrainian defeat of Russia does not have to mean Russian state instability. I agree problems involving standard of living in the West caused by the war will influence outcomes, but hopefully things will not become bad enough to do so.

 

[Random8145]

Yeah, I'd revise your terminology... you're going to confuse people about what you're saying.

"Total Russian defeat in Ukraine"...?

 

[Brett327]

"Total Russian defeat in Ukraine"...?

That’s not much better, frankly. Are you implying a return to pre 2014 Ukrainian territorial integrity? Be specific.

 

[Random8145]

That’s not much better, frankly. Are you implying a return to pre 2014 Ukrainian territorial integrity? Be specific.

Yes.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Yes.

Unlikely.

 

[taxi1]

That’s not much better, frankly. Are you implying a return to pre 2014 Ukrainian territorial integrity? Be specific.

It involves the lamentations of their women, I'm sure

 

[Hotdogs]

Where/when has Putin behaved in an irrational manner? He seems pretty rational to me. He also has specifically stated that he cannot envision a world without Russia existing. He said the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster in history. He strikes me as 100% rational, a super Russian nationalist who has devoted his life to rebuilding the Russian state and empire. I think his invasion of Ukraine was 100% rational, just he did not realize the state of his own military, the Ukrainian military, and that the Ukrainians really do not want to be under Russian rule.

And yes I understand that the Russians have little regard for human life with their own military, but the issue is can they actually continue to fight. If they lose the ability to really field their military, then nonchalance about sending folks into a meat grinder becomes irrelevant.

I disagree that China has no influence over Putin. China is Putin's main lifeline right now. I do not see him wanting that to end. Yes China can benefit from a weaker Russia, but I cannot imagine them wanting to he seen as complicit in him lobbing nukes.

Also Ukrainian defeat of Russia does not have to mean Russian state instability. I agree problems involving standard of living in the West caused by the war will influence outcomes, but hopefully things will not become bad enough to do so.

Rational actors do not threaten a disproportionate use of force that will undeniably end their government or threaten stability. Fermenting enemy role identities, fake security issues, elitist propaganda, and myths (E.g. Nazis, direct NATO involvement, US CBRN facilities in Ukr) aren’t part of rational discourse. Ukrainian preference prior to 2014 was split relatively 50/50 between US/EU and Russian alignment - even after the maidan protests. Invading Ukraine solidified Ukrainian national identity and created a predictable western response. If he had assessed western engagement since his annexation of Crimea in 2014 - he should’ve seen that coming (Hint: That’s when the US and Europe started providing military aid).

A rational actor would’ve predicted and adjusted accordingly. Identifying as a nationalist and invading a country doesn’t mean your rational - It’s just your means to an end. If you watched the televised edition of Putin interrogating his national security team on public television prior to the war start - You can tell he is not acting rationally.

China will not be seen as complicit with Russia. The EU and a good majority of the developed world were neutral or opposed during the US and UK intervention in Iraq (Amongst other interventions). The global political discourse did not blame the EU in the aftermath. Economics do not hold a consistent determinate factor in conflict.

If Russia is outright defeated in Ukraine there will
be massive political repercussions in Russia. Putin will have lost all credibility and most of his Army. He’s alienated portions of the FSB, wrecked the MoD, and strong armed the SVR. Depending on that shakes out - It could end in a very turbulent domestic struggle for power internal to the Russian government. You’re looking at this from a western point of view. The last time there was a contested transfer of power in Russia - tanks were firing rounds into government buildings in Moscow. Putin will depart “feet out” if this goes sideways. This is probably not going to end with the allied powers doing high fives, kissing women, ticker-tape parades, and a military parade through Kyiv. There will be repercussions across Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Levant, and Stan countries. I am not stating this is inevitable, but painting a rosy picture of the outcome is naive.

 

[Random8145]

Rational actors do not threaten a disproportionate use of force that will undeniably end their government or threaten stability. Fermenting enemy role identities, fake security issues, elitist propaganda, and myths (E.g. Nazis, direct NATO involvement, US CBRN facilities in Ukr) aren’t part of rational discourse. Ukrainian preference prior to 2014 was split relatively 50/50 between US/EU and Russian alignment - even after the maidan protests. Invading Ukraine solidified Ukrainian national identity and created a predictable western response. If he had assessed western engagement since his annexation of Crimea in 2014 - he should’ve seen that coming (Hint: That’s when the US and Europe started providing military aid).

None of that is rational from the standpoint of a liberal democracy, but I'd say it is fully rational from the standpoint of a dictatorship. Dictatorships always make these kinds of claims to counter the West. Look at China. They're always threatening to sink U.S. ships or this or that violence if the U.S. sails through the South China Sea or gives aid to Taiwan or whatnot, or recently lands Nancy Pelosi in Taiwan. It is rational because it is an attempt at a scare tactic. And given how the war is going for Putin, it is a rational move to try and break the Western alliance that is supporting Ukraine. I believe he did assess Western engagement and that this is part of why he attacked, to take control before Ukraine becomes too Western. But it seems his assessment of both his own and Ukrainian capabilities were as bad as ours (remember how originally it was said Kyiv would probably fall within 72 hours and Ukraine was toast if Russia invaded).

A rational actor would’ve predicted and adjusted accordingly. Identifying as a nationalist and invading a country doesn’t mean your rational - It’s just your means to an end. If you watched the televised edition of Putin interrogating his national security team on public television prior to the war start - You can tell he is not acting rationally.

With proper intelligence, yes, but given how the Russian state works, Putin's knowledge of his military was very bad and his knowledge of Ukraine's was bad and apparently of the Ukrainian acceptance of Russia was also very bad. I say invading Ukraine was rational because from the standpoint of a Russian nationalist, Ukraine is of supreme importance. It held I think around 70% of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. It has the most fertile agricultural soil in the world and was responsible for the majority of Soviet agricultural production. It is a major path through which to invade Russia. It gives access to a warm water port. From a Russian imperialist/nationalist view, it absolutely cannot be allowed to fall to the West. So in this sense, Putin's invasion strikes me as rational.

I will have to check out the video of him interrogating his security team.

China will not be seen as complicit with Russia. The EU and a good majority of the developed world were neutral or opposed during the US and UK intervention in Iraq (Amongst other interventions). The global political discourse did not blame the EU in the aftermath. Economics do not hold a consistent determinate factor in conflict.

The U.S. and U.K. going into Iraq is hugely different from if Russia starts lobbing nuclear weapons, especially into Western Europe's backyard. Also, the EU couldn't really do much to stop the U.S. from invading Iraq whereas China likely could do a lot to pressure Putin. I can't imagine China could just shrug and say, "Nothing we can do" in such a scenario.

If Russia is outright defeated in Ukraine there will
be massive political repercussions in Russia. Putin will have lost all credibility and most of his Army. He’s alienated portions of the FSB, wrecked the MoD, and strong armed the SVR. Depending on that shakes out - It could end in a very turbulent domestic struggle for power internal to the Russian government. You’re looking at this from a western point of view. The last time there was a contested transfer of power in Russia - tanks were firing rounds into government buildings in Moscow. Putin will depart “feet out” if this goes sideways. This is probably not going to end with the allied powers doing high fives, kissing women, ticker-tape parades, and a military parade through Kyiv. There will be repercussions across Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Levant, and Stan countries. I am not stating this is inevitable, but painting a rosy picture of the outcome is naive.

Oh I agree there and wasn't trying to imply that a defeat of Russia would be rosy. That's why I said if/when Russia is defeated, the West should not punish Russia too badly or else you could get a repeat of Germany in the 1930s. But respectfully, I think it is you yourself that has been looking at this from a Western point of view. Your idea of rational behavior seems to be based on what is rational to a Western mindset, not a Russian mindset.