This is elevated from comments, by Purple Library Guy.
Picked up and posted on the front page because it’s a balanced assessment. No, Russia isn’t losing, and it’s interesting that so much Western media is suggesting it is. That said, Russia isn’t having everything its way either. – Ian
As to the current war, Russia is winning, but I’d have to say I don’t think they’re real happy with how it’s going. The damage Ukraine is doing to Russia is real, the damage they’re doing to Russian logistics in Crimea is serious and could lead to a Ukrainian offensive with some success in that area. They have had some success in counterattacks in Zaporozhia. Drones have allowed them to hang tough on the defensive for far longer than they could have without that huge technological shift on the battlefield. It is not going all Russia’s way, or how the Russian high command would prefer it to be going. They’d really prefer all that stuff wasn’t happening.
But that said, Russia has nonetheless done FAR more damage to Ukraine and the Ukrainian armed forces than Ukraine has done to them. At the moment, Ukraine and Russia are attacking each other with similar amounts of long-distance drones, but Russia has much better defenses so does not get actually hit with as many. Still more than they’d like, but not as many. But on top of that, Russia is still doing damage with bombs dropped from planes, missiles, and even some old fashioned artillery. Ukraine doesn’t have much of any of that. They do have some missiles, mostly from the Brits, but not in comparable numbers. Where Russia has lost serious logistics capability in one place on the front, Ukraine’s logistics and military capabilities and manufacturing have been seriously eroded over the whole country.
And the attrition at the military level continues at a solid pace. Some hackers claim to have gotten hold of Ukrainian casualty numbers; apparently 2.4 million Ukrainian troops dead or missing, 400,000 of which are from so far this year. I don’t think Ukraine is replacing troops at a rate of 400,000 per half-year. Already I hear some sections of the front are held almost entirely by a few drone squads. At some point men, materiel and/or logistics erode to the point where sections of the front just can’t be held. Probably if they mount a serious counterattack around Crimea, that just accelerates the time when that happens, even if the counterattack is tactically successful.
As to a possible more direct war between Europe and Russia . . . I think they would find themselves dealing with the same problem Russia has, only much worse. Drones favour the defense massively at the level of taking territory. In such a war, Russia would be on the defensive, and Europe would be getting creamed by drones as they tried to advance. The difference being that Russia is fundamentally much stronger than Ukraine, and so the drone revolution on the battlefield can drastically slow the Russian win but cannot in the end stop it. Whereas Europe is not fundamentally much stronger than Russia in military matters, and so trying to take the offensive against a Russia with, now, much more experience in drone warfare than Europe, would lead to European armies being fed into a meat-grinder. And I don’t think Europe has the stones or the unity to keep up an aggressive war of attrition for all that long once the casualties start mounting up.
This is a very good thing, because if Europe attacked Russia and Russia felt really threatened, there would be a nuclear war and we would all die. It really creeps me out that hardly anyone seems to notice this problem any more.
Dan Lynch
Agree with this essay, and will only repeat what I have said about this war from day one — that Russia can surely win the war, but it’s not clear how Russia will win peace. Imagine if the politicians signed a peace treaty tomorrow, yet Western backed neo-Nazis who did not buy into the surrender continued to launch drone attacks on Russia, or continued shelling, etc.. Does anyone trust the West to honor a peace agreement? Does anyone believe neo-Nazis will abandon their ideology? The humiliation of losing a war may stoke resentment that leads to more hatred, not less.
A lasting peace will require addressing the issues that instigated the conflict. I’m not saying Russia was wrong to go to war, because Russia was backed into a corner with no good options, but I will say that military success alone is not going to resolve the conflict. This may turn out to be one of those cultural feuds that continues for several generations, with encouragement from Western governments who have their own agenda.
spud
of course the situation today was mostly avoidable. as i predicted, the military advantage window is getting ever more shorter by the day under the technology that started in earnest in the 1890’s.
look how fast tanks and planes on both sides were developed during WWI.
Putin should have known this by the beginning of the third year. the third year ukraine was doomed. that was the time to unleash massive force.
instead Putin dithered, looking bewildered, blubbering on about international law after one red line after another, was obliterated. asking why the west is so irrational, hoping for some sign russia will become part of the club.
lenin knew better.
———-
The West’s relationship with Russia has been complex and fluctuating, with periods of both cooperation and tension. While there have been efforts to engage Russia, significant historical events and differing political ideologies have often led to conflict and mistrust.
UK Parliament University of Oxford
The relationship between Russia and the West has been marked by significant fluctuations, characterized by both cooperation and conflict. While there have been attempts to engage Russia, historical events and differing political ideologies have often led to mistrust.
Collapse of the USSR (1991): This event was expected to be a turning point, potentially leading to improved relations. However, the anticipated rapprochement did not materialize, and tensions resurfaced.
NATO Expansion: The expansion of NATO has been a contentious issue. While some Russian leaders, like Boris Yeltsin, initially accepted NATO’s enlargement, subsequent leaders, including Vladimir Putin, have expressed strong opposition, viewing it as a threat.
Conflicts in Ukraine: The West’s support for Ukraine during conflicts has further strained relations. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 marked a significant escalation, leading to widespread condemnation from Western nations.
Negative Sentiment: Public opinion in Russia has shown a growing resentment towards the West, with a significant majority expressing negative views of the United States and the European Union. For instance, in early 2015, 81% of Russians viewed the U.S. negatively.
Influence of Propaganda: Anti-Western propaganda has intensified, particularly following the crisis in Ukraine, contributing to a broader sense of animosity.
While there have been moments of potential cooperation, the West’s relationship with Russia has often been fraught with challenges. Historical grievances, ideological differences, and recent conflicts have shaped a complex dynamic that continues to evolve.
UK Parliament ecfr.eu
The West has attempted to invade Russia multiple times throughout history, with notable invasions by Napoleon and Hitler both resulting in significant failures due to harsh winter conditions and effective Russian resistance. These historical attempts have contributed to ongoing tensions between Russia and Western nations.
The Archive History is Now Magazine
The West has made several notable attempts to invade and conquer Russia throughout history. These invasions have often ended in failure, primarily due to the harsh winter conditions and strong resistance from the Russian people.
Major Invasions
Year Invader Outcome
1812 Napoleon Bonaparte Failed; harsh winter and guerrilla tactics led to massive losses.
1941 Nazi Germany Failed; Operation Barbarossa faced severe logistical issues and winter conditions.
Harsh Winter Conditions: The Russian winter is notorious for its severity, which has historically thwarted invading armies. Both Napoleon and Hitler underestimated the impact of the cold on their troops.
Effective Resistance: The Russian military and civilian population employed effective guerrilla tactics and scorched-earth strategies, making it difficult for invaders to maintain supply lines and morale.
Geographical Challenges: Russia’s vast size and varied terrain complicate military logistics, making it challenging for invaders to sustain a prolonged campaign.
These historical invasions have shaped Russia’s national identity and contributed to ongoing tensions with Western nations. The failures of past attempts to conquer Russia serve as a reminder of the resilience of its people and the challenges posed by its environment.
Wikipedia History is Now Magazine
Lenin believed that the West had historically attempted to invade and conquer Russia, which influenced his revolutionary ideology and policies. He viewed these invasions as a significant factor in shaping Russia’s political landscape and the need for a strong, unified socialist state.
Wikipedia Medium
Lenin’s Perspective on Western Invasions
Lenin recognized that the West had a long history of attempting to invade and conquer Russia. This historical perspective significantly influenced his revolutionary ideology and policies. He believed that these invasions were not just military actions but part of a broader pattern of Western aggression against Russia.
Impact on Revolutionary Ideology
Need for Unity: Lenin argued that the historical invasions underscored the necessity for a strong, unified socialist state in Russia. He believed that only through socialism could Russia defend itself against external threats.
Political Landscape: The invasions shaped the political landscape of Russia, leading to a sense of urgency for revolutionary change. Lenin viewed the establishment of a socialist government as essential for national security and sovereignty.
Lenin’s awareness of Western attempts to conquer Russia played a crucial role in his approach to governance and revolution. He sought to create a resilient state capable of resisting foreign domination through the principles of Marxism and Leninism.
Wikipedia
—————-
and of course, lenin was right. even after the one two punch of russias bill clinton/obama moment, gorbechev and yeltsin, russia’s government has managed to hold onto about 80% of its economy.
that 80%, has way way out innovated and produced the west which is run by towering intellectual mental midgets.
the midgets know this, and are hell bent to reverse the mess they made for all of this, by taking iran, russia, china and north korea out.
iran has proven there is a window, but they better know how short it is. putin is simply bewildered, and Xi is smug about it, he thinks he can beat them at the economic game.
but behind every trade, or free trade scheme, there is the point of a gun in the end.
Like & Subscribe
One word. Warmonger. If you support Putin’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, you are a warmonger. Embrace it. Wear that characterization proudly rather than denying it.
Using the twisted logic applied to determine that Russia is winning the illegal war against Ukraine, perhaps Iran will be kind enough to attack key strategic infrastructure in D.C. and elsewhere deep in the heart of America so Trump can use that to claim he is winning America’s and Israel’s illegal war of aggression against Iran because nothing says you’re winning better than having your refineries and weapons manufacturing plants blown up.
Fyi, if anyone needs a job, Russia is accepting all applicants willing to work. Putin has bragged Russia’s unemployment rate is less than zero. The economy is booming. Missile factories are going up left and right. Russia is tantamount to a gas station with nukes but out of gas.