Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, FourFans said:

 It's irrational that the US gets involved in redrawing everyone else's map over there. 

Does the power of the US promise on the international stage matter?  Yes.  THAT'S why we should be helping: Because we said we would.

I’m not a fan of getting involved with redrawing maps, and I’m also not a fan of spending hundreds of billions (really now trillions over the decades) of money that we don’t have to get involved or “help” people half a world away when we have people in need in our country.  This is what happens when people say we want to “help”—we get further in debt and get more involved with their politics (rarely does one happen without the other).  Eventually we’ll learn when our financial system gets much, much worse, but until then, too many people still want to “help”.

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, Standby said:

This is why “we” have not experienced true victory in a longggg time. Unrealistic goals. 

I'd say the last time we had realistic goals was Desert Storm.  However, being realistic and forcing our version of realistic on some other country are two different stories.  If we were invaded, we wouldn't quit until we restored borders.  We shouldn't expect the Ukrainians to do anything different.  Expecting otherwise would be unrealistic.  Is restored borders a possible outcome?  Yes.  Likely?  No.   Just recognizing the world as it is, not as I'd like it to be.  

Long story short 'we' as the US should have no input into the demanded outcome between two other warring nations on another continent without first understanding what the people on the continent want first.

Edited June 12, 2024 by FourFans

[1:1:1]

I think a little history from another corner of the world is useful here. Look up the Korean Armistice which ended the war on the Korean Peninsula in 1953. The signatories were the U.N. (really just a proxy for the U.S.), China and North Korea. South Korea never agreed to the Armistice because they considered it a failure to reunify the peninsula. The parallels between this and the current war in Ukraine are numerous, and a similar ending may be necessary for Ukrainian officials to save face.

[Lawman]

I think a little history from another corner of the world is useful here. Look up the Korean Armistice which ended the war on the Korean Peninsula in 1953. The signatories were the U.N. (really just a proxy for the U.S.), China and North Korea. South Korea never agreed to the Armistice because they considered it a failure to reunify the peninsula. The parallels between this and the current war in Ukraine are numerous, and a similar ending may be necessary for Ukrainian officials to save face.

South Korea had been a country for a grand total of 2 years at the beginning of that Conflict. And it had been ruled by Japan from 1910 to 1945.

Comparing that negotiated outcome to a conflict where the Ukrainians are solely the force on the ground conducting combat operations is at best a bad comparison for how things should be seen as necessary to negotiate ceasing of the conflict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bfargin]

At the risk of being labeled a Putin propagandist, Ukraine has been ruled/controlled by Russia since the 18th century and then by the USSR until very recently. Before that, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia alternatively controlled most of Ukraine throughout most of the 14th through 18th centuries. Using historical reasoning, the land belongs to Russia and should be turned back over to them. Any land Ukraine keeps should be considered a bonus to them(tongue in cheek).

I'm all for a Ukraine independent of Russia and think Russia shouldn't have invaded the nation they gave independence to. However we (NATO countries) are largely to blame for much of whats happening including Russia deciding we were continuing to FA and we needed to FO. I blame piss poor U.S. leadership and decision making (both covert and diplomatic interference) for much of what's going wrong around the world.

[Lawman]

At the risk of being labeled a Putin propagandist, Ukraine has been ruled/controlled by Russia since the 18th century and then by the USSR until very recently. Before that, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia alternatively controlled most of Ukraine throughout most of the 14th through 18th centuries. Using historical reasoning, the land belongs to Russia and should be turned back over to them. Any land Ukraine keeps should be considered a bonus to them(tongue in cheek).
I'm all for a Ukraine independent of Russia and think Russia shouldn't have invaded the nation they gave independence to. However we (NATO countries) are largely to blame for much of whats happening including Russia deciding we were continuing to FA and we needed to FO. I blame piss poor U.S. leadership and decision making (both covert and diplomatic interference) for much of what's going wrong around the world.

Yeah… it’s not our fault. NATO didn’t force him to do anything. He was never promised anything, and for that matter neither was Gorbachev. More to that point that when NATO did start expanding, there was permission given from the Russian government at the time in a quid pro quo exchange of billions in US currency to prop up its market economy (preventing another coup during the Yeltsin era), and agreements in time table that would be advantageous to both the Clinton and Yeltsin elections going that year.

We (UN Forces) were active Combatants in Korea having actually exceeded the original mandate to protect South Korea by then attempting to unify the country crossing north of the 38th, the internationally recognized border in an attempt to punitively unify the peninsula only to get pushed back south of it and lose Seoul a second time…. Retake it…. And end up in a stalemate mostly along the 38th for over a year. South Korea didn’t give any territory or make concessions to just not have Inchon or Sokcho be theirs anymore. We negotiated for a return to the original status quo.

We (UN/NATO) weren’t and aren’t active combatants in any of the territorial annexations through force that Russia has executed over the last two decades. A more apt comparison of what is being suggested now for a truce in this conflict in terms of a Korean War would be like the UN stabilizing the Pusan Perimeter for a while simultaneously having no combat casualties doing it, and then telling the ROK “ok this is the new South Korea, enjoy what we negotiated for you.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

At the risk of being labeled a Putin propagandist, 

However we (NATO countries) are largely to blame for much of whats happening including Russia deciding we were continuing to FA and we needed to FO.

Not trying to dogpile you.  This point keeps coming up, not just by you.

This seems to be following along with Mearsheimer's analysis of how "we" got to this point.  What this line of thinking omits is a strong defense of the counter factual.  Said another way, I think the idea that if NATO had not continued to grow post cold war, that Russa would not have done any of the stuff they've done in past 20 years is silly.  Putin considers the collapse of the Soviet Union the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.

Fundamentally, this line of thought is a serious case of main character syndrome.  All of that analysis contains the implicit assumption that all foreign affairs are essentially reactions to western (USA) action.  No one else has agency.  Which is completely at odds with one of his own key realism points; namely that all states will seek regional hegemony in order to secure their survival.  Russia has always been an expansionist empire.  They don't have defensible borders.

[Lawman]

Not trying to dogpile you.  This point keeps coming up, not just by you.
This seems to be following along with Mearsheimer's analysis of how "we" got to this point.  What this line of thinking omits is a strong defense of the counter factual.  Said another way, I think the idea that if NATO had not continued to grow post cold war, that Russa would not have done any of the stuff they've done in past 20 years is silly.  Putin considers the collapse of the Soviet Union the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.
Fundamentally, this line of thought is a serious case of main character syndrome.  All of that analysis contains the implicit assumption that all foreign affairs are essentially reactions to western (USA) action.  No one else has agency.  Which is completely at odds with one of his own key realism points; namely that all states will seek regional hegemony in order to secure their survival.  Russia has always been an expansionist empire.  They don't have defensible borders.

Also an important to point out that Meaesheimer’s viral video is getting a buttload of help from Russian assistance with their troll farms pumping the algorithm to keep it in view.

Weird how a video from 2015 somehow breaks out all of a sudden across social media (especially TilTok) around about the same time it’s useful for Russia to attempt operational impact by eroding support for Ukraine. Almost like they understand the information part of multi-domain warfare….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

20 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Also an important to point out that Meaesheimer’s viral video is getting a buttload of help from Russian assistance with their troll farms pumping the algorithm to keep it in view.

Weird how a video from 2015 somehow breaks out all of a sudden across social media (especially TilTok) around about the same time it’s useful for Russia to attempt operational impact by eroding support for Ukraine. Almost like they understand the information part of multi-domain warfare….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't put that much credit on the Russians here.  I have no doubt they're doing their information warfare thing, but Mearsheimer is a very big name in political science and he's vocal.  I don't think that video coming back up requires any nefarious action.

[Lawman]

I wouldn't put that much credit on the Russians here.  I have no doubt they're doing their information warfare thing, but Mearsheimer is a very big name in political science and he's vocal.  I don't think that video coming back up requires any nefarious action.

Oh I’m not saying he’s some paid KGB esque Russian actor, just a useful idiot (and an anti-Semitic piece of crap too).

Russia has just used his vocal stupidity and bonafides of his “credible historian” to amplify this narrative that it’s somehow NATOs fault. His quotes and statements mirror stuff on RT and other state run propaganda outfits and other sources have pointed out the dubious location all all the sudden like/subscribe/share of a lot of his more anti-NATO Russian apologists posts. There is definitely an effort to put his and similar opinions in front of as many people as possible to generate opposition to continued support to Ukraine in opposition to Russian intent.

Thats simply an Info War tactical (non kinetic) effort translating to operational and eventually strategic effects. And the fact so many people parrot it despite the fact that NATO didn’t go trying to expand, Poland and Hungry went looking to join to gain article V protection to their newly found sovereignty and made multiple efforts to attain it shows it’s been effective against a good size chunk of our population. Similar to that there was an early narrative in the war to show pictures of Ukrainians welcoming the German soldiers and talk about actions in WWII to say “see they are really Nazis” without including the context that after and the Stalin era the Ukrainians weren’t Nazis, they were simply desperate for survival. The Russians weren’t attempting to make the media out in space, just to control the caption of it and share it with as many people as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1:1:1]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

South Korea had been a country for a grand total of 2 years at the beginning of that Conflict. And it had been ruled by Japan from 1910 to 1945.

Comparing that negotiated outcome to a conflict where the Ukrainians are solely the force on the ground conducting combat operations is at best a bad comparison for how things should be seen as necessary to negotiate ceasing of the conflict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are important differences, as is always the case in historical comparisons. It is by no means a "bad comparison" though. Significantly: both Ukraine and Korea are countries that have been conquered by their neighbors for a couple thousand years. Both are or were threatened by their larger, more powerful neighbor. Neither would stand without U.S. support (which has a cost). Both would prefer to fight long after "victory" is a forgone conclusion.

At some point we have a right to decide that its not worth our blood and/or treasure to continue fighting a stalemate. While no Americans are dying, we have spent ~$160 billion in the last 2 years, or the equivalent of 20% of the annual DOD budget. That's enough money to buy 1,700 F-35s or 200 B-21s. Are we gaining something worth that cost? In 2022 I said yes. Now I'm not so sure. I'm open to being convinced though.

[Lawman]

There are important differences, as is always the case in historical comparisons. It is by no means a "bad comparison" though. Significantly: both Ukraine and Korea are countries that have been conquered by their neighbors for a couple thousand years. Both are or were threatened by their larger, more powerful neighbor. Neither would stand without U.S. support (which has a cost). Both would prefer to fight long after "victory" is a forgone conclusion.
At some point we have a right to decide that its not worth our blood and/or treasure to continue fighting a stalemate. While no Americans are dying, we have spent ~$160 billion in the last 2 years, or the equivalent of 20% of the annual DOD budget. That's enough money to buy 1,700 F-35s or 200 B-21s. Are we gaining something worth that cost? In 2022 I said yes. Now I'm not so sure. I'm open to being convinced though.

So now it’s blood AND/OR treasure now. But nobody ever wants to talk about time. I think in our lack of a LSCO in recent times we’ve forgiven that those wars are thought of in spans of years. Iraq was an anomaly. What were general staffs doing in April-July of 1945… figuring out what they wanted to do in 1946, because there was never an assumption the end of a conflict was just around the bend.

For less than 10% of the annual DOD budget because 811 billion per year is 80 billion annually in a 2.5 year of which ~60% of it went directly into building out our own stateside infrastructure and purchasing new stocks in exchange for old DRMO ones necessary to conduct LSCO in the evidence of expansionist policies from both our major opponents…

we managed to:

-Contribute to Russia losing something along the lines of 20% of its tactical Air power…
-Destroy 60-70% of its Gen III+ MBTs and later armored vehicles (4th guards was training with T62s last summer)…
-Neutralize every warship that would able to contest us or influence NATO territory with Calibr from the Black Sea or Baltic since that’s who they largely augmented with…
-field test a butt load of emergent tech and methods rather than learn them the hard way…

At the rate we are going between attrition in this war and NATO members moving to develop a real military across the continent we won’t need a 2 theatre military, because Russia won’t have one left to field offensively. This is the lowest return on investment in the history of our military spending.

And in the meantime we demonstrate to the Chinese who are watching “no you can’t just invade and hold while we lose our attention span on your annexation of a neighbor.” Yeah that’s a win worth far more than maybe a dozen more B21s 6 years from now provided somebody doesn’t reappropriate that money for other things because we forget great powers type war is still a real thing out there like we did through the 90s and early 00s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, bfargin said:

At the risk of being labeled a Putin propagandist, Ukraine has been ruled/controlled by Russia since the 18th century and then by the USSR until very recently. Before that, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia alternatively controlled most of Ukraine throughout most of the 14th through 18th centuries. Using historical reasoning, the land belongs to Russia and should be turned back over to them. Any land Ukraine keeps should be considered a bonus to them(tongue in cheek).

I'm all for an Ukraine independent of Russia and think Russia shouldn't have invaded the nation they gave independence to. However we (NATO countries) are largely to blame for much of whats happening including Russia deciding we were continuing to FA and we needed to FO. I blame piss poor U.S. leadership and decision making (both covert and diplomatic interference) for much of what's going wrong around the world.

You are spot on. 

[1:1:1]

15 hours ago, Lawman said:

So now it’s blood AND/OR treasure now. But nobody ever wants to talk about time. I think in our lack of a LSCO in recent times we’ve forgiven that those wars are thought of in spans of years. Iraq was an anomaly. What were general staffs doing in April-July of 1945… figuring out what they wanted to do in 1946, because there was never an assumption the end of a conflict was just around the bend.

For less than 10% of the annual DOD budget because 811 billion per year is 80 billion annually in a 2.5 year of which ~60% of it went directly into building out our own stateside infrastructure and purchasing new stocks in exchange for old DRMO ones necessary to conduct LSCO in the evidence of expansionist policies from both our major opponents…

we managed to:

-Contribute to Russia losing something along the lines of 20% of its tactical Air power…
-Destroy 60-70% of its Gen III+ MBTs and later armored vehicles (4th guards was training with T62s last summer)…
-Neutralize every warship that would able to contest us or influence NATO territory with Calibr from the Black Sea or Baltic since that’s who they largely augmented with…
-field test a butt load of emergent tech and methods rather than learn them the hard way…

At the rate we are going between attrition in this war and NATO members moving to develop a real military across the continent we won’t need a 2 theatre military, because Russia won’t have one left to field offensively. This is the lowest return on investment in the history of our military spending.

And in the meantime we demonstrate to the Chinese who are watching “no you can’t just invade and hold while we lose our attention span on your annexation of a neighbor.” Yeah that’s a win worth far more than maybe a dozen more B21s 6 years from now provided somebody doesn’t reappropriate that money for other things because we forget great powers type war is still a real thing out there like we did through the 90s and early 00s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair points, but most of those effects have already been achieved and I don't believe that our deterrence posture would be significantly hurt by reaching a negotiated peace that maintains the current line of actual control without conceding territorial claims. $80 bn annually is a lot of money and at some point it would be more useful modernizing our own forces instead of just dunking on Russia while our actual pacing threat grows stronger.

[Lawman]

Fair points, but most of those effects have already been achieved and I don't believe that our deterrence posture would be significantly hurt by reaching a negotiated peace that maintains the current line of actual control without conceding territorial claims. $80 bn annually is a lot of money and at some point it would be more useful modernizing our own forces instead of just dunking on Russia while our actual pacing threat grows stronger.

But see that’s the thing, we are getting accelerated modernization through support of Ukraine, the media sphere talking points just don’t support the space required to have that conversation.

ATACM and Bradley are being given to Ukraine under that financial dollar amount. That’s not to build the Ukrainians new equipment, we are divesting M2A2/3s that are still serviceable but near the end of life cycle and funding accelerated replacement of those stocks with A4s. 1st CAV will be the first unit to field A4s in an Armored Brigade Combat team about 2 years ahead of the original timeline for it, they are set to fall in on them returning from the EUCOM rotation they are on. Similarly ATACM isn’t being built to replace, the money funds PRISM.

Upgrades are absolutely happening, and at the cost of equipment and ordnance we were going to have to pay to DRMO. And while we can sit in an arbitration of negotiated peace, the people selling the inevitable collapse of Ukraine are ignoring a lot of reality on the battlefield. The Ukrainians now possess and are permitted to use weapons to shape the Corps and Division deep areas, which they didn’t have in hand during their summer offensive. If you’re going to conduct offensive ground operations and you don’t have an Air Force with established air superiority conducting interdiction that’s going to be a necessary capability (the other big problem being engineering). They just started pushing the Russians north of Vovchansk for example they are well north of the River which was their defensive line.

They can do that because they can shape the deep fight in a way they weren’t allowed too. Everybody screaming last summer about how come they don’t advance like us were largely ignoring or ignorant of that being something we would need to do if we were in their place. The artillery they did have last year was being used in direct support of their FLOT, which while effective at limiting casualties makes for slow movement to take the field from the opposing force because they can just feed in the strategic reserve.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stoker]

On 6/12/2024 at 8:40 PM, bfargin said:

At the risk of being labeled a Putin propagandist, Ukraine has been ruled/controlled by Russia since the 18th century and then by the USSR until very recently. Before that, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia alternatively controlled most of Ukraine throughout most of the 14th through 18th centuries. Using historical reasoning, the land belongs to Russia and should be turned back over to them. Any land Ukraine keeps should be considered a bonus to them(tongue in cheek).

Let's make sure to give the Russians back Finland, the Baltics, and Poland as well. They'll be turning over Kaliningrad in the exchange, of course... unless historical land claims only work one way? The US will be handing Texas and California back to Mexico, obviously, and the Kosovars need to get used to being massacred by Serbs on a daily basis. Historical ownership is the key to sovereignty, the will of the people be damned. /s

[BashiChuni]

3 hours ago, Lawman said:

 the people selling the inevitable collapse of Ukraine are ignoring a lot of reality on the battlefield.

oh the irony. but please pontificate how ukraine is winning on the battlefield. the path to victory must be just around the corner! soon they will recapture crimea!

also you made a very articulate argument about the re-capitalization of the US weapon stock. That's fine, but it's coming at the cost of tens of thousands of Ukranian lives. not worth it IMO.

Edited June 14, 2024 by BashiChuni

[brwwg&b]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/13/bilateral-security-agreement-between-the-united-states-of-america-and-ukraine/

Bilat Security Agreement signed

 

//

37 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

also you made a very articulate argument about the re-capitalization of the US weapon stock. That's fine, but it's coming at the cost of tens of thousands of Ukranian lives. not worth it IMO.

uh, do you assume those lives would be better off if they were unable to fight?

[BashiChuni]

oh great another agreement to defend a country we have no vital interest in. what could go wrong?

those lives are fighting a unwinnable war and are simply pawns in the cold, calculated neo-con game

[brwwg&b]

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

those lives are fighting a unwinnable war and are simply pawns in the cold, calculated neo-con game

Let's skip over your assertion of "unwinnable" : assume that not everyone believes that (Ukrainians, most significantly)

If you believed in your nation, culture, freedoms, and independence, would you suggest that the people should fight to preserve those, possibly losing their lives? Or, would you suggest they roll over to tyranny and oppression of an invading nation?

 

I do agree that currently there is no vital interest in Ukraine - this is why we haven't gone to war there. However, what do you think the vital interests of the U.S. are in regards to Russia?

[BashiChuni]

5 hours ago, brwwg&b said:

Let's skip over your assertion of "unwinnable" : assume that not everyone believes that (Ukrainians, most significantly)

If you believed in your nation, culture, freedoms, and independence, would you suggest that the people should fight to preserve those, possibly losing their lives? Or, would you suggest they roll over to tyranny and oppression of an invading nation?

 

I do agree that currently there is no vital interest in Ukraine - this is why we haven't gone to war there. However, what do you think the vital interests of the U.S. are in regards to Russia?

no we can't skip that part. what is winning to you? do you think ukraine (at a 10:1 manpower/equipment disadvantage) can defeat Russia and push them out? i don't. the average age of a front line ukranian soldier is 43! there has been no evidence on the battlefield. so what's your win look like?

 

i have respect and admiration for ukraine fighting for their country. i'd do the same thing. but from my perspective as an American, we have nothing to gain entering this conflict. ukraine is not a north-atlantic treaty country. should we intervene in every conflict across the globe?

 

in respect to US interests to russia, i'd say we are harming our interests by "isolating" russia. it's not really isolating, in reality we are pushing them closer to the chinese. multi-polar world is here and continuing to ignore that reality won't change it. was russia a threat to us before ukraine? remember in 2012 when mitt romney was resoundingly mocked by the media/democrats when he said russia was our biggest threat? i do.

the side screaming putin is the next hitler certainly didn't fear putin 10 years ago. so what changed? now if you argue that putin will march on paris after ukraine i will simply disagree with you. he has shown no desire or capability to do that.

 

"the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, the cold war has been over for 20 years!" - obama 2012

 

Edited June 14, 2024 by BashiChuni

[brwwg&b]

Winning looks like conflict not spilling outside of the region of Ukraine, and end states negotiated (by politics or by power) with Ukraine in a position of influence over outcome, not Russia.

Can Ukraine win in a trench warfare slog? No! Can they outsize impact through leveraging technological asymmetry and prowess to overcome manpower disadvantage? Yes! Especially if they stop being artificially cuffed, which is the latest positive trend, and again where a lot of bang for our buck is occurring. As well, the less publicly discussed positive impact on our own industry and stockpiles being refreshed/renewed with modern tech versions.

Should we intervene if every conflict globally? Certainly not. However, you're a much more isolationist minded person than I am, and it's definitely not a one-size-fits-all answer to say "Not NATO? Good luck on your own!" Distinction between the N-K region, Sudan, variety of NW Africa, etc...vs Ukraine being invaded by our recognized #2 competitor is necessary. You are acting as though we are preparing sending troops to go slog it in the trenches alongside...a far cry from the positive benefit our $ and equipment is supporting the Ukrainians to fight on their own. If your primary argument is to penny-pinch a budget, I'd suggest you take a step back, take in the bigger picture on our own budget woes, and start elsewhere.

No problem with a multipolar world, it provides more opportunity for stability than a king of the hill unipolar or constant push-pull of a bipolar world. Russia alignment becoming more close with China will be an outcome of necessity and they certainly won't be the power end of that stick...not a result of our "isolation" of Russia, not directly at least. Remind me what curtailed Russia's status as a NATO Partnership for Peace member, and the NATO-Russia Council?

Cool throwback. Do you honestly believe in 2012 that Al Qaeda was a larger threat to the U.S. national interests than Russia? I'm not here to make political sides arguments. Were things handled perfectly in 2014? Certainly not, but it was an indicator of the longer term and put into motion many of the things that have ultimately helped Ukraine in their current conflict. Sure, Putin won't make it to Paris (nor desire to) - but how far will you let him go in attempting to restore Soviet Union borders before intervention is required? Again, much better to do it with $ and equipment doing literally what it was designed to, against the adversary it was designed for vice committing bodies. Unchecked behavior emboldens and repeats at larger scales.

 

[raimius]

In the end, Ukraine will likely have to either give up some territory or at least agree to not fight for their remaining claims (likely Crimea).  That can only happen after both Ukraine  and Putin decide the cost of further fighting isn't worth it.  As we have seen, Putin isn't afraid to have people die for him.  He might reconsider if further fighting is likely to reduce Russia's/his power.  That might happen if Ukraine can keep inflicting losses at a high rate for the foreseeable future.

[Smokin]

Putin isn't afraid to have people die for him, but he is afraid of losing power.  So far he has looked at this as a pride issue and won't back down because he might not look invincible.  Problem is, he invaded a smaller country and hasn't won, so his people are already seeing that maybe he isn't as powerful as he thinks he is. 

That is absolutely true of the west.  I don't think anyone thought that the war would last more than about six weeks, let alone multiple years.  And many have looked at Russia as a never ending horde of people to throw into the front lines.  Russia may have a population that is 4x that of Ukraine, but Russia started emptying prisons a long time ago and Ukraine just started.  Also, Russia is sending troops to war while Ukraine is fighting at home.  I would think that you'd have a much larger percentage of the population able and willing to fight on your home turf.  Then add in the casualty ratio and I'm not sure it's so certain that Russia will be able to hold out for years longer as some seem to think.  It will be interesting to see what happens inside Russia as this continues to drag out.  Even if Putin doesn't care, families do.  And even if that doesn't make it to his level, the economic cost of the shrinking population (was already shrinking before) has to be nearly crippling.

[raimius]

Depending on how bad the losses continue to be.  Russia might "win" itself into near irrelevance (not total, as they have a metric #$&@ ton of nukes).   China probably doesn't mind, though.