Putin's Donbass offensive faltering

[archives]

Putin has already lost this war, since his stated goal at the outset was to capture Kyiv and to oust and replace Zalenskyy's "Nazi" government.

Putin has strengthened NATO, isolated Russia, and put Russia on track to be a fading second rate 21st century economic and military power.

It's possible he believes the only way to maintain power is to put Russia on a permanent war footing, which would be the excuse he needs to maintain a permanent autocratic police state cut off from the west and it's 'decadent' influences.

As we all know, Putin changes his goals by the day, it means nothing to the Russian people, and they are the ones supporting him

He, along with Biden's efforts, has strengthened NATO and in doing so the power of the Western Democracies, but as long as Russia has oil and nukes, they'll never be a second rate military nor economic power.

And I can see him doing exactly what you think, a permanent war footing, an us verses them world to sell the Russians people, we've seen politicians in our own country employ a similar strategdy to maintain political relevance

 

[ExpressLane]

That would be a massive victory for Zalenskyy and a humiliation for Putin. Putin's stated goal was to capture Kyiv and remove the drug addled Nazi government

Yep. Putin needs and of ramp . He is a Strongman and if he loses, his grip on power in Russia may loosen.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Russia’s offensive in eastern Ukraine appears to be faltering, as its troops suffer battlefield losses and logistical and morale problems similar to those they faced in the war’s first phase, Western officials and analysts say.

As Russian efforts to encircle Ukrainian troops in the east by attacking from three sides seemed to stall in recent days, Ukrainians managed to retake a small town near the northern city of Kharkiv. Russia was relying on artillery to pound Ukrainian forces along the 300-mile-long eastern front, but it only managed to make incremental gains, a senior Pentagon official said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/30/world/ukraine-russia-war-news.amp.html

And that fucking traitor moon wets panties.

 

[ExpressLane]

Soldiers for hire are not an affective means of holding onto cities that have been captured, they may be good for the initial battles, but not the long haul.

He has been doing just that for 8 years now. i

 

[Cypress]

As we all know, Putin changes his goals by the day, it means nothing to the Russian people, and they are the ones supporting him

He, along with Biden's efforts, has strengthened NATO and in doing so the power of the Western Democracies, but as long as Russia has oil and nukes, they'll never be a second rate military nor economic power.

And I can see him doing exactly what you think, a permanent war footing, an us verses them world to sell the Russians people, we've seen politicians in our own country employ a similar strategdy to maintain political relevance

The world notices the goal shifting even when the peasant in Siberia doesn't. Putin's carefully crafted image as a cagey winner is put at grave risk.

Their conventional military has been shown to be a paper tiger.

Europe has woken up to the fact that Putin cannot be trusted, and they are going to transition away from Russian oil and gas. Since Russia is a hydrocarbon based economy, that will definitely hurt their economy big time
As it is, I do not think the Russian GDP is any bigger than Spain's. As Europe weans off Russian oil, Russia will be on a trajectory to being a third rate economic power.

I do not think the perfect storm is in place yet for Putin to be removed in the near term, but Navalny's people claim Putin is weaker than most in the west believe. It might take a while.

 

[Phantasmal]

He has been doing just that for 8 years now. i

Yes, with pro Russian locals, not foreign fighters, and the area he’s trying to hold will be larger and harder to maintain.

 

[ExpressLane]

Yes, with pro Russian locals, not foreign fighters, and the area he’s trying to hold will be larger and harder to maintain.

Like I said I think he will pull back but continue to fight with proxies. Putin already has mercenaries in Ukraine.

 

[archives]

It took several years for America to turn decisively against the Iraq War. The architect of the war, Bush, even won reelection in 2004. There is always a rally around the flag effect up front.

One thing we know for sure: The ill advised Afghan War was one of the nails in the coffin of the Soviet government

But it is not our flag involved in the Ukraine, and we are already seeing beginning signs of questioning out backing of the Ukraine in the US

As De Tocqueville commented centuries ago, the way to beat a democracy in war is to wait them out

 

[archives]

The world notices the goal shifting even when the peasant in Siberia doesn't. Putin's carefully crafted image as a cagey winner is put at grave risk.

Their conventional military has been shown to be a paper tiger.

Europe has woken up to the fact that Putin cannot be trusted, and they are going to transition away from Russian oil and gas. Since Russia is a hydrocarbon based economy, that will definitely hurt their economy big time
As it is, I do not think the Russian GDP is any bigger than Spain's. As Europe weans off Russian oil, Russia will be on a trajectory to being a third rate economic power.

I do not think the perfect storm is in place yet for Putin to be removed in the near term, but Navalny's people claim Putin is weaker than most in the west believe. It might take a while.

I would hope you are right, but don't see it, Russians have always supported autocratic leaders, all of their historical figures were bastards, yet the Russians erected statutes to them, Putin is no different

Putin still has nukes, and the ability to deliver them, that alone makes him a serious threat

And the oil is another example, to help them move off of Russian oil, which the Russians can sell to India and China instead, the US has going to have to export oil to Europe, which the oil companies will gladly do at higher costs, there and here, Americans aren't going to be happy with that development

Most views on Putin's status, and the war, are from Westerners, and as I've said, those in Russia have a whole different understanding of events

 

[Cypress]

But it is not our flag involved in the Ukraine, and we are already seeing beginning signs of questioning out backing of the Ukraine in the US

As De Tocqueville commented centuries ago, the way to beat a democracy in war is to wait them out

Outside of the pro-Putin MAGA contingent, what national politicians are saying we should stop helping Ukraine? I genuinely curious because I haven't seen it.

I am sure public interest in the Soviet Afghan war waned through the 1980s, but the level of American support for the tribal fighters seem to have been pretty sustained for 8 years.

 

[Walt]

I think it will be stalemate and the war will drag on for years.

The Ukrainians have the will for total warfare for years. It will be ugly, but they are defending their homes, and will do what it takes.

Do the Russians? A bad sign is Putin is putting anyone who even says the word "war" in prison. Would they be willing to put all their economic production, and send all their young men to Ukraine for a war when they cannot even say the word?

Putin is going to need a truce at some point. That is a weakness. His strength is he is killing Ukrainian civilians, but Ukrainians are not killing Russian civilians. Where the middle point that will get him the truce is unknown at this point.

 

[Walt]

Hate to say it, but I don't see it, sadly

Russia has military superiority, attrition will wear down the Ukraine. Being an autocrat, Putin is in no hurry, knowing nothing regardless of cost or criticism is going to distract him from his objective. Concurrently, he also knows that the likelihood that the Western Democracies will at some point lose interest in the Ukraine is a real possibility, already beginning in the U.S., so time is on his side

Attrition is wearing down the Ukrainians a lot more than the Russians. But the Ukrainians are willing to put more skin in the game than the Russians.

North Vietnam used almost all their economy for the war. They sent down south huge numbers of young men who never returned. They sustained horrible bombing. But they were committed to total war, and even with all that attrition, came back stronger.

The USA had slightly higher taxes, and had to draft half a million people a year for a year long tour of Vietnam. Casualties from that war were much less than 1%. The American homeland was untouched by the actual war.

Even with the much worse attrition of North Vietnam, who folded first?