Ukraine is fighting with the open support of pretty much every advanced military in the developed world. They've got armed drones from Turkey, Javelins from the US/UK, the freaking EU of all organizations is saying they'll send them fighter jets. Even Germany is sending weapons.
Combine that with the apparent intense Ukrainian morale and Russian military incompetence/lack of will, Ukraine winning is not entirely out of the question. Even if they lose they seem fully prepared to commit to an insurgency, which given said international support and direct borders with NATO would be the best equipped insurgency in history.
Never mind the potential effects of the sanctions, which are truly massive in scope.
Ukraine could very well be the rock that breaks Russia's teeth.
I think we underestimate how much this matters to Russia. They might indeed feel there is an existential threat to them (the elites, not Russia the country), if they let the countries on their periphery join EU/NATO, and become democracies, what guarantees do they have that it won't happen in Russia, and that a day of reckoning won't come for them for looting the motherland?
And given the relative weakness demonstrated by the west in recent history (such as abandoning Afghanistan) they might judge that in the end, the rest of world won't have the stomach for any costly intervention.
Sending the weapons to Ukraine amounts to little, in the face of overwhelming Russian military advantage. Given the likely goal of establishing pro-Russian government in Ukraine, and the long history of association, Russian forces are being rather "gentle" compared to what they demonstrated elsewhere, but if it comes to it... Ukraine cannot win without real support (as in boots on the ground) from the west, and nobody wants to contemplate that.
> Sending the weapons to Ukraine amounts to little, in the face of overwhelming Russian military advantage.
The difference in number of troops isn't as important as it seems numerically if the Russian morale and training is as low as it seems it might be based on reports on western media (which could be iffy).
The difference in equipment isn't as important if it can't make it into Ukraine. Here's where anti-air and anti-tank weapons make a big difference. So far, it seems like Russia hasn't been able to take control of airfields, and anti-air weapons help contest air superiority. Russia also seems to have trouble with supply lines, anti-tank weapons work against tanks as well as armored transport vehicles.
Urkaine has an easier job here, repelling an occupation is easier than waging one. If they keep high morale and continue to have access to effective weaponry, this is going to be costly for Russia's military. (As it was for Russia and the US in Afghanistan)
Perhaps Russia is playing soft, and will turn up the heat, but perhaps they miscalculated with regard to what they could achieve.
Did sending weapons to Afghanistan amount to little, in the face of the overwhelming Russian military advantage? And Ukraine is a lot closer (physically and culturally), and the support a lot more open, than Afghanistan.
As for the Russian Oliagarchs, if their concern was eventual revolution in Russia it looks like they may have just brought that day closer rather than pushed it out. They clearly weren't expecting a response of this magnitude, the question is when they choose to cut their losses.
I don't think Ukraine will win a normal war against Russia, but will have to shift to more guerrilla warfare soon. But on the other hand, is Putin willing to occupy, likely for years, the second largest country of Europe with a population of 44 million to keep the established pro-Russian government actually in power? So far, it doesn't look like Ukrainians would just accept a puppet president, even if all the mayor cities would have been taken.
I have been thinking along the same lines. Who would actually want to run this pro Russia puppet regime? How many Ukrainians would recognize it as their government? Will the rest of the world ever want to do business with such a regime?
Northern Cyprus has been in a limbo since the 1970s.
For me the only somewhat rational explanation is, that the Kremlin did indeed expect the take over to be faster than the west can agree on their reaction. Like the Taliban taking back Afghanistan with little to now resistance and the president sitting on the first plane out. I can believe that them calling it a military special operation instead of war wasn't just propaganda, but what they thought it was going to be. I'm pretty certain if the war would have been already over, before sanctions were agreed upon, they would have been much tamer. And while yes, everyone would be mad at Putin it wouldn't take too long for things to go back to business as usual. But due to the Ukrainians fighting like hell for their country, I don't really see what "winning" for Putin would look like at this point, even if he takes over all of Ukraine.
I think that's also a key point of difference between the Afghanistan takeover by the Taliban, and the Ukrainian invasion. Afghanistan was an internal struggle, and an Afghan wasn't really enthusiastic about killing a fellow Afghan, even if he was a Taliban member. Hence why that was a relatively bloodless coup. On the other hand, the Russian army is essentially looked upon by Ukrainians as a modern reincarnation of the Soviet army, rather than as Slavic brothers in hands. The fact that Putin may have chosen to overlook this glaringly obvious difference between the two conflicts makes me wonder how flawed his on-the-ground intelligence must be. The irony, considering his KGB background.
Not sure what your point is. The Iraq invasion was 19 years ago, and the US still haven't withdrawn all their troops. Is Putin willing to have parts of his army occupy Ukraine for a timespan such as this?
Ukraine was a threat to their natural gas sales not their existence. Russia already went after most of their off shore oil reserves, and made several companies pull out of internal development.
RF military advantage is not overwhelming. RF sent 150k Russians against 280k Ukrainians with years of experience of war + volunteers. RF has more planes, but Ukraine has better air defense. RF has more tanks, but Ukraine has more anti-tank weapons.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are already NATO members (since 2004 - smack in the middle of Putin's first stint as president of Russia).
Georgia, like Ukraine was (as at the beginning of the invasion) formally recognised as aspiring to membership. Are we then to assume that 'Georgia is next'?
With respect to Afghanistan - its worth a reminder that the Americans were not the first to abandon Afghanistan [0].
But I agree that nobody wants to contemplate "real support"/boots-on-the-ground for Ukraine. But that is precisely what the west via NATO will have to do. The outcome of the current war is as much an existential threat to NATO (and to a lesser extent the EU) as it is to Putin's leadership.
- holding out long enough, if it depleets Russia of resources ( aided with sanctions)
- internal protests in Russia ( considering huge amount of relatives on both sides), that goes out of control - I don't know if this is realistic though. But I think the relative factor between those countries ( family members) can outwit the propaganda factor
Those Ukranians are though as hell though. I'm sure we are seeing a more 'positive' side of them ( if that's possible in a war), but they aren't backing down. Uttermost respect for their president too. He seems to have a deep understanding of how he can reach the world.
There's the third option, which is that the Russian elites simply murder Putin and use his corpse to blame Russia's problems on, not unlike Stalin and the post-Stalin denunciations.
I am going to be shocked if it doesn't come out that Poland didn't at least send some consultants in to discuss guerilla tactics.
My friend in college was a son of Polish dissidents. He didn't like to talk about it in too much depth but I got some impressions, and it sounds like his granddad was one of those people in the movie they made recently about the Polish resistance hiding in the woods during the Cold War.
Count on quite some NATO boots on the ground. Consultants, advisors, observers, US Special Forces (propably wearing Ukrainian uniforms and speaking perfectly Russian and Ukrainian), observation hardware (what better occasion to gather real life data of Russian hardware and doctrinecan there be...). After all, the timing of the attack might have been a surprise, that the attack will come was almost certain for years.
> the freaking EU of all organizations is saying they'll send them fighter jets
For clarity, and despite Macron's urgings, the EU doesn't yet have an air force it can send anywhere.
It does have the Common Security and Defence Policy[0]:
"The CSDP involves the deployment of military or civilian missions to preserve peace, prevent conflict and strengthen international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. Military missions are carried out by EU forces established with secondments from the member states' armed forces"
They appear to have said [1] they'll supply (finance + deliver) aircraft (which presumably the Ukrainians have the expertise to operate, per [2]). They have not said they'll send in an air force (operated by non-Ukrainians), which as you point out, they don't yet have.
There are remaining MiG operators in Central and Eastern Europe. These planes have been converted to use NATO armament and they're being phased out anyway. Ukrainian pilots are already accustomed to using them. The EU could use resilience funds to buy F16, F35 or Saab Gripens for the former MiG operators. Some of these are already F16 or Saab Gripen operators.
Ukraine has no access to the air at this point anyways. I don't see this as plausible. No airports are secured, and Russia dominates the airspace right now. Even if NATO sends planes, how will they be transported there? And how will they establish a base of operations?
Depending on the model of Mig, they could operate from a hastily constructed dirt air strip. US-made fighters not so much. Not sure about Gripens.
I can't speak to the state of Russian air superiority at the moment, it could be that there are gaps/The Ukrainian air force hasn't been destroyed yet.
But even if as an idea it doesn't work out, the fact that the "peace project" organization, whose members visibly wept over the UK leaving, is coordinating the delivery of military hardware to a non-member for use in an active conflict should speak volumes about the level of support Ukraine is getting.
My guess is they'll initially sortie from Romania, maintaining IFF silence for plausible deniability, while a coordinated strike with man-and-vehicle portable SAMs retakes enough airspace in the western part of the country to support further operations.
What will happen is basically what's happening now, regardless of the occupation status or any supposed "victory" conditions defined by Russia. Arms and ammunition will flow into Ukraine via its western border, and wounded and dead Russians will flow out via its eastern border.
The only two ways Russia can stop this process are by executing a full retreat or using nuclear weapons. Failing either of those, Russia will run out of soldiers before the rest of us run out of arms and ammunition. They will not -- cannot -- be allowed to win, and the rest of the civilized world will make certain that they don't.
Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe with a patriotic motivated population (and military/reco support from the 1st world) against de-motivated, de-moralised enemy. I predict mass protests in Russia in the next months, overthrowing of the dictator, and a new government. Also a regime change in Belarus as a bonus.
And many Americans are heading to the nearest Ukrainian embassy to join the Ukrainian Foreign Legion. I’m heading over tomorrow to interview to join the fight.
America is the greatest force for freedom in the world and I’m putting my money where my mouth is.
Other than I wouldn't call the Russian Army, or Russia, demoralized or unmotivated it's hard to tell how this will end. Even a quick, conventional, victory wouldn'tean much. Iraq and Afghanistan told us that much.
Right... The US and NATO couldn't conquer Afghanistan (or Russia 20 years prior)... Afghanistan had virtually no army, no allies, and was one of the poorest countries in the world.
But Russia is going to conquer Ukraine, which is substantially larger, has a bigger population, a more heavily armed population, and - arguably - the world's 4th best military?? Plus Ukraine has full support from the entire advanced world beside Brazil, India, and China. And Russia has the support of only Belarus - which has a military budget smaller than the military aid the US has sent Ukraine in the last 2 weeks...
This is an unwinnable war.
Leave it to the Soviet Union to bankrupt themselves...
When USSR fell in late 1991, yes, Ukraine did have 4th largest military in the world, and 3rd largest nuclear arsenal. But that is such a long time ago. Just look at what happened in 2014 when Crimea got annexed.
Afghanistan is also very different story than Ukraine. First there is the question of logistics. 75% of the terrain is mountainous and 50% of the country has elevation greater than 6500 ft [1]. This makes it quite the challenge for any would be invaders. Compare that to Ukraine where only 5% of the country is [2], and is also a lot closer to Russian center of power.
I do hope that with what support Ukraine is getting will enable them to give bloody enough nose to Russians that they decide it's not worth it. But given the thinly veiled threat to use nuclear weapons, I fear things will get worse, not better. And before someone says that Mr. Putin is not crazy enough to escalate that far, most people thought he wouldn't actually attack in the first place, and threatening with nuclear weapons can only be seen as an act of weakness, coming out of desperation, and desperate people do desperate things.
Crimea was 7, 8 years ago. Ukraine, and their allies, had quite sometime to prepare. Maybe NATO was pre-occupied with other things for a while, Ukraine certainly was not. Don't forget, Ukraine and Russia share a lot of military history, equipment, training and doctrine. Those enemies know each other very well.
Either that or the bet is that it collapses from within. After the soviet union collapsed, russia took over all soviet countries debts upon itself, effectively paying war reparations. Could be similar now. If there is a coup or some dramatic change it would pay some sort of penalties for the current war.
Combine that with the apparent intense Ukrainian morale and Russian military incompetence/lack of will, Ukraine winning is not entirely out of the question. Even if they lose they seem fully prepared to commit to an insurgency, which given said international support and direct borders with NATO would be the best equipped insurgency in history.
Never mind the potential effects of the sanctions, which are truly massive in scope.
Ukraine could very well be the rock that breaks Russia's teeth.