[Bayart]

That is wishful thinking. Despite the initial blunders, Russia is advancing in Ukraine at the same pace Germany was in Poland. And it's unlikely they'll get worse as time goes on (the Wehrmacht in its time used Poland to massively improve their operational readiness). Dictators in times of war, in countries subjected to isolation, tend to stick around. And even then, the absence of Putin doesn't mean the general trajectory of Russia would change.

I really don't see much hope for Ukraine, and considering the size of the NATO fast response teams, I expect more countries to fold before Russia starts stalling. I'd say every country without its own autonomous nuclear arsenal is at risk. That's includes everyone under America's umbrella.

[jacquesm]

Russia can and in a way has won 'stage 1', the quick advance. But now they have to keep it, supply their troops and maintain presence and that is a very expensive operation in a country that really doesn't want you. Extra hard when it's cold you have no food and you're running out of fuel. Vehicles are being abandoned and there is plenty of evidence for self sabotage.

[toomuchtodo]

Like watching a snake attempt to eat a porcupine.

[jacquesm]

That's a fairly good analogy. The amount of hand held weaponry flowing into the Ukraine must beat some kind of record.

[toomuchtodo]

It is my understanding that a neighboring country has also provided MiG jet fighter aircraft to the Ukrainian air force. Good show on their part.

[jacquesm]

Contradicting stories about that, some say that deal fell through, which given the publicity they initially attached to it makes it seem as though that was conditional on something, which I have no idea about.

[qiskit]

> supply their troops

Supply their troops right across their border? Where do you think ukraine is? The side that will have problems with supplies is the one that had their armories, oil refineries, storage facilities, etc destroyed.

> maintain presence

Something they've done for centuries? They don't have to maintain a presence. The ukrainian army will. Notice how there aren't any major battles? Ever wonder why Zelensky is asking the civilians to fight? Because most of the ukranian army is not fighting.

> that is a very expensive operation in a country that really doesn't want you.

Half the country is russian to begin with. More than half the country voted to align with russia. That's why the West staged a coup.

> Extra hard when it's cold you have no food and you're running out of fuel.

It's only going to get warmer and Russia is not going to run out of food nor fuel. You do realize russia is the largest fossil fuel producer right?

> Vehicles are being abandoned and there is plenty of evidence for self sabotage.

Then how come major ukrainian cities are under seige?

Read what you wrote and ask yourself, is it really what's happening or is it what you wish was happening? I don't think the ghost of kiev is going to save ukraine. Unless a major power steps in to help ukraine, it'll be "liberated" in the next few weeks. And then ukranians will go on with their lives. No country is going to step in to fight russia.

[dragonwriter]

> Ever wonder why Zelensky is asking the civilians to fight?

Because the total size of the Ukraine armed forces of allservekces is smaller than the Russian + Belarusian land forces deployed against them, not to count the supporting air and naval forces, where Ukraine is outnumbered by more than an order of magnitude.

> Unless a major power steps in to help ukraine, it'll be "liberated" in the next few weeks. And then ukranians will go on with their lives.

This is as stupid as when people said the same basic thing about the 2003 Iraq invasion. (Something along that line is, IIRC, a big factor in Gen. Franks describing then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith as “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth”.) People can't be relied on to just go back to their lives when a hostile foreign occupation is imposed, even if the regular forces of the preceding government are comprehensively defeated.

> No country is going to step in to fight russia.

Just like no country stepped in to fight the USSR (or the US) in Afghanistan. And neither of the armies involved in that had the degree of morale and logistical problems the Russian Army has displayed thus far in Ukraine.

[qiskit]

> Because the total size of the Ukraine armed forces of allservekces is smaller than the Russian + Belarusian land forces deployed against them, not to count the supporting air and naval forces, where Ukraine is outnumbered by more than an order of magnitude.

The ukranian army is 250000 strong, there are less than 200000 russians in ukraine. What does army size have to do with anything. Smaller armies have fought larger armies all the time.

> People can't be relied on to just go back to their lives when a hostile foreign occupation is imposed, even if the regular forces of the preceding government are comprehensively defeated.

Ukraine : Russia != Iraq : US. Ukraine is ethnically, religiously, militarily, historically, etc tied with russia. Iraq has nothing to do with the US. Until just 8 years ago, russia and ukraine was intertwined. Yes, if saudi arabia or turkey invaded ukraine, I would expect a massive insurgency. Was there a massive insurgency after the union beat the confederates? Of course not, because we were the same people.

> Just like no country stepped in to fight the USSR (or the US) in Afghanistan.

Sarcasm?

> And neither of the armies involved in that had the degree of morale and logistical problems the Russian Army has displayed thus far in Ukraine.

Right. Because they ghost of kiev is terrorizing them right? You are literally restating intelligence propaganda. It's standard propaganda during war to portray the enemy has low morale. The russians are saying the same thing about the ukranians and the west.

People just cling to propaganda that matches their agenda. The first casualty in war is truth. I would stop believing all the propaganda and just think about what's happening rationally.

[baybal2]

The ratio of military advantage Russia has over Ukraine is comparable to what NATO has over Russia — 8:1

[jacquesm]

Military advantage in materiel needs to be balanced with morale to get the whole picture.

[koonsolo]

Hey I personally know Ukrainians, also those with a military background. And I can tell you, you are full of shit.

You claim that the Ukrainian army, under control of the anti-russian government, is not fighting? Why is that? And the government that staged a coup against the will of the people is now giving those people guns to fight against... who exactly?

Your story is completely contradicting itself kamaraad. Even the Russian speaking Ukrainians want the Russians out.

And guess what, Zelenskyy's first language is Russian.

[jacquesm]

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about so I'll just stop responding but just know that I got a good chuckle out of this comment because of the incredible disconnect between the situation as it is and your view of it.

[piva00]

> Unless a major power steps in to help ukraine, it'll be "liberated" in the next few weeks. And then ukranians will go on with their lives.

If you really the situation this way I can definitely assume you know no Ukrainians at all. It's such an absurd statement given the current situation and how Ukrainians are reacting (I know 2 who just left Sweden to go back there and help), I'm saving your comment to come pester you when the insurgency and urban warfare starts in a few months.

What an utter bullshit comment.

[raxxorrax]

> That's why the West staged a coup.

It did not as far as evidence goes it was initiated by Ukrainians themselves. The west did happily supply the weapons to questionable groups, but the will to change was certainly there. If that reduced corruption is another question.

A bit ironic that separatists are called separatists in light of the revolution though. Although the party that came to power after the revolution has since been replaced by the current one. I think they formed just 2-3 years ago.

[koonsolo]

> More than half the country voted to align with russia.

Zelenskyy was elected president in 2019 with 73.2% of the votes.

Do you actually believe yourself or do you know you are lying?

[qiskit]

> Zelenskyy was elected president in 2019 with 73.2% of the votes.

I was talking about before the coup where the ukranian population voted for a pro-russia president. Not 5 years after the coup. Lets see what the election results will be 5 years after russia takes control over ukraine and propagandize nonstop for 5 years.

> Do you actually believe yourself or do you know you are lying?

Do you really think I was referring to zelensky? Do you really think I would lie about such a trivial thing that anyone could google within a second? Or do you think you misunderstood what I was talking about. What I wrote "More than half the country voted to align with russia. That's why the West staged a coup."

Why did you cut out the "That's why the West staged a coup" part?

[koonsolo]

Because "That's why the West staged a coup" is also a lie. Ukrainians want to join EU. And if you wonder why, read some history.

NONE of the former Soviet controlled states want to join Russia ever again. Have you noticed they all joined EU? Why is that, because EU "staged coups"?

Maybe EU is able to provide its citizens with a proper life. Maybe the values we have resonate more with people than the values Putin has. Because of this idiot dictator, we have to put more money into our military again, instead of using it to improve our lives.

[qiskit]

> Because "That's why the West staged a coup" is also a lie.

I proved I was right in the original post. Also, it is not a lie. It's factually correct.

> And if you wonder why, read some history.

Does it appear to you I know nothing about history, geopolitics, etc?

> NONE of the former Soviet controlled states want to join Russia ever again.

Many don't. But can't say none. Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Kazakhstan have joined eurasion economic zone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union

> Have you noticed they all joined EU?

All?

> Why is that, because EU "staged coups"?

In a way, yes. Not militarily, but financially. Well some militarily. But yes, unfortunately, nations sell themselves to the highest bidder. Just like human beings.

> Because of this idiot dictator

Do you realize that by calling a democratically elected leader a dictator, you are making a mockery of democracy.

> we have to put more money into our military again, instead of using it to improve our lives.

Welcome to our world buddy. Maintaing the american empire is bleeding us try. Imagine if there was no NATO. No EU. No war in ukraine. No wasted money on wars. If NATO disbanded after the fall of the soviet union and european nations remained sovereign, we wouldn't be having so many issues.

Just like the evil soviet empire necessitated the creation of NATO, the evil NATO/EU empire is now necessitating the creation of the "soviet" empire.

If you truly cared about peace, improving your lives, etc, you'd be just as against the NATO/EU empire as you are against putin.

You forgot to answer my question: 'Why did you cut out the "That's why the West staged a coup" part?'

[throwaway0a5e]

You and the parent comment are operating on totally different time scales.

Russia will "win" the invasion. But so long as enough Ukrainians (it need only be a small minority) would prefer to die than be subjugated and there are enough others to materially support them the conclusion is a forgone one. The Russian people will run out of fucks to give long before Ukraine runs out of people.

[Bayart]

Poland is also a good reference point for the argument you're making. They had a long lasting resistance movement, hundreds of thousands of diehard fighters. Yet it had to wait until 1989 for any sort of independence. As for material support, it assumes both ability and willingness on the part of sympathizers. The ability might be gone were the Baltics or Finland be invaded, and the willingness might vanish when the war takes a sufficiently heavy toll.

[vba616]

>Yet it had to wait until 1989 for any sort of independence.

Is it not fair to say the nuclear deterrent has weakened, and the reason Poland had to wait was because NATO was afraid of supporting the resistance too much?

[geoka9]

> And even then, the absence of Putin doesn't mean the general trajectory of Russia would change.

You never know. You could see, in the broadcast Putin's security council meeting the fidgeting and fear of its members. And those are supposedly the people who will take over if Putin croaks.