[topspin]

Putin has no choice. He's had no choice since he started all of this in 2014; he can't back down because that outcome isn't survivable for a Russian leader.

It's going to take 100,000+ dead Russians. At some point the military and civilian leadership in Russia will realize that Putin has to go, and that is when all this will end.

There is a lot of death and destruction yet to go. Ukraine will struggle with hundreds of thousands of new bodies arming Russia's antique military machine. Iran is flying in large quantities of drones that will expose Ukraine's forces to effective Russian artillery. But the outcome won't change; Ukraine will ultimately win because it's not a war of choice for Ukraine and Ukraine has the allies it needs to keep fighting.

[namelessoracle]

People said much the same about Syria, and yet Assad is still there.

Ukraine would be foolish to trust the North America or Europe to support them forever, especially if even more major economic issues happen in either continent.

That seems to be Putins play, he is hoping the West's internal issues sufficiently flare up. This winter will probably determine that. The only real diplomatic path is to convince China to sever with Russia, and thats not gonna happen. Its well understood China is looking at this as a dry run for what kind of responses to expect if Taiwan gets attacked. And China is the clear winner of the Ukraine conflict right now.

[topspin]

Syria isn't a useful analogy for Ukraine. Syria isn't Europe. Syria is a tangled civil war whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine is bald faced aggression. Syrian rebels do not and will never enjoy the unprecedented level of support Ukraine has.

[Someone]

> The only real diplomatic path is to convince China to sever with Russia, and thats not gonna happen.

It’s not going to fully happen, but Putin met Xi Jinping in Uzbekistan last week, and returned a bit disappointed.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/09/16/world/vladimir-...:

“President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Thursday that China had “questions and concerns” about Russia’s war in Ukraine, a notable, if cryptic, admission that Moscow lacks the full backing of its biggest, most powerful partner on the world stage”

⇒ I don’t think Russia will get much support from China.

[namelessoracle]

My broader point is that there is basically only 1 country who could put sufficient diplomatic pressure now to make Russia change course, and they've already clearly signaled they will not put that pressure on them to do so.

The current status quo where a luke warm ally nearby country whose territory and resources you might want to scoop up some day and your major rival are both burning resources, while you get to profit being the middle man between the 2 benefits China greatly. Fully supporting Russia doesn't.

[mythrwy]

This makes sense. If the West goes down, who will China sell all their manufactured goods to?

The sudden disruption in an economy with that many people might produce some serious destabilization.

China would probably prefer a slow fadeout of the West rather then a rapid implosion.

[theironhammer]

China needs Russia. As tensions rise between China and USA regarding hegemony China will need Russian commodities.

This is why Nixon sought to keep China and Russia separate. I don't know what the US State department's strategy is with Ukraine except to become energy supplier to Europe and grind Russia down. But in the process make China stronger?

[trasz]

Which commodities? The only useful thing Russia can offer China is gas, and that’s only because it’s cheap.

Well, another thing China might want from Russia is Manchuria, but it’s not the time I think.

[theironhammer]

And to buy Chinese goods. Especially when China and USA are no longer "friends".

[trasz]

Not really - Russian society is piss poor, their market is worthless compared to US or EU. That’s why China prioritizes western markets over Russia.

[trasz]

>Iran is flying in large quantities of drones that will expose Ukraine's forces to effective Russian artillery.

Not really, Russia doesn’t have precision guided munitions. Ukraine - or NATO - is at least decade ahead technologically, maybe two.

[topspin]

> Not really, Russia doesn’t have precision guided...

Russia has ample artillery. While they're blind it isn't very effective. Drones correct that deficiency, which is why Russian drones are a serious threat.

[trasz]

Drones make it possible to aim. Russians don’t have anything to aim - they can cover an area with artillery, but for that you don’t need a drone.

[topspin]

> they can cover an area with artillery, but for that you don’t need a drone

This is badly incorrect. You have fantastical ideas about how artillery works. Perhaps you've seen images of a few cratered wheat fields and figure that is Russian SOP and goes on 24x7. It doesn't. Those are major operations that require a lot of costly preparation and time. Russia can't afford to do it on a whim, firing whilly nilly at phantoms. No one can.

Fire must be directed. Otherwise you're just making noise.

[trasz]

We are talking about old, worn out guns firing ammunition way past its expiration date. What you are describing would have worked six months ago — and even then wouldn’t be comparable to what Ukraine is doing, simply because you need an order of magnitude more shots to make up for the lack of guided munitions.

Also, what Russia is doing is mostly making noise. That’s why their offensive over the past couple of months was so hilariously slow. That’s also why they level entire cities instead of specific military targets.

[riku_iki]

> But the outcome won't change; Ukraine will ultimately win because it's not a war of choice for Ukraine and Ukraine has the allies it needs to keep fighting.

how allies will help if Russia will use tactical nukes on Ukrainian forces?

[mint2]

If Russia uses tactical nukes then god help us all. If one though we were living in interesting times at the moment, they will soon think these are boring times.

If a country invades a neighbor, claims it’s now part of their sovereign homeland while the neighbor is still actively defending, and then uses nukes based the justification their newly occupied “homeland” they just invaded is being invaded by its defenders then it means any country with nukes can use nukes to invade and grab neighboring territory

At the very least, everyone is going to get nukes

[riku_iki]

> At the very least, everyone is going to get nukes

its ongoing process already. On one hand you have Iran, Israel, N Korea who developed/developing nukes, on another hand US has agreements for sharing nuclear weapons with plenty of countries already, I think American nukes deployed in several European countries right now.

[topspin]

He could try to play that card if he wants. Since we're going full hypothetical here I suspect he'd be removed by Russian military command if he tried. If not then it's WW3 for real; there is no 'tactical' nuke scenario that doesn't lead to a wider war.

[riku_iki]

> it's WW3 for real; there is no 'tactical' nuke scenario that doesn't lead to a wider war.

How so, why are you confident allies will declare some kind of war in such event?

[topspin]

Very. Nukes are special. There aren't really any degrees of nuance with nuclear weapons. The hysteria over fallout alone will polarize the world like it has never been polarized. Ever.