[ajuc]

Enough to defend. Not enough to win decisively. Timing matters. If EU and USA provided the help that they did but in the first 6 months - Ukraine would have already won. But the help is drip-fed to Ukraine, supposedly to "not escalate". The result is that the war that could be already over is dragging on, and eventually people will stop helping for one reason or another.

If we want a quick win for Ukraine we should send weapons much quicker and without silly distinctions like (offensive vs defensive weapons in 2022 or like long vs short range missiles now).

It's like instead of curing people with antibiotics in 2 weeks you split the pills into 1/64th parts and cured them for 1 year. You're not really curing them - you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria at that point.

[koonsolo]

You are wrong about your military assessment.

A quick win would mean Russia would hold on to a lot of military resources. By providing Ukraine just enough to deny Russia any wins, and Russia stupid enough to not pull out, they are basically draining Russia to death.

Right now Russia is sending T-54's to the battlefield. Their 'storm the front' tactics is killing their soldiers at a crazy rate.

Now this is the military standpoint, there is also a humanitarian side. Now on the humanitarian side, I agree a quick win would be better and save a lot of lives. I'm a proponent for NATO to control the skies, at least West from the Dnipro river.

But claiming it's a military failure on the Western side is just plain wrong. This right now is NATO's ideal military scenario.

[ajuc]

Russia has nukes, it doesn't matter how much we drain its military, it can just freeze the war, go back and rebuild. Let's say it takes 10 years. It's not solving the issue, just pushing it back to reappear later.

On the other hand a decisive win for Ukraine followed by western-integration success story there - would directly contradict Putin's core internal justification for keeping his power (west is lying ,democracy is bullshit, ruskie people are different and if we try democracy it would just be 90s again). If Ukrainians have democracy and are more successful than Russians (and Russians would know - they have families and travel) - this whole system (not only Putin - but all his FSB friends, oligarchs, orthodox church, state media etc) - break down.

Remember that they are constantly telling their people that Ukraine doesn't exist, Ukrainians are just Russians brainwashed into believing "western lies". If these western lies WORK - it's the end of putin & company.

This is the most likely road to a democratic, constructive Russia. Such Russia would be a massive boon for EU and NATO, both Russia and its neighbors wouldn't need to waste billions of dollars on weapons. And of course it would be a massive improvement for Russians. Actual rule of law. Local self-government with reinvestment of oil money into infrastructure & education. The possibilities are endless. But it would require Russia to go through the imperial cycle to its conclusion - decisively losing a colonial war, realizing we're the bad guys, dealing with the history, etc. You need the defeat for that.

If we keep Russia alive we're making this very hard. Much more likely it will become a big North Korea.

[koonsolo]

Why would a quick win of Ukraine suddenly change the political landscape in Russia? Russians don't protest now, so why would they suddenly start doing that?

However, a weak Russia cannot keep regions that want to break away. Russia as we know it now is not going to exist anymore. Not because they would suddenly overthrow the current government (which they won't). But because plenty of 'friendly' neighbor states might cut connections, and controlled regions might see a brighter future on their own. They are not going to nuke them because of this.

Russia turning into a new North Korea is unfortunately almost a given right now, since the Russian public doesn't seem motivated to protest and demand another government.

[iavael]

There's not many regions in Russia that would really break away.

If we speak about regions with russian majority then it's unlikely because despite Russia being very big russian ethnicity culturally is quite uniform. And as for other ethnicities then for most of them it's not economically or politically viable to separate: either their country will become enclaves surrounded by large mass of russian territory or will occupy territory with harsh environment where it would be hard even in the long run to establish sustainable modern economy without tight economical integration with russian territories.

So if we speak about regions with reasonable potential to break away then they are republics in Northern Caucasus and maybe Tyva. And that not very much.

[stjohnswarts]

I think so as well. All the ones who really wanted to already have. Most likely Russia will withdraw with Crimea and become a Chinese vassal state because they ruined any good will they had in the rest of the world.

[ajuc]

Quick win allows Ukraine to integrate with the west (EU and hopefully NATO) and be a success story. The whole "social contract" in Russia is based on the assumption that "ruskie" people (which they say includes Belarusians and Ukrainians) can't prosper in a democracy. That you need dictatorship. Anything else is a western lie that lead to a "failed state" (the favorite russian name for Ukraine) and 90s-like situation.

Ukrainians have families in Russia and vice-versa. They travel, talk, watch the same videos, etc. Currently there's censorship, but it won't go on forever, it won't block everything. People knew they can't call it a war but it was a war. Propaganda can't lie about everything all of the time.

If Ukrainians have a successful democracy, if Russians migrate to work in Ukraine and not the other way around - that would be the ultimate blow to the core of the russian social contract.

Imagine if Mexico turned 100% communist and became obviously richer than USA in 5 years. So rich that Americans migrated there in millions. What would it do to Republicans in USA?

This is BTW the real reason Putin invaded Ukraine - because it started on this road. And that was the ultimate threat to Russian authocrats.

That's why Russia will try to prolong the war, freeze and unfreeze it, threat Ukraine to scare the foreign investors and EU countries, etc. This is why they target cities and infrastructure even more than the army. As long as people in Russia are wealthier than in Ukraine and Belarus - Putin's fine.

[denton-scratch]

> Not enough to win decisively.

It's often claimed that US policy is to take advantage of the war to grind down Russian military capability, and that the USA will fight to the last Ukrainian.

I must say, I find the reluctance to supply missiles that could be used to hit targets inside Russia seems to support that view. I mean, it's not as if Russia is hitting targets inside Ukraine, is it? /s

It's completely normal in war to attempt to disrupt enemy operations by targeting logistics behind enemy lines; which in this case is the border between Ukraine and Russia. Western vetoes on that activity, supposedly with the aim of "not escalating", look very cynical.

[ethbr0]

Ukraine could hit the Crimean Bridge from territory they control today with ATACMS, which if kept inoperable would make supplying Crimea untenable.

That's Ukrainian territory by international law, a valid military target, and minimal civilian casualties.

The US should have given them examples for that single purpose long ago.

It's not like Ukraine and Russia aren't already shooting SRBMs at each other.

[denton-scratch]

The Kerch Strait Bridge is seen by Ukrainians as a gross national insult; its destruction would be a huge morale booster for Ukraine.

I don't know how much reliance Russian forces in Crimea place on the bridge. It seems rather fragile to rely on that bridge to supply the entire peninsular. Crimea can be resupplied by sea; it has several ports, including a huge one at Sevastopol.

However Crimea lacks its own water supply; Crimean water supplies come by pipeline from the Dniepro. My guess is that Ukraine would love to control that pipeline.

[ethbr0]

Rail >> sea. Especially given that Russia doesn't have full sea control outside of Sevastopol, at least not enough so as to guarantee continuous cargo transport.

Or if they deploy their fleet regularly outside of the harbor... well, we saw how that last went when atmospheric conditions aligned against them.

My understanding is that the Dniepro to Crimea water canal was one of the reasons for the invasion. After Ukraine cut off water supply after Russia invaded Crimea (you could see the canal dried up on Google Maps satellite), they were having to spend $$$ to ensure the peninsula had enough fresh water.

You can see where it sources from the river too: https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.7177240,33.4085303

Which should already be in Ukrainian artillery range from the opposite bank, but I imagine it's hard to stop a gravity fed canal from flowing with artillery...

[tiahura]

The Sec of Defense has said this several times. The primary goal is to degrade Russia’s war fighting capability so that it is no longer a threat to its other neighbors.