[gershy]

I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable. But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.

Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do?

[audunw]

Of course they can defeat Russia, if they’re tenacious enough. Just look at Afghanistan (against both Russia and USA). If the costs ends up being too high, eventually the attacker loses the will to continue the fight.

Russia is running out of equipment. What they have left is in an increasingly bad state. Ukraine’s recent strategy of targeting refineries is working fairly well.

Ukraine now has domestic laser weapons for taking down Russian drones.

[codedokode]

Afghanistan is an awful example because there was a large number of civilians dead as a result (many times more that foreign soldiers), country having to live through several devastating wars, poverty, and a terrorist group became the government in the end. This was much worse thing than what is happening in Ukraine.

[motorest]

> This was much worse thing than what is happening in Ukraine.

The only reason Ukraine is yet to be as worse for civilians as Afghanistan is the fact that Ukraine successfully routed and defeated Russia's initial invasion push.

Look at Bucha to see a real world example of what expects Ukraine if they capitulate.

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

[senordevnyc]

So the Afghans should have just rolled over for Russia? I wonder if they’d agree.

[charlysl]

The Taliban are not a terrorist group, awful as they are

[engineer_22]

> Ukraine now has domestic laser weapons for taking down Russian drones

Source?

[kosten]

https://youtu.be/8huHGfY4xYQ?si=VSbvGTVjb2N-qsGq

[quickthrowman]

> Of course they can defeat Russia, if they’re tenacious enough. Just look at Afghanistan (against both Russia and USA)

Ukraine is steppe and swamp, very flat. Afghanistan .. is not.

[libertine]

And we saw what happened when Russia approached Kyiv.

It goes both ways, there's a reason why Russia has more than 900.000 casualties in 3 years of a "3 day special military operation".

[kranke155]

It can be (locally) defeated. You can defeat it in wars of choosing, not in a war of annihilation (as Napoleon and others have learnt).

But in Crimea? Or the Russo-Japanese War? Or WW1? Whenever the stakes are less than existential, superpowers lose.

Saying Russia can't lose is just defeatism. With a few dozen F35s and better capabilities and ammunition, Ukraine would likely have won this war already.

[giardini]

We've burned up Russia's military equipment, we've killed and wounded thousands of Russian soldiers, all ostensibly w/o sending a single USA soldier into combat. The neocons have drained off Russia's conventional firepower and male population for a generation by merely poking the bear repeatedly. The Russians can claim victory but it was a Pyrrhic victory.

Russia is now militarily a hollow shell, except for nukes. They're like North Korea but they eat better (they always did, though). Neither of those nations could engage the USA in a conventional conflict for longer than a half hour. This is sometimes termed "victory" or "success", and I don't think its a bad outcome.

Of course you can imagine fairy tales where the Russians are abjectly defeated and humiliated and such fairy tales would give you more happy Social Media discussions. But such viewpoints also cause multi-generational problems in peoples of Slavic mindsets who view history as a list of wrongs against their ancestors going back centuries.

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

https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/3-years-later...

[timka]

Here's an excerpt from The The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters Volume 53, Number 3 (2023) Autumn [1]

The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries. With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same number of casualties in two weeks.

[1] https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

[timka]

And another one:

The Russia-Ukraine War makes it clear that the electromagnetic signature emitted from the command posts of the past 20 years cannot survive against the pace and precision of an adversary who possesses sensor-based technologies, electronic warfare, and unmanned aerial systems or has access to satellite imagery; this includes nearly every state or nonstate actor the United States might find itself fighting in the near future. The Army must focus on developing command-and-control systems and mobile command posts that enable continuous movement, allow distributed collaboration, and synchronize across all warfighting functions to minimize electronic signature. Ukrainian battalion command posts reportedly consist of seven soldiers who dig in and jump twice daily; while that standard will be hard for the US Army to achieve, it points in a very different direction than the one we have been following for two decades of hardened command posts

[michpoch]

> Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory,

Allow for long-distance strikes, allow for usage of Starlink without gps limits, send modern equipment. Russian army is barely moving forward even though UA has one of its arm tied on the back.

[motorest]

> I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, (...)

Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country?

> and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable.

All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave.

Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base.

Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources.

> But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.

[arandomusername]

> Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country?

Logistics (Ukraine shares a large border with Russia) and people - the people in currently occupied Ukraine aren't as against Russia as those in Afghanistan may be. Even now, we don't really see much of sabotage.

> All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave.

And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning.

> Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base.

While losing hundred of thousands of young men and decimating their population. Russia has more men. They can stand a war of attrition a lot longer - and they value soldier's lives less than we do in the west.

> Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources.

Similarly, Ukraine is kidnapping people on the streets to send them to the front lines.

[ponector]

> Russia has more men This is true in general. But not true for soldiers. They have more so many men willing to fight in Ukraine. If they have so many men - why the are Korean soldiers fighting for Russia? Or Africans?

You simply echo Russia Today narratives.

[codedokode]

> why the are Korean soldiers fighting for Russia

Isn't it better for Russia if Koreans die instead of Russians? It looks rational (but sad for Koreans dying in a war on the other side of the globe).

[ponector]

From Russian perspective it doesn't matter because they value Korean life the same: zero. Koreans are expensive, though. God knows what putin is trading for their troops. Probably rocket and nuclear technologies.

From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder for to the language barrier and unaware of modern combat full with FPV drones.

[arandomusername]

I'm not sure of the accuracy of this, so take it with a grain of salt, but I did hear that rocket and nuclear technology is indeed part of the deal - terrifying. NK will also provide artillery shells.

> From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder

Well, that's the soviet doctrine. Men are useless cannon fodder. It does give the NK the chance to catch up on modern combat.

[arandomusername]

and maybe you echo reddit too much, or some biased Ukrainian news site. It is no secret that Russia has more fighting men. It's just logical, since they have a significantly higher population.

Ukraine has so many men willing to fight that they have to kidnap them on the streets?

There's Korean soldiers fighting in Kursk only, as far as I'm aware. None in Ukraine. It's free man power for Russia. Both sides have merceneries from Africa and South America, among others.

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/0...

> Staffed and decently equipped: Russia’s outlook for 2025

vs

> Equipped but not staffed: Ukraine’s challenge for 2025

[ponector]

>Staffed and decently equipped: Russia’s outlook for 2025

Equipped with golf carts, motorcycles and donkeys?

Staffed with wounded men. There been many cases when russians force people on crutches advance into meat wave assault.

Kidnaping people from streets - that is a Russian narrative as well. Forced mobilization - sure that happens at war.

When police arrests someone - do you call it kidnap as well?

[arandomusername]

Do you consider iiss to be an unreliable source?

How are Russians gaining territory with gold carts, motorcycles and donkeys? How are those wounded men overwhelming the Ukrainian side?

Forcefully taking someone and sending them to the frontline, I consider that kidnapping yes. I believe forced mobilization to be immoral.

Can you please provide some reliable source that shows Ukraine having more manpower than Russia?

[skissane]

> And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning.

Winning, but winning very slowly. Unless Ukraine collapses, Russian victory is likely years away (depending of course on what Russia decides to consider “victory”)

Although Ukraine is outnumbered, the fact they are mostly playing defence not offence gives them an advantage

If Ukraine drags this out for long enough, there is the possibility Russia may lose its patience with the war before Ukraine does, and Ukraine may suddenly gain the upper hand. If Trump forces Ukraine into a peace deal in which Russia gets most of what it wants, that won’t happen

[arandomusername]

Russia controls large portions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts. I imagine walking away with those areas would be a huge victory for them.

How long can Ukraine drag this out? They are suffering manpower issues more than Russia. I don't think it's likely that Russia will lose its patience before Ukraine. I wish, but I don't see it. Their economy is somewhat dependent on their military-industrial complex.

Is this the goal? To slowly lose land and lives to Russia, in hopes that they get bored, or that Ukrainians magically get a wonder weapon?

[skissane]

I think the Ukrainian hope is the war eventually becomes so unpopular in Russia that it endangers Putin’s rule. Then political instability strikes Moscow - Putin is removed in a coup or assassinated - and faced with the chaos in Moscow, Russian battlefield morale collapses, frontline troops are withdrawn to Moscow to fight over who is Putin’s successor, etc - suddenly Ukrainian troops massively advance

How plausible is that scenario? I don’t know. It isn’t impossible. More likely to happen in a few years time (assuming the war lasts that long). Probably not happening this year, but one never knows - who predicted Prigozhin‘s abortive coup in June 2023? Who knows if or when such an event might happen again - maybe next time more successfully?

Trump’s recent moves arguably reduce the odds of such a development by increasing Russian perceptions that the war is likely to be resolved on terms they’ll find favourable. However, Trump is fickle, and it isn’t impossible that with time he’ll move to a position the Russians will find less encouraging (it isn’t guaranteed, of course)

[arandomusername]

Prigozhin's "coup" was probably the closest thing to it. Unfortunately I do not share your optimism in here - Putin planted him self well and surrounded himself by loyal men.

Continuing to send men to die in a losing battle without an actual plan, hoping that the opponent's leadership falls, seems like an awful idea to me. It gives me similar vibes to "our scientists are on the verge of creating a wonder weapon" that is often propagated on losing sides, e.g Germany in WW2.

[libertine]

It's hard to see that as a huge victory at the cost of more than 900.00p casualties for something Russia has plenty of - land.

Also economic collapse (high inflation, high interest rates, and no industry).

Ukraine just needs to continue to chip away at them, the bigger they are, the bigger the fall, and Russians aren't paying the price for this blunder yet.

[arandomusername]

Not all land is created equally.

Russia doesn't really value the lives of men.

Been waiting for that economic collapse for 3 years. How many more Ukrainian men must die before we get it? How many more are you okay with dying?

[Aeolun]

Collective defense was always an option. It's not like anyone has the appetite for that, but it's not hard as such to kick Russia out of Ukraine.

[ponector]

It's not that hard and even no troops required. Send more weapons without restrictions to use them against Russians, tight real sanctions and they will be defeated

[arandomusername]

that's how you get nukes in Cuba

[collingreen]

Let me respond with some equally flippant, reductive text.

First, they came for Ukraine and we did nothing...

[arandomusername]

Nope. Majority of Europeans and Americans do not want to go and fight for Ukraine. Especially when there's a thread of nuclear war.

[motorest]

We don't need to fight. We only need to hand over to Ukraine the weapons they have been asking for since 2022. A few Taurus with the gloves off and Ukraine instantly gets far closer to prevent Russia from continuing their whole war effort.

[arandomusername]

> Scholz Says Germans Would Need To Deploy With Taurus Missiles

https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-situation-report-s...

[dlahoda]

> Ukraine is kidnapping people on the streets to send them to the front lines.

may you expand on this?

[arandomusername]

There are many videos on twitter if you'd like to see recorded examples.

But basically, TCC is the recruitment office in Ukraine, and they will pull up in unmarked vans and grab and force them into a van.

Here's an article about it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/28/ukrainian-...

A decent video example (ignore the text): https://x.com/East_Calling/status/1896019613198270859 - there's many more.

It's absolutely terrifying for Ukrainian men.

[theshackleford]

> It's absolutely terrifying for Ukrainian men.

I'ts no less terrifying for Russian men when the goons show up to take you away I assure you.

Sadly my family in Russia has been impacted by this, not in being conscripted forcefully themselves, but needing to destroy their own livelyhoods so that it is not possible for them to facilitate the the sending of others to the front line.

[libertine]

Those videos are amplified greatly by Russian propaganda bots, one thing to put them in check is to ask how many hundreds of thousands of young Russian men fled and climbed through walls once the mobilization was announced by the regime.

I think it was 1.000.000+ men lmao

Now that's trying to escape war. In every war there's people avoiding conscription, and Russians do it by orders or magnitude we probably haven't seen on record.

[arandomusername]

Those videos are amplified by russian bots, but it doesn't make them any less true. A lot of Russian men did flee, but they no longer conscript, while Ukraine still does. And Ukraine forces men into vans to send them to the frontlines. Russia just keeps increasing the pay.

Ukraine had to close borders to men because so many were trying to flee. Millions of Ukrainians sought refuge throughout Europe.

[rightbyte]

It is quite astonishing there isn't more critique of those methods. That in combination with closing the border for men.

It is very authoritarian.

[spaethnl]

What you are saying is Russian propaganda.

Nearly every country that has been attacked has forced conscription. The US did during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and we weren't even attacked in 3 of those.

Were we authoritarian then?

[codedokode]

> sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys

What would you use to transport items through the forest for example?

[mopsi]

The need to transport items through forests comes from the new unjammable wire-guided drones. Anything on roads within 5+ kilometers of the frontline is easily spotted and destroyed.

[justin66]

> Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory

This is only true if we keep Ukraine in an undersupplied state.

[KittenInABox]

I guarantee you that Russia could've been reasoned with if it was forced to face Ukraine with the full might of US support for another 4 years. Maybe there would need to be some concessions so Putin can look like he came out with a win to the Russian media, but Putin wouldn't have kept going as he was.

[gedy]

> with the full might of US support

Wasn't the time for that 3 years ago (or 11)? I'm not pro Russia, but a war of attrition has always seemed a bad play and half-assed. Especially when Europe is still buying gas from Russia...

[matthewdgreen]

As opposed to what alternative? A full-scale NATO invasion of Russia? Nuclear war?

The West has gone to great lengths to provide the absolute minimum response to Russia's invasion (no troops, even withholding certain weapons classes) and leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about the danger of an outright Russian collapse. Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.

[motorest]

> Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.

True, but the collective West would do much better if the volume of support allowed Ukraine to furtherincrease Russia's attrition rate. Knocking down the Crimean bridge alone would wreak havoc to Crimea's logistics.

[rayiner]

> I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.

What makes you think that? Historically, Ukraine has been conquered by various countries in the region (Russia, Poland, Lithuania) because of its strategic location.

Clearly, western europe doesn’t think that’s true judging by their defense spending.

[zippothrowaway]

> What makes you think that?

Becasue Putin has openly talked about how Latvia and Moldova, for example, are part of Russia.

[rayiner]

But there’s geographical limits to expansion based on that principle, right? It wouldn’t affect any place that directly affects America?

Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care?

[throw16180339]

> Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care?

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. If a conflict between them escalates, then even a limited nuclear exchange would lead to tens of millions of casualties, mass starvation, widespread electronic outages, and releasing millions of tons of black smoke into the atmosphere; crop yields worldwide would be severely reduced.

There have been a few studies on a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, although as you'd expect, they're mostly from antinuclear advocacy groups. There are many unknown factors and a wide range of estimates, so I'd take all numbers with a grain of salt.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616796/

https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/two-billion-at-ri...

There's also an active National Academies study on the environmental effects of nuclear war (https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/independent-study...), although they haven't released anything yet.

[whoitwas]

Can't be defeated? Are you a Russian bot?

[csdreamer7]

> Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do?

Russia can be easily defeated; especially at this point. Their armies are demoralized, their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys), and their budget is running out. The only reason they do not crumble is their sheer size against Ukraine. They would easily be wiped out by a more modern western military. Conservatives in the US now like Russia because they ban LGBT and Europe does not want to pay for a likely 2 year attack and show of force.

And don't talk to me about using nuclear weapons against the west. Russia won't use them. They haven't use them for 3 years despite threats to the west if they don't stop funding Ukraine. The second they use them against the west; the west uses them right back. All the money, power, and influence the elites have in Russia disappears. They won't let Putin launch them.

[giardini]

...their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys)...

I protest: donkeys are NOT terrible!

In fact donkeys are absolutely one of the best means of transport in the Ukraine conflict: donkeys maintain themselves, are loyal to their trainers and are reliable. If you allow them to guide themselves, they will almost always move you away from regions of conflict (i.e., they are self-guided and smart).

Furthermore donkeys are by their nature not instruments of war: there are no "attack donkeys" in this or other conflicts. Donkeys are animals of peace.

Free a donkey today: send cash to

Free the Donkeys

123-rt45 Doskilvi via

Kyiv, UKRAINE 79013

(just kidding, but wish I weren't)

[ponector]

Russia cannot be defeated - it is a Putin narrative. Russian has been defeated many times in history. Even in this war Russian lost few battles, lost control of few cities.

In fact they are so powerful army, they are using civil vehicles and motorcycle as infantry vehicles for assault. Tanks made in Stalin's era also used.

Even donkeys are used for logistics!

Cannot be defeated? True, if western countries restrict usage of their weapons against Russian army.

[codedokode]

In theory West could offer something in exchange for peace, so that Russia will not want to break it, for example: withdrawing NATO forces from Eastern Europe, withdrawing nuclear weapon from Europe, lifting sanctions, paying a compensation for losses due to sanctions etc. There is actually a whole spectrum of options for negotiations.

[KiwiJohnno]

The problem is any of those things are effectively a reward for Russia for starting the war and invading Ukraine in the first place. Why should Russia get any advantage out of the war that they 100% started?? And pay them compensation! What a suggestion!

Russia is a bully. What do you think will happen if we have to pay the bully off each time they start smashing up their neighbors stuff up or just making threats?

And as for withdrawing NATO forces - NATO is a purely defensive organization. Its purpose is to defend against just the sort of shit Russia has pulled with Ukraine. If Ukraine was part of NATO the war would not have happened.

NATO is not a threat to Russia. Never has been, never will be. This is equivalent to a local crime lord complaining about being threatened by the police station down the road and demanding that the police station shuts down.

[codedokode]

> NATO is a purely defensive organization

Are nuclear missiles located in Europe and pointed to the East also "purely defensive" weapon? It doesn't help good relations when you have a gun pointed at your face.

[KiwiJohnno]

Yes, they are exactly that. The only (current) working deterrence/defensive strategy against an attack from nuclear weapons is the threat of a nuclear reprisal.

This has stopped a war directly between the major powers for the last 70 years and is known as MAD - Mutually assured destruction.

Its not a situation which anybody is comfortable with, but it works.

Honestly, this is basic cold war history stuff. Your question above shows you are either completely naïve or you consume way too much Russian propaganda.

[tweetle_beetle]

Defensive weapon is something of an oxymoron, apart from technologies like missile defense [1]. Putting that to one side, rational deterrence theory[2] suggests that:

(Probability of deterrer carrying out deterrent threat × Costs if threat carried out) > (Probability of the attacker accomplishing the action × Benefits of the action)

You could argue that Russia successfully destabilising the US (via Trump) and Europe (via Brexit and far right) is proof that nuclear missiles "pointed to the east" worked at defending against direct conflict and forced an alternative.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense?wprov=sfla1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory?wprov=sfla1

[dlahoda]

i thought they just point vertically? like other nuclear missiles.

[impossiblefork]

All these suggestions seem comically unsound.

Eastern Europe contains many NATO countries, and many European countries feel an increased rather than decreased need for nuclear weapons. Compensation for losses due to sanctions would also effectively legitimize the war, as if though Russia were in the right.

Lifting sanctions could maybe be done, if Russia actually left Ukraine entirely, including Crimea.

I think what's really interesting at the moment, at least to me as a European, is a proper war where we simply go in and pound the Russian positions in Ukraine with bombers, strike all sorts of factories, plants, gas conduits, electrical infrastructure etc., in Russia so as to ensure a reasonable outcome.

This is a very large and difficult to defend country, relative to its population. The Russians are incredibly vulnerable and increasing the violence level to something more appropriate is the going to be the only alternative.

We're planning to borrow money to get weapons. This will be interesting, considering today's interest rates. I think it might be we who must be given something that we can agree is some kind of 'win', rather than the Russians, if the world is to be orderly.

[thiht]

Sounds like your strategy is giving Russia all they want so that they can prepare for the next attack in a few years. If you’re on Russia’s side I guess it makes sense

[bakuninsbart]

The carrot is that Russia will probably be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains in Ukraine. Some sanctions relief might be on the table as well. Dealing with a stupid, yet dangerous state like Russia, a carrot only works with a stick. All your suggestions effectively allow Russia to be even more brazen in its imperial ambitions going forward. That would be a big mistake. Conquering land needs to be prohibitively expensive. And for the sacrifice Ukraine is giving,they need proper assurances that they won't be attacked again a few years down the line.

European troops in Ukraine, adding them to a new European nuclear umbrella, and giving them a pathway towards EU membership and a "Marshal Plan" to rebuild are the kinds of things Ukraine needs to feel any kind of confidence in a ceasefire or peace agreement.

[user432678]

Should’ve West offered something in exchange for Hitler? In theory of course.