Europe at War

[Florestan]

Ukraine's Implausible Theories of Victory

The Fantasy of Russian Defeat and the Case for Diplomacy

Thank you Foreign Affairs for letting me read this article --- with which I mostly agree, on principle. The only problem is, at this moment neither Russia nor Ukraine have any incentive for, or any sincere desire for, a negotiated settlement.

[drogulus]

      From the article in FA this stands out:

Ukraine's leaders and its backers speak as if victory is just around the corner. But that view increasingly appears to be a fantasy.

     No, they, meaning Ukes and supporters, say the war will take some time. They say what I said above, which is why I said it. Next year is not "just around the corner". Nobody is even saying "home by Christmas".

     The name for this is "strawmanning". In order to bypass a realistic estimate that Russia can't continue a burn rate of its resources for many more month, a position no one espouses is refuted.

     It's possible that Russia has resources unknown to military and intelligence evaluators. Perhaps the collapse of their military industry for lack of parts, chips especially, is not so great that artillery ammunition can't be produced at a high enough rate. Is that so?

     If, if, Russia must conserve ammo they won't be able to hold on to much of the territory they now occupy. The Donbass conscripts are a dwindling resource. Putin evidently thinks mobilization is too dangerous for the regime, but I surmise that training hundreds of thousands of unmotivated conscripts would be hard because much of the competent military is committed to the fight. The elite units are in very bad shape because they don't rotate out until they are broken.

[Que]

Facts are that Russia is now using old, outdated Soviet stock in missiles, ammunition and even tanks.
Also it has been drawing from Bellorussian stocks.These clues support the theory of low running stocks.

[Karl Henning]

Victory for Ukraine, however finely tweezed, depends upon the West staying the course with them.

[Todd]

Facts are that Russia is now using old, outdated Soviet stock in missiles, ammunition and even tanks.
Also it has been drawing from Bellorussian stocks.These clues support the theory of low running stocks.

If you did not read the linked article, you may want to do so.  Or not.  Wishful thinking about Russian capabilities may not make for the best policy decisions.

[Que]

If you did not read the linked article, you may want to do so.  Or not.  Wishful thinking about Russian capabilities may not make for the best policy decisions.

I wouldn't base a policy decision on it. Hopefully does who have to, have reliable intelligence.
A lot depends on whether and to what extent the Russian weapons industry is affected by western sanctions - reports on that vary greatly.

And for the record: I think it is highly unlikely that Ukraine will defeat Russia on the battlefield.

[Todd]

A lot depends on whether and to what extent the Russian weapons industry is affected by western sanctions - reports on that vary greatly.

A lack of consensus that the sanctions are having the hoped-for effects means precisely that the sanctions are not having the hoped-for effects.  Look to North Korea and Iran as additional examples of the limits of sanctions.

[Spotted Horses]

Facts are that Russia is now using old, outdated Soviet stock in missiles, ammunition and even tanks.
Also it has been drawing from Bellorussian stocks.These clues support the theory of low running stocks.

For months I have been reading that Russia will run out of men and materials any day now. It doesn't seem to be happening. Their plans for a flash victory was a catastrophe, but now that they have reverted to creeping advance by obliterating civilian targets they don't need advanced weapons. It's just a question of how long they are willing to keep at it, and how long the civilian population can be prevented from knowing or caring about how many Russians and Ukrainians are dying in this pointless enterprise.

And I am sure they can survive sanctions at some level. They will just go back to the Soviet model of a more-or-less closed economy. That functioned, but it was an economy in which  you had to wait on line and show your passport to receive your weekly allocation of eggs.

[Florestan]

For all the alleged ineptitude of the Russians, they now have complete control over 20% of the Ukrainian territory. If the war stopped now, there is a high probability that after a negotiated settlement this percentage could be lower, for instance if Russia agreed to keep only Crimea and Donbas and return the Azov coastline and hinterland (which at this moment seems to be the best outcome for Ukraine and equivalent to a victory, especially if Russia also agreed to pay war reparations). But if war goes on undefinitely, there is a high probability that this percentage would be larger and their access to the Azov Sea, or even the Black Sea too, cut off permanently.

Some people seem to believe that just because Ukraine has superior weaponry supplied by the West this is going to result in their defeating Russia. I beg to differ. Do they also have enough personnel with the knowledge and expertise required to make effective use of those weapons? For instance, there's much talk about performant American jet fighters being supplied to Ukraine --- but how many Ukrainian pilots are there that can fly them? They can be trained --- why, of course, but how long does it take until they are fully able to use them effectively? And which nation would offer to train them in the full knowledge of the fact that such an act can legitimately be seen by Russia as an act of war against them?

The notion that this war cannot, and should not, be ended by anything else other than Russian unconditional capitulation and Ukraine retaking all his territories including Crimea is absurd and will do nothing else than prolonging the war for decades to come. The sooner Zelensky, Kuleba and their government will realize that "territories for peace" is inevitable if the war is to be ended asap, the better. The West is accused by some of fomenting the war --- but if the Ukrainian government formally asked for peace negotiations now, signalling their willingness to consider some territorial losses to Russia as inevitable, the West would have no other option than to back them and Russia would have no other option than to agree to peace talks. I mean, the Ulrainians have won the admiration and respect of the whole world for the bravery and determination with which they fought, but as the old saying goes, it takes a lot of courage to fight but a lot more to give up the fight.

Now that I think of it, if there had been willingness and good-will from both Ukrainian parties, nationalists and pro-Russian, perhaps a solution could have been found akin to the Lebanon political arrangements: the President always a Ukrainian, the prime-minister always a Russian, the Speaker of the Parliament Ukrainian or Russian by rotation; maybe even some degree of autonomy for certain regions. It could have worked or it could have resulted in complete chaos and Russian invasion nionetheless--- but at least they could've said they tried their best.

[Todd]

Some people seem to believe that just because Ukraine has superior weaponry supplied by the West this is going to result in their defeating Russia. I beg to differ. Do they also have enough personnel with the knowledge and expertise required to make effective use of those weapons?

The Ukrainians absolutely do not and will not be able to make effective use of the weapons systems they receive, assuming the weapons systems all function.  The Germans sent some tanks and artillery with no ammunition, for instance.  These systems will not turn the tide of the war.  There is a lot of wishful thinking and cynical exploitation and political calculation involved in sending weapons systems to the country.

Ukraine is being used. 

[Florestan]

Ukraine is being used.

Not against their will, though. As I said, they could extract themselves from the whole quagmire if they really wanted.

[Todd]

Not against their will, though. As I said, they could extract themselves from the whole quagmire if they really wanted.

True enough, but the imbalance of power and the exploitation on display is nothing other than old-fashioned great power politics.  It has been dressed up in prettier language, but the outcomes are as ugly as ever.

[Florestan]

True enough, but the imbalance of power and the exploitation on display is nothing other than old-fashioned great power politics.  It has been dressed up in prettier language, but the outcomes are as ugly as ever.

Yes but we should not lose sight of the fact that it's actually Russia that started the whole bloody (figuratively and literally) mess. They too should officially signal at least a modicum of willingness to end it by a negotiated settlement (meaning they too should give up some of their territorial claims).

Old-fashioned great power politics will continue as long as human history will continue. It's truly and really inevitable.

[Todd]

Yes but we should not lose sight of the fact that it's actually Russia that started the whole bloody (figuratively and literally) mess.

This is of course debatable and has been debated.  There will be no change in outlooks.

Russia will indeed have to be willing to cede something.  But for right now, with the war grinding away in a manner that suits the Russians, they have no need to do so.  The US could also publicly signal that it wants to pursue a settlement - and it will be a settlement between the world's currently two most significant powers - but it can easily afford to prolong the war.  As always, from an American perspective, the battlefield is in a faraway place where the combatants speak a funny sounding language and places have strange names.

[Florestan]

As always, from an American perspective, the battlefield is in a faraway place where the combatants speak a funny sounding language and places have strange names.

Always? Seems to me that WWI and WWII don't qualify as "as always".

[Todd]

Always? Seems to me that WWI and WWII don't qualify as "as always".

Yes, those qualify.  One of the key reasons the US emerged as the most powerful nation in the world is that it remained entirely unscathed during both wars, and its industrial and financial capacities soared during both wars.  This is well known.  The US has not had to endure a large-scale war on its soil since the 1860s.  Now, thanks to an unmatched conventional force and a nuclear deterrent sufficient to wipe out humanity, it pretty much never will, as long as it remains a cohesive nation state.  The US fights wars abroad and supports or opposes countries in other parts of the world. 

[Florestan]

Yes, those qualify.  One of the key reasons the US emerged as the most powerful nation in the world is that it remained entirely unscathed during both wars, and its industrial and financial capacities soared during both wars.  This is well known.  The US has not had to endure a large-scale war on its soil since the 1860s.  Now, thanks to an unmatched conventional force and a nuclear deterrent sufficient to wipe out humanity, it pretty much never will, as long as it remains a cohesive nation state.  The US fights wars abroad and supports or opposes countries in other parts of the world.

Fair enough.

This is also why many nations who've experienced Russian hegemony, when given the opportunity hasted to put themselves under the US protection. I can fully understand your opposing the US giving that protection and I''m sure that in turn you fully understand our seeking that protection. In both instances there's a case of "my country before all others". 

[Todd]

This is also why many nations who've experienced Russian hegemony, when given the opportunity hasted to put themselves under the US protection. I can fully understand your opposing the US giving that protection and I'm sure that in turn you fully understand our seeking that protection.

I understand very well why smaller countries seek protection from the US.  It is obvious.  There are better ways to achieve that aim than recklessly expanding NATO against the explicit request - demand, really - by Russia not to do so.  We are now witnessing what happens when things are pushed too far.  In response, the US has overextended itself strategically and exposed the extent of its financial power, which while enormous, is not as all-powerful as hoped.  The Chinese government is learning rather a lot from this episode.

[Florestan]

I understand very well why smaller countries seek protection from the US.  It is obvious.  There are better ways to achieve that aim

Which ones? I'm really interested in your point ---- but please, Todd, make it explicitly, don't just send me to various links and references. Please, explain it in your own words. Thank you.

[drogulus]

     I'll let the Ukrainians decide what a successful defense requires. It's my generous nature, and avoids unnecessary quibbles about the meaning of victory.

     I'll also choose to view statements about weakening Russia as a necessary means, not an outcome chosen for itself. If Russia could be thwarted in its imperial designs without weakening it, sure, why not?

     Can Ukraine be defended by diplomacy? What about thoughts and prayers, or magic spells? Is it a war crime to use witchcraft instead of drones? All options are on the table.

     One might say Ukraine hired itself out to defend Europe if that was more important to them than defending themselves. I doubt that's the case. They're in it for themselves first, and ask for "exploitation", also known as "help", as a means for what matters most to them.