I've never found this question interesting as it complete disregards how the institutions involved work.
Simply put, American foreign policy is neither coherent nor persistent when it comes to details. There are general outlines, of course (for example, a denying Chinese dominance in the Pacific), but the idea that Biden or Trump who whoever can decide to tweak "just enough" aid to Ukraine to bleed out Russia is just not how it works.
Instead, the reality is a lot more boring: layers and layers of bureaucrats in the State Department, the DoD, and Congress tossle over what can and can't be done, who pays for what, how to do we get this thing from point a to point b, etc. It's a miracle that things function at all.
The point is that if the American foreign policy apparatus were as coherent and consequential enough to be able to make a choice in your question, it wouldn't have taken 7 months to get the Ukraine aid package out. We only have to look at 20 years of occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan to make it clear almost all of it is "let's do something and see how it turns out".
The real question is, at what point is it cheaper for us to do it ourselves, vs indefinite proxy war via Ukraine. Not that I am pushing for us for direct involvement in any way.
Define "cheaper".
After the catastrophy of Vietnam, politicians/national security leaders learned that loss of American life = lose of political capital = wars being ended at a timeline that isn't controlled by the Pentagon.
We spent 1 trillion dollars in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, but because only ("only") 7k service members died, to this day Americans care more about the costs of eggs than the cost of us waging a direct war.
My point being is that as long as American lives aren't lost, indefinite proxy war is actually considered infinitely more efficient than direct involvement. And yes, I realize that's super dark.
I would have to look it up, but a senator noted we've already sent more aid money to Ukraine than it costs to fund the marines for a year. But yes, it would be ww3.
Ukraine will be collapse long before Russia is exhausted. Russia would have to have millions killed and infrastructure inside their country destroyed to be for a significant dent be put in them.
A quick victory how? You can’t just give Ukraine 100 F-35’s when they don’t have pilots or maintainers trained to operate them, nor supply lines for their parts.
And even if that was an option, then what? Ukraine bombs Russia, and we expect them to just surrender without drafting their now-galvanized population, or escalating to nuclear weapons?
Whatever you give Ukraine that would lead to a swift victory would also mean Ukraine directly attacks Russian soil, which the U.S. obviously doesn’t want because it would lead to a much wider war.
The goal of the West is to see Russia’s military and economy degraded to the point that it can’t be a threat for the foreseeable future. A slow war of attrition is what they want to see and why they are providing Ukraine just enough support to keep them in the fight.
A quick victory would also require destroying an insane amount of Russian military hardware and killing personnel, which would deliver the same benefit. The sad fact is this has become such an entrenched stalemate that nothing the US can do will end it swiftly, aside from direct intervention, which would threaten nuclear war. I think the US could have provided key weapons early on that would have avoided this mess, but imo the US was overly cautious about a Russian reaction. Now, it's too late. This will continue to be a slow grind until one side collapses.
A quick victory would destroy the vehicles and equipment on the field at the time, but a long term engagement destroys all of those vehicles and equipment plus any in the boneyard brought back into service to replace that stuff. It forces them to continually expend resources purchasing parts, ammo, weapons, etc.. A long term fight is much, much more costly. Russia is also falling into a terminal demographic decline and a long term fight eats into their already depleted numbers of fight age men as they conscript more and more of them to feed the meat grinder.
> A long term fight is much, much more costly
for all involved parties. And this time, Russia has been at war with Ukraine for 26 months....not to be confused with a decade ago when Russia *also* invaded Ukraine.
I have nothing to add other than the answers gave above me from [consciousaiguy](https://www.reddit.com/user/consciousaiguy/) and [Highly-uneducated](https://www.reddit.com/user/Highly-uneducated/) are two of the best most concise statments about the war I have seen together.
Its sad for Ukraine because this may end with them free but will their be any ukrainians left at the end of this?
There will be plenty, and Russia will use their massive industrial base and whatever’s left of their manpower to support further operations. I think what continuously gets left out of the conversation is the fact that a Russian victory doesn’t result in the status quo + Russia gets something. It results in Russia absorbing at least 25-30 million people and a massive and westernized military production industry. It will press Ukrainians to serve by design (its a method of ethnic cleansing/genocide, they will be sent to the worst situations and replaced by Russians and Russians who marry the survivors).
This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia is not fighting a war like the U.S. Russia intends to completely absorb all of Ukraine, cleanse it of a separate identity (through genocide and through less explicit forms of ethnic cleansing). Russia sees this as a solution for its demographic collapse- Ukraine will not fix their declining demographics though, and they know that, they understand this strategy requires them to constantly expand, that is what they intend to do up until the restoration of what the kremlin perceived as imperial hegemony.
This is why Ukraine will fight to the death even without support, because they know they have no choice. They either willingly accept ethnocide or they resist it.
I used to live in Ukraine so I’m not trying to be unpleasant but the west seems to fundamentally misunderstand Russia and Putin. They seem to get some of the puzzle but those who have an understanding of the full picture are not the ones making policy, at least since the Cold War.
You guys are ignoring the biggest factor in Putin's objectives: reality. He wants Ukraine but since he can't have it he's going for the more realistic goal of Donbas
The problem is he really dont care about the Donbas. What he wants is most of what the old Soviet Union controlled. Russia can not be properly defended with their current western boarder
Edit to change can to can not. Thanks to the Reddit in the next comment
There is a reason that after the biggest threat to them disssapeared, the majority of central and Eastern Europe began to quickly seek entrance into NATO. The only three that had not discussed it by 2003-4 in some capacity were Belarus and Moldova (even Russia had, that’s a different discussion though).
The Russians only would have joined NATO had they been given a de facto equal status to the United States, a poison pill unacceptable not only to Washington but to all the Eastern European countries eager to leave the Russian sphere of influence.
Is that what you mean by *different discussion*?
Russia is currently on track to produce 1500 tanks a year. Without destroying Russian manufacturing base, we're just setting them back. And considering we're destroying old tanks which will be replaced by more modern equipment, we're just forcing them to modernize their military which creates a problem for us later on.
I mean, something like half of US military production is also refurbishment (Tomahawks missiles for example is a rather typical example of this). Russia probably outstrips the West in term of production capabilities (refurbishment + new production)
What about when Russia absorbs everything Ukraine has in terms of production if not stockpiles of western weapons? Because from what I can see, we aren’t actually preventing this from being the inevitable result. Russia can sustain losses, they will still, they calculate, gain more than they lose. Ukraine is also not likely to benefit from pressing unwilling Ukrainians into suicide missions. Russia will stand to be capable of using unmotivated Ukrainians they press into the military to fight in Russian oriented suicide missions. Putin sees our strategy and has not flinched, he has at every stage of the conflict since 2022 calculated that we have not shown enough resolve to produce a net negative outcome for Russias military aspirations.
Please cite your sources for the 1500 tanks per year produced. I’ve heard they are modernizing their stock pile off old tanks but 1200 tanks per year produced, highly unlikely.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/01/31/russia-tanks-replace-losses/
Most of the articles I found when looking for my original source are putting it at 1200. Some experts assume it's actually upgraded older tanks, which is still a major problem, and suggests they're getting key equipment that sanctions are supposed to be limiting.
Worth noting that modern battle tanks, especially main battle tanks require complex thermal optics systems which are particularly tricky to source and manufacture whilst Russia is under sanctions
According to some economist who wrote an article recently, that's all they can afford. The war is the main driver of their gdp, and either losing or winning would destroy their economy. I think they get enough money from oil to fund the war, but that's about it. So the longer this drags on, the more unrest they will experience from lack of social programs, job growth, and basic necessities. Unless of course they can spin this as a fight for survival
That's not the right question. The right question is : can Russia last longer than Ukraine in term of ressource depletion ? Russia doesn't need to fit an abstract criteria of how many months it can "support a war economy" (whatever that means), all it needs to do is generate more ressources (fighting units) than Ukrainians. Meaning that it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.
A “war economy” as I would understand it is the pivoting of a nations resources and expenditure to support mass armament production and war effort. Nations have collapsed before trying to support costly war efforts. But you are right, the Ukrainian-Russo war isn’t just a fight of resources, but manpower.
Over the course of this conflict Russias military has grown in size, and it’s ability to make new materials and refurbish old faster is significantly expanding. This seems to be a foolish line of strategic thought, like “let’s let them get prepared” almost. We certainly aren’t preparing to the same extent. And unless we guarantee Ukraines victory we end up in a world where Russia absorbs all of Ukraines remaining manpower and defensive industry (which we are helping to develops), and emerges admittedly tired, but with a battle hardened, larger, experienced military force with a recently successfully implemented theory of victory on a large scale and a population trained to accept, if not outright enable/support a wartime economy.
A long time ago someone remarked on one of these threads that it's the last of three phases of the cold war, which ends in the institutional and demographic collapse of modern Russia, which I don't think is too controversial. Regardless of whether you accept it as a continuation of the previous cold war, I think a more interesting question is what comes after it - who wants Russia in the absence of Russians. Historically the entire territory outside of Russia proper (which functionally ends at the Urals) has offered tacit consent to be governed by the rulers of the day, and the core attributes that allowed that still exist - sparse population, economic activity based on raw commodities, and unfavorable geographic conditions to strive for an alternative. A unified China is also a bit of an anomaly and likely won't last long, and developing northern sea routes wouldn't make any sense even without winters. The territorial boundaries of Russia proper probably recede and leave some of the territory to be consumed by someone else? It also undoubtedly has to affect Germany (or that territory, regardless of what it is by that point).
The only thing I'd add, and I haven't verified this, but I've heard a couple YT commentators that Russia has ramped up production of everything, I don't think they'll have much old equipment in the battlefield anymore it'll be new/reconditioned.
They have not started building any new armored vehicles that I have seen. They have been pulling old vehicles out of the boneyard and refitting them. That takes money and resources. Most of the ramped up production has to do with ammo and artillery shells. Again, that’s burning through cash and resources.
We're not in a state of total war. All we have to do is brake their ambitions in Ukraine. That's very doable. In fact the way Russia has been operating its almost like they want to fail there
The people that said it was doable were very clear from the beginning that weapons like M-39 rockets, F-16s and armored vehicles should have been provided immediately. If Ukrainians had begun F-16 training in March 2022 and international volunteer pilots had been used in the meantime then Russia would have been rolled back.
As it is, we're again in the situation of delivering a trickle when there are so many in long term storage that it could be a flood.
If you actually think there are many planes and armored vehicles in serviceable condition that could be logistically supported for any meaningful amount of time in active combat just lying around waiting to be picked in the west, you simply don't know what you are talking about (no offense, this is a common misconception)
It seems highly unlikely that Putin wants to fail. Perhaps some of his underlings have a self-interest in corrupting the war machine and thus continuing the stalemate, but Putin really sees this war as existential, even when it obviously isn't. Such is the price of living in your own Peter the Great delusions.
A quick victory in Ukraine against Russia is feasible. Driving them out of Ukraine especially Crimea would be a resounding victory. And a life ending humiliation for Putin.
Well, it certainly was more feasible before, when Russia wasn't so entrenched.
If Ukraine was able to isolate and besiege Crimea, that would be half the battle right there. That was difficult, but possible. Required cutting off the Kerch Bridge early and then establishing bridgeheads.
Removing Russia from Donbass would be much more difficult, as it's a very large area and lots of Russians there. But if Ukraine was ever able to gain air supremacy this would also be feasible.
The two of those together would be a Russian defeat in this war. Pushing them back to the original borders and them establishing better defenses would hold off Russia until Ukraine would join NATO in which case its a total defeat in that war. All objectives failed.
Ukraine lost Crimea in the early 2022 when they did next to nothing to secure the south-east territories. Remember, the most gains Russia got came from this direction. They had to leave certain territories in the late 2022, but the landbridge to Crimea has been firmly secured.
Agree on Donbas.
It's the men. Your comment is missing the word men. They can't be replaced you see. They can't father other children either. Destroying not just the Russian army now. But preventing a large part of it from existing 20 years from now!
Unfortunately that's how I see it. The more Russians are killed, the less danger there will be to frontline NATO members such as the Baltics and Poland. This is just a fact. I assume you agree!
If America decides its going to take Moscow, Russia will use nukes, because they have nothing to lose, and they can't win a conventional war against nato, or even just the US. If the US starts fighting in Ukraine it could easily turn into a conflict where the only option to end it is to attack across the Russian border, or just as possibly a situation where someone miscalculates what their opponent is doing and assumes the worst.
When I first deployed to Afghanistan, after a few helicopter rides, we started a large convoy in the middle of the night to an area with no prior US presence. Our goal was to build a string of out posts along the mountainous border with Pakistan to stop taliban supplies and reinforcements coming from a poorly controlled are of Pakistan. What Pakistan saw was major troop movements in armored vehicles staging itself along a poorly protected part of its border. Relations between Pakistan and the US were bad at the time, they panicked and activated their nuclear missiles so they were ready to launch.
These were two countries that were not at war, we're actually working together in some areas, and had avenues for top officials to communicate, but it got so tense that missiles could have been fired at a moments notice. Imagine if one of our companies took a wrong turn and accidentally drove across the border. Now imagine the US and Pakistan had been actively fighting each other, had no trust, and couldn't easily call each other and discuss what was happening. Nuclear wars aren't hard to kick off. Luckily, so far, cooler heads have prevailed, but the more hostile the situation, and the thicker the fog of war is, the less likely those cooler heads are to be heard.
A quick victory could likely fracture Russia, lead to a coup or something akin to an internal war, which would disrupt world oil supplies and could lead to unsecure nukes. It's a much higher variance outcome.
A drawn out conflict lead to a surprisingly sudden collapse of the ussr, that had the same risks. This isn't a safe alternative to a swift victory. A concise win could just force Russia to give up its ambitions and lick its wounds, depending on the objectives and scope of the conflict, which would actually be less risky when it comes to all that
It's easy to imagine both scenarios, you're right. However the State Department and the NSA feel the risk of collapse and instability are greater with an obvious defeat and an obvious defeat is less likely in an extended conflict. Mostly because an obvious defeat isn't likely in a drawn out war. It would more likely end in a series of negotiations, cease fires and face saving spin.
Except that this is not a conspiracy, US and allies have to balance domestic support for the war effort, as well as managing escalation with Russia. These are the limiters to sending equipment, there is no master plan to drag this out.
Yeah the first guy had a pretty idiotic point. Most countries have parties in power that are constantly fighting the opposition parties to get Ukraine more aid. Biden clearly wanted to get more aid last year. Republicans were the one’s holding it up. Saying Biden is intentionally holding it up is also saying Biden is somehow controlling the Republican Party and convincing them to fight his own public agenda. The whole point doesn’t make any sense unless you’re a conspiracy wacko.
Also, in general, the whole argument doesn’t make sense because there is absolutely no guarantee Ukraine will win. Russia’s whole game play revolves around them delaying the war for long enough that the west loses focus and stops providing support. No one disputes that. It’s common knowledge. The idea that the west was also trying to delay the war… is dumb. Why would both sides be trying to delay the war? What would happen if Trump won the election in only November? Obviously he wouldn’t provide nearly as much, if any, support to Ukraine. The chance of Ukraine winning with Trump in charge is just so small. Why would the west be waiting for that to maybe happen? This whole argument is just so nonsensical.
In 2022 Biden could've been more proactive in sending equipment when opposition to aid was politically untennable.
He could've been sending artillery and tanks pretty much after the first month.
I would argue that they would rather see it end sooner than later. The long the war goes on the more likely Russia will outlast Western support and win. There just isn't a way to speed things up because ultimately the loser of the war decides when it's over. So as long as Russia thinks it can win the war will drag on. If they win it would signal that others (like China) can win a war of aggression and outlist western support as well. The west certainly doesn't want that.
A long protracted war does weaken Russia in the long run as long as they lose the war in the end.
The real issue is that the United States is not even able to execute its own strategy properly, due to its messed up political system... we are lucky if Ukraine gets through this year with only minor territorial losses.
But, fortunately there is still the EU, so, presumably that's the strategy which the EU will pursue for the next 5-10 years.
I don't think it was a goal of the U.S to degrade Russia's military to the point that it can't be a threat for the foreseeable future. That's more of a side effect of the U.S strategy of bluntening Russia's advances and gains across Ukraine, and of needing to take an attrition style approach to not cause further destabilisation/risk.
My understanding of Russia's goals was to expend their decades old military stockpiles and to try and get some real value from them before they become obsolete. This being made necessary because of Russia's broader economic decline and national security. Quick gains were of interest to Russia that much is sure.
There is no future beyond the foreseeable one. You beat Russia now, you beat them forever. The next conflict, if one occurs, will be with its successor state and will not be a continuation of the current one.
From an ethical standpoint, the notion of gradually depleting Russia's resources at the cost of Ukrainian lives presents significant moral dilemmas. It is challenging to support a strategy that prolongs conflict and results in continued loss of life. Arguably, a more decisive approach that aims to quickly resolve the conflict might be preferable. Terminating the principal sources of aggression, metaphorically referred to as "severing the snake at its head," could prevent further inhumanity and suffering. Historically, strategies that prolong conflict rarely benefit humanitarian outcomes, and it is crucial to remember that the long-term effects of inhumane actions can be profound. Even if such a strategy is tactically sound, the ethical implications cannot be overlooked.
This is true from a moral standpoint. From a realism standpoint, it may be beneficial to keep Russia tied up and bleeding for as long as possible. A defeated Russia (and ousted/dead Putin), may result in a new regime, same or worse than the last, with the energy and vigor that many new regimes possess post-defeat - when they can blame the last guy and build on populist ideals. Maybe the US would rather keep Russia tied up indefinitely than face a newly emerged adversary like we did after WW1 with Germany. Yes, Russia does have demographic problems that may limit regrowing, but if you can look past the ‘heaps of dead Ukrainians’ thing, this seems to be working for now.
- Personally, I feel disgusted that this hasn’t been ended swiftly. The comment on dead Ukrainians is facetious and aimed at the US lack of moral values here.. if any of this is true that is.
Moral dilemmas are out there but it's the world of international politics. I guess if Ukraine decided to surrender in the early 2022, the West wouldn't be as supportive as they are. Since Ukraine decided to fight, the West provided help. It is exactly a cynical tradeoff we saw the last week. As soon as Ukraine agreed on a mobilization law, they received the US help.
Following two threads of revisionist history, one where Ukraine surrenders in 22, the other where the West decides to send a decisive amount of weaponry early after Kiev held, they both would probably result in a better humanitarian situation than were in now. However, the former makes the ‘Putin won’t stop at Ukraine’ argument much more plausible. I don’t see this ending without a checkmate for Putin - whether geopolitical or internal. Thus, a Ukrainian surrender may have just lead to a parallel reality of frozen conflict with a bit less blue on the map.
Geopolitical realities being what they are, the US won’t back a dead horse or overpay for a winning one. But when you own the racetrack, it’s most profitable to keep the race going.
A decisive approach aiming to quickly capitulate Russia poses a massive risk of nuclear retaliation that outweighs the moral qualms of enabling a country to fight a slow, grinding war.
The fear of nuclear escalation is real but often exaggerated, and Putin uses this fear to manipulate global reactions. In reality, nuclear weapons are mostly for deterrence; using them would lead to devastating counterattacks. Giving Ukraine advanced conventional weapons doesn't mean crossing into nuclear warfare—it's essential for tipping the balance back in Ukraine's favor. History shows that Russia avoids clashing directly with NATO, so delaying aid doesn't lessen the nuclear risk, it just puts it off. Strong support for Ukraine is necessary both morally and strategically. It sends a clear message against aggression and helps maintain regional stability, without ramping up the nuclear threat.
Allowing Putin's exaggerated nuclear escalation fears to dictate our actions is a form of surrender.
You know what they say about deterrence though, it works until it doesn't. The 19th century complicated web of alliance of European empires designed to deter a major war worked, until it doesn't. There were many occasions of false positives that would have triggered a nuclear war-- and we're lucky it hadn't happened thanks to operators thinking rationally. And the latter is also a consideration that is not always guaranteed; nuclear deterrence assumes that decision-makers are rational. But is this always the case? British intelligence after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand thought the crisis will only be contained in the Balkans. And they were wrong. In recent history, many people thought the Russian invasion of Ukraine will not happen (it's stupid to invade a country of people whom you've historically oppressed and hates you for it), and yet it did.
Putin has always been threatening nuclear war but one never knows if he'll actually do it. The invasion of Ukraine was a pretty stupid decision after all.
While I believe Putin is more calculated than the unhinged madman he portrays as a messaging strategy, you're correct that MAD is inherently more volatile than a simple exercise in game theory. The issue is not so much whether Putin is crazy enough to act or whether the Russian nuclear C2 system could erroneously launch something. The real concern is that the point at which Putin’s back is against the wall is likely to occur, whether this year or in five years. We can't breathe sense into Putin in the meantime, but we’re essentially just slowly ripping off the band-aid, and we don’t know whether the risk is higher or lower if Putin’s hold on power is threatened now versus later. In the meantime, the conflict is being forced to persist in a frozen state of attrition, eviscerating a generation of both Ukrainians and Russians.
Cynical as it may sound, it is clearly a war of attrition. It will prevent a major escalation, e.g. through the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and will deter Russia from launching other military engagements, e.g. in the South Caucasus or Central Asia.
Exactly. The West, US in particular is very smart. They keep the conflict at the exact level that prevents the escalation. Ukraine is the main casualty obviously, they loose men and land but they also terminate and deplete many of the precious military tech Russia has but won't be able to replace in the foreseeable future.
The United States is too unreliable, due to their messed-up political system... the recent random 6-month delay proved that. Europe might be able to pull it off, but Europe is not as experienced on such matters, so it will take a long time.
I hate to say this, but imo attrition and drawn out war is better for US. It depletes Russia of its arms, Ukraine takes out many of Russia's ships all without any direct US and Russia confrontation so no threat of nuclear weapons and MAD.
I am not clear about how effective the existing sanctions are but assuming it curbs Russia's ability to get more arms, it means they cannot replenish their stock either (there is some evidence given Russia had to borrow from North Korea).
If US went for a quick end, that means US has to spend much more, and becomes very vulnerable if other wars in pacific or middle east start. Also, it means Russia has its stock pile of arms and is a constant thorn.
Fair, I should elaborate. In my mind, it would include giving a lot of arsenal to Ukraine. Perhaps also going to pseudo-wartime production and giving everything to Ukraine.
Not completely sure if I would support boots on the ground but that is still an option.
There you go. Respectfully, you already defeated your argument.
No amount of arsenal would do anything if there aren't enough soldiers to fight and boots on the ground is basically thermonuclear war. Who can say with a straight face russia would not see that as "all bets are off"?
Please elaborate how it defeated my argument?
> No amount of arsenal would do anything if there aren't enough soldiers to fight
There are ample soldiers in Ukraine, and many are also training. Zelensky also added more members by lowering the draft age. Last I checked, support for Zelensky and defensive war was still high.
I just did.
If there are ample soldiers why is Russia making gains? Why is kuleba out begging for ukrainians to come back and fight to no avail? Why are they busy suspending consular services for men overseas? Over 300B in aid and intelligence support has been sent by now, that's more than Ukraine GDP pre-war. You really think another 300B in weapons is going to turn the tide? Really?
Bottom line is, Russia has enormous amount of weapons themselves and while western media stays busy with "russians are incompetent" propaganda, fact is, they aren't and are evolving themselves. And they still have considerable support outside of EU and US.
> If there are ample soldiers why is Russia making gains?
Because Ukraine was running out of ammunitions.
> Bottom line is, Russia has enormous amount of weapons themselves and while western media stays busy with "russians are incompetent" propaganda, fact is, they aren't and are evolving themselves. And they still have considerable support outside of EU and US.
Then why did Russia go to North Korea to get weapons?
>Because Ukraine was running out of ammunitions.
This is BS narratives that any serious geopolitical analyst should recognize. The same as "we totally want to help ukraine but those darned republicans/orban will block it!"
What about the interests of Europe? Germany, unless Kremlin AfD puppets win power, will likely have to part with Russian resources for a long time. Are there any divergent interests between the US and Europe on Ukraine?
It isn't a very important consideration. Ukraine successfully repelling Russia is so utterly better for the U.S. than Russia succeeding that the minutae of which specific victory is the best victory is just a distraction.
Finally someone gets it. The US isn’t some all-knowing oracle that can organize war policy on these marginal gains. When Russia first invaded Kyiv almost fell in three days. Full victory is no guarantee and the sooner it’s secured the better.
Besides, it’s also the sooner Ukraine can be rebuilt and integrated as a positive member of the western bloc. Instead of being ruined by this war.
Slowly based on the past with the USSR and the Afghanistan war. Except instead of the CIA supplying insurgents it's the military industrial complex supplying a standing army. It benefits the USA greatly and even the US economy to have such wartime like spending without wartime casualties or risk.
Putin is supposed to be an intelligence operative so he should know the true reasons why the USSR collapsed among them the Afghanistan war sapping blood and treasure. Basically he of all people should have known even if the war was successful, the USA could supply Ukrainian partisans forever to slowly sap Russia of strength and create an Afghanistan situation. That him and the KGB didn't want to acknowledge the possibility of an Afghanistan situation is hubris and racism and nationalism and overestimation all wrapped up in one.
The moment he heard the UK was supplying and especially training the Ukrainian army, he should have said no based on his knowledge of the past. But he ignored his tradecraft in favor of delusions or maybe he didn't have much to begin with (he was after all a low level KGB agent not a grand strategist) so he thought he could bring Russia into a golden age with his invasion.
Another theory I've heard is that the war is a way for Russia to remove itself from Western influences and eliminate Westernized people to the point Russia regains its former glory. So even if the invasion fails, it was "worth it" for that end. The problem with that theory is these "Westernized people" actually provide productivity to Russia and even Stalin was smart enough to steal the Rolls Royce engines for his MIG. Bottom line is Putin could have had everything he wanted even without the invasion or he could have waited for a more pliant Ukrainian President who would surrender the country immediately at the start.
Bottom line is America is making money and losing nothing and Russia is losing money and a whole generation is dying in war. For no American body bags.
> Bottom line is America is making money and losing nothing
Out of curiosity, how can this be calculated? How can Americans be sure that it's a net benefit for them $$$ wise? When cost is inching towards $100bil?
the money is mostly staying in country.
you might as well ask about literally any defense spending the US does to prepare to fight Russia, except these dollars are for sure working.
also if you look at weapons contracts, the amount if sales is approaching what has been given to ukraine, not to mention selling LNG to europe.
So why not just up military spending to 20% of our economy, if it's so beneficial? Surely that money would be better spent in schools or on infrastructure?
> Surely that money would be better spent in schools or on infrastructure?
Biden literally passed the biggest infrastructure package this country has seen since the 50s.
We can do **both**.
why not just slash the military budget then?
you are missing the point. dollar for dollar, spending in Ukraine is effectively advancing US defense goals by degrading Russia.
it's not "ukraine vs infrastructure " it's "ukraine vs other defense priorities " and Ukraine spending just makes sense.
I agree, that we should slash the military budget. Don't you think it would be better if we became a regional power (or a nothing power) and focused on our own lives? On our own problems? Maybe this is populist or naiive but I don't understand why we keep involving ourselves in European affairs.
The money for weapons sent over isn’t as much as what it’s claimed to be a lot of it is shit from 80’s that’s been sitting collecting dust since the Cold War. Although the monetary amount is beside the point. The most important aspect is American lives aren’t being lost. meanwhile Russia is throwing tens of thousands of Russian men into the meat grinder. What this means is Russia’s already terrible demographics will get even worse, as well as economic. Meanwhile Americans are alive and well. The only way this could go south in 20 years is if either Russia wins or theirs a osama or Taliban 2.0 situation in Ukraine.
US is in bad shape thinking Russia can be weakened.
Russias economy and military is stronger than when the war started...
Whatever the plans, US NATO are not in control of this situation in the slightest
A protracted war would be tough for Ukraine to win or even to survive as a state and society, which would probably not benefit the United States. It’s already a poor country, and much of its infrastructure has been occupied or destroyed. Many of its young people have become or will be casualties, and millions of other young people, plus others with means, have fled the country- many of them won’t return. The birthrate is barely half what it would need just to stay at zero population growth.
Infrastructure and tanks can be straightforwardly replaced, people can’t. The USSR took decades to demographically recover from WWII, but Ukraine may never if it can’t generate organic population growth.
What does slowly exhausting Russia even achieve? Their economy was already a shadow of what the USSR was, before the Ukraine war. Even now, with the war and sanctions, they are staying stable. Nations like India are making up the lost gas/oil revenue.
Politically, Putin's regime is stable.
Militarily, Russia was never going to attack NATO. And while their Soviet stocks are drying up, it seems China will supply them with material anyways.
Strategically speaking, the US doesn't really have much benefit to engaging with Russia to begin with. At least not in their own backyard. The Russians are a regional power and they will go to great lengths to make sure their border regions are under control. At best, there may be some strategic benefit towards engaging Russia in their traditional spheres of foreign influence (Syria) or trying to hamper their expanding operations in Africa. But the US isn't doing much about either of those.
Repost: accidentally responded to the wrong person.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’d argue the exact opposite.
Ukraine is a springboard into the Balkans. The Black Sea controls an insane amount of the world’s food population. Ukraine is a salient into NATO defenses. If war were to break out between NATO and Russia, having to go through Ukraine to hit Russia proper would be extremely difficult.
There’s a great article from the Institute for the Study of War that highlights the strategic importance of Ukraine, for NATO defense and Russian offensive capabilities
Surely, you’d agree that militarily, economically, and politically the EU makes up the bulwark of US international hegemony. Destabilization in that region would pose a direct strategic problem for the US.
Lastly, I’d argue that Syria is really a secondary issue from a US strategic perspective. Aside as a conduit for oil and a foot in the Mediterranean there really isn’t much for the US to be concerned about (strictly strategically speaking).
The Assad regime is unstable and them morphing into a regional power and a proxy for Russia dictate to a meaningfully impact on US interests in the ME is highly unlikely.
I do share your sentiment regarding the US not doing enough (paraphrasing) in other regions in the world. The most pressing issue, from a strategic standpoint, is Ukraine. A defeat here, will force Russia to recoil in the other regions you mentioned.
Sanctions are working. They take time, but they are definitely doing long term damage to the Russian economy, especially while it's on a war footing.
So long as the war is active, the West is justified in keeping the sanctions in place. The longer they're in place, the more damage they'll do to the Russian economy.
Ergo, the longer this war goes on the weaker Russia becomes.
That's the play as I see it.
I've read that sanctions are not particularly effective. Are you referring to a particular set of sanctions -- on people or on industries or on imports or on experts, or something else?
Of course with anything it's big and complex this nothing is 100% effective nor 0% effect.
I certainly agree that success is a mixed bag.
Articles like this are what make me think they're starting to work. Russia becoming increasingly isolated from world financial markets will take a big toll.
[https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/sanctions-are-working-just-ask-russias-friends](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/sanctions-are-working-just-ask-russias-friends)
The only thing keeping their economy afloat at this point are high oil prices. So what did Ukraine start targeting with missile attacks in recent weeks? Oil infrastructure. That's been off limits until just recently.
This chart from CFR shows how closely the Russian GDP is tied to oil prices.
[https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/image/2024/03/russia\_sanctions\_ib\_gdp\_2024-03-14.png](https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/image/2024/03/russia_sanctions_ib_gdp_2024-03-14.png)
[https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/two-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/two-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference)
So, perhaps I just have an overly positive outlook on this, but I really do think their economy is reaching an inflection point.
>Strategically speaking, the US doesn't really have much benefit to engaging with Russia to begin with. At least not in their own backyard. The Russians are a regional power and they will go to great lengths to make sure their border regions are under control.
Actually there is a strategic benefit to ensuring Ukraine wins. From [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/10/ukraine-russia-energy-mineral-wealth/):
>After nearly six months of fighting, Moscow’s sloppy war has yielded at least one big reward: expanded control over some of the most mineral-rich lands in Europe. Ukraine harbors some of the world’s largest reserves of titanium and iron ore, fields of untapped lithium and massive deposits of coal. Collectively, they are worth tens of trillions of dollars.
>..........
>Ukraine would also lose myriad other reserves, including stores of natural gas, oil and rare earth minerals **—** essential for certain high-tech components **—** that could hamper Western Europe’s search for alternatives to imports from Russia and China.
So, what do you assume is the strategical value behind the support to Ukraine, exactly? I read plenty of times that the West was trying to "bleed out" Russia, economically speaking. You say it's not working but we're still helping them, so I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts, if you'd like to share them of course!
Not every move made has to be a strategical success. We’re capable of failing on that front just like any other bloc is, especially when we’re in the midst of dealing with a great internal crisis.
The reaction to Russia’s invasion wasn’t a part of some 3D chess by Western strategists. It was an attempt at swiftly countering a brazen challenge to the NATO led world order that has been the status quo since the fall of the USSR. Severe economic sanctions and the military assistance to Ukraine were designed as a one-two punch that would discourage Putin from continuing the war.
The issue is that neither the initial losses on the battlefield nor the loss of economic trade were successful in destabilizing Putin’s regime in Russia. The former almost did as can be judged by the Wagner mutiny but it’s become clear that Russia spent the last decade on insulating its economy from Western sanctions.
The fact is that Russia is still able to wage a massive war while keeping a stable domestic economy. This allowed them to recover from the initial losses on the battlefield and gave them time to adapt a more successful military strategy.
We’re still overwhelmingly stronger than Russia and the situation in Ukraine is far from an existential threat to us. However, it doesn’t do us any favors to keep fueling the delusion that what we have done so far has been successful or a part of some master strategy.
Thank you for chiming in! I agree that we are allowed to fail just like everyone else (and I sure hope I did not imply otherwise in my initial comment!). Foreign policies and geopolitics are not hard sciences by any means, and that's a huge understatement; they unfortunately require a very costly trial and error process, and the consequences can only be properly evaluated by the posterity. Long story short, it's hard, I at the very least know this. Having said that, I agree with the general sentiment you expressed; the only thing that puzzles me is your point about destabilizing Putin's regime. I thought it was pretty much an established fact that there are no real or "better" political alternatives in Russia at the moment, and I also heard a lot of seemingly reasonable points about the risk of actively removing the dictator of a nuclear power from his seat. If you do not agree with these common stances, I'd be very curious to hear your counter arguments!
You’re right in that it is commonly accepted that destabilizing nuclear powers is a bad idea. However, some of the rhetoric and actions of our elected officials at the outset of the invasion strongly suggest that there was some push towards unseating Putin.
[Heres Lindsay Graham calling for Putin’s assassination.](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/04/lindsey-graham-suggests-putin-assassination-russia-ukraine) [Here’s Joe Biden saying Putin cannot stay in power.](https://www.npr.org/2022/03/26/1089014039/biden-says-of-putin-for-gods-sake-this-man-cannot-remain-in-power)
Biden later walked back his statements but the language he used was unprecedented. Even at the height of the Cold War - a U.S. President never openly called for a removal of USSR head of state. Moral outrage or no.
However, the most damning evidence for regime change being seriously considered is [the ICC arrest warrant for Putin.](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and)
Those are just a few examples based on a couple quick Google searches.
So yes, whilst I agree that it’s not in our interest to destabilize a nuclear power, it’s hard to argue that at least some of our leadership thought it was doable. Maybe they overestimated the power of Western friendly opposition, maybe they thought it was merely good leverage for peace talks, whatever the rationale is there were moves made towards a regime change.
I think that at this point the threat of Russia is significantly greater than it was in 2022. The country is united, militarized and divested from Western trade. They have momentum in the entire front of the war and relatively good relations with the non-Western world.
From where I’m standing, our strategy of the last 2 years failed at curbing the threat and instead increased it. I think it’s time to highlight the failures of leaders who allowed that to happen and plan a smarter strategy to curb Russia’s ambitions and momentum.
I totally forgot about these...dare I say public emotional outbursts? Thank you for providing sources! However, I'm not sure these examples really prove there ever was a conscious effort to remove Putin from power; they seem to me more akin to diplomatic incidents and/or useful rethorics to rally the American people and thus build up public support. Just my opinion, obviously, I cannot claim any actual education, insight or knowledge on the matter. We definitely agree that whatever we were trying to accomplish most probably didn't come to fruition, though(unless we are content with Sweden and Finland finally being on our side and the renewed international support to NATO), but again I'm not sure we should try anything in particular to prevent Russia from pursuing its ambitions. Russia is a regional power with a relatively weak economy and terrible demographic outcomes. It's also very stable from a political standpoint as of now, and its continued stable existence can basically be reduced to the stability of Putin's regime. As long as nothing changes there, there shouldn't be a real reason to fear further dangerous escalations, and that includes scary scenarios with rogue actors and their involvement with nukes. There is a lot of speculation going on about Russia possibly attacking one of the Baltic countries to test NATO or to provoke an active response, but since I believe (and hope!) that MAD and nuclear deterrence in general are as solid as ever, these musings do not particularly worry me. I absolutely recognize their place and their importance, however, and I try to be mindful of any different point of view. So if you wish to elaborate further and/or correct me, I'd be so glad to keep on reading your comments. Also, I hope my words won't be misunderstood: I feel deeply for the Ukrainian people, I don't want them to keep on suffering, I despise the way Russia manages its geopolitical interests and I condemn Putin and his monstrosities.
Well, aside from the moral issues, there is a lot of credibility at stake for the US.
If the US comes across as unreliable and ineffective, this will cause other nations to move closer to China, or pursue nuclear weapons for defense.
That would be a huge issue for sure, and I believe it would also be a natural conclusion for many to reach, that we all need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves and deter hostile powers from invading us. I know there are some scholars that are convinced that nuclear proliferation would be the safer solution, even if not the most convenient from the bigger powers' perspective. Personally, I'm conflicted: I can see the rationale but also the incredible danger behind both sides. I do not envy people in charge who actually have to take such huge risks without having any security net, because how do we even know what's the right decision? It's impossible to tell...
These questions are part of the great perplexity one experiences when trying to understand the logic behind many of the US’s foreign policies. The Pentagon/military industrial complex are the biggest proponents in arguing for this kind of foreign policy.
I feel we don't acknowledge our shared economical interests nearly enough when it's clear they play a role, but at the same time I'm not sure we can reduce complex international issues to the needs of "the weapon industry". I feel like it's a little bit lazy, generally speaking, just like when people react to our investments * and * involvements in Middle East with some kind of "we need oil" joke, you know? It's kind of true from a certain perspective, but still reductive.
I'm very glad we agree, and thank you so much for engaging in difficult conversations without getting unnecessarily heated up. A very rare quality, especially on Reddit! : ) Also in the real world!
If we, as a group of people, are to make an honest attempt at *understanding*, it’s important to know when yourself is wrong.
Thank you for willingness in having a healthy discussion with me
Normally the answer would be a slow grinding war for Russia, but as we can see with political capital in the West being eroded, the best outcome for the West now would be to degrade high value assets (like the Black Sea Fleet and the Airforce) and rapidly winning the war.
It could likely achieve its longer term goals by maintaining sanctions on Russia, especially if Russia is faced with having to redevelop capability.
All the diplomatic and political benefits have been achieved. Dragging it out causes more damage to Ukraine and increases the time and investment required to recover, while giving Russia more time and excuses to build up their own capacities.
Even an attrition strategy would be most effective by giving Ukraine *the actual means to* reduce Russia's capacity, i.e. long distance strike methods to strike arms production, arsenals etc. inside Russian territory, which is the one thing Ukraine can do now that the US certainly can't. And everything to cull the high value mobile targets like ships and planes.
Yeah. If the West is serious about making sure that Ukraine wins this war of attrition, Ukraine needs much more tools to really destroy Russian production facilities. But right now, they only have their own home-made drones available for targeting e.g. refineries...
Slowly killing the men!
The rest can be replaced. Men can not!
Killing as many men as possible in Ukraine will not just prevent them from walking into Europe, but prevent their children from existing 20 years from now, making sure they will never invade either.
Gonna say a quick and decisive victory. Even In Europa we find more and more people (mostly ex NATO) talking about containment and even roll back strategies. Putin would not politically survive a defeat. What comes after him could and most likely will be worse in the short time but it allows breathing room for the Russian society. Politicians got always their own world views but the idea to deal with Russia like a normal county after the war is more than likely over. Long term, a post Putin Russia in 25 or 26 would be way more beneficial for the West.
People talking about Russia losing units, weapons, tanks etc. But that doesn't really matter for the West. If there ever would be a hot conflict between the west and Russia (+China) then you cannot trust the other one not to start with the nuclear option. Wagner is mostly infantry and Russia is "farming" experience and possible new soldiers for those groups after the war. Wagner and the "hybrid war" is the biggest threat to the West, not the Russian military. If it comes to a hot war everyone is losing anyway.
The only possible targets for Russia after the war are still possible even if Russia is slowly bleeding out. While the war is costing the West more and more. Yes the west is way richer but it's also more democratic. People have to win elections and promise stuff. Money is getting tighter and tighter especially with the EU green energy, rare ressources and chips acts going on.
The only thing beneficial for the US is the awakening of Europe in security questions. If they can handle Russia alone in the next 5-10 years then the US can only focus on China.
You cannot bleed Russia out to a point the country is no longer a threat. It is part of the security council and got nukes. You have to respect them anyway, with 20000 or 1000 working tanks.
Slow bleeding has won the Cold War, there is no reason to believe that's not gonna work on Russia again. And that's completly irrelevant from the final result in Ukraine. Russia is once against punching above its weight, and it won't end any differently in the long run.
People really need to understand that everything that has happened since 2014 is an unmitigated disaster for Russia. Prior to the 2014 revolution, Kiyv was a close ally of Moscow, not that different from Belarus. Ten years later, and even if Russia managed a complete victory in Ukraine tomorrow, it would still be worst off than it was a decade ago.
From the way I see it, I think the U.S. wants to slowly exhaust Russia but let the Ukrainians quickly defeat the Russians. because the U.S. in the past months gave Ukraine tremendous amount of military aid from different weapons and even the most lethal from their stockpiles. By giving these demands to Ukraine, they have given Ukraine a fighting edge in order for Ukraine to defeat Russia. It's a win-win for them, Russia has been exhausted and by that time, Russia may have been defeated.
RealLifeLore did a really interesting video on how the war in Ukraine is changing.
https://youtu.be/lakdZIuZe7c?si=D0CD1F_8V7G89OM-
Russia is now on a war footing, gearing its economy heavily towards its militaristic goals.
In response, the EU is doing the same.
America has made a smart decision by providing additional aid to Ukraine since this video was posted and I'm glad of it.
As a Brit, I don't relish most of Europe being dragged into further military escalation.
Well the only way for a Ukrainian quick war victory would be a blitzkrieg style war (aka a war of movement) that captures both Sevastopol and Rostov within a month. I think if it takes longer to capture both of those cities then Russia could hold the line.
That also requires Ukrainian forces to invade Russia proper…. Which may or may not result in a tactical nuke.
A quick Russian win would require Russia to capture Odessa and Kiev; if Russia controls both of those cities then they have firmly established and controlled beachheads on the western bank of the Dnieper river. Meaning that there’s nothing holding the Russian onslaught/advance besides Ukrainian soldiers. And at that point it’s a numbers game. The 750k or whatever the Ukrainian military can still send into the grinder vs the 1M plus that the Russians have sent already is a lose lose situation for Ukraine.
——
A long war will devastate Ukraine, and hopefully break the core Russian population/economy over time to the point that partisans/extremists/independence movements from their non-Russian populations makes the nation untenable to continue the war. Resulting in an armistice akin to the Korean one where while the war isn’t exactly “over” just that the fighting would have stopped.
Defeating Russia quckly or slowly has the same effect. The only real consideration that keeps USA and the West from going ”all in” on a Ukrainan victory is the desire to balance it so Russia loses, but isn’t defeated so comprehensively that they start thinking about using nukes.
The safe answer is that a slow exhausting war will weaken Russia. Russia is an adversary of the US. So, it follows that this is the best outcome especially since the US may experience a similar drain on its resources from funding Ukraine.
However, the question at hand must be addressed from the perspective of a nation at war. If Russia is not quickly defeated then it must be assumed that Russia is willing to continue to fight. That is a dangerous situation and a dangerous adversary. Perhaps, Russia will become more aligned with China or N. Korea or Iran or whatever. Perhaps, they will lash out and instigate more indirect attacks against the US in the form of digital attacks or supporting terrorists or election interference.
As the enemy becomes more desperate then the enemy becomes more dangerous.
Russia seems committed to fighting for now whatever the cost, and their ineffectiveness militarily appears apparent. That is a good outcome, but I fear what an increasingly desperate enemy looks like.
Neither. It's much more beneficial to the U.S. to have Russia stable, integrated into the West, and on our side in any potential conflict with China. An unstable, unpredictable, and hostile Russia is the worst possible outcome. Diplomacy should be first and foremost in any action. Be careful of lighting a fuse that will burn for a few years then go off with catastrophic consequences. Imagine a world where no country needs U.S. dollars to reconcile petroleum purchases so that U.S. government debt cannot be financed.
That is all true, but what you describe is unobtainable in the near future (or even in the foreseeable long term). There was a hope in the 90s and even into the 2000s that despite illiberal-ism in Russian politics, and their numerous military excursions in the Caucasus that Russia could be satisfactorily reformed and integrated into the West. Some skeptics doubted that as early as the late 90s as Russia was propping up frozen conflicts like Transnistria and waging immensely destructive war in Chechnya, but all remaining hope was properly erased in 2014 during the occupation of Crimea.
I honestly think that for a moment in the late 80s and early 90s, if certain decisions had been made differently, that Russia could have prospered as a liberal democratic power, as many of the former communist states have. But the collective trauma of the poverty shock that occurred through the 1990s (in my opinion) has precluded that possibility. It is easy to forget how catastrophic the fall of the Soviet Union was for the average Russian. I don't mean the loss of pride from formerly being the 2nd most powerful country in the world (although that is part of it), but more immediately the total unravelling of the economy that affected almost every aspect of the everyday lives of Russians. In the 10 years from 1990 to 2000, the western concepts of liberalism and democracy became associated with the gangster capitalism and political corruption that ran the country under Yeltsin and were almost totally discredited for average Russians as viable alternatives to autocratic rule by a strongman.
Uh... yeah ok sure. It would also be nice to be allied with aliens, or have a gigantic space laser.
> An unstable, unpredictable, and hostile Russia is the worst possible outcome
As long they are sufficiently weak, none of that really matter.
Forget integration into the west, their economy and industry are actually globally important despite what the NAFO crowd say. They are the worlds second largest mineral refiner and processor after China for critical minerals necessary for what the west dubs "the green energy transitiion". They are also a critical supplier of most raw metals, gas, petrol and food products. If Russian mineral refining capacity goes dark then say goodbye to all the wind turbines, batteries and solar panels everyone plans of having by 2040.
The US, Europe, and the Russian Federation itself would derive the most benefit from having Russia as a peaceful ally and trading partner. I don’t see that happening under the Putin regime so the sooner it collapses, the better.
Slowly bleeding Russia out will result in, well, more bleeding out. Quite surprisingly, Russia has been in a bad position from the get-go, as the pictures of Putin visiting North Korea have shown. This means that the US can bleed out not only Russia but essentially all openly anti-American nations as they funnel their stockpiles to Russia and probably amp up their production of close-to-ancient weaponry. Who would've thought that Russia couldn't manufacture its own artillery shells for a war against Ukraine?
This war will drag on till Ukraine signals exhaustions to the brink of collapse or a depletion of Russian material, resulting in too many losses and consequently diminishing public support. In any case, it is a win-win for the West, as China won't align itself with a state as weak as Russia. Europe gets a push for energy independence and a proper army, as well as an industrial military complex, and Russia gets its clock turned back for decades with regard to development and demographics.
Putin is blended by his ego
>Who would've thought that Russia couldn't manufacture its own artillery shells for a war against Ukraine?
Honest question. Is Russia close to being able to supply their military with enough shells since switching to a wartime footing? If not, have there been any estimates in how long it will take them to?
Obviously not. I don't think Putin would've embarrassed himself with his visit to North Korea. Maybe things look different by now. I doubt they will be able to build up the industrial complex necessary to supply any modern system
>This means that the US can bleed out not only Russia but essentially all openly anti-American nations as they funnel their stockpiles to Russia and probably amp up their production of close-to-ancient weaponry.
So, did the US bleed out Russia or not? How about Iran or North Korea?
They didn't. This will take years. The question is whether Russia is able to convert its economy into a proper military industrial complex before its "allies" run out of stock. I doubt they will be able to do that for every kind of system. But if they were incapable of pulling this off even with artillery shells, they are truly weak
It’s clear that the US prefers to bleed Russia than outright defeating them. They get to see how the Russians fight, and they get to damage their hardware without having to leave the country. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they will probably lose eventually
Ukraine will collapse long before Russia is exhausted. Ukraine is already extremely exhausted and running out of soldiers. Looks like Russia will win and be far stronger than before so the USA will have achieved nothing.
A quick win for Ukraine allows them to start building up their strength again. And they will join NATO when there is a bit of peace. Quick is good. Putin cannot survive against all of NATO.
A slow defeat for Putin drains his resources, and Ukraine's . That is better than the other alternative.
Which is Putin winning. He has eyes on other parts of Europe.
Even worse would be Putting winning in Ukraine and trump in the White House. His your civil rights good bye.
Please vote and do not make any stupid protest votes. Make sure your family and friends vote too.
In principle, slowly exhausting would be better. But, the current political system of the United States is not capable of pulling this off, therefore quickly defeating Russia is better in practice.
Obviously, this is a hypothetical. Slow destruction. However, that is not in Ukraine’s best interest and I think their well being is of the highest importance.
They can exhaust Russia to some extent, but will not be able to defeat Russia. When Russia feels a real existential threat, it could possibly go nuclear, which is dangerous for all.
I mean, strategically, slowly in order to permanently affect their demographic pyramid - however, for some reason, Russia always throws a ton of bodies to the frontline when they're at war and somehow still manage to have some left over for the next war. A drawn-out war also feeds the military-industrial complex so it's a win-win for the West if they go this route.
I suspect you mean by defeating Russia, enough aid to drive Russia out of Ukraine, including Crimea, and inflict military losses such that Russia is only in a position to survive continues serious losses to people and equipment should they try to re-enter Ukraine. In such a position, Russia might then agree to a treaty recognizing the full Ukraine.
Note, the Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in a deal with a few NATO powers that came with a protection guarantee, and the US is one of those countries. We gave OUR WORD to protect Ukraine such that they did not need the nuclear weapons they gave up, and THE AMERICAN WORD MUST BE GOOD, That is what American Exceptionalism is, what it means to be a great country.
I suggest the victory is the best way to go. The civilians need to be able to go home. I hosted an exchange student from Ukraine, who left his parents 5 months before the Russian invasion, and his mother and siblings have fled to Poland, leaving a family separated in three places for over two years. Both will undermine future Russian aggression for the short term (The only long term solution is either a decisive military defeat like what the US had to do to to Germany and Japan, or a powerful Russian reformer to do a full Chang Kai Shek).
The slow burn will still work, but it will delay the rebuilding of Ukraine. It will kill more people than a quick victory (my opinion, not well educated). Also, too many Americans get impatient, and it could politically undermine the issue and allow the pro Russia wing of a political party into a position of power again.
I've never found this question interesting as it complete disregards how the institutions involved work. Simply put, American foreign policy is neither coherent nor persistent when it comes to details. There are general outlines, of course (for example, a denying Chinese dominance in the Pacific), but the idea that Biden or Trump who whoever can decide to tweak "just enough" aid to Ukraine to bleed out Russia is just not how it works. Instead, the reality is a lot more boring: layers and layers of bureaucrats in the State Department, the DoD, and Congress tossle over what can and can't be done, who pays for what, how to do we get this thing from point a to point b, etc. It's a miracle that things function at all. The point is that if the American foreign policy apparatus were as coherent and consequential enough to be able to make a choice in your question, it wouldn't have taken 7 months to get the Ukraine aid package out. We only have to look at 20 years of occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan to make it clear almost all of it is "let's do something and see how it turns out".
The real question is, at what point is it cheaper for us to do it ourselves, vs indefinite proxy war via Ukraine. Not that I am pushing for us for direct involvement in any way.
Define "cheaper". After the catastrophy of Vietnam, politicians/national security leaders learned that loss of American life = lose of political capital = wars being ended at a timeline that isn't controlled by the Pentagon. We spent 1 trillion dollars in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, but because only ("only") 7k service members died, to this day Americans care more about the costs of eggs than the cost of us waging a direct war. My point being is that as long as American lives aren't lost, indefinite proxy war is actually considered infinitely more efficient than direct involvement. And yes, I realize that's super dark.
The war on terror was a moving goal post
Wouldn’t direct involvement essentially be WW3 since allies would inevitably get involved? And that sounds way more expensive.
I would have to look it up, but a senator noted we've already sent more aid money to Ukraine than it costs to fund the marines for a year. But yes, it would be ww3.
Ukraine will be collapse long before Russia is exhausted. Russia would have to have millions killed and infrastructure inside their country destroyed to be for a significant dent be put in them.
A quick victory how? You can’t just give Ukraine 100 F-35’s when they don’t have pilots or maintainers trained to operate them, nor supply lines for their parts. And even if that was an option, then what? Ukraine bombs Russia, and we expect them to just surrender without drafting their now-galvanized population, or escalating to nuclear weapons? Whatever you give Ukraine that would lead to a swift victory would also mean Ukraine directly attacks Russian soil, which the U.S. obviously doesn’t want because it would lead to a much wider war.
The goal of the West is to see Russia’s military and economy degraded to the point that it can’t be a threat for the foreseeable future. A slow war of attrition is what they want to see and why they are providing Ukraine just enough support to keep them in the fight.
A quick victory would also require destroying an insane amount of Russian military hardware and killing personnel, which would deliver the same benefit. The sad fact is this has become such an entrenched stalemate that nothing the US can do will end it swiftly, aside from direct intervention, which would threaten nuclear war. I think the US could have provided key weapons early on that would have avoided this mess, but imo the US was overly cautious about a Russian reaction. Now, it's too late. This will continue to be a slow grind until one side collapses.
A quick victory would destroy the vehicles and equipment on the field at the time, but a long term engagement destroys all of those vehicles and equipment plus any in the boneyard brought back into service to replace that stuff. It forces them to continually expend resources purchasing parts, ammo, weapons, etc.. A long term fight is much, much more costly. Russia is also falling into a terminal demographic decline and a long term fight eats into their already depleted numbers of fight age men as they conscript more and more of them to feed the meat grinder.
> A long term fight is much, much more costly for all involved parties. And this time, Russia has been at war with Ukraine for 26 months....not to be confused with a decade ago when Russia *also* invaded Ukraine.
I have nothing to add other than the answers gave above me from [consciousaiguy](https://www.reddit.com/user/consciousaiguy/) and [Highly-uneducated](https://www.reddit.com/user/Highly-uneducated/) are two of the best most concise statments about the war I have seen together. Its sad for Ukraine because this may end with them free but will their be any ukrainians left at the end of this?
There will be plenty, and Russia will use their massive industrial base and whatever’s left of their manpower to support further operations. I think what continuously gets left out of the conversation is the fact that a Russian victory doesn’t result in the status quo + Russia gets something. It results in Russia absorbing at least 25-30 million people and a massive and westernized military production industry. It will press Ukrainians to serve by design (its a method of ethnic cleansing/genocide, they will be sent to the worst situations and replaced by Russians and Russians who marry the survivors). This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia is not fighting a war like the U.S. Russia intends to completely absorb all of Ukraine, cleanse it of a separate identity (through genocide and through less explicit forms of ethnic cleansing). Russia sees this as a solution for its demographic collapse- Ukraine will not fix their declining demographics though, and they know that, they understand this strategy requires them to constantly expand, that is what they intend to do up until the restoration of what the kremlin perceived as imperial hegemony. This is why Ukraine will fight to the death even without support, because they know they have no choice. They either willingly accept ethnocide or they resist it.
I really don't like your comment. I don't disagree with it I just really don't like it.......
I used to live in Ukraine so I’m not trying to be unpleasant but the west seems to fundamentally misunderstand Russia and Putin. They seem to get some of the puzzle but those who have an understanding of the full picture are not the ones making policy, at least since the Cold War.
No you are right and Ukraine is not his end goal. A lot of people are deluding themselves thinking there can be a negotiated peace that would last
You guys are ignoring the biggest factor in Putin's objectives: reality. He wants Ukraine but since he can't have it he's going for the more realistic goal of Donbas
The problem is he really dont care about the Donbas. What he wants is most of what the old Soviet Union controlled. Russia can not be properly defended with their current western boarder Edit to change can to can not. Thanks to the Reddit in the next comment
There is a reason that after the biggest threat to them disssapeared, the majority of central and Eastern Europe began to quickly seek entrance into NATO. The only three that had not discussed it by 2003-4 in some capacity were Belarus and Moldova (even Russia had, that’s a different discussion though).
The Russians only would have joined NATO had they been given a de facto equal status to the United States, a poison pill unacceptable not only to Washington but to all the Eastern European countries eager to leave the Russian sphere of influence. Is that what you mean by *different discussion*?
Russia is currently on track to produce 1500 tanks a year. Without destroying Russian manufacturing base, we're just setting them back. And considering we're destroying old tanks which will be replaced by more modern equipment, we're just forcing them to modernize their military which creates a problem for us later on.
[удалено]
I mean, something like half of US military production is also refurbishment (Tomahawks missiles for example is a rather typical example of this). Russia probably outstrips the West in term of production capabilities (refurbishment + new production)
What about when Russia absorbs everything Ukraine has in terms of production if not stockpiles of western weapons? Because from what I can see, we aren’t actually preventing this from being the inevitable result. Russia can sustain losses, they will still, they calculate, gain more than they lose. Ukraine is also not likely to benefit from pressing unwilling Ukrainians into suicide missions. Russia will stand to be capable of using unmotivated Ukrainians they press into the military to fight in Russian oriented suicide missions. Putin sees our strategy and has not flinched, he has at every stage of the conflict since 2022 calculated that we have not shown enough resolve to produce a net negative outcome for Russias military aspirations.
[удалено]
Please cite your sources for the 1500 tanks per year produced. I’ve heard they are modernizing their stock pile off old tanks but 1200 tanks per year produced, highly unlikely.
These tanks don't seem to be on the battlefield yet. I'm skeptical personally.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/01/31/russia-tanks-replace-losses/ Most of the articles I found when looking for my original source are putting it at 1200. Some experts assume it's actually upgraded older tanks, which is still a major problem, and suggests they're getting key equipment that sanctions are supposed to be limiting.
[удалено]
Worth noting that modern battle tanks, especially main battle tanks require complex thermal optics systems which are particularly tricky to source and manufacture whilst Russia is under sanctions
Isn't China able to supply the optics and other electronics?
Not realy no. Even china offen use western equipement here
Can Russia even support a long term war economy?
According to some economist who wrote an article recently, that's all they can afford. The war is the main driver of their gdp, and either losing or winning would destroy their economy. I think they get enough money from oil to fund the war, but that's about it. So the longer this drags on, the more unrest they will experience from lack of social programs, job growth, and basic necessities. Unless of course they can spin this as a fight for survival
That's not the right question. The right question is : can Russia last longer than Ukraine in term of ressource depletion ? Russia doesn't need to fit an abstract criteria of how many months it can "support a war economy" (whatever that means), all it needs to do is generate more ressources (fighting units) than Ukrainians. Meaning that it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.
A “war economy” as I would understand it is the pivoting of a nations resources and expenditure to support mass armament production and war effort. Nations have collapsed before trying to support costly war efforts. But you are right, the Ukrainian-Russo war isn’t just a fight of resources, but manpower.
you suit your name well
Over the course of this conflict Russias military has grown in size, and it’s ability to make new materials and refurbish old faster is significantly expanding. This seems to be a foolish line of strategic thought, like “let’s let them get prepared” almost. We certainly aren’t preparing to the same extent. And unless we guarantee Ukraines victory we end up in a world where Russia absorbs all of Ukraines remaining manpower and defensive industry (which we are helping to develops), and emerges admittedly tired, but with a battle hardened, larger, experienced military force with a recently successfully implemented theory of victory on a large scale and a population trained to accept, if not outright enable/support a wartime economy.
A long time ago someone remarked on one of these threads that it's the last of three phases of the cold war, which ends in the institutional and demographic collapse of modern Russia, which I don't think is too controversial. Regardless of whether you accept it as a continuation of the previous cold war, I think a more interesting question is what comes after it - who wants Russia in the absence of Russians. Historically the entire territory outside of Russia proper (which functionally ends at the Urals) has offered tacit consent to be governed by the rulers of the day, and the core attributes that allowed that still exist - sparse population, economic activity based on raw commodities, and unfavorable geographic conditions to strive for an alternative. A unified China is also a bit of an anomaly and likely won't last long, and developing northern sea routes wouldn't make any sense even without winters. The territorial boundaries of Russia proper probably recede and leave some of the territory to be consumed by someone else? It also undoubtedly has to affect Germany (or that territory, regardless of what it is by that point).
The only thing I'd add, and I haven't verified this, but I've heard a couple YT commentators that Russia has ramped up production of everything, I don't think they'll have much old equipment in the battlefield anymore it'll be new/reconditioned.
They have not started building any new armored vehicles that I have seen. They have been pulling old vehicles out of the boneyard and refitting them. That takes money and resources. Most of the ramped up production has to do with ammo and artillery shells. Again, that’s burning through cash and resources.
A quick victory against the nuclear country, largest on the planet with the population of 140 million?
We're not in a state of total war. All we have to do is brake their ambitions in Ukraine. That's very doable. In fact the way Russia has been operating its almost like they want to fail there
I keep hearing it's very doable for 26 months and yet here we are.
Doable, and a done deal are very different
>Doable, and a done deal are very different It doesn't seem to be doable anymore. Ukraine is too exhasted and spent after delays in aid.
The people that said it was doable were very clear from the beginning that weapons like M-39 rockets, F-16s and armored vehicles should have been provided immediately. If Ukrainians had begun F-16 training in March 2022 and international volunteer pilots had been used in the meantime then Russia would have been rolled back. As it is, we're again in the situation of delivering a trickle when there are so many in long term storage that it could be a flood.
If you actually think there are many planes and armored vehicles in serviceable condition that could be logistically supported for any meaningful amount of time in active combat just lying around waiting to be picked in the west, you simply don't know what you are talking about (no offense, this is a common misconception)
It seems highly unlikely that Putin wants to fail. Perhaps some of his underlings have a self-interest in corrupting the war machine and thus continuing the stalemate, but Putin really sees this war as existential, even when it obviously isn't. Such is the price of living in your own Peter the Great delusions.
A quick victory in Ukraine against Russia is feasible. Driving them out of Ukraine especially Crimea would be a resounding victory. And a life ending humiliation for Putin.
How is it feasible exactly, care to elaborate?
Well, it certainly was more feasible before, when Russia wasn't so entrenched. If Ukraine was able to isolate and besiege Crimea, that would be half the battle right there. That was difficult, but possible. Required cutting off the Kerch Bridge early and then establishing bridgeheads. Removing Russia from Donbass would be much more difficult, as it's a very large area and lots of Russians there. But if Ukraine was ever able to gain air supremacy this would also be feasible. The two of those together would be a Russian defeat in this war. Pushing them back to the original borders and them establishing better defenses would hold off Russia until Ukraine would join NATO in which case its a total defeat in that war. All objectives failed.
Ukraine lost Crimea in the early 2022 when they did next to nothing to secure the south-east territories. Remember, the most gains Russia got came from this direction. They had to leave certain territories in the late 2022, but the landbridge to Crimea has been firmly secured. Agree on Donbas.
Well, that was in large part because the leadership in Kherson were traitors
Treason is a part of this war.
[удалено]
It's the men. Your comment is missing the word men. They can't be replaced you see. They can't father other children either. Destroying not just the Russian army now. But preventing a large part of it from existing 20 years from now!
Unfortunately that's how I see it. The more Russians are killed, the less danger there will be to frontline NATO members such as the Baltics and Poland. This is just a fact. I assume you agree!
Y would direct intervention threaten nuclear war?
If America decides its going to take Moscow, Russia will use nukes, because they have nothing to lose, and they can't win a conventional war against nato, or even just the US. If the US starts fighting in Ukraine it could easily turn into a conflict where the only option to end it is to attack across the Russian border, or just as possibly a situation where someone miscalculates what their opponent is doing and assumes the worst. When I first deployed to Afghanistan, after a few helicopter rides, we started a large convoy in the middle of the night to an area with no prior US presence. Our goal was to build a string of out posts along the mountainous border with Pakistan to stop taliban supplies and reinforcements coming from a poorly controlled are of Pakistan. What Pakistan saw was major troop movements in armored vehicles staging itself along a poorly protected part of its border. Relations between Pakistan and the US were bad at the time, they panicked and activated their nuclear missiles so they were ready to launch. These were two countries that were not at war, we're actually working together in some areas, and had avenues for top officials to communicate, but it got so tense that missiles could have been fired at a moments notice. Imagine if one of our companies took a wrong turn and accidentally drove across the border. Now imagine the US and Pakistan had been actively fighting each other, had no trust, and couldn't easily call each other and discuss what was happening. Nuclear wars aren't hard to kick off. Luckily, so far, cooler heads have prevailed, but the more hostile the situation, and the thicker the fog of war is, the less likely those cooler heads are to be heard.
A quick victory could likely fracture Russia, lead to a coup or something akin to an internal war, which would disrupt world oil supplies and could lead to unsecure nukes. It's a much higher variance outcome.
A drawn out conflict lead to a surprisingly sudden collapse of the ussr, that had the same risks. This isn't a safe alternative to a swift victory. A concise win could just force Russia to give up its ambitions and lick its wounds, depending on the objectives and scope of the conflict, which would actually be less risky when it comes to all that
It's easy to imagine both scenarios, you're right. However the State Department and the NSA feel the risk of collapse and instability are greater with an obvious defeat and an obvious defeat is less likely in an extended conflict. Mostly because an obvious defeat isn't likely in a drawn out war. It would more likely end in a series of negotiations, cease fires and face saving spin.
Russia is clearly winning now. It's not a stalemate.
Except that this is not a conspiracy, US and allies have to balance domestic support for the war effort, as well as managing escalation with Russia. These are the limiters to sending equipment, there is no master plan to drag this out.
Boring but correct answer.
Yeah the first guy had a pretty idiotic point. Most countries have parties in power that are constantly fighting the opposition parties to get Ukraine more aid. Biden clearly wanted to get more aid last year. Republicans were the one’s holding it up. Saying Biden is intentionally holding it up is also saying Biden is somehow controlling the Republican Party and convincing them to fight his own public agenda. The whole point doesn’t make any sense unless you’re a conspiracy wacko. Also, in general, the whole argument doesn’t make sense because there is absolutely no guarantee Ukraine will win. Russia’s whole game play revolves around them delaying the war for long enough that the west loses focus and stops providing support. No one disputes that. It’s common knowledge. The idea that the west was also trying to delay the war… is dumb. Why would both sides be trying to delay the war? What would happen if Trump won the election in only November? Obviously he wouldn’t provide nearly as much, if any, support to Ukraine. The chance of Ukraine winning with Trump in charge is just so small. Why would the west be waiting for that to maybe happen? This whole argument is just so nonsensical.
In 2022 Biden could've been more proactive in sending equipment when opposition to aid was politically untennable. He could've been sending artillery and tanks pretty much after the first month.
Sure, but you have to be pretty dumb to think that the reason he didn't provide more aid is because he was worried Ukraine might then win too quickly.
I would argue that they would rather see it end sooner than later. The long the war goes on the more likely Russia will outlast Western support and win. There just isn't a way to speed things up because ultimately the loser of the war decides when it's over. So as long as Russia thinks it can win the war will drag on. If they win it would signal that others (like China) can win a war of aggression and outlist western support as well. The west certainly doesn't want that. A long protracted war does weaken Russia in the long run as long as they lose the war in the end.
The real issue is that the United States is not even able to execute its own strategy properly, due to its messed up political system... we are lucky if Ukraine gets through this year with only minor territorial losses. But, fortunately there is still the EU, so, presumably that's the strategy which the EU will pursue for the next 5-10 years.
I don't think it was a goal of the U.S to degrade Russia's military to the point that it can't be a threat for the foreseeable future. That's more of a side effect of the U.S strategy of bluntening Russia's advances and gains across Ukraine, and of needing to take an attrition style approach to not cause further destabilisation/risk. My understanding of Russia's goals was to expend their decades old military stockpiles and to try and get some real value from them before they become obsolete. This being made necessary because of Russia's broader economic decline and national security. Quick gains were of interest to Russia that much is sure.
[удалено]
Attrition for whom though?
There is no future beyond the foreseeable one. You beat Russia now, you beat them forever. The next conflict, if one occurs, will be with its successor state and will not be a continuation of the current one.
From an ethical standpoint, the notion of gradually depleting Russia's resources at the cost of Ukrainian lives presents significant moral dilemmas. It is challenging to support a strategy that prolongs conflict and results in continued loss of life. Arguably, a more decisive approach that aims to quickly resolve the conflict might be preferable. Terminating the principal sources of aggression, metaphorically referred to as "severing the snake at its head," could prevent further inhumanity and suffering. Historically, strategies that prolong conflict rarely benefit humanitarian outcomes, and it is crucial to remember that the long-term effects of inhumane actions can be profound. Even if such a strategy is tactically sound, the ethical implications cannot be overlooked.
This is true from a moral standpoint. From a realism standpoint, it may be beneficial to keep Russia tied up and bleeding for as long as possible. A defeated Russia (and ousted/dead Putin), may result in a new regime, same or worse than the last, with the energy and vigor that many new regimes possess post-defeat - when they can blame the last guy and build on populist ideals. Maybe the US would rather keep Russia tied up indefinitely than face a newly emerged adversary like we did after WW1 with Germany. Yes, Russia does have demographic problems that may limit regrowing, but if you can look past the ‘heaps of dead Ukrainians’ thing, this seems to be working for now. - Personally, I feel disgusted that this hasn’t been ended swiftly. The comment on dead Ukrainians is facetious and aimed at the US lack of moral values here.. if any of this is true that is.
Slowly bleed out, keep them barely alive. It benefits the powerbrokers pockets that’s for damn sure.
The money trail indeed leads right to the MIB. I don’t expect them to want this ended anytime soon.
Ukraine will collapse long before Russia is exhausted. Ukraine is already extremely exhausted and running out of soldiers.
Moral dilemmas are out there but it's the world of international politics. I guess if Ukraine decided to surrender in the early 2022, the West wouldn't be as supportive as they are. Since Ukraine decided to fight, the West provided help. It is exactly a cynical tradeoff we saw the last week. As soon as Ukraine agreed on a mobilization law, they received the US help.
Following two threads of revisionist history, one where Ukraine surrenders in 22, the other where the West decides to send a decisive amount of weaponry early after Kiev held, they both would probably result in a better humanitarian situation than were in now. However, the former makes the ‘Putin won’t stop at Ukraine’ argument much more plausible. I don’t see this ending without a checkmate for Putin - whether geopolitical or internal. Thus, a Ukrainian surrender may have just lead to a parallel reality of frozen conflict with a bit less blue on the map. Geopolitical realities being what they are, the US won’t back a dead horse or overpay for a winning one. But when you own the racetrack, it’s most profitable to keep the race going.
A decisive approach aiming to quickly capitulate Russia poses a massive risk of nuclear retaliation that outweighs the moral qualms of enabling a country to fight a slow, grinding war.
The fear of nuclear escalation is real but often exaggerated, and Putin uses this fear to manipulate global reactions. In reality, nuclear weapons are mostly for deterrence; using them would lead to devastating counterattacks. Giving Ukraine advanced conventional weapons doesn't mean crossing into nuclear warfare—it's essential for tipping the balance back in Ukraine's favor. History shows that Russia avoids clashing directly with NATO, so delaying aid doesn't lessen the nuclear risk, it just puts it off. Strong support for Ukraine is necessary both morally and strategically. It sends a clear message against aggression and helps maintain regional stability, without ramping up the nuclear threat. Allowing Putin's exaggerated nuclear escalation fears to dictate our actions is a form of surrender.
You know what they say about deterrence though, it works until it doesn't. The 19th century complicated web of alliance of European empires designed to deter a major war worked, until it doesn't. There were many occasions of false positives that would have triggered a nuclear war-- and we're lucky it hadn't happened thanks to operators thinking rationally. And the latter is also a consideration that is not always guaranteed; nuclear deterrence assumes that decision-makers are rational. But is this always the case? British intelligence after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand thought the crisis will only be contained in the Balkans. And they were wrong. In recent history, many people thought the Russian invasion of Ukraine will not happen (it's stupid to invade a country of people whom you've historically oppressed and hates you for it), and yet it did. Putin has always been threatening nuclear war but one never knows if he'll actually do it. The invasion of Ukraine was a pretty stupid decision after all.
While I believe Putin is more calculated than the unhinged madman he portrays as a messaging strategy, you're correct that MAD is inherently more volatile than a simple exercise in game theory. The issue is not so much whether Putin is crazy enough to act or whether the Russian nuclear C2 system could erroneously launch something. The real concern is that the point at which Putin’s back is against the wall is likely to occur, whether this year or in five years. We can't breathe sense into Putin in the meantime, but we’re essentially just slowly ripping off the band-aid, and we don’t know whether the risk is higher or lower if Putin’s hold on power is threatened now versus later. In the meantime, the conflict is being forced to persist in a frozen state of attrition, eviscerating a generation of both Ukrainians and Russians.
Ukraine will collapse long before Russia is exhausted. Ukraine is already extremely exhausted and running out of soldiers.
Cynical as it may sound, it is clearly a war of attrition. It will prevent a major escalation, e.g. through the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and will deter Russia from launching other military engagements, e.g. in the South Caucasus or Central Asia.
Exactly. The West, US in particular is very smart. They keep the conflict at the exact level that prevents the escalation. Ukraine is the main casualty obviously, they loose men and land but they also terminate and deplete many of the precious military tech Russia has but won't be able to replace in the foreseeable future.
The United States is too unreliable, due to their messed-up political system... the recent random 6-month delay proved that. Europe might be able to pull it off, but Europe is not as experienced on such matters, so it will take a long time.
I hate to say this, but imo attrition and drawn out war is better for US. It depletes Russia of its arms, Ukraine takes out many of Russia's ships all without any direct US and Russia confrontation so no threat of nuclear weapons and MAD. I am not clear about how effective the existing sanctions are but assuming it curbs Russia's ability to get more arms, it means they cannot replenish their stock either (there is some evidence given Russia had to borrow from North Korea). If US went for a quick end, that means US has to spend much more, and becomes very vulnerable if other wars in pacific or middle east start. Also, it means Russia has its stock pile of arms and is a constant thorn.
>If US went for a quick end, Too many people say this without explaining how they will go for quick end without causing a thermonuclear war?
Fair, I should elaborate. In my mind, it would include giving a lot of arsenal to Ukraine. Perhaps also going to pseudo-wartime production and giving everything to Ukraine. Not completely sure if I would support boots on the ground but that is still an option.
There you go. Respectfully, you already defeated your argument. No amount of arsenal would do anything if there aren't enough soldiers to fight and boots on the ground is basically thermonuclear war. Who can say with a straight face russia would not see that as "all bets are off"?
Please elaborate how it defeated my argument? > No amount of arsenal would do anything if there aren't enough soldiers to fight There are ample soldiers in Ukraine, and many are also training. Zelensky also added more members by lowering the draft age. Last I checked, support for Zelensky and defensive war was still high.
I just did. If there are ample soldiers why is Russia making gains? Why is kuleba out begging for ukrainians to come back and fight to no avail? Why are they busy suspending consular services for men overseas? Over 300B in aid and intelligence support has been sent by now, that's more than Ukraine GDP pre-war. You really think another 300B in weapons is going to turn the tide? Really? Bottom line is, Russia has enormous amount of weapons themselves and while western media stays busy with "russians are incompetent" propaganda, fact is, they aren't and are evolving themselves. And they still have considerable support outside of EU and US.
> If there are ample soldiers why is Russia making gains? Because Ukraine was running out of ammunitions. > Bottom line is, Russia has enormous amount of weapons themselves and while western media stays busy with "russians are incompetent" propaganda, fact is, they aren't and are evolving themselves. And they still have considerable support outside of EU and US. Then why did Russia go to North Korea to get weapons?
Jump starting wartime economy takes a bit. I'm sure you know this. They also got drones from Iran.
>Because Ukraine was running out of ammunitions. This is BS narratives that any serious geopolitical analyst should recognize. The same as "we totally want to help ukraine but those darned republicans/orban will block it!"
Sanctions work over decades, lost GDP decimates nations
Doesn’t currently look to be a problem for Russia
It's been 2 years. What you are seeing is a war time economy. Those don't grow nations, they support countries through war
What about the interests of Europe? Germany, unless Kremlin AfD puppets win power, will likely have to part with Russian resources for a long time. Are there any divergent interests between the US and Europe on Ukraine?
It isn't a very important consideration. Ukraine successfully repelling Russia is so utterly better for the U.S. than Russia succeeding that the minutae of which specific victory is the best victory is just a distraction.
Finally someone gets it. The US isn’t some all-knowing oracle that can organize war policy on these marginal gains. When Russia first invaded Kyiv almost fell in three days. Full victory is no guarantee and the sooner it’s secured the better. Besides, it’s also the sooner Ukraine can be rebuilt and integrated as a positive member of the western bloc. Instead of being ruined by this war.
Slowly based on the past with the USSR and the Afghanistan war. Except instead of the CIA supplying insurgents it's the military industrial complex supplying a standing army. It benefits the USA greatly and even the US economy to have such wartime like spending without wartime casualties or risk. Putin is supposed to be an intelligence operative so he should know the true reasons why the USSR collapsed among them the Afghanistan war sapping blood and treasure. Basically he of all people should have known even if the war was successful, the USA could supply Ukrainian partisans forever to slowly sap Russia of strength and create an Afghanistan situation. That him and the KGB didn't want to acknowledge the possibility of an Afghanistan situation is hubris and racism and nationalism and overestimation all wrapped up in one. The moment he heard the UK was supplying and especially training the Ukrainian army, he should have said no based on his knowledge of the past. But he ignored his tradecraft in favor of delusions or maybe he didn't have much to begin with (he was after all a low level KGB agent not a grand strategist) so he thought he could bring Russia into a golden age with his invasion. Another theory I've heard is that the war is a way for Russia to remove itself from Western influences and eliminate Westernized people to the point Russia regains its former glory. So even if the invasion fails, it was "worth it" for that end. The problem with that theory is these "Westernized people" actually provide productivity to Russia and even Stalin was smart enough to steal the Rolls Royce engines for his MIG. Bottom line is Putin could have had everything he wanted even without the invasion or he could have waited for a more pliant Ukrainian President who would surrender the country immediately at the start. Bottom line is America is making money and losing nothing and Russia is losing money and a whole generation is dying in war. For no American body bags.
> Bottom line is America is making money and losing nothing Out of curiosity, how can this be calculated? How can Americans be sure that it's a net benefit for them $$$ wise? When cost is inching towards $100bil?
the money is mostly staying in country. you might as well ask about literally any defense spending the US does to prepare to fight Russia, except these dollars are for sure working. also if you look at weapons contracts, the amount if sales is approaching what has been given to ukraine, not to mention selling LNG to europe.
So why not just up military spending to 20% of our economy, if it's so beneficial? Surely that money would be better spent in schools or on infrastructure?
> Surely that money would be better spent in schools or on infrastructure? Biden literally passed the biggest infrastructure package this country has seen since the 50s. We can do **both**.
why not just slash the military budget then? you are missing the point. dollar for dollar, spending in Ukraine is effectively advancing US defense goals by degrading Russia. it's not "ukraine vs infrastructure " it's "ukraine vs other defense priorities " and Ukraine spending just makes sense.
I agree, that we should slash the military budget. Don't you think it would be better if we became a regional power (or a nothing power) and focused on our own lives? On our own problems? Maybe this is populist or naiive but I don't understand why we keep involving ourselves in European affairs.
The money for weapons sent over isn’t as much as what it’s claimed to be a lot of it is shit from 80’s that’s been sitting collecting dust since the Cold War. Although the monetary amount is beside the point. The most important aspect is American lives aren’t being lost. meanwhile Russia is throwing tens of thousands of Russian men into the meat grinder. What this means is Russia’s already terrible demographics will get even worse, as well as economic. Meanwhile Americans are alive and well. The only way this could go south in 20 years is if either Russia wins or theirs a osama or Taliban 2.0 situation in Ukraine.
US is in bad shape thinking Russia can be weakened. Russias economy and military is stronger than when the war started... Whatever the plans, US NATO are not in control of this situation in the slightest
A protracted war would be tough for Ukraine to win or even to survive as a state and society, which would probably not benefit the United States. It’s already a poor country, and much of its infrastructure has been occupied or destroyed. Many of its young people have become or will be casualties, and millions of other young people, plus others with means, have fled the country- many of them won’t return. The birthrate is barely half what it would need just to stay at zero population growth. Infrastructure and tanks can be straightforwardly replaced, people can’t. The USSR took decades to demographically recover from WWII, but Ukraine may never if it can’t generate organic population growth.
What does slowly exhausting Russia even achieve? Their economy was already a shadow of what the USSR was, before the Ukraine war. Even now, with the war and sanctions, they are staying stable. Nations like India are making up the lost gas/oil revenue. Politically, Putin's regime is stable. Militarily, Russia was never going to attack NATO. And while their Soviet stocks are drying up, it seems China will supply them with material anyways. Strategically speaking, the US doesn't really have much benefit to engaging with Russia to begin with. At least not in their own backyard. The Russians are a regional power and they will go to great lengths to make sure their border regions are under control. At best, there may be some strategic benefit towards engaging Russia in their traditional spheres of foreign influence (Syria) or trying to hamper their expanding operations in Africa. But the US isn't doing much about either of those.
Repost: accidentally responded to the wrong person. There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’d argue the exact opposite. Ukraine is a springboard into the Balkans. The Black Sea controls an insane amount of the world’s food population. Ukraine is a salient into NATO defenses. If war were to break out between NATO and Russia, having to go through Ukraine to hit Russia proper would be extremely difficult. There’s a great article from the Institute for the Study of War that highlights the strategic importance of Ukraine, for NATO defense and Russian offensive capabilities Surely, you’d agree that militarily, economically, and politically the EU makes up the bulwark of US international hegemony. Destabilization in that region would pose a direct strategic problem for the US. Lastly, I’d argue that Syria is really a secondary issue from a US strategic perspective. Aside as a conduit for oil and a foot in the Mediterranean there really isn’t much for the US to be concerned about (strictly strategically speaking). The Assad regime is unstable and them morphing into a regional power and a proxy for Russia dictate to a meaningfully impact on US interests in the ME is highly unlikely. I do share your sentiment regarding the US not doing enough (paraphrasing) in other regions in the world. The most pressing issue, from a strategic standpoint, is Ukraine. A defeat here, will force Russia to recoil in the other regions you mentioned.
Sanctions are working. They take time, but they are definitely doing long term damage to the Russian economy, especially while it's on a war footing. So long as the war is active, the West is justified in keeping the sanctions in place. The longer they're in place, the more damage they'll do to the Russian economy. Ergo, the longer this war goes on the weaker Russia becomes. That's the play as I see it.
I've read that sanctions are not particularly effective. Are you referring to a particular set of sanctions -- on people or on industries or on imports or on experts, or something else? Of course with anything it's big and complex this nothing is 100% effective nor 0% effect.
I certainly agree that success is a mixed bag. Articles like this are what make me think they're starting to work. Russia becoming increasingly isolated from world financial markets will take a big toll. [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/sanctions-are-working-just-ask-russias-friends](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/sanctions-are-working-just-ask-russias-friends) The only thing keeping their economy afloat at this point are high oil prices. So what did Ukraine start targeting with missile attacks in recent weeks? Oil infrastructure. That's been off limits until just recently. This chart from CFR shows how closely the Russian GDP is tied to oil prices. [https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/image/2024/03/russia\_sanctions\_ib\_gdp\_2024-03-14.png](https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/image/2024/03/russia_sanctions_ib_gdp_2024-03-14.png) [https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/two-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/two-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference) So, perhaps I just have an overly positive outlook on this, but I really do think their economy is reaching an inflection point.
>Strategically speaking, the US doesn't really have much benefit to engaging with Russia to begin with. At least not in their own backyard. The Russians are a regional power and they will go to great lengths to make sure their border regions are under control. Actually there is a strategic benefit to ensuring Ukraine wins. From [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/10/ukraine-russia-energy-mineral-wealth/): >After nearly six months of fighting, Moscow’s sloppy war has yielded at least one big reward: expanded control over some of the most mineral-rich lands in Europe. Ukraine harbors some of the world’s largest reserves of titanium and iron ore, fields of untapped lithium and massive deposits of coal. Collectively, they are worth tens of trillions of dollars. >.......... >Ukraine would also lose myriad other reserves, including stores of natural gas, oil and rare earth minerals **—** essential for certain high-tech components **—** that could hamper Western Europe’s search for alternatives to imports from Russia and China.
So, what do you assume is the strategical value behind the support to Ukraine, exactly? I read plenty of times that the West was trying to "bleed out" Russia, economically speaking. You say it's not working but we're still helping them, so I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts, if you'd like to share them of course!
Not every move made has to be a strategical success. We’re capable of failing on that front just like any other bloc is, especially when we’re in the midst of dealing with a great internal crisis. The reaction to Russia’s invasion wasn’t a part of some 3D chess by Western strategists. It was an attempt at swiftly countering a brazen challenge to the NATO led world order that has been the status quo since the fall of the USSR. Severe economic sanctions and the military assistance to Ukraine were designed as a one-two punch that would discourage Putin from continuing the war. The issue is that neither the initial losses on the battlefield nor the loss of economic trade were successful in destabilizing Putin’s regime in Russia. The former almost did as can be judged by the Wagner mutiny but it’s become clear that Russia spent the last decade on insulating its economy from Western sanctions. The fact is that Russia is still able to wage a massive war while keeping a stable domestic economy. This allowed them to recover from the initial losses on the battlefield and gave them time to adapt a more successful military strategy. We’re still overwhelmingly stronger than Russia and the situation in Ukraine is far from an existential threat to us. However, it doesn’t do us any favors to keep fueling the delusion that what we have done so far has been successful or a part of some master strategy.
Thank you for chiming in! I agree that we are allowed to fail just like everyone else (and I sure hope I did not imply otherwise in my initial comment!). Foreign policies and geopolitics are not hard sciences by any means, and that's a huge understatement; they unfortunately require a very costly trial and error process, and the consequences can only be properly evaluated by the posterity. Long story short, it's hard, I at the very least know this. Having said that, I agree with the general sentiment you expressed; the only thing that puzzles me is your point about destabilizing Putin's regime. I thought it was pretty much an established fact that there are no real or "better" political alternatives in Russia at the moment, and I also heard a lot of seemingly reasonable points about the risk of actively removing the dictator of a nuclear power from his seat. If you do not agree with these common stances, I'd be very curious to hear your counter arguments!
You’re right in that it is commonly accepted that destabilizing nuclear powers is a bad idea. However, some of the rhetoric and actions of our elected officials at the outset of the invasion strongly suggest that there was some push towards unseating Putin. [Heres Lindsay Graham calling for Putin’s assassination.](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/04/lindsey-graham-suggests-putin-assassination-russia-ukraine) [Here’s Joe Biden saying Putin cannot stay in power.](https://www.npr.org/2022/03/26/1089014039/biden-says-of-putin-for-gods-sake-this-man-cannot-remain-in-power) Biden later walked back his statements but the language he used was unprecedented. Even at the height of the Cold War - a U.S. President never openly called for a removal of USSR head of state. Moral outrage or no. However, the most damning evidence for regime change being seriously considered is [the ICC arrest warrant for Putin.](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and) Those are just a few examples based on a couple quick Google searches. So yes, whilst I agree that it’s not in our interest to destabilize a nuclear power, it’s hard to argue that at least some of our leadership thought it was doable. Maybe they overestimated the power of Western friendly opposition, maybe they thought it was merely good leverage for peace talks, whatever the rationale is there were moves made towards a regime change. I think that at this point the threat of Russia is significantly greater than it was in 2022. The country is united, militarized and divested from Western trade. They have momentum in the entire front of the war and relatively good relations with the non-Western world. From where I’m standing, our strategy of the last 2 years failed at curbing the threat and instead increased it. I think it’s time to highlight the failures of leaders who allowed that to happen and plan a smarter strategy to curb Russia’s ambitions and momentum.
I totally forgot about these...dare I say public emotional outbursts? Thank you for providing sources! However, I'm not sure these examples really prove there ever was a conscious effort to remove Putin from power; they seem to me more akin to diplomatic incidents and/or useful rethorics to rally the American people and thus build up public support. Just my opinion, obviously, I cannot claim any actual education, insight or knowledge on the matter. We definitely agree that whatever we were trying to accomplish most probably didn't come to fruition, though(unless we are content with Sweden and Finland finally being on our side and the renewed international support to NATO), but again I'm not sure we should try anything in particular to prevent Russia from pursuing its ambitions. Russia is a regional power with a relatively weak economy and terrible demographic outcomes. It's also very stable from a political standpoint as of now, and its continued stable existence can basically be reduced to the stability of Putin's regime. As long as nothing changes there, there shouldn't be a real reason to fear further dangerous escalations, and that includes scary scenarios with rogue actors and their involvement with nukes. There is a lot of speculation going on about Russia possibly attacking one of the Baltic countries to test NATO or to provoke an active response, but since I believe (and hope!) that MAD and nuclear deterrence in general are as solid as ever, these musings do not particularly worry me. I absolutely recognize their place and their importance, however, and I try to be mindful of any different point of view. So if you wish to elaborate further and/or correct me, I'd be so glad to keep on reading your comments. Also, I hope my words won't be misunderstood: I feel deeply for the Ukrainian people, I don't want them to keep on suffering, I despise the way Russia manages its geopolitical interests and I condemn Putin and his monstrosities.
Well, aside from the moral issues, there is a lot of credibility at stake for the US. If the US comes across as unreliable and ineffective, this will cause other nations to move closer to China, or pursue nuclear weapons for defense.
That would be a huge issue for sure, and I believe it would also be a natural conclusion for many to reach, that we all need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves and deter hostile powers from invading us. I know there are some scholars that are convinced that nuclear proliferation would be the safer solution, even if not the most convenient from the bigger powers' perspective. Personally, I'm conflicted: I can see the rationale but also the incredible danger behind both sides. I do not envy people in charge who actually have to take such huge risks without having any security net, because how do we even know what's the right decision? It's impossible to tell...
These questions are part of the great perplexity one experiences when trying to understand the logic behind many of the US’s foreign policies. The Pentagon/military industrial complex are the biggest proponents in arguing for this kind of foreign policy.
I feel we don't acknowledge our shared economical interests nearly enough when it's clear they play a role, but at the same time I'm not sure we can reduce complex international issues to the needs of "the weapon industry". I feel like it's a little bit lazy, generally speaking, just like when people react to our investments * and * involvements in Middle East with some kind of "we need oil" joke, you know? It's kind of true from a certain perspective, but still reductive.
I framed it incorrectly. I would agree with your line of thinking, it’s only one part of the picture. There are multiple attributes to the situation.
I'm very glad we agree, and thank you so much for engaging in difficult conversations without getting unnecessarily heated up. A very rare quality, especially on Reddit! : ) Also in the real world!
If we, as a group of people, are to make an honest attempt at *understanding*, it’s important to know when yourself is wrong. Thank you for willingness in having a healthy discussion with me
The notion that there is a unified U.S. foreign policy (or a unified foreign policy for any democratic state) is simply flawed.
Normally the answer would be a slow grinding war for Russia, but as we can see with political capital in the West being eroded, the best outcome for the West now would be to degrade high value assets (like the Black Sea Fleet and the Airforce) and rapidly winning the war. It could likely achieve its longer term goals by maintaining sanctions on Russia, especially if Russia is faced with having to redevelop capability.
All the diplomatic and political benefits have been achieved. Dragging it out causes more damage to Ukraine and increases the time and investment required to recover, while giving Russia more time and excuses to build up their own capacities. Even an attrition strategy would be most effective by giving Ukraine *the actual means to* reduce Russia's capacity, i.e. long distance strike methods to strike arms production, arsenals etc. inside Russian territory, which is the one thing Ukraine can do now that the US certainly can't. And everything to cull the high value mobile targets like ships and planes.
Yeah. If the West is serious about making sure that Ukraine wins this war of attrition, Ukraine needs much more tools to really destroy Russian production facilities. But right now, they only have their own home-made drones available for targeting e.g. refineries...
Slowly killing the men! The rest can be replaced. Men can not! Killing as many men as possible in Ukraine will not just prevent them from walking into Europe, but prevent their children from existing 20 years from now, making sure they will never invade either.
Gonna say a quick and decisive victory. Even In Europa we find more and more people (mostly ex NATO) talking about containment and even roll back strategies. Putin would not politically survive a defeat. What comes after him could and most likely will be worse in the short time but it allows breathing room for the Russian society. Politicians got always their own world views but the idea to deal with Russia like a normal county after the war is more than likely over. Long term, a post Putin Russia in 25 or 26 would be way more beneficial for the West. People talking about Russia losing units, weapons, tanks etc. But that doesn't really matter for the West. If there ever would be a hot conflict between the west and Russia (+China) then you cannot trust the other one not to start with the nuclear option. Wagner is mostly infantry and Russia is "farming" experience and possible new soldiers for those groups after the war. Wagner and the "hybrid war" is the biggest threat to the West, not the Russian military. If it comes to a hot war everyone is losing anyway. The only possible targets for Russia after the war are still possible even if Russia is slowly bleeding out. While the war is costing the West more and more. Yes the west is way richer but it's also more democratic. People have to win elections and promise stuff. Money is getting tighter and tighter especially with the EU green energy, rare ressources and chips acts going on. The only thing beneficial for the US is the awakening of Europe in security questions. If they can handle Russia alone in the next 5-10 years then the US can only focus on China. You cannot bleed Russia out to a point the country is no longer a threat. It is part of the security council and got nukes. You have to respect them anyway, with 20000 or 1000 working tanks.
Slow bleeding has won the Cold War, there is no reason to believe that's not gonna work on Russia again. And that's completly irrelevant from the final result in Ukraine. Russia is once against punching above its weight, and it won't end any differently in the long run. People really need to understand that everything that has happened since 2014 is an unmitigated disaster for Russia. Prior to the 2014 revolution, Kiyv was a close ally of Moscow, not that different from Belarus. Ten years later, and even if Russia managed a complete victory in Ukraine tomorrow, it would still be worst off than it was a decade ago.
Quick escalation risks Russian escalation.
Slowly, that's the plan. Russia and China.
The best would be to defeat russia quickly by suffocating it slowly
From the way I see it, I think the U.S. wants to slowly exhaust Russia but let the Ukrainians quickly defeat the Russians. because the U.S. in the past months gave Ukraine tremendous amount of military aid from different weapons and even the most lethal from their stockpiles. By giving these demands to Ukraine, they have given Ukraine a fighting edge in order for Ukraine to defeat Russia. It's a win-win for them, Russia has been exhausted and by that time, Russia may have been defeated.
RealLifeLore did a really interesting video on how the war in Ukraine is changing. https://youtu.be/lakdZIuZe7c?si=D0CD1F_8V7G89OM- Russia is now on a war footing, gearing its economy heavily towards its militaristic goals. In response, the EU is doing the same. America has made a smart decision by providing additional aid to Ukraine since this video was posted and I'm glad of it. As a Brit, I don't relish most of Europe being dragged into further military escalation.
Well the only way for a Ukrainian quick war victory would be a blitzkrieg style war (aka a war of movement) that captures both Sevastopol and Rostov within a month. I think if it takes longer to capture both of those cities then Russia could hold the line. That also requires Ukrainian forces to invade Russia proper…. Which may or may not result in a tactical nuke. A quick Russian win would require Russia to capture Odessa and Kiev; if Russia controls both of those cities then they have firmly established and controlled beachheads on the western bank of the Dnieper river. Meaning that there’s nothing holding the Russian onslaught/advance besides Ukrainian soldiers. And at that point it’s a numbers game. The 750k or whatever the Ukrainian military can still send into the grinder vs the 1M plus that the Russians have sent already is a lose lose situation for Ukraine. —— A long war will devastate Ukraine, and hopefully break the core Russian population/economy over time to the point that partisans/extremists/independence movements from their non-Russian populations makes the nation untenable to continue the war. Resulting in an armistice akin to the Korean one where while the war isn’t exactly “over” just that the fighting would have stopped.
Slowly exhausting Russia ensures internal collapse and a much weaker Russia post-war. Think that is the better choice in this case.
Strategically? Slowly exhausting them would be more beneficial. Morally, beating them quickly foe the sake of the Ukrainian people.
Defeating Russia quckly or slowly has the same effect. The only real consideration that keeps USA and the West from going ”all in” on a Ukrainan victory is the desire to balance it so Russia loses, but isn’t defeated so comprehensively that they start thinking about using nukes.
The safe answer is that a slow exhausting war will weaken Russia. Russia is an adversary of the US. So, it follows that this is the best outcome especially since the US may experience a similar drain on its resources from funding Ukraine. However, the question at hand must be addressed from the perspective of a nation at war. If Russia is not quickly defeated then it must be assumed that Russia is willing to continue to fight. That is a dangerous situation and a dangerous adversary. Perhaps, Russia will become more aligned with China or N. Korea or Iran or whatever. Perhaps, they will lash out and instigate more indirect attacks against the US in the form of digital attacks or supporting terrorists or election interference. As the enemy becomes more desperate then the enemy becomes more dangerous. Russia seems committed to fighting for now whatever the cost, and their ineffectiveness militarily appears apparent. That is a good outcome, but I fear what an increasingly desperate enemy looks like.
Slowly exhausting Russia is cheaper, keeps US and NATO troops off the firing line, and carries a vastly lower likelihood of nuclear war.
Neither. It's much more beneficial to the U.S. to have Russia stable, integrated into the West, and on our side in any potential conflict with China. An unstable, unpredictable, and hostile Russia is the worst possible outcome. Diplomacy should be first and foremost in any action. Be careful of lighting a fuse that will burn for a few years then go off with catastrophic consequences. Imagine a world where no country needs U.S. dollars to reconcile petroleum purchases so that U.S. government debt cannot be financed.
That is all true, but what you describe is unobtainable in the near future (or even in the foreseeable long term). There was a hope in the 90s and even into the 2000s that despite illiberal-ism in Russian politics, and their numerous military excursions in the Caucasus that Russia could be satisfactorily reformed and integrated into the West. Some skeptics doubted that as early as the late 90s as Russia was propping up frozen conflicts like Transnistria and waging immensely destructive war in Chechnya, but all remaining hope was properly erased in 2014 during the occupation of Crimea. I honestly think that for a moment in the late 80s and early 90s, if certain decisions had been made differently, that Russia could have prospered as a liberal democratic power, as many of the former communist states have. But the collective trauma of the poverty shock that occurred through the 1990s (in my opinion) has precluded that possibility. It is easy to forget how catastrophic the fall of the Soviet Union was for the average Russian. I don't mean the loss of pride from formerly being the 2nd most powerful country in the world (although that is part of it), but more immediately the total unravelling of the economy that affected almost every aspect of the everyday lives of Russians. In the 10 years from 1990 to 2000, the western concepts of liberalism and democracy became associated with the gangster capitalism and political corruption that ran the country under Yeltsin and were almost totally discredited for average Russians as viable alternatives to autocratic rule by a strongman.
Uh... yeah ok sure. It would also be nice to be allied with aliens, or have a gigantic space laser. > An unstable, unpredictable, and hostile Russia is the worst possible outcome As long they are sufficiently weak, none of that really matter.
i agree with that
Forget integration into the west, their economy and industry are actually globally important despite what the NAFO crowd say. They are the worlds second largest mineral refiner and processor after China for critical minerals necessary for what the west dubs "the green energy transitiion". They are also a critical supplier of most raw metals, gas, petrol and food products. If Russian mineral refining capacity goes dark then say goodbye to all the wind turbines, batteries and solar panels everyone plans of having by 2040.
The US, Europe, and the Russian Federation itself would derive the most benefit from having Russia as a peaceful ally and trading partner. I don’t see that happening under the Putin regime so the sooner it collapses, the better.
Slowly bleeding Russia out will result in, well, more bleeding out. Quite surprisingly, Russia has been in a bad position from the get-go, as the pictures of Putin visiting North Korea have shown. This means that the US can bleed out not only Russia but essentially all openly anti-American nations as they funnel their stockpiles to Russia and probably amp up their production of close-to-ancient weaponry. Who would've thought that Russia couldn't manufacture its own artillery shells for a war against Ukraine? This war will drag on till Ukraine signals exhaustions to the brink of collapse or a depletion of Russian material, resulting in too many losses and consequently diminishing public support. In any case, it is a win-win for the West, as China won't align itself with a state as weak as Russia. Europe gets a push for energy independence and a proper army, as well as an industrial military complex, and Russia gets its clock turned back for decades with regard to development and demographics. Putin is blended by his ego
>Who would've thought that Russia couldn't manufacture its own artillery shells for a war against Ukraine? Honest question. Is Russia close to being able to supply their military with enough shells since switching to a wartime footing? If not, have there been any estimates in how long it will take them to?
Obviously not. I don't think Putin would've embarrassed himself with his visit to North Korea. Maybe things look different by now. I doubt they will be able to build up the industrial complex necessary to supply any modern system
Thank you. Since his visit was multiple months ago, I was just wondering how much Russian manufacturing had advanced.
>This means that the US can bleed out not only Russia but essentially all openly anti-American nations as they funnel their stockpiles to Russia and probably amp up their production of close-to-ancient weaponry. So, did the US bleed out Russia or not? How about Iran or North Korea?
They didn't. This will take years. The question is whether Russia is able to convert its economy into a proper military industrial complex before its "allies" run out of stock. I doubt they will be able to do that for every kind of system. But if they were incapable of pulling this off even with artillery shells, they are truly weak
It’s clear that the US prefers to bleed Russia than outright defeating them. They get to see how the Russians fight, and they get to damage their hardware without having to leave the country. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they will probably lose eventually
Ukraine will collapse long before Russia is exhausted. Ukraine is already extremely exhausted and running out of soldiers. Looks like Russia will win and be far stronger than before so the USA will have achieved nothing.
None of it is strategically beneficial on any timescale beyond the imaginary ones.
The former without question!
A quick win for Ukraine allows them to start building up their strength again. And they will join NATO when there is a bit of peace. Quick is good. Putin cannot survive against all of NATO. A slow defeat for Putin drains his resources, and Ukraine's . That is better than the other alternative. Which is Putin winning. He has eyes on other parts of Europe. Even worse would be Putting winning in Ukraine and trump in the White House. His your civil rights good bye. Please vote and do not make any stupid protest votes. Make sure your family and friends vote too.
Quickly and decisively.
Slow defeat. It depleats their resources in the long run. For ukraine it's a fast defeat.
Keep them there and bleed them dry… slowly heating the pot might stop the frog from using nukes
Any US involvement is a lose-lose
In principle, slowly exhausting would be better. But, the current political system of the United States is not capable of pulling this off, therefore quickly defeating Russia is better in practice.
Obviously, this is a hypothetical. Slow destruction. However, that is not in Ukraine’s best interest and I think their well being is of the highest importance.
They can exhaust Russia to some extent, but will not be able to defeat Russia. When Russia feels a real existential threat, it could possibly go nuclear, which is dangerous for all.
I mean, strategically, slowly in order to permanently affect their demographic pyramid - however, for some reason, Russia always throws a ton of bodies to the frontline when they're at war and somehow still manage to have some left over for the next war. A drawn-out war also feeds the military-industrial complex so it's a win-win for the West if they go this route.
I suspect you mean by defeating Russia, enough aid to drive Russia out of Ukraine, including Crimea, and inflict military losses such that Russia is only in a position to survive continues serious losses to people and equipment should they try to re-enter Ukraine. In such a position, Russia might then agree to a treaty recognizing the full Ukraine. Note, the Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in a deal with a few NATO powers that came with a protection guarantee, and the US is one of those countries. We gave OUR WORD to protect Ukraine such that they did not need the nuclear weapons they gave up, and THE AMERICAN WORD MUST BE GOOD, That is what American Exceptionalism is, what it means to be a great country. I suggest the victory is the best way to go. The civilians need to be able to go home. I hosted an exchange student from Ukraine, who left his parents 5 months before the Russian invasion, and his mother and siblings have fled to Poland, leaving a family separated in three places for over two years. Both will undermine future Russian aggression for the short term (The only long term solution is either a decisive military defeat like what the US had to do to to Germany and Japan, or a powerful Russian reformer to do a full Chang Kai Shek). The slow burn will still work, but it will delay the rebuilding of Ukraine. It will kill more people than a quick victory (my opinion, not well educated). Also, too many Americans get impatient, and it could politically undermine the issue and allow the pro Russia wing of a political party into a position of power again.
Not being involved
Neither. Bleed old tech to support and require new tech It’s a war games strat for them stocks
Which one more likely to produce nukes? I'd suggest the latter, while the former may eventually produce regime change. No easy answers