Current Events > Who is winning, Ukraine or Russia?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mia_K97 posted...

how many of these topics are we going to see?

I've only seen one

Mr_hulk88 posted...

I've only seen one

I see russiophobia everywhere on CE

Russia is embarrassing itself.

Mia_K97 posted...

I see russiophobia everywhere on CE

But this is a question about the war. I've only seen one topic about it

Mr_hulk88 posted...

CE
But this is a question about the war. I've only seen one topic about it

literally scroll down to the more topics from this board lmao

How much is Putin paying this guy to troll on CE for him? 3 rusty AKs and a half eaten granola bar?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/world/europe/lyman-ukraine-russia.html

Ukraine has retaken Lyman

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I have to respectfully disagree

Mia_K97 posted...

I see russiophobia everywhere on CE

I couldnt agree more. Russia are clearly the innocent party in the invasion of Ukraine. /s

Russia sucks, putin sucks but god damn were sending a lot of money over there that well never see again

Patchwork posted...

god damn were sending a lot of money over there that well never see again

if russia isn't stopped. other nato countries are next. putin wont stop till he's taken everything.

kingdrake2 posted...

if russia isn't stopped. other nato countries are next. putin wont stop till he's taken everything.

How could you possibly even believe this to be true? Have you even compared the population/military sizes of NATO vs Russia?

Ukraine is advancing and retaking land.
Russia's conscripts are in quite a bad state as well, you can find videos posted by them all over places like Telegram and Twitter showing the abysmal conditions they get put in and the lack of leadership when they arrive. Their military is a huge mess from top to bottom.

kingdrake2 posted...

if russia isn't stopped. other nato countries are next. putin wont stop till he's taken everything.

Dont be ridiculous. Russia was never going to fucking invade a NATO country.

And this war demonstrates that their conventional forces were drastically overrated anyhow. Not that we should attack them, of course.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Dont be ridiculous. Russia was never going to fucking invade a NATO country.

And this war demonstrates that their conventional forces were drastically overrated anyhow. Not that we should attack them, of course.

Didn't we just lose in Afghanistan?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Then why won't we threaten to intervene if Putin doesn't leave Ukraine?

Mia_K97 posted...

Didn't we just lose in Afghanistan?

It is dingenuous to even start to begin to compare the war on terror with any other war.

The goals of the war on terror were based on winning hearts and minds and trying to basically install a new culture without eradicating the former.

It was a fools errand.

Not to mention the US/NATO forces weren't fighting a standing military, but pockets of essentially guerilla fighters that could hide and attack anywhere.

When the US invaded Iraq, it wasn't even a fucking fight. Iraq's Army got steam rolled in days.

wackyteen posted...

It is dingenuous to even start to begin to compare the war on terror with any other war.

The goals of the war on terror were based on winning hearts and minds and trying to basically install a new culture without eradicating the former.

It was a fools errand.

Not to mention the US/NATO forces weren't fighting a standing military, but pockets of essentially guerilla fighters that could hide and attack anywhere.

When the US invaded Iraq, it wasn't even a fucking fight. Iraq's Army got steam rolled in days.

Last time I checked, it was a Loss though

Mia_K97 posted...

Last time I checked, it was a Loss though

How was it a loss? The war was over quickly in both countries with decisive victories. You are confusing attempts at nation building with warfare.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I just don't get why Russia needs to control all of Ukraine to win the war? It obviously didn't work for the US in Afghanistan.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

shouldn't forget that there is an absurdly large amount of russians that do want the war, think putin is justified in his actions and that slaughtering ukrainians is a-ok, as long they themselves don't get sent to die on the front lines

you can't blame the populace for putin's war, but you also can't absolve them of the responsibility for letting it continue

Mia_K97 posted...

I just don't get why Russia needs to control all of Ukraine to win the war? It obviously didn't work for the US in Afghanistan.

Because Putin's Endgame is to have better leverage over Europe.

Ukraine has vital, fertile lands that could really boost Russia economically and feed its people for a fraction of the cost it'd take to buy it from Ukraine.

Also Putin wants to bring back the USSR. Maybe not with the same ideology as in the past but definitely back to how it looked before the split up

There are people around Putin that wants him to start using nukes, like Ramzan Kadyrov, leader of Chechnya.

wackyteen posted...

Because Putin's Endgame is to have better leverage over Europe.

Ukraine has vital, fertile lands that could really boost Russia economically and feed its people for a fraction of the cost it'd take to buy it from Ukraine.

Also Putin wants to bring back the USSR. Maybe not with the same ideology as in the past but definitely back to how it looked before the split up

Putin literally controls the most economical parts of Ukraine right now
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/7/2/AAfVeQAADvGs.png

There's no real reason for him to take over all of Ukraine and start a pointless proxy war on Nato's border.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


How can that be? I mean wasn't it obvious that if they attacked Ukraine, it would for sure join Nato..?

There's no way Russia can win this. Ukraine already defeated the "professional' army; now they're facing the barely trained conscripts going into winter. Also, Ukraine has a lot of HIMARs now.

SaintArnold posted...

. Ukraine already defeated the "professional' army

Wait seriously?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Since when have objectives been truthful for literally any country? Most recent example, Operation Iraqi Freedom was just an excuse to remove a leader hostile to American oil wealth not spread a stable democracy. No leader is going to outright tell its people to die for the acquisition of natural resources to benefit a certain group of people.

I've heard they have taken ground since May, why haven't they taken Kherson or Crimea back then?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ohhhh

Damn.

Yeah anyway, I honestly don't get what could've possibly felt to him like it was a good idea, I thought he must've had some good plan behind this other wise why would he risk the loss of money and reputation, having all the world turn against him now

Mia_K97 posted...

Since when have objectives been truthful for literally any country? Most recent example, Operation Iraqi Freedom was just an excuse to remove a leader hostile to American oil wealth not spread a stable democracy. No leader is going to outright tell its people to die for the acquisition of natural resources to benefit a certain group of people.

I've heard they have taken ground since May, why haven't they taken Kherson or Crimea back then?

Dude, it's been 6 months. Russian troops are still entrenched. Urban warfare isn't easy especially when you're trying not to destroy your country or kill your own people. At day's end Russia doesn't give a shit how many have to die. Ukraine does and has to be careful.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

How? Did Ukraine get weapons from someone else?

Mia_K97 posted...

Since when have objectives been truthful for literally any country? Most recent example, Operation Iraqi Freedom was just an excuse to remove a leader hostile to American oil wealth not spread a stable democracy. No leader is going to outright tell its people to die for the acquisition of natural resources to benefit a certain group of people.

I've heard they have taken ground since May, why haven't they taken Kherson or Crimea back then?

Because wars take time.

And as I understand it, Crimea has always been a bit more... Sympathetic (?) to Russia/Moscow than the rest of Ukraine and less sympathetic to (being a part of) the rest of Ukraine, due to Crimea's utilization during its time in the USSR. So even if Ukraine could walk in big dick swinging, it might backfire if they destroy lots of Crimea trying to take it back.

wackyteen posted...

Because wars take time.

And as I understand it, Crimea has always been a bit more... Sympathetic (?) to Russia/Moscow than the rest of Ukraine and less sympathetic to (being a part of) the rest of Ukraine, due to Crimea's utilization during its time in the USSR. So even if Ukraine could walk in big dick swinging, it might backfire if they destroy lots of Crimea trying to take it back.

Crimea is problematic. It's heavily entrenched by Russia. Russia will fight tooth and nail for it. But, ehh, many of the people are still pro-Ukraine.

Mr_hulk88 posted...

How? Did Ukraine get weapons from someone else?

USA been funneling a lot of stuff to Ukraine.

SaintArnold posted...

Dude, it's been 6 months. Russian troops are still entrenched. Urban warfare isn't easy especially when you're trying not to destroy your country or kill your own people. At day's end Russia doesn't give a shit how many have to die. Ukraine does and has to be careful.

smh

SaintArnold posted...

Crimea is problematic. It's heavily entrenched by Russia. Russia will fight tooth and nail for it. But, ehh, many of the people are still pro-Ukraine.

USA been funneling a lot of stuff to Ukraine.

If the Russian military is so bad then IDK how this is even a factor. Just invade and take Crimea Brah!

Mr_hulk88 posted...

Ohhhh

Damn.

Yeah anyway, I honestly don't get what could've possibly felt to him like it was a good idea, I thought he must've had some good plan behind this other wise why would he risk the loss of money and reputation, having all the world turn against him now

His initial invasion was flawed but you can move forward with a flawed plan if the follow ups don't go awry, and at least your chief goals are met.

Putin wanted to eliminate Zelensky, shatter Ukrainian morale, scatter the Ukrainian Army, and be able to just set up shop to be able to crush whatever feeble resistance he anticipated to come from Ukrainian loyalists.

But that isn't what happened. Zelensky didn't die in the initial attacks, Ukrainian morale never shattered, the Army coalesced and hardened itself.

If things had gone to plan, it should have been at least a mild victory for Putin. Instead it's almost a situation of what could go wrong, has gone wrong. And it has exposed many, many, many deep rooted issues within Russia's military. Like hwo the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet sunk, not by Ukraine (or wholly at least) but due to basic safety and communication nodes on the ship not working correctly and the ship's engines being way overdue for services.

wackyteen posted...

His initial invasion was flawed but you can move forward with a flawed plan if the follow ups don't go awry, and at least your chief goals are met.

Putin wanted to eliminate Zelensky, shatter Ukrainian morale, scatter the Ukrainian Army, and be able to just set up shop to be able to crush whatever feeble resistance he anticipated to come from Ukrainian loyalists.

But that isn't what happened. Zelensky didn't die in the initial attacks, Ukrainian morale never shattered, the Army coalesced and hardened itself.

If things had gone to plan, it should have been at least a mild victory for Putin. Instead it's almost a situation of what could go wrong, has gone wrong. And it has exposed many, many, many deep rooted issues within Russia's military. Like hwo the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet sunk, not by Ukraine (or wholly at least) but due to basic safety and communication nodes on the ship not working correctly and the ship's engines being way overdue for services.

I just don't see how fighting an unpopular insurgency war on NATO's borders benefits Russia whatsoever?

Mia_K97 posted...

I just don't see how fighting an unpopular insurgency war on NATO's borders benefits Russia whatsoever?

If it had succeeded, it would have basically been a dare for NATO to make the first move, once Ukraine officially became Russia (or more likely a proxy state).

Also, Russia's economy is fairly heavily based on oil and the writing is on the wall for the future of oil. The world is moving away. Russia needs to make as much money as it possibly can while it can, off of oil.

With Ukraine being home to many pipelines (and a fair amount of oil fields in its own right) that feed oil to Europe, Russia had to pay a tax to ship its oil through Ukrainian pipelines into its cheif customers in Europe.

Controlling these pipelines (and oil fields) means Russia can deimpose those taxes and that's more money Russia can pocket while still selling its oil for similar prices.

It's not the only reason, a nation rarely goes to war for one sole reason, but it is a real reason.

Russia gambled that it had more to gain by fighting an insurgency war on NATO's borders than NATO would have risking open war with Russia.

If we've learned anything though, it's that Russia may not have been nearly as dangerous as we feared