Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| In the meantime, an update from Monaco: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/m-le-mag/article/2023/06/01/ukrainian-oligarchs-secret-escape-to-the-french-riviera_6028690_117.html |
Anonymous
Oooh. Entire dozens. Yeah, that's what the article says. Dozens. Color me unimpressed. Compare it to all of the Russian oligarchs who left and the countless tens of thousands of Russian draft dodgers and your "omg dozens of ukrainians in monaco" is not even a drop in the bucket. |
Anonymous
|
https://youtu.be/v-rHBRwdql8
Mearsheimer two weeks ago Ukraine is getting ground down |
Anonymous
|
NP but I'm just dropping in to say that I'm angry on behalf of Ukraine and I need to see full, 100% justice happen in my lifetime.
Not Eastern European. Just someone with a background in social justice work who has imbibed and lived the tenets of that path, and I get angry when I think of how Ukraine has not won this war yet. |
Anonymous
Haha you seriously think anyone in Moscow will do something based on anything written here? As for within vs from the outside. I do agree there is a chance Russia may “disintegrate” or, more likely, lose some of its loose satellite pieces. However, I still insist that just as it happened with the USSR, it will all come from a combination of economic factors AND outside/top down pressure or political will. If history has taught the Russians anything it is that grassroots resistance is bloody and futile and might not lead to the desired result even if not completely futile. Yes there will be different political and grassroot forces brewing but anything meaningful will be a creature of the west or a very top down thing. Also things are different from the USSR in that there is no more infatuation by the west. And you need something to aspire to, an ideology in order to change things. That’s why I think change will be slow and based on economic factors or external forces |
Anonymous
If we are talking about the Karabakh conflict - since the British control Azerbaijan was supported in getting it and not Armenia. Serbia was “cheated” in the Yugoslavia conflict or so it feels and that’s why it doesn’t want to be “friends” with the west. The whole Kosovo deal is insulting to Serbs and hence pro Russia gravitation |
Anonymous
I mean it never wanted to “become part of the civilized Europe” which was very much the sentiment of say Georgia. It felt unsupported in its karabakh ambitions so maybe that was part of it too |
Anonymous
Sure, Siberia would have been so much better in its own! And such a realistic scenario too. It’s all done and the only reason anyone starts talking about things that happened in the 17th century is to stir the pot and fish for something in it. |
Anonymous
Or you can say that the West has created and supported Kosovo precisely for the reasons it supports Ukraine - to not let their neighbor grow too strong. Just geopolitics, nothing personal |
Anonymous
They are trying to stir the pot a la it’s stirred in the US when people keep talking about how unfair it was what happened like two centuries ago. What happened was bad but also was par for the course of that time, it’s been atoned for and it’s time to move on and improve the lives of the current generations based on what is happening now. Yes it is important to reflect on the past but the navel gazing is just too much. |
Anonymous
DP. Of course not. Plenty of nationalists looking to stir the pot and eventually become tzars of their own little “country”. This is essentially what happened in the former USSR republics. Nationalism and historic slights were used to gain power and money by the national elites and threw the republics into chaos and violence in many places. The veneer of civilized was very thin. It may happen with the Russian federation too, of course. Never underestimate the power of wanting more power and using nationalism for that. |
Anonymous
How does justice look to you? What should happen? |
Anonymous
|
On the republics and Siberia “colonized” by the Russians. Unlike in the US, not a lot of native population was killed and a lot of progress was brought to the lands.
Locals were always part of the elites, maybe not on the forefront but very close second. Without the Soviet/Russian influence many former republics would be either radical Islamist or just backward obscure territories. Also, it’s just not realistic to think that territories that were technologically behind their neighbors would ever be left alone. The question is only whose influence it would be. Siberia may well become influenced by China (it’s happening now too), would it be better for the world? |
Anonymous
Yeah, I'd take Mearsheimer with a grain of salt. If you follow Mearsheimer's logic, Russia already failed to recognize Ukraine in a Conventional Deterrence sense since they assumed they would take Kiev in 3 days. Russia also failed to recognize the outcome of the attrition war has high costs for an attacker. I disagree that a blitzkrieg is doomed to failure in a modern war (won't list out why here, since it will give pro-Russians ideas), but I do agree with his assesment that Russia would have little chance of overwhelming Europe with one. His "case for a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent" theory is interesting, but a bit too late. To his core points, the question is not whether Ukraine is getting "ground down." Any time even a single man, woman, or child dies in Ukraine, it is getting "ground down." Similarly, every minute there is shelling, shooting, etc. Ukraine is getting "ground down." At the beginning of the war in 2022, yes, Mearsheimer was right and Russians were inflicting huge losses upon Ukraine. To a lesser extent, when Ukraine went on the offensive to regain most of its territory. However, as of late, the improvement in weapon capabilities in Fall '22 and Spring '23 changed the rates at which the Ukrainians inflicted casualties upon Russia. The question is who is getting "ground down" at a faster rate at which point in time. He has a point about the mix of pro-Russian versus pro-Ukrainian population concentrations in East Ukraine, but I would argue that Mearsheimer's vision is too narrow and Mr. Mearsheimer is not a mathematician. He failed to account for the size of Russian territory, the population density per sq km, and the amount of resources that ties up in terms of Russian labor and materiel. He does not take into consideration that although, in theory, Ukrainian civilians have fled the country, in theory, those Ukrainians are 'safe' (i.e. capable of raising children, reproducing, etc.). Although not all will return to fight for Ukraine, Russia can't touch them. In the worst-case, this means that there is a large displaced population of millions who will likely never forgive Russia in their lifetimes. Note that Mearsheimer makes an assumption regarding the loss of personnel, without actual proof? You could tell he was guessing with his statements on Russian artillery. I, for example, don't know how many Ukrainians have actually died, so had to look for anecdotal evidence to confirm or deny. What I do know is Russian cemeteries and crematoriums appear to be filling up faster, are already running at full capacity, and the Russians are building / buying even more. Mearsheimer's POV is understandable with his background and what he knows, but he must of missed the 2022 Victory Day Parade videos. The Russians are desperately trying to maintain appearances of normalcy and superiority. They've diverted resources, scraped up funds, put every piece of equipment they had into service, etc. to convince everyone they're still at the top of their game; but I personally believe it's more of a front than not. Russia is currently at 1.5M mobilization, yet they are resorting to "press gang" recruiting tactics, had to completely remove conscription age limits and the Russian Press Secretary had to recently quell rumors of a "full mobilization" (to prevent the population from panicking). You don't do that if everything is 'fine' in Russia. My estimate is that at 6M mobilization, Russia wouldn't be able to effectively govern their own country and far before that (at around 3M) I think their economy will go haywire (even going back to Stalinist economic principles). But Mearsheimer is an "expert" and I'm just a DCUMS rando, so what do I know? |
Anonymous
There have been accusations that the UA purposely doesn't try to recover bodies or confirm deaths. This is apparently for propaganda and financial reasons. Its a pretty big-brained move that lets you make some crazy claims about K/D ratios if you don't count most of your dead. Making Russia dispose of your dead is also a bonus. Then there is the financial incentive in keeping people listed as MIA, as no pensions to survivors get paid out until they are declared dead. Given that the people running the country have propaganda and penny-pinching in their blood, its not really surprising this is how they operate. |