China never declared anything beyond retaliating for so called border provocations and "teaching Vietnam a lesson"... If Russia had not declared anything beyond de-Nazifaction and a demand that the Minsk Agreement be implemented, then Russia would have much more wiggle room...
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
I am curious about the Russian strategy as the next guy, but here is what I see.
1. Russia now has 80K regular soldiers, 20-30K Wagner Group, 20-30K Chechens and 40-50 territorial forces in the theater.
2. Russia has far more forces inside Russia and in Belarus.
3. Tens of thousands of regular Russian troops participated in the Far East Exercises.
The forces Russia has in the theater is far too small to obtain a quick victory. They have a cavalier approach to this war. It is as they are fighting an opponent by cutting him with a small pocket knife while carrying a war axe on the back. You only do that if you judge that there is no question of you eventually winning this war. Could they have misjudged the scope of their problem? Given that Putin had a very good record as a leader and he won all the wars that he initiated(Georgia, Chechnya, Syria and Crimea), I highly doubt that he misjudged the situation.
Given the lack of mobilization or even adding the other troops they currently have after the defeat in Kharkov, this is not a careless mistake, it is intentional. When fighting Ukraine, they do not want a quick victory, they want to fight a long drawn out war with relative low intensity.
I don't buy the part about them starting a war that they can't get out of. It is about the survival of Russia and all the internal stakeholders are aligned on it. It was not started haphazardly. Clearly they prepared for it for many years and waited for the right opportunity to do it. They knew that once they start the war, losing would mean the end of at least the Putin regime and likely Russia. Further, they have the means to win the war. They just need to pull the war axe from their back and start to hack away. Also, when faced with unfavorable odds, as in Kharkov, they are more than willing to retreat and accept defeat. This does not look like a group that will carry on if they see the iceberg ahead.
We can reasonably conclude that now, their objective is not to conquer Ukraine. It is likely that Ukraine is not now the main objective as Ukraine does not have agency to abide by treaties it signs.
It is likely that the cost of keeping the war going is not too burdensome. With the current tempo, they can probably continue the war indefinitely.
At this point, I can further speculate on the reason behind the way they fight the war, but rather than risking this being deleted by monitors, I will leave it for you to speculate on your own.
1. Russia now has 80K regular soldiers, 20-30K Wagner Group, 20-30K Chechens and 40-50 territorial forces in the theater.
2. Russia has far more forces inside Russia and in Belarus.
3. Tens of thousands of regular Russian troops participated in the Far East Exercises.
The forces Russia has in the theater is far too small to obtain a quick victory. They have a cavalier approach to this war. It is as they are fighting an opponent by cutting him with a small pocket knife while carrying a war axe on the back. You only do that if you judge that there is no question of you eventually winning this war. Could they have misjudged the scope of their problem? Given that Putin had a very good record as a leader and he won all the wars that he initiated(Georgia, Chechnya, Syria and Crimea), I highly doubt that he misjudged the situation.
Given the lack of mobilization or even adding the other troops they currently have after the defeat in Kharkov, this is not a careless mistake, it is intentional. When fighting Ukraine, they do not want a quick victory, they want to fight a long drawn out war with relative low intensity.
I don't buy the part about them starting a war that they can't get out of. It is about the survival of Russia and all the internal stakeholders are aligned on it. It was not started haphazardly. Clearly they prepared for it for many years and waited for the right opportunity to do it. They knew that once they start the war, losing would mean the end of at least the Putin regime and likely Russia. Further, they have the means to win the war. They just need to pull the war axe from their back and start to hack away. Also, when faced with unfavorable odds, as in Kharkov, they are more than willing to retreat and accept defeat. This does not look like a group that will carry on if they see the iceberg ahead.
We can reasonably conclude that now, their objective is not to conquer Ukraine. It is likely that Ukraine is not now the main objective as Ukraine does not have agency to abide by treaties it signs.
It is likely that the cost of keeping the war going is not too burdensome. With the current tempo, they can probably continue the war indefinitely.
At this point, I can further speculate on the reason behind the way they fight the war, but rather than risking this being deleted by monitors, I will leave it for you to speculate on your own.
I want to see the specific source of these negotiation conditions.Did Blinken really participate in the formulation of negotiation conditions?
However, it is clear that Ukraine is conveying NATO's attitude, I suggest they directly announce the terms of the negotiations as NATO's occupation of Russia.
It is unrealistic to place hopes on negotiations in winter. Putin and the Russian military headquarters must abandon opportunism, and stinginess will only lead to failure.
Vietnam had a lot more agency compared to Ukraine today. It was possible for the Chinese to negotiate with Vietnam.
I want to see the specific source of these negotiation conditions.Did Blinken really participate in the formulation of negotiation conditions?
However, it is clear that Ukraine is conveying NATO's attitude, I suggest they directly announce the terms of the negotiations as NATO's occupation of Russia.
It is unrealistic to place hopes on negotiations in winter. Putin and the Russian military headquarters must abandon opportunism, and stinginess will only lead to failure.
Yeah I haven't found a proper source for it. That said, thats not the most unrealistic thing of the whole deal considering we have audios of Victoria Nuland choosing who gets to be part of the Ukranian government after Maidan
That's the other thing, if its real, it is unrealistic by design and its probably just to get people to talk for imaginary internet points. While what happened in Karkhov was certainly a victory overall, it is far from the end of the war just alone on the fact like resevior dog mentions, the strategic depth of Russia.
It just a propaganda piece, just like taking pictures of scrapyards, depots and old wrecks and claim they are recently captured equipment from the offensive.
Should they decide it, they still have plenty of manpower and equipment to draw from and could overwhelm Ukraine and whatever NATO gives them if they decided to abandon the current "avoid losses as much as possible" strategy.
Not the strategy when they started, but it will be the best case scenario for Russia when it is over.
Ultimately a slow push is good for Ukraine, unless Russia dramatically steps up strikes, Ukraine will continue to receive a steady stream of trained soldiers and equipment for use in future offensives. The current gambit is that Europe falls apart over winter, but if that does not happen the Russian strategy will fall into deep trouble.
By next winter if needed Europe would've been able to fill the power gap with thermal coal and the energy leverage would be much less effective. Azerbaijan is also eager to chip in with large reserves of energy also, so a long war is in no way advantageous to Russia.
The Ukrainian strategic situation has improved immensely over even a month ago, now that they have shown their worth, the west is supplying increasingly heavier weapons, while Russia does not seem to be committing extra resources to this misadventure.
Fundamentally very different approach.
China's goal was to take uninhabited areas, and, speaking in a politically incorrect way, inflict a massacre on Viet soldiers to deplete their military strength.
Russia on the other hand wants to take highly populated territory and somehow seems to go easy on the AFU. It seems like Russia wants to forment organic resistance within the separatist regions, with the Russian forces acting in a supportive role.
During 1979, China immediately moved a comparable amount of soldiers to Vietnam into the north, and they never tried to capture major cities. Instead, they would destroy all the vital infrastructure, walk around the towns and let the Viet army meet them in the fields. This approach was effective at causing maximum pain for the defending armies, but China didn't take control of even a single city after the war and didn't have any designs on doing so.