Nobody disagrees that until it ends the situation will create further instability; but it can end with Russia giving up or surrendering as well. There is no global objective truth that Russia will not surrender; so by saying "I'm just stating facts" you're actually making a normative claim instead of a descriptive one; which can be viewed as problematic.
They are just claiming that Russian concession is much less likely than a Ukrainian one, which I think many would agree with.
If the war in Ukraine continues, we can expect less food production and potential oil disruption to center Europe.
No need to comment on how to get to this outcome, or thoughts about who will make a concession leading to a big conversation away from the main point of what you were trying to say.
Keep the if statement about exactly matters, not a secondary effect/cause.
Here’s one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KILAY2miQdI
Here’s another: https://m.youtube.com/c/AlexanderMercourisReal
In short, for Russia to lose would be the end of Russia. They have to be seen as hitting their objectives (they’ve hit a few so far). Ukraine is massively out gunned, but has more manpower active. That said, I don’t see an outcome where Ukraine can regain any territory and will likely only lose more. That will further embolden Russia and will keep them from surrendering at the very least.
You have picked a 1. random unpopular youtube channel (which might be good, I couldn't verify anything from it, as I couldn't find who ran it, if you know I am happy to be proved wrong) and 2. A disbarred barrister https://twitter.com/markgaleotti/status/927087181532991489?l.... There is much better information to pick than this! Any information will have a bias, and if they claim to be neutral I personally get suspicious of what that bias is.
Your assertion that you can't see anyway for Ukraine to win is based on "If Russia loses, it would be the end of Russia". Well, if Ukraine loses it will be the end of Ukraine, so I guess by your logic Russia can't win either? (TBF, everyone losing to some degree is right with war).
I won't get drawn into a discussion about how the war will go. People qualified to make a guess have been wrong and wont make prediction. Neither of us is qualified, so I will not be weighing in on this except to say that unexpected things happen all the time in conflict.
"Ukrainian forces could wipe out all of 'exhausted' Russian troops' territorial gains, retired US general says" https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-exhausted-russian-tr...
There was also an interesting take on the business before the war even started by Mikhail Khodarenok - ex-head ... of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, Colonel https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02-03/3_1175_donbass.html In Russian but Google translate works well. It points out a lot of difficulties that seem to have come to pass including:
>It is also worth recalling that the mighty Stalinist NKVD and the multi-million Soviet army fought the nationalist underground in Western Ukraine for more than 10 years. And now there is an option that the whole of Ukraine can easily go into the partisans. In addition, these formations can easily begin to operate already on the territory of Russia.
which seems to be playing out just now with stuff blowing up in Crimea and Belarus.
One big difference here is that Russia has nuclear weapons and Ukraine does not.
There's zero indication that nuclear weapons are relevant.
80,000 casualties in 140 days is shocking and unsustainable for Russia.
If western accounts are correct, western military support is increasing the weapons imbalance, leading to greater Russian losses and fewer Ukrainian losses.
Finally, I'll point out that pundits have been calling doom for Ukraine from the start, and have all been wrong. So, the onus is on you at this point to "dive in and debate."
Or don't, and accept your downvotes lol. It's just social media.
Unfortunately this will have some bad effects for the rest of the world in terms of food supplies, but it's a price worth paying to eliminate Russia as an effective geopolitical player for years to come. Remember that it's not just about Ukraine. If the rest of the civilized world pressures Ukraine into ceding territory to Russia as part of a peace settlement then next year Russia will try to take a little slice of Poland, a little slice of Estonia, etc.
It's not such a far-fetched idea. Russia (the empire) has been falling apart since 1991 (possibly even 1917, but that's a scale that doesn't matter much for the outcome of this war).
> I believe -- and this is a personal belief here at MFAN [the channel name] -- that the United States is actively flying both F-22s and F-35s -- stealth aircraft -- over the combat area. And now, are they dropping ordnance on Russian targets? Difficult to say
According to the Western media they were running out of ammo in March, April, May and June. Meanwhile, with an incompetent army running out of supplies, they were apparently able to occupy 20% of Ukraine's territory.
The conclusion as far as food goes is that globally, plans should be made that do not count on any food from Ukraine, or Russia entering global markets.
I just took umbrage that OP was seemingly (and probably unintentionally) putting the blame for the situation on Ukraine and not Russia.
Maxwell Taylor quoted here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA486290.pdf
the problem you're alluding to isn't new: political leaders aren't likely to make the clear statement of aims you want them to make (see the quote). You should consider the fact that they might not make a clear statement, but 100% could still could be the goal.
My view is that the original ground scheme of maneuver (a strike at kyiv) points to a goal of replacing the ukrainian government with a russian puppet government, essentially a "100%" or unlimited war aim.
But in the post I was replying to it was stated as a certainty rather than a possibility.
> "To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation."
How do you demilitarize a nation by taking only 20% of it? The only way to do this would be to capture the entirety of the country.
> How do you demilitarize a nation by taking only 20% of it? The only way to do this would be to capture the entirety of the country.
Really? What if Ukraine surrenders and negotiates sovereignty over the remaining 80% of their territory while dismantling (or at least greatly reducing) the capabilities of their armed forces?
That's just one of the possibilities that comes to mind which does not involve occupying the entire territory.
On the other hand, if Russia is able to make significant advances in the coming months, and Ukraine is at a point where it cannot meaningfully defend anymore, it seems the rational choice would be to negotiate and accept a reduction in their armed forces (while maybe retaining what territories they still have under control) instead of falling for the sunken cost fallacy and trying to defend a lost position just to avoid "wasting" 8 years of NATO training.
I’m stating what I see as facts. Russia will not surrender. The longer the Ukraine is in the war, the higher likelihood the people of Ukraine starve.
We can make an argument that they shouldn’t surrender. That’s a moral position.
I’m pointing out if we don’t figure it out within the next few months you’re not going to get the food from the region, as people are fighting over it. I don’t care who’s fault it is. We should recognize the situation so we can try to mitigate the issue.