Well it has been eight months so perhaps it is time to ask

MontyB

MontyB

All-Blacks Supporter
How does this thing end?

I am stumped on this aspect of it, no matter what Ukraine does it cannot force an end as Russia simply withdraws back over its borders, regroups and returns.
Putin can't call it off as there is no way he claim any sort of a win now, the eight months to date have been nothing short of a catastrophe for Russia, it's military and its economy.
Even if Russia somehow figure out how to fight a war it is still going to take years for them to get to the Polish border at the rate they seem to move.

So as said, how does this thing end, what is Putin's way out?
 
MontyB said:
How does this thing end?

I am stumped on this aspect of it, no matter what Ukraine does it cannot force an end as Russia simply withdraws back over its borders, regroups and returns.
Putin can't call it off as there is no way he claim any sort of a win now, the eight months to date have been nothing short of a catastrophe for Russia, it's military and its economy.
Even if Russia somehow figure out how to fight a war it is still going to take years for them to get to the Polish border at the rate they seem to move.

So as said, how does this thing end, what is Putin's way out?
Click to expand...

To end the madness, I think one way out is to find a way in which Putin can find a honorable exit. However, Putin will never be trusted again so Russia will be pretty isolated.

I think the end of it all is within Russia and the Russians. It will end when they had enough of casualties and their economy drained.
 
Would the war with Ukraine collapse if Putin is taken out/shot/removed or could an even nastier bugger take his place?
 
BritinBritain said:
Would the war with Ukraine collapse if Putin is taken out/shot/removed or could an even nastier bugger take his place?
Click to expand...

It depends on his entourage. It can go either other Russians get rid of him and end the war or it can go straight down the drain with another hardliner
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
It depends on his entourage. It can go either other Russians get rid of him and end the war or it can go straight down the drain with another hardliner
Click to expand...

The general consensus is that Yevgeny Prigozhin head of the Wagner Group will replace him if it heads down the hardliner path.
I think it really depends on who "retires" Putin, if it is his inner circle then there is a greater chance of it being a hardliner who replaces him, the best chance of a "moderate" taking over would be if the army put him out to pasture.

I think this would be possible if the army hierarchy felt that they were in danger of being purged.

The one thing that is becoming obvious is that the war is unlikely to end while Putin is in charge as there really isn't a way out for him unless the military sudden develop some competence.
 
George said:
They did eventually give up in Afghanistan...
Click to expand...

This Russia is a different beast to the Soviet Union, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to prop up a pro-Russian government and once the cost became too high they pulled the pin and buggered off much like the US in Vietnam.

Putin's Russia is a kleprocracy, it isn't in Ukraine for any other reason than to benefit a few Russian elite, where the Soviet Union cared about it's people to the point that they didn't want to look bad Putin couldn't care less about the Russian people as long as he is racking in the cash.

Basically, Putin will send every last Russian to the front and not give a flying rats arse about them where as the Soviet Union sort of did care in a round about way.
 
When the reservists/conscripts begin to return in body bags or just vanish in Ukraine, their relatives will begin to be vocal about it, that can force the Russian government to find a way out
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
When the reservists/conscripts begin to return in body bags or just vanish in Ukraine, their relatives will begin to be vocal about it, that can force the Russian government to find a way out
Click to expand...

The problem I see is, Russia's powers that be doesn't give a damn about public opinion, as in NAZI Germany, 'Speak out and you'll end up in a concentration camp.' Putin like Stalin or Hitler, doesn't give a damn about human life. Putin will gladly send every male or woman who can hold a rifle into the front line as long as he holds onto power. In my opinion for what its worth, Putin will hold onto power until he is forcibly removed or shot.
 
Last edited:
BritinBritain said:
The problem I see is, Russia's powers that be doesn't give a damn about public opinion, as in NAZI Germany, 'Speak out and you'll end up in a concentration camp.' Putin like Stalin or Hitler, doesn't give a damn about human life. Putin will gladly send every male or woman who can hold a rifle into the front line as long as he holds onto power. In my opinion for what its worth, Putin will hold onto power until he is forcibly removed or shot.
Click to expand...

I agree mostly, I see three options that may trigger his removal though.
1. Senior military commanders fearing a purge by Putin to keep the hardliners happy take matters into their own hands.
2. Hardliners fearing Putin is failing take matters in hand.
3. Oligarchs and wealthy seeing their kids coming back in body bags sort things out.

I think option 1 is the most likely, option 2 the least likely and option 3 as only likely once Russia runs out of peasants to send and has to mobilize fully.
 
MontyB said:
This Russia is a different beast to the Soviet Union, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to prop up a pro-Russian government and once the cost became too high they pulled the pin and buggered off much like the US in Vietnam.

Putin's Russia is a kleprocracy, it isn't in Ukraine for any other reason than to benefit a few Russian elite, where the Soviet Union cared about it's people to the point that they didn't want to look bad Putin couldn't care less about the Russian people as long as he is racking in the cash.

Basically, Putin will send every last Russian to the front and not give a flying rats arse about them where as the Soviet Union sort of did care in a round about way.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union was also a kleptocracy : after the death of her father,the daughter of Breznhev and her husband were put in prison for bribery and theft of state property .
Ukraine is not better .
It is also questionable that there is something in Ukraine that would benefit the Russian oligarchs .
That the Soviet Union cared about its people is a big exaggeration .
 
lljadw said:
The Soviet Union was also a kleptocracy : after the death of her father,the daughter of Breznhev and her husband were put in prison for bribery and theft of state property .
Ukraine is not better .
It is also questionable that there is something in Ukraine that would benefit the Russian oligarchs .
That the Soviet Union cared about its people is a big exaggeration .
Click to expand...

The point was that the Soviet Union and Russia have different motives not that one is better than the other as they are equally as bad.
I am not claiming Ukraine are saints but they do appear to be trying to fit into the western democratic mindset, I have no doubt they are still riddled with corruption but they are making attempts at rectifying it to fit into EU requirements.
 
About the motives : the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan because the local communists were killing each other .After the Speznats eliminated one of the ruling communist fractions in Kabul,Moscow saw to its dismay that the whole communist structure had collapsed in Afghanistan and the result was that the Red Army had to do the job of the Afghan army, something one could expect that would finish in a total debacle .
Why did Russia intervene in Ukraine ? There is no proof that the oligarchs have the power to decide Russian's foreign policy and that they pushed Putin to invade Ukraine .
The most likely explanation is that the Kremlin, as usual paranoid ,was afraid last Winter that Ukraine would become a NATO member (maybe it was already one de facto ) and that this would create a mortal danger for Russia .Euromaidan only fortified the convictions of the Kremlin .
The difference with Afghanistan was that Russia had no possible vassals in Ukraine who were strong enough to force the army, population and police to obey them .As the annexation of Ukraine was and is out of the question and as the Russian strength was to weak to occupy the country,the invasion was doomed to fail from the first day on .
If Ukraine was defeated, who would rule the country ? There are no Ukrainian candidates to do it .And Russians are excluded .
 
lljadw said:
About the motives : the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan because the local communists were killing each other .After the Speznats eliminated one of the ruling communist fractions in Kabul,Moscow saw to its dismay that the whole communist structure had collapsed in Afghanistan and the result was that the Red Army had to do the job of the Afghan army, something one could expect that would finish in a total debacle .
Why did Russia intervene in Ukraine ? There is no proof that the oligarchs have the power to decide Russian's foreign policy and that they pushed Putin to invade Ukraine .
The most likely explanation is that the Kremlin, as usual paranoid ,was afraid last Winter that Ukraine would become a NATO member (maybe it was already one de facto ) and that this would create a mortal danger for Russia .Euromaidan only fortified the convictions of the Kremlin .
The difference with Afghanistan was that Russia had no possible vassals in Ukraine who were strong enough to force the army, population and police to obey them .As the annexation of Ukraine was and is out of the question and as the Russian strength was to weak to occupy the country,the invasion was doomed to fail from the first day on .
If Ukraine was defeated, who would rule the country ? There are no Ukrainian candidates to do it .And Russians are excluded .
Click to expand...

Explain what NATO could do in Ukraine that they can't do from Latvia, Estonia, Norway or Lithuania?
Surely there is someone in the Kremlin that pointed out to Putin that an attack on Ukraine would more than likely drive Finland and Sweden into NATO which goes nothing more than increase Russian borders with NATO.

I don't for an instant think this was driven by paranoia, this is a war of conquest (like every one of Putin's conflicts) driven by a desire to control resources and increase the wealth of the inner circle.

What it has become is a war Ukraine is too small to win and Russia is too corrupt and incompetent to win.

The good news I guess is that it is the end of Russian pretenses at being a military superpower.
 
MontyB said:
Explain what NATO could do in Ukraine that they can't do from Latvia, Estonia, Norway or Lithuania?
Surely there is someone in the Kremlin that pointed out to Putin that an attack on Ukraine would more than likely drive Finland and Sweden into NATO which goes nothing more than increase Russian borders with NATO.

I don't for an instant think this was driven by paranoia, this is a war of conquest (like every one of Putin's conflicts) driven by a desire to control resources and increase the wealth of the inner circle.

What it has become is a war Ukraine is too small to win and Russia is too corrupt and incompetent to win.

The good news I guess is that it is the end of Russian pretenses at being a military superpower.
Click to expand...

The facts are that Russia did attack Ukraine shortly after there was a new administration in the US ,an administration that was the most anti-Russian one since the fall of the USSR.
In February 2022 Russia was weaker than in February 2002 and Ukraine was stronger .
If the attack was a war of conquest ( which is not so as Russia can not conquer Ukraine ) the best moment for the attack would have been 9/12,the day after the Muslim attack on the US when the US were preparing their answer to Al Quaeda .
Norway is a NATO member since 1949 and the Baltics are not important compared to Ukraine .Besides,there was no Euromaidan organised by the CIA in the Baltics .
What it has become is a war that Russia was not strong enough to win by military means .The corruption in Russia has nothing to do with the Russian military and especially political failure.
 
lljadw said:
The facts are that Russia did attack Ukraine shortly after there was a new administration in the US ,an administration that was the most anti-Russian one since the fall of the USSR.
In February 2022 Russia was weaker than in February 2002 and Ukraine was stronger .
If the attack was a war of conquest ( which is not so as Russia can not conquer Ukraine ) the best moment for the attack would have been 9/12,the day after the Muslim attack on the US when the US were preparing their answer to Al Quaeda .
Norway is a NATO member since 1949 and the Baltics are not important compared to Ukraine .Besides,there was no Euromaidan organised by the CIA in the Baltics .
What it has become is a war that Russia was not strong enough to win by military means .The corruption in Russia has nothing to do with the Russian military and especially political failure.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, everything I see tells me over confidence and arrogance lead Putin to believe this would be a walk over and the reason the Russian military has come unstuck starts with arrogance and extends to corruption.
The reason Russian troops are not that good isn't because Russia can't train a professional army but rather money is being drained from the system at every step, the reason Russia can't equip it's troops with modern weaponry isn't because it can't make them but because politicians, arms manufacturing executives, base commanders, logistics personnel are all skimming everything they can get their grubby hands on off the top.

Hell I am prepared to bet that the much vaunted 2000 combat aircraft Russian air force doesn't exist because half it's aircraft and facilities have been sold for a handful of hookers and a crate of vodka.

Basically Russia is nothing more than nuclear armed joke and I wouldn't be surprised if half it's warheads didn't exist either.
 
MontyB said:
I don't agree, everything I see tells me over confidence and arrogance lead Putin to believe this would be a walk over and the reason the Russian military has come unstuck starts with arrogance and extends to corruption.
The reason Russian troops are not that good isn't because Russia can't train a professional army but rather money is being drained from the system at every step, the reason Russia can't equip it's troops with modern weaponry isn't because it can't make them but because politicians, arms manufacturing executives, base commanders, logistics personnel are all skimming everything they can get their grubby hands on off the top.

Hell I am prepared to bet that the much vaunted 2000 combat aircraft Russian air force doesn't exist because half it's aircraft and facilities have been sold for a handful of hookers and a crate of vodka.

Basically Russia is nothing more than nuclear armed joke and I wouldn't be surprised if half it's warheads didn't exist either.
Click to expand...
Russia (with a population of only 142 million people ) would be better without a professional army ( in fact half of its manpower are conscripts ) but with a stronger army with less professionals and more conscripts .
Its manpower is only some 1,1 million men ( figures do diverge )and half of its active forces are in Ukraine .It needs more than the double to protect its borders .
Professionalization means less boots on the ground, not only for Russia ,but also for the West, with the inevitable negative results .
There is corruption in the Russian army, but with less corruption, the result would be the same .
Russia needs more quantity, not more quality . So do Germany, US, UK,Belgium, etc .
Due to its shortage of infantry ,Russia was forced to use tanks, too many of them ,and in a wrong strategic and tactical employment .
About the confidence and arrogance: the Russians convinced themselves that there would be a miracle,because they knew that they could only win if there was a miracle .
The conclusion was : we will win,because we must win .
In June 1941 the attitude of the Wehrmacht was the same .The USSR was potentially much stronger than Germany and if it had the time,it would defeat Germany .
Ukraine is potentially much stronger than Russia,and if it has the time, it will defeat Russia .
200000 Russians are fighting against 40 million Ukrainians ,and the outcome is already a public secret .
 
lljadw said:
Russia (with a population of only 142 million people ) would be better without a professional army ( in fact half of its manpower are conscripts ) but with a stronger army with less professionals and more conscripts .
Its manpower is only some 1,1 million men ( figures do diverge )and half of its active forces are in Ukraine .It needs more than the double to protect its borders .
Professionalization means less boots on the ground, not only for Russia ,but also for the West, with the inevitable negative results .
There is corruption in the Russian army, but with less corruption, the result would be the same .
Russia needs more quantity, not more quality . So do Germany, US, UK,Belgium, etc .
Due to its shortage of infantry ,Russia was forced to use tanks, too many of them ,and in a wrong strategic and tactical employment .
About the confidence and arrogance: the Russians convinced themselves that there would be a miracle,because they knew that they could only win if there was a miracle .
The conclusion was : we will win,because we must win .
In June 1941 the attitude of the Wehrmacht was the same .The USSR was potentially much stronger than Germany and if it had the time,it would defeat Germany .
Ukraine is potentially much stronger than Russia,and if it has the time, it will defeat Russia .
200000 Russians are fighting against 40 million Ukrainians ,and the outcome is already a public secret .
Click to expand...

Most if not all "first world" for want of a better world have professional smaller standing militaries Russia is no different, its role is to meet immediate small scale needs and provide the backbone of a larger force if mobilisation is required, it is that small professional peacetime military that allow for a larger quality force to be produce during wartime.
Russia has 142 million people allowing for the "standard" ratios of 1 in 10 Russia has the theoretical capacity to call up an army of 15 million, Ukraine 4 million this is a lopsided war but not in favour of Ukraine when it comes to manpower capacity.

Once again I don't disagree with your points, I disagree with your conclusions.
Just for arguments sake, had Ukraine been attacked by another European nation, say UK, France, Poland or Germany nations with small, well trained, professional militaries and populations closer to Ukraine's would/could they have done worse than the supposed "number 2" army in the world?
(Although they have shown themselves as a number 2 in many ways).
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Most if not all "first world" for want of a better world have professional smaller standing militaries Russia is no different, its role is to meet immediate small scale needs and provide the backbone of a larger force if mobilisation is required, it is that small professional peacetime military that allow for a larger quality force to be produce during wartime.
Russia has 142 million people allowing for the "standard" ratios of 1 in 10 Russia has the theoretical capacity to call up an army of 15 million, Ukraine 4 million this is a lopsided war but not in favour of Ukraine when it comes to manpower capacity.

Once again I don't disagree with your points, I disagree with your conclusions.
Just for arguments sake, had Ukraine been attacked by another European nation, say UK, France, Poland or Germany nations with small, well trained, professional militaries and populations closer to Ukraine's would/could they have done worse than the supposed "number 2" army in the world?
(Although they have shown themselves as a number 2 in many ways).
Click to expand...

Russia can't afford to commit 15 million men in Ukraine,while Ukraine can afford to commit 4 million men for its defense .US did not mobilise 30 million men when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ,because this was impossible .
If an other European country had attacked Ukraine with 200000 men, the result would be the same .
If the Ukrainians refused to give up, the attacker ( whoever he may be ) would be faced by a war of attrition and to win a war of attrition you need a big manpower .
And then remains the other mission impossible :if you defeat the Ukrainian army ( not the Ukrainian people ) using an army of 1 million men, you will still need at least 500000 men to occupy and pacify Ukraine, something which no attacker can afford .
The defeat and occupation of Ukraine was mission impossible as was the defeat and occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR and the US ,which boasted to have the number one army in the world .
Russia was and is in the same position of the Germans inn June 1941 :both attacked a country that was potentially stronger than the attacker and for both the only chance of success was a short and cheap victorious campaign without big losses of the USSR and Ukraine .
Such a campaign could only be victorious if the population abandoned the ruling regime ,but the Soviet population did not abandon Stalin and the Ukrainians did not abandon Zelensky .There is no Ukrainian Lukachensky .
If you attack with a small professional army,you are forced to use as strategy a blitzkrieg ,but if the enemy population refuses to give up ,the blitzkrieg becomes a war of attrition and you can't win such a war with a small professional army .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top