Aren't they occupying something like 20% of the country? Maybe they're overextended and will lose eventually, but sure seems like they're winning at the moment.
back
3 comments
Their goal was to take 100% in a few days though. So 20% doesn't sound like winning to me.
They've already failed strategically, so they're desperately trying to gain territory in areas where they have a localised tactical advantage (places near the border).
A strategic failure is what happened in the Yom Kippur War when the Israeli counterattack penetrated the Egyptian and Syrian front and started attacking the rear. I don't see how gaining 20% of an opponent's territory and entrenching yourself is losing even if Russia thought it would achieve more faster. So far Ukraine hasn't demonstrated an ability to counterattack at scale.
There are of course degrees of failure. Egypt suffered a strategic collapse.
Russia failed to achieve its primary strategic goals. It has even failed its secondary strategic goals like taking the Donbas.
Instead of a swift conquest of Ukraine, they’re stuck in essentially a stalemate in most of the regions they control. They’re also facing an imminent counter offensive in the south with Kherson (their primary prize claimed so far) increasing cut from the lines of communication.
Meanwhile, years of economic growth have been erased from the Russian economy, it’s diplomatically isolated, militarily discredited, and facing a reinvigorated and enlarged NATO.
I’d call that a strategic failure.
“Russia failed to achieve its primary strategic goals.”
According to who? The war is ongoing and getting worse for Ukraine the long the west doesn’t invest more heavily
> I don't see how gaining 20% of an opponent's territory and entrenching yourself is losing
I guess it depends on two questions: (1) have they accomplished their actual goals? (2) how quickly can they replace the manpower and equipment that they have lost so far?
> So far Ukraine hasn't demonstrated an ability to counterattack at scale
They have been constantly counter attacking.
And with so many Ukrainian soldiers in UK being trained the real offensive is coming soon when they return.
“Their goal was to take 100% in a few days though.”
Citation needed.
Trying for a move and adjusting when you don’t get the quick gambit isn’t failure.
Russia is occupying a sizable portion of the country, but to do so has expended vast quantities of stockpiled munitions and manpower. Ukraine as well, but they have undertaken mass mobilization and have the West supporting them re-arm. Russia has no such replacement capacity.
Given the dramatic military strength differential between Russia and the Ukraine, the fact they are at a stalemate is, itself, a huge victory for Ukraine and a crippling defeat for Russia.
We'll see. I'm not as optimistic as you. Russia hasn't mobilized all their manpower and its position can change dramatically if the war lasts until winter.
I'm with you, I can't see how - long term - Russia could possibly lose. Sure they're a decade or two behind the West when it comes to technology but there's no way Ukraine can match Russia's manpower and industrial capacity. Then again, I really didn't think the U.S. could possibly lose to the Taliban, yet here we are.
Ukraine can't but the West easily does. It's important to keep in mind that Russia's economy is the size of Italy's, and they have a population of 145 millions. Ukraine has 44 millions, NATO countries combined have 950 millions, most of which are highly developed industrial nations, so there's really no question that NATO can outproduce Russia many times over, if they choose to really ramp up the production and ship it to Ukraine.
It seems they are getting there, even the Germans are slowly giving up their hesitations, and it makes sense as well: anything Russia has to spend in Ukraine, they cannot spend in Poland and the Baltic States.
Comparing Russian GDP to Italy understates Russian economic power because it is probably the most autarchic country (maybe North Korea is more autarchic, I would have said the USA too until covid happened) and is a net exporter of metals, energy, and food. If the war lasts until winter Europe will really be hurting from lack of Russian energy.
> If the war lasts until winter Europe will really be hurting from lack of Russian energy.
Russia has already cut off most of their gas supplies with Nord Stream 1.
And so Europe has measures in place eg. storing gas, sharing agreements, increasing supply from Azerbaijan etc. They will experience some pain over winter but day by day they become more ready for it.
Energy usage increases in the winter because of heating. That will cause price increases which will put pressure on European politicians to resolve the war.
> Aren't they occupying something like 20% of the country?
Temporarily occupying.
As we are currently seeing in Kherson, Ukraine continues to attempt to reclaim held territory.
And there is widespread doubt about Russia’s ability to hold them over the long term with the limited troops they have. Russia needs a full scale mobilisation to do this and unfortunately for them it’s politically toxic.
We'll see, pundits have been predicting a turning tide since a few weeks into the war. Hasn't happened yet.
> We'll see, pundits have been predicting a turning tide since a few weeks into the war. Hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, it did, which is why Russia radically changed focus and apparent strategy from decapitating and pacifying the regime to trying to seize a continuous arc through Eastern and Southern Ukraine to connect to the enclave they also clearly want to seize in Moldova.