How are they supposed to wrap up defending themselves from a Russian invasion?
This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
Rooting for a Fall blizzard.
Russia’s unsustainable equipment losses in Ukraine
On the face of it, Russian losses are unsustainable. But even more extraordinary is that its “elite” units are hemorrhaging the most materiel. After Ukraine’s Kharkiv counteroffensive, in which Kyiv is estimated to have retaken as many as 3,500 square miles, the 4th Guards Tank Division lost...
Because it will cause less unrest in the capital than if it were 60,000
If you expect an end more akin to the Korean War than WW2 you’re probably closer to the mark.
I think Ukraine will only settle for the WW2 end. I am not sure they will cede territory again.
I’m sure the South Koreans would have preferred to have the DMZ on the Yalu river, but the US elected Ike to end the war, and he did.
Not sure what this has to do with Ukraine though. They are defending their territory. The Yalu was in North Korea.
They may have been in the woods, the woods might be radioactive, and they may have been sitting there for 75 years since WWII....but I'm impressed that the Russian have beds for these recruits to sleep on.
I’d say the Ukrainians don’t want to be pressured into over extending themselves. This thing gets decided next spring/summer.
Unless the Russians collapse or Putin gets offed before that
My point is that maximalist South Korean aims weren’t what mattered, America’s desire to end the conflict was.
In both cases the warring party requires the aid of the US to continue.
America's desire to end the conflict was because China got involved. Do you see any other country (Belarus doesn't count) jumping in on Russia's side. Especially a very powerful country.
Edit: America had soldiers on the ground in Korea as well. This is not a good comparison.
You’re looking as though every element of the war were analogous.
I wrote: “If you expect an end more akin to the Korean War than WW2 you’re probably closer to the mark.”
Your response was, “I think Ukraine will only settle for the WW2 end.”
But it’s not really up to just them, and I don’t think you’ll see Ukrainian troops take the Russian capital and put their leadership on trial (aka WW2). I think a negotiated settlement is much likelier.
Again. You are talking a different conversation. You think Ukraine wants to takes Moscow?
Did WW2 end some other way?
Perhaps it would help to clarify your concept of a “WW2 end.”
Are you only talking about Russia in WW2 and not the return to normal borders after?
Stop thinking like a Russian. WW2 ended with Japan being driven back within its own borders out of the territories it illegally invaded and annexed. This war will end the same way.
WW2 in Japan ended with Japan’s surrender, the US occupying their country and much of their leadership put on trial.
In Europe the Soviets didn’t stop at the Molotov-Ribbentrop border that the Nazis invaded from, they drove to the German capital.
That’s how WW2 ended.
You think this war will end more like that, or a negotiated settlement like in Korea?
You are then stating that Russia will take Kiev and then Ukraine will surrender?
I see neither side conquering in the end (what brought WW2 to a close).
I think we’ll see a negotiation to settle the border. I’d put my money on something closer to the 2021 lines than the 1991 lines.
Let's stop hijacking this thread. Start a new one.
