Zelensky government has effectively created the image both to Ukrainians and to the outside world of a unified country — ssu

But...

Of course this will, as you say, increase the casualty figures — ssu

How on earth can you weigh the 'image' of Ukraine against an increase in civilian casualties and decide the former is the 'smart move'? What the fuck?

On the same page you're arguing that Russian military capability is so vast no-one would dare attack it, then praising the sending of 18 year old boys out to fight it.

Ukraine did do two very smart moves. By not only saying that all 18 to 60 year old men have to stay in Ukraine, but that this has been at large obeyed is actually very crucial. I — ssu

It's possible this is a smart move against some existential threat ... it's also possible it's a really dumb move if peace can be achieved by simply recognizing what it can't have anyways (NATO could bring Ukraine in today if it wanted to) and also Russia winning a conventional war anyways.

I have really serious doubts about the effectiveness of untrained civilians to wage the kind of war Russia is waging.

And to just give out weapons the Zelensky government has effectively created the image both to Ukrainians and to the outside world of a unified country and a people ready to defend it. — ssu

It was a good social media move, for sure, definitely galvanized the West.

However, has serious consequences of simply handing out weapons to civilians, not even pretending to conscript them into some sort of formal soldier status and chain of command. It makes Putin's statements of Ukraine using human shields completely true, and also makes any civilian just wandering around with an assault riffle a legitimate target for snipers / mortars / tanks / artillery / rockets / aircraft bombs / helicopter strafing and so on.

Of course this will, as you say, increase the casualty figures, but that does have when nations opt to have for example universal conscription. — ssu

Certainly countries can have conscription, though that is different than handing out weapons to civilians, as discussed a lot already.

For the overall outcome on the war of all these measures, I personally don't see Russia losing.

Their strategy is pretty simple:

1. Keep pressure on all fronts.
2. Advance each day on weakest fronts
3. Avoid urban combat unless necessary
4. Cutoff all supply lines and wait things out
5. Build out their logistics methodically

Once they cut the country in half I don't see any possibility of Ukrainians prevailing, and I don't see anyway Ukraine can stop Russia from simply cutting the country in half. They can just build a trench system North-South and say "you're move".

It's certainly possible some amazing Ukrainian counter offensive, rapid scale-up of effective training and logistical support for all those conscripts and likewise sanctions having the intended affect in Russia.

So, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't see, personally, how the current Russian strategy as I understand it could be defeated, and, at least according to Western press, Russians have increased their support for Putin since the war started.

China is one and a half times the size of the USA.

Check for yourself: https://thetruesize.com — FreeEmotion

Russia is shown there as being almost twice the size of China.

I have really serious doubts about the effectiveness of untrained civilians to wage the kind of war Russia is waging. — boethius

Will of the people to fight, to resist, is in every war essential.

It's possible this is a smart move against some existential threat ... it's also possible it's a really dumb move if peace can be achieved by simply recognizing what it can't have anyways — boethius

Now that deterrent has failed, motivation in war is crucial. Motivation is important to endure war. And motivation is important to rebuild the country after war.

There are many examples where the best technology has been unable to achieve anything while poorly armed defenders with outdated weapons have prevailed in the end. We are seeing it quite clearly for instance in Yemen, where one of the poorest countries one group has destroyed many American Abrams tanks of the Saudis and have captured them intact as the crews have abandoned the vehicles. You didn't see that with American troops. Will to fight is simply important.

On the same page you're arguing that Russian military capability is so vast no-one would dare attack it, then praising the sending of 18 year old boys out to fight it. — Isaac

I'm not praising anyone here. (Perhaps I ought to)

And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow.

Will of the people to fight, to resist, is in every war essential. — ssu

I don't disagree. Certainly, if they win, it will be a great victory.

However, people have been surrendering since the beginning of warfare, we do not automatically condemn them as cowards.

Indeed, for WWII, we criticize the Japanese and the Germans of "fighting until the bitter end" and simply increasing deaths without any possibility of changing the outcome of the war.

Now, if the Ukrainian leaders have some brilliant plan that would be one thing, and maybe we'll see it.

However, if even Ukrainian leaders see zero way how they will win, military commanders operating with basically zero logistical network to hold positions, etc. then, considering it's not an existential war of literally Genghis Khan going to murder every last woman and child ... indeed, Russia isn't even demanding a change in leadership, then accepting Russia's current terms seems pretty reasonable.

Now that deterrent has failed, motivation in war is crucial. Motivation is important to endure war. And motivation is important to rebuild the country after war. — ssu

I completely agree.

There are many examples where the best technology has been unable to achieve anything while poorly armed defenders with outdated weapons have prevailed in the end. We are seeing it quite clearly for instance in Yemen, where one of the poorest countries one group has destroyed many American Abrams tanks of the Saudis and have captured them intact as the crews have abandoned the vehicles. You didn't see that with American troops. Will to fight is simply important. — ssu

Yes, it is possible that there's some way for Ukrainians to somehow win or then get better terms (... I guess join NATO).

I just don't see exactly how Ukrainians can actually deal with heavy artillery and Russians can simply avoid urban combat.

And, I'm sure you agree that lives should not be thrown away for no reason, they do need to have some real chance of accomplishing the goals you outline.

How on earth are you reading...

they need to recognise that Donetsk and Lugansk are independent states.

...as "large chunks of Ukraine to itself"? — Isaac

Independent... like Belarus you mean?

We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments … For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation … (Putin Speech Feb. 24 2022).

Thanks for the quote. So Putin actually said it. This is what he thinks, and I agree with him. The rhetoric of NATO countries is not about the common good.

NATO is a defensive alliance, yes sure, the way nuclear weapons are a defensive measure. What strikes me about the NATO agreement is that it renders in effect, Russia's nuclear weapons and all their military might ineffective. If saboteurs render a nations nuclear weapons ineffective, would that not be an act of war? I am asking, but I think it would be pretty serious.

A Russian soldier walks into war zone with a weapon. 12 people come out of their houses and point their weapons at him, threatening to shoot if the soldier fires at any of them. Is this defensive?

For instance, Visa and MasterCard pulled out of Russia, but how many normal Russians even have a credit card to begin with?

A substantial majority. 84% of households have cards, which are overwhelmingly Visa or MasterCard. 21% have cards using lines of credit. Russians came out of communism with no debt, making them a hot market for creditors. Consumer debt there has exploded in recent years (in economic terms, it's not necissarily a bad thing, access to credit is generally a good thing).

However, the hit isn't quite as bad as it could be because Visa and MasterCard did this temporarily after the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula. After that, Russia made some major reforms to how they did business, which involved centralizing payments through the Russian central bank. They also have a better alternative in UnionPay than they did in 2014, but it is definitely hitting regular Russians hard in their day to day lives short term.

No modern economy is autarkic. 20.6% of Russian GDP goes to imports. By comparison, that figure for the USA is just 14.6%. Exports are 28.5% of the Russian economy; for the US it is 11.7%.

Connection to global markets is huge for Russia. China is a major trading partner, but they account for just 14.6% of Russia's exports. The EU makes up over 40% of Russian exports, the US another 4.6%. Gutting 1/7th of your economy (the amount these exports are equivalent too) is going to hurt no matter what you do to prepare.

The sanctions also give Chinese purchasers of Russia goods a lot of leverage in pricing, which will drive down profits on remaining exports. It's also going to hurt when 1:5 roubles spent in Russia was previously on imports, and they lose access to their biggest suppliers. They can substitute for domestic production in the long term, but shortages and high prices come first.

Even where Russian's can buy imported goods, the implosion of the rouble will make them far more expensive. Add in the fact that businesses weren't well prepared for a surprise war and balance sheets will look grim.

Importantly for a longer term war, China only manufactures 6% of microchips. Vehicles are going to be hit hard in Russia. Russia also has a huge arms industry that employs a lot of people, but they require chips for their weapons systems. Sanctions will definitely hurt quite a bit there.

Russia's strategy is clearly to simply siege cities and wait them out.

I highly doubt that. The war is unpopular and costing them heavily. They want a quick war. This flies in the face of all their strategy to date.

I think the narrative that the convoy is stuck is pretty naive

Western intelligence agencies could have plenty of reasons to mislead about the situation on the ground, but so far most of their limited commentary has been borne out. Open source satellite imagery also seems to suggest this is the case. I'm not sure why else you would want to leave your supply convoy clumped together like that. To be sure, Russia surely has adequate AA along the length of the convoy, but even then, a miracle attack getting through is not something you want to risk if you don't have to.

It's also unclear why they wouldn't want to encircle Kiev as quickly as possible. You can hold most of the area around a city, and if supplies can still get through, your seige won't be effective.

For example:



Sarajevo held out for almost four years before the Siege was lifted with limited paths in for supplies. Even before modern food storage methods, cities in antiquity and the middle ages held out for months, sometimes over a year after losing all supply routes in. Hardly an ideal timeframe. Hence the heavy shelling and poorly implemented raids.

As for when Kyiv might end up cut off, a few days ago I would have said "could be next week," but open source analysis:



looks increasingly grim on that front (depending on who you are I guess.)

Kyiv, day 13 ... :death: :fire:

'Evil men have no songs.' How is it that the Russians have songs? — F.N.

On the same page you're arguing that Russian military capability is so vast no-one would dare attack it, then praising the sending of 18 year old boys out to fight it. — Isaac

I'm not praising anyone here. (Perhaps I ought to)

And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow. — ssu

It's the same military. Or do Russia have one force for if they're attacked and a different force for if they're defending?

So explain to me the ethics. A force so mighty that "No one is attacking Russia", yet throwing 18 year old boys at it is the "smart move" because it looks good? What higher goal is being served here that young men's lives are a lesser one?

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice?

Oh and you also dodged the question of if Russia has no legitimate fear of being attacked because it's a global nuclear superpower, then why has NATO a legitimate fear of being attacked?

Looking at ways to stop this terrible war. Could it have been prevented?

If Putin is all-powerful, unstoppable, there is no way to stop him. If he is stoppable why not stop him?

Maybe they don't want him stopped?

TIME (The magazine, not TIME itself) put out some helpful suggestions on how to stop the war back in January 2022. If it could have been stopped, why was it not stopped? There has to be an answer.

However, there is a way to stop Putin’s Ukrainian adventure that has nothing to do with military intervention. That is to go after his money. — TIME

As we look at the menu of policy options being discussed by the Biden Administration in response to Putin’s manufactured Ukraine crisis, many are either too indirect or too harsh. Some, such as broad sanctions, would result in a lot of unnecessary hardships for ordinary Russians, who are victimized by Putin as much anyone else. — TIME

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. Are these people serious?

Independent... like Belarus you mean? — Christoffer

Yes. If need be.

Belarus, ranked 53 on the United Nations Human Development Index https://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/BLR

as opposed to Ukraine, ranked 74 https://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/UKR

Terrible if those states were taken over by Russia (ranking 120 on the Global Corruption Index), as opposed to still being run by Ukraine (ranking 123). What a loss to democracy.

So explain to me again why the ethical choice is to keep encouraging young men to throw themselves at an enemy they've little hope of defeating rather than accept the terms by which the war will end?

https://truthout.org/articles/arms-industry-sees-ukraine-conflict-as-an-opportunity-not-a-crisis/

...oops, I must have pasted that completely unrelated link by mistake.

So explain to me again why the ethical choice is to keep encouraging young men to throw themselves at an enemy they've little hope of defeating — Isaac

For once I agree with you. The Russians obviously can't win this one. They are being bled to death, their army is humiliated, and the country is soon going to be bankrupt. Their boys are being sent to their slaughter, or leaving the country as fast as they can, rightly so... I really feel bad for Russia. They are the aggressor but will ultimately emerge as the main victim of this war, while Ukraine will be rebuilt and integrate the EU asap.

The Russians obviously can't win this one. They are being bled to death, their army is humiliated, and the country is soon going to be bankrupt. — Olivier5

Well that's great news! Could you link me the sources from which you got this information?

I suppose the same as yours... Isn't it true that they had thousands of casualties already?

The Soviets stayed in Afghanistan for a decade, during which they incurred some 25.000 combat deaths. We're getting near that number in Ukraine after a week. Many Russian boys within draft age are fleeing their country. Soon the economy will tank. They have lost what little civil liberties they had left. It's looking rather bleak for them. It is in fact a real tragedy for Russia as well, not just for Ukraine.

A substantial majority. 84% of households have cards, which are overwhelmingly Visa or MasterCard. 21% have cards using lines of credit. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is is interesting to know, that they do have cards, but only 21% have a line of a credit. If the those other 84% only have a card for online purchases every once and a while it may not affect them all that much. Certainly annoying, but not necessarily suffering.

For as you say, "Visa and MasterCard did this temporarily after the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula," so:

They also have a better alternative in UnionPay than they did in 2014, but it is definitely hitting regular Russians hard in their day to day lives short term. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Meaning it's less impact than when Visa and Mastercard did so the first time. Now, certainly I would agree this is disruptive to regular Russians, but I've been using a scale of impact of disruption, hardship and suffering, which I'll explain more clearly in response to your next comment.

No modern economy is autarkic. 20.6% of Russian GDP goes to imports. By comparison, that figure for the USA is just 14.6%. Exports are 28.5% of the Russian economy; for the US it is 11.7%. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I only mentioned independence in energy and food, as going without these things causes immediate suffering.

I did not intend in anyway to play down the disruptions and hardships caused by these sanctions, only to note Russians won't be cold and hungry, on the whole, anytime soon.

That the sanctions are insanely disruptive I totally accept and for certain not good for the economy, and such disruptions certainly result in real hardships. I don't minimize these things, and I went to some length to argue that this war is only happening now because the Kremlin "sanction proofed" itself "enough" for severe sanctions to not immediately collapse the entire Russian economy and bring about revolution overnight (such as through the banking reform you mention).

Likewise, in terms of longer term, the wider economic impacts only matter if Russia cannot get substitutes from China. Certainly intensely disruptive to change suppliers, but there's a big difference between that and material, components or equipment not being available at all.

Connection to global markets is huge for Russia. China is a major trading partner, but they account for just 14.6% of Russia's exports. The EU makes up over 40% of Russian exports, the US another 4.6%. Gutting 1/7th of your economy (the amount these exports are equivalent too) is going to hurt no matter what you do to prepare. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, not denying the intense disruption and I think your word hurt would be the same as my word hardship. Definitely hurting and hardships of all this economic disruption.

My talking about suffering is that starving and being unable to heat your home, is not merely disruptive or economic hardship, but real suffering, and the West simply cannot inflict this kind of real suffering on Russians through economic sanctions in the short term.

Certainly, sanctions haven't worked so far in sparking some sort of revolution of causing Putin to withdraw his forces, and the purpose of my talking about energy and food is just that there's simply a limit to how much the West can really impact regular Russian lives.

If they think the war is justified a population will easily put up with disruption and hardships and it "brings people together" and is a patriotic experience, just as Ukrainians putting up with disruption, hardship and real suffering of being on the road or under siege. We can't underestimate the Ukrainians population willingness to support continued conflict ... nor too can we underestimate the Russians is my basic point.

However, all the additional facts you bring are certainly completely relevant. The macro economic implications are super big and there's a massive cost to switching suppliers and re-orienting the economy, but seems normal Russians are accepting this, for now at least.

Importantly for a longer term war, China only manufactures 6% of microchips. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course, they can scale up further if there's demand from Russia, but, also, there doesn't seem any way for the West to prevent China just re-selling chips to Russia anyways; they'll certainly complain, but I don't see China accepting being told what to do on this issue.

I highly doubt that. The war is unpopular and costing them heavily. They want a quick war. This flies in the face of all their strategy to date. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't dispute that Kremlin would have preferred a quick victory, and I'd even accept the current situation is a total surprise they didn't really plan for; but considering this has been building for 8 years, I would expect they did consider these sorts of scenarios (they did their sanction proofing and 'more than friends" with China precisely because they were considering this scenario; how likely they thought it was is another question).

But by strategy I mean their plan now, not their original plan.

And this new plan I wouldn't say is some sort of new idea: likely they're thinking is we try going in soft a few days and if Ukraine doesn't give up we'll just do what we always do.

And definitely if Russian people "rise up" then the new plan won't work, and it's also entirely possible we see some big surprise from Ukrainian army and Russia get routed; certainly not impossible, just that if there's some big secret being planned I don't know about it nor see what it could be.

Western intelligence agencies could have plenty of reasons to mislead about the situation on the ground, but so far most of their limited commentary has been borne out. Open source satellite imagery also seems to suggest this is the case. I'm not sure why else you would want to leave your supply convoy clumped together like that. To be sure, Russia surely has adequate AA along the length of the convoy, but even then, a miracle attack getting through is not something you want to risk if you don't have to. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This isn't really any more unusual than putting your equipment anywhere else. Once you have a front line, you need backup equipment behind said front line, and, in term of any air strike or ambush or whatever, stringing out your backup equipment over 30 km is a good thing.

Of course, you can have your equipment even farther back, but then it's not handy when you need it and when you do send it in it may run out of gas; they would certainly prioritize topping up whatever they may actually need.

The alternative to this long ass convoy and just not committing the equipment at all to the area, would be camouflaging all these vehicles under trees and stuff but there doesn't seem to be many trees and they'd all get stuck in the mud, so just staying on the highway and accepting some risk of losses isn't irrational. Of course, if the front line collapses then this entire convoy could be destroyed, but, presumably, Russian commanders are betting that won't happen.

They also seem to be setting up forward operating bases closer to Kiev.

It's also unclear why they wouldn't want to encircle Kiev as quickly as possible. You can hold most of the area around a city, and if supplies can still get through, your seige won't be effective. — Count Timothy von Icarus

They certainly do want to encircle Kiev as quickly as possible, but due to the political consequence of of that (leadership also stuck and suffering) preventing encirclement of Kiev is Ukraine's top priority.

Why gains in the south are extremely rapid and Kherson was taken without prolonged urban combat resistance, is because Ukraine clearly can't fight on all fronts.

Obviously, Russia can eventually simply complete the encirclement of Ukraine by coming up from the south, but that will take time and preventing encirclement of Kiev meanwhile is their main strategy.

Once Kiev is encircled the military, social and political dynamic will completely change.

Russians are going slowly by surely around Kiev, I would guess, precisely because that's where you may get a surprise counter offensive and your forces routed if you're not careful (as you say, no easy way to skedaddle if you have a 30km convoy on the highway, and a tactical retreat to regroup would be an embarrassment anyways).

There's basically two ways to advance in conventional warfare.

What we see in movies is the armor based offensive to break through enemy lines and rout them. This has high reward, but also high risk that your armor gets isolated and destroyed.

The other way is the slow encroachment of infantry (building fortified positions as they go) following heavy artillery bombardment.

This is a really slow process: infantry advance a bit, get shot at, the enemy positions identified and shelled to oblivion until they die or then retreat (small arms purpose is basically to just protect against the sneak attack): infantry advance a bit more and the process repeats.

Of course, with equally matched forces the enemy also has heavy artillery doing the exact same thing to your infantry positions, and the lines quickly get built up until there is basically no practical way for infantry to advance without immediately all dying (WWI); hence, to try to break such a stalemate the armor offensive was developed (the original purpose of the tank was to simply drive over trenches, which was developed after the intuitive and common sense idea of just gassing the enemy to death proved less effective than people expected); the enemy must then fall back to a less fortified position and you can then immediately occupy their trench system as your new fallback point, after chasing them a bunch until they manage to regroup and/or outrun your supply lines.

Reducing buildings to rubble can make urban combat more difficult, but if the Russians are trying to avoid urban combat then it makes sense to shell buildings that are good locations for launching anti-tank rockets and sniper fire. If you hand out small arms to civilians then it's completely logical to do this preemptively than bother to wait for enemy fire from these buildings.

I suppose the same as yours — Olivier5

Can't be. All the sources I've read reveal a mixed picture that's difficult to call at this stage. Here's an example https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-27/putin-is-both-winning-and-losing-in-russia-s-ukraine-invasion

Many Russian boys within draft age are fleeing their country. — Olivier5

Fantastic, good luck to them.

Soon the economy will tank — Olivier5

Again, sources. Most I've read are saying it's too difficult to call. Sanctions are having an impact but the exclusions and Chinese routes are keeping it a float. Where are your sources assuring us that it will soon tank?

It is in fact a real tragedy for Russia as well, not just for Ukraine. — Olivier5

Very true - one thing we can agree on.

---

But all of this is, whilst interesting, is beside the point. There's a deal on the table which could end the war. The question is whether Ukraine should take it.

Since there's no one here suggesting that Russia should continue it's aggressive invasion, I can't see what relevance it has that Russia is losing soldiers too. If someone were to suggest Russia should press its advantage, I would say the same to them, but since no one is, I'm not. The discussion is about what Ukraine should do because that's the matter on which people seem to differ.

Everyone already agrees Russia should immediately lay down its weapons and go home so there's nothing more to say on that front. Pointless to just keep repeating it over and over...

... Pointless, that is, other than serving the modern obsession with waiving one's little virtue flag in everyone's faces every five minutes.

All the sources I've read reveal a mixed picture that's difficult to call at this stage. — Isaac

I don't read Bloomberg, but yeah, it's confusing. The clear thing is that Putin is not winning, whereas on paper, expectations were that he would win quickly. So it is a setback for the Russians so far, if not a total humiliation.

I think the economy will evidently tank because of the sanctions. You may disagree.

Everyone already agrees Russia should immediately lay down its weapons and go home so there's nothing more to say on that front. Pointless to just keep repeating it over and over... — Isaac

Yet you keep repeating other pointless thing ad nauseam... If this particular truth is pointless to you, don't say it. Personally I think it makes sense to say the truth again and again in the face of all the liars, so I will keep on.

Sarajevo held out for almost four years before the Siege was lifted with limited paths in for supplies. Even before modern food storage methods, cities in antiquity and the middle ages held out for months, sometimes over a year after losing all supply routes in. Hardly an ideal timeframe. Hence the heavy shelling and poorly implemented raids. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Definitely Ukrainians could keep fighting for a long time.

Russian plan seems definitely to just siege cities and basically wait.

As for poorly implemented raids, Russia has taken a lot of territory already, which is accomplished by sending people to take that territory. Insofar as Russia advances everyday ... they'll eventually get to all their objectives.

There's certainly a high short term cost and high risks; but in terms of purely resource based strategy, Ukraine has resources that will easily pay for the war and the long term increases in commodity prices will also pay for the war (to what extent sanctions impact other sectors of Russia economy, and if this is worse than commodity price increases, we could of course debate).

Oil is currently at 130 USD a barrel and natural gas 27 USD/MMBtu, this isn't "bad" for Russia. EU is still paying Russia a billion Euros a day for energy.

The purpose of "holding out" in medieval times had several practical purposes; cities also surrendered all the time to avoid a siege and, in exchange for that favour, negotiate conditions, when there was zero purpose to holding out.

Why completing the siege of Kiev will change things considerably is that Putin is not insisting on taking the city, and if Russian lines (once setup around the city) cannot be practically broken from the outside, pressure will be pretty high to accept Russia's conditions of surrender.

Personally I think it makes sense to say the truth again and again in the face of all the liars, so I will keep on. — Olivier5

Which liars? Who is suggesting that Russia should not lay down arms immediately and go home? Who is arguing that their invasion is justified? Who is suggesting they're not the aggressors here? I don't know who you're arguing against. I haven't read every single post, but most of your comments seem to come after someone had been critical of Ukraine's strategy or US/NATO culpability or has been critical of 'White-Knighting' the Ukrainians. None of these comments are about Russia.

Again. No one here is supporting Putin, so there's nothing to respond to in which Putin's obvious moral bankruptcy would even crop up. No one is suggesting Russia's invasion is a good thing, so there's no situation in which the fact that it isn't need ever be mentioned... other than virtue signalling.

This is a discussion forum, not an interview for an ethics committee.

looks increasingly grim on that front (depending on who you are I guess.) — Count Timothy von Icarus

We'll definitely see in the days to come if Kiev is cut off or Ukrainians can hold their lines.

However, as I say, unless Ukrainians can rout the Russian's entire formation, it's just going to stay put and other formations will move up from the south.

The whole purpose of waging a multiple front war is that the enemy can't defend on multiple fronts.

So the whole narrative of "Russia's totally losing because of getting bogged down and setbacks on these fronts ... but, sure, totally winning on third front" doesn't really make sense; that's the entire point of such a strategy. Had Ukrainian army gone and defended Kherson to prevent a breakthrough West of the Dnieper ... maybe Kiev would be surrounded by now.

Since advantage is to the defender, if the enemy focuses on one front you can just defend your current line, and advance on some other front. Moving troops and equipment around is costly and takes time, so there's basically no way to optimally distribute forces on three fronts everyday, as long as Russia pressures Kiev then it's necessary to reinforce there and try to prevent encirclement.

Yes. If need be.

Belarus, ranked 53 on the United Nations Human Development Index — Isaac

Except that Belarus has just recently become a primary puppet state of Russia. That's not independent, which was the definition I asked about.

it is a setback for the Russians so far, if not a total humiliation. — Olivier5

Here's US national intelligence officer Christopher Chivvis

scores of war games conducted for the US and allied governments and my own experience as the US national intelligence officer for Europe suggest that if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine

This is a discussion forum, not an interview for an ethics committee. — Isaac

Why then, if this is a discussion forum, maybe you need to start paying attention to what other folks say, instead of insulting them?

I don't know who you're arguing against. — Isaac

Against no one in particular. I see no need to aggress you or anybody else here. I'm just discussing stuff.

Christopher Chivvis — Isaac

Never heard of him. Any good?

Except that Belarus has just recently become a primary puppet state of Russia. That's not independent, which was the definition I asked about. — Christoffer

Then no, I don't mean 'independent' like Belarus, but if it turns out that's what the Russians mean then I don't see how that changes things. What little measures there are of such things indicate the average Ukrainian will be no worse off in a Russian puppet state than they are currently, so why anyone would cheer on the idea of continuing a bloody war just in the vain hope of avoiding such an outcome is beyond me.

That's the hard truth for sure.

And, if the West cared so much, could have let Ukraine into NATO and the EU and given them hundreds of billions of Euro's as a friendly gesture in 2014. Nothing at all stopping such deals happening between "sovereign" nations, just a few papers to sign, easy-peasy.

Never heard of him. Any good? — Olivier5

Any good at what? He's more qualified than you or I.

You've failed to provide any sources to back up your claim that the Russians are in the throws of a humiliating defeat.

The point I was making, into which you interjected, was that facing an enemy against whom defeat is likely, and turning down peace terms which, objectively, lose very little in terms of the welfare of the average Ukrainian is unethical.

He's more qualified than you or I. — Isaac

How could you know my qualifications, or his for that matter? He could be just another clown, for all you know.

The truth is: nobody knows how it will all end. Nobody has a well functioning crystal ball. The Ukrainians have not lost yet, and they could go all the way to Moscow.

Yep. So many ways this could have been avoided, all the way from Russian appeasement one one side of the spectrum to bulwarking Ukraine on the other. It's hard to see anything other than malfeasance. Even with gross incompetence you'd expect some of their actions to have gone in Ukraine's favour.