[BigJohn043]

[quote="BigJohn043" pid='381145' dateline='1675450141']
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Ditto. This is actually a difficult topic because there are piles of unknowns.

I agree that damage to infrastructure at some level is cumulative and at some point makes it impossible to put up a defense.  I would note that unlike WWII, the supply of arms to Ukraine comes from outside the country and will continue to flow.  You do have to get it to the battlefield however.

So the best case for the Russians is that Ukraine collapses and they take the country.  Of course this leads to a humanitarian disaster that Russia has to deal with but maybe they don't care.  The Ukraine army is not going to go away.  It probably becomes a guerilla force that fights the Russians for the next 20 years supplied by the West.  And that is the best case for the Russians.

It indeed makes no sense for Russia to subjugate Ukraine in a war that will create "bad blood" for at least a generation. OTOH, one must remember this isn't the first time Russia has done exactly that. How long and how well the Ukrainian population would resist is anybody's guess. Ukraine chose not to join the Russian federation at least in large degree because they believed they would be treated like Poland. They expected lots of western aid that they did not get. Whether that was a realistic expectation or not, it didn't happen. We can say that really disappointed lots of Ukrainians, to put it mildly. Subsequently Ukraine spent a lot of years with a government that was aligned with Russia. The Maidan revolution that happened in 2014 was the first clear break with the idea Ukraine and Russia were joined at the hip, kind of like the US and the UK at least. It is clear that plenty of Ukrainians today don't want anything to do with Russia, but how long that feeling will sustain them is unknown.

I disagree with the idea that Ukraine has any real  option other than to fight.  How do you do a deal with the Russians even if you are willing to give up territory.

Totally agree. A negotiated peace that leaves Ukraine with no access to the Sea of Azov and Russia still in Crimea/Kherson is a "no go". Russia can just come back whenever they wish.

And surrendering is way worse than even the hell of war.  Zelensky will remain popular and Ukraine will continue to fight even in a stalemate because they don't have any other real alternatives.

Surrendering is a formality when you are going to be defeated anyway, so that case is not "important". Historically almost all "stalemates" lead to a change of government (on one or both sides) after a while. People become unwilling to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different result. They decide to try "something different". Sometimes trying to agree on a new course of action is impossible, leaving regime weakened by dissent that then loses the war.

And of course Zelensky is saying that time isn't on their side.  His people are suffering and dying.  He wants as much aid as fast as he can get it.  FWIW, I also support more aid but I don't really believe this argument.
[quote]
You are right that Zelenskyy has every reason to want to end the war ASAP no matter what he thinks the future would hold. The problem is that Ukraine is suffering more than Russia is. That is clear. To believe Ukraine will hold on and Russia will quit goes against that ratio. That may indeed happen, but from a distance that view is counter-intuitive.

I think, FWIW, Zelenskyy doesn't want to test the hypothesis that Ukraine's superior motivation will allow them to hang on and Russia will quit. I think Zelenskyy realizes that even "victory" doesn't destroy Russia as an aggressive problem for Ukraine. Only regime change can do that, and even regime change doesn't guarantee Russia will be come a "good neighbor". He needs a victory that allows him to bring in outside agents to ensure Russia can't do this again. Right now, even the US is in a "wait and see" mode regarding security guarantees for Ukraine. Only with such guarantees made credible by actual force presence can Ukraine expect a tranquil future.

[quote]
I also disagree that the Russians don't have alternatives.  Putin has absolute power in that country and why can't he simply declare victory, claim they have punished the Nazis, and go back to the pre-war borders.  So not only does Russia have alternatives but don't forget their economy is being trashed.  And they have to fund the war.

Putin could indeed do that, but his rule wouldn't survive such an action. Putin's power is based on his ability to satisfy his "base", which is a diverse set of oligarchs, military, and security forces. As long as Putin can hold out the idea to them that victory in Ukraine will bring these people benefits can he remain in power. Many of these people are becoming skeptical as it is already. A retreat to the pre-war borders where he declares victory may satisfy the populace but it won't satisfy his base. He can't do that. He is in the same situation Mussolini found himself in WWII. Once he got in the war, anything less than victory and he was gone. So with Putin. Russia may indeed have alternatives, but he does not.

Even worse, the "system" that exists in Putin's base may also feel that failure in Ukraine threatens the system that benefits them. They remove Putin because he is a "loser", not because he is a monster. They then replace him with another monster who is not (yet) a loser.

Maybe I am wrong but that is my current thinking.

Totally understand that there isn't "one answer" to these questions. Unfortunately none of us here know what any of the main players actually believe, so at best we can guess. We also don't really know what the populace of these areas really believes either. This is one reason why "miscalculations" are so possible in war.
[/quote]

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I think we agree that the Ukraine has really no options but to fight on.

I think we disagree on the source of Putin's support and if he can afford to retreat.

Putin originally rose to power in opposition to the Oligarchs.  He was the KGB guy that was going to oppose them and all that they stole from the Russian people.  Eventually he did a deal with them and made himself the richest man in the world.  But the Oligarchs hate him and always have.  That is why they have been getting murdered over the last year.

Putin gets his power from the military and the people.  Russians are intensely nationalistic and part of the reason he has a war every 5-10 years is to get the Russian homeland juices flowing.

But as this war continues to go poorly eventually the military is going to be sick of their guys getting slaughtered.  Maybe they don't care about the conscripts but brobdingnagian amounts of officers are dying as well.

My guess is in a stalemate the Ukraine has no choice to but fight on and the Russians / Putin do have a choice.

[BigJohn043]

[quote="BigJohn043" pid='381145' dateline='1675450141']
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Ditto. This is actually a difficult topic because there are piles of unknowns.

I agree that damage to infrastructure at some level is cumulative and at some point makes it impossible to put up a defense.  I would note that unlike WWII, the supply of arms to Ukraine comes from outside the country and will continue to flow.  You do have to get it to the battlefield however.

So the best case for the Russians is that Ukraine collapses and they take the country.  Of course this leads to a humanitarian disaster that Russia has to deal with but maybe they don't care.  The Ukraine army is not going to go away.  It probably becomes a guerilla force that fights the Russians for the next 20 years supplied by the West.  And that is the best case for the Russians.

It indeed makes no sense for Russia to subjugate Ukraine in a war that will create "bad blood" for at least a generation. OTOH, one must remember this isn't the first time Russia has done exactly that. How long and how well the Ukrainian population would resist is anybody's guess. Ukraine chose not to join the Russian federation at least in large degree because they believed they would be treated like Poland. They expected lots of western aid that they did not get. Whether that was a realistic expectation or not, it didn't happen. We can say that really disappointed lots of Ukrainians, to put it mildly. Subsequently Ukraine spent a lot of years with a government that was aligned with Russia. The Maidan revolution that happened in 2014 was the first clear break with the idea Ukraine and Russia were joined at the hip, kind of like the US and the UK at least. It is clear that plenty of Ukrainians today don't want anything to do with Russia, but how long that feeling will sustain them is unknown.

I disagree with the idea that Ukraine has any real  option other than to fight.  How do you do a deal with the Russians even if you are willing to give up territory.

Totally agree. A negotiated peace that leaves Ukraine with no access to the Sea of Azov and Russia still in Crimea/Kherson is a "no go". Russia can just come back whenever they wish.

And surrendering is way worse than even the hell of war.  Zelensky will remain popular and Ukraine will continue to fight even in a stalemate because they don't have any other real alternatives.

Surrendering is a formality when you are going to be defeated anyway, so that case is not "important". Historically almost all "stalemates" lead to a change of government (on one or both sides) after a while. People become unwilling to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different result. They decide to try "something different". Sometimes trying to agree on a new course of action is impossible, leaving regime weakened by dissent that then loses the war.

And of course Zelensky is saying that time isn't on their side.  His people are suffering and dying.  He wants as much aid as fast as he can get it.  FWIW, I also support more aid but I don't really believe this argument.
[quote]
You are right that Zelenskyy has every reason to want to end the war ASAP no matter what he thinks the future would hold. The problem is that Ukraine is suffering more than Russia is. That is clear. To believe Ukraine will hold on and Russia will quit goes against that ratio. That may indeed happen, but from a distance that view is counter-intuitive.

I think, FWIW, Zelenskyy doesn't want to test the hypothesis that Ukraine's superior motivation will allow them to hang on and Russia will quit. I think Zelenskyy realizes that even "victory" doesn't destroy Russia as an aggressive problem for Ukraine. Only regime change can do that, and even regime change doesn't guarantee Russia will be come a "good neighbor". He needs a victory that allows him to bring in outside agents to ensure Russia can't do this again. Right now, even the US is in a "wait and see" mode regarding security guarantees for Ukraine. Only with such guarantees made credible by actual force presence can Ukraine expect a tranquil future.

[quote]
I also disagree that the Russians don't have alternatives.  Putin has absolute power in that country and why can't he simply declare victory, claim they have punished the Nazis, and go back to the pre-war borders.  So not only does Russia have alternatives but don't forget their economy is being trashed.  And they have to fund the war.

Putin could indeed do that, but his rule wouldn't survive such an action. Putin's power is based on his ability to satisfy his "base", which is a diverse set of oligarchs, military, and security forces. As long as Putin can hold out the idea to them that victory in Ukraine will bring these people benefits can he remain in power. Many of these people are becoming skeptical as it is already. A retreat to the pre-war borders where he declares victory may satisfy the populace but it won't satisfy his base. He can't do that. He is in the same situation Mussolini found himself in WWII. Once he got in the war, anything less than victory and he was gone. So with Putin. Russia may indeed have alternatives, but he does not.

Even worse, the "system" that exists in Putin's base may also feel that failure in Ukraine threatens the system that benefits them. They remove Putin because he is a "loser", not because he is a monster. They then replace him with another monster who is not (yet) a loser.

Maybe I am wrong but that is my current thinking.

Totally understand that there isn't "one answer" to these questions. Unfortunately none of us here know what any of the main players actually believe, so at best we can guess. We also don't really know what the populace of these areas really believes either. This is one reason why "miscalculations" are so possible in war.
[/quote]

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I think we agree that the Ukraine has really no options but to fight on.

I think we disagree on the source of Putin's support and if he can afford to retreat.

Putin originally rose to power in opposition to the Oligarchs.  He was the KGB guy that was going to oppose them and all that they stole from the Russian people.  Eventually he did a deal with them and made himself the richest man in the world.  But the Oligarchs hate him and always have.  That is why they have been getting murdered over the last year.

Putin gets his power from the military and the people.  Russians are intensely nationalistic and part of the reason he has a war every 5-10 years is to get the Russian homeland juices flowing.

But as this war continues to go poorly eventually the military is going to be sick of their guys getting slaughtered.  Maybe they don't care about the conscripts but brobdingnagian amounts of officers are dying as well.

My guess is in a stalemate the Ukraine has no choice to but fight on and the Russians / Putin do have a choice.