No one with any sense has ever trusted Russia, especially not its neighbors. Russia is not an ally in whom one places trust; it is merely a threat to be managed.
Other stuff too… After Russia basically stole 400 commercial airplanes, I don’t forsee a future where many international airlines are going to allow their planes to land in Russia.
It really is almost impossible to fathom just how badly screwed Russia is, both now and for the foreseeable future, regardless of what happens on the battlefield.
Putin is conducting a master class on terrible statesmanship.
Russia’s future is to be a vassal state of China. North Korea with nukes.
Errr. North Korea with nukes is just North Korea.
Edit: North Korea with MORE nukes
I doubt anyone disagrees that Russia has lost. And the war was entirely one of choice. Putin has no one but himself to blame for this.
Two million people left Russia in the first two decades of Putin’s rule. Almost another 1m in the last eighteen months, since February 2022. It is not like Russia didn’t have problems with future demographics without war. Presumably many who left are younger, richer or more connected, and either better educated, or trying to avoid military service.
Any good reasons why so many Russians are rushin’ away from Russia?
They found that between 817,000 and 922,000 people have left Russia since February 2022. The largest recipient countries were [Kazakhstan] and Serbia, each with 150,000 emigrants. But Russians have moved all over the world, including between 30,000 and 40,000 who went to America, according to the estimates.
There are uncertainties about the data. Russians may travel through several transit countries [before settling]. Others return home having struggled to establish a life abroad, often citing difficulties securing work. Some returnees suggest they will try to emigrate again once their financial circumstances allow it.
I have not been following this much as the usefull idiocy annoys the fick out of me, so I apologize if this has been posted already.
Ryan MacBeth’s analysis of Tucker Carlson’s treasonous crap:
He is a lot more cold and rational than I can manage about this heinous support of Russia’s aggression.
I don’t mean to be a downer, but I disagree that Russia has lost. I certainly agree with @Red_Wiggler that by some measures Russia has already lost the war, but it isn’t over until the fat lady sings. At the moment there is no end in sight for the war, it is likely to still be ongoing a year from now. By at least one measure that at the most fundamental level is how wars are determined to be won or lost, territory, Russia is still winning. They still occupy a large chunk of Ukraine today that they didn’t on Feb 23, 2022. Beyond that they also still occupy Crimea and most of Donetsk and Luhansk that they seized in 2014.
Diplomatically, economically and politically the war has so far been a disaster for Russia, but the war isn’t over yet. If it ended tomorrow with a cease fire in place, I’m not sure I’d call it a win for Russia, but I certainly wouldn’t call it a clear defeat either.
IMO, you can’t measure a “win” simply by territorial acquisitions in square km. And it’s possible that in the end, “nobody wins”.
One does not have to have a crystal ball to see into Russia’s future whatever the end point is for their ill-advised takeover attempt. Many folks have pointed out a few of the fairly clear mid-term outcomes that have already taken place, or will take place:
- NATO stronger, with additional countries added and governments putting more $$ into defense. NATO was struggling a bit in the last decade, but is now seen as an absolute necessity for many nations. This is certainly not a “win” for Russia.
- Economic sanctions are biting, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future, even after active fighting stops. Will Russia’s economy be better off after this war as compared to before? I don’t think so. Loss for Russia
- International reputation - in the toilet for Russia for decades, even after a change in leadership in the future. China will be abusing the relationship for a long time - getting what is best for China out of any deals.
- Loss of population in Russia - Loss for Russia. Russia had a demographics problem before the invasion. This has now been exacerbated by military losses, emigration losses (of the younger and more educated) and a future dearth of immigration. Instead of fixing this problem, the war has made it worse, and it’s not going to get better.
So… Even if a ceasefire enables Russia to maintain control of Crimea and some of the area it stole by invasion recently… It still loses, in future Geopolitical terms.
In short, Putin has fucked the country over.
I will grant that in terms of territory it “owns” on paper, Russia can claim a win. But honestly? Compare the condition of the land it has taken (much of it ruined, unlikely to be returned to a useful state anytime soon, and with a restive population) to the loss in international reputation, military might (both troops and materials), trade (!!!), population, and political influence.
By pretty much any standard OTHER than territory they’ve lost and badly at that. Prior to the war, they had defacto control of Crimea and the breakaway Republics, with minimal backlash (by any rational standard) for the annexation, and had a nearly captive petrochem audience that was propping up prosperity.
Even if Ukraine settled for peace today at the 2014 borders (which they give no signs of seeking) Russia would be incomparably worse off than if they had stuck with what most of us assumed was going to happen prior to the war: some heavy handed demand that Ukraine let the breakaway regions have an “independent and fair” internal election to determine their future.
It’s a mugging gone wrong writ large. Sure, Russia, the mugger, has Ukraine’s wallet, but lost his own pistol, got shot in the gut, and the cops are looking for him now. But they -did- get the wallet, and the victim is also hurt and going to be so for years to come.
Ah yes… forgot to add:
In terms of economy, prior to the war, Western Europe was buying lots of petrochemicals from Russia with a pipeline in place and possibly more to come. There was limited pressure to get off the Russian gas/oil teat and move to other energy sources.
Now? Russia has destroyed it’s main markets for oil and gas. New pipelines will have to be built and new markets opened up (China/India?). Many billions of dollars will be lost in the near/mid term due to the idiocy of the war.
I don’t think Russia has lost the war, not quite yet, given their huge resources. But they cannot win. Apart from a few republicans and some vulnerable nations they have likely largely lost the war of global public opinion.
That’s the thing though, it doesn’t “own” the territory it is occupying on paper. It owns it in actual fact and will continue to do so unless and until they are violently ejected via ultima ratio regum, the final argument of kings, war. Until Ukrainian soldiers can walk on the ground without being shot at by Russian soldiers, they don’t own it. Sadly, it is entirely possible that this may never be the case. I don’t want Russia to continue to occupy part of Ukraine and certainly am hoping that they lose this war and are forced back out from the territory they have occupied, but that hasn’t happened yet and there is nothing certain in war. Prematurely declaring that Russia has lost while they are still occupying, what, 20% of Ukraine is wishful thinking at best and dangerous at worst.
As for all of those other things apart from control of territory that you name - war damage, loss of international reputation, military might, trade, population and political influence, I’d point to the Winter War that the USSR fought with Finland in 1939-40. The same things apply there, but people only looking at the disparity between Finnish and Soviet casualties often overlook one very important thing: Finland lost the war. No matter how poor Soviet military performance was, no matter how much it damaged their reputation in the end Finland lost and was forced to accept losing 9% of its territory to the Soviet Union, and the 12% of its population that used to live there was forced to leave. The land that the Soviet Union took from Finland still belongs to Russia to this day.
I don’t understand where you’re coming from, but let’s rehash. I said Russia does indeed “own” (my original scare quotes) the Ukrainian territory, de facto although not de jure. Although large parts of that territory are and likely will remain damaged to the point of questionable utility for the immediate future. So, likely a net resource LOSS in the short to medium term in terms of garrisons, reclamation, and that’s leaving out any possible partisans. Although I fully grant, in several of those areas (especially the breakaway) the latter is less likely to be an issue.
What I said, and you yourself support that there are substantial losses to Russia in all this. It seems to me that you’re ONLY valuing the gain in territory as a “win” while everyone else is looking at the total package. Sure, it’s possible that given a decade or so, that everyone will once again decide that the bear has rehabilitated themselves, and trade and international relations will normalize. And as long as Russia has nukes, the huge exposed weakness in it’s conventional military can be offset, and that at the end of that long process, once enough money has been poured into the captured territories, that they can be made profitable and fully integrated through the techniques Russia has deployed before.
But you’re still ignoring the comment I made that Putin could very likely have added territory in the form of the breakaway areas with nothing more than posturing. By going into a hot war, he gambled he could take the whole thing with minimal losses. He lost the bet, and continues to throw good troops after a bad cause. The result? He’s lost the cream of his modern military, exposed weakness to everyone that was once afraid, had to rely on mercenaries (who attempted a coup no less) and prison corps to even hold his conquests. Hundreds of millions of US dollars or more in international funds are likely gone for good, NATO is stronger than ever, and the petrochem pillar that held up his state has been rendered nearly obsolete.
But sure, as long as he denies Ukraine some of there territory, he’s -winning-, sure. 
I’ll continue to disagree.
I think what you are glossing over is the larger happening of the time, namely the fact that the Axis lost, and the Allies (which included Russia) won the overall conflict.
This case is very, very different, so the comparison is not valid IMO.
guess who is the big winner in this war:
the US of A
they pretty much destroyed half of russia’s war assets - leaving russia paralyzed for years or probably decades - with just 3% of one year’s defense budget (most of it obsolete stocks of materiel) and havent even lost a single soldier in this process.
They more than made up for Afghanistan, Irak and Vietnam.
I agree and that’s why it’s stupid for people to complain about how much the US is spending on supporting Ukraine. And the other thing is that the war has exposed Russia’s military as a paper tiger, not nearly as formidable as they presented themselves to be.
Oh god…you’ve just justified a certain Putin stooges “proxy war” claim. Guess we can expect someone to come in crowing about how it is really the US’s fault.