I absolutely believe this is happening. However, this level of proof seems somewhat similar to going out to the home of someone who saw Bigfoot and asking them “Did you see Bigfoot?”. Unsurprisingly, they usually answer “Yes, I did”.
Forgive me if this has already been covered. It’s hard to review in a 3000 post topic.
When people talk about which side is winning or that it’s a stalemate, I am not sure there is a consensus about what that means.
If I were a Russian general, my definition of “winning the war” would be in order: controlling at least eastern Ukraine; being firmly in control in Kiev; having complete control of the Ukrainian airspace; and eliminating or at least slowing resistance enough that my troops could move throughout eastern Ukraine without being harassed.
If I were a Ukrainian general, my definition of “winning the war” would be in order: protecting the government and military sufficiently that they can still operate; forcing Russia out of Ukraine, at least to pre-war borders; and protecting the citizens as much as possible.
Do I have either of these definitions wrong? As best as can be determined, does either country have different goals in mind?
I would disagree with your summary for the Tussian side. I would think that for a Russian general, “winning the war” means achieving the goals set by Putin, whatever they might be.
The key thing is that momentum is turning. It’s gone from Russia on the advance, to currently stalled, and within the next few weeks will become Ukraine on the advance.
It’s Ukraine that is getting thousands of Western missiles per week. It’s Ukraine that has millions of men and women able to bear arms while Russia has only 180,000 dispirited, unmotivated troops.
As supplies keep coming in, the Ukrainians will eventually reverse the Russian advances and start pushing them back further and further.
It isn’t so much that they’re willing to disregard civilian casualties, as that they are willing to disregard Russian casualties and are deliberately causing as many civilian casualties as they can.
Russia is currently shelling Mariupol from offshore ships. Can they do this until their ammunition runs out, or will Ukraine have any defenses that can counter this? Can SAM batteries stop incoming ship artillery? Can Ukraine attack these ships at some future point?
Christopher David, a.k.a., Captain Portland, has said on Twitter that he’s applied to do so but that Ukraine has had so many applications he’s way down in the line.
In fact, experience from previous Russian army strategy suggests that they will deliberately target hospitals in order to cause as much civilian pain and suffering as possible. To Russia, killing children in hospitals is a valid military objective.
I read that article, but still don’t understand. Ukrainian cities are being destroyed; Ukrainian civilians are being killed en masse. How could that possibly be considered “winning”?
Not that the Russians are winning either. In that regard the article is right.
It seems to me that at the moment both sides are losing horribly.
Russian “strategy” such as it is, seems to be based on their Aleppo experience; Kill many civilians, destroy the city, move the survivors out, and take over the remaining rubble. Winning!
And sometimes if you do try to dig into details, it’s even less clear.
‘yes, side x is terrible because of y, but side z is terrible because of w. And they’re both terrible about c and f. And what about sides q, r, s, and t? The only one that looks halfway reasonable is s, and they don’t seem to have a hope in hell because they’ve got so little in-country support’ –
This is one of those rare cases involving large numbers of people which a) there actually are two and effectively only two sides and b) one of them is clearly behaving massively worse than the other and c) the one behaving a great deal better has a whole lot of support on the ground over which the conflict’s being fought.
A frequent outcome of wars; even when one side eventually claims to have won.
I’d earlier asked about and am still wondering about anti-ship capabilities. Apparently they ordered some missiles a while back. I don’t know if they received any.
As you will have read in that article:
pictures of shattered hospitals, dead children, and blasted apartment blocks accurately convey the terror and brutality of this war, but they do not convey its military realities.
Sure, the Russians can kill lots of civilians, but militarily they are losing.
I don’t think there is any real defense against artillery (aka 16-inch (or whatever) shells) - basically a big chunk of metal coming on an arcing trajectory. If they were firing missiles, a SAM battery might be useful.
About the ships: I wonder if France has any spare Exocet missiles lying around?
From our perspective, and from the perspective of actual military campaigns where the goal is to take over a country - sure.
And I think the intention at the beginning was to “win” a conventional military campaign.
IMO, it has shifted now, and Russia will consider “winning” to be sending a lesson to any country that dares to oppose them that Russia will reduce that country’s infrastructure to rubble and kill as many civilians as possible. And threaten nuclear annihilation if anyone tries to stop them.
It’s now become about sending a message to countries like Georgia or Azerbaijan that they’d better tow the line.
Russia is not going to be invading any other country in the foreseeable future.
Their conventional forces and their economy are in tatters.
I would hope that Ukraine has some limited anti-ship capability. Greece and Bulgaria both use the more modern version of the Exocet, so getting them in theater would be easy. Hell, Georgia might even have some left in stock.
It doesn’t look too promising.
Anti-tank missiles work against ships:
Presumably it would also mean still being alive.
They’re at least winning in the sense that the Soviet Union was winning WWII in 1943. Sure, Leningrad was under siege and lots of civilians were dying, but they were getting huge amounts of weapons and supplies from the US and the tide was turning. I can’t predict the future and say things will turn out exactly the same, but the analogy seems similar enough to me that I can believe it, only with Ukraine in the position of the USSR and Russia in the position of Nazi Germany.