It would have been cheaper, and less disruptive, to buy the grain and rent the ports. Occupation is not efficient.
As @Martin_Hyde notes, Ukraine is at least an order of magnitude bigger than Chechnya, both in population and land area. Further, Chechnya was not being supplied with weapons by the united west.
IIRC, you thought at the beginning that Russia would easily win this war. So far, they’ve shown themselves to be a largely incompetent military, with their only real effective “quality” being their quantity and cruelty. IMO you should be skeptical that your instincts about this conflict have any bearing on reality.
Could you explain what you mean by that? I’m talking about right now and one century ago. The events after 9/11 occurred in that time. I don’t see a point to your comment.
Yes, such as the Ukrainians.
Indeed, but not every major war They also lost the Russo-Japanese war.
I think the chances of Russia winning according to what I would logically consider a win if I were Putin, even given some fundamentally illogical assumptions on his part, are small but not nonexistent.
One win would be if other countries next to Russia are cowed from joining NATO, and rather the opposite has happened, so that isn’t a win.
Another win would be if it allowed him to shore up control of his regime through a war scare, but this goal has also failed. It might not matter, but if it were considered a goal, it also failed. There won’t be a glorious enough win coming to make the Russians forget this disaster.
Then there’s the resources. The cities he’s taken over are of no value, having been destroyed. And Russia doesn’t need more land. Sure, it’s better farming land than Siberia, but I doubt that winning it would be worth the continuous drain on their resources.
Then there’s the people. A defeated people right next to an unconquered people they want to be part of is a recipe for guerilla warfare. And if you continue to deport them, you aren’t gaining anything except for the young children if you isolate them from their families, since except for the 10% or slightly more of the populace in the conquered areas who want to live in Russia, you will have to monitor and police them.
Although Putin does have one hope. There could be a takeover of either most western European countries or America by isolationist right wingers, which would allow the anti-Russian coalition to crumble and allow Russia to defeat Ukraine conventionally over the span of a few more years. It’s already too late to get a positive economic boost from a sullen, conquered populace, but a lack of allies and weapons shipments might dampen the Ukrainian war effort enough that Russia would at least be able to take over the country with a lot of the infrastructure still intact.
It is indeed. Although Chechens had no shortage of weapons (as was the case in the immediate post Soviet era).
Yes I did. Based on the fact that the Ukrainian regulars crumpled like wet tissue paper before thee secessionists back in 2014,. Obviously they have improved.
So far, they’ve shown themselves to be a largely incompetent military, with their only real effective “quality” being their quantity and cruelty.
So in other-words they have illustrated the ability to remorselessly dish out overwhelming force. Unlike competent militaries who use minimal force and apply it with love and kisses.
Although curiously they seem to have for some unfathomable reason refrained from doing that in the Kiyv battles, when it may well have won them the day. This despite having the city centre within Arty range. Maybe they should have been crueler and used their quantity.
No they haven’t dished out “overwhelming” force. If the force had been overwhelming, they’d have won. Or at least they wouldn’t be doing so pathetically. All they’ve been able to do is rather indiscriminately blow lots of stuff up. That doesn’t win wars, and it doesn’t come close to overwhelming a motivated force like the Ukrainians.
The “unfathomable” reason that they didn’t obliterate (or try to obliterate) Kyiv seems rather fathomable to me - they couldn’t. They didn’t have the capability even to blow lots of stuff up unless it was within a few dozen miles of Russia. They still don’t. They’re just a weak and incompetent military outside of territory they don’t already control. That doesn’t mean they’re going to lose necessarily, but it means they will struggle mightily to gain territory.
It may end up being the case that Ukraine loses this conflict, but that doesn’t mean that Russia actually wins anything.
Absolutely. They have suffered devastating financial shocks. Which will have medium term adverse consequences. Beyond the immediate ones we have seen.
This means it will have to sell its product at lower prices because it no longer has access to an open market, countries like China and India when they know they are the only major buyers, simply won’t give Russia premium price out of the goodness of their heart.
There I disagree, Oil is skyrocketing,They will find many buyers. While oil prices remain high they will have absolutely zero problems, especially if they agree for payment in roubles. Cheap oil and avoid using up precious dollars? Most middle income countries will jump at it.
If the rouble becomes a major currency it will have other long term beneficial effects for the Russians.
Russia is suffering right now a serious brain drain,
Been suffering that since the Cold War ended to be fair. I mean, would you live in Moscow if you could choose not to?
a huge flight of capital. Western industry and expertise that has been very important in Russian economic growth is now gone. Advanced goods that Russia needs for both its military and its petroleum economy are now massively curtailed and will likely be for the rest of our lives. This is a resumption of almost a Cold War situation, where Russia will not have a significant capacity to import lots of things it needs. Much of the real pain of these sanctions isn’t coming today or tomorrow, but down the road.
Unlike the Cold War, they have alternate options to their East. And the Chinese will be only too happy to oblige them, being in a Cold War 2 with the West themselves.
If you were a Chinese leader and you saw an opportunity to tie down significant American land and airforces and at least some Naval forces in the European Theatre, would you not jump at it.
I’d think the Chinese would and should be seriously concerned about becoming significant allies with a country that made such a colossal error in invading Ukraine, and are doing so poorly at it. Russia has proven to be a paper tiger, perhaps somewhat dangerous to its immediate neighbors (if they’re relatively small and weak), but unless they decide to commit national suicide by launching nukes, no real danger at all to anyone else. And China could access all their resources without any sort of significant alliance, just by buying them up.
He has grabbed pieces of Ukraine in the past, and it appears he has control of Eastern and Southern Ukraine now. He has won that area, and Ukraine’s access to the sea.
Ukraine still has access to the sea through Odessa and that part of their coastline.
That is good, I thought the Russians took Odessa.
I’m doubtful of the ability of a guerrilla resistance to prevail against a country that in the past has deported entire populations to break ethnic unity. Given a twenty-year occupation, by then the surviving inhabitants of Donbas will be people who speak and consider themselves Russian.
To be fair, it can if the opposing country simply gets exhausted (in whatever sense) of being constantly blown up. It’s entirely possible Russia can bludgeon their way to a bloody stalemate where they end up with some of what they wanted. It won’t remotely be worth it, but it is not an impossibility.
So it all depends how you define “win”. Will Ukraine “win” by driving Russia entirely from Ukraine anytime soon? I have my doubts. Will Russia “win” by holding Crimea and the Donbas in a settlement with a worn out Ukraine? Maybe. I hope not, but it’s certainly possible. But either would be pretty qualified “wins” anyway - both countries are coming out of this weakened and Ukraine will be a physically devastated mess regardless of outcome.
No, Kherson, well to the East. Ukraine is purportedly in the midst of counter-attacking.
Ukraine will be physically battered; I would only say it would be “devastated” if Russia opted to use nuclear weapons, or (deliberately or unintentionally) released radiation from Chernobyl or caused Zaporizhzhia NPP to undergo meltdown. Russia will be economically devastated regardless of what it does at this point.
A nation can recover from physical damage to infrastructure and housing pretty quickly provided it has a strong economic basis and/or external aid, and there is a strong motivation for the West to support Ukraine in efforts to rebuild. Recovering from severe economic damage or an unsustainable economic basis, however, is an extreme challenge that essentially requires shifting the economy to some new basis. In the case of Russia, they are unwilling and unable to make that kind of change.
Stranger
Russia will win. They are far too strong. They’ll get what they want.
And the ‘West’ won’t intervene for fear of nuke-escalation. Yes, flags, prayers, marches and voting for Ukraine in Eurovision makes great virtue-signalling, but really does bugger-all.
The west has already done plenty of intervening.
Ukraine will lose more territory. But the country hasn’t been over run. The original government is still in charge.
I’m concerned Russia may return in a few years and finish what they started. But that may not be necessary. Ukraine may have to appease Russia in order to use the ports for grain exports. That would require electing a more pro-Russian government.
That’s not what anyone wants. But NATO isn’t providing offensive weapons that can push Russia out of Ukrainian territory.