True, but I dont think the Soviets left as the Afghanis were too tough. Not that they arent tough. They left because the government went through a massive change. If Putin dies, I don not thing the change will be seamless.
Well, I certainly don’t know that. It might be true, it might not. Russia does have a number of advantages. But it also has some real disadvantages as well and potential points of failure. I think writing off Ukraine’s chances entirely at this point is based on an unfounded level of pessimism. I like to think I’m a realist - or at least that seems to be the default of me being mildly annoyed by both sunny optimism and gloomy pessimism 
(especially as earlier when I’m the one being the gloomy pessimist 
). Realistically I don’t think Ukraine is yet doomed OR bound for inevitable victory. It’s still wait and see.
Yeah, but they need those supplies now.
Sure, Ukraine has fertile fields for crops. But if any Ukrainians are left alive, they will have a knife. And are a bit upset. /s
For the Russians, it will be like going it a real rough bar where everyone hates you, and have nothing to lose.
I have gift linked a NYT piece by Senator Vance claiming Ukraine is not a US priority. It’s a weak opinion. It smacks of Neville Chamberlain and its defeatism, naïveté and a poor read of history and American values. But it is important to know what people say and so I am including it here for discussion. I am also including the best rebuttal, below. I do not agree with Senator Vance.. Ukraine has largely been successful to this point, no matter how much Tucker Carlson enjoyed the Moscow metro and its supermarkets.
Rebuttal
Dear Senator Vance. I could not disagree with you more. Who am I? A retired physician, former Air Force Officer who deployed with NATO at the end of the Cold War and during Desert Storm.
First, Russia is not our friend. Their goal continues to be the degradation of our military, economic and political power. They were and are still a totalitarian country that leads by murder, imprisonment and force. Period.
Second, our reduced manufacturing capability that is actively damaging our national security, is not a reason to stop supplying munitions to a country invaded by Russia who does not want to be occupied by a totalitarian army. Rather it is a reason to have industrial policies to enhance our ability to produce such material. I do not recall you advocating for any legislation that would improve our manufacturing of munitions, ships and other defense materials.
Third, one never negotiates from a position of weakness. Starving the Ukraine of ammunition and then claiming we can successfully negotiate with Putin is laughable. He wants the whole country and has said so. In fact, he wants the previous Soviet Union boundaries. Shall we give up Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and the rest of eastern Europe next?
Finally, history shows that appeasing an aggressor never resolves an issue. Rather it encourages more aggression.
I suggest you go to Kyiv. Tour the damage. See what Putin has done. These people want freedom. You need to reflect on what is worth fighting for. --JRS, Mass.
I suspect the supplies needed for an insurgency are different than those needed by an army in the field. No liberation movement has had the kind of head start like the Ukrainians have had in the event of a foreign occupation. Many (most?) of us thought that was the kind of war we would be looking at in February 2022.
Yeah, true. But grandpa’s hunting rifle is probably on active duty already.
Absent from JD Vance’s elegy is an absence of moral reasoning, global strategy, the potential impact on other countries or organizations, or discussion of any longer term consequences. This feckless behaviour is perhaps summarized by saying: Russia has a bigger population, Ukraine now has to conscript some soldiers, isolationism is justified because some past American foreign involvement has been troubling, Trump’s ties with Russia need not concern you, and if you would only tap your slippers together thrice there will be peace in our time.
Small arms and bullets are something everybody has plenty of. What’s needed at the front is armor, heavy artillery (and shells), and AA systems.
I’ve read quite a few such op-eds in various news outlets by people wringing their hands over the “cost” of supporting Ukraine. A substantial number of such writers are not-so-secretly rooting for Russia to win, just trying not to say so too blatantly.
Elmer, we are talking past each other.
I don’t think that it is a given that “Russia would eventually win out,” nor that they would be able to “move next”. Ukraine’s resources are largely limited to what they inherited at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and what little they’ve been able to buy or been given, but they also have the advantage that the battleground is literally at their doorstep versus the hundreds of kilometers that Russia has to move equipment, troops, fuel, and materiel over poorly maintained roads and rail, so even what armor and ammunition they have that is in serviceable condition cannot be immediately be brought to bear. The morale of poorly trained conscript troops that make up the bulk of their forces scarcely compares to the highly motivated Ukrainians defending their homeland, and we’ve seen how with even the paucity of largely outdated weapons how well the Ukrainians have managed to hold onto territory, push back Russian advances, and strike at critical infrastructures while Russia bumbled its way through its initial invasion and ostensibly numerical superiority. However, the Russian military isn’t just going to be allowed to lick its wounds and go home; it is going to have to be starved of resources until it can no longer effectively fight, and be forced into retreat.
It is clear now that the Russian military was never really prepared for this fight, not only in terms of training and equipment but the logistics of sustaining a thrust deep into Ukraine. But if you are referring to the impacts of sanctions, they do not appear to be having the intended effect of turning public and political opinion against Putin, and there are still plenty of buyers out their for Russian oil and gas, provided that it can be delivered. None of this changes the extended projection that Russia is going to run out of a working age demographic, the ability to drill new oilfields, and ultimately anyone willing to deal openly with it as it devolves back into a pre-industrial pariah state, albeit one that still maintains a very sizable nuclear inventory that even at a fraction of its purported strength could still spell apocalyptic doom should Putin or any future leader feel that they have no other options.
Stranger
Not only that, but Gorbachev was a fundamentally decent guy, sort of like the Russian version of Jimmy Carter. But as has been said by many on this thread, Russians wants a strongman, not a fundamentally decent guy who works for the betterment of their people.
This cite from the main invasion thread seems relevant to this thread too.
To the degree this article pans out over the next years and is not mere Chinese / Russian scaremongering …
If the Russians are willing to sell their soul to the Chinese, it seems that Ukraine (and the West to the degree they deign to participate) now has to defeat the productive capacity of both Russia and China.
That greatly extends the timeline of the Russian military’s decay curve.
Describing the PRC as an “ally” of Russia is a bit of a stretch. This is an alliance of convenience and material benefit as Russia sells oil and natural resources (and possibly making concessions with regard to Mongolia). China’s defense establishment has been growing in both capacity and sophistication but unless they are selling complete turnkey weapon systems to Russia, the latter is still going to be hobbled by their rickety manufacturing base and aging labor pool. And regardless of what weapons and materiel that Russia can buy or build, if they can’t get their systems to the front or past anti-missile defense systems, they’re just throwing it into a pit. The key for Ukraine is to continue to disrupt Russian logistical and manufacturing capability and defend their positions and non-military targets, for which they need weapon systems and ammunition.
Stranger