Ukraine cannot win against Russia, warns top British army chief
Posted by shieeet@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 167 comments
“What we have done in the case of Ukraine is encourage Ukraine to fight, but not given them the means to win,” the former chief of the defence staff told The Independent’s podcast World of Trouble.
Reflecting on Ukraine’s chances of success against Russia, he said: “My view is that they would not win.”
“Could not win, even with the right resources?” he was asked.
“No,” he replied.
Pressed further by The Independent, he was asked: “ Even with the right resources?”
“No, they haven’t got the manpower,” the former commando said.
[...]
“Unless we were to go in with them – which we won’t do because Ukraine is not an existential issue for us. It clearly is for the Russians, by the way,” he said on World of Trouble.
“We’ve decided because it’s not an existential issue, we will not go to war. We are, you can argue – and I absolutely accept it – in some sort of hybrid war [with Russia]. But that’s not the same as a shooting war in which our soldiers are dying in large numbers.
“Despite our attraction for all they’ve achieved and our genuine affections for so many Ukrainians, I’m just still in this school that says this is not in our vital national interests.
“My instinct is that the best Ukraine can do, and you already see President Zelensky, who’s an inspirational leader … the best they can do is a sort of a score draw.”
Purple_Plus@reddit
Which everyone with a critical eye should know.
There is so much propaganda pumped out. From inflated Russian casualties (which if they were true the war would be over by now) to sensationalized reports of the Russian economy collapsing.
Ukraine just doesn't have the manpower to keep this going. Russia is in a war economy and can produce massive quantities of arms. They have a huge population to recruit from.
But if you only get your news from reddit you'd think Ukraine was grinding out a victory...
evgis@reddit
Russia even isn't in a war economy. War economy means that a state stops non essential civilian production and divert the resources to war production. This is isn't the case in Russia.
Purple_Plus@reddit
That is an overly simplistic definition.
The USA was said to be in a war economy during WW2 and still continued non-essential civilian production.
Which is what Russia is doing.
evgis@reddit
Russia is spending 7% of GDP, but NATO countries pledged to spend 5% of their GDP for military. That says it all.
enterisys@reddit
Total spending on national security in Russia, which includes the country’s armed forces, police and special services next year will amount to 16.84 trillion rubles, or 38 percent of all expenditure, The Moscow Times reported.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-military-spending-10803635
Tinhetvin@reddit
What you're talking about is national budget, the guy you were responding to was talking about GDP. Those are two different things.
enterisys@reddit
Forgot to mention why I was wrong.
Lazy_Membership1849@reddit
That just weak
enterisys@reddit
Agreed, not sure why he posted that.
Lazy_Membership1849@reddit
I mean you
enterisys@reddit
Why?
pastramilurker@reddit
Stop being thick.
enterisys@reddit
Why?
Lazy_Membership1849@reddit
Are you bot?
JAMisskeptical@reddit
We can all see your cope. He’s explained perfectly why you’re wrong, you just don’t understand all the words.
enterisys@reddit
Can you translate them for me please?
evgis@reddit
It's apple and oranges, Russian budget is 35% of GDP and your data includes other stuff than military.
enterisys@reddit
Thanks for proving my point.
Lazy_Membership1849@reddit
You didn't really did, did you even use math and data gathering? I never heard of any state would do 35% on military
Tinhetvin@reddit
So, do you understand the difference between national budget and national GDP? Basically, the budget is the cash the government has to spend on things like the military. GDP is the total money flow inside a country (which is much larger than the budget). So, the guy was saying that Russia spends 7-8% of GDP on its military, which is the correct (though surface level) figure. The figure you are giving is budget, which is completely different.
You were giving the budget figure as if that proves the previous guy wrong, but it doesn't, it just means you conflate budget and GDP.
enterisys@reddit
Yeah, you?
pddkr1@reddit
Ignore him
He’s the resident troll on the sub
balinjerica@reddit
GDP and spending are not the same. By that logic, the US is waging super war, seeing that 75% of their budget goes to the military.
enterisys@reddit
When did I state otherwise?
evgis@reddit
That is not only military and is measured in % of Russian budget which is 35% of GDP.
enterisys@reddit
It is. And it's very good for russians.
Smell_the_funk@reddit
Russia has a gdp comparable in size to Spain’s. That says a bit more.
BendicantMias@reddit
Here's a DUTCH economist explaining why Russia has barely tapped what a true war economy can produce - https://youtu.be/YRuYb3H3mvA?si=14hjdIg6PdGS-rt6
Purple_Plus@reddit
I always appreciate new info, thanks I'll check it out.
enterisys@reddit
If sanctions are not working why are russians begging to lift them?
Purple_Plus@reddit
I didn't say sanctions weren't having an impact.
But there's a difference between having an impact and being the deciding factor in this war.
enterisys@reddit
Yet you copied russian propaganda that everything is fine. But forgot to mention russia is slowly reaching the point which made USSR collapse.
The only deciding factor is Ukrainian army. Rest is just the sauce.
historicusXIII@reddit
If Russia was close to collapse, they would drop their maximalist demands and sign for peace.
Purple_Plus@reddit
The army needs manpower to function which has been my whole point.
I'm not even "copying" Russian propaganda. Many Western sources have said the same thing about manpower:
Here's one from Ukraine:
https://kyivindependent.com/behind-ukraines-manpower-crisis-lies-a-bleak-new-battlefield-reality-for-infantry/
Is that Russian propaganda too?
enterisys@reddit
This is not 1943.
Army needs FPV drones. Luckily Ukraine is outproducing russia 4 to 1.
Purple_Plus@reddit
So you just ignored the article from Ukraine because it didn't fit your narrative?
Got it.
Here's another Western source:
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/02/combat-losses-and-manpower-challenges-underscore-the-importance-of-mass-in-ukraine/
The main challenge. Not Russian propaganda. Not me making stuff up.
An army still needs manpower in 2025.
Drones can't hold a position or occupy ground on their own.
Infantry is still really important. Hence why the Kyiv Independent wrote a whole article about how important it is.
I guess you know better than The International Institute for Strategic Studies and other Western analysts right?
Polygon-Vostok95@reddit
I don't want to interrupt, but I felt like you should know that you're arguing with a bot/troll that's known for lurking in this sub a spewing BS.
It genuinely believes that Russia is retreating and is on the brink of being defeated.
You spend you time and effort however you want, but I thought you should know that most users simply ignore it instead of sinking hours into a meaningless conversation with a broken record. ;))
Purple_Plus@reddit
I've been working that out as I go. I'll block and move on.
I do appreciate the heads up though, thank you!
I have a bad habit so thanks for saving me time!
Polygon-Vostok95@reddit
You're welcome, friend, have a nice day! :))
enterisys@reddit
Yeah but Ukraine always lies, no? Why wouldn't you want me to ignore it?
Here is the same article from 2023. Pretty sure if I google deeper I would find one from 2022.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/12/17/ukraines-army-is-struggling-to-find-good-recruits
So for 4 years Ukraine had "the main challenge". During these 4 years nuclear superpower got invaded, lost 1.1 million troops, lost 1/3 of bomber fleet, gets bombed daily by NATO and is on retreat mode.
So your point exactly?
Purple_Plus@reddit
I never said Ukraine always lies. Again, you are putting words and ideas in my mouth. I am engaging with you honestly and in good faith. You are not.
I said that there is a lot of propaganda out there. That does not mean that every single article is propaganda.
Here's a non-Ukrainian one that you also ignored:
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/02/combat-losses-and-manpower-challenges-underscore-the-importance-of-mass-in-ukraine/
Yes. The longer the war goes on the more it matters.
That Ukraine and Western analysts all agree that the biggest problem facing Ukraine is manpower shortages and that the longer the war goes on the more this matters.
You have provided no evidence to the contrary from any sources. First you said I was a bot, then you said it doesn't matter, then you ignored the source from Ukraine on spurious grounds, then you ignored the IISS source.
So what is your point exactly? And what evidence do you have to back it up?
enterisys@reddit
So when it suits your agenda it's OK, but when it's not it's propaganda got it ty.
Well you posted same shit in 2023. What has changed now. Or any ETA on when it changes?
It's OK to ignore it, I'll take it as an L regardless.
Purple_Plus@reddit
Precisely my point. You ignore evidence and just attack me as a commenter. So yes, take the L and move on to another target.
Either way, I won't be engaging further. This is not an interesting discussion, it's a waste of time. You haven't provided any evidence or sources to back up what you are saying. You haven't even presented an interesting counter argument.
enterisys@reddit
You ignored evidence lol
So L, I guess?
Purple_Plus@reddit
Like I said, you offer nothing of value. I have had one DM and one comment saying you are a known troll. I'm blocking you now.
SgathTriallair@reddit
NATO's goal is to make this as painful as possible for Russia. Doing that disincentivizes other countries from starting wars of aggression and it means that Russia is weaker if they try to attack NATO directly.
For Ukraine, the hope is that if they fight long enough and hurt Russia enough they'll quit. It is a very similar strategy to what Vietnam used against the US.
m0ngoos3@reddit
The Russian Economy is going to crash.
The issue is something called Dutch Disease.
Now, Dutch Disease isn't normally fatal, but Ukraine has been making long range strikes on Russian oil refineries.
Russia has been forced to export crude oil to China at a loss, and then import refined full, at an extreme markup. What was once the single pillar that the Russian economy rested on, is now a drain on that economy.
Because China is taking full advantage of Russian weakness.
Now Russia is selling off untapped mineral rights to China in order to keep the money flowing and their war going. Even still, spending on the war has suffered.
This can't go on forever. Still, Russian Oligarchs had years of currency reserves, and each suspicious Oligarch death lets Putin pay more of his bills, and he still has a few left. So don't expect the c rash to happen tomorrow, unless the internal propaganda fails, and then the crash will likely take less than an hour.
I don't expect soon, but it will come. Likely within the next year or two.
Purple_Plus@reddit
Another person posted this to me:
https://youtu.be/YRuYb3H3mvA?si=ttrgk79t7NGo2L4i
Which seems to disagree with this.
Ultimately though I'll hold my hands up and say this is beyond my expertise.
m0ngoos3@reddit
See, the thing is, Russia's "strong war economy" is just another layer of Dutch Disease.
This is an IMF report talking about Russian Dutch Disease.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/wp07102.pdf
Again, it's all propped up on oil and gas exports, and Ukraine is steadily turning that pillar into a dead weight.
Also, there's the fact that Russia was already forcing banks to issue collateral free loans to the war sector, to keep the real war budget hidden.
https://navigatingrussia.substack.com/p/russias-hidden-war-debt-full-report
There are domestic fuel shortages in Russia
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czx020k4056o
All of this paints a very different picture than what Money & Macro is saying.
Russia is having to export the crude oil that it normally would have refined, and that means lower prices for crude oil.
At the same time, Russian oil exports are having to increasingly go through legal channels (restricted by sanctions)
https://navigatingrussia.substack.com/p/moscows-fading-shadow-fleet-russian
Which means even less money for the oil.
And they still have to buy back their refined fuels. Which is another drain.
But, it must be said, less money from crude oil sales is not no money.
A frayed rope will snap. But it might hold out longer than you'd think at first glance.
But no, I very much doubt that Russia will be saved by their war economy, especially when their main international weapons customers have moved on to other, more trustworthy suppliers.
Purple_Plus@reddit
In that video he starts off by saying that the latest "Russia is going to collapse" was started by the low oil prices. However he thinks that is not a big an issue as is being made out.
The blog post is interesting:
https://www.moneymacro.rocks/2025-10-17-russia-war-economy/
He links articles from throughout the war where economists and analysts have predicted the Russia economy will either collapse or start to massively underperform yet the opposite has happened.
It's grown faster than the UK/Germany etc.
He thinks that the way these analysts are looking at it is wrong:
Have a read and see what you think. But he says their economy is not close to collapsing.
NewUkraine2024@reddit
Don’t get so happy , russian bots. Read article. Ukraine can’t win with current supplies.
When America was supplying Ukraine, Ukraine had parts of russia captured.
As soon as orange clown came to power - you russian bots, got way more active.
Don’t forget nato troops increased military spending from 2.5 to 5% with main objective to help Ukraine.
Otherwise this is a stupid article: “Afghanistan cannot win against USA”. Of course it can’t, but USA (russia) can withdraw.
Purple_Plus@reddit
Who said I was happy?
This also is another thing that happens on Reddit. As soon as you question the official narrative you are a "Russian bot". Check my profile. Sure a really old account that posts on loads of different subreddits is a bot account? Right!
Nope.
The offensive also collapsed and ended up being a waste of hardware and manpower.
I hate Trump and Putin. Once again, just because I question the news articles does not mean I'm a Russian bot.
How will that help with manpower shortages which are the biggest issue and will only get worse?
The US did not border Afghanistan. It's a different situation.
I am not saying Russia will easily take the whole of Ukraine any time soon. It's a war of attrition which favours Russia in the long-term.
snowthrowaway42069@reddit
To add, it's also a manufacturing issue. The West can give Ukraine billions, but it doesn't make a difference if there aren't any usable weapons to buy. For example, the US only produces 600 Patriot missiles a year. Russia fires hundreds of glide bombs per week.
The difference is that Russia's weapons industry is state-run for the purpose of war. USA's weapons industry is privately run for maximum profits.
BendicantMias@reddit
That 5% figure is to be achieved in 10 years, not now. And even of that, it's only 3.5% in actual military spending - the remaining 1.5% can be spent on anything that you can even remotely argue has some strategic utility (which means govts. will just slide a whole bunch of infrastructure projects they were already gonna do under it). And even on military spending, it can be as simple as raising soldier salaries, which is just a disguised fiscal stimulus that does not improve your warfighting capacity at all.
shieeet@reddit (OP)
If one actually reads the article 👇:
Professional-Way1216@reddit
The last time Ukraine liberated and kept some significant parts of the lost land was in 2022. Since then for three years until Orange man came, Ukraine was not able to liberate anything while being supplied by the US.
Lazy_Membership1849@reddit
Actually it already happened before trump as Ukraine lost in counteroffensive in 2023
Polygon-Vostok95@reddit
Minor correction:
They do have the manpower to keep the war going, - in a similar fashion as they're doing now - but the important part is for how long and at what cost.
Ukraine could mobilise more people, - from lower age groups, or even women - thus postpone the inevitable, but the end result would be the same, only with a much higher cost.
DuplexEspresso@reddit
To be honest, I would love to see woman being mobilised.. Don’t get me wrong I’m totally against war in any sense, but Im fed up with girls freely going in and out of the country and partying at bars while man are suffering and cannot leave the country and cannot visit back and see even their family is sickening me!!
Purple_Plus@reddit
I meant long-term, not that they are about to collapse immanently.
Exactly my point.
It's a war of attrition. Russia has a much larger industrial base and population.
hellopan123@reddit
Ukraine has been losing for so many years now
Redditors smuggly proclaimed three years ago that they where right all along, Ukraine has no manpower and would lose.
Yet here we are three years later and Russia has barely made any progress
shieeet@reddit (OP)
The difference here, of course, is that it isn't some smug Redditor making the case for this, but Field Marshal Lord Richards, the former UK Chief of the Defence Staff and a five-star general, and more significantly, NATO high command in Afghanistan.
Purple_Plus@reddit
I'm not being "smug". I don't want to be right. I do not support Russia or Putin.
I never claimed that. My position has been the same. It's a war of attrition. Ukraine has done amazingly well, and is not about to collapse immediately.
But the longer the war goes on the more manpower becomes a factor. From a pure population perspective Russia can keep fighting longer than Ukraine can.
hellopan123@reddit
Sorry if I implied you where smug
I should have been more clear that your kind of thinking is something I have seen being said by people outright proclaiming they have been in the right while the rest was wrong for some time. Not that you did it in your comment
Purple_Plus@reddit
No worries at all.
I think there's a bit of a distinction but I know what you mean.
There are the people who said Ukraine would fold in a week, and have been saying similar for years. So when you see a take like mine, you think about all these other takes which have been proven wrong.
But then people like me haven't been saying that. Again, I'm not saying it's a matter of weeks or anything like that. Simply that Russia has a huge manpower advantage which is a crucial advantage in a war of attrition.
AdhesivenessFun2060@reddit
Honest question. Why is it only Ukraine putting out propaganda? You say youre not a fan of Russia but you wont question their propaganda? Im sure both sides are playing the game but its not hard to see why people would assume you're pro Russia when your repeating their talking points.
Imasquash@reddit
Ukraine needs to show the west that their aid is effective and that giving more will not be futile. It's as simple as that.
Their lifeline in this war is propaganda, convincing citizens of other countries that they need our help and that it's working. It would be suicidal to not produce propaganda.
Purple_Plus@reddit
It obviously isn't only Ukraine putting out propaganda at all. Of course anything that comes out of Russia is propaganda too.
I do frequently. Where did I say my only other sources were Russian? You don't even really need sources to come to the same conclusion about the disparity in manpower.
Which Russian talking points am I repeating exactly?
It's pretty simple what I'm saying. In a long war manpower is extremely important. Russia has a huge advantage in that regard.
If people think that makes me a Russian bot then what's the point in talking about the war?
AdhesivenessFun2060@reddit
But you're implying that theyre telling the truth. Youre pushing the narrative that Ukraine is lying. You are insisting that reddit is covering for Ukraine and that its bots that are supporting them. Youre literally repeating Russian propaganda. Youre mad that people are calling you a Russian bot while doing what a Russian bot would do.
Purple_Plus@reddit
About what?
You're just brushing over what I actually said.
Once again:
You do not need Russian propaganda to know there is a huge manpower disparity.
So, I'll ask again, what Russian propaganda do you think I have used to come to that conclusion?
First off, I'm not "mad" at all. More just disappointed in the state of discourse on Reddit that people like you just instantly try to discredit comments like mine by reaching for the "Russian bot" narrative.
You don't even have any counter points for what I'm saying, your only argument is that I'm a bot.
Secondly, the reason I think it was bots was that the post had very few comments.
Mine was one of the first and instantly went to -6. Now the post has been up for a while it's now upvoted. It seems unlikely that people's minds would change that quickly.
Considering now all my posts are upvoted and many other people are saying the same things as me, we must all be Russian bots right?
Even though I've got a really old account that comments on all sorts of random things?
WhoAmIEven2@reddit
Ukraine can't win against Russia just like how North Vietnam can't win against the South and the US, or Afghanistan against the Soviet Union or the coalition of the US and friends.
Tinhetvin@reddit
The difference is that all the larger nations you mentioned no longer wanted to fight. If the US wanted to keep fighting against north vietnam, they could've. Its domestic pressure that drove all of those "military" losses. Russia very much wants to keep fighting, so they will.
Purple_Plus@reddit
Those examples miss a key distinction. They did not border those countries which gives a much higher logistical burden.
Vietnam also had massive protests and political pressure in the US making it less and less tenable for politicians. That is not the case in Russia.
Afghanistan is incredibly hard to control because of its geography. The CIA trained the Mujahideen to use the terrain and tunnels to their advantage. Then that same training was used against the US.
When you look at the parts Russia has taken, there is no serious insurgency like there was in Afghanistan/Vietnam. So I don't think these examples are the best analogies.
DuplexEspresso@reddit
Referencing from article:“ They (Ukraine) haven’t got the manpower” To be honest, I would love to see woman being mobilised.. Don’t get me wrong I’m totally against war in any sense, but Im fed up with girls freely going in and out of the country and partying at bars while man are suffering and cannot leave the country and cannot visit back even to just see their parents is sickening me!!
Kahzootoh@reddit
Russian losses are in excess of 10 to 1 against Ukraine, and the Russians have largely exhausted their Soviet stockpiles of hardware. From here on out, they have to rely on small batches of newly built equipment- which comes at a rate far too small to replace Russian attritional losses.
The Ukrainian strategy is pretty clear- destroy Russian fuel refineries and other vulnerable infrastructure, and exhaust the Russian military.
The Russian war economy relies on injecting cash into the economy at an unsustainable pace- once that hits its limit, the whole thing falls apart. With the Russian supply of Soviet hardware largely exhausted, the Russians don’t have a lot of cards left to play- they’re under political pressure to make gains, which allows Ukraine to inflict unsustainable losses onto the Russians.
Russia is already suffering from limited gas supplies in many parts of the country, despite an export ban on gasoline. The Ukrainian strikes are working.
The problem with analysis of Russian strengths by generals in western militaries is that they tend to discount the political ineptitude of the Russian government. If Russia was governed by strategic minds that were getting accurate information, it could probably beat Ukraine. In reality, it is governed by a self taught “historian” who is constantly given incorrect information from his subordinates that he then uses to make further decisions.
manek101@reddit
Any non biased source that states that overall Russian casualties are 10-1?
helpnxt@reddit
tbf are there any sources that could be considered unbiased in this conflict?
manek101@reddit
No source is completely unbiased for any sort of news.
What matters is the degree of biasness. Only a source that deviates to the extreme end of biasness would have such a claim
enterisys@reddit
US intel.
BendicantMias@reddit
US intel is unbiased? Lol!
enterisys@reddit
Pretty much. They provided factual intel during anti-russian president, still provide facts with pro-russian president.
Lol
officerblues@reddit
Can you link it, please?
enterisys@reddit
https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+losses+us+intel
manek101@reddit
Bro can't even share a proper source lol, a google search with every link showing a different number and one thing is common, anything even close to credible is far lesser than a 1:10 ratio
datNomad@reddit
Lmao. You guys got too high on your own propaganda.
Nevarien@reddit
It's like the Dutch who thought taking over Nexperia would make the "paper tiger at the brink of collapse" China bend.
China retaliated and now they are desperately trying to negotiate with the Chinese government.
Tinhetvin@reddit
I wish you were right, but I doubt you are. First of all, the 10 to 1 figure you basically pulled out of your ass. There is no way for us to publicly verify that at all.
Secondly, Russia is indeed struggling with a lot of difficulties, but nothing that prevents them from continuing to fight if they really want to.
Thirdly, while Russia has had incompetencies, we've also seen that Russia's central bank, led by Putins old economic advisor, is very competent and has steered Russia out of economic catastrophe.
The end result is, that if Russia wants to continue fighting for years, then it seems like they can. Maybe im wrong, and Russia will collapse tomorrow, but I think that that is equally true for Ukraine.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
So some random redditor knows it better, and top western generals are wrong ?
Laughing_Man_Returns@reddit
how many centuries of history repeating itself do you need?
"no, this time the Russians are not doing what they always do, so they will totally have a different outcome"
Professional-Way1216@reddit
I mean historically Germany started two world wars and today they are massively arming again, but this time it will have a totally different outcome, right ? Right ?
Laughing_Man_Returns@reddit
yes, because I was only talking about two events.
Purple_Plus@reddit
We'll need a source for that.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
The point of these reddit comments pretending to be factual analyses, is that you do not question sources, otherwise it all falls apart.
Purple_Plus@reddit
It just muddies the waters and gives people false hope.
shododdydoddy@reddit
I'm kind of surprised he would say this, considering it seems pretty shortsighted to not consider Ukraine in our vital interests. He acknowledges that we're in a hybrid war with Russia -- good, they've had the audacity to kill and terrorise with impunity on our own soil -- but wouldn't that make Ukraine all the more the staging post for a victory against Russia?
While the resource and manpower limitations are very real and he's entirely right in saying that we've not given them anywhere near ample supplies to halt completely or reverse the Russian advance, it's not to say everything's rosy on the Russian front either. Their logistics are utterly suffering from Ukrainian strategic strikes. There's videos of Russian soldiers drinking puddle water, cases of cannibalism because they aren't getting basic provisions. Widespread reports of civilian fuel shortages, and growing discontent and protests against the war/Putin.
Logically, it's a ticking clock for both Ukraine and Russia - whether the Russians will exhaust the Ukrainian manpower first and get that breakthrough of the defensive lines they've been aiming for, or whether Ukraine can hold out long enough for a victory on the home front. It's a big maybe - but surely that would also mean an end to attacks against the UK and the West as well?
GerryAdamsSon@reddit
you forgot to add they're riding donkeys and using weapons from the 1850s and Russia is just one more month away from collapse
Fact is Ukraine is fucked now, Russia can keep it up for a few years. The army guy is spot on and the war needs to end as it stands because Ukrainian men don't want to fight it anymore. 70% of Ukrainian armed forces are now forced, unwilling conscripts and the number of videos I see of them fighting not to be taken away to the front tells me all I need to know about their motivation to fight for a sliver of land in the east
bippos@reddit
Russia didnt stop at Chechnya they didn’t stop at Georgia and they didn’t stop at Crimea so what makes you think they will stop at Ukraine? It’s either fight now or fight later in Ukraines case so might as well ruin the Russian economy as much as possible
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Chechnya is a part of Russia. Also the first thing Chechnya did after getting the defacto independence was to invade Dagestan.
They stopped in Georgia at borders of those two autonomous republics, there is no change since 2008 and Georgia poses no threat.
They didn't stop at Crimea and Donbass, because it wasn't diplomatically resolved and the small-scale war continued uninterrupted since 2014.
enterisys@reddit
They voted not to be part of russia. Only tanks and bombing of civilians "changed" their mind.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Who do you mean by "they" ?
enterisys@reddit
Your comment is about Chechnya/Crimea/Donbas. So take a guess all answers are correct.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
And I didn't claim they want or not be a part of Russia ?
Georgia is not a part of Russia. Chechnya has always been a part of Russia.
enterisys@reddit
Please, educate yourself.
https://www.historynet.com/russias-forever-war-chechnya/
mittfh@reddit
"And Georgia poses no threat" - maybe because the Georgian Dream government has increasingly aligned itself with Russian geopolitical interests?
They've cut off ties with Europe, enacted a Russia-style Foreign Agents law, restored gas supplies with Russia for the first time since 2008, cracked down on what they call "LGBT+ propaganda", cracked down on protest sand threatened to outlaw pro-Western political parties.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
That is not really point, Georgia is too small and weak to mount an offensive into those two autonomous republics, regardless of government. That's why the war back in 2008 lasted only a week.
Brief_Lead_8380@reddit
Bro Chechnya was a part of the RSFRS, a part that quickly became dominated by Islamists.
PlasmaMatus@reddit
It's laughable to think Russians would stop invading Ukraine if they conquered all of the Eastern regions of Ukraine. Ukraine needs to also keep fighting a few more years because they would cease to exist as a country if they surrendered to Russia. Give security guarantees to Ukraine and they will stop fighting and sign a peace deal with Russia.
BendicantMias@reddit
Ukraine did not 'cease to exist' between 1990 - 2013. It's far too much for Russia to try conquering and holding all of Ukraine, which is why that isn't their goal. In fact even not having the East was fine by them, until 2013. So what happened in 2013? Euromaidan All this mess began with that.
What Russia seeks is simply to reverse Euromaidan, but if they can't do that, they'll settle for taking the East and crippling Ukraine instead. But note that Ukraine very much 'existed' prior to Euromaidan.
This isn't just speculation either. Russia LITERALLY OFFERED a peace treaty BEFORE the war that involved NO NEW LAND TAKEN - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO
And it was NATO, not even Ukraine, who rejected it. And the same shit is playing out on the other side of the world too, with China, and again the west is pretending shock when they know exactly why it's happening - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy
braiam@reddit
So, unreasonable demands by Russia were the start of this. Are you even aware of what you are saying. If any of the parties accepted Russia demands it would mean that the basic tenet of why the organization exists is no more.
BendicantMias@reddit
Bub, the US nearly started WW3 over the Soviets putting their forces in Cuba, only prevented by the Soviets agreeing to back off. Russia has asked for those same things since the 90s i.e. for the US to back off. But it doesn't.
The same thing is happening with China, which is also being surrounded by the US - and bristling at it. Which country is common to both? The US. They don't want American forces anywhere close to them, just as America didn't.
TrizzyG@reddit
I would implore you to get a basic grasp of history and geopolitics before commenting further.
The Russian demands on NATO are completely unrelated to Ukraine and the demands themselves were never serious. Expecting NATO to just dismantle itself from several states that they are part of because you asked was never going to be seriously considered. May as well have asked Russia to end its nuclear program - it would go over about as well.
Cuba happened in the early 60s before ICBMs were relevant. Now that they are, nobody would be starting WW3 over such actions. Not that its relevant anyway, because nobody would have an interest in setting up bases so close to the US either for the same reasons that any competitors would have ICBMs.
BendicantMias@reddit
Yeah, the west clearly doesn't care about its enemies building bases close to it anymore - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-24/scott-morrison-china-naval-base-solomon-islands-red-line/101011710
Clearly...
Tell you what, why don't you offer to let Russia and China have forces next to the US again? Cuba is still on friendly terms with them, so it'll be happy to. And you can sacrifice your country as a second staging post, to prove YOUR point.
Let's see how blase the US is about it.
Hell if ICBM's nullify all this stuff, then why not just pull back all your bases in the first place? Avoid all this unnecessary blood. Just pull back bro - bases close to your enemies don't matter anyway! Well, go on then...
Ohforfs@reddit
You'll never understand this conflict until you realize it's Ukraine itself that's making the decisions not NATO. And then, why it's making these decisions.
BendicantMias@reddit
That peace offer was literally made to NATO, and it was literally NATO that rejected it. Not Ukraine as a proxy for NATO or anything - NATO, officially.
Ohforfs@reddit
Well... That was demand on NATO so obviously it was NATO that would reject it.
But it's not very related to the war.
You're simply mistaken, which is understandable because you live far away and are mostly concerned with the USA/West. Unfortunately it means false lens.
For example, the whole thing didn't begin with Euro maidan. There was orange revolution before, Ukraine borders were threatened by Yeltsin already in 1992. What happened in 2014 was that Russian way option lost influence in long struggle over Ukraine future. And Russia decided to escalate in response of Ukraine choosing another way.
enterisys@reddit
Except russia has no voting right neither in NATO, nor in Ukraine, and certainly not in any NATO member.
So these clownish demands are pretty futile.
And NATO expansion is non-negotiable.
ZhouDa@reddit
The Revolution of Dignity happened because Putin extorted Yanukovych into sabotaging a trade deal with the EU that he ran an election on signing, a trade deal that would greatly improve the economic outlook for Ukraine. When protestors showed up in Maidan square to express their disapproval, Yanukovych escalated matters first by beating protestors and eventually sending Russian trained snipers to murder protestors. Eventually this lead to the protestors storming the capitol, Yanukovych fleeing to Moscow on helicopter like a Batman villain, and the Rada officially booting Yanukovych before calling for new elections that Poroshenko would win and serve out a five year term before losing to Zelensky in 2019.
I can see how the idea of the Ukrainian people taking their power back from an oligarch who has abused his office would seem threatening to Putin, but it was none of his fucking business and in fact a war crime what he did after.
It existed, but there were two points after they voted to leave the Soviet Union that defined their path towards democracy and away from being a oligarch-backed autocracy and puppet of Russia like Belarus. The first point was the Orange Revolution, and the second point was Euromaidan. But now a third point of decision is here, February 2022 is where Russia went all in to make Ukraine submit to Russian subjugation, and its up to Ukraine to keep fighting for their freedom.
Not just an ultimatum but an attempt to extort NATO to abandon their allies, one that NATO could never accept and Putin knew it since he already decided to invade Ukraine anyway. Notably since Ukraine is not part of NATO there is nothing Ukraine could have done to avoid being victimized by Russia, with the extortion deal that Putin offered NATO being similar to the Munich Agreement Chamberlain made with Hitler, a deal to sacrifice allies for fake promises of peace.
alkbch@reddit
What kind of security guarantees are you thinking of? Why would the European countries fight in the case of a future invasion if they’re not fighting now?
evgis@reddit
Exactly, that's why we were hearing about the coalition of the "willing" for 3 years, but nothing came out of it.
Nobody wants to fight Russia and nobody would fight Russia becuause of the "security guarantees".
shododdydoddy@reddit
This is why I said both sides have a ticking clock. You'd need to be blind to not see Ukraine is running on fumes as it stands, and (as I said) their manpower is dry. But I agree, a ceasefire is probably the most likely and realistic course of action, though that's simply going to give Russia's domestic situation some breathing space and we'll likely be in this same scenario a couple years down the line.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
So you take the claim of the Ukrainian secret service about interrupted call at the face value without even questioning it might be a made up propaganda and from that one example you assumed there is some systematic problem in the logistics of Russian army ?
shododdydoddy@reddit
Literally watched a video of Russian soldiers drinking out of a puddle before commenting so logically, if they're that desperate for water, they'd likely lack for food as well. Definitely not saying every Russian soldier is a cannibal ofc, but that there were reports of cannibalism, so that was enough for me to accept that while the source is biased, that it's likely happened. If it's not enough for you - that's okay too. There's enough disinformation on the Internet as it is.
zabajk@reddit
Russia has just many more resources to keep this war going vs Ukraine. It’s not even a full war for them and most of the population barely registers that there is a war going on . They have several levels to go up in intensity, they could switch to a full war economy and mass conscription.
Meanwhile Ukraine just has less of everything, even with a 1:1 ratio of casualties and equipment losses it’s inevitable that Russia will win based on numbers alone as long as there is sufficient political will and social cohesion in Russia which seems to be the case .
BendicantMias@reddit
Your "source" is United 24, which is literally the Ukrainian govt. Like that's not a conspiracy, it literally is openly part of the Ukrainian govt. lol - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United24
Primarch_Sanguinius@reddit
Oh right the intercepted calls 100% trust me bro Ukraine source haha
The__Hivemind_@reddit
Wow two unsourced videos
Purple_Plus@reddit
We've heard that for ages. It's just not true.
skinlo@reddit
Yes, they know that
Purple_Plus@reddit
All my posts have been downvoted, people are saying I'm wrong and a Russian bot.
So I doubt that.
Significant-Oil-8793@reddit
I would wear it as a badge of honor.
NAFO bots are rife in Reddit. Just like Zionist bots. They only want a specific narrative. Nothing else allowed.
Purple_Plus@reddit
It's changed now. I think it's pretty telling that all my comments were instantly downvoted to -6. But then overtime has gone back up.
That was also when there were only a few comments in the thread. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was bots.
Significant-Oil-8793@reddit
Yeah. They usually target your top comment as it's the one driving the narrative and viewership
You would notice your sub comment to be more natural in voting. It's a sign the bots at work.
BendicantMias@reddit
The thing is even before the war most Ukrainians didn't see a future in their own country - the population collapsed from over 52 million in the 90s to just above 30 million by 2022, and probably less than 30 million now. That's over 20 million people who just voluntarily chose to leave. With Europe welcoming them since the war, they now have even more reason to jump ship and just make a future in a richer country. And these were mostly young people too..
BendicantMias@reddit
Even IF Russia were to attack NATO, they wouldn't get anywhere close to the UK - and the UK knows it. They wouldn't even be AIMING for that to begin with.
The most likely targets would be the Baltic trio, which even if they took all 3 of them, the UK would be untouched. Or Moldova, which is also far from the UK, and would change little for their security. And the UK knows it.
Realistically, the only attack that reaches the UK are cyberattacks, and that comes just as well if not bigger from China as from Russia.
As for 'drinking puddle water' and 'cannibalism' ... lol. Putin also enjoys higher approval ratings than any western leader, even as per western surveys. Statista puts him at 86 percent for instance, and Statista is German. And don't even try making excuses for that - pollsters have long considered fear and intimidation in their polling, and taken steps to nullify it. It's standard practice by now. These are anonymous surveys, so that excuse doesn't hold water.
mittfh@reddit
"Putin enjoys higher approval ratings"
If you effectively ban all opposition to yourself, so the only messaging people hear is supportive of yourself, you're bound to get sky high approval ratings...
BendicantMias@reddit
Even if we accept your argument, does it matter? The point is they're not gonna rise up as the OP is having wet dreams about. Fact is even outside surveys show that most Russians favor him, whatever the reasons are.
Mii009@reddit
Wow! I'm SO convinced! What a TRULY convincing argument!
shododdydoddy@reddit
BendicantMias@reddit
You clearly failed at reading. Like, this is so embarassing man. I literally PREDICTED YOU. You're THAT bad that I knew what your next move would be.
Like bro, this is so weak it's laughable. You literally quoted the Ukrainian govt. as your "source", not even putting a couple intermediaries in between to hide your propaganda. And now you dismiss a third party source based on a toddler level argument that goes back to the very earliest days of opinion polling, just cos you didn't like the conclusion.
Like this is so sad that I just feel sorry for you. 😔
shododdydoddy@reddit
Right, so they've got no reason to manipulate it themselves. That doesn't change the fact that being disappeared, thrown out of a window or sent to Siberia is a very real threat for the Russian people, so regardless of how they answer, it can never really be deemed accurate, if it ended up in the wrong hands they know one of those answers is safe and the other can be an automatic end to the life they know. It isn't the pollster that is the issue, it's the "hidden gun" behind the pollster that always will be.
wew sure predicted me buddy
BendicantMias@reddit
How is the Russian govt. gonna throw anyone out of a window if they don't even know who to throw lmao?! 😅
This is just classic 'motivated reasoning' bro i.e. hypothetical excuses to avoid admitting inconvenient facts. And it's just sad.
And I didn't make that term up btw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
shododdydoddy@reddit
You really think that the Russian state wouldn't love information on who's a dissident? We're not anonymous to our data unfortunately.
You're being very personal, and it's a bit sad :(
bippos@reddit
Scoring a draw isn’t bad? Especially against a nuclear “superpower” who allegedly is the equal of the USA and China. Fact remains that any peace will be a temporary peace at best Putin didn’t stop messing with Georgia or Ukraine after he achieved his goals there so do you keep fighting or stop so he can attack 7 years later after reorganising
BendicantMias@reddit
You're talking about the current battle in Ukraine. I was talking about a potential future war involving the UK, as the OP I responded to questioned the reason why the general in the story didn't feel it mattered as much to the UK. Even if Putin keeps haranguing Ukraine, the UK will still be fine. That's why he's not as gung-ho about this war as some others here are.
In other words, as a military man, he's being a realist. Not a Reddit idealist.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
The war goes fourth year now with more than a million and half soldiers participated on Russian side. How many "mud drinking" or "cannibalism" videos have you realistically seen ?
BendicantMias@reddit
What 'million and a half'? Ukraine itself estimates there's only about 6-700k Russian soldiers in theater. Did you just take the size of the whole Russian army?
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Soldiers left the army over the past four years, there are yearly contracts, some deserted, some got killed/injured.
ZhouDa@reddit
One thing that caught my eye was this:
And that General Mark Milley said Kyiv could fall within 3 days if Russia attacked.
Just a reminder that the predictions of these generals have been wrong before and think this prediction is wrong now. Notably I don't buy his reasoning about manpower, when the AFU has roughly 200K more soldiers in Ukraine than there are Russian soldiers (900K versus 700K). While it would be interesting if they did a survey of generals, I suspect you would get a range of possible answers as to what is going to happen and not just this one viewpoint that the paper was probably looking for.
As for my opinion, I think that as long as aid for Ukraine remains relatively stable and doesn't drop significantly, that Russia doesn't really have a path to win the war. That whether it is in one year or ten, Russia will eventually run out of resources to continue holding occupied Ukraine, just like has happened to numerous imperial powers before now. Until that happens though, Putin will never offer Ukraine anything short of surrender terms that Zelensky will never be able to accept, meaning that the war will continue.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
I wouldn't compare prediction where nobody really had a good understanding of the situation before the full scale invasion. As compared to assessment after four years where there are plenty of facts and evidence to base educated guess upon. I mean even Zelensky admitted that Ukraine will not get the land back by military means, only with diplomacy.
But if that happens and Ukraine will collapse due to attrition, then Russia will get 100% of Ukraine instead of 30% for example, and it would practically mean the end of Ukraine as a country. On the other hand, Ukraine can still be a country even after losing 30% of their land.
mittfh@reddit
"instead of 30%" - initially.
Given half a chance, Putin would likely engineer the takeover of Myoklaiv and Odessa Oblasts to cut off the remainder of Ukraine's access to the Black Sea, link up with Transnistria and put pressure on East European countries to align with Russian interests (c.f. The Romanian and Moldovan elections, plus how Georgian Dream has rapidly moved from centre left to hard right since being elected), as well as the remainder of Ukraine.
He wants Russian restored as an official language of State in Ukraine (rather than just a protected language - given the bulk of the population can speak Russian, having Russian as an official languages of state could diminish the have of the Ukrainian language over time) and all "anti-Russian" laws repealed. It's very likely the only way he'd tolerate a legally independent Ukraine is if it followed the Georgian Dream path by thoroughly rejecting Western alignment - especially given he wants a significant reduction in the country's military capabilities, would likely not agree to any external security guarantees that didn't require Russian agreement, doesn't want foreign troops patrolling the new border between Russia and Ukraine (which at the Donetsk - Dnipro - Kharkiv border area is largely in open farmland without any infrastructure or housing anywhere near, so very difficult to defend).
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Putin would likely engineer the takeover - what does this mean exactly ?
Also Romania will simply ban any candidate or parties they consider "pro-Russian", like it already happened.
Why is that a bad thing ? If most of Ukrainian wants to speak Russian, then let them ?
Why is that a bad thing once the war ended and peace deal signed ?
Russia said multiple times Ukraine can enter EU, they are only against NATO. And of course they will try to influence Ukrainian politics, like any other power does - US influences Ukrainian politics, EU as well.
Also Georgia had pro-Western government with pro-Western president.
ZhouDa@reddit
But also I'm pretty sure Milley's opinion was the consensus opinion of generals and war experts, whereas I doubt that this British Army Chief's opinion is the consensus based on what has been learned after four years, rather a minority opinion at this point.
Zelensky is hardly free to share his true opinion on a lot of these subjects, instead he often has to say what the West wants to hear that will get him the most aid to keep Ukraine in the fight, even if it means say kissing Trump's ass. I think if Zelensky really thought a negotiated solution was feasible in the near future that he would put more effort into achieving that goal. As it is, many Western allies don't want Russia to lose completely which kind of puts Zelensky in a corner into how he pitches his requests.
If Russia takes 30% of Ukraine through negotiations and forces Ukraine to demilitarize and not join defensive alliances like NATO or the EU, which is all things Putin currently demands, then it won't just be 30% but eventually Ukraine will lose 100% of their country, just on a layaway plan. I don't think Russia can feasibly take 100% (or 50% or even 30%) of Ukraine as long as they keep getting aid, but that's beside the point. Ukraine will keep fighting because to them the alternative is the eventual loss of all of their entire country anyway.
If hypothetically Zelensky really thought all hope was lost and Putin could literally take 100% of their country, I think he would surrender to Poland before he ever surrendered to Russia. After all those broken peace treaties and cease fires and war crimes, the message to Ukrainians is loud and clear that Putin wants to wipe Ukraine off the map.
alkbch@reddit
The war continuing benefits more Russia than Ukraine though. Russia is close to reach its objectives.
ZhouDa@reddit
The war benefits neither side, with Russia sinking most of their economy into a war with no appreciable payoff. The ruins of towns Russia destroyed doesn't offset the 1.1 million casualties, 33% of Russia's refining capacity, or the sinking of most of their Black Sea fleet.
The difference though is that Ukraine has no realistic alternative, that the war is an existential fight for their survival and they know it. For Russia though, they could leave tomorrow and be better off for it. Crimea is dying regardless, and Russia hasn't even developed their own country beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg, they aren't going to do anything with occupied Ukraine except terrorize its resident.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Russia spends around 6–8% of GDP on military and they plan to lower it next year - so no, Russia is not sinking most of their economy into a war.
Claimed by Ukraine, which doesn't say much. Also Russia got up to 5 million population from Ukraine. Also casualties should be compared to one another to get a picture who is relatively winning the attritional war.
Ukraine destroyed/damaged around one third of the Black Sea navy, which will be rebuilt anyway after the war.
ZhouDa@reddit
They plan to lower it next year because their spending themselves into a hole they can't dig out of. In comparison, NATO suggests 2% of GDP spending for members and countries find that onerous. Even the famously expensive US military amounts to America spending 3.5% of their GDP on defense, which is also what Poland spends because they have to deal with Russia and Belarus as neighbors. 8% is an unsustainable wartime economy as Putin is finding out.
Who would know better how many Russians have been injured and killed than the side that's doing it. Besides, we've gotten occasions glimpses of internal Russian documents that lines up with this estimate.
You mean 5 million potential spies and saboteurs to help Ukraine win the war? Probably not the flex Russia thinks it is.
It's somewhere between 2-3 Russian casualty to a Ukrainian casualty. This ratio is pretty consistent regardless of which Western country is doing the estimate. Also this alone doesn't actually tell you who is winning the attritional war, since manpower is only one of several resources that can be attrited.
Notably without having a fleet of their own. The Moskva alone cost $750 million, and this is just one category of materiel loss for Russia, one that shouldn't even exist when facing an opponent without a Navy. The costs to Russia are a lot more than what has been allocated for in the Russian budget.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
But you claimed "most" of their economy, which is simply not true. And if its sustainable or not, well its yet to see. There were predictions of imminent Russian collapse back in 2022.
They probably know numbers close to real numbers, but that doesn't mean they will claim this real numbers, they can claim any numbers they want - it can't be independently verified by any party.
Not that much sabotage going on with 5 million saboteurs, so maybe absolute majority of those people want nothing to do with Ukraine.
Western countries do not estimate Ukrainian casualties, they use official Ukrainian numbers, so there isn't really a ratio reported by the western countries.
There are records of killed and missing soldiers identified by the name on the both sides, and that ratio is close to 1:1.
What not having a navy got to do with that ? You can destroy tanks without tanks, destroy planes without planes, you can destroy ships without ships.
I mean US allocates more than they can afford, that's why they are 30 trillions in debt, it doesn't say much of what can country afford or not.
LazyGandalf@reddit
How is the war benefiting Russia exactly? Maybe in some distant future Russia could turn a profit on the land and resources they've annexed, but right now and in the short to medium term the war is a huge money pit. And even the long term outlook is pretty questionable, given the level of destruction in the annexed lands.
alkbch@reddit
The war continuing benefits more Russia than Ukraine. Russia continues to conquer more territories, at a slow and steady pace. Ukraine can’t win a war of attrition against Russia.
alkbch@reddit
You mentioned the audacity to kill and terrorize on your own soil, you may want to pick up a history book or two about the UK.
This British top army chief is saying out loud what everyone knows already. Ukraine has no chance at winning the war whatsoever, however it can inflict some pain to Russia, therefore it has received support in what has become a proxy war. European countries do not care about Ukrainians, they just want to hurt Russia
braiam@reddit
Did you read what the British top guy said? That it would not win, without the support of the allies. Not that it doesn't have the means to win.
alkbch@reddit
The allies aren’t joining the fight, are they?
Purple_Plus@reddit
I agree with you. But most people on Reddit definitely do not know that. They believe all the headlines that Russia is about to collapse on the battlefield.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
>Logically, it's a ticking clock for both Ukraine and Russia - whether the Russians will exhaust the Ukrainian manpower first and get that breakthrough of the defensive lines they've been aiming for, or whether Ukraine can hold out long enough for a victory on the home front.
Ukraine is catching people on the streets to gangpress them into service, while Russia relies on volunteers. Russia still has conscripts and reservists who they could call up if things would go bad. They don't because currently they are winning, slowly, but still winning. Realistically Russia could double their forces in Ukraine in a couple of weeks just by sending conscripts who are already recruited and are already in military bases. In couple of months they could quadruple the force by calling up the reservists (that would obviously severally impact the economy, but as OP says, Russia considers this war to be existential, if things go south, they will obviously do it).
enterisys@reddit
2022 - Ukraine cannot win, 40mil country has no manpower.
2023 - Ukraine cannot win, 40mil country has no manpower.
2024 - Ukraine cannot win, 40mil country has no manpower.
2025 - Ukraine cannot win, 40mil country has no manpower.
this-aint-Lisp@reddit
Yeah we could go to war with Russia, it will become a very existential issue for all of us.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.