The final analysis.

Who has more monetary/military/personal resources? Not the Ukraine. So, who will win the war?

The Ukraine will not have the financial capabilitis to rebuild their country after the war.

The "western" Taxpayers will be thrilled to hear that they will pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine. Or what's left of it. Surely, the western taxpayers will gladly sell their family silver to pay for the rebuilding of the Ukraine.

Did you ever hear about a little thing called the second world war. ? Germany had to pay reparations but they were given a long time ( on interest ) to repay.

 

It will be the same when this war ends. The bill does not have to be paid immediately. It it stretched out to be painless.

 

The war will go on . Neither side can back down. 

 

IMO , the Ukraine should shelve plans to retake it's territory as a priority. More important is to hamper as much as possible the Russians ability to fight. Offensive operations should be aimed at encircling and capturing / killing as many Russians as possible.. Hurt them. Territory retaken can again be retaken again by the Russians. Although the ultimate objective is the liberating of captured territory , the stratedgy and tactics for doing this must first concentrate on destroying the enemies abilty to fight.

 

This was understood by Grant and Lincoln in the American Civil War. After 4 years of indecisive battles , Grant finally applied maths and attrition to defeat the Confederacy.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Denim said:

Did you ever hear about a little thing called the second world war. ? Germany had to pay reparations but they were given a long time ( on interest ) to repay.

Yea but Germany did not have nuclear weapons. 

23 minutes ago, swissie said:

Who has more monetary/military/personal resources? Not the Ukraine. So, who will win the war?

It all depends On what each side considers winning to be. The question is, what are the objectives?

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yea but Germany did not have nuclear weapons. 

Neither has Ukraine. Russia has them but behind the scenes both sides are in contact trying to prevent the pointless use of nuclear weapons.

 

What does Russia / Putin think. They can have a free pop at Ukraine / the West with nuclear weapons and this will lead to victory ??? That Nato and Ukraine will buckle and say  ' Ok Ok we surrender. We did not know how far you would go. We give in. Do with us as you see fit '  

 

Dream on. If they go nuclear you can bet there will be a response in kind. There has to be. If not....lie down belly up and watch Russia go further west.

14 minutes ago, Denim said:

Did you ever hear about a little thing called the second world war. ? Germany had to pay reparations but they were given a long time ( on interest ) to repay.

 

It will be the same when this war ends. The bill does not have to be paid immediately. It it stretched out to be painless.

 

The war will go on . Neither side can back down. 

 

IMO , the Ukraine should shelve plans to retake it's territory as a priority. More important is to hamper as much as possible the Russians ability to fight. Offensive operations should be aimed at encircling and capturing / killing as many Russians as possible.. Hurt them. Territory retaken can again be retaken again by the Russians. Although the ultimate objective is the liberating of captured territory , the stratedgy and tactics for doing this must first concentrate on destroying the enemies abilty to fight.

 

This was understood by Grant and Lincoln in the American Civil War. After 4 years of indecisive battles , Grant finally applied maths and attrition to defeat the Confederacy.

 

 

Will any of what you posted change anything what I said in "final analysis" in the OP? = No!

19 minutes ago, Denim said:

Did you ever hear about a little thing called the second world war. ? Germany had to pay reparations but they were given a long time ( on interest ) to repay.

 

It will be the same when this war ends. The bill does not have to be paid immediately. It it stretched out to be painless.

 

The war will go on . Neither side can back down. 

 

IMO , the Ukraine should shelve plans to retake it's territory as a priority. More important is to hamper as much as possible the Russians ability to fight. Offensive operations should be aimed at encircling and capturing / killing as many Russians as possible.. Hurt them. Territory retaken can again be retaken again by the Russians. Although the ultimate objective is the liberating of captured territory , the stratedgy and tactics for doing this must first concentrate on destroying the enemies abilty to fight.

 

This was understood by Grant and Lincoln in the American Civil War. After 4 years of indecisive battles , Grant finally applied maths and attrition to defeat the Confederacy.

 

 

In case of "rebuilding Germany". This was the "Marshall-Plan". Never affecting the US Taxpayer, as the funds were borrowed from "credit markets", At a time when the US "financial health" was beyound any questioning. Times have changed, as rating agencies have downgraded US Government dept. Same in Europe. "Rinse and repeat" not possible this time around.

The idea that you can have a "final" analysis of the Ukraine - Russia war at this time is laughable.

 

 

5 hours ago, swissie said:

The final analysis.

Who has more monetary/military/personal resources? Not the Ukraine. So, who will win the war?

The Ukraine will not have the financial capabilitis to rebuild their country after the war.

The "western" Taxpayers will be thrilled to hear that they will pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine. Or what's left of it. Surely, the western taxpayers will gladly sell their family silver to pay for the rebuilding of the Ukraine.

"Who has more monetary/military/personal resources? Not the Ukraine. So, who will win the war?"

 

Is that how the Soviet Union defeated Afghanistan?

 

"The "western" Taxpayers will be thrilled to hear that they will pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine."

 

The west can make the initial payments using assets seized from Russia then charge very heavy taxes on energy and any other Russian exports to cover future costs.

 

 

On 7/22/2023 at 5:55 PM, Jingthing said:

The idea that you can have a "final" analysis of the Ukraine - Russia war at this time is laughable.

 

 

Indeed, there is something laughable about this war of attricion. A country with 24 million  inhabitants, trying to wage a (defensive) war against a country with 6 times the "personnel". Who will run out of "personnel" first?

Finally: The crimea and eastern Ukraine will be "Russian Territory" (there, they speak Russian and "feel" Russian, not Ukrainian). Has been like this for centuries.

In the aftermath, confronted with huge "rebuilding costs" , to be payed with money from the EU/US will further destabilise already fragile "western democracies". This time around, "western taxpayers" will not go along, as eastern european countries are detaching themselves further from "democratic values" on a monthly basis, while asking for more money from "the western countries." (Poland, Hungary mainly).

At some point, "peace talks" will take place. Russia will keep the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. Russia will be financially "hurt". The Ukraine will be bankrupt.

For "the West" the best scenario. All other scenarios would be far worse for "the West".

PS: Why start "a counter offensive" without the necessary air-cover? Undersupplyed with weaponery and personnel. Indeed, laughable warfare. But from wich side?

 

1 hour ago, swissie said:

Indeed, there is something laughable about this war of attricion. A country with 24 million  inhabitants, trying to wage a (defensive) war against a country with 6 times the "personnel". Who will run out of "personnel" first?

Finally: The crimea and eastern Ukraine will be "Russian Territory" (there, they speak Russian and "feel" Russian, not Ukrainian). Has been like this for centuries.

In the aftermath, confronted with huge "rebuilding costs" , to be payed with money from the EU/US will further destabilise already fragile "western democracies". This time around, "western taxpayers" will not go along, as eastern european countries are detaching themselves further from "democratic values" on a monthly basis, while asking for more money from "the western countries." (Poland, Hungary mainly).

At some point, "peace talks" will take place. Russia will keep the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. Russia will be financially "hurt". The Ukraine will be bankrupt.

For "the West" the best scenario. All other scenarios would be far worse for "the West".

PS: Why start "a counter offensive" without the necessary air-cover? Undersupplyed with weaponery and personnel. Indeed, laughable warfare. But from wich side?

 

My post immediately preceding this one addresses many of you comments.

On 7/23/2023 at 3:45 AM, heybruce said:

"Who has more monetary/military/personal resources? Not the Ukraine. So, who will win the war?"

 

Is that how the Soviet Union defeated Afghanistan?

 

"The "western" Taxpayers will be thrilled to hear that they will pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine."

 

The west can make the initial payments using assets seized from Russia then charge very heavy taxes on energy and any other Russian exports to cover future costs.

 

 

I have said before,"when this over over russia will supply cheap gas and oil to the West to make up for all of the financial damage they have done".

The Ukraine already has retaken 50% of the land back.

Russia will fall apart into smaller countries and Belarus will join Nato and the EU.

This all will take a lot of time of course and maybe i just hope too much but russia can not be allowed to win.

The russian economy is going not well and putin just changed the law that allows even older recrutes to be called upon.

Take a country like Switserland,too chicken to support either side.

Final analyses will not be made until a much later date.

 

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by jvs

We're a long way from final analysis. I doubt Putin will ever give up so until he's incapacitated this stupid war will continue. 

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by Furioso
it was just a small error, I swear.

On 7/22/2023 at 10:45 PM, heybruce said:

"Who has more monetary/military/personal resources? Not the Ukraine. So, who will win the war?"

 

Is that how the Soviet Union defeated Afghanistan?

 

"The "western" Taxpayers will be thrilled to hear that they will pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine."

 

The west can make the initial payments using assets seized from Russia then charge very heavy taxes on energy and any other Russian exports to cover future costs.

 

 

Afghanistan: Mountainous terrain, favoring guerilla warfare. Not the guerillas, but the US-"stinger" ground to air missiles defeated the Russians. Not to be compared with the Ukranian terrain, favoring conventional warfare.

What Russian Assets can be seized, have been seized already. Even the 11ent "sanction-package" has no major effect on the Russian economy. Russian exports heve already been re-directed to other parts of the world.

 

Flash news. The Ukraine sends more "fresh-fighters" to the front.

 

New law in Russia will allow for 700'000 more Russian "fresh-fighters". Who will have more "fresh-fighters" on the battlefield?

On 7/22/2023 at 10:54 PM, swissie said:

This was the "Marshall-Plan". Never affecting the US Taxpayer, as the funds were borrowed from "credit markets"

The Europeon Recovery Program commonly called the Marshall Plan passed by congress in 1948, would end up costing more than 12 billion dollars in US taxpayer money. That BTW was one of the main arguments against it used by the Taft led Republican party who opposed Trumans program.

On 7/25/2023 at 10:24 PM, jvs said:

I have said before,"when this over over russia will supply cheap gas and oil to the West to make up for all of the financial damage they have done".

The Ukraine already has retaken 50% of the land back.

Russia will fall apart into smaller countries and Belarus will join Nato and the EU.

This all will take a lot of time of course and maybe i just hope too much but russia can not be allowed to win.

The russian economy is going not well and putin just changed the law that allows even older recrutes to be called upon.

Take a country like Switserland,too chicken to support either side.

Final analyses will not be made until a much later date.

 

Quote: "Take a country like Switserland,too chicken to support either side".

 

This is called "Neutrality".
Imagine every country practicing "neutrality". Neutral countries not attacking other neutral countries. The only pathway to world peace. Not going to happen.

13 minutes ago, swissie said:

Quote: "Take a country like Switserland,too chicken to support either side".

 

This is called "Neutrality".
Imagine every country practicing "neutrality". Neutral countries not attacking other neutral countries. The only pathway to world peace. Not going to happen.

And yet Switserland sells arms and made a nice profit selling weapons to the Ukraine.Call yourself neutral? I know it is not a lot but pretending to be moral here?Fail.Just like they were "Neutral"in the second world war?I call it being chicken.

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by jvs

24 minutes ago, swissie said:

Flash news. The Ukraine sends more "fresh-fighters" to the front.

 

New law in Russia will allow for 700'000 more Russian "fresh-fighters". Who will have more "fresh-fighters" on the battlefield?

Yes russia has ,very fresh fighters,it took the changing of a law to be able to call up

"fresh fighters" up to 65 years of age.Send them with no training,not enough arms and ammo and not even enough food and water.

 

The Ukraine on the other hand has real fresh fighters,trained in the West and with superior equipment.

Ukrainian soldiers are also rotated and give r&r.

Go Ukraine!!!!!

 

14 minutes ago, swissie said:

Quote: "Take a country like Switserland,too chicken to support either side".

 

This is called "Neutrality".
Imagine every country practicing "neutrality". Neutral countries not attacking other neutral countries. The only pathway to world peace. Not going to happen.

 

6 minutes ago, jvs said:

And yet Switserland sells arms and made a nice profit selling weapons to the Ukraine.Call yourself neutral? I know it is not a lot but pretending to be moral here?Fail.

 

Switzerland realises that it can't remain neutral in the face of Russian aggression and war crimes.

1 hour ago, Dcheech said:

The Europeon Recovery Program commonly called the Marshall Plan passed by congress in 1948, would end up costing more than 12 billion dollars in US taxpayer money. That BTW was one of the main arguments against it used by the Taft led Republican party who opposed Trumans program.

Shortly after the US Treasury sold an equal amount of Treasury Bills/Bonds. US and foreighn investors bought them eagerly.

 

1 hour ago, jvs said:

And yet Switserland sells arms and made a nice profit selling weapons to the Ukraine.Call yourself neutral? I know it is not a lot but pretending to be moral here?Fail.Just like they were "Neutral"in the second world war?I call it being chicken.

There is the political Neutrality. Economic and Moral Neutrality does not exist. Nowhere. We all take sides. But if 2 countries have decided to bang each others head in, a neutral country is allowed to sell weapons to both parties.

 

Otherwise the feuding countries will find ways to get their weaponery from "non-neutral-countries".

Generally, I believe the world needs more "chickens" rather than more "war heroes".

I personnally am glad that I am part of the neutral chicken crowd in the middle of a world that worships war heros more than neutral bystanders. Once again.

20 minutes ago, swissie said:

Generally, I believe the world needs more "chickens" rather than more "war heroes".

I personnally am glad that I am part of the neutral chicken crowd in the middle of a world that worships war heros more than neutral bystanders. Once again.

Neutral or not, without the allied forces in WW2 you Swissies would now be speaking German ... Oh.

 

5 hours ago, swissie said:

Afghanistan: Mountainous terrain, favoring guerilla warfare. Not the guerillas, but the US-"stinger" ground to air missiles defeated the Russians. Not to be compared with the Ukranian terrain, favoring conventional warfare.

What Russian Assets can be seized, have been seized already. Even the 11ent "sanction-package" has no major effect on the Russian economy. Russian exports heve already been re-directed to other parts of the world.

 

Afghanistan:  Very poor, backwards, thinly populated country that doesn't want to be dominated by outsiders.

 

Ukraine:  Comparatively prosperous, modern, populated country that doesn't want to be dominated by outsiders.

 

Russia's economy, well:

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/russia-economy-putin-gdp-forecast-ukraine-war-western-sanctions-oil-2023-4?op=1

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/russia-economy-worsens-current-account-ruble-energy-exports-2023-7?op=1

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/31/1176769042/russia-economy-brain-drain-oil-prices-flee-ukraine-invasion

 

History is full of examples of smaller powers outlasting greater powers.  That's how the US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan, how Russia lost in Afghanistan, how colonial powers lost to their colonies (including Britain to the US in the 18th century) and how Yemen is currently getting the better of Saudi Arabia. 

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by heybruce

It infuriates me that peoples lack of  sense and knowledge of history is so poor, Bending over for bullies  or trying to negotiate with despots  and being weak kneed appeasers , will only bring about a worse outcome look what happened in 1930 s that emboldened  hitler , Mussolini and Franco   lots of  history going back 6000  years to dawn of civilizations  tells same story  ,, bullies need to be crushed ,, only then will peace be attainable ,, unfortunately Human nature will never change so the wars will continue  and same mistakes will keep repeating , humans  have not evolved mentally or emotionally only our technology has evolved .

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by liddelljohn

7 hours ago, swissie said:

There is the political Neutrality. Economic and Moral Neutrality does not exist. Nowhere. We all take sides. But if 2 countries have decided to bang each others head in, a neutral country is allowed to sell weapons to both parties.

 

Otherwise the feuding countries will find ways to get their weaponery from "non-neutral-countries".

Generally, I believe the world needs more "chickens" rather than more "war heroes".

I personnally am glad that I am part of the neutral chicken crowd in the middle of a world that worships war heros more than neutral bystanders. Once again.

You are wrong on so many aspects here,for one,you are not a hero when you defend your country from the likes of Putin.You do what you have to do.

What if putin invaded Switserland?Would you like to see other countries say"oh well?"

Switserland takes the money but does not want to chose sides.

You call it what you feel comfortable with i call it what it is.

 

13 hours ago, swissie said:

What Russian Assets can be seized, have been seized already. Even the 11ent "sanction-package" has no major effect on the Russian economy. Russian exports heve already been re-directed to other parts of the world.

Yet the Russians are saying if sanctions are lifted they will return to the grain deal with Ukraine.  No major effect? Ha!  Russia is hurting bigly from the sanctions.  Even when they can export goods, they are having problems getting paid for them, hence the price cutting, and payments in either roubles or the importer's currency - which they are still having problems repatriating to Russia.

 

"In a letter to U.N. officials in March, Russia spelled out the demands it wants met in exchange for its continued cooperation in the grain deal:

- Moscow wants the Russian Agricultural Bank (Rosselkhozbank) reconnected to the SWIFT payments system. The bank was cut off from SWIFT by the European Union in June last year over Russia's invasion. An EU spokesperson has said the bloc is not considering the reinstatement of Russian banks...

 

...Russia also wants a resumption of supplies to Russia of agricultural machinery and spare parts; lifting restrictions on insurance and access to ports for Russian ships and cargo; and unblocking accounts and financial activities of Russian fertilizer companies."

 

Explainer: What is Russia's problem with the Black Sea grain deal? | Reuters

 

 

Edited July 30, 20232 yr by ballpoint

3 hours ago, jvs said:

You are wrong on so many aspects here,for one,you are not a hero when you defend your country from the likes of Putin.You do what you have to do.

What if putin invaded Switserland?Would you like to see other countries say"oh well?"

Switserland takes the money but does not want to chose sides.

You call it what you feel comfortable with i call it what it is.

 

Perfidious.

13 hours ago, swissie said:

There is the political Neutrality. Economic and Moral Neutrality does not exist. Nowhere. We all take sides. But if 2 countries have decided to bang each others head in, a neutral country is allowed to sell weapons to both parties.

 

Otherwise the feuding countries will find ways to get their weaponery from "non-neutral-countries".

Generally, I believe the world needs more "chickens" rather than more "war heroes".

I personnally am glad that I am part of the neutral chicken crowd in the middle of a world that worships war heros more than neutral bystanders. Once again.

I am sure that the World Jewish Congress would argue differently about the existence of 'Economic and Moral Neutrality'.

On 7/30/2023 at 11:49 AM, LosLobo said:

. But if 2 countries have decided to bang each others head in, a neutral country is allowed to sell weapons to both parties.

Correct me if i am wrong but imo the Ukraine did not ask to be invaded

and have innocent people killed by the russians.

Sorry i just see the name above this and realize it is not Loslobo who said this.

Edited August 1, 20232 yr by jvs