Frosted Flake posted:

Anyway, to recap the WW3 thread, NATO militaries are not only incredibly dependent on air MEDVAC, I would say psychologically and as an issue of morale as well, but they also have gotten really lovely at ground evacuation either by stretcher or ambulance. I would hate to see how things would go in the kind of war Ukraine is in now.

gradenko_2000 posted:

DancingShade posted:

I like how all the rationales are "and then Russia just stops advancing".

fizziest posted:

On the flip-side:

https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/west-could-live-with-frozen-ukraine-conflict-2023-11-13/

The West could live with a frozen Ukraine conflict
By Hugo Dixon
November 13, 2023 6:25 AM UTC · Updated 5 hours ago

LONDON, Nov 13 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Wars don’t always end in peace. Conflicts can also end in a stalemate, sometimes for decades. Just look at Korea and Cyprus, which have been divided for 70 and 49 years, respectively. Ukraine may be heading for a similarly frozen conflict with Russia.

This would be far from ideal for Kyiv and its allies. Ukraine would need military and economic support to shore up its defences. Western countries would also need to keep costly sanctions against Moscow in place.

But Russian President Vladimir Putin has made limited territorial gains at a massive human and economic cost. So a frozen conflict would help the West achieve – at least partly – its key geostrategic aim: to show hostile powers that it doesn’t pay to invade one of its friends.

Of course, Ukraine would prefer Russia to leave its entire territory and then make peace. But Putin is hardly going to retreat unless forced to – and the battlefield is at a stalemate, Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, said earlier this month. Although Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s office rejected that assessment, Ukraine’s president admitted everybody was getting tired.


HUNKERING DOWN
Kyiv’s allies are showing signs of fatigue. They are also distracted by the war between Israel and Hamas. U.S. President Joe Biden is struggling to persuade Congress to approve another $61 billion in military aid for Ukraine. American help for Ukraine may weaken further if former Donald Trump or another less supportive candidate wins next year’s presidential election.

Ukraine may be able to gain more territory early next year if it gets enough advanced weaponry to break the deadlock. But at some point, even Zelenskiy may conclude it’s best to save whatever gains he has made and dig in.

In a frozen conflict, Ukraine would still need to invest heavily in massive fortifications, anti-missile defence systems and technology to deter Russian attacks.

It wouldn’t be easy to build such a defensive capacity if the United States stopped providing funding. But the financial and human cost of freezing the conflict would be less than the ongoing toll of continuing to fight.

So others should over time be able to step in and fill any shortfall left by the United States. The EU would have the strongest incentive to pick up the tab, as it faces a bigger threat from Russia. The bloc would also need to keep ramping up its own defence spending.


ECONOMIC WAR

In a frozen conflict, sanctions against Russia would probably remain more or less in place. The United States and others would still ban sales of arms and high technology to Moscow, freeze $300 billion of its foreign reserves and attempt to drive down the price it receives for its oil exports.

Such economic warfare is unlikely to force Putin to the negotiating table. Sanctions haven’t caused North Korea or Iran to crumble. But when the Russian president eventually leaves the Kremlin, the economic pain might help persuade any successor to consider a peace deal that respects international law.

Sanctions initially buoyed Russia’s economy because the increase in gas and oil prices more than compensated for the reduction in the amounts it exported. The country’s current account surplus shot up to 10.5% of national income last year.

But the economic war of attrition is already biting. Russia’s current account surplus will fall to 3.4% this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has tightened capital controls and the central bank has jacked up interest rates to stop a slide in the rouble.

What’s more, the government’s fiscal deficit is expected to rise to 3.7% this year. Putin will have less money with which to curry favour with ordinary citizens, which could undermine his political support. Meanwhile, the military and technology sanctions will make it harder to modernise his army.

The sanctions regime will cost the West too. After all, European countries will not go back to buying cheap Russian gas. And the West will pay a bit more for oil because it is shunning Russian crude. But this will be a continuation of the new status quo.


REBUILDING UKRAINE

It will be harder to rebuild Ukraine’s infrastructure in a frozen conflict than if there was peace. Investors will be worried that a renewed outbreak of fighting would lead Putin to bomb their facilities.

But Western governments are working on insurance schemes to mitigate this risk. What’s more, insofar as Ukraine can build effective anti-missile systems and other defences, the risks will go down. The South Korean economy has flourished despite having a militaristic regime on its border.

The biggest opportunity is for Ukraine to join the EU, with its vast internal market. Investors would put in money even before the membership process was complete so long as they have a firm date, says Tim Ash, a strategist at BlueBay Asset Management.

After all, Ukraine has massive catch-up potential. In 1992, just after the Soviet bloc broke up, its per capita income was the same as Poland’s. Last year that figure was just 29% of its neighbour’s on a purchasing power basis. The EU would also give Ukraine cash to help it catch up with the rest of the bloc.

The fact that Ukraine would not control all its territory isn’t a block to membership. Cyprus joined despite being split in two. So did West Germany, with the eastern part of the country only entering the club after the Soviet Union collapsed.

The European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, has recommended launching formal talks on membership provided Kyiv satisfies several remaining conditions, including reining in corruption. EU leaders are due to consider this proposal next month.

They would be wise to say yes. Putin invaded Ukraine partly to stop it joining the West. Helping it flourish would further ram home the folly of his aggression.

mawarannahr posted:

parallel belden

VoicesCanBe posted:

Does this guy understand that the conflict freezing would require both sides to stop attacking. Ukraine and NATO can't just magically declare the conflict frozen and will it into being.

I find it extremely funny that a total amateur like myself understands the basics of grand strategy better than people whose expertise is allegedly in that field

DancingShade posted:

They're still in the first stage of grief - denial.

DancingShade posted:

I like how all the rationales are "and then Russia just stops advancing".

Nonsense posted:

nothing but blue checks patting themselves on the back. Ukraine is finished.

Frosted Flake posted:

Forget trying to account for who wouldn't make it to Role III or Landstuhl, which is probably a grim statistic, try to picture light, lean, modern NATO combat organizations finding the extra personnel to send out as stretcher parties by night.

Ukraine has never seemed to be very good at this, though not for the same reason. Their medical services give me the impression of being a bit slapdash, with their civilian hospital system and requisitioned civilian vehicles doing a lot of the heavy lifting.

Frosted Flake posted:

So, what I want to zero in on, because most of that is ideological and I understand the wishy washy bullshit, is:

"4. Unstable oil and gas markets and increased global conflicts exacerbated by Russia will continue to cause economic problems at including inflation "

I would love to know what they mean by "Ukrainian victory" if they think it will let them control Russia's energy exports. Dying to know more about this principled defence of a democracy under siege, where if we lose we can't control another country's natural resources.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Anarchic Aesthete
Columnist @tabletmag
@ForeignPolicy
Fellow @AtlanticCouncil
Founding Editor @theodessareview
Author of “From Odessa with Love”

Ardennes posted:

The Russians don't even need to really attack, they could simply keep firing their guns until there is no one left to fill the trenches in front of them (which is mostly their strategy already). Basically, they have to figure out a way for Russia to throw in the towel just because.

Tom Guycot posted:

Oh god, you mean theres a lil' Bandara fail child running around??

stephenthinkpad posted:

Do we need more Kennedy conspiracies?

KomradeX posted:

Even last year after Ukraine's success and dumb rear end like me made the World War 1 connection that as long as Russia is on Ukrainian soil they will win. But you get these dumb asses spinning fantasies of victories, or turning Ukraine into Korea a divided society destroyed by the United States. Materialism might as well be a super power

Frosted Flake posted:

So, what I want to zero in on, because most of that is ideological and I understand the wishy washy bullshit, is:

"4. Unstable oil and gas markets and increased global conflicts exacerbated by Russia will continue to cause economic problems at including inflation "

I would love to know what they mean by "Ukrainian victory" if they think it will let them control Russia's energy exports. Dying to know more about this principled defence of a democracy under siege, where if we lose we can't control another country's natural resources.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

also, a defeated and presumably economicly devestated Russia would certainly not destabilize oil and gas markets

Ardennes posted:

The Russians don't even need to really attack, they could simply keep firing their guns until there is no one left to fill the trenches in front of them (which is mostly their strategy already). Basically, they have to figure out a way for Russia to throw in the towel just because.

gradenko_2000 posted:

when did 60 minutes turn into complete tabloid bullshit

euphronius posted:

But at some point, even Zelenskiy may conclude it’s best to save whatever gains he has made and dig in.

?????????

?????

Ardennes posted:

The Russians don't even need to really attack, they could simply keep firing their guns until there is no one left to fill the trenches in front of them (which is mostly their strategy already). Basically, they have to figure out a way for Russia to throw in the towel just because.

Regarde Aduck posted:

western leaders always use nightmare countries as their example of a future utopia

boris told Zelensky that if they do good, they might get to be Dubai
Zelensky himself wants to be 'big Israel'
This article thinks Ukraine should aspire to be Korea, a divided country with the south ran by a fascist junta for a couple of decades and now faces accelerating levels of inequality and poverty

I mean the Korea one is pretty likely tbh. The country is going to be a nightmare for 90% of people and a lawless paradise for the rich because they'll get to treat everyone around them as disposable meat.

VoicesCanBe posted:

Hypothetically if it's like 2030 and the frontlines still have barely moved I could maybe see Russia begin to consider cutting their losses and going home.

But Ukraine is politically and militarily going to fall to pieces long before that.

DancingShade posted:

By 2030 Ukraine will be completely depopulated owing to the whole population being conscripted and herded into trenches.

sum posted:

Maybe FF has something to say about this but my understanding is that bombardments that happen without assaults typically are much less effective at causing casualties, since the enemy has no reason to come out of their dugouts. There's definitely a scenario where Russia can't passively cause enough casualties to cause Ukraine to collapse but also can't build a sufficient advantage in manpower and firepower to sustain an offensive with a politically acceptable number of casualties.

OhFunny posted:

We'll see how things develop over the next few days, but it's looking like the AFU has exhausted its offensive potential near Bakhmut and are pulling back.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

lol

https://twitter.com/WizardSX0/status/1724203037420392835