Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

If there's a defeat in Ukraine, could Putin actually survive by just leaning into heavy-handed repression instead of calling for a full-scale general mobilization?
I’m not entirely certain, but I have this nagging suspicion that he was already weighing the possibility of failure before the invasion even kicked off. It seems to me he deliberately ruled out a general mobilization from the start because he assumed it wouldn't change the fundamental math of the war—all while knowing that if things went south, the political fallout from such a move would be absolutely catastrophic.

Best,

Nancy Gomez26 said:Putin is constantly presented with opportunities to 'concede' and thereby 'demonstrate good faith.' How 'honorable' those gestures actually appear to his subjects and loyalists is a completely different matter. At the end of the day, how can Zelenskyy possibly concern himself with Putin's sense of honor? The man discarded such concepts long ago, treating them like obsolete relics of a bygone civilization. Honor is a private matter for Putin alone; no one else can manage it for him. If the concept isn't wired into his very psyche, there is simply no solution.

Russia isn't a democracy.

If they pulled back tomorrow, they'd just spin it as a massive win.

It's not going to have the consequences people think it will.

Kate Lewis3 said:A loss in Ukraine is bound to shake up Russia's leadership sooner or later. It’s just history repeating itself—think about how the failure in Afghanistan shook the USSR just two years down the line.

The Russian establishment was actually much more shaken after the Mole Cricket disaster of '19.
That was really when the collapse of the USSR started to take hold, I think.

Kate Lewis3 said:A loss in Ukraine is bound to shake up Russia's leadership sooner or later. It’s just history repeating itself—think about how the failure in Afghanistan shook the USSR just two years down the line.

For the most part, people felt a sense of relief when the USSR military pulled out of Afghanistan. (Sure, war veterans caused some friction down the road, but that was just a drop in the bucket compared to the systemic issues hitting the nation.) The withdrawal from Afghanistan wasn't the direct cause of the USSR's collapse; rather, it was the sudden, drastic shift in political doctrine that the public simply couldn't process in such a short window. Perestroika and Glasnost were sound concepts in theory, but the populace didn't know how to navigate them—or perhaps, once you let the genie out of the bottle, there is no going back to the status quo. On the flip side, those reforms ran headlong into a massive bureaucratic machine that controlled every facet of the state, and those new ideas struck at the very foundation of that bureaucracy. But that is a different conversation entirely.

So, Russia just admitted to nearly 50,000 fallen soldiers ☕

Richard Wilson4 said:Russia isn't a democracy.

If they pulled back tomorrow, they'd just spin it as a massive win.

It's not going to have the consequences people think it will.

Exactly! They’ve done this repeatedly—every single defeat or retreat they suffer is rebranded as some sort of triumph or a "strategic regrouping." Just look at the last four days where they lost 2.5 miles and then Konoshenko goes on the news to frame it as an epic success, claiming they were simply "repositioning forces in the Donbas to liberate the entire region" while boasting about how many Ukrainians and foreign mercenaries, along with tons of equipment, they supposedly wiped out...

It’s always easiest for Zelensky to go after people who are just trying to keep their lights on and stay warm.
Honestly, what’s actually best for Ukraine is probably the hardest thing to pull off—some kind of compromise with Russia that still keeps the country’s borders intact. You can't rely on foreign aid forever; those countries might back you up today, but they could bail tomorrow, and then you're stuck without any peace.
If you look at the big picture, Putin’s real endgame is likely building this informal alliance between a Russian sphere of influence and the OPEC bloc (where all the real power plays happen). We really need to be thinking about that angle.

Richard Wilson4 said:Russia isn't a democracy.

If they pulled back tomorrow, they'd just spin it as a massive win.

It's not going to have the consequences people think it will.

But honestly? It will have consequences.
Massive ones.
It might not happen overnight, but long-term, I suspect it’s going to shake Russian society right to its core.

Even if the fighting wraps up by the end of the year—say, through some truce that basically resets everything back to how things were before February—Russia still walks away looking pretty beaten.

The sanctions aren't going anywhere.
Foreign companies aren't just going to pack up and come back.
Sure, gas prices might drop, but Russia won't be able to hold Europe hostage anymore because everyone will have diversified their supplies, and new tech will eventually kill off the demand anyway.
Sweden and Finland are in NATO now.
Russia's global reputation is basically non-existent.
Selling weapons is going to be an uphill battle, which is a huge problem for them since that was their biggest moneymaker after energy.
Internal unrest... maybe more separatism bubbling up...

and so on.

Richard Wilson4 said:Russia isn't a democracy.

If they pulled back tomorrow, they'd just spin it as a massive win.

It's not going to have the consequences people think it will.

Let them retreat and then let them proclaim victory over the entire world. North Korea has been a "winner" in numerous Olympics and World Cup tournaments, too. That didn't exactly do much for them in real life. There is such a thing as winning too early...
The Russian citizens know perfectly well that their government lies to them—hardly anyone pays much attention to state media anyway—they just aren't sure exactly how deep the deception goes. But they certainly know, by some miracle of informal channels and word-of-mouth, that they are currently losing badly in Ukraine.
As for consequences, there won't be any, thanks to an active system of repression designed to maintain order. Unless someone manages to turn that repressive apparatus against the leadership itself, there is no chance of changing the regime. Russians have a century of experience in this regard; you shouldn't expect the system of repression to simply collapse on its own. It requires an external catalyst—perhaps using that repressive system as an army in a war, where a significant number perish and the survivors return home defeated. That is a different story entirely.

Timothy Nelson5 said:The Russian establishment was actually much more shaken after the Mole Cricket disaster of '19.
That was really when the collapse of the USSR started to take hold, I think.

Nancy Gomez26 said:For the most part, people felt a sense of relief when the USSR military pulled out of Afghanistan. (Sure, war veterans caused some friction down the road, but that was just a drop in the bucket compared to the systemic issues hitting the nation.) The withdrawal from Afghanistan wasn't the direct cause of the USSR's collapse; rather, it was the sudden, drastic shift in political doctrine that the public simply couldn't process in such a short window. Perestroika and Glasnost were sound concepts in theory, but the populace didn't know how to navigate them—or perhaps, once you let the genie out of the bottle, there is no going back to the status quo. On the flip side, those reforms ran headlong into a massive bureaucratic machine that controlled every facet of the state, and those new ideas struck at the very foundation of that bureaucracy. But that is a different conversation entirely.

My point is, every single setback—and look, let's call a loss a loss, they failed to "denazify" or "demilitarize" Ukraine—is just an excuse for the current elites to dodge accountability.

They've backed themselves into a corner. To them, any peace deal that doesn't put the Russian government in charge of Kyiv is seen as a total surrender.

And realistically? This conflict ends with Crimea being liberated, no matter how much people whine about it. Maybe the Ukrainian units won't be charging through the streets, but nothing's going to be left standing once the Ukrainians start HIMARS-ing everything in sight.

Look, you gotta realize the Russian economy is actually smaller than Italy's. It’s hardly an economic superpower, even with all those resources they claim to have. Just look at the car industry—because of the sanctions, they've produced 97% fewer vehicles this year compared to last year in Russia.

Henry Rodriguez5 said:So, Russia just admitted to nearly 50,000 fallen soldiers ☕

48,759 dead Russian soldiers... as of August 28th.

I guess these numbers are based on the payouts for deceased Russian citizens serving in standard military units.

But I wonder... does this count include the various Wagner Group members, foreign volunteers, or those fighters from the RAO regions—who, I suppose, make up a pretty significant chunk of the casualties?

Timothy Nelson5 said:48,759 dead Russian soldiers... as of August 28th.

I guess these numbers are based on the payouts for deceased Russian citizens serving in standard military units.

But I wonder... does this count include the various Wagner Group members, foreign volunteers, or those fighters from the RAO regions—who, I suppose, make up a pretty significant chunk of the casualties?

The guys from those outlying regions don't get any compensation.

Kate Lewis3 said:The guys from those outlying regions don't get any compensation.

I suppose their forces make up at least a quarter, maybe even a third, of all the active anti-Ukrainian units.
Probably a similar percentage when it comes to casualties, too.

Timothy Nelson5 said:I suppose their forces make up at least a quarter, maybe even a third, of all the active anti-Ukrainian units.
Probably a similar percentage when it comes to casualties, too.

I’d say it's actually higher than that. They're just getting handed all this old, junk equipment.

If things ever reach a breaking point where Russia officially declares war on Ukraine—basically moving toward full-scale martial law and total mobilization—do you think there’s a realistic chance that NATO would actually step in officially?

crimsonwolf26 said:If things ever reach a breaking point where Russia officially declares war on Ukraine—basically moving toward full-scale martial law and total mobilization—do you think there’s a realistic chance that NATO would actually step in officially?

Why bother officially entering a war when we can just stay "on the sidelines" and provide enough support to ensure Russia loses anyway? Isn't that enough?

lp

Henry Rodriguez5 said:So, Russia just admitted to nearly 50,000 fallen soldiers ☕

That’s absolutely devastating. 😲 And yet, Putin claims that he hasn't lost anything at all in this war.


What a joke.

crimsonwolf26 said:If things ever reach a breaking point where Russia officially declares war on Ukraine—basically moving toward full-scale martial law and total mobilization—do you think there’s a realistic chance that NATO would actually step in officially?

Only if they decide to touch one of NATO's own members. That's the line in the sand.

crimsonwolf26 said:If things ever reach a breaking point where Russia officially declares war on Ukraine—basically moving toward full-scale martial law and total mobilization—do you think there’s a realistic chance that NATO would actually step in officially?

And I wonder if that would actually make much of a difference in terms of boosting Russian strength.
What kind of tanks are they even going to hand out, or what about artillery and ammo supplies?
I mean, it would take them months just to get those units organized and trained up...