How much longer can Ukraine hold out? The British say, "Not much longer".

submitted by jerryk from self.WorldNews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fkK42nJjtQ

Russia is advancing on all fronts, and pummeling Ukrainian infrastructure with a ferocity which will make it virtually impossible for Ukrainians to survive the coming long, hard winter. Russians, of course, love winter offensives, so, the rate of advance is only likely to increase in the coming winter.

By this stage, of course, NATO has essentially given up on the notion that Ukraine can mount effective counteroffensives, as Russia quite systematically liquidates all Ukrainians in their supposed "invasion" of Russia in Kursk. There was never any rush about this, of course, it was always quite clear the Ukrainians there weren't going anywhere, except to the graveyard, of course.

By this time, the only hope of a NATO/Ukrainian victory has been based on the "overwhelming" Russian casualties reported by Ukraine, which, supposedly, would make Russia quite literally run out of manpower within a year or two. That these casualty figures have been exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude is rarely discussed in the Western media. I'm old enough to remember the "body counts" from the Vietnam War, and, we all knew how much those were worth!

Another possibility suggested is that the Russian economy is about to collapse. The problem here, is that the Russian economy is now growing faster than any other in the industrialized world.

A third possibility for "victory" for NATO/Ukraine, is that democratically elected Vladimir Putin is actually a brutal dictator, so extremely unpopular in Russia that he will be overwhelmed by a popular revolt. However, the problem with this hypothesis is that Putin was just elected with 80% popular support, about double the best any NATO leader has currently, and his support is quite steady among Russians, despite some rather limited opposition to his highly effective rule.

Finally, there's always the hope of a military coup against Putin. However, given the successes of his military on the battlefield, and the general prosperity of Russia currently, and Putin's high level of popularity, this possibility does seem rather more remote than coups in the NATO nations, doesn't it?

So, is this NATO backed war in Ukraine about to mercifully end itself? The British seem to think so, and nobody hates the Russians like the British, do they?

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Dune1032 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If the US gives Ukraine permission to strike deep in Russia with its weapons, Ukraine might be able to hold on for a long time.

[–]jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Maybe. However, Russia would likely retaliate by sending agents to blow up U.S. factories in the U.S., like they're doing in Europe, which is why the U.S. isn't doing this.

If you say "that would be an act of war", Russia would say "yeah, so what?"

[–]Dune1032 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

War might be unavoidable. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, France and Britain declared war on Germany but did nothing. They should have attacked Germany from the west while much of Germany's forces was in Poland. The result of this defensive strategy was that Germany invaded France in 1940, and France considered one of the world's most powerful countries in the world surrendered in 6 weeks.

[–]jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Actually, the French didn't have the right military equipment or support systems in place to attack Germany from the West, with any success, at all. They had invested exclusively in defensive systems, so, they might have done a little damage, but, the Germans would have easily repelled the attack.

[–]Dune1032 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

No, the French SOMUA S-35 and Char B1 were excellent tanks. However, the German ME 109 was superior to the French and British fighters. However, much of Germany's military was in Poland and the French had the British helping them.

[–]jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's a complex question, but, most of the accounts I've read suggest the French simply wouldn't have had the support to invade Germany. You need transport trucks for fuel and ammunition, they didn't have them.

[–]Dune1032 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The problem was lack of will on the part of the French. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKTbhC0s5xg

[–]jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree, there was that. But, to some extent, that lack of will did translate into the lack of suitable equipment and preparation for an invasion of Germany. They really weren't in a position, in 1940, to do much more than defend France.

[–]Dune1032 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They had the equipment. It was the lack of will. In the video, it said that a single German machine gun stopped the French force for hours. The Siegfried Line was a formidable obstacle, but the French made no effort to penetrate it.

[–]jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They couldn't have penetrated very far, given the equipment they had. How could they have had proper equipment for a full invasion, if they had never wanted to invade in the first place? Defense and offense require different equipment. They would have to have been preparing for an invasion for years. They hadn't been.