Fossil fuel are cheap because they're cheap, renewables are expensive because they're expensive, pissing taxpayers money away won't change that but it will tank your economy.
dp
Ukraine doesn't want to capture Russian territory, they want Russia off their territory. This isn't 1945
Lets look at this from another angle. The West (via NATO) has been involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria over the past 2 decades. How have those wars turned out, any complete victory to report after two decades. Lot's of treasure spent, whose standard of living has increased in that time?
OK let's look at them. Taking the BS reasons why they kicked the wars off out of it, the "West" took Afghanistan and held far more of it than Russia did on its attempt. The also lost a fifth of the combatants that Russia did in half the time period the West was there. The Iraq war was over in under a month and the US and Allies lost only a couple of hundred men. Compare and contrast with the farce that has been the Russian military's invasion.
And yep they all lost to some degree or other, or completely. Why? For the very same reason the Russians will lose this one. They were in someone else's land and they weren't wanted. But again compare and contrast the military effectiveness. Forget the Russians for a moment. If NATO had gone into Ukraine as an invasion force, do you really believe they wouldn't have taken Kyiv and locked down most of the country by now?
How do you think the West will react to a weak Russia that refuses to trade with them?
By doing what they're already doing now, pivoting away from what Russia sells. Which is essentially raw resources, they produce bugger all finished goods of any value. Even their "friends" China, who give two fecks for Mother Russia has more back and forth trade with Thailand than with Russia. You seem to forget that before the wall came down the old Soviet Union which was much larger with more people was in effect not trading with the West after the second world war.
Do you not think that the temptation would be to assemble an EU army and invade Russia?
Only in the mind of a Kremlinite that just dropped high power blotter acid. Easily swayed Russians might believe this kinda nonsense, because their leaders want them to, but Europe doesn't.
It should have been clear to putin early on when the Swiss of all people looked to the west, the EU and NATO rather than them. Even the English whose capital city is paved with the stolen gold of Russian oligarchs for decades thought feck this.
The scattergun method of coping. Interesting.
Governments will have to tax fossil fuels much higher and make clean energy much more affordable and people will then switch. Yes, it will take time, maybe 5, 10 or more years to be fully achieved, but it will happen
Who claims the spoils of a defeated Russia? Recent Blitzkrieg tactics success aside in one part of the region, the war had become a stagnant trench warfare type grind with neither having the momentum to finish off the other in a timely manner. That has to come to an end somehow, in World War I it came to an end when the Americans poured fresh troops in and exhausted the Germans, if they had not it is likely the countries would have come to an agreement among themselves. In Russia and Ukraine, the authorities have silenced most opposition to them, and the ordinary citizen understands very well the pressure that can be applied if they step out of line, so the Russians can continue the grind albeit with reduced ambitions.
There is no evidence that the Russian economy is grinding to a halt, there is however evidence that Western Europe may be ground down by a depression caused by lack of material to run it's industries economically.
Wars don't last forever and at current rate it maybe the early 2030s before we have economic stability returned to Europe. So the question is what does a long lasting peaceful resolution look like?
You can't really have a complete victory against an insurgency - insurgent groups don't play by the usual rules of engagement unless it suits them - and it's insurgent groups who the US has been facing off against in those Middle Eastern countries after the conventional military phases ended. If the insurgents have the will to fight, even massively outgunned, they can make an occupation an expensive and virtually impossible task over a long enough period of time. There's little political will in the US right now to get involved in another situation like that, but it's no skin off their nose to donate a load of big time weaponry to an ally in order to best an enemy in a conventional war, and they're not even losing any of their own troops in the process.
As for Russia adopting scorched earth tactics - if they could, they would. I doubt it's been their scrupulous nature holding them back from that so far. Maybe they were too busy deporting children and executing people in Bucha to really give it much thought, though, idk.
No, I can't see reason why 'Europe' or the 'EU' would assemble an army and invade Russia. That is assuming it returns to being a relatively normal stable state. If it maintains itself as a terrorist state attacking it's neighbours, then maybe but unlikely as that gets very expensive.
This war has being caused by Russian dreams of restoring some or all of the former USSR. The Brits and other empires have accepted the decline of their territories over time. It's clear that Russian nationalists haven't to date.
The sooner that idea is knocked from their heads the better for everyone.
And no, I don't believe this war was caused by NATO expansion.
...or a ground floor apartment
@Pa ElGrande How do you think the West will react to a weak Russia that refuses to trade with them? Do you not think that the temptation would be to assemble an EU army and invade Russia.
Put down the bottle
One of their primary functions was to ensure that the ordinary front line Russian soldiers did not decide to retreat, or even worse, surrender. They had a choice, face the enemy and take your chances, or retreat and face certain death. So it would appear that the Russian Soldiers who had been bearing the brunt of the fighting got a little tired of the Kadyrov's bullying.
Well in fairness, he's consistent anyway in terms of lavish threats. Not sure that calling for the demise of your own military commanders is very wise though. Maybe he has very good security.
The question is less about reserves and more about what the hell where they thinking in leaving that area apparently so badly defended? It seems the Ukrainians had to do little actual engaging going by the sheer speed they've been taking villages, towns, roads and land. The Russian forces seem to have just given up and legged it for whatever reason and while leaving a goodly chunk of free weapons and military vehicles behind. That's not much of an orderly retreat. Their defence collapsed and they ran. All this goes triple if they have the reserves they claim.
They either don't have the extra capacity, or their commanders are complete amateurs, or a little from column A and a little from column B. Even the usual pro Russian types online have gone from talking about clever tactics and/or blaming delays or failures on NATO help, to blaming the Russian command structure itself. If I were a Russian soldier I'd be very much wondering what the hell is going on. That goes for those down in the south too.
How do you think the West will react to a weak Russia that refuses to trade with them? Do you not think that the temptation would be to assemble an EU army and invade Russia? Or how about a scenario where Russia is losing and goes all out scorched earth and starts adopt American tactics to systematically take out the civilian infrastructure (water, electricity, transport) in Ukraine? Would the political pressure become greater across Europe for a more direct intervention (humanitarian aid), albeit it would take them 2 to 3 years to reorganise the European economy around war production.
But aren't these conditions purely hypothetical? We have no idea where america would draw red line regarding support. I certainly would support it, you cant hamstring your ally in this way and let them take constant bombardment from russian positions that they can only threathen with counter artillery/rockets. Its a completely unfair condition, the russians have no such constraint.
They don't have to move troops in ,but they can also encourage resupply runs to further the humiliation on the russians
I think he means "a few people here might find it interesting"
@Pa ElGrande The Russian administration is not about to lose this .
They lost the moment they rolled into ukraine,they are losing more today,they will keep on losing until they have been completely removed from Ukraine.
There is not mighty Russian army to come to the rescue.
I suspect that would be a major no no. As part of the "rules" of this proxy war support from the US and the rest would be not to go into and put boots on the ground in Russia herself(missiles are "allowed" as part of the proxy stuff). That would trigger Russia to be able to claim an invasion of Russia and escalate(I know, but Russian "logic") and would likely cause the western support to be challenged and even reduced. I'd be very surprised if the higher ups in the Ukrainian government and military haven't given direct and clear orders NOT to do anything like this.
There is an easy way to hold territory & win over the locals. Give them no corruption, free elections & western standards.
Do they really need to go there if they can bring it under sustained accurate artillery fire ,without getting shot up themselves, I don't know the ground though .. Belgerod was originally a defensive fortress that controlled the land around it from tartar attacks ( hundreds of years ago ) ,so it may be a very defensible position ,
Moving troops across the border would be completely different.
They are completely justified in crossing a border to assail a region that is supplying an invasion against them and firing ballistics at them. They wont lose support for that. Furthermore, the influence of europe is being overstated, it's great to have them onside but sure if Germany or France or Hungary or the faroe islands have a problem they can end their support, as long as the americans are supporting(which appears to be one of the few projects with bi-partisan support) and the Ukrainians still have the heart and man power to continue fighting, they will not stop. This is nothing to america, they spend the guts of a trillion a year on defense, this is value for money from their perspective.
And yet they have been attacking Belgorod for months
Time is not on Russias side,
Lend Lease kicks in from this October, nato trained troops also start rotating back then.
In meantime China only offering half the price for Russian gas take it or leave it, others will follow as no way would India want to pay more than their enemies
Have to laugh at those that suggest Russia can out muscle the West financially. The West is far more innovative than the one trick pony Russia. It will be fine for energy. Either way the West won’t be blackmailed by terrorists.
The US won’t let them make that move. Question is, will the Americans let them take Crimea or even all of the Donbas.
There's no need for the Ukrainian army to make any incursion into Russia. It has always been about liberating Ukraine.
Ebb and flow of battlefields. Aside from current activity, Ukrainian economy is in taters. Russia holds territory that is 70%+ of their GDP, not to mention the interlocking between the Russian and Ukrainian companies pre-war. They are dependent on Western Europe and the United States and the political ground will change over the course of the year. Russia can drag this out and the longer it does the more countries from the EU get directly involved. It's obvious the Russian administration have achieved none of the objectives they intended (yet). Western Europe needs energy and raw materials from Russia and Belarus, otherwise heavy industry shuts down, there is an incentive for both sides to find a face saving way out of this situation.
Putin will be gone in 2024, who replaces him then? If he loses face sooner are the hard liners going to come to a deal? To my mind it makes sense to look for a deal.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
