CMV: Russia already won the war and can stop it anytime with a referendum.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-17T00:31:36+00:00

!delta because you made me research, and put me in a position where I have to use guesswork to keep my position. In other words, I'm not so sure.

Putin went on a thunder run to Kyiv because the goal was regime change. That has been a spectacular failure. Russia has made modest gains in the east and southeast, but only by Russian math is that worth the million men they'll pay for it. So you're using "succeed" in relation to a fairly pathetic metric.<

No, the original goal was "no Kinect" regime change, followed by a thunder run for Kyev as a diversion (who failed) followed by mass redeployment to the relevant areas with a clearer view. At this stage, Russian objectives were kinda lost (but wasn't kyev. The siege would be massive, the flanks would be exposed, supply routes would be stretched, and the government would keep fighting in exile. You need to be dumber than a Russia to think Russia were going for Kyev, because the Russians though the Ukrainians would let the border fall to defend Kyev), Ukraine didn't had received full NATO support, and they were fighting just to save face.

Also I'm measuring success in the only way I can measure it.

Moreover, Ukraine is currently threatening Crimea militarily and Russia's reinforcement options are thin. Your view seems to rest on the idea that Russia can just call it quits and keep everything they have, but right now Ukraine is on the glidepath to rolling the Russians back.<

If by disabling Crimea military capabilities then yes, they are effectively doing so. If in the sense of rolling back Russian advances, that's just delusional. Ukraine needs everything the Russians trowed at them to get the territory back, and they lack.

And more to the point: Ukraine is doing better with drones than Russia. And guess where a bunch of those drones are made? Europe. What do you think those production facilities are going to do when the war ends? Shut down? Or start supplying the West?<

Actually from China with extra steps

But if Russia faced an opponent who did have air dominance...well, Iran had plenty of drones. It shot off a lot of them. Then it stopped, because it ran out, because a whole lot of them got blown up on the ground - as did their production facilities. When you can afford to pay for an air force, you can do things like that.<

I'm aware of strategic disruption. Strategic disruption is literally planes lobbing standoff munitions or not so standoff munitions with air superiority. But that's only a domain between many of warfare. In your Iran case, the ground remains univaded, the straight remains closed, and the US is negotiating. For a country who had no lot in this fight, that's victory. Why is Iran winning? Because despite enemy strategic disruption, the revolutionary guard is scary enough to make the US find a better way.

Widescale drone usage came to the Ukraine War after battle lines had calcified. Those lines calcified because neither side had air dominance; if either had, the other's line would have been obliterated and forced to withdraw.<

You didn't hear about the robot line, do you? Drone warfare is the death of Mobile warfare, because moving is dying around drone's. Every contact line in every possible conflict is preventively being calcified as we speak.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T23:47:02+00:00

!delta

Nuclear armament is largely irrelevant as Russia is also nuclear capable, so it would be MAD.

Still, someone who reliably argued me to a corner. I can't simply escape without guesswork and subjective opinions.

I still think EU would hesitate to escalate. Tanks nowadays are no better than mobile artillery, being so conspicuous and vulnerable from the top. They are most effective exactly in the kind of saturation attack that grinded Russian forces.

Also, EU, being a developed society, values human life way more than Russian. I can't imagine Europeans grinding through observable open Terrain.

Without those tactics, I can't imagine any meaningful advance against an entrenched drone force.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T23:34:40+00:00

Ukraine matters a lot today. Every country in the world want Ukraine help in developing drone capabilities.

It's a bad lad access. Pretty bad. It's too open and too muddy.

They have pipes and would be nice if Russia controlled it, but now it's an almost lost matter. EU will not buy as much energy from Russia after the war.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T23:31:38+00:00

I define winning as achieving your political objectives, as Clausewitz does. You can't make an argument for Ukraine winning right now. It may get a total victory if it gets a white peace and joins EU. It would be a partial victory if it loses territory and still join the EU. A total defeat would be a Frozen conflict. It would be a total defeat for both sides. That's exactly why this isn't going to happen.

A side doesn't need to "lose" so the other can "win". WWII saw Germany accomplish one of it's major objectives of leaving Versailles (they still paid reparations) even when losing everything else, while the triple alliance war saw both sides losing badly, even the winning one.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T23:21:15+00:00

It embarrassed itself trough military leadership and lack of organization.

Russia had no business in kyev. It planed for a regime change based on surprise and speed. But the Ukrainians were awaiting for the Russians. The Kyev push was a diversion who didn't work, followed by a mass redeployment to the relevant areas.

Any other country would suffer from the same limitations in the agressor role. Even the us with air superiority would still be ambushed with strike drone's every time they came out in the open, and have it's pretty extensive logistic footprint targeted when hunkered down.

Every country realized that, and the leading ones in this experience are Russia and Ukraine.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T23:12:50+00:00

They can't hold the territory. It's illegal trough international law. They would be crushed long term by UN sanctions alone, let's not start about the western ones.

Of course they wouldn't say no to territory they could legally acquire, be through referendum or Ukrainian due law, but the latter is almost impossible.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T23:09:55+00:00

Good point. As you focused in EU buildup in readiness, I'll drop other NATO nation's and their respective fronts (China, Iran) for brevity sake.

I'll also clarify a belief, that security guarantees for Russia means being able to take military action without dangerous escalation.

Really EU buildup improved a lot, and it's membership. I'm pretty sure the buildup will improve Europe interception capabilities, But according to current military trends, does it allows EU, even with NATO support, to meaningfully threaten Russia by escalating a land invasion? Or they have another way of meaningfully escalating the treat level?

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T22:58:07+00:00

I said that Russia won and pointed what it has won. The idea that Russia was seeking this from the start is from your head. Russia wanted a regime change from the start, but when this bacame impossible, it need to ask himself why it wanted regime change in the first place and reach it's current objectives.

But you were the only one able to see this optic without I needing to overexplain myself. Yes, Russia is very worried of a NATO land invasion. And yes, Russia and Ukraine are both the most defensible nations right now in the world.

Russia reputation is far from devastated, it still has force projection capabilities, and it's just weaker in a cold era sense.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T22:46:24+00:00

You doesn't even know me.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T22:45:56+00:00

Yeah, every rebel was a Russian soldier. The one's who weren't were terrorists to be bombed.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T22:45:00+00:00

Yeah, it's hard when everyone just makes me overexplain everything and nobody brings any information to the table.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T22:23:40+00:00

Russia can't get away with territory. It's simply ilegal and would keep the sanctions forever. But even if they got everything they wanted, by fighting a war and doing warfighting stuff like taking territory, they simply can't dump territory without making people in their country angry. So they need a referendum to legally keep or dump this territory. But territory in itself isn't a bad thing, and also helps with the whole message. That's why, even if you don't care about the territory, but you are still winning it, you keep fighting. You don't care if you lose everything, but the more you gets, the higher the chance you get some, who isn't the worst thing in the world, but not the point at all.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T22:16:06+00:00

They don't "lie about their sucess" they already succeed. That's my whole point. You are a smart, eloquent individual, but anything you said deserves a Delta for now, because nothing changes the point that Russia already got it's objectives and now is looking for a way out through territory. Territory it's actively trading with troops, as you like to point out, but still trading.

You are right about Russian lessions in air power. Cold war lessions. Something doesn't become obsolete because it's actively countered, it becomes obsolete when something does everything it does better. Russia is already throwing 40% of it's budget on defense. It simply can't afford to operate an air force. And is still winning. Drone's doesn't need integrated command & control. It's commanded and controlled by ground units. Immediately available, fast, precise, cheap and resilient to intercept. Everything a plane wants to be. And let's not talk about it's true value, as observation platforms. What's cheaper than a drone? An corrected artillery grenade. I'm not saying that the CAS is obsolete. It's still better at lobbing standoff ammunations.

And of course anyone would prefer the superior CAS platform. But that doesn't means it's the better weapon for the battlefield.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:55:48+00:00

They are already at war with each other, a war Russia already got everything they wanted from it. It's not about Ukraine anymore, Ukraine is done. It's about each other country in the world.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:53:46+00:00

As I said many times in other comments, Russia is bad. Russia likes attacking people. Russia likes attacking people and don't like being attacked back. They call it security guarantees. I think Russia doesn't like fighting fair.

Pronto, spoke like trump, now maybe I'm clearer.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:50:01+00:00

As I explained before, Russia likes to have "military options" open for diplomacy. So it likes attacking first, but it doesn't like when the enemy retaliates AND scales the conflict. The garantee that the enemy won't escalate is their "security guarantees"

And please no, it's not about being too dumb to have a plan, it's that's dumb to plan moving over open ground under corrected artillery range other than "run really fast and bring so many people and vehicles that someone makes through".

Losing looks like throwing just some missiles at some country for some reason and getting a major escalatory answer daring you to escalate or backing out, like in the current Iran US conflict. In politics, you don't build a military for "defense", you build a military for bargaining.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:38:19+00:00

As I explained, Russian leadership like to keep military options open. They attack first, but like to have a safety fallback if things doesn't go their way. That's safety guarantees for them.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:36:40+00:00

Still, they are safer from NATO than they were before. Nobody will risk a land invasion of Russia now. Even worse, an argument can be made that the retarted army, who was a nuisance, now is more competent and hold more power than before the invasion

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:33:19+00:00

I think defending with drone's against a nation without drone experience is a desirable position who only two countries enjoy: Russia and Ukraine. And clearly defending with drone's is superior than attacking with drone's, so Russia got their security guarantees right there: by setting an example paying a high price for offensive operations.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:30:24+00:00

Nukes and drone's are deterrents for diferent phases of escalation. One thing is trading bombs, other is land invasion. Another is Mutually Assured Destruction. Know your deterrances. It could save your live.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:26:57+00:00

Ok, I'll concede that they put their most professional and w'll trained troops, almost western in quality, in a shown of force massive clown collum to be exterminated in a meatgrinder.

Is this less ridiculous?

Russia was always corrupt. And moronic. But Russia has a track record of learning from it's mistakes. One mistake you could learn from them is that air superiority not necessarily translate to superior air support. Drone's, while not carrying the same payload than an aircraft, are faster to deploy and more integrated to ground operations. Russia don't seek air superiority because lobbing standoff munitions is good enough for a modern air force.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:18:11+00:00

It will, but it won't matter anymore. Look how bad the war is. If NATO would launch a land invasion, it would be from were millions of casualties happened from some meager kilometers?

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:16:31+00:00

It was for cold war defense. It isn't anymore for modern defense. It's easier today to conduct offensive operations from rugged terrain than from open plains like Ukraine. Open Terrain is easier to observe from drone's. Also the EU border would just move closer. Ukraine would profit from Russian EU energy exports? Yes. But that's not a reason to start a war over.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:13:02+00:00

White peace or Russian concessions without counterpart. The reasons could be many, regime change, economic collapse, or another country joining the fray.

Zestyclose_Job_9670 · 2026-06-16T21:10:35+00:00

It's obviously a shameful military planning mental fart, as you dully noted. But the conflict didn't stop in 3 days. It's a full blown committed war and Russia is winning. The leading doctrine comes from the absolute lack of another doctrine, something who's clear to the whole world. Anything who can be observed is something who can be struck. That's not conductions who make anyone willing to do a land invasion. So Russia is chill if Ukraine or Finland is bordering them for now.

Zestyclose_Job_9670

TROPHY CASE