Subject: Re: Let’s See If This Pans Out for Putin
Uh, huh. Sure.

Yes, sure. Name them. Name the instances in recent history where a large country has been able to do what Russia's trying to do here - absorb a smaller country into their territory when the smaller country is resisting militarily.

The US left Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted to, not because they threw us out.

Yes! Exactly! That's why large countries aren't able to take over smaller countries. It's why Russia left Afghanistan in the 1980's as well, and that's the exact mechanism that Ukraine will use to get Russia to leave now. Small countries don't get the large countries to leave by throwing them out. They get the large countries to leave by continuing to inflict non-trivial casualties and damage to the large countries, so that the large countries are better off leaving than staying. That strategy has a really good track record if you can engage in it, which is why you can't come up with any modern counter-examples where it's failed. If the small country can indefinitely inflict non-trivial damage on the large country, the large country will eventually leave.

So I’m not really sure what point you’re even trying to make here.

Let me try to explain:

1) Large countries usually can't be stopped from invading a smaller country. Once they've invaded they usually cannot be driven out by force from the territory they occupy.
2) However, the smaller country can continue to inflict military damage on the larger country.
3) Usually the continuous infliction of military damage is performed by an insurgency or other irregular force, because typically the large country succeeds in obliterating the regular military.
4) In Ukraine, the continuous infliction of military damage (casualties and materiel) continues to be primarily (though not exclusively) performed by the regular army, rather than an irregular force, because Putin utterly failed to accomplish the first step of Large Country Invasion (eliminating the regular army).
5) The same mechanism still applies. If the large invading country cannot prevent the smaller country from continuing to inflict significant military damage against its forces, then the large invading country cannot stay indefinitely in the country.
6) Russia cannot destroy Ukraine's industrial capacity, supply lines, or sources of funds - because those things are being provided by NATO countries, not just by Ukraine in-country. So Ukraine's army will never run out of guns or bullets or planes or tanks as long as NATO is willing to provide them.
7) So unless Russia is able to persuade the West to give up on Ukraine, it cannot win.

How about the Sovs in Afghanistan? The mujahideen were getting rolled until…we stepped in with guns and money. You think they do as well as they did without US-made Stinger missiles shooting down helicopters? Somebody else will say, “Oh, yeah - what about Iraq?” What, did you guys think AQI wasn’t getting help from the Iranians? And perhaps the Russians and Chinese?

Exactly right again! So why are you not getting it? NATO has stepped in with guns and money. It doesn't matter if Ukraine doesn't have guns and money (or aircraft or Stinger missiles or what have you), as long as NATO is willing to step in.

That's what we've been telling you. A smaller force that is being supplied by a larger force can get the larger force to leave.

You folks are all frozen in amber ca 2023 when it looked like a rapid infusion of lethality in the form of western tech could push Putin out. That hasn’t happened, and in fact as the conflict grinds on Putin’s hold on the occupied territory of the Ukraine gets stronger.

Nah, bruv. You're the one frozen in amber, locked into this weird delusion that Ukraine's defense strategy involves - or has ever really involved - forcing Russian troops out by defeating them on the battlefield. That's not their path forward, and never has been. It does not matter how solid Putin's current hold on the occupied territory is if he has to keep engaging in active military campaigns against a well-supplied force to hold them. Eventually he will withdraw, because that situation is not sustainable for Russia.

Now it’s you not understanding things. Trump and Modi have a good relationship. I swear everyone on this board expects the US to get bent over the table every single time…Modi is very well aware that he’s buying oil from a pariah state and keeping Russia in the war. He’s an adult. He made this decision from his own set of strategic options.

Why do you think I don't understand that? It's completely obvious that Modi's acting in his own strategic self-interest. Which is why if you want to reduce India's purchase of Russia energy, you have to change their self-interest. What I'm saying is that Trump's "us or them" ultimatum was a phenomenally dumb way to try to change their self-interest, because it forced Modi to cozy up to Russia instead of picking us. A range of incentives to make it so that India's self-interest was advanced by shifting away from Russia and towards us might have worked better. It couldn't possibly have been any worse that what Trump's hamfisted approach resulted in.

And why would Putin think this? Might it be that he’s confident that he’s got enough dudes, guns and money to keep what he’s won?

No. He's gambling on people in the West giving up on Ukraine, so that they lose a fight that they could have won. Putin can't win in Ukraine as long as the West keeps giving them guns and money. So he's just trying to persuade folks in the West to stop doing that. Which is why negotiating with him is foolhardy until he reaches the point where he's willing to withdraw from the areas he's stolen. That's probably not anytime soon, which will frustrate the President (and probably frustrates you). But that's the reality.