Looking at the current Russo-ukraine war it seems like Russia can only hope to achieve a pyrrhic victory according to journalists but what does that mean? What criteria must be met and historical examples?
What makes a Pyrrhic victory phyrrhic?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
It comes from Pyrrhus of Epirus, one of the most famed and accomplished military minds of his age, invading Italy and winning battles that were so costly while his enemy replaced losses so quickly that he could no longer continue his campaign and was forced to withdraw.
In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war, sometimes when a great power fights a smaller power, the cost of victory is so high that you can win all your battles and still lose, while all that a smaller power has to do is not-die and the sheer act of survival counts as a victory in and of itself.
It's subjective and simple. If you win but winning cost much more than you were comfortable with sacrificing then it's a pyrrhic victory.
There's no set casualty number or dollar amount, though you have to use some common sense because it would be silly to call it a pyrrhic victory if you lost five men out of ten million and spent 0.0001% of your military budget on the conflict.
This guy messaged my teenage son online and offered him beer and cigarettes if he came over.
Shit, I'd go.
Isn't this some retarded weeb wignat?
At this point, Russia isn't even going to achieve a symbolic victory. Any prospect that the Ukrainians were going to settle for anything less than a return to status quo antebellum and any citizens that the Russians may have kidnapped died with the victims of Bucha and Mariupol. Unless the Russians are willing to risk total annihilation with a surprise nuclear attack on NATO to force them to stop backing Ukraine (in which case, their constant threats have already ruined any possibility of achieving strategic surprise), the only thing up for debate is whether they suffer disgrace or utter national catastrophe
Yeah, he's a host on Strike and Mike, an even shittier spin-off of TRS' The Daily Shoah. And all of his takes on Ukraine are basically Vatnik garbage.
>died with the victims of Bucha and Mariupol
I will say though that this fake Bucha stuff makes me more convinced that the Holocaust was a post-hoc fake invented to break post-war national socialism.
>he thinks ww2 happened
Ukraine will win, seethe Ivan.
>he thinks the 20th century existed
>this fake Bucha stuff
wait, I thought it was those sneaky hohols who massacred their own populations and blamed it on Russia? Now you're saying it's just "fake"?
He's more significant than you. Die obscure and consequenceless.
>very pregnant and very confused Anne.png
>U-Ukraine is going to retake Mariupol!
>O-One m-more offensive
>Trust the plan
Haha keep coping /k/edditor
"haha you won but we threw 10s of thousands of Ukrainians into the meat grinder to harm you in a mostly inconsequential way, so really it's a loss"
Thank you national chauvinists and the USG, very cool
>to harm you in a mostly inconsequential way
Losing most of your professional military isn't exactly inconsequential
They have 1,000,000 active duty and 2,000,000 reserves.
They have about 40,000,000 military age men.
The presumably very high US estimate of casualties is 75,000 killed or wounded.
How are their losses particularly consequential?
I'm not doubting that there's zero losses. My point is more that the Ukraine is probably being thrown away by the current Ukrainian regime and by Washington in a combination of delusion, spite and cynical manoeuvring to hurt Russia regardless of how many Ukrainians have to be hurt to do it.
>current Ukrainian regime
>manoeuvring to hurt Russia regardless of how many Ukrainians have to be hurt to do it.
Only vatnaggers say this bullshit lmao. Ukrainians want to be independent and are gladly fighting for it. Every war will have co-belligerents, third parties, supporters, beneficiaries, etc. Everyone and their dog know this conflict involves a greater NATO vs Russia hostility, and yet Ukrainians have fervent motive to fight - with or without help. It was no different in the proxy wars of the Cold War (that were generally ignited by BOTH sides.)
>hey pawn pls just roll over, dont u see im fighting nayto here?
How about fuck off пидapaшкa 🙂
>Ukrainians want to be independent and are gladly fighting for it
That's why there's literally zero partisan/resistance movements in the Russian-occupied part of the country right? lol
There actually do seem to be partisans in the south.
>Ukrainians want to be independent
There's a difference between independent and occupying Russian areas that happened to have a line drawn across them before Ukraine became its own thing. In the case of Crimea, for example, that was Russia until *after WW2*, at which point the USSR redesigned it as part of the Ukraine SSR, with its population at the time only being around 20% Ukrainian (according to wikipedia).
I have no idea what Pidapaška means.
They keep trying to make it existential. For all we know, this whole thing could have been sorted out by referenda and Ukraine pursuing a policy of neutrality. If they'd tried that and then Russia attacked, I'd be saying fuck Russia also.
From companies who work for the American military.
At a time when the Ukrainian government like last week made it explicitly illegal for civilians in the Ukraine to accept food aid from Russia.
Which is presumably what the people in Bucha had done to warrant their summary execution by Ukrainian forces when the Ukrainian forces retook Bucha.
>They keep trying to make it existential.
IT IS existential you dumb nagger, the RUSSIANS are the ones invading Ukraine saying that it has no right to exist and they intend to completely destroy it.
>From companies who work for the American military.
>every satellite on earth is run by US GUBERMINT
No you fucking nagger, these were recorded on generic weather satellites that are operated by private companies, some of which aren't even American. Moreover, Russian soldiers were literally caught on live CCTVs machine-gunning people in the streets and /k/ managed to save them for posterity to shut Vatnik swine like you the fuck up.
>YOU SUPPORT UKRAINE, THEREFORE AFGHANISTAN
Quit moving the goalposts like a fucking nagger.
Faux outrage? FAUX OUTRAGE?! I would gladly hang every last Russian soldier with from a tree right now, just as my ancestors did, if one made the mistake of being in my presence.
>Russian soldiers were literally caught on live CCTVs machine-gunning people in the streets
Don't you mean like two Russian soldiers shot two people one time?
That's not exactly a broad trend.
For the most part, particularly at the start of the war, the Russians bent over backwards to not fuck with civilians. It has become less gentlemanly, but Ukraine is far more barbaric. Particularly with their new law against Ukrainians accepting food from Russians.
As to the 'ghan: You're the one moving the goalposts, unless you think propping up a gang of drug dealing pedophiles as the head of the Afghan government is somehow morally different from being a gang of drug dealing pedophiles. Because to me that's not a meaningful difference, I guess since I don't think in American fedtard legalese, but rather in terms of obvious responsibility.
As to your grandstanding about Russians, I don't see you over in Ukraine. You're defacto legally allowed to commit whatever atrocities you want against Russians, inside historic and contiguous Russia, but you aren't, so you're just a bag of wind.
>annefrankfag is a butthurt belter
lmao it all makes sense
>just as my ancestors did
What are you?
>They have 1,000,000 active duty and 2,000,000 reserves.
90% of those are fucking conscripts and Putin effectively shot himself in the foot when he declared it a "Special Military Operation", as opposed to a war. Now Putin would need to enact general mobilization, which would instantly put his regime in danger of being overthrown as Muscovites would suddenly be the ones sent to be slaughtered, as opposed to Churkas or Russian diaspora who are regarded as expendable.
>How are their losses particularly consequential?
Because those 75,000 represented the professional core of the Russian Army. The VDV, the VMF, the 4th Guards Tank Division. These represented Russia's best troops and most modern military hardware (Ka-52s, T-90s, T-80BVMs, Su-34s, etc.). Now their corpses and wrecks lie strew all along the road to Kiev and the Russian Army is having to rescue T-62 that were considered to too obsolete for service in Afghanistan from scrapyards to replace them.
>My point is more that the Ukraine is probably being thrown away by the current Ukrainian regime and by Washington in a combination of delusion, spite and cynical manoeuvring to hurt Russia regardless of how many Ukrainians have to be hurt to do it.
nagger, this is not Afghanistan, or Syria, this is Ukraine. This is an existential war where the options are either victory or the complete annihilation of the Ukrainian nation. And at this point, the Russians have behaved so barbarically that the United States cannot afford the loss of face if Ukraine were to capitulate, so the Russians somehow manage to pull a miracle out of their ass and the Ukrainian Army appears to be on the verge of collapse, NATO will join the war and bomb the Russians back to the negotiating table.
Post Snake Island
Post National Debt Payments
Bro you're just reposting warmed-over CIA/DoD talking points you dumb patriotard, how the fuck do you cope with the cognitive dissonance of viewing the FedGov as an oppressive entity yet cheerleading everything they do as long as it's not on American soil
Everyone with an internet access can look up satellite photos and CCTV footage of Russians arbitrarily executing civilians.
But you somehow deny that reality with literally nothing but Incel Slava Z telegram fanfics to back it up and you keep on defending an army of murderers, rapists and literal fucking pedophiles just to own the ukraine-supporting libs epic style.
You are pathetic, immoral, disgusting failure of a human and I wish nothing but the worst on you.
>defending an army of murderers, rapists and literal fucking pedophiles
My brother in the West, who do you think the US was propping up in Afghanistan until last August?
Yes, yes, this is the first conflict in the last ten years where atrocities have been committed by one side, your faux-outrage is totally motivated by the horror of Russian TikTok torture vids - and not, y'know, that US interests are at stake here (unlike a few years ago when Azeri soldiers were sharing videos of captured Armenian POWs being decapitated).
Ah have you found those WMD yet?
Obviously it comes from Pyrrhus. I would say it's a technical victory in a battle that gives you -EV (minus Expected Value) for the remainder of the war or post-war, meaning it is a victory that inches you closer to defeat.
Marching troops into Donetsk was beneficial to Russia, they gained 2 million people, some territory and ensured Ukraine would never reclaim it.
The push further into Ukraine was a miscalculation. Putin seemed to hope for a miraculous blitz with his backwards corrupt military, even going as far as to assault Kiev. He had likely been misinformed about the reality of the situation, a common problem for despots that elevate themselves above criticism. Now Putin and his generals have to achieve some kind of "victory" to save face. The cost to Russia, direct and indirect such as the economic sanctions, vastly outstrips any benefit.
Maybe, maybe not. I think the answer will come in whether Putler is able to disintegrate and break off bits of the West (as in, Anglosphere and NATO). When I say disintegrate and break bits off, I don't necessarily mean in a complete and dramatic way, but just to what extent he can get the members of NATO and the West to not work together, the extent to which fractures start to crack open, which can be widened. Perhaps this winter will be the test.
>Now Putin and his generals have to achieve some kind of "victory" to save face. The cost to Russia, direct and indirect such as the economic sanctions, vastly outstrips any benefit.
i'm not sure what this means, they are still making progress at a steady pace. it will take years until they completely take over ukraine, i have no doubt about that, but they aren't exactly losing. ukrainians can do nothing to affect russia's industrial heartland while russians took over the ukrainian one completely. you're forgetting that this isn't a video game, it's a real country that needs somewhere upwards of 30 billion a month just to cover costs
as for the effect of the sanctions, i'm not so sure about those either. people said russia would be done for by summer but that hasn't happened at all, they're still fine economically, and people there are used to living in a shithole. the only real problem would be parts they used to get from the west, but if europeans and americans lose all interest in defending ukraine this might just be cancelled.
you have to remember that there's quite a sizable chunk of american (and european) elites that fundamentally disagree with the anti-russian policy being taken. people like peter thiel are working overtime to try and end the russia-ukraine conflict as soon as possible, bring russia back into the western fold, and use them as allies to strangle china into submission.
i'm not going to speculate which side is worse, because while the current economic downfall of russian sanctions is bad, ww3 with china would absolutely destroy our lives for generations to come
This was just a horrible take
>this is a horrible take because... JUST BECAUSE OKAY
they are winning, i don't understand what is so difficult for you to process about that. now, you can say they're a shitty and ineffective military force, you can say that a proper army would have already overwhelmed the country and won three months ago, but that doesn't change the fact that with each month that passes ukraine goes further and further in debt while russians take more territory.
so how exactly is that a bad take? barring an extraordinary circumstance like putin dying or america deciding to join the war, the war will be over in 3-4 years, though it may take even longer than that
although this is under the circumstance that they actually want to take all of the country up to and including kiev and the western polish territories, which i don't think they'd be stupid enough to try
Mariupol is the largest Steel producing city in Eastern Europe. The Russians have announced that they will turn it into a resort town. The Russians don't have the money to exploit the resources and their already terrible demographics are going to collapse even quicker with all the dead and injured. And ignoring the reduction of the car industry and other industries that relay on western resources and tech is disingenuous at best. Putin destroyed Russia for generations with this war and you are here trying to pass him off as genius
>Putin destroyed Russia for generations with this war and you are here trying to pass him off as genius
lol you seem to be projecting an insane amount, where did i ever say he was a genius? i think russian geopolitical strategy has always been schizo and psychotic. china chooses honey over vinegar and managed to export their culture to the entirety of asia and basically surrounded itself with mini chinas. russia mananaged to alienate its neighbors to such a degree that it sent their fellow slavs into the hands of the germans.
so, no, i'm not exactly an advocate of russian strategy nor am i defender of putin, i'm just asking you on what basis are you implying that russia is somehow going to lose this war
>The Russians have announced that they will turn it into a resort town. The Russians don't have the money to exploit the resources and their already terrible demographics are going to collapse even quicker with all the dead and injured
none of that has anything to do with winning this war, what you're talking about are long term consequences. will the lands they take in ukraine be an impoverished shithole? you bet your ass they will, i doubt they'll be able to bring them back even by the end of the century. but will they be held by russia? yes, probably
Weak attempt at concern trolling
>don't answer anything
>talk about concern trolling
i don't even have concern trolling in my post, lmao. you're the one that started talking about mariupol like i give a fuck about what's going to happen there when i live thousands of kms away.
i told you they are winning, and this is a demonstrable fact going by the progress they've made since the beginning of this war, and that it's extremely unlikely ukrainians will mount any counteroffensive when they lack the manpower and, more importantly, the funds to keep their state functioning at peak capacity
you haven't addressed any issue, you're talking to me like i'm somehow some russian from eastern ukraine that's supposed to give a fuck about steel production in mariupol
are you ukrainian? are you russian? then why do you give a fuck? talk about the war
> then why do you give a fuck
There it is, I knew I smelled a vatnik troll. Go back to /chug pedo
i thought you just accused me of concern trolling? you guys seem extremely mentally unstable. i don't know if that's because you're ukrainian and you're losing family members and shit getting blown up into pulp (which would be understandable), but if you're actually trying to engage in a conversation about how to minimize the threat of russia's expansion then you're going to have to deal with the facts of the matter and not some shitty twitter tier moralizing and then strawmanning
i don't concern troll, i also don't give the SLIGHTEST FUCK about ukrainians to be honest with you. if it were me, i'd cordon off both ukraine and russia permanently, the idea that ukrainians are somehow western or any different than russians is peak delusion.
Yeah your a concern troll Russian shill. You're a dime a dozen on /misc/
>repeating the same phrase over and over will make it true
anyone that's reading this thread will see exactly who is concern trolling. do you even know what concern trolling is? go some some dicks at mariupol slavboi, i don't give a fuck about what happens in either of your shithole countries and i'm not going be some mouthbreathing burger that pretends otherwise
i mean he seems effectively deranged. apparently just admitting that russia is successfully taking territory is now being pro-russian.
>NOOO YOU AREN'T JOINING IN MY MAKE BELIEF WORLD YOU MUST LOVE PUTIN
And yet you won't bother to even entertain the notion that Russia will lose. Again your kind is a dime a dozen on LULZ. Your opinion is worthless
>And yet you won't bother to even entertain the notion that Russia will lose
why would i entertain a notion that's completely fantastical?
i already said BARRING (which means except basically, if you're struggling with the english language, ivan) either putin dying or americans entering the war, i can't see any possible route in which russians lose when the ukrainians have no advantage at all, not in geography, not in manpower, not in funding
yeah, you're right, if americans and europeans decide to attack russia tomorrow, russia will lose. but that is no longer the war on these terms. so is that what you're fucking saying, you retard? that i should pretend russia is losing because there's an infinitesimal chance the united states will intervene in a few years?
Also they did try to take the entirety of of Ukraine and Kiev. That's why they marched on Kiev and gave their troops parade uniforms, no it wasn't a feint
that was months ago before they lost tens if not hundreds of thousands of troops. they aren't even out of the east yet, and it's going at a snail's pace. so yeah. pretty retarded to talk about what they might do in the future based on a completely failed attempt at the very beginning of the conflict
> no it wasn't a feint
i don't think it was a feint, people that say that are just coping, but they did hope the ukrainians would immediately surrender or cooperate, probably
The Russians can't defend their ammo dumps and airfields in the Crimea from missiles and the Ukrainians have permanently crippled Russia's last useful Naval force when it doesn't have a navy of it's own
>The Russians can't defend their ammo dumps and airfields in the Crimea from missiles and the Ukrainians have permanently crippled Russia's last useful Naval force when it doesn't have a navy of it's own
and the effect of this will be... what exactly? or what is the implication?
You're not very intelligent
no i think you're just so delusional that you think listing random facts is somehow painting a picture of something that isn't in fact happening
what was the purpose of what you wrote? again, what are you implying? that ukrainians are going to turn the tide and take back these territories?
you might as well send me pictures of random tanks being destroyed if this is the level you're operating at. yes, ammo depos get destroyed, people die, entire armies can be routed back hundreds of kilometers
what are you actually saying, though?
Yeah dumbass. My point is that Russian Losses are too high for them to win
>My point is that Russian Losses are too high for them to win
well, they keep taking territory week after week, and people have been saying this literally before they even took lysychansk, so what exactly is my takeaway from this supposed to be?
i don't work for the russian or american government, i don't have access to precise numbers, what i can see though is that they are winning at a snail's pace. that's the reality
so you telling me some random fact about how x or y got destroyed, while that doesn't seem to change that, is not very impactful.
what should i be seeing if what you're saying is correct? are they going to stop taking territory? are the ukrainians going to push them back from lysychansk and other territories? when?
again, are you actually saying anything or just listing random shit hoping it will stick?
It should be obvious that they are losing steam and fast and won't win in the long term. But
I know you are shill
>It should be obvious that they are losing steam and fast
that doesn't mean anything and it isn't obvious to anyone that isn't some demented ukrainian that's hoping against hope that everything will turn out alright
how the fuck is obvious that the country that's still economically functional is definitely going to lose compared to the one whose industrial capacity has basically been wiped out?
>and won't win in the long term.
i mean i think i've made a far stronger case than that they at least appear to be doing that, while you and the other guy just seem to be relying on make belief
>I know you are shill
reality is you're so far gone that you're out of touch with reality and think that someone not giving a fuck about a war that they've got nothing to gain from either way makes them a shill
Keep exposing yourself Ivan.
whatever you say retard i'm not the one that just makes empty accusations without anything to back them up, anyone reading this that isn't coming from a position of bias will see how good faith i've been while you just engage in strawmanning and buzzwords
It really is funny how hohols think they can somehow magically override 1,000 years of history, culture, and religion and become western because they’re pro-American. In culture, mannerisms, and language (for the vast majority of people) they’re indistinguishable from the moskals.
Talking to yourself again?
i guess the US intelligence had the right idea of just getting them to kill one another but all the positive news about russia has led me to question whether it was a good idea to let this happen rather than moving in troops and stopping the invasion from the start
as someone that doesn't even speak russian, it's impossible for me to get an idea of what things are like over there. some people say russians are welcomed by the local population (at least in the east), others are saying that even russian ukies hate them and that there will never be peace there because of possible insurgents
all i know is that i don't want russians to invade *me* and that this whole thing hasn't given me much confidence in the united states. i honestly thought the ukies would do a lot better than this considering they've been trained for a decade by supposedly the best armies the west has to offer. i don't think the russians would ever push into nato-held territory but i dunno, i question the united states' leadership on this and what they're hoping to achieve
if ukraine is going to fall anyway, why not just give it to the russians and try to get them on your side? unless there's such a rift of trust there that they simply do not believe they could ever rely on the russians as allies, which appears to be the case. strategically it doesn't make sense to push them in the arms of the chinese.
>considering they've been trained for a decade
Ukraine is notoriously corrupt. I wouldn't be surprised if they sold a bunch of their equipment and pocketed salaries but didn't train many people.
>why not just give it to the russians and try to get them on your side
My guess is partly because israelites mad at Russia, and more so because the US think they can take China and Russia at once, instead of needing to empower Russia to use against China. The dream being a progressivisation and/or Balkanisation of Russia and China both. Which I'm not even personally opposed to, if there are places in those countries where the majority of the population would want to be independent. Just on this one issue, Russia is in the right and they've made mostly meticulous efforts (far more than the West has at least for the past century) to avoid civilian deaths, or even civilian inconvenience (other than, you know, expanding the war in the first place).
I think it makes sense strategically to push Russia into the arms of the Chinese in order to concoct an enemy scary enough to band the West (and much of the rest of the world) against said enemy, while having the enemy be small enough to win against. Without that, what would the American empire even exist to do? A security umbrella/network needs enemies in order to not be obsolete. A political entity needs common enemies in order to not fall apart. The American empire, then, requires a China-Russia alliance. If such an alliance was defeated, they would be the unipower, presiding over a transhumanist, progressive world.
And then, instead of letting things be like in the 90s, the US could learn the lesson and go full mask off imperialist. As they already have done in most ways. Who talks, really, about morals rather than of unabashed, ostensibly moralless geopolitics? Who talks of the world rather than of American leadership of the West?
>Balkanisation of Russia and China both
i could definitely see a balkanisation of russia since the truth is, all those eastern territories are barely russian at all. the current plan putin seems to have is to get all the non-ethnic russians killed in this war and then, i don't know what, repopulate those areas with ethnic russians by offering them land dispensations? possibly sending ukrainians over there to neutralize whatever threat they could be in russia while simultaneously replacing asians with ruskis?
it's not the worst idea ever, but this would take a long, long time to accomplish successfully, though it could give birth to something resembling america 2.0, especially if the world keeps warming up
>Russia is in the right and they've made mostly meticulous efforts (far more than the West has at least for the past century) to avoid civilian deaths
well, they're their own people, so that's not surprising. all those ukrainians are still going to be there even if they win so going all out on the cruelty is not a good idea, though i suspect some of the brainlets they've sent over may have done damage even without official permission to that end.
anyway, my hope is that if russia wins this (and i suspect they will) they drastically change their approach to geopolitics. they need to learn from the chinks and replace vinegar with honey. everybody hates them. finns hate them, poles hate them, romanians hate them. and this is completely unnecessary, they've done it to themselves over the centuries because they've always attempted to conquer these lands or control them rather than applying soft power. they want to be an empire but they don't know how, they still that shithead balkan thinking of
>WE GOTTA LOOK STRONG, PROJECT STRENGTH AT ALL TIMES
which is for irrelevant countries like fucking albania or estonia, not superpowers.
They're transparently *not* pro-American either, since they want the US to get into a hot war with Russia and plunge the world into nuclear fire in order for them to get more territory in the East.
Like a dumber Israel.
don't compare israel to hohols. say what you will about israel, but it values the lives of israelites. if some country decides to fuck with you, there's a strong chance mossad will intervene. meanwhile zelenskyy is sending people to get blown up gladly while he's posing for american magazines.
i can understand someone dying for israel, but dying for ukraine is retarded
>having increased the speed of their nibbling away at Donbass over the past month
>they keep taking territory week after week
yeah they took another 0.1% of ukraine in the past month, they'll be back in Kiev in just 250 years or so.
Bruh no offence but they're going through the most well defended, most built up area of the country.
That's what I mean by "fake". And Hohols weren't particularly sneaky about it either. They just have the US media to lie for them.
>they're going through the most well defended, most built up area of the country.
Yes of course, once they get through in about 50 years the rest of the country will be cakewalk.
>That's what I mean by "fake".
Ah I see, so you think the allies massacred 6 million israelites after liberating Germany and Poland?
You're talking to someone who's a shill, or so committed to spreading a narrative that they're effectively a shill.
the sad thing is that this is the best the Russians can do. Both militarily and their shills.
you have 10,000 troops
enemy has 100,000 troops
you win the war, and the enemy loses all 100,000 troops
but despite winning, 8000 of your troops died, and you only have 2,000 left for the next battle
the battle was won, but at the cost of greatly weakening you
A pyrrhic victory is losing a war of attrition despite "winning" battles.
Nato is losing a war of attrition and losing battles so its not even a pyrrhic victory for them
Step 1: be Greek
Step 2: die by roof tile
The Russian shill is still talking to itself.
Anything short of annexing the entire Ukrainian coastline will be considered a pyrrhic victory for Russia.
Okay, weeb nazis, answer me this.
How does anime help us win the race war?