Ken, I love your reporting and your work is excellent but I have to ask this and I mean it respectfully but. . . were you on something when you wrote this piece? And could you share whatever substance you were on because I'd like to try it too.
In what world is Ukraine winning? Yes, they occupy a small salient on Russian territory. That is undeniable. What is also undeniable is they are losing ground everywhere else and they are desperately hemorrhaging men, material, and resources. Press gangs are roaming the countryside rounding up males (even those who are exempt from conscription) and pressing them into the army. The rate of desertion from front-line positions is reaching extreme levels. Ukraine is so low on munitions that Russia can strike critical pieces of national infrastructure at will. This winter will be extremely grim for Ukraine and its people.
Ukraine is barely hanging on and to suggest that they will somehow miraculously pull off some kind of Michael Bay-esque heroic upset against all odds is laughable.
Your work has reliably been grounded in the same reality that the rest of us live in and that's why we eagerly read your stuff. Please rejoin us in that reality.
"that they will somehow miraculously pull off some kind of Michael Bay-esque heroic upset against all odds "
They don't need to do this, though. All they need to do to "win", assuming their paymasters and the fascist scum infesting the country will let them, is hang on and prevent Russia from taking over.
Arkin's defining it for the article, and he gave a definition: "not losing" ie not being taken over by Russia. It's the same win the Confederates had, right up until they began having their territory taken away from them day after day.
The dramatic definition you're assuming isn't in the cards (and never has been).
I don’t know Ken. Based on what I read there, sounds like Anglo-American imperialism and defense contractors on both sides are winning, while Ukrainians are being conscripted forcefully and shedding blood for NATO elites.
Countries don’t win these modern wars. Ruling classes in ivory towers win them. Everyone else bears the cost of limitless war.
I take your point about war of attrition, but "a senior Pentagon official said..." does not provide a credible source for armed service deaths. The same Pentagon has stated how nearly out of munitions Russia has been from nearly the beginning.
Maybe have a chat with John Mearsheimer for an analysis that is an actual analysis, rather than just repeating DOD, and US intelligence agency officials. It's like Ken's column has been hijacked by the ghost of Kissinger. And if Ken really did edit this, he needs to look at substance more than grammatical errors. I may not be alone it thinking that I sure didn't subscribe to read stuff like this from Mr Arkin, who wrote another, similarly disappointing, full-on, establishment-talking-points article, and not that long ago. My budget has very little tolerance for this.
Thinking the same. Ken, this article is laughably bad. Do better please. If Ukraine keeps not losing like it is now they're going to lose everything east of the Dnieper and possibly Odessa as well. If they start firing ballistic missiles into Russia with US blessing they're going to start losing entire cities like Lviv
this contradicts what alot of other people are saying. i am not talking about war hawks or politicians or cia. to me it sure looks like russia is winning and that makes sense to me just because of the size and population discrepancy. perhaps the pentagon is spinning something. i am not buying it.
Russia has complete control of the air and the word of Ukraine winning comes from the Pentagon. I recall the Pentagon always seeing light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam. As for attrition, the US lost 50,000, the Vietnamese lost 20 times that number. We lost.
Folks saying that Ukraine "not losing" is somehow still "not winning" have no sense of how war works or how we actually reach a positive end point, as Arkin clearly articulates (and quite well).
It's a civil war, it has been from the beginning. Ukraine is farther than they've ever been from re-taking the breakaway regions that they were at war with long before Russia became directly involved. You don't win a civil war by "not losing."
You're so completely wrong here Alex and you really shouldn't be so condescending and cavalier towards people who are horrified and want to see an end to this terrible war.
People saying that not losing doesn't equal winning have a very different idea of victory. One where the Russian invasion is either repelled or never began in the first place. One where the next generation still has their youth and isn't already maimed or dead and buried.
This clinical conversation of mass death is repulsive. No one is winning this war, all that's happening is that lot's people are dying.
Mr. Arkin is laboring under a delusion. The situation will be clear by the spring of next year. It is unlikely the Ukraine army will hold Russian territory through the winter. The Russians will not negotiate with Zelensky because he is not legitimate. His term of office expired and there has not been an election. This is a bagatelle for the Democratic West, but important to the Russians.
Great post, but Russia couldn't care less about attrition. Afghanistan was at the tail end of a Soviet Union that was already collapsing, with a leader that actually listened to the population. These aren't normal circumstances in Russian history. Normal is today, with Putin being much more like Stalin than Gorbachev. This has been the case since the Mongol invasions; Putin is their new khan. Their only goal is eradicating Ukraine as a springboard for retaking the borders of the USSR, and welfare of the people has never factored.
They do respond to brute force, however, as Finland knows. And Ukraine consistently striking deep inside Russia hits hard. Double down on supplying them. Have our allies show their teeth. And for God's sakes, let them take their gloves off in using American arms.
This is a farce correct? Ukraine is absolutely not winning. This year has been especially grueling. The occupation of Kursk is not stopping the cannibalization of the Donbas Oblast.
Sorry, if I wanted to read how Ukraine is on the cusp of winning I'd go read NAFO Twitter. Won't be renewing my subscription. As another commenter pointed out, I think that John Mearsheimer's analysis is far more realistic about what is going to happen with Ukraine.
I follow Andrew Tanner who I find one of the more reliable military and systems analysts on Ukraine while keeping an eye on what Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer and Douglas MacGregor say on the "Ukraine is doomed" side of the equation. This Arkin article aligns with Tanner. Time will tell but I am inclined to the Ukraine is winning analysis.
Ken, I love your reporting and your work is excellent but I have to ask this and I mean it respectfully but. . . were you on something when you wrote this piece? And could you share whatever substance you were on because I'd like to try it too.
In what world is Ukraine winning? Yes, they occupy a small salient on Russian territory. That is undeniable. What is also undeniable is they are losing ground everywhere else and they are desperately hemorrhaging men, material, and resources. Press gangs are roaming the countryside rounding up males (even those who are exempt from conscription) and pressing them into the army. The rate of desertion from front-line positions is reaching extreme levels. Ukraine is so low on munitions that Russia can strike critical pieces of national infrastructure at will. This winter will be extremely grim for Ukraine and its people.
Ukraine is barely hanging on and to suggest that they will somehow miraculously pull off some kind of Michael Bay-esque heroic upset against all odds is laughable.
Your work has reliably been grounded in the same reality that the rest of us live in and that's why we eagerly read your stuff. Please rejoin us in that reality.
Respectfully
"that they will somehow miraculously pull off some kind of Michael Bay-esque heroic upset against all odds "
They don't need to do this, though. All they need to do to "win", assuming their paymasters and the fascist scum infesting the country will let them, is hang on and prevent Russia from taking over.
Sure but what does "winning" actually mean and who is defining that term?
Arkin's defining it for the article, and he gave a definition: "not losing" ie not being taken over by Russia. It's the same win the Confederates had, right up until they began having their territory taken away from them day after day.
The dramatic definition you're assuming isn't in the cards (and never has been).
You're totally right and I missed the author's name right under the headline. Stupid of me to do that.
Thank you!
I don’t know Ken. Based on what I read there, sounds like Anglo-American imperialism and defense contractors on both sides are winning, while Ukrainians are being conscripted forcefully and shedding blood for NATO elites.
Countries don’t win these modern wars. Ruling classes in ivory towers win them. Everyone else bears the cost of limitless war.
I take your point about war of attrition, but "a senior Pentagon official said..." does not provide a credible source for armed service deaths. The same Pentagon has stated how nearly out of munitions Russia has been from nearly the beginning.
Maybe have a chat with John Mearsheimer for an analysis that is an actual analysis, rather than just repeating DOD, and US intelligence agency officials. It's like Ken's column has been hijacked by the ghost of Kissinger. And if Ken really did edit this, he needs to look at substance more than grammatical errors. I may not be alone it thinking that I sure didn't subscribe to read stuff like this from Mr Arkin, who wrote another, similarly disappointing, full-on, establishment-talking-points article, and not that long ago. My budget has very little tolerance for this.
Thinking the same. Ken, this article is laughably bad. Do better please. If Ukraine keeps not losing like it is now they're going to lose everything east of the Dnieper and possibly Odessa as well. If they start firing ballistic missiles into Russia with US blessing they're going to start losing entire cities like Lviv
this contradicts what alot of other people are saying. i am not talking about war hawks or politicians or cia. to me it sure looks like russia is winning and that makes sense to me just because of the size and population discrepancy. perhaps the pentagon is spinning something. i am not buying it.
Russia has complete control of the air and the word of Ukraine winning comes from the Pentagon. I recall the Pentagon always seeing light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam. As for attrition, the US lost 50,000, the Vietnamese lost 20 times that number. We lost.
Parody?
Folks saying that Ukraine "not losing" is somehow still "not winning" have no sense of how war works or how we actually reach a positive end point, as Arkin clearly articulates (and quite well).
It's a civil war, it has been from the beginning. Ukraine is farther than they've ever been from re-taking the breakaway regions that they were at war with long before Russia became directly involved. You don't win a civil war by "not losing."
You're so completely wrong here Alex and you really shouldn't be so condescending and cavalier towards people who are horrified and want to see an end to this terrible war.
People saying that not losing doesn't equal winning have a very different idea of victory. One where the Russian invasion is either repelled or never began in the first place. One where the next generation still has their youth and isn't already maimed or dead and buried.
This clinical conversation of mass death is repulsive. No one is winning this war, all that's happening is that lot's people are dying.
We're just accepting Pentagon claims without any criticism, are we?
A parody, nist?
Mr. Arkin is laboring under a delusion. The situation will be clear by the spring of next year. It is unlikely the Ukraine army will hold Russian territory through the winter. The Russians will not negotiate with Zelensky because he is not legitimate. His term of office expired and there has not been an election. This is a bagatelle for the Democratic West, but important to the Russians.
Great post, but Russia couldn't care less about attrition. Afghanistan was at the tail end of a Soviet Union that was already collapsing, with a leader that actually listened to the population. These aren't normal circumstances in Russian history. Normal is today, with Putin being much more like Stalin than Gorbachev. This has been the case since the Mongol invasions; Putin is their new khan. Their only goal is eradicating Ukraine as a springboard for retaking the borders of the USSR, and welfare of the people has never factored.
They do respond to brute force, however, as Finland knows. And Ukraine consistently striking deep inside Russia hits hard. Double down on supplying them. Have our allies show their teeth. And for God's sakes, let them take their gloves off in using American arms.
Because who doesn't love some nuclear war?
Why are you people actually doing this? What exactly do you get out of it?
This is a farce correct? Ukraine is absolutely not winning. This year has been especially grueling. The occupation of Kursk is not stopping the cannibalization of the Donbas Oblast.
Russia won't quit. The expansion of NATO has made it existential for them. If we don't go to the table and negotiate peace, this becomes WW3.
Sorry, if I wanted to read how Ukraine is on the cusp of winning I'd go read NAFO Twitter. Won't be renewing my subscription. As another commenter pointed out, I think that John Mearsheimer's analysis is far more realistic about what is going to happen with Ukraine.
I follow Andrew Tanner who I find one of the more reliable military and systems analysts on Ukraine while keeping an eye on what Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer and Douglas MacGregor say on the "Ukraine is doomed" side of the equation. This Arkin article aligns with Tanner. Time will tell but I am inclined to the Ukraine is winning analysis.