Are there historical examples of a protracted war where the attacker won?

I tried warning your compatriots whenever I could that you weren’t dealing with moron Germans, who think wars can be one in a few days, but the anglophere. If there’s one thing the English countries know how to do well is wage long wars, far away from home and prop up weak allies.
I see the RIDF has arrived in the thread now, “seamless transition into slow artillery warfare”. Oh my god… the run from Kiev and Sumy was anything but seamless and the front has ground down to one (1) shitty little 20-30km front in Luhansk and rocket exchanges over Kherson.

>That's a strategic failure for an attacker even by WW1 standards, lol.
Not when there's a massive artillery gap in your favor and you can just grind the enemy to paste. And considering the West appears to be sending maybe 5-6 guns/rocket artillery systems a week, that gap is not getting any smaller anytime soon. Ukrainian losses aren't getting any better either, not when they're already issuing orders to prepare the fricking women for mobilisation.

>digging bunkers
Yeah, Russia has tanks, infantry, missiles and air power on top of the artillery, you know. There's a reason even Ukrainian weren't stupid enough to start digging trenches.
>And after you stopped shelling, you have to go there and occupy the territory, which is the hard part
Not if you kill everyone first, which is what Russia is doing. Reminder that the Ukrainian government itself admitted, over a month ago, that they were losing over a thousand men per day.
Also, this isn't WW2, tanks are a lot more vulnerable nowadays. Russia didn't choose the artillery strat for shits and giggles, they did it because it greatly minimizes their own casualties while maximizing enemy casualties. They have all the time in the world : as we can plainly see, the sanctions aren't hurting them.

>We have no idea how many the Russian side is losing tho
They actually do, but of course their figures aren't to be trusted, no more than Ukrainian figures. There is little doubt as to the fact that their losses are far lower than Ukranian losses, however : they have a lot more artillery, and thus are able to inflict a lot more damage.
>They regained a lot of ground around Kiev and Kharkov
They regained ground because the Russians packed up and left out of their own volition. They weren't forced out, they simply decided that going for Kiev was no longer feasible and left before overcommitting.
>Everyone is advancing until they don't.
You have a point there, but there is also no denying that the situation has very little to do with that of WW2.
>Wew, m8.
Again, over a month ago, Ukraine admitted to losing over 1k men per day. They quickly backpedaled because clearly that information wasn't meant to become public, but still. 100k casualties really doesn't seem that far-fetched, especially considering the news we're getting from inside the country about how desperate the Ukrainian army is for new cannon fodder.
Hell, when the Russians took Severodonetsk, they found dozens of crates of blank rounds. When you have to resort to training your men right on the fricking frontline, you're completely screwed.

>Two things can end the stalemate
Dude, there is no stalemate. Everywhere Russia focuses its forces, Russia is advancing, while Ukraine isn't regaining any ground. That's not a stalemate. Russia doesn't need to end a nonexistent stalemate, they can just keep doing what they've been doing.

These are the only figures available to a Western audience that chooses not to go seek Russian or separatist sources, so everyone uses them, even though it's clearly complete bullshit. Not that Russian or separatist sources are to be fully believed either. In reality, Russian and separatist forces combined have probably lost around 15k men at most. Ukrainian losses are harder to estimate, but I'd be very surprised if the current figure is under 100k dead.

i remember in the first week they were claiming a thousand kills daily
with only a 100 losses

It’s believable but you have to remember that a lot of those are either from donetsk/luhansk militias and mercenary groups from the caucasses. Ukraine is gonna be the one with s manpower problem very soon

Is that why they’re registering women for future conscription?

Anon, do you want Ukraine to hold the russian advance, and possibly regain its territory, or not? If so, the amount of weapons it has, especially artillery, and the amount of men it has, are simply not enough. End of story.

What are you even trying to say lol? Russia is not going to pull out of the territory it conquers. It will either be annexed or turned into shithole republics like the DPR/LPR

There’s not gonna be any significant ukrainian insurgency in the occupied regions

There is, in Kherson and Melitopol, for example

have a nice day

You're a moronic tankietroon that cant tell the difference between the US and Russia, and Iraq and Ukraine

Depends on their goals. If they wanted to take all of Ukraine, yes, they'd be doomed for sure. But that's not their fricking goal.

Yes. Not anymore. So you agree to what im saying?

Would turning Kherson into a meme-republic like the DPR/LPR be a pathethic achievement? Maybe, but it would be a russian victory (albeit pyrrhic)
If we truly wanted Ukraine to win, we'd deliver hundreds of howitzers, dozens of HIMARS, F-16s, etc. to them, but we dont. So whats your fricking point, you cretin? Russia achieves its goal, NATO doesnt, because they are too much of a pussy to commit

>You could even call it a major achievement, they've been so incredibly incompetent.

So what? They still took that territory, and Ukraine cant take it back because, I reiterate, they dont have the weapons to do so.

>NATO just got Sweden and Finland lmao. You can cope about it, but that's a major win for NATO, regardless of the results in Ukraine.

I'm pro-Ukrainian and I'm glad it happened. Doesn't make Ukraines situation any less desperate, anon.

>Russia's losses have been enormous so far.

Nothing debilitating.

Yeah, okay, mate. How many years is it gonna take for Ukraine to take Donetsk back, then?

What a motivating prospect.

Putler has already lost 60000 troops bigot, lysychansk was just a strategic withdrawal from the ukrainians just wait till steiners attack

>NATO just got Sweden and Finland lmao. You can cope about it, but that's a major win for NATO, regardless of the results in Ukraine.

There's no need to cope. Not a single NATO member has a population that would be willing to go to war against anyone. It's all weak minded, demoralized, lonely and friendless gays working their useless jobs, and drinking themselves to sleep every night.

Fricking Sweden hahahahha It will be an islamic theocracy in a few decades. Natives don't have kids, men do vasectomies, and others apply for gender surgery.

Are you seriously claming this is a victory? West is morally, creatively bankrupt, it's just lonely consoomers coutnign the years to their retirement pension, and importing foreigners to keep the country running, because the natives are too "proud" to work blue collar jobs

Keep telling yourself that, Russia has yet to transition to war economy and they are now slowly but surely pushing the ukrainians back, bit don’t worry murrica will deliver the wunderaffe soon

>with populations largely sympathetic to your cause
I thought it was filled with ukrainians who were gonna do insurgency

It is.

Putin chose this current method, of slow and grinding push. He could've carpet bomb the shit out of Ukraine and conquer it in a few days, maybe even drop a couple of Nagasaki tier weak nukes here and there. SInce the western media already portrays him as a monster, he could live up to those labels

There’s not gonna be any significant ukrainian insurgency in the occupied regions

The east and south east of Ukraine is filled with russians while all the ukrainians who Care enough move west

>The east and south east of Iraq is filled with Shi'a while all the Sunni who care enough move west

>Ukrainians are in full mobilization mode, they have like 900k men under arms
Recruits with AKs don't really count

>modern war isnt fought with peasents armed with their farm tools or cheap weapons but are fought with basiclly longbow men tier
stop playing vidya and read more history.

It's the Ukrainians who are at Volkssturm levels of desperation for manpower, not the Russians.

T. Robert Mcnamera

This is the part where he cries about the USA in Afghanistan or something, as if it excuses Putin's embarrassing failure.

>Does it seem like it's going to be over anytime soon?
It can be over in a week. Victory on the battlefield is meaningless (for Russia) when their operations are limited to Eastern and Southern Ukraine because it's NATO that hold the keys to peace. Until they want peace, there will be none. When they decided they want it bad enough, the war will be over in a matter of a conference of parties. Ukraine, of course, holds no chance of winning this war militarly.
>Russia doesn't even have any legitimate stated goals, so they can claim "victory" at any point.
Correct. But it doesn't matter if they claim victory or not. The war will end when there's a deal and sanctions are lifted. As good as sanctions have been for Russia's international financial position in the short term, it's still a precarious situation that will be resolved in favor of the West in a matter of time - that is, when their energy dependence on Russia is allayed.

>Because they were already defeated in the north?
The north itself was never an objective. From the moment they couldn't take the Antonov airstrip (and thus decapitate the Ukr. government) their blitz was over.
>Propaganda-tier horse shit.
Come on, now.
>NATO can do this for a decade.
So now NATO IS in control?
>Neither did the Iraqis against the Americans.
And the Iraqis lost. The American occupation of Iraq was the protracted part. The government was toppled in what, a matter of months?
>Why would sanctions be lifted just because there's a ceasefire?
Sanctions would be lifted to secure the ceasefire. An armistice can go on indefinitely, even if NATO won't budge in formally recognizing Russian gains - which will probably be the case. The only situation where I can see NATO formally recognizing Russian over Southern and Eastern Ukraine is to approve the entry of Ukraine (what's left of it anyway) into the European Union. Ukraine would have outlived its usefulness to the West by then, however.

>The north itself was never an objective.
lel. just a road trip?
>Come on, now.
no.
>So now NATO IS in control?
If by "in control" you mean more powerful than Russia? Yes.
>And the Iraqis lost.
Bro.
>Sanctions would be lifted to secure the ceasefire.
That's on Ukraine, who seem far more willing to wage this war than NATO - which is telling and should be of serious concern for Russia.

But there is still a civil war in Syria

>get exterminated Paraguay style in a couple of years
there are laws of war nowadays, you know...

The Ukrainians can keep it up as long as they're being fed weapons by the west. Which will likely happen indefinitely as the Russians have proven their incompetence many times over, and the west knows the costs of supplying them are well worth it. Russians may "win" this fricktarded war eventually, but the expenditures are already not worth it, let alone the accrued costs over the next few years, if they even manage to win, which is a toss-up.

From an objective standpoint, they should try to cut their losses and just make a peace deal where they get Donbas and Crimea officially. Ukraine isn't likely to retake these regions, but the Russians aren't likely to take over the whole of Ukraine either. And they are losing far more than the Ukrainians as time goes by. They've already fricked themselves hard and it's not going to get any better in the future, as long as the war goes on they're just fricking themselves more.

Cope

>if the population doesn't give a shit then nobody will raise their voice if the government keeps supplying Ukraine
They do give a shit about inflation and the collapse of energy and food supply.
>Take a look at what happened in South Vietnam. The US had been supplying them since 1955 and only between 1968-1969 did people start giving a shit.
The Vietnam conflict wasn't crashing the global economy

It achieved nothing because its not enough. Ukraine needs not a few dozen pathethic howitzers, they need atleast a few hundred, they need fighter jets, proper anti-air, etc.

The strongest military-industrial complex on earth, plus the strongest military alliance, can easily give Ukraine those things. They just dont do it.

And as long as they dont, Ukraine will retain the disadvantage in the long-term war of attrition that Russia is leading right now.

I hate Russia but being delusional doesn't help.

>The strongest military-industrial complex on earth, plus the strongest military alliance, can easily give Ukraine those things. They just dont do it.
How could they afford to? If 100B didn't do anything, are we talking about a trillion? What government could survive offering that much of their nation's wealth for a war people don't even care about? It was never feasible.

Not anymore it isn't. Otherwise the US would have invaded Iran or North Korea sometime over the past 15 years.
And pulling dog and pony shows like roe vs wade crap to distract the populace will not work anymore. The average americans struggles, but there's two things that piss off the average american above everything else: gas prices going up, and gun control laws. Those are sacred issues. They will riot for real if the gas prices keep going up.

>If 100B didn't do anything,

Source? I only know of 40 B from the US. For a collective like NATO, 100 B is not a scary amount of money to spend.

The EU spends that amount of money on russian gas in a year. Just to provide you with a comparison.

>Diplomacy doesn't work like that, even Palestinians and Israelis negotiate during crucial moments.
They will negotiate, of course. What I'm saying is that you are never going to get the same deals you got with Russia before "stabbing them in the back" as they see it.

Least hawkish Westerner.

Which is why you and all your peers need to be exterminated. israelite.

Feeding Ukraine weapons isn't going to affect gas and food prices. The Russians aren't going back to those old deals anyway after being shafted by the west, so it's pointless to consider. Ties have been severed and it will probably be decades before relations are back to the level they were last year, no matter what the outcome of this conflict is. People can get mad all they want, what's done is done. I personally don't agree they made the right decisions either; giving more money to the fricking arabs is hardly better than giving it to the Russians.

unlikely
Russia and China can and do just rely on one another in a way that means they can do what they please without really giving a damn what the west wants. And europe will still buy russian oil, and pay for it in Rubles too. India doesn't have a moral backbone and will just do whatever russia and china want, like they always have. If the other baltic states want nukes then let the west arm them, I'm sure that wont end poorly for anyone.

>China relies on Russia
yes. one example is oil. China gets more oil from Russia than anywhere else and China imports more than two thirds of the oil it uses.

https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/file-uploads/Where%20Does%20China%20Get%20Its%20Oil_%20-%20The%20Wire%20China.pdf

China gets more oil from Russia than anywhere else. Fact.

Maybe don't be moronic.