Posted on 08/17/2022 7:40:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This is a really good question and has piqued my interest since it speaks directly to my doctoral research, rendering me somewhat qualified to answer this question from a behavioural scientific perspective.
To understand the psychological outcome of this war, we need to understand what it is that Putin wants and then determine his current mindset with regards to the attainment of those desires or preferences. And here we run into problems, because in spite of the copious amount of ink spilt on the topic, nobody knows exactly - perhaps not even Putin himself - what he wants.
The signalling from the Kremlin ranging from NATO encroachment through de-Nazification, the possible dangers of future attacks, to downright imperialism, etc., etc., leave Putin lacking a unified message to his armies and people, and this is one of the reasons why the Kremlin have lost the information war so comprehensively.
However, it presents Putin with the unique situation within which he can slip and slide his way through this war without ever admitting defeat. For instance, following Mariupol he could simply have declared the de-Nazification process complete, called it a victory and withdrawn his armies. He could, but of course he never did, suggesting that it was never a true motive for this war.
If not true motives, what can we discern of his desires from his direction? For me, the helter-skelter of the first hours of the war is a solid indication - Putin never expected this war to last as long as it already has. In spite of the vatniks assuring us that ‘Kyiv was only a feint’, the observations on those first three days of battle belie such an assertion, baseless as it is.
Putin wanted Kyiv and he was certain that just in Crimea in 2014, his forces would take it with the minimum resistance. Zelynskyy was anticipated to flee Kyiv (or be assassinated by FSB teams inside Kyiv) and all resistance was sure to collapse at the first sign of trouble. However, none of this happened and the elite of the Russian Army were punished mercilessly for their hubris, most notably at Hostomel Airport.
As it may, Putin wanted Kyiv and for whatever we can say of the absolutely catastrophic opening phase of Russia’s war (and by God, it was so incredibly bad), he desired the Ukrainian government to collapse. Since that never happened, Putin has had to revise his preferences for the war, and then revise these again, and again, and again - in the process relieving no less than five (possibly six) theatre commanders of their posts, a list that includes the Butcher of Aleppo, Aleksandr Dvornikov - the Kremlin’s blue-eyed boy for all matters relating to genocide.
As the Russian armed forces struggle to reach even the reduced objectives and as the Ukrainian forces are now counter-attacking, I notice that the Russian invaders have become entirely reactive - they no longer dictate where the fighting should occur and when. For instance, when Ukraine broadcasted their plans to counter-attack towards Kherson, Russia drew down the resources for their offensives in Donbas and rushed these to the south to counter the Ukrainian initiative.
As the Russians crammed forces across the River Dnipro, Ukrainians simply applied their long-range artillery to destroy the sole remaining bridge there (the Antonivskyy bridge) and the Russians on the western bank of the Dnipro are now stuck and cut off from their lines of communication. In the mean while, Ukrainian forces started counter-attacking towards Izium and Russia lack the reserves to respond. Nor can Russia redeploy their forces in Kherson, because the bridge is down and the entire area is now a death trap.
But how does all of this translate into a response on your question? On the one side of the coin, it is legitimate to argue that Russia have already lost the war and that it is purely their preponderance in materiel that afford them to continue purely as a face-saving effort. But I understand that the psychology of conflict outcomes resides in a rarefied atmosphere and there may be those who prefer a more concrete indication of outcome.
To those, I believe that the Russians’ lack of reserves and initiative will cause the issue to come to a head before the end of this year, perhaps even before winter. Whichever way, it is only a matter of time - Russia’s defeat in Ukraine is now inevitable and I’m sure that Putin regrets the entire affair deeply.
This week Ukraine and U.S. already telling Putin to enjoy a winter war.
are any wars actually “won”?
lost lives, rebuilding costs, partisans... damaged prestige.
Is this a Psychologist predicting a military outcome?
From what I have seen, Russia will prevail.
Yes.
NATO has its sugar daddy, Russia and its “sanctioned” oil will soon have its. We need to take into account Putin’s little friend in these speculations.
BEIJING, August 17. /TASS/. China’s People’s Liberation Army will participate in the strategic command and staff exercise Vostok-2022 in Russia on August 30 - September 5, the Chinese Defense Ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.
“In accordance with the annual plan for cooperation between the armed forces of the two countries and the bilateral agreements the PLA will soon delegate and send part of its forces to Russia for participation in the Vostok-2022 exercise,” the statement reads. The exercise will contribute to “friendly cooperation among the armed forces of all countries, as well as to increasing the level of strategic interaction by all parties and strengthen the ability to respond to various security threats.”
Another propaganda piece from an DC armchair general, which spins things entirely from a MSM, western perspective
What did William Burns - present Director of the CIA, say about this?
Back in 2008, when George W. Bush fatefully strong-armed European members of NATO into promising future membership for Ukraine and Georgia, Burns was warning that the consequences would be dire—but NOT because “Putin’s psychology.”
In a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Burns wrote, “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. It is hard to overstate the strategic consequences” of offering Ukraine NATO membership, which, he predicted, would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”
Even the ‘experts’ don’t know. Russia can only win by raising the ante and being even more brutal. The neighboring countries know their history, especially Ukraine. They just won’t go along.
We can only hope for an internal rebellion within Russia. People’s sons are dying in an alarming number. Think of Dr. Zhivago when the retreating army met up with the ‘replacements’.
Inevitable?
No. However, what is ‘inevitable’ is 1) the continued US/EU/Western propaganda spread by shills concerning Ukraine and 2) the day of reckoning for those shills.
From someone with far more credibility than Van ZylIdiot:
“After 8 years of arming and training Ukraine’s army and air force, spending billions of tax payer dollars, the United States no longer has a viable strategy to defeat the Russian forces and compel Vladimir Putin to accept a humiliating defeat. Yes, the U.S. and NATO are pouring a large amount of HIMARS, Army Tactical Missile Systems (aks ATACMS), tanks, vehicles and aircraft into the fight, but this is only prolonging the inevitable surrender of Ukraine. Worse, it is poisoning any chance of restoring normal relations with Russia.”
https://sonar21.com/is-the-united-states-facilitating-the-death-of-ukraine/
Did the Soviets lose their quagmire in Afghanistan? This is another quagmire. We’ve had a one or two ourselves.
We have a way of exiting in a quagmire and then rebuilding the nation with tax dollars. The Soviets just walk away and provide the weapons for the continued struggle. Which... what a vicious cycle.
I don’t see the Russians ceding back any of the territory they control even if the war stopped right now.
I think it may not be a freezing and dark winter for Western Europe - but it will be cold and dim - and expensive.
I think the Russians can keep this up for a long time.
That is because the globalist propaganda machine has silenced Russia, even cut them off from the internet in order to control the narrative
Russia repeated over and over the stated goals but was contradicted by the MSM narrative. the stated goal was to restore the water supply to Crimea and stop the nazi thugs from harrassing Donbass, it was an extension of the 2014 conflict
I happen to believe the globalists want to kill Russia just like they did Libya and Iraq because of gas and oil.
Russia is blamed for starting the war but Zolenski EU and NATO is to blame for causing it. The US is to blame for stirring the pot and throwing in the last straw, when Kamala said Ukraine should join NATO
But its all Putin's fault
They’ve already lost. They may “win” but it was far more costly an operation than they had ever thought possible.
RE: From what I have seen, Russia will prevail.
What have you seen? Please tell us.
You might want to cancel your winter vacation to Germany this year.
Reports have it likely they won’t be getting any Russian gas. Supposedly some cities/towns are already planning/setting up “heating stations” where by freezing people can go sit in a warm spot for a few hours.
So on this question, right now Russia has the advantage of natural resources, population and industry, especially if China starts supplying them with weapons.
Maybe Russia by itself, but Russia with China is an unknown.
There is no untainted reporting.
If the one side had any validity, Russia would be finished as a military power and Putin would be dead months ago at the hands of their own power brokers.
If the other were true, Putin would’ve long since released the sponsored biolabs’ data, the eastern half of the country would’ve joined Russia proper, and Z would’ve fled for parts unknown, leaving a few old women to defend Kyiv.
Instead the blood, expenditure, and suffering continues — so the question is not who’s winning, but whose interests it serves for it not to be over.
RE: You might want to cancel your winter vacation to Germany this year.
Other than the Southern part of Europe, I don’t usually want to go to that continent during the winter. There’s Australia, New Zealand, Southwast Asia and the Carribeans during our winteer time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.