Why The Ukraine War Isn't Actually a Stalemate

Summary

This video script delves into the misconception of the War in Ukraine being a stalemate akin to World War I's trench warfare. It argues that while front lines have seen minimal movement, Ukraine has made strategic gains, particularly impacting Crimea. The script challenges the narrative that Ukraine is incapable of progress without additional technology, highlighting instances where Ukrainian forces have successfully penetrated Russian defenses. It also addresses the geopolitical context, including Western impatience and Russian propaganda aiming to weaken support for Ukraine. The video emphasizes Ukraine's strategic patience, prioritizing the preservation of life over territorial gains, and calls for continued support to ensure a just resolution.

Takeaways

• 😐 World War I's trench warfare created a deadly stalemate with little to no strategic gains for either side, leading to a war of attrition.
• 🌐 The current conflict in Ukraine is sometimes compared to WWI's stalemate, but this comparison overlooks the complexities and dynamics of the ongoing war.
• 🔍 A true stalemate in warfare requires both stagnant battlefield conditions and an inability to change or sidestep strategic realities.
• 🏰 Despite perceptions, the war in Ukraine has seen movements and changes, with Russia retreating from key areas, indicating it's not a stalemate.
• 📜 Ukraine's commander's 'stalemate' essay was misunderstood; it was a call for technology to ensure a swift victory, not an admission of defeat.
• 🌎 Western media and politicians risk misinterpreting the war's progress due to geopolitical shifts and a desire for quick resolutions.
• 🚀 Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to make strategic gains when equipped with the right technology, challenging the stalemate narrative.
• 🛡 The difference in ethos between Ukraine and Russia regarding troop treatment significantly impacts the war's dynamics and Ukraine's strategic decisions.
• 💥 Western support for Ukraine is wavering due to fears of prolonged conflict and potential escalation, influenced by Russian propaganda.
• 🌟 The Ukrainian military's strategy prioritizes the preservation of life over quick but costly victories, setting it apart from Russia's approach.
• ⏳ Patience is crucial in the Ukraine conflict; historical parallels like D-Day show that slow progress doesn't equate to losing the war.

Q & A

What was the primary cause of the stalemate in World War I trench warfare?

The primary cause of the stalemate in World War I trench warfare was the entrenched trench lines across the entire battlefield with no flanks or weak spots that could be exploited, leading to a war of attrition where neither side could make meaningful gains.

How did the concept of a stalemate apply to the War in Ukraine, as discussed in the script?

The concept of a stalemate in the War in Ukraine has been applied by some media to describe a situation where battle lines have barely moved in over a year, suggesting a prolonged war with no end in sight. However, the script argues that this is a misapplication, as there are more dynamics at play that suggest the war is not truly at a stalemate.

What are the two major requirements for a war to be considered a true stalemate according to the script?

For a war to be considered a true stalemate, there must be stagnant battlefield conditions where objectives of both sides are prevented from moving forward due to strategic realities, and there must be no way to change or sidestep those strategic realities, with both sides having everything at their disposal and still being unable to achieve a breakthrough.

How does the script refute the idea that the war in Ukraine is a stalemate?

The script refutes the idea by pointing out that Russia has retreated from key areas and that Ukraine has made progress, particularly around Crimea, and that the Ukrainian military strategy prioritizes the preservation of life over territorial gains, leading to a more cautious and slower approach.

What role does the media's portrayal of the war as a stalemate play according to the script?

The script suggests that the media's portrayal of the war as a stalemate can create a confirmation bias and filter on reality, influencing western perceptions and potentially weakening support for Ukraine by suggesting that continued support won't make a difference.

Why does the script mention the use of western weapons in Ukraine as a point of geopolitical context?

The script mentions the use of western weapons in Ukraine to highlight the broader geopolitical context and the narrative supported by Russia, which is attempting to defeat the influx of western weapons as one of the main obstacles to their victory.

What does the script suggest about the Ukrainian military's strategy regarding the preservation of life?

The script suggests that the Ukrainian military places a high value on the preservation of life, adopting a slower and more cautious strategy to minimize casualties, even if it means not making rapid territorial gains.

How does the script describe the difference in the treatment of troops between Russia and Ukraine?

The script describes a significant difference in the treatment of troops, with Russia willing to sacrifice a large number of soldiers, including prisoners and minorities, to achieve small strategic victories, while Ukraine prioritizes the lives of its soldiers over immediate territorial gains.

What is the script's stance on the provision of advanced weaponry to Ukraine by its western partners?

The script implies that the provision of advanced weaponry to Ukraine could potentially change the dynamics of the war, allowing Ukraine to make significant progress and suggesting that western partners should consider providing such support.

What does the script suggest about the future of the war in Ukraine and the role of western support?

The script suggests that the future of the war in Ukraine is uncertain and that continued western support is crucial. It questions whether western partners will remain committed for the long haul or treat the conflict as a passing interest.

Outlines

00:00

🌎 The Horrors of World War I and Parallels to Ukraine

The paragraph delves into the devastating nature of trench warfare during World War I, highlighting the stalemate that resulted in a war of attrition, where both sides suffered immense losses with little to no territorial gain. It draws a parallel to the current conflict in Ukraine, suggesting that some view the situation as a potential repeat of the past. The narrative emphasizes the human cost of such conflicts and the political stubbornness that prolongs the suffering. The paragraph also introduces the sponsor, MyHeritage, and its role in connecting people to their family histories, subtly linking the past with the present.

05:01

🔍 Debunking the Stalemate Myth in the Ukrainian Conflict

This paragraph challenges the notion of a stalemate in the Ukrainian conflict by dissecting the criteria that define a true stalemate. It argues that the situation in Ukraine does not meet these criteria, as there have been strategic movements and potential for change. The paragraph discusses the media's portrayal of the war and the potential for a prolonged conflict, emphasizing that a closer look reveals a more complex and dynamic situation than what is often reported.

10:03

🚀 Ukraine's Underestimated Military Progress and Western Support

The paragraph focuses on Ukraine's military progress and the role of Western support. It counters the narrative that Ukraine is not making significant strides by pointing out key victories and the strategic importance of Crimea. The discussion highlights Russia's psychological tactics to undermine Western support and the importance of continued assistance to Ukraine. The paragraph also touches on the broader geopolitical context and the impact of shifting media focus on public perception and political will.

15:05

🛡 The Strategic Patience of Ukraine Contrasted with Russian Aggression

This paragraph contrasts Ukraine's strategic approach, which prioritizes the preservation of human life, with Russia's willingness to sacrifice troops for minor gains. It discusses the different ethos regarding troop treatment and the implications for the conflict's progress. The paragraph also addresses the impatience of the international community and the media's unrealistic expectations, emphasizing Ukraine's commitment to a cautious and life-preserving strategy despite external pressures.

20:10

⏳ The Long Game: Ukraine's Strategy and International Support

The final paragraph addresses the long-term nature of the conflict and Ukraine's strategy, which is focused on attrition and the eventual liberation of its territory. It discusses the importance of patience and the potential for Ukraine to make significant progress with the right support. The paragraph also touches on the fear of nuclear escalation and the role of media in shaping perceptions of the war, ending with a call for continued support and a commitment to providing accurate information about the conflict.

Keywords

💡Stalemate

A stalemate in warfare refers to a situation where neither side can make significant progress or gain an advantage, resulting in a deadlock. In the context of the video, it discusses how World War I's trench warfare led to a stalemate due to entrenched positions and a lack of strategic breakthroughs. The video also addresses the misconception of a stalemate in the current War in Ukraine, suggesting that while some front lines may appear static, the war is not truly at a stalemate as Ukraine has made strategic gains with the right support.

💡Trench Warfare

Trench warfare was a tactic used extensively in World War I, where opposing armies would dig trenches and engage in prolonged periods of fighting with little ground gained. The video script describes how this led to a devastating stalemate, with soldiers exposed to continuous danger without significant territorial gains. It contrasts this historical scenario with the current situation in Ukraine to discuss the dynamics of modern warfare.

💡War of Attrition

A war of attrition is a conflict where the primary strategy is to exhaust the enemy by wearing down their resources, such as soldiers and ammunition, over time. The video script uses this term to describe the grim reality of World War I, where the objective shifted from strategic victories to simply outlasting the enemy. It implies a costly and prolonged conflict with high human and material costs.

💡Front Line

The front line in military terms refers to the boundary or line along which opposing forces face each other in a conflict. The video discusses how the front lines in the War in Ukraine have seen minimal movement over a year, which has led some to mistakenly view the conflict as a stalemate. However, the script argues that this static appearance belies ongoing strategic efforts and potential for change.

💡MyHeritage

MyHeritage is a service for family history research and DNA testing, mentioned in the video as a sponsor. It is used as an example of how technology can connect people to their past and build understanding across divides, even in the context of historical conflicts like World War I. The video suggests that despite past wars, tools like MyHeritage can help individuals find common ground and peace.

💡Attrition

Attrition in a military context refers to the gradual loss of military strength through casualties, desertions, or other factors. The video script discusses attrition as a strategy in World War I, where the goal was to deplete the enemy's forces over time. It contrasts this with the more dynamic and strategic approach of the Ukrainian military, which aims to minimize attrition and loss of life.

💡Geopolitical Context

Geopolitical context refers to the political, economic, and social factors that influence international relations and power dynamics. The video script mentions the geopolitical context as a factor influencing the narrative around the War in Ukraine, suggesting that external pressures and perceptions can shape how conflicts are understood and reported.

💡Nuclear Escalation

Nuclear escalation refers to the potential for a conflict to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, which would have catastrophic consequences. The video script alludes to fears of nuclear escalation as a factor that might influence the support provided to Ukraine by its western partners, suggesting that these fears are being manipulated to affect the political will to support Ukraine.

💡Media Narrative

A media narrative is the way stories or events are framed and presented by media outlets, which can significantly influence public perception. The video discusses how certain media narratives, potentially influenced by Russian state media, have portrayed the War in Ukraine as a stalemate, which may not reflect the actual progress and strategic efforts of the Ukrainian military.

💡Strategic Realities

Strategic realities in warfare refer to the practical circumstances and constraints that shape military strategy and operations. The video script uses this term to discuss how the perception of a stalemate in the War in Ukraine is based on an incomplete understanding of the strategic realities on the ground, which are subject to change with new technologies or shifts in military strategy.

💡Pyrrhic Victory

A Pyrrhic victory is a win that comes at a great cost, often outweighing the benefits. The video script mentions how Russia has achieved some territorial gains at a very high cost in terms of casualties and resources, suggesting that these victories do not necessarily indicate a successful strategy or an overall advantage in the war.

Highlights

World War I's trench warfare resulted in a devastating stalemate with no strategic breakthroughs, leading to a war of attrition.

The War in Ukraine is being compared to WWI's stalemate, raising fears of a prolonged conflict with no end in sight.

A true stalemate in warfare requires stagnant battlefield conditions and no possibility to change strategic realities.

The war in Ukraine does not meet the criteria for a true stalemate as there have been territorial changes and strategic movements.

Ukraine's commander in chief's essay on the war does not admit to an unbreakable stalemate but requests tools for a quick victory.

Western support for Ukraine is influenced by geopolitical context and a narrative partly supported by Russia.

Ukrainians still support fighting until victory, contradicting the narrative that they feel like western pawns in a stalemate.

Ukraine has made strategic progress, particularly impacting Crimea's defense, despite the perception of a stalemate.

Russian intelligence and media are promoting a false stalemate narrative to weaken western support for Ukraine.

Ukraine values the preservation of its soldiers' lives, adopting a cautious strategy that contrasts with Russia's forceful approach.

Western impatience for results and unrealistic expectations may misinterpret Ukraine's measured progress as a lack of success.

The Ukrainian commander's essay is a call for support to achieve a total breakthrough, not an admission of defeat.

Ukraine's strategy prioritizes life preservation over immediate territorial gains, aligning with its goals to end suffering.

The media's portrayal of the war as a show demanding immediate results overlooks the complexity and human cost of the conflict.

Historically, media has been impatient for war results, as seen during D-Day, but slow progress does not equate to losing.

Ukraine's requests for technology are to level the playing field and avoid unnecessary sacrifices, not due to a lack of progress.

Western partners' hesitation to provide full support to Ukraine is often due to unfounded fears of nuclear escalation.

Transcripts

In World War I, trench warfare descended into a stalemate - one of the deadliest battlefield

situations in human history.

As battle lines were drawn, and troops became firmly entrenched, but unable to push forward,

a situation formed where neither side was able to make any meaningful gains, but remained

exposed to the dangers of the battlefield all the same.

This stalemate was the result of a simple reality.

The trench lines for either side were firmly embedded across the entire battlefield, with

no flanks or weak spots that could be exploited, forcing wave after wave of artillery barrages

and frontal assaults as the only feasible combat options.

This battlefield situation was devastating.

With no real strategic breakthroughs possible, the conflict became a war of attrition - or

a war where the primary goal was to simply outlast your opponent, by forcing them to

run out of soldiers and ammunition before you did.

Ultimately, nearly 10,000,000 soldiers, and an additional 10,000,000 citizens, died as

both sides faced disease, artillery shells, over the top raids, poison, and more, all

to move their map just a few feet if they were lucky.

But national leaders remained stubbornly unwilling to relent, forcing millions of soldiers to

die before finally giving in, just to maintain the status quo and save face for politicians.

It’s a situation that nobody wants a repeat of - the most wasteful form of war, where

everybody pays, and nobody wins.

But, according to some, a repeat is currently exactly where the world is heading.

As the War in Ukraine continues to unfold, it is becoming increasingly common for the

media to apply the logic of a World War I stalemate to the Ukrainian front, leading

many to fear a long war with no end in sight - with some suggesting a Ukrainian surrender

is inevitable, and shouldn’t be put off any longer.

On the surface, it may seem to be quite logical, with battle lines that have barely moved in

over a year.

But in reality, there is a lot more to this war than meets the eye - or the front page

headlines.

Today’s analysis was made possible by MyHeritage, the sponsor of this video, and the leading

global service for family history research and DNA testing.

If you’re like me, you’re probably at least a little bit curious about who your

ancestors were, and what impact they may have made on the world, or even simply what they

might have looked like in real life.

MyHeritage is my own personal favorite tool when it comes to building and exploring my

family tree - and I’ve used it to discover fascinating things, like new relatives, and

even draft documents that showed my family fought on opposite sides during World War

I - proof that even in times of conflict, there can still be a future of peace and harmony

among individuals when people set aside their differences and find common ground.

As long as you know the names of your parents and grandparents, MyHeritage makes it fun

and easy to discover your origins and build out your family tree.

As you build, their system does all the hard work, making it easy to search and discover

information and connections from 19 billion+ historical documents, and providing features

like Instant Discoveries that allow you to add an entire branch to your family tree with

just the click of a button.

I even had some fun with the platform animating an old photo of one of my famous ancestors

to see what he might have looked like in real life.

Still not quite as good looking as me.

If you want to make discoveries like this on your own, what are you waiting for?

Sign up right now using the link in the description or in the pinned comment for a special 50%

discount.

Thanks to MyHeritage for sponsoring this video.

Now, let’s head back to the Ukrainian front.

For a war to be considered a true stalemate, at least two major things are required.

First, there must truly be stagnant battlefield conditions.

The objectives of both sides must be prevented from moving forward due to strategic realities

that prevent a breakthrough, such as the World War I trenches running from coast to mountains,

with no soft flanks available to exploit.

Second, there must be no way to change or sidestep those strategic realities.

For a true stalemate to form, both sides must already have everything at their disposal

in play, with no way to acquire more things to put in play, and still be unable to achieve

a breakthrough.

Both criteria are very important to a true stalemate.

Seeing either criteria individually is extremely rare.

Seeing both criteria appear together, especially in the day of modern warfare, is almost impossible.

If the objectives of either side are moving forward, even if much more slowly than expected

or desired, the war is not a stalemate.

It’s simply moving more slowly than expected or desired.

And if the strategic realities of today can somehow be changed, even if only by the use

of extremely desperate measures, the war is not a stalemate.

It simply hasn’t yet progressed to the point where either side is willing to use those

desperate measures.

A game of chess ends in a stalemate when both sides have no remaining legal moves to make

without sacrificing their own king.

This stalemate can be enforced, only because in a game of chess, everyone is required to

play by the same rules, and no new pieces can be added to the game to shake things up.

But real warfare is different.

It’s not a game.

There is no tightly controlled and enforced rulebook that prevents players from making

surprising moves.

And there is nothing preventing players from adding more pieces to the board at any given

moment to end a stalemate.

In real warfare, there is only what you are willing and able to do, and what you are not.

So let’s consider the war in Ukraine.

For the past year, there have been few meaningful moves on either the Russian or the Ukrainian

front lines, with only a little over 500 square miles of territory changing hands, despite

tens of thousands of casualties, and billions of dollars invested in equipment and resources.

Russian generals have made several attempts to push further into Ukraine, only to be met

by staggering loss rates, and little to show to their Kremlin handlers.

And for their part, Ukraine has also attempted to push Russia out of its territory, although

with more conservative use of forces, only to be held back by thick minefields and fortifications

that have hampered their efforts and caused them to slow down their assaults rather than

wasting too many of their men.

Reflecting on these trends, Ukraine’s commander in chief recently released an essay on the

war where he appeared to, and I do mean appeared to, describe the current situation as a stalemate,

saying that without further technology, it would not be possible for his forces to push

Russia out.

And Russia, for its part, has picked up on this narrative, and has tried to double down

to achieve its own ends, acting through their intermediary, Belarus, to say that the situation

is wasteful, and requires a stop to hostilities, something which I’ve covered in another

video, and which reveals that Russia believes they have something to gain by painting the

situation as more hopeless than it is.

But the truth is, there is much more to this situation than meets the eye, and a second

glance reveals that things aren’t quite as doom and gloom as some headlines might

lead people to believe.

While the front lines may not have moved much in the past year, it is indeed a fact that

Russia has retreated and withdrawn forces from many key areas, unable to sustain the

barrage of Ukrainian assaults.

This trend is making certain key regions untenable for Russia to defend long term, and also means

that, by definition, the war itself is not a stalemate, even if certain fronts appear

to be frozen, because the war as a whole has not been stopped from progressing.

And it’s also a fact that the Ukrainian general’s famous stalemate essay, which

many have claimed as a Ukrainian admission that they cannot achieve victory, does not

actually say what most headlines about it claim it says.

And when one reads just a little bit deeper, and reads the actual essay, instead of the

headlines about the essay, in context with other statements that have come from the Ukrainian

government, a different story readily emerges - not of an admission to an unbreakable stalemate,

but of a simple request for the key tools that can help to ensure a quick victory without

the wasteful use of peoples’ valuable lives.

First, let’s talk about why the narrative has become so confusing.

Because there is a broader geopolitical context behind what’s recently been going on here

- and a narrative supported in part by Russia, as they make a valiant effort to try to defeat

one of their main enemies holding them back from victory - influxes of western weapons

into Ukraine.

As the Middle East becomes the new sexy thing for western politicians and news outlets to

focus on in an upcoming election season, political support for Ukraine has begun to dry up, and

there is increasing pressure to bring the conflict to a close - not to victory, mind

you, but simply to a close.

After nearly two years, the war in Ukraine has begun to feel dull, boring, and even frustrating

to many western voters, many of whom have moved past their initial shock at seeing civilians

bombed by Russian invaders, and have begun to simply accept Russian aggression as a fact

of life, or even allowed themselves to be swayed by Russian talking points, while the

shock of what they have seen going on in the Middle East remains fresh in their minds.

With tensions growing, many people in the west are nervous that if the war in Ukraine

does not end soon, they may find themselves potentially supporting a prolonged, broader

war being fought on two fronts, or potentially even three fronts if China makes a move against

Taiwan.

And this nervousness is creating a confirmation bias and a filter on reality that colors the

way many westerners view and report on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Because many of Ukraine’s western partners are becoming weary of supporting the ongoing

conflict, promoting the idea that the war has become a stalemate is a natural way of

settling the consciences of western voters and politicians by telling them that even

if they did continue to support Ukraine, it wouldn’t make a difference, allowing them

to redirect their attention elsewhere without feeling guilty for giving up on their partner.

Russian media knows this, and has supported this exact narrative, even going a step further,

and seeding the idea that continued western support is not getting Ukraine closer to a

victory, but is instead only prolonging the inevitable and costing more Ukrainian lives.

By helping them, Russia claims, the west is actually hurting them.

It’s a clever psychological trick that flips someones’ positive intentions and frames

them as the very thing causing the suffering they are trying to prevent, leaving them in

a state of confusion and inaction - and it’s a classic example of potential KGB misdirection,

with many well-cited parallels throughout the Cold War.

Many well-meaning western media outlets in turn have cited similar talking points, not

realizing what their original source was.

You would think that most people could see right through this.

But for some reason, many westerners have chosen to believe this talking point that

comes from Russia, rather than simply listening to what Ukraine itself is actually saying

about its will to continue fighting.

Spoiler alert: Ukrainians themselves have not lost their will to fight, and over and

against the talking points, they do not feel like they are being used as western pawns

in a stalemate.

Recent surveys show that the majority of Ukrainians still support fighting until the war is won,

and until Russia leaves all of their occupied lands.

That’s because they see the actual enemy army in their own backyards, and not just

in news clippings, and the enemy for them is real, and not theoretical.

They want freedom for their country, and are glad to have western support to help them

in that fight.

They do not see western support as costing Ukrainian lives, but rather as protecting

and preserving them from allowing Russian aggression to go any further.

What Russia wants more than anything is a weakened target that they can simply bulldoze

over.

And currently, the best way for them to do this is by spreading a false stalemate narrative

that weakens support from Ukraine’s critical partners.

The Russian Army may have lost most of its battlefield effectiveness.

But Russian intelligence and state media services have lost none of their shrewdness.

But one does need to ask how afraid Russia must truly be to be pushing talking points

like this, so hard.

And to understand that desperation, and why the war is not actually a stalemate, you need

look no further than the main naval port for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet - or rather, what

used to be the main naval port for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which has now been rendered

obsolete by long-range Ukrainian missiles, which have forced Russia to relocate much

of its navy, and which proves that, when given access to the appropriate technologies, Ukraine

can indeed quickly break through supposed stalemate situations.

In a similar scenario, Ukrainian SCALP and STORM missiles recently broke through in the

highest priority region for Russian air defense systems, hitting a shipyard next to the Kirsch

Strait Bridge - one of the only entry points into Crimea - and proving that, if they wanted

to, Ukraine could penetrate many high priority and heavily defended Russian targets closer

to home.

In fact, Ukraine has managed to hit Moscow with long-range drones, and has also destroyed

many critical oil depots and airfields, whittling down on already fractured Russian supply chains.

These are just small examples, and many more could be cited, showing that Ukraine is making

progress, and in particular, is making Crimea untenable for Russia to defend long term.

This would become almost a certainty if Ukraine was given access to missiles with a 300 kilometer

range - missiles which could be provided by many of Ukraine’s western partners - and

which would give Ukraine the ability to target the remaining Russian naval targets and airfields

on the peninsula.

For these reasons, Crimea has become a primary strategic target for Ukraine.

A target they could very well win, leading to a cascading victory for other objectives

as well.

In fact, Russia is so nervous about Ukraine’s growing capabilities here, that they are even

discussing partnering with China to build an underwater tunnel to Crimea as a bandaid

response so that they can continue to send supplies to the area when the inevitable happens

and above-ground supply lines grind to a halt.

Instead of recognizing reality, they are quite literally attempting to bury their heads in

the sand.

But that’s a topic for another video, so be sure to subscribe and hit the notification

bell for a detailed breakdown in the future.

Every time Russia takes a big hit to the nose like this, stalemate narratives introduce

themselves once again, often starting with Russia and their partners, like Belarus, and

then trickling down into western media outlets, through journalists that find that it is easier

to repeat softened down Russian talking points than it is to do actual critical thinking,

sacrificing Ukrainian lives so that they can exist for a few more days in their mediocre

career - whether intentional, or not.

And, there’s a good reason for Russia to promote things like this.

Successes like these make Russia very nervous that if Ukraine were to receive access to

more advanced weaponry, Ukraine could easily make all of their territory untenable for

Russian troops, and eventually allow Ukraine to completely win the war.

Russia does not want this, so in an attempt to prove that Ukraine isn’t making progress,

and thereby exhaust the political will of Ukraine’s partners, the stalemate narrative

is introduced, and repeated.

This narrative usually ignores the progress Ukraine is making around Crimea, and focuses

instead on the largely frozen front lines, as if that was the only arena in a very large

war effort.

And stalemate claims also ignore a major, but very crucial fact about those frozen front

lines that makes them not quite the freeze that most clickbait media headlines claim

they are.

Ukraine and Russia have very different ethos when it comes to the treatment of their troops,

and very different appetites when it comes to throwing men at an objective - a phenomena

that means that while Russia has brought its full force to bear against Ukraine, the same

is not yet true for Ukraine’s efforts against Russia.

And remember, for a stalemate to be a true stalemate, both sides must be maxed out, with

no ability to notch up the pressure.

Russia has proven throughout the war that they see many of their soldiers as basically

nothing but meat shields, with many of them being drafted or recruited into the military

after being deemed as undesirables.

For example, in previous videos, we’ve shown how many Russian soldiers are prisoners, and

the Russian elite can write off the loss of such troops as a net-gain on their balance

sheets of people the state no longer needs to pay to keep incarcerated.

In another video, we’ve also shown how many Russian soldiers are minorities, disproportionately

being drafted from regions that have historically been the most likely to foment separatist

movements against Moscow.

And their loss, too, can be barbarically written off by the Russian elite as a net gain towards

their overall goals, by softening the strength of any potential internal opposition.

These facts, and others, have made Russia willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands

of troops to capture relatively small objectives so that they can move the map forward and

show progress.

This has allowed Russia to claim several so-called victories, such as Bakhmut, albeit at a pyrrhic

cost much higher than the strategic value of the objective.

But Ukraine, for its part, places a much higher value on its men’s lives, leading them to

adopt a strategy that is intentionally slower, and much more cautious, to keep their casualties

at a minimum.

To put it another way, preservation of life is, in and of itself, a strategic priority

for Ukraine, but not for Russia.

Ukraine wants its territory back, but it wants it back for a reason - to end the suffering

of its people.

And creating needless suffering to get that territory back is counterproductive to those

goals.

So when Ukraine encounters barriers during their counteroffensives, say, Russian air

superiority that would devastate their men if they moved forward, they are not shy about

holding back, backing off, and waiting for a better time - because they value their men’s

lives more than their leaders’ temporary pride.

Whereas Russia would push on no matter what the cost, securing small, strategic, but pyrrhic

steps forward, to save face for its leaders, Ukraine has been unwilling to do the same.

So Ukraine has not gained much territory since the early days of the war.

But, critically ignored by many, it has also lost very little.

For westerners not on the firing line, this has sometimes led to misinterpretations of

the situation on the ground, and impatience, leading them to believe that Ukraine is not

making progress, and leading many politicians to make demands for results that are unrealistic,

with threats to remove their support if they don’t.

It’s like the classic out of touch boss, saying that the beatings will resume until

morale improves.

In this case though, the statement is instead, our support will continue to be withheld,

until you achieve the results that would only be possible with our support.

A similar sentiment has been expressed by many media outlets, which treat the war more

like a show than an actual conflict involving real peoples’ lives - acting like a picky

audience saying they’ll leave for other options if they don’t see the character

development they want within the next season.

And in interviews with the Ukrainian president, and Ukrainian generals, you can often see

the exasperation in their faces at the unrealistic expectations of media outlets and politicians

that implicitly demand that they force their troops forward to be just like Russia, achieving

pyrrhic objectives just to satisfy the onlooking world.

The irony is that one of the things that makes Ukraine worthy of our support is that they

don’t do this.

But because they don’t do this, the world is also losing its patience for continued

support, demanding instead immediate results.

The world writes the conflict off as a stalemate, when in reality, the generals are just trying

to make the best decisions possible, and they value their soldiers’ lives more than our

opinions, and the victory of the war, more than the victory of the battle.

If this seems discouraging, this is hardly the first time in history that we’ve seen

something like this.

During D-Day, the invasion that led to the end of World War II in dramatic victory for

the Allies, the people of the day didn’t yet know what the outcome would be.

Newspapers from media outlets safe overseas complained, saying that things were going

slowly, with doomsday headlines predicting a very bad outcome.

The media has always been impatient for results, and for quick dopamine hits.

But D-Day proves that failing to live up to media expectations hardly means that you are

losing the war.

Going back to the famous essay of the Ukrainian commander in chief, we’re now positioned

to view these stalemate statements in context.

Ukraine is not saying, and has never said, that the war as a whole is a stalemate.

What they have said is that certain arenas are showing slow progress due to a lack of

fervor from their partners, who have failed to provide, or have been slow to provide,

the key technologies needed for a total breakthrough.

In some situations, temporary technological parity has caused Ukraine to be stuck in place,

although it could push forward if it were willing to sacrifice more troops.

But this in and of itself is impressive - considering Ukraine is a small nation, fighting what was

once deemed to be the second most powerful military in the world.

Imagine what could happen if the technology tipped in their favor.

Ukraine has demonstrated that when they have access to the right tools, they can break

through any door that is put in front of them.

Thus far, those tools have not been given to them.

So, they have slowed down their counteroffensive efforts until they can level the playing field,

rather than sending their troops into a situation where the enemy has air superiority.

Until then, Ukraine continues to take steps forward - slow steps, perhaps, but steps nonetheless.

And in a war of attrition, Ukraine has a long way to go until they are truly depleted.

They have time, and they are willing to take as much time as is needed.

The question is, are their partners in it for the long haul?

Or will they treat the Ukraine War as just another show, exciting yesterday, but quickly

going out of season?

If you’re curious about what’s holding western partners back from committing to provide

the support Ukraine needs, the main reason is fear of nuclear escalation.

These fears may seem valid on the surface, but they are largely misplaced - another fear

tactic used by Russian media to achieve their own aims.

For more on that, be sure to subscribe and hit the notification bell for our upcoming

episode on why Putin could never launch a nuke.

As the War in Ukraine continues, it’s my goal to continue to provide you with the best

information.

For future updates, be sure to subscribe.

And if you found something valuable in this video, please take a quick second to hit the

like button so that more people can see this report.

For more, click on one of these videos.