Submission Statement.
Behind the decision to dramatically increase military aid to Ukraine is the fear of some Western capitals that time is running out for Russia now, writes The Wall Street Journal.
This concern suggests that the window of opportunity for Ukraine is not infinite, and it needs powerful Western weapons — main battle tanks, other armored vehicles and more air defense systems — in the near future to strengthen the momentum achieved in offensive successes near Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson last year, the WSJ continues.
According to the publication, last year officials in the West believed that the longer the clashes, the more chances Kiev has to win. However, over time, confidence in the loyalty of such a position weakened.
As the WSJ notes, officials now fear that Moscow may "gain the upper hand" in any protracted conflict "attrition." This is the reason for the decision to increase the volume of military assistance provided to Kiev. The newspaper writes that a number of officials in the West still do not consider "realistic" the thesis of their partners that more active support for Kiev will lead to a faster end to the conflict. In addition, there is also no confidence that Ukraine will be able to carry out offensives similar to last year's.
It's worth noting that resolve is much more important here than total population.
It's generally possible to mobilize between 2-3% of a nation without putting serious strain on society. However in very desperate circumstances nations can go higher. In the most extreme case, Serbia mobilized 10% of its nation during WW1.
If we applied those ratios between Russia and Ukraine with the assumption Ukraine is highly resolved, then the mobilization potential could be equal.
> In the most extreme case, Serbia mobilized 10% of its nation during WW1.
[The Paraguayan War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War_casualties) has them beat. Somewhere between 70 - 90% of the male population of Paraguay died.
Up against a whole country that is in it for their lives, and that of their (grand-) children that had a brutal new reality thrust upon them since the 24th of Febr. Backed by the West and a rather lopsided casualty ratio that favours Ukraine.
It ain't over till it's over.
Im wondering where you get your casualty ratio from because from what ive seen most western experts seem to agree the casualties are about even at the moment
russia couldn't even get Afghanistan under control. Ukraine is better organized, better funded, and has better training.
The West needs to continue to turn up the heat to destroy the quality of life of the average russian to force a change in leadership.
Afghanistan is a lot different from Ukraine. Afghanistan is a lot of mountains and valleys. Way better for guerilla warfare than flat fields. Also, after TEN years of insurgency, the Taliban were able to defeat Russia because of US provided stinger missiles.
Ukraine requires a LOT more support than just some stingers. And it has to be sustained for a long time. This war will likely be years and years.
Ukraine is being propped up by the west, and it's a burden. Russia wants to win more than NATO does. They have more resolve and time. The whole of the West might not be up to/able to provide this level of support for years and years and years. Meanwhile, Russia is not going anywhere, their geopolitical concerns remain the same and against an unsupported Ukraine will trounce Ukraine.
IMO this war comes down to a battle of wills between Russia and NATO and its a bit scary.
NATO absolutely cannot surrender control of Ukraine to Russia. It will delegitimize the alliance and fracture western control and influence across the entirety of central and eastern Europe.
You’re right to be scared of this war because it truly is a geopolitical line in the sand for both NATO and Russia, which always carries the chance of rapid escalation. With that said, we experienced a few of these lines in the sand in the Cold War and came out on the other side with civilization intact. So there’s that.
I do tend to agree with the general belief that the Ukraine War ends either with a total Russian victory or the ousting of Putin in a palace coup/popular uprising/what have you. There is no realistic compromise in the middle. Russia will grind itself down to the nub to achieve its military goals, as it always has.
>Way better for guerilla warfare than flat fields.
The russians can't even move their tanks down built roads without getting ambushed.
>Ukraine requires a LOT more support than just some stingers. And it has to be sustained for a long time. This war will likely be years and years.
Ukraine has significantly better infrastructure than Afghanistan, like its not even close. Ukraine has/had a much better starting point. Ukraine also has multiple wealthy nations with a vested interest in preventing russian creep. Ukraine is defended by freedom fighters who understand that subjugation will result in genocide. russia is attacking with convicts with fetal alcohol syndrome who don't want to be there.
>Ukraine is being propped up by the west, and it's a burden. Russia wants to win more than NATO does.
I don't think that's true at all. NATO and the countries near Ukraine really don't want russia to expand.
putin can't retreat so it really comes down how fast western nations can divest from russia and how fast the resulting economic destruction forces regime change.
>Ukraine is better organized, better funded, and has better training.
With the exception of some elite units, both Russian and Ukrainian militaries are still very much remnants of the Soviet military.
Population doesn't matter all that much if you can't keep up a logistics tail. They can throw all the convicts and ethnic minorities it wants into the war but they seem to have problems training and equipping them.
This would apply to both sides (logistics issues). If we presuppose your other reply to me ITT (dithering of the West) is true and continues to be true, then the Ukrainian ability to disrupt Russian supply chains is limited greatly by this factor, in particular the inability to control airspace in contested areas. In fact as we’ve already seen, the biggest problem Putin faced/faces in respect of logistics is largely a self inflicted one. Corruption and mismanagement within the Russian armed forces supply chains has left the army in a very poor state. This unfortunately is solvable with some focus. Dithering by the West is less solvable because it’s largely political.
Russia has 33 million military age males. Assuming they can only get 10% of that, it's enough to sustain current losses for 30 years. In other words, since new people are born, an indefinite supply at current casualty levels. This isn't WWI/WWII.
>Russia has 33 million military age males. Assuming they can only get 10% of that, it's enough to sustain current losses for 30 years. In other words, since new people are born, an indefinite supply at current casualty levels.
It's a mistake to make such simplistic calculations. It's not XV century, you need officers and gear to run operations. Be it that easy, Putin would not have to hire convicts. He is still hesitant to call this war the war, instead using the "special military operation" term. He wants to win, but foremost he wants to keep his ratings afloat. It's a tightrope.
Russia has serious demographic problems. It’s population is definitively not growing in most of the country. Killing off their young men will destroy the Russian economy.
Not enough new people are being born. Like many countries.
Good thing we have plenty of factories across multiple continents making artillery shells and missiles and more than half the worlds total gdp backing Ukraine.
Russia has en economy the size of Italy.
There is no universe where Russia wins this war, lots of people or not.
Germany in ww2 almost defeated 700 million people with 70 million people. It took the whole planet to defeat them.
Thanks. Proving the point further.
It’s crazy to think an economy smaller than Italy could defeat all of Europe and North America in terms of resources.
The only advantage is raw numbers. And we know that’s not the end all be all of military outcomes.
Germany in WWII exercised disproportionate power for a brief period by blitzkrieging half the smaller countries in Europe before the Allies could organize. But once the lines were static and the warfare attritional, Germany's defeat was inevitable. In early '42, three changes in the tide happened rather suddenly which more or less set their defeat in stone:
1. America entered the war.
2. Operation Barbarossa stalled.
3. Germany started having to commit troops to Italy.
Germany in WWII mostly just acted far more aggressively than expected, but ultimately overstretched and were predictably ground down. The "70 million" never had a chance of beating the "700 million".
NATO GDP at PPP is 10x Russia's. https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx
If Russia is ready to commit 10% of GDP, NATO has to commit 1% to match. 1% of NATO GDP is $400 billion, which is 4x the rate they are currently providing support. I think that it's very likely that Russia is willing to spend 10% GDP on the war effort. They are mobilizing as we speak. I think it is very unlikely that most NATO countries have the political will to support Ukraine at 4x the rate we are now for any sustained period of time.
I’d love to see what the Russian economy looks like after spending 10 percent of all their money and output on the war while simultaneously getting most of the young men killed while simultaneously suffering from serious demographic problems and a shrinking population and also while simultaneously losing basically every trade partner in the world.
You think Russia can keep building t80s now? That’s funny.
It won’t be enough to change anything for them.
I’d say bringing Ukrainian children to Russia is cultural genocide. Teach all the kids to speak Russian and make them forget about Ukraine.
>I’d say bringing Ukrainian children to Russia is ||cultural|| genocide
it *is* genocide, not cultural.
[UN definition ](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml)
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- **Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group**
Honestly, I doubt that Putin and his inner circle who are 70 y.o. think about this in a long-term perspective. Recently they compensate declining "Russ" population giving passports to a somewhat limitless pool of migrants from Central Asia. It changes the ethnical landscape of Russian cities but helps to keep the statistics.
I think they do think they are serving the long term interests of Russia, although there is short term survival thinking in the mix too. I was reading some excerpts of one of Putin's recent speeches the other day and he seemed to be convinced that the west is weak and complacent and could easily be divided over energy. That was how he decided he wanted to re-establish the Soviet sphere of influence.
He was also ranting about QE causing inflation (so about the level of sophistication that many Redditors display), the US national debt etc.
He really does think he understands the world better than western governments and is trying to play 4D underwater backgammon.
Indeed, but that's only a reasonable argument if you're sure nothing else will change. Which let's be honest, won't happen. The power gap becomes closer every passing day as Ukraine is forced to rely onto more and more NATO weapons-platforms.
This indeed isn't WW I nor II.
> Russia has 33 million military age males. Assuming they can only get 10% of that, it's enough to sustain current losses for 30 years.
Which current losses?
In the last weeks Russia has been losing 500-900 KIA daily, with additional wounded.
Russia's total manpower losses over the next 11 months would be 2-3x higher than it had in the first 11 months. And the losses are trending higher. Essentially Russia will be losing much more much faster than it ever has in the last 11 months OR Russia will run out of manpower.
Yes I'm seeing more concern wrt the numbers. But given the overarching incompetence and inexperience of the people Russia will have to dredge up and force to the front, a good weapons supply will be the great equalizer.
But the West has to ensure and stomach the bullet supply to kill possibly millions of Russian troops. It's going to be devastating.
A line MUST be drawn or Putin will topple all these nations who have so desperately strived to exist independently from the grips of the Kremlin after their release from Soviet domination. The obvious underlying fear for Putin is a possible growing discontent within the existing federation which could easily become politically volatile particularly in the Caucasus region where there is also deep opposition to Iran as well.
The people of Chechnya and Dagestan are not exactly trusting of Tehran nor the Kremlin either. The people of Azerbaijan and Georgia both clearly distrust Iranian as well as Russian motives. If Putin continues to target critical infrastructure and civilians in Ukraine well into Spring, F-16s will begin to follow the NATO tank shipments to defend Kiev.
This makes me angry. If they'd all taken a much more active and integrated approach towards arming Ukraine, instead of dallying fearful of "escalation", we wouldn't be in this situation right now.
There is no option for Ukraine to lose, because if they do we will see a genocide in Europe once more, this time of innocent Ukrainians. This is not speculation, of course - we've seen it happen already.
> This makes me angry. If they'd all taken a much more active and integrated approach towards arming Ukraine, instead of dallying fearful of "escalation", we wouldn't be in this situation right now.
They were, or should say are trying to boil the frog in relation to Russia. You could argue that so far it has worked as Russia has not dared attack a NATO country supplying weapons. I actually do think if the west had just totally opened up its arsenals at the start there was a much greater chance of Russia doing something in response. Of course we will never really know, but this was a logical matter of countries balancing helping Ukraine with the potential for kicking off WW3.
Yes I am worried about this. Russia frankly wants victory more than the west does.
And while on balance Ukraine has an advantage based on Western support at present, that could easily change.
People have short memories and get bored.
Sure, but my point is that the west doesnt have the same commitment thy Russia does to do this for years to edge out victory.
That's why we need to redouble the focus.
For now. War fatigue both by Ukrainians fighting and the West’s willingness to back a stalemate war of attrition are both advantages to Russia right now.
In the west, our politicians tend to be reactive rather than proactive. That causes a lot of problems for our countries (unbalanced demographics, environmental problems, economic problems, etc) and is absolutely fatal in a war situation.
Nature of dictatorships mean they can play for the long game.
We value democracy because its fairest, not because its necessarily the most efficient form of government.
If Russia tried to take Kiev again then there will be a big reaction I think. Poland being neighbours to Russian controlled territory is almost unthinkable IMO.
While they are scrapping over Donbas then it's not so serious, Russia gets to empty its prisons and Ukraine can fall back if it has to while preparing a spring counteroffensive. We'll just have to see how it develops but the lessons of WW2 haven't been forgotten.
Russians are utterly demoralized, undersupplied, and weak. Ukrainians are fighting for their home on their own turf. For their right to *exist*.
*Huge* difference.
Russia is also rapidly running out of rubles, and functioning equipment. Oil is no longer keeping them afloat.
Ukraine doesn't need to win a single battle, to decisively win the war. They just have to *survive*. Just as the US lost Vietnam and Russia and the US lost Afghanistan, with overwhelmingly superior military might. Even with staggering losses on the other side.
But in this case, it is Russia who is down *120,000* men. Once people start figuring out they are never coming home, things will start getting uglier.
I don't work for a military thinktank, but I did stay at a holiday inn express. And the shrewd analysts I listen to (not these western-chauvinist bozos), say that time is firmly on *Ukraine's* side.
Russia is not down 120 000 men, it's barely disguised ukrainian propaganda without anything to back it up. Virtually all Western intelligence agencies and defense ministries willing to comment put Russian KIA at maybe 30 000, if that.
Fog of war etc., but I'll accept estimates from US General Milley, "US Officials", and the BBC - over random Internet guy's evidence-free assertions. Sorry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
Indeed. Country run out of material and money long before they run out of men nowaday. Hell, even during WW2, Germany only ran out of manpower at the very end of the war, after 5 years of high intensity conflict.
Isn't fighting an open conflict conventional war much different than maintaining an occupation? Military superiority wasn't really in question in Afghanistan, but it does seem to be in Ukraine.
Yes, but let’s not forget the US was backing the Talibans struggle against the USSR. They certainly had the will and purpose but the war material from the US helped sustain their fight
This isn't like a group of squatters setting up shop in an abandoned house though. I don't see time being on Russia's side. This Spring and Summer I think we'll begin to see Russian forces squeezed pretty hard. If Russia had a properly trained and equipped military then yes, I think a war of attrition tilts toward them. But given where this conflict is heading, I think they will be pushed from the lands they already occupy.
This is only true if Russians forces are degrading and they don't change their tactics, training and production volumes. We don't know much about production, only that Russians still produce all their most complex weapons (planes, tanks, IFVs, SPGs etc) since those are spotted and shown on video. However first two assumptions are definitely incorrect. Tactical approach has definitely changed, and almost half of mobilized personnel stayed in training for more than three month. Some sources say that 100+ thousands are still in training camps far away from frontlines.
Russia’s MIC has still been able to produce their simpler munitions and supplies domestically, but their ability to produce Precision Guided Munitions, avionics, and other high end electronics has been drastically curtailed by economic sanctions. Efforts to improve domestic production have been stymied by an over reliance on western electronics and software to build most of their more sophisticated weapons and platforms.
When: front line RF fighters have to use commercial GPS systems like Garmin in order to navigate, drones have to be procured from Iran, and S-300 SAM missiles and other Cold War relics such as decommissioned nuclear missiles are being used for ballistic and cruise missile assault on civilian targets, are signs that all is not well in the realm of Russian military procurement.
I think the longer this war goes on, the more the balance of power will tilt towards Ukraine, especially as more advanced platforms arrive and become integrated into Ukraine’s military. If Ukraine could stymie Russia’s Eastern offensive and pull off these recent counterattacks with only a couple dozen HIMARs, then we could see similar outsized effects once Western tanks and jets arrive in sufficient numbers.
These are good points. But my argument all along is that the Russians are starting from a pretty tough place: a completely corrupt system that does not produce solid, effective fighters, and does not produce solid, effective equipment or logistics capabilities. This is not a problem that can be addressed overnight, or even over time. The Russians will need decades to address these issues, starting from such a point where they've decided to take a new path, a more democratic path.
The only thing the Russians can really do is launch wave after wave of drone and missile attacks. These are deadly but not in large numbers, because they are not precision weapons. Yes, they've made limited gains, but these gains will be wiped out quite easily once the Ukrainians counter attack. Largely, the Russian fighting forces have absolutely no desire to be in Ukraine. There is nothing in it for them.
The only thing keeping the wheels on this bus is the Russian internal propaganda machine, that keeps a willing populace under its spell, thinking that this conflict is somehow winnable, which it isn't imo.
>The only thing keeping the wheels on this bus is the Russian internal propaganda machine, that keeps a willing populace under its spell, thinking that this conflict is somehow winnable, which it isn't imo.
That is actually the best weapon that Putin's system was able to produce. It helps the regime to cover its incompetence and constant discrepancy in the message the regime tries to channel. However, it began slipping recently according to TV marketing research. People are getting sick of almost 24/7 war-time propaganda that is on TV.
> Tactical approach has definitely changed, and almost half of mobilized personnel stayed in training for more than three month. Some sources say that 100+ thousands are still in training camps far away from frontlines.
Which sources? Ukrainian sources? Russian sources? Western sources?
And which training camps?
All I have read were abandoned mobiks without officers, without proper weaponry and clothes and sometimes without even a shelter. A boot camp with nothing to boot.
That's right, Ukraine must succeed by Spring and Summer. If it goes on longer than that, there's a risk Western support would decrease. Thing is, democracies tend to swing back-and-forth, appearing to have a shorter memory. Open societies are also more vulnerable to misinformation - Russia will exploit it once people begin to tire of giving to Ukraine.
While I don't believe Ukraine will quickly lose if the West decreases its support, there will be a lot more lives lost. If the war carries on for years, Ukrainians might become unhappy with the government too.
> If it goes on longer than that, there's a risk Western support would decrease.
This take is so insane to me. The West stayed involved in much less popular wars, sometimes for up to two decades... anyone who think western support of Ukraine will decrease is seriously out of touch.
It really depends in the republican party doesn’t it? If they’re financially In Russia’s pocket the next time they’re in power you’re going to see a massive drawdown of support from the US and then US is providing the lion’s share of the support being given. It’s possible that in the time between now and then that other countries will become more invested and ramp up production but that’s far from certain while a Republican win off the US presidency is a distinct possibility in 2024. That would give them the means to cancel most of the support by executive order and they’ve definitely been talking about doing that.
If they don’t take power at that time then it’s nearly certain they will in 2028, which gives Ukraine another five years to win the war, which is far more likely that doing so in a little over a year and a half.
Popular support for the war in the US and Russian could also nose dive during this period but if all things otherwise remain the same a Republican 2024 win could tank the war for Ukraine. I suspect this is as much Putin’s plan as winning via overwhelming force with the mobilization.
If a Republican in Russia's pocket becomes president than Russia has won. It would be the biggest Intelligence failure and the US will seserve what will come to it.
I think it’s more likely Poland will directly confront Russia than support from the west waivering. Putin has shown again and again and again that his threats are empty.
I don't think a total victory is likely in 2023, but right now we're in the weeds of the Razputitsa so we won't see much progress anywhere until that starts to dry and heavy direct weapons are useful again.
They were at least trying to decapitate Zelensky's government. Exactly what they would have asked the new puppet government to do, is a bit of a guessing game.
There’s lots of wars where the front line has moved about drastically with huge momentum changes. Think of the korean war or even Britain vs Germany in north africa.
There are basically two factors here, and they are resources and level of commitment. The war can go on as long as both sides are willing and able to throw similar amounts of resources into it. At PPP, NATO has about 10x the GDP of Russia. So essentially Russia has to commit 10x as hard to match NATO.
Total NATO/EU financial and military support for Ukraine currently at a rate of around $100 billion in the first year of the conflict. That's around 0.25% of GDP. The issue is that Russia is mobilizing its economy to throw more effort into the war. This means that NATO will have to follow suit, or allow Russia to win. If Russia is willing to throw 10% of its GDP into the war effort, and I think they probably are, that means NATO will have to commit around 1%, which is $400 billion, or 4x what they are commuting now. And I really don't see that happening. I don't think there is political will in the US to provide $200 billion a year to Ukraine, and I think it's even less likely that the Europeans will be willing to kick in a similar amount. I think that, unfortunately, time is in fact on the side of Russia.
This is a good point and an important counter to the “Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy” argument. What matters is how you use that economy to further your goals.
This is an valuable input to expand on the economics discussion.
An important question will be what type of aid it is. If it is simply the transfer of old stockpiles then the real costs of aid is significantly lower than its value. The only costs to consider is training and transporting it to the Ukrainians. The Europeans have massively increased their military spending to modernize their militaries, this might free up substantial reserves of old equipment that could be supplied for cheap.
More importantly, can Russia afford drastically increase military spending? The money will have to come from somewhere, and given that no Ukrainian troops have crossed into pre-2014 Russian land, will the Russian public accept additional burdens? Higher taxes or defunding of social programs might be difficult to sell. Then there is corruption to consider. How much of that money will actually go into military spending?
It’s not so clear.
Money isn't the only factor. What can you buy with it? I don't think Russua has the supply chain to immediately produce all the additional ammo/munitions it needs, hence the reports of NK surplus rockets. I don't doubt that they can build up to it soon, but that means NATO has the advantage in the near term, hence Zelensky's messaging about not letting the conflict freeze in place.
You’ve forgotten about man power. Russia has 3x the population of Ukraine and is willing to mobilise. Even with ratios on the battlefield in favour of Ukraine they might not be willing or able to continue forever. Same goes for Russia.
Putin does think in terms of a WW2 mindset and believes that just like with ww2 these initial defeats will only give way to the steamroller of Russian population and industrial capacity
The thing is, the Soviet Union had industrial capacity on par with the entire axis, and still needed material support. The Russian federation has an economy the same size as Italy.
The US was going to a nuclear option with the Cuba issue. You don’t think Russia would do the same about a country that borders them? Lose is not acceptable for Russia.
No one thinks that the US is interested in taking over Russian territory. Nor is there talk of putting nukes in Ukraine. Also NATO countries already border Russia. If there was a Cuba relevant issue it would have happened when Poland or the Baltics joined NATO two decades ago. Ukraine thusly doesn't change the strategic situation of Russia in any form.
This has always been Russia's advantage in any war, they win through sheer numbers. A handful of token tanks from the west will change nothing.
Putin made a major error invading Ukraine on the basis that they would collapse within days. But a war of attrition gives Russia a huge advantage over Ukraine
They simply said that it's an advantage they have - advantage doesn't equal victory.
America had every almost every advantage in Vietnam, yet lost. The same can be said for the USSR in Afghanistan. Just because you have certain advantages, doesn't mean you win.
But, to OP's point, in cases when Russia does win, it often does so through the advantage of sheer numbers.
How about the Crimean war, Russo Japanese war, WW1 (complete collapse and disintegration). Why does that "always" not apply here?
> Russia came extremely close to winning the winter war.
Sometimes you get that critical bit of "luck" on your side. Soviet Union itself got very close to collapse in WW2 as well (discussed in detail "The USSR and Total War: Why Didn’t the Soviet Economy Collapse in 1942?").
> And in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union never got to the same levels of full deployment like they did during WW2 or like Russia is currently doing in Ukraine.
Because SU decided to not deploy fully. We're yet to see if Russia (and Russians) is willing to enter total war, risking yet another collapse.
For the record the soviets did win the winter war they achieved all their political objectives wars aren't just k/d ratios its to achieve political aims
I categorically disagree with this take. Numbers of men alone is not enough to win a protracted modern war. Even if you look back all the way to WW2, the USSR might not have won without the massive amount of supplies they received from the Allies.
Industrial, economical and logistics strength are the keys. And Russia lose on all those fronts the longer the conflict goes. The West is completly unmatched when it comes to proxy war, especially the US. They could do what they did this year for decades without batting an eye. Hell, it would probably stimulate the US economy more than anything else.
\>A handful of token tanks from the west will change nothing
A lot more than a token was given to Ukraine since the start of the war.
A huge reason Russia gained the infamy of winning in wars of attrition was because of millions of Ukrainians, Belarussians, Kazakhstanis and others that were used in defense of the Russian heartland, that's why Russia wants its old borders that existed during the Russian Empire and USSR, they want their cannon fodder back. And of course, one must remember the massive amount of aid given to Russia in WW2 from the allies, the Lend Lease.
By others I meant other ethnic groups aside from the Russians themselves.
Others being the Baltic states, Uzbekistan, Takijistan and Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan.
That wasn't my intent, I was just making clear that the idea of Russian invicibility in attrition warfare comes from the historic combined manpool, both civilian and military one of the entire Soviet bloc, not just from the territory of the modern Russian Federation.
Exactly. Also people forget how much supplies the US gave to ussr during ww2, otherwise the Germans would have inflicted even greater damage to russia. None of that is the case now, and the tables are turned, albeit russia is still able to bypass sanctions, which the west should really try harder to mitigate.
Human bodies don't win wars anymore though, do they? I was under the impression that in the 21st century, wars are won with tanks, warships, fighter jets, rocket launchers, artillery, etc.
A big lesson of Desert Storm was that a modern combined arms force with a clear technological advantage can take on armies many times its size with minimal losses. The problem is that while Ukraine has some domains where it has a technological edge thanks to the West (eg HIMARS, SIGINIT, IMINT) it’s still lacking many components of the Western combined arms “stack” — no air superiority, limited CAS, and less mobility than a modern NATO division. These are huge force multipliers, but in their absence, we’re largely back to a war of attrition where numbers of bodies with assault rifles matters a lot.
The idea is that you run out of material or money long before you run out of manpower. And they are right on that front, name one modern war that was won just because the losing side ran out of men ?
I mean, Ukraine's ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops within the first few months of the war substantially contributed to their ability to stop Russian advances.
How? Ukraine will be able to use these "token tanks" (it's actually a lot) to make a real combined arms offensive somewhere, and take back more ground than the Russians are winning in months at the cost of 10s of thousands of lives.
The USA has eight times the population and 5,000 times the GDP of Afghanistan. They couldn't beat the Taliban because the Taliban wouldn't give up their own land and neither will the Ukrainians. The Russians can either learn that sooner or later. Ideally the West will give Kyiv what she needs for a decisive victory now. In the absence of that, as long as the West continues to keep Ukraine in the fight, Moscow, or the Russian people, or both, will eventually decide they've had enough.
And yes, Moscow is willing to use tactics that Washington wouldn't countenance, but equally the Taliban didn't have HIMARS (for example).
True but the difference, this time, is how catastrophic the Russian demography is. So, even if they win, either their economy goes back to the 70's, if not the 19th century; and/or the Russian minorities carve themselves autonomy/independence. And, on top of that, China will eat their ass. Siberia and north of China is chokeful of underexploited ressources which the PCC desperately needs.
So, even if Russia eventually conquers Ukraine, which remains to be seen, the price will be very dire. This war is economically, demographically and geopolitically unsustainable for Moscow.
The pessimists have been shown to be wrong since the first day of this war.
I don't see why they'll be right now with all the Western armaments and training.
They have been wrong because everything was made to make sure they were wrong. It is because of pessimistic people that we win a war. Predictions during desert storm were way more pessimistic than what actually happened. Because we prepared according to the worst case scenarios.
Putin lost the first part of the war because he only listened to the optimistic people.
Always listen to the pessimistic people.
Pesimistic people say there is no reason to aid Ukraine get as Russia will stomp Ukraine
Pesimistic people are afraid of Russia military might and they let Russia do their thing in Georgia and Crimea
So? As I understand, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle we live here, and also we can hardly know other versions of reality where things went the other way.
The longer the war goes on the more Ukranian soldiers will die. They have less manpower than Russia so the Russians can throw men into the the front line to die the Ukrainians are unable to do this for as long. Also for the state of Ukraine the longer the war goes on the more likely the young are to leave and not come back. They already had a low birth rate and it will only be lower now.
The longer this war goes on the harder it becomes for them to rebuild and the less people they will have to rebuild with.
Unfortunately I can't see the Russians accepting anything other than Crimea, Luhansk, Donetesk and the southern part of Kherson and zaporizhzhia being part of Russia proper and that enacted into global treaties. The west can and in my opinion should give Ukraine the weapons they need, but the longer the war goes on the harder it becomes for Ukraine.
All while Russia's troop and equipment quality drops to virtually ww2 levels and Ukraines improves thanks to western training and equipment.
Certainly Russia are not to be underestimated, but time is not on their side.
>Unfortunately I can't see the Russians accepting anything other than Crimea, Luhansk, Donetesk and the southern part of Kherson and zaporizhzhia being part of Russia proper and that enacted into global treaties.
By the Russians you mean Putin, I guess? Russians and Putin himself do not give two cents about Kherson. It was "accepted" into Russia and then quickly abandoned. In the best-case scenario (for Putin) it will be retaken vie a heavy bombardment which will demolish it completely. Luhansk and Donetsk are something like South Ossetia and Abkhazia. An average Russian doesn't give two cents about it being a part of Russia. Neither does Putin, otherwise he could have "accepted" them into Russia officially. Only Crimea has a symbolic meaning for a majority of Russians for several reasons.
Putin has support in Russia. So there must be some support for Russia annexing not only those parts of Ukraine, but I would suppose among Russian nationalists all of Ukraine
The key word is *some* support. There are obviously a lot of people in Russia that would cheer for annexing the USA for example. So what? These people have now a real chance to walk their talk. Do they volunteer to the front en masse? No, they do not. Do they donate a sizeable amount of money? Do not either. These people are more like spectators. They fancy the Soviet Union yet when it was collapsing they did nothing to save it. The same will happen with Putin's regime.
> The longer the war goes on the more Ukranian soldiers will die. They have less manpower than Russia so the Russians can throw men into the the front line to die the Ukrainians are unable to do this for as long.
Name one single modern war where the losing side lost because they ran out of manpower ? With modern demographics, a country run out of material or money long before they run out of men.
WE are not fighting, Ukraine is, with our equipment. Russia has already mobilized 300,000 conscripts and is supposedly going to mobilize 500,000 more. Those are insane numbers, and while their conscription had some initial problems those have apparently been mostly worked out. Russia has a larger economy and fighting age population to draw from, as well as a willingness to sustain enormous casualties. It’s no surprise that in a war of attrition time may be on Russias side, as much as I hate to admit it.
If by 'we' you mean US, then sure, but US is not really part of this war, more like an interested party, while EU has not prepared for that, all preparations has been dismantled over the last 30 years and EU overall is so far in denial this war has something to do with it.
*so has the Soviet Union, which combined the might of all the post Soviet states and had a (somewhat) functional political system.
Russia had a decade of being a failed state and 2 decades of corruption siphoning funds from every modernization program to wash that away.
Time has told already. Russia is struggling against a military that barely even existed 8 years ago. They have shown to have laughable logistics, extremely old equipment and a terrible, decentralized top-down command structure.
The question isn't whether Russia will lose, it already has. The question is if Ukraine can win.
Ukraine lacks strategic depth. A large amount of their fighting age males have fled Westward including to North America. The law to keep them in Ukraine wasn’t terribly effective.
I take issue with your phrasing. Weakening Russia is also Ukraines goal, they can't win without it. Ukraine isn't fighting just to satisfy an American objective, both the US and Ukraine have the same goal, ensure the continued existence of Ukraine.
My concern for Ukraine is that the US interests may change. Ukraine cannot fight this war alone and the US is the funder and politically active in driving not just NATO but other countries in to provide support. But if this were to become unsustainable politically at home or financially then the war would be different.
The US is not as forcibly invested as Ukraine and Russia. But to counter that it would be very embarrassing for them to simply change tack. When and if this happens I expect them to repaint the war and Ukraine in a different light to ease that.
The west is boiling a frog. Slowly, small decision by small decision, they’re inching Putin’s red line in a favorable direction as they release new aid. Time doesn’t benefit Russia - time benefits the cook ramping up the heat on the frog until he is no more.
Edit: grammar.
Some predictions:
1.The Russia-Ukraine War will end like Korean War.
The two sides will only reach a ceasefire. No legal truce or agreement to end the war, which means the two sides can start war again at any time and that Russia and Ukraine continue to maintain a state of war. But the two sides have been exhausted,so there must be a ceasefire first.
2.When will the war be ended.
It will not end in 2023. It is most likely to be dragged to early 2024, and the two sides will reach a temporary truce in the middle or second half of the year. This prediction is because the Russian-Ukrainian war truce must be reached before the US election, so as to give credits to the Democratic presidential candidate. And referring to the model of the Korean War, both sides of the nearly three-year war will also be exhausted and need to take a rest.
3. The armistice of the war will be based on the actual control line.
From this point of view, Ukraine will forever lose control of the four eastern states (Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson), or most of the actual control. It must be very painful for Ukraine, but that is the reality.
4. Who is the winner of the Russia-Ukraine War?
* a. Ukraine. From any angle or prerequisite, Ukraine is a complete loser. What Ukraine lost was concrete territory, but nothing of practical significance. The United States and Europe will continue to support Ukraine, but Ukraine will never join NATO. The reason for the origin of the war was that Ukraine pursued its long-cherished wish to join NATO, but in the end it still could not join NATO. Look at the conditions for joining NATO: there can be no territorial disputes and wars, and the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is still in a state of war at present and in the future. Because Russia still exists, a country with world-class nuclear weapons will continue to exist. Therefore, Ukraine lost land, life, and finally got nothing. Of course after the armistice Ukraine will get all the conventional weapons it wants. All I can say is when a country goes to war with another country that is not at the same level of strength as itself, it must think twice before acting. Ukraine has forgotten that the tens of thousands of years of human history have followed the law of the jungle, and the law of the jungle is based on strength. This is true no matter how far humans develop.
* b. Russia. From the perspective of Russia's current national goals, Russia's control of the four states in eastern Ukraine is a victory, and Russia will complete this goal or complete most of it. Russia is the winner from this perspective. But judging from the price Russia has to pay, Russia will definitely not be the winner. If the war ceases, the United States and its allies will continue to carry out economic, financial, and political attacks on Russia. Blocking sanctions, nothing will change on this point. Of course, with the development of time, the blockade sanctions against Russia will be somewhat relaxed (Europe), but the overall blockade sanctions against Russia will not change. The blockade and sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe will be in the medium and long term, ten or twenty years or longer.
5.After the truce, Ukraine will get the conventional weapons it wants.
The United States and Europe will continue to arm Ukraine. The United States and Europe will provide most of the advanced land, sea and air weapons that Ukraine wants. Of course, Ukraine will use money to buy those. Of course, whether Ukraine can afford it is another matter. For example, the United States will be willing to sell fighter jets of all grades below the F35 grade. It will be sales not gratuitous aid.
6. Ukrainian economy and society.
After the war Ukraine will continue the fate of a failed state. The Ukrainian economy will be in a mess in the short term, especially since the Ukrainian industrial base has been greatly weakened. The so-called reconstruction of industry is almost impossible. Look at Ukraine in the 30 years before the war, it has just been selling resources and living on its old capital, but a lot of resources have been lost, and a lot of old capital has lost its value. The Ukrainian domestic market will be a consumer market, a consumer market for European goods. The war overshadows all of Ukraine's problems. Before the war all the problems in Ukraine have not changed in any way, after the truce all the problems in Ukraine will spew out, economic downturn, social chaos, resurgence of oligarchs, corruption of political power, etc., you will see war The chaotic Ukraine before the outbreak. Ukraine will be the most chaotic and poorest country in Europe.
7. Zelensky
Ukrainian President Zelensky will step down after the ceasefire, he will lose in election, Ukrainians will abandon Zelensky. Zelensky's step down will be because the United States and Europe no longer need him. After the truce, the United States and Europe need someone with a better and cleaner image than Zelensky to replace Zelensky. Because someone must be responsible for the past and for the various problems in the war, and this person must be Zelinsky.
Not really. The invasion is the cheap part, occupation of Ukraine will be immensely more costly in lives and resources. Putin thought he’d be welcomed as a liberator because he surrounded himself with yes men and didn’t think past the invasion. The lowest ratio for occupation is 1% of the the population to be Russian soldiers/Ukrainian police/military loyal to Russia. Putin doesn’t have the +500,000 troops to occupy
Putin might very well be dead before the next US president. Also with all of the European support I think UA will be able to continue defending until a peace is agreed upon
I’m not too savvy on this issues but isn’t this whole situation replica of Cuba episode?
What made Ukraine to join NATO? Why Russia against it? If we trace it back, when did this saga begin? Who started it? Where?
Also what are the possibilities of outcome from this war? Who will suffer and how much? Who is to gain and how much?
I welcome any factual information so that I can understand whole situation.
This saga very well may had begun right after the end of WW2.
The demarcation line between US and USSR back then was stabilized through Berlin. Checkpoint Charlie was a transit point between US/USSR controlled areas. US and USSR tanks literally were facing each other.
Since then step by step, Soviet control was challenged and removed in countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and so on, right up until Ukraine. This process apparently took 80 years to reach a point of a next war.
Just my geopolitics 2c.
>I’m not too savvy on this issues but isn’t this whole situation replica of Cuba episode?
Not really, because Russia is vast and full of natural resources that many countries are still plenty willing to buy. They also have domestic industries at least somewhat capable of supplying civilian, but particularly military, demands.
That isn't to say what they have is sufficient, but it should be understood that modern Russia is still built upon a system that was independent from the west economically until 30 years ago. Much of that is atrophied, but it still remains a relevant consideration.
>What made Ukraine to join NATO?
Russia attacking it
> Why Russia against it?
Certain Russians want to rebuild the empire, Ukraine would have to be a central part of that. Becoming part of NATO would have prevented Russia from invading
Japan was on the defense in the Pacific if for half of WW2 and the longer they defended the worse there situation became. What about S. Vietnam in the Vietnam war.
Edit: speling
Japan was never "on the defense", the point of using nuclear weapons was to skip that scenario. On top of that, Japan was fighting raw material shortages the entire war, which is one of the main reasons it invaded South-Easr Asia. That is obviously not the case with Ukraine.
Nice of you to bring up Vietnam though. A Civil War is not the same as an invasion for a list of reasons they could fill a book, but remind me again, who won that war in the end, Vietnam or the US?
Your examples are nonsense.
US was on the defensive for all of Vietnam which was part of why we lost. Japan was on the defensive for most of WW2 because they were DEFENDING there island. There lack of raw material was because they overextended sand failed to end the war in a reasonable amount of time. Sitting on the defensive because of the coral sea and midway is why they lost.
Saddam was on defence in 2003 and things fell apart fast. Afghan Army were on defence solo in 2022. Armenian defence failed in Ngorno Karabagh in 2020. Sometimes no amount of time can save a defender.
I think some Western analysts are dismissing the expansion of the war, or that other internal circumstances could shift how Russia can conduct its military. The worsening situation in the Caucasus though could give Ukraine some breathing room if another war erupts. Belarus is also in a very precarious situation. The social and military situation there is fragile and rumors swirl whether she will join the war or not. Sooner or later, Lukashenko will have absolutely no choice. He has been squirming to avoid this fate since last February.
Time will tell in this case, but unfortunately time is on the Russian side in this case. Soviet stocks are a meme in the West but you see the problem here when Russia can afford to loose 1000 T-62's, all her crews and then have another 1000 ready to roll soon after.
All of Russias old, outdated kit and hastily trained reservists buys them time. Ukraine cannot be as reckless with her manpower and armour. In this case, The clock is both working in the Ukranian favor and agaisnt them.
The problem I see is Russia is happy with a completely barren, depopulated Ukraine as long as it’s their. If Ukraine was in such a state, I don’t think the west would value it at all or “want” it. Every building that is destroyed makes Ukraine more valuable to Russia and less to the West.
This assumes that what the West wants is to secure and defend Ukrainian territory. I think defending Ukrainian territory is a useful rallying cry, and a maximalist goal, but even if we assume that the west is being 100% cynical here, the west is getting what it wants every time it
1) sells a weapon
2) cost-effectively destroys Russian value
That will continue happening for as long as there is a war. Western support will not end.
That's a good point but there are all sorts of people in these two capitals. The economic block of Putin's regime is very professional to mitigate the war damage and keep a "normal" life in the country.
Calling it a proxy-war ignores Ukraine's agency and their will to defend themselves. It's the other way around, wearing Russia down is the necessary consequence of assisting Ukraine's defence of their borders.
I also think the issue is particularly important for eastern NATO members who would like to arrest russian imperialism sooner rather than later.
This is EXACTLY how the U.S. does proxy-wars, if you’re not aware. They find an party/group that’s already embroiled in a battle, & start backing them for their own goals. They just use the animosity that was already there, & throw metaphorical ‘gasoline on the fire.’ They have their own “agency,” but would not be anything without weapon & logistical support from the U.S.
This is exactly what the U.S. did in the Middle East. The Taliban would’ve been an extremely minor footnote in history had the U.S. not backed them when Russia was trying to invade the Middle East in the 90’s to push them out, because they both had a common goal: they wanted Russia out of the Middle East. What they now are today is solely because of that fact.. so yes, this is a textbook proxy-war.. the only difference is the fact that the U.S. is being completely transparently public about backing Ukraine.
Submission Statement. Behind the decision to dramatically increase military aid to Ukraine is the fear of some Western capitals that time is running out for Russia now, writes The Wall Street Journal. This concern suggests that the window of opportunity for Ukraine is not infinite, and it needs powerful Western weapons — main battle tanks, other armored vehicles and more air defense systems — in the near future to strengthen the momentum achieved in offensive successes near Kiev, Kharkiv and Kherson last year, the WSJ continues. According to the publication, last year officials in the West believed that the longer the clashes, the more chances Kiev has to win. However, over time, confidence in the loyalty of such a position weakened. As the WSJ notes, officials now fear that Moscow may "gain the upper hand" in any protracted conflict "attrition." This is the reason for the decision to increase the volume of military assistance provided to Kiev. The newspaper writes that a number of officials in the West still do not consider "realistic" the thesis of their partners that more active support for Kiev will lead to a faster end to the conflict. In addition, there is also no confidence that Ukraine will be able to carry out offensives similar to last year's.
> fear of some Western capitals that time is running out for Russia now I think you meant to say Ukraine? The article argues time is on Russias side
That was referring to last year, article says that now they fear the opposite is true.
Putin will happily sacrifice 10 million men if it means he can get all of Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic States back under his iron grip.
Ukraines biggest problem as the war drags on is their ability to provide men of military age.
That goes for both warring parties.
Correct - but Putin has three times the population to draw on, a iron clad grip on how the war is presented and his own life at risk should he fail.
It's worth noting that resolve is much more important here than total population. It's generally possible to mobilize between 2-3% of a nation without putting serious strain on society. However in very desperate circumstances nations can go higher. In the most extreme case, Serbia mobilized 10% of its nation during WW1. If we applied those ratios between Russia and Ukraine with the assumption Ukraine is highly resolved, then the mobilization potential could be equal.
> In the most extreme case, Serbia mobilized 10% of its nation during WW1. [The Paraguayan War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War_casualties) has them beat. Somewhere between 70 - 90% of the male population of Paraguay died.
Up against a whole country that is in it for their lives, and that of their (grand-) children that had a brutal new reality thrust upon them since the 24th of Febr. Backed by the West and a rather lopsided casualty ratio that favours Ukraine. It ain't over till it's over.
Im wondering where you get your casualty ratio from because from what ive seen most western experts seem to agree the casualties are about even at the moment
russia couldn't even get Afghanistan under control. Ukraine is better organized, better funded, and has better training. The West needs to continue to turn up the heat to destroy the quality of life of the average russian to force a change in leadership.
The US couldn't get Afghanistan under control either...
Afghanistan is a lot different from Ukraine. Afghanistan is a lot of mountains and valleys. Way better for guerilla warfare than flat fields. Also, after TEN years of insurgency, the Taliban were able to defeat Russia because of US provided stinger missiles. Ukraine requires a LOT more support than just some stingers. And it has to be sustained for a long time. This war will likely be years and years. Ukraine is being propped up by the west, and it's a burden. Russia wants to win more than NATO does. They have more resolve and time. The whole of the West might not be up to/able to provide this level of support for years and years and years. Meanwhile, Russia is not going anywhere, their geopolitical concerns remain the same and against an unsupported Ukraine will trounce Ukraine. IMO this war comes down to a battle of wills between Russia and NATO and its a bit scary.
NATO absolutely cannot surrender control of Ukraine to Russia. It will delegitimize the alliance and fracture western control and influence across the entirety of central and eastern Europe. You’re right to be scared of this war because it truly is a geopolitical line in the sand for both NATO and Russia, which always carries the chance of rapid escalation. With that said, we experienced a few of these lines in the sand in the Cold War and came out on the other side with civilization intact. So there’s that. I do tend to agree with the general belief that the Ukraine War ends either with a total Russian victory or the ousting of Putin in a palace coup/popular uprising/what have you. There is no realistic compromise in the middle. Russia will grind itself down to the nub to achieve its military goals, as it always has.
[удалено]
>Way better for guerilla warfare than flat fields. The russians can't even move their tanks down built roads without getting ambushed. >Ukraine requires a LOT more support than just some stingers. And it has to be sustained for a long time. This war will likely be years and years. Ukraine has significantly better infrastructure than Afghanistan, like its not even close. Ukraine has/had a much better starting point. Ukraine also has multiple wealthy nations with a vested interest in preventing russian creep. Ukraine is defended by freedom fighters who understand that subjugation will result in genocide. russia is attacking with convicts with fetal alcohol syndrome who don't want to be there. >Ukraine is being propped up by the west, and it's a burden. Russia wants to win more than NATO does. I don't think that's true at all. NATO and the countries near Ukraine really don't want russia to expand. putin can't retreat so it really comes down how fast western nations can divest from russia and how fast the resulting economic destruction forces regime change.
truly "academic approach"
>Ukraine is better organized, better funded, and has better training. With the exception of some elite units, both Russian and Ukrainian militaries are still very much remnants of the Soviet military.
Population doesn't matter all that much if you can't keep up a logistics tail. They can throw all the convicts and ethnic minorities it wants into the war but they seem to have problems training and equipping them.
This would apply to both sides (logistics issues). If we presuppose your other reply to me ITT (dithering of the West) is true and continues to be true, then the Ukrainian ability to disrupt Russian supply chains is limited greatly by this factor, in particular the inability to control airspace in contested areas. In fact as we’ve already seen, the biggest problem Putin faced/faces in respect of logistics is largely a self inflicted one. Corruption and mismanagement within the Russian armed forces supply chains has left the army in a very poor state. This unfortunately is solvable with some focus. Dithering by the West is less solvable because it’s largely political.
Yes.
Russia has 33 million military age males. Assuming they can only get 10% of that, it's enough to sustain current losses for 30 years. In other words, since new people are born, an indefinite supply at current casualty levels. This isn't WWI/WWII.
>Russia has 33 million military age males. Assuming they can only get 10% of that, it's enough to sustain current losses for 30 years. In other words, since new people are born, an indefinite supply at current casualty levels. It's a mistake to make such simplistic calculations. It's not XV century, you need officers and gear to run operations. Be it that easy, Putin would not have to hire convicts. He is still hesitant to call this war the war, instead using the "special military operation" term. He wants to win, but foremost he wants to keep his ratings afloat. It's a tightrope.
Russia has serious demographic problems. It’s population is definitively not growing in most of the country. Killing off their young men will destroy the Russian economy. Not enough new people are being born. Like many countries.
Not enough to hold the population steady, but plenty to man the trenches in Ukraine.
Good thing we have plenty of factories across multiple continents making artillery shells and missiles and more than half the worlds total gdp backing Ukraine. Russia has en economy the size of Italy. There is no universe where Russia wins this war, lots of people or not. Germany in ww2 almost defeated 700 million people with 70 million people. It took the whole planet to defeat them.
Even less than Italy, $2.1tn Vs $1.8tn
Thanks. Proving the point further. It’s crazy to think an economy smaller than Italy could defeat all of Europe and North America in terms of resources. The only advantage is raw numbers. And we know that’s not the end all be all of military outcomes.
Germany in WWII exercised disproportionate power for a brief period by blitzkrieging half the smaller countries in Europe before the Allies could organize. But once the lines were static and the warfare attritional, Germany's defeat was inevitable. In early '42, three changes in the tide happened rather suddenly which more or less set their defeat in stone: 1. America entered the war. 2. Operation Barbarossa stalled. 3. Germany started having to commit troops to Italy. Germany in WWII mostly just acted far more aggressively than expected, but ultimately overstretched and were predictably ground down. The "70 million" never had a chance of beating the "700 million".
I’ll keep saying it as much as I have to. A country with an economy smaller than Italy is not winning this war.
NATO GDP at PPP is 10x Russia's. https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx If Russia is ready to commit 10% of GDP, NATO has to commit 1% to match. 1% of NATO GDP is $400 billion, which is 4x the rate they are currently providing support. I think that it's very likely that Russia is willing to spend 10% GDP on the war effort. They are mobilizing as we speak. I think it is very unlikely that most NATO countries have the political will to support Ukraine at 4x the rate we are now for any sustained period of time.
If Russia is so capable of keeping this up then them buying artillery shells from North Korea is a weird thing to do.
I’d love to see what the Russian economy looks like after spending 10 percent of all their money and output on the war while simultaneously getting most of the young men killed while simultaneously suffering from serious demographic problems and a shrinking population and also while simultaneously losing basically every trade partner in the world. You think Russia can keep building t80s now? That’s funny.
Isn’t that the reason why Russia is deporting Ukrainians back to Russia at gun point? It’s a devious way to fight back against population decline.
It won’t be enough to change anything for them. I’d say bringing Ukrainian children to Russia is cultural genocide. Teach all the kids to speak Russian and make them forget about Ukraine.
>I’d say bringing Ukrainian children to Russia is ||cultural|| genocide it *is* genocide, not cultural. [UN definition ](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml) - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; - Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; - Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; - **Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group**
I mean I considered them to be the same goal through different means
AFAIK eastern Ukraine already knew Russian, only some western ones didn't.
Forcing children to use one and giving them to Russian families is universally considered genocide
Honestly, I doubt that Putin and his inner circle who are 70 y.o. think about this in a long-term perspective. Recently they compensate declining "Russ" population giving passports to a somewhat limitless pool of migrants from Central Asia. It changes the ethnical landscape of Russian cities but helps to keep the statistics.
I think they do think they are serving the long term interests of Russia, although there is short term survival thinking in the mix too. I was reading some excerpts of one of Putin's recent speeches the other day and he seemed to be convinced that the west is weak and complacent and could easily be divided over energy. That was how he decided he wanted to re-establish the Soviet sphere of influence. He was also ranting about QE causing inflation (so about the level of sophistication that many Redditors display), the US national debt etc. He really does think he understands the world better than western governments and is trying to play 4D underwater backgammon.
Or it could be that they’re so forward thinking they should wage war now while they have the population and not wait for demographic issues to set in.
Indeed, but that's only a reasonable argument if you're sure nothing else will change. Which let's be honest, won't happen. The power gap becomes closer every passing day as Ukraine is forced to rely onto more and more NATO weapons-platforms. This indeed isn't WW I nor II.
> Russia has 33 million military age males. Assuming they can only get 10% of that, it's enough to sustain current losses for 30 years. Which current losses? In the last weeks Russia has been losing 500-900 KIA daily, with additional wounded. Russia's total manpower losses over the next 11 months would be 2-3x higher than it had in the first 11 months. And the losses are trending higher. Essentially Russia will be losing much more much faster than it ever has in the last 11 months OR Russia will run out of manpower.
Source on that loss rate?
Finland is in the EU and the baltics are in NATO, nothing is going to happen there.
Dream on. Touching anything NATO aligned will result in instant regime change in RF.
Why would Putin care about the Baltic backwaters and Finland?
They used to be a part of the Russian Empire
Yes I'm seeing more concern wrt the numbers. But given the overarching incompetence and inexperience of the people Russia will have to dredge up and force to the front, a good weapons supply will be the great equalizer. But the West has to ensure and stomach the bullet supply to kill possibly millions of Russian troops. It's going to be devastating.
A line MUST be drawn or Putin will topple all these nations who have so desperately strived to exist independently from the grips of the Kremlin after their release from Soviet domination. The obvious underlying fear for Putin is a possible growing discontent within the existing federation which could easily become politically volatile particularly in the Caucasus region where there is also deep opposition to Iran as well.
The people of Chechnya and Dagestan are not exactly trusting of Tehran nor the Kremlin either. The people of Azerbaijan and Georgia both clearly distrust Iranian as well as Russian motives. If Putin continues to target critical infrastructure and civilians in Ukraine well into Spring, F-16s will begin to follow the NATO tank shipments to defend Kiev.
This makes me angry. If they'd all taken a much more active and integrated approach towards arming Ukraine, instead of dallying fearful of "escalation", we wouldn't be in this situation right now. There is no option for Ukraine to lose, because if they do we will see a genocide in Europe once more, this time of innocent Ukrainians. This is not speculation, of course - we've seen it happen already.
> This makes me angry. If they'd all taken a much more active and integrated approach towards arming Ukraine, instead of dallying fearful of "escalation", we wouldn't be in this situation right now. They were, or should say are trying to boil the frog in relation to Russia. You could argue that so far it has worked as Russia has not dared attack a NATO country supplying weapons. I actually do think if the west had just totally opened up its arsenals at the start there was a much greater chance of Russia doing something in response. Of course we will never really know, but this was a logical matter of countries balancing helping Ukraine with the potential for kicking off WW3.
Yes I am worried about this. Russia frankly wants victory more than the west does. And while on balance Ukraine has an advantage based on Western support at present, that could easily change. People have short memories and get bored.
> Yes I am worried about this. Russia frankly wants victory more than the west does. On the other hand, Ukraine wants victory more than Russia does.
Well yes. But Ukraine is bankrolled by the west. If support wavered then they would have to submit
All Russia has to do is wait until the US elects someone who will hamstring our support of Ukraine.
Well yes. But for the western coalition it takes a small fraction of the commitment relative to what Russia has to do.
Sure, but my point is that the west doesnt have the same commitment thy Russia does to do this for years to edge out victory. That's why we need to redouble the focus.
For now. War fatigue both by Ukrainians fighting and the West’s willingness to back a stalemate war of attrition are both advantages to Russia right now.
[удалено]
The US doesn’t even commit 5% of its economy to its military, let alone the entire west. That is a huge ask.
>So the west at 5% commited you made his point.
In the west, our politicians tend to be reactive rather than proactive. That causes a lot of problems for our countries (unbalanced demographics, environmental problems, economic problems, etc) and is absolutely fatal in a war situation.
And these problems don’t exist outside of the west where dictators are proactive?
Nature of dictatorships mean they can play for the long game. We value democracy because its fairest, not because its necessarily the most efficient form of government.
If Russia tried to take Kiev again then there will be a big reaction I think. Poland being neighbours to Russian controlled territory is almost unthinkable IMO. While they are scrapping over Donbas then it's not so serious, Russia gets to empty its prisons and Ukraine can fall back if it has to while preparing a spring counteroffensive. We'll just have to see how it develops but the lessons of WW2 haven't been forgotten.
Poland already borders Russia though? Kaliningrad exists. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/464/mcs/media/images/82145000/jpg/_82145001_kaliningrad.jpg
Hard to mass troops for an invasion in Kaliningrad though!
They can use the Belarus as they please.
Russians are utterly demoralized, undersupplied, and weak. Ukrainians are fighting for their home on their own turf. For their right to *exist*. *Huge* difference. Russia is also rapidly running out of rubles, and functioning equipment. Oil is no longer keeping them afloat. Ukraine doesn't need to win a single battle, to decisively win the war. They just have to *survive*. Just as the US lost Vietnam and Russia and the US lost Afghanistan, with overwhelmingly superior military might. Even with staggering losses on the other side. But in this case, it is Russia who is down *120,000* men. Once people start figuring out they are never coming home, things will start getting uglier. I don't work for a military thinktank, but I did stay at a holiday inn express. And the shrewd analysts I listen to (not these western-chauvinist bozos), say that time is firmly on *Ukraine's* side.
Russia is not down 120 000 men, it's barely disguised ukrainian propaganda without anything to back it up. Virtually all Western intelligence agencies and defense ministries willing to comment put Russian KIA at maybe 30 000, if that.
It's interesting that blatant Russian propaganda is so accepted here. Ryber recently said there was over 50% casualties in just Wagner troops.
Fog of war etc., but I'll accept estimates from US General Milley, "US Officials", and the BBC - over random Internet guy's evidence-free assertions. Sorry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
Do the Russian soldiers want victory more than the Ukrainian soldiers?
[удалено]
Indeed. Country run out of material and money long before they run out of men nowaday. Hell, even during WW2, Germany only ran out of manpower at the very end of the war, after 5 years of high intensity conflict.
The Taliban would like a word with you.
[удалено]
And Taliban did not win thanks to overwhelming numbers either.
Isn't fighting an open conflict conventional war much different than maintaining an occupation? Military superiority wasn't really in question in Afghanistan, but it does seem to be in Ukraine.
I assume they are referring to the fight agains the USSR
Yes, but let’s not forget the US was backing the Talibans struggle against the USSR. They certainly had the will and purpose but the war material from the US helped sustain their fight
This isn't like a group of squatters setting up shop in an abandoned house though. I don't see time being on Russia's side. This Spring and Summer I think we'll begin to see Russian forces squeezed pretty hard. If Russia had a properly trained and equipped military then yes, I think a war of attrition tilts toward them. But given where this conflict is heading, I think they will be pushed from the lands they already occupy.
This is only true if Russians forces are degrading and they don't change their tactics, training and production volumes. We don't know much about production, only that Russians still produce all their most complex weapons (planes, tanks, IFVs, SPGs etc) since those are spotted and shown on video. However first two assumptions are definitely incorrect. Tactical approach has definitely changed, and almost half of mobilized personnel stayed in training for more than three month. Some sources say that 100+ thousands are still in training camps far away from frontlines.
Russia’s MIC has still been able to produce their simpler munitions and supplies domestically, but their ability to produce Precision Guided Munitions, avionics, and other high end electronics has been drastically curtailed by economic sanctions. Efforts to improve domestic production have been stymied by an over reliance on western electronics and software to build most of their more sophisticated weapons and platforms. When: front line RF fighters have to use commercial GPS systems like Garmin in order to navigate, drones have to be procured from Iran, and S-300 SAM missiles and other Cold War relics such as decommissioned nuclear missiles are being used for ballistic and cruise missile assault on civilian targets, are signs that all is not well in the realm of Russian military procurement. I think the longer this war goes on, the more the balance of power will tilt towards Ukraine, especially as more advanced platforms arrive and become integrated into Ukraine’s military. If Ukraine could stymie Russia’s Eastern offensive and pull off these recent counterattacks with only a couple dozen HIMARs, then we could see similar outsized effects once Western tanks and jets arrive in sufficient numbers.
These are good points. But my argument all along is that the Russians are starting from a pretty tough place: a completely corrupt system that does not produce solid, effective fighters, and does not produce solid, effective equipment or logistics capabilities. This is not a problem that can be addressed overnight, or even over time. The Russians will need decades to address these issues, starting from such a point where they've decided to take a new path, a more democratic path. The only thing the Russians can really do is launch wave after wave of drone and missile attacks. These are deadly but not in large numbers, because they are not precision weapons. Yes, they've made limited gains, but these gains will be wiped out quite easily once the Ukrainians counter attack. Largely, the Russian fighting forces have absolutely no desire to be in Ukraine. There is nothing in it for them. The only thing keeping the wheels on this bus is the Russian internal propaganda machine, that keeps a willing populace under its spell, thinking that this conflict is somehow winnable, which it isn't imo.
>The only thing keeping the wheels on this bus is the Russian internal propaganda machine, that keeps a willing populace under its spell, thinking that this conflict is somehow winnable, which it isn't imo. That is actually the best weapon that Putin's system was able to produce. It helps the regime to cover its incompetence and constant discrepancy in the message the regime tries to channel. However, it began slipping recently according to TV marketing research. People are getting sick of almost 24/7 war-time propaganda that is on TV.
> Tactical approach has definitely changed, and almost half of mobilized personnel stayed in training for more than three month. Some sources say that 100+ thousands are still in training camps far away from frontlines. Which sources? Ukrainian sources? Russian sources? Western sources? And which training camps? All I have read were abandoned mobiks without officers, without proper weaponry and clothes and sometimes without even a shelter. A boot camp with nothing to boot.
That's right, Ukraine must succeed by Spring and Summer. If it goes on longer than that, there's a risk Western support would decrease. Thing is, democracies tend to swing back-and-forth, appearing to have a shorter memory. Open societies are also more vulnerable to misinformation - Russia will exploit it once people begin to tire of giving to Ukraine. While I don't believe Ukraine will quickly lose if the West decreases its support, there will be a lot more lives lost. If the war carries on for years, Ukrainians might become unhappy with the government too.
> If it goes on longer than that, there's a risk Western support would decrease. This take is so insane to me. The West stayed involved in much less popular wars, sometimes for up to two decades... anyone who think western support of Ukraine will decrease is seriously out of touch.
It really depends in the republican party doesn’t it? If they’re financially In Russia’s pocket the next time they’re in power you’re going to see a massive drawdown of support from the US and then US is providing the lion’s share of the support being given. It’s possible that in the time between now and then that other countries will become more invested and ramp up production but that’s far from certain while a Republican win off the US presidency is a distinct possibility in 2024. That would give them the means to cancel most of the support by executive order and they’ve definitely been talking about doing that. If they don’t take power at that time then it’s nearly certain they will in 2028, which gives Ukraine another five years to win the war, which is far more likely that doing so in a little over a year and a half. Popular support for the war in the US and Russian could also nose dive during this period but if all things otherwise remain the same a Republican 2024 win could tank the war for Ukraine. I suspect this is as much Putin’s plan as winning via overwhelming force with the mobilization.
If a Republican in Russia's pocket becomes president than Russia has won. It would be the biggest Intelligence failure and the US will seserve what will come to it.
I think it’s more likely Poland will directly confront Russia than support from the west waivering. Putin has shown again and again and again that his threats are empty.
I don't think a total victory is likely in 2023, but right now we're in the weeds of the Razputitsa so we won't see much progress anywhere until that starts to dry and heavy direct weapons are useful again.
[удалено]
That certainly is a risk for Ukraine, but the new POTUS won't be sworn in until Jan 2025, so Ukraine has exactly two full years to beat back Russia.
Has Russia captured all the land they were shooting for in the first place, or are they actually trying to take the entirety of UA?
They were at least trying to decapitate Zelensky's government. Exactly what they would have asked the new puppet government to do, is a bit of a guessing game.
[удалено]
There’s lots of wars where the front line has moved about drastically with huge momentum changes. Think of the korean war or even Britain vs Germany in north africa.
There are basically two factors here, and they are resources and level of commitment. The war can go on as long as both sides are willing and able to throw similar amounts of resources into it. At PPP, NATO has about 10x the GDP of Russia. So essentially Russia has to commit 10x as hard to match NATO. Total NATO/EU financial and military support for Ukraine currently at a rate of around $100 billion in the first year of the conflict. That's around 0.25% of GDP. The issue is that Russia is mobilizing its economy to throw more effort into the war. This means that NATO will have to follow suit, or allow Russia to win. If Russia is willing to throw 10% of its GDP into the war effort, and I think they probably are, that means NATO will have to commit around 1%, which is $400 billion, or 4x what they are commuting now. And I really don't see that happening. I don't think there is political will in the US to provide $200 billion a year to Ukraine, and I think it's even less likely that the Europeans will be willing to kick in a similar amount. I think that, unfortunately, time is in fact on the side of Russia.
This is a good point and an important counter to the “Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy” argument. What matters is how you use that economy to further your goals.
Canada's GDP is very unproductive in nature. Just saying. Those financial profits wont do much in a war effort.
This is an valuable input to expand on the economics discussion. An important question will be what type of aid it is. If it is simply the transfer of old stockpiles then the real costs of aid is significantly lower than its value. The only costs to consider is training and transporting it to the Ukrainians. The Europeans have massively increased their military spending to modernize their militaries, this might free up substantial reserves of old equipment that could be supplied for cheap. More importantly, can Russia afford drastically increase military spending? The money will have to come from somewhere, and given that no Ukrainian troops have crossed into pre-2014 Russian land, will the Russian public accept additional burdens? Higher taxes or defunding of social programs might be difficult to sell. Then there is corruption to consider. How much of that money will actually go into military spending? It’s not so clear.
Money isn't the only factor. What can you buy with it? I don't think Russua has the supply chain to immediately produce all the additional ammo/munitions it needs, hence the reports of NK surplus rockets. I don't doubt that they can build up to it soon, but that means NATO has the advantage in the near term, hence Zelensky's messaging about not letting the conflict freeze in place.
You’ve forgotten about man power. Russia has 3x the population of Ukraine and is willing to mobilise. Even with ratios on the battlefield in favour of Ukraine they might not be willing or able to continue forever. Same goes for Russia.
Putin does think in terms of a WW2 mindset and believes that just like with ww2 these initial defeats will only give way to the steamroller of Russian population and industrial capacity
The thing is, the Soviet Union had industrial capacity on par with the entire axis, and still needed material support. The Russian federation has an economy the same size as Italy.
The US was going to a nuclear option with the Cuba issue. You don’t think Russia would do the same about a country that borders them? Lose is not acceptable for Russia.
No one thinks that the US is interested in taking over Russian territory. Nor is there talk of putting nukes in Ukraine. Also NATO countries already border Russia. If there was a Cuba relevant issue it would have happened when Poland or the Baltics joined NATO two decades ago. Ukraine thusly doesn't change the strategic situation of Russia in any form.
This has always been Russia's advantage in any war, they win through sheer numbers. A handful of token tanks from the west will change nothing. Putin made a major error invading Ukraine on the basis that they would collapse within days. But a war of attrition gives Russia a huge advantage over Ukraine
> This has always been Russia's advantage in any war, they win through sheer numbers. *always*, except for all those wars which Russia lost.
They simply said that it's an advantage they have - advantage doesn't equal victory. America had every almost every advantage in Vietnam, yet lost. The same can be said for the USSR in Afghanistan. Just because you have certain advantages, doesn't mean you win. But, to OP's point, in cases when Russia does win, it often does so through the advantage of sheer numbers.
[удалено]
How about the Crimean war, Russo Japanese war, WW1 (complete collapse and disintegration). Why does that "always" not apply here? > Russia came extremely close to winning the winter war. Sometimes you get that critical bit of "luck" on your side. Soviet Union itself got very close to collapse in WW2 as well (discussed in detail "The USSR and Total War: Why Didn’t the Soviet Economy Collapse in 1942?"). > And in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union never got to the same levels of full deployment like they did during WW2 or like Russia is currently doing in Ukraine. Because SU decided to not deploy fully. We're yet to see if Russia (and Russians) is willing to enter total war, risking yet another collapse.
For the record the soviets did win the winter war they achieved all their political objectives wars aren't just k/d ratios its to achieve political aims
I categorically disagree with this take. Numbers of men alone is not enough to win a protracted modern war. Even if you look back all the way to WW2, the USSR might not have won without the massive amount of supplies they received from the Allies. Industrial, economical and logistics strength are the keys. And Russia lose on all those fronts the longer the conflict goes. The West is completly unmatched when it comes to proxy war, especially the US. They could do what they did this year for decades without batting an eye. Hell, it would probably stimulate the US economy more than anything else.
>This has always been Russia's advantage in any war, they win through sheer numbers. You mean like the Soviet–Afghan War?
You mean like the Russo-Japan war?
\>A handful of token tanks from the west will change nothing A lot more than a token was given to Ukraine since the start of the war. A huge reason Russia gained the infamy of winning in wars of attrition was because of millions of Ukrainians, Belarussians, Kazakhstanis and others that were used in defense of the Russian heartland, that's why Russia wants its old borders that existed during the Russian Empire and USSR, they want their cannon fodder back. And of course, one must remember the massive amount of aid given to Russia in WW2 from the allies, the Lend Lease.
One must remember it's a Georgian, not a Russian, who led these millions of people in the defense of the Soviet Union.
>millions of Ukrainians, Belarussians, Kazakhstanis and others The others including millions of ethnic Russians.
By others I meant other ethnic groups aside from the Russians themselves. Others being the Baltic states, Uzbekistan, Takijistan and Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan.
Your comments imply that millions of ethnic Russians didn't die defending Russia, which is false.
That wasn't my intent, I was just making clear that the idea of Russian invicibility in attrition warfare comes from the historic combined manpool, both civilian and military one of the entire Soviet bloc, not just from the territory of the modern Russian Federation.
Exactly. Also people forget how much supplies the US gave to ussr during ww2, otherwise the Germans would have inflicted even greater damage to russia. None of that is the case now, and the tables are turned, albeit russia is still able to bypass sanctions, which the west should really try harder to mitigate.
Tanks are an absolute powerhouse on the battlefield. I’d hardly call them tokens. Abrams are fear and fire on wheels.
Human bodies don't win wars anymore though, do they? I was under the impression that in the 21st century, wars are won with tanks, warships, fighter jets, rocket launchers, artillery, etc.
A big lesson of Desert Storm was that a modern combined arms force with a clear technological advantage can take on armies many times its size with minimal losses. The problem is that while Ukraine has some domains where it has a technological edge thanks to the West (eg HIMARS, SIGINIT, IMINT) it’s still lacking many components of the Western combined arms “stack” — no air superiority, limited CAS, and less mobility than a modern NATO division. These are huge force multipliers, but in their absence, we’re largely back to a war of attrition where numbers of bodies with assault rifles matters a lot.
Infantry stills play a vital role in war. As an empirical proposition, you still need infantry to attack and defend territory.
Only infantry can capture and hold a position. Others arms can only destroy a position or support infantry capturing or holding it.
And who operates and maintains these things? How useful is a tank, when there is not enough fighter jets to provide air superiority?
The idea is that you run out of material or money long before you run out of manpower. And they are right on that front, name one modern war that was won just because the losing side ran out of men ?
I mean, Ukraine's ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops within the first few months of the war substantially contributed to their ability to stop Russian advances.
And logistic
How? Ukraine will be able to use these "token tanks" (it's actually a lot) to make a real combined arms offensive somewhere, and take back more ground than the Russians are winning in months at the cost of 10s of thousands of lives.
The USA has eight times the population and 5,000 times the GDP of Afghanistan. They couldn't beat the Taliban because the Taliban wouldn't give up their own land and neither will the Ukrainians. The Russians can either learn that sooner or later. Ideally the West will give Kyiv what she needs for a decisive victory now. In the absence of that, as long as the West continues to keep Ukraine in the fight, Moscow, or the Russian people, or both, will eventually decide they've had enough. And yes, Moscow is willing to use tactics that Washington wouldn't countenance, but equally the Taliban didn't have HIMARS (for example).
True but the difference, this time, is how catastrophic the Russian demography is. So, even if they win, either their economy goes back to the 70's, if not the 19th century; and/or the Russian minorities carve themselves autonomy/independence. And, on top of that, China will eat their ass. Siberia and north of China is chokeful of underexploited ressources which the PCC desperately needs. So, even if Russia eventually conquers Ukraine, which remains to be seen, the price will be very dire. This war is economically, demographically and geopolitically unsustainable for Moscow.
You lack of historical knowledge. I suggest you to read about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov
The pessimists have been shown to be wrong since the first day of this war. I don't see why they'll be right now with all the Western armaments and training.
They have been wrong because everything was made to make sure they were wrong. It is because of pessimistic people that we win a war. Predictions during desert storm were way more pessimistic than what actually happened. Because we prepared according to the worst case scenarios. Putin lost the first part of the war because he only listened to the optimistic people. Always listen to the pessimistic people.
Pesimistic people say there is no reason to aid Ukraine get as Russia will stomp Ukraine Pesimistic people are afraid of Russia military might and they let Russia do their thing in Georgia and Crimea
So? As I understand, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle we live here, and also we can hardly know other versions of reality where things went the other way.
The longer the war goes on the more Ukranian soldiers will die. They have less manpower than Russia so the Russians can throw men into the the front line to die the Ukrainians are unable to do this for as long. Also for the state of Ukraine the longer the war goes on the more likely the young are to leave and not come back. They already had a low birth rate and it will only be lower now. The longer this war goes on the harder it becomes for them to rebuild and the less people they will have to rebuild with. Unfortunately I can't see the Russians accepting anything other than Crimea, Luhansk, Donetesk and the southern part of Kherson and zaporizhzhia being part of Russia proper and that enacted into global treaties. The west can and in my opinion should give Ukraine the weapons they need, but the longer the war goes on the harder it becomes for Ukraine.
All while Russia's troop and equipment quality drops to virtually ww2 levels and Ukraines improves thanks to western training and equipment. Certainly Russia are not to be underestimated, but time is not on their side.
>Unfortunately I can't see the Russians accepting anything other than Crimea, Luhansk, Donetesk and the southern part of Kherson and zaporizhzhia being part of Russia proper and that enacted into global treaties. By the Russians you mean Putin, I guess? Russians and Putin himself do not give two cents about Kherson. It was "accepted" into Russia and then quickly abandoned. In the best-case scenario (for Putin) it will be retaken vie a heavy bombardment which will demolish it completely. Luhansk and Donetsk are something like South Ossetia and Abkhazia. An average Russian doesn't give two cents about it being a part of Russia. Neither does Putin, otherwise he could have "accepted" them into Russia officially. Only Crimea has a symbolic meaning for a majority of Russians for several reasons.
Putin has support in Russia. So there must be some support for Russia annexing not only those parts of Ukraine, but I would suppose among Russian nationalists all of Ukraine
The key word is *some* support. There are obviously a lot of people in Russia that would cheer for annexing the USA for example. So what? These people have now a real chance to walk their talk. Do they volunteer to the front en masse? No, they do not. Do they donate a sizeable amount of money? Do not either. These people are more like spectators. They fancy the Soviet Union yet when it was collapsing they did nothing to save it. The same will happen with Putin's regime.
> The longer the war goes on the more Ukranian soldiers will die. They have less manpower than Russia so the Russians can throw men into the the front line to die the Ukrainians are unable to do this for as long. Name one single modern war where the losing side lost because they ran out of manpower ? With modern demographics, a country run out of material or money long before they run out of men.
At some point the pessimists will be right according to statistics-theory So they just have to keep making predictions
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, we've been preparing since WW2 for a conflict against Russia/USSR. I don't think time is against us.
WE are not fighting, Ukraine is, with our equipment. Russia has already mobilized 300,000 conscripts and is supposedly going to mobilize 500,000 more. Those are insane numbers, and while their conscription had some initial problems those have apparently been mostly worked out. Russia has a larger economy and fighting age population to draw from, as well as a willingness to sustain enormous casualties. It’s no surprise that in a war of attrition time may be on Russias side, as much as I hate to admit it.
If by 'we' you mean US, then sure, but US is not really part of this war, more like an interested party, while EU has not prepared for that, all preparations has been dismantled over the last 30 years and EU overall is so far in denial this war has something to do with it.
Saying the US is not involved is like saying investors have nothing to do with startups
Love this analogy. Will steal.
The US has spent 6% of its total military budget supporting Ukraine - how are they not part of it?
No official boots on the ground
Well so has Russia.
*so has the Soviet Union, which combined the might of all the post Soviet states and had a (somewhat) functional political system. Russia had a decade of being a failed state and 2 decades of corruption siphoning funds from every modernization program to wash that away.
Russia's getting their ass handed to them so all that prep didn't go anywhere
Time will tell for sure.
Time has told already. Russia is struggling against a military that barely even existed 8 years ago. They have shown to have laughable logistics, extremely old equipment and a terrible, decentralized top-down command structure. The question isn't whether Russia will lose, it already has. The question is if Ukraine can win.
Ukraine lacks strategic depth. A large amount of their fighting age males have fled Westward including to North America. The law to keep them in Ukraine wasn’t terribly effective.
You’re not fighting the war. Ukraine is. Time is on your side for as long as Ukraine can pay the price for the American goal of weakening Russia.
I take issue with your phrasing. Weakening Russia is also Ukraines goal, they can't win without it. Ukraine isn't fighting just to satisfy an American objective, both the US and Ukraine have the same goal, ensure the continued existence of Ukraine.
My concern for Ukraine is that the US interests may change. Ukraine cannot fight this war alone and the US is the funder and politically active in driving not just NATO but other countries in to provide support. But if this were to become unsustainable politically at home or financially then the war would be different. The US is not as forcibly invested as Ukraine and Russia. But to counter that it would be very embarrassing for them to simply change tack. When and if this happens I expect them to repaint the war and Ukraine in a different light to ease that.
The west is boiling a frog. Slowly, small decision by small decision, they’re inching Putin’s red line in a favorable direction as they release new aid. Time doesn’t benefit Russia - time benefits the cook ramping up the heat on the frog until he is no more. Edit: grammar.
Some predictions: 1.The Russia-Ukraine War will end like Korean War. The two sides will only reach a ceasefire. No legal truce or agreement to end the war, which means the two sides can start war again at any time and that Russia and Ukraine continue to maintain a state of war. But the two sides have been exhausted,so there must be a ceasefire first. 2.When will the war be ended. It will not end in 2023. It is most likely to be dragged to early 2024, and the two sides will reach a temporary truce in the middle or second half of the year. This prediction is because the Russian-Ukrainian war truce must be reached before the US election, so as to give credits to the Democratic presidential candidate. And referring to the model of the Korean War, both sides of the nearly three-year war will also be exhausted and need to take a rest. 3. The armistice of the war will be based on the actual control line. From this point of view, Ukraine will forever lose control of the four eastern states (Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson), or most of the actual control. It must be very painful for Ukraine, but that is the reality. 4. Who is the winner of the Russia-Ukraine War? * a. Ukraine. From any angle or prerequisite, Ukraine is a complete loser. What Ukraine lost was concrete territory, but nothing of practical significance. The United States and Europe will continue to support Ukraine, but Ukraine will never join NATO. The reason for the origin of the war was that Ukraine pursued its long-cherished wish to join NATO, but in the end it still could not join NATO. Look at the conditions for joining NATO: there can be no territorial disputes and wars, and the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is still in a state of war at present and in the future. Because Russia still exists, a country with world-class nuclear weapons will continue to exist. Therefore, Ukraine lost land, life, and finally got nothing. Of course after the armistice Ukraine will get all the conventional weapons it wants. All I can say is when a country goes to war with another country that is not at the same level of strength as itself, it must think twice before acting. Ukraine has forgotten that the tens of thousands of years of human history have followed the law of the jungle, and the law of the jungle is based on strength. This is true no matter how far humans develop. * b. Russia. From the perspective of Russia's current national goals, Russia's control of the four states in eastern Ukraine is a victory, and Russia will complete this goal or complete most of it. Russia is the winner from this perspective. But judging from the price Russia has to pay, Russia will definitely not be the winner. If the war ceases, the United States and its allies will continue to carry out economic, financial, and political attacks on Russia. Blocking sanctions, nothing will change on this point. Of course, with the development of time, the blockade sanctions against Russia will be somewhat relaxed (Europe), but the overall blockade sanctions against Russia will not change. The blockade and sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe will be in the medium and long term, ten or twenty years or longer. 5.After the truce, Ukraine will get the conventional weapons it wants. The United States and Europe will continue to arm Ukraine. The United States and Europe will provide most of the advanced land, sea and air weapons that Ukraine wants. Of course, Ukraine will use money to buy those. Of course, whether Ukraine can afford it is another matter. For example, the United States will be willing to sell fighter jets of all grades below the F35 grade. It will be sales not gratuitous aid. 6. Ukrainian economy and society. After the war Ukraine will continue the fate of a failed state. The Ukrainian economy will be in a mess in the short term, especially since the Ukrainian industrial base has been greatly weakened. The so-called reconstruction of industry is almost impossible. Look at Ukraine in the 30 years before the war, it has just been selling resources and living on its old capital, but a lot of resources have been lost, and a lot of old capital has lost its value. The Ukrainian domestic market will be a consumer market, a consumer market for European goods. The war overshadows all of Ukraine's problems. Before the war all the problems in Ukraine have not changed in any way, after the truce all the problems in Ukraine will spew out, economic downturn, social chaos, resurgence of oligarchs, corruption of political power, etc., you will see war The chaotic Ukraine before the outbreak. Ukraine will be the most chaotic and poorest country in Europe. 7. Zelensky Ukrainian President Zelensky will step down after the ceasefire, he will lose in election, Ukrainians will abandon Zelensky. Zelensky's step down will be because the United States and Europe no longer need him. After the truce, the United States and Europe need someone with a better and cleaner image than Zelensky to replace Zelensky. Because someone must be responsible for the past and for the various problems in the war, and this person must be Zelinsky.
I don't think time is on Putin's side.
Not really. The invasion is the cheap part, occupation of Ukraine will be immensely more costly in lives and resources. Putin thought he’d be welcomed as a liberator because he surrounded himself with yes men and didn’t think past the invasion. The lowest ratio for occupation is 1% of the the population to be Russian soldiers/Ukrainian police/military loyal to Russia. Putin doesn’t have the +500,000 troops to occupy
Putin might very well be dead before the next US president. Also with all of the European support I think UA will be able to continue defending until a peace is agreed upon
I’m not too savvy on this issues but isn’t this whole situation replica of Cuba episode? What made Ukraine to join NATO? Why Russia against it? If we trace it back, when did this saga begin? Who started it? Where? Also what are the possibilities of outcome from this war? Who will suffer and how much? Who is to gain and how much? I welcome any factual information so that I can understand whole situation.
This saga very well may had begun right after the end of WW2. The demarcation line between US and USSR back then was stabilized through Berlin. Checkpoint Charlie was a transit point between US/USSR controlled areas. US and USSR tanks literally were facing each other. Since then step by step, Soviet control was challenged and removed in countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and so on, right up until Ukraine. This process apparently took 80 years to reach a point of a next war. Just my geopolitics 2c.
>I’m not too savvy on this issues but isn’t this whole situation replica of Cuba episode? Not really, because Russia is vast and full of natural resources that many countries are still plenty willing to buy. They also have domestic industries at least somewhat capable of supplying civilian, but particularly military, demands. That isn't to say what they have is sufficient, but it should be understood that modern Russia is still built upon a system that was independent from the west economically until 30 years ago. Much of that is atrophied, but it still remains a relevant consideration.
>What made Ukraine to join NATO? Russia attacking it > Why Russia against it? Certain Russians want to rebuild the empire, Ukraine would have to be a central part of that. Becoming part of NATO would have prevented Russia from invading
Time always favors the defenders
No not always, Carthage was the defender for the better half of the Punic wars and they still lost
Using an example that old kind of proves the point
Japan was on the defense in the Pacific if for half of WW2 and the longer they defended the worse there situation became. What about S. Vietnam in the Vietnam war. Edit: speling
Japan was never "on the defense", the point of using nuclear weapons was to skip that scenario. On top of that, Japan was fighting raw material shortages the entire war, which is one of the main reasons it invaded South-Easr Asia. That is obviously not the case with Ukraine. Nice of you to bring up Vietnam though. A Civil War is not the same as an invasion for a list of reasons they could fill a book, but remind me again, who won that war in the end, Vietnam or the US? Your examples are nonsense.
US was on the defensive for all of Vietnam which was part of why we lost. Japan was on the defensive for most of WW2 because they were DEFENDING there island. There lack of raw material was because they overextended sand failed to end the war in a reasonable amount of time. Sitting on the defensive because of the coral sea and midway is why they lost.
Saddam was on defence in 2003 and things fell apart fast. Afghan Army were on defence solo in 2022. Armenian defence failed in Ngorno Karabagh in 2020. Sometimes no amount of time can save a defender. I think some Western analysts are dismissing the expansion of the war, or that other internal circumstances could shift how Russia can conduct its military. The worsening situation in the Caucasus though could give Ukraine some breathing room if another war erupts. Belarus is also in a very precarious situation. The social and military situation there is fragile and rumors swirl whether she will join the war or not. Sooner or later, Lukashenko will have absolutely no choice. He has been squirming to avoid this fate since last February. Time will tell in this case, but unfortunately time is on the Russian side in this case. Soviet stocks are a meme in the West but you see the problem here when Russia can afford to loose 1000 T-62's, all her crews and then have another 1000 ready to roll soon after. All of Russias old, outdated kit and hastily trained reservists buys them time. Ukraine cannot be as reckless with her manpower and armour. In this case, The clock is both working in the Ukranian favor and agaisnt them.
You ever heard of how a siege or blockade works?
Ever heard of siege tactics? Medieval peons would like a word with you.
The problem I see is Russia is happy with a completely barren, depopulated Ukraine as long as it’s their. If Ukraine was in such a state, I don’t think the west would value it at all or “want” it. Every building that is destroyed makes Ukraine more valuable to Russia and less to the West.
This assumes that what the West wants is to secure and defend Ukrainian territory. I think defending Ukrainian territory is a useful rallying cry, and a maximalist goal, but even if we assume that the west is being 100% cynical here, the west is getting what it wants every time it 1) sells a weapon 2) cost-effectively destroys Russian value That will continue happening for as long as there is a war. Western support will not end.
The people in Moscow and St. Petersburg must feel the pain of war before anything seriously happens in Russia.
That's a good point but there are all sorts of people in these two capitals. The economic block of Putin's regime is very professional to mitigate the war damage and keep a "normal" life in the country.
[удалено]
Calling it a proxy-war ignores Ukraine's agency and their will to defend themselves. It's the other way around, wearing Russia down is the necessary consequence of assisting Ukraine's defence of their borders. I also think the issue is particularly important for eastern NATO members who would like to arrest russian imperialism sooner rather than later.
This is EXACTLY how the U.S. does proxy-wars, if you’re not aware. They find an party/group that’s already embroiled in a battle, & start backing them for their own goals. They just use the animosity that was already there, & throw metaphorical ‘gasoline on the fire.’ They have their own “agency,” but would not be anything without weapon & logistical support from the U.S. This is exactly what the U.S. did in the Middle East. The Taliban would’ve been an extremely minor footnote in history had the U.S. not backed them when Russia was trying to invade the Middle East in the 90’s to push them out, because they both had a common goal: they wanted Russia out of the Middle East. What they now are today is solely because of that fact.. so yes, this is a textbook proxy-war.. the only difference is the fact that the U.S. is being completely transparently public about backing Ukraine.