NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On February 09 2023 01:43 Nezgar wrote: The question is always how much they are willing to pay for that progress, and whether it leaves them with enough strength to withstand the counteroffensives that will come.
And the answer to that is: We'll see.
Historically there are 2 cases when Russia concedes in a war: 1. Change of political regime (typically a bloody affair). 2. Loss of 0.5 million men.
We're not close to either of those scenarios. Coup d'etat against Putin seems unlikely and as far as losses in manpower go we're only about halfway there if estimates are to be believed.
Arguably as long as they are gaining ground not even loss of a half a milion men will be enough. As things stand they know they can grind down Ukraine in the long term.
I don't think that is true at all. And it's likely that the Russian leadership knows as well that the longer this war drags on, the worse it will be for them. For now they are able to draw equipment from their stockpiles to make up the losses, but those stockpiles are not infinite. The quality of stuff they pull from storage decreased over the last half year or so, and the same can be noted among a lot of different categories. Their cruise missiles become less and less sophisticated. They aren't firing Iskandar anymore, it's mostly Onyx and S300 missiles along with older stocks of cruise missiles that are, quite frankly, pretty bad at hitting their intended targets. The severity of their artillery has greatly diminished and so, too, did their use of helicopters and aircraft.
They can keep up the supply of manpower, sure, but how well soldiers without equipment are doing can be seen in those endless probing attacks both by Wagner and the regular Russian army. That is to say, they are getting absolutely obliterated.
As long as the West is supplying Ukraine, the worse it will become for Russia in the long term. In almost all categories of ground equipment, Ukraine has gained more material than they have lost. In some of those categories significantly so.
Russia is not close to the breaking point, but it's only going to get worse for them over time. And keep in mind that they withdrew from Afghanistan after suffering less than 100k casualties, dead or wounded, over a 10 year period. They have blown way past that number in less than a year.
That article says that Putin believes that he can outlast the West. Perhaps he does indeed believe that, but in that case he is clearly delusional.
The support for Ukraine has increased. January 2023 saw more support than all of Q4 2022 together. Russian equipment has decreased in quality and quantity. Ukrainian equipment has increased in quality and quantity. And I am not even exaggerating here. Ukraine has, over the course of the war, increased their numbers of tanks and so forth. Their military is becoming stronger while Russian's military is growing weaker. And Russia at their height, when the surprise was at least somewhat on their side, failed to make significant gains after the first few days.
I really don't understand how anyone can look at that and be like "Russia is winning in the long term". None of the trends move the needle in that direction. None.
On February 09 2023 06:06 KlaCkoN wrote: So one of the top stories in Swedish news right now is https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream Basically a Pulitzer price winning journalist (whom I for the record have never heard of) whose credentials include breaking the stories of the Mai Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib prison torture (those 2 I have heard of -.-), is claiming that American and Norwegian special ops blew up Nordstream 1 and 2.
The idea that the US (and Norway) would carry out a military attack on a Nato ally sounds like a Russian fever dream. But this guy has evidently broken stories before that the US military very much did not want him to break. What would even the motivation be though, the pipeline wasnt running anyone. There really was never any danger of Germany leaving the pro-ukraine coalition, so meh. Still seems more likely that it was Putin.
A Pulitzer prize winning journalist who doesn't have a reputable newspaper willing to give him a job anymore and is therefore self publishing on a blog? He clearly knew how to do good journalism at one point, but I don't know how long that credit stretches. The article itself reads more like a Clive Cussler novel than anything that actually happened. But I'll give it a few days to see if any part of it is corroborated...
On February 09 2023 06:02 Manit0u wrote: They don't need all the NATO resources. Home ground advantage counts for a lot. You need 3-4x the numbers as an attacker to be able to win. In highly fortified areas this becomes more like 5-7x ratio. So, for every 10k UA soldiers RU needs to send 30-70k of their own if they want to advance.
This war is and will remain a grueling experience for Russia. I wonder if they can achieve enough before their economy collapses completely, because it seems right now like they're on a time limit which isn't really good for their overall strategy and current rate of advancement.
And while Russia lost 3% of GDP, Ukraine has lost 30%. They are now completely dependent on western assistance with all the usual terms and conditions that apply. If west choses to strike a deal with Putin they will have no choice but to fall in line.
On February 09 2023 06:02 Manit0u wrote: They don't need all the NATO resources. Home ground advantage counts for a lot. You need 3-4x the numbers as an attacker to be able to win. In highly fortified areas this becomes more like 5-7x ratio. So, for every 10k UA soldiers RU needs to send 30-70k of their own if they want to advance.
This war is and will remain a grueling experience for Russia. I wonder if they can achieve enough before their economy collapses completely, because it seems right now like they're on a time limit which isn't really good for their overall strategy and current rate of advancement.
And while Russia lost 3% of GDP, Ukraine has lost 30%. They are now completely dependent on western assistance with all the usual terms and conditions that apply. If west choses to strike a deal with Putin they will have no choice but to fall in line.
The west isn’t choosing to abandon its allies. If the west had chosen to strike a deal with Hitler the Soviet Union would have had no choice but to fall in line. It didn’t and it won’t.
The argument that if a long war was a bad idea they wouldn’t do it assumes they have better options for the people making the decisions and that those decisions are perfectly informed and perfectly rational. If you’re going to infer what reality must be from Russian decision making then just infer that they took Kyiv a year ago and have been at peace since then. If conquest was as hard as the media would have you believe they never would have engaged in their 3 day war.
Well, let's hope Russia's pockets aren't much deeper than what is being reported. If they are, this all feels very 1984 - a continuous, out of sight war that drains every country of their weaponry, and the common man like me should rejoice over their chocolate rations going up from 30 to 20 grams this week.
Except in 1984, it required roughly evenly matched participants.
If every NATO country sends 1% of their GDP in military aid, that is more than the total GDP of Russia. We will not get in a position where we need to make major economical sacrifices by supporting Ukraine. In fact, we are already building that military stuff just in case. Now instead of waiting on some yard for obsolescence, it can instead be shipped to Ukraine.
On February 09 2023 15:55 Simberto wrote: Except in 1984, it required roughly evenly matched participants.
If every NATO country sends 1% of their GDP in military aid, that is more than the total GDP of Russia. We will not get in a position where we need to make major economical sacrifices by supporting Ukraine. In fact, we are already building that military stuff just in case. Now instead of waiting on some yard for obsolescence, it can instead be shipped to Ukraine.
Would like to respond to this - that's not correct. Even if we take nominal GDP values (I'll take IMF ones), all NATO countries combined (i'll even throw in Oz for the good measure, since they participate in weapon deliveries as well) is around 50 trillion dollars, Russian GDP is 2,1 trillion, so you would already need 4% if GDP, not 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) Then if we compare PPP values (IMF again) - NATO countries combined will have around 60 trillion dollars combined (since most of them are developed one, the equivalent-to-dollar pricing is much higher there), while Russia has 4,6 trillion. So comparison is even closer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) Then we should remember, that while Russia itself isn't entering total war stage, our military industry sure is, with defence spendings being almost doubled and factories entering 3-shift all-week production. While for NATO it's, as Gorsameth put it "another day in the office" (though not exactly true, NATO defence industry is also ramping up production of certain stuff, just not as rapidly). Then we should also remember, that while Russia is not too sophisticated of economy, it's still a major producer of both raw resources and materials (which is much more necessary for the war effort than different service sectors making a huge part of Western economy) as well as one of the largest arms suppliers in the world, second only to US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/267131/market-share-of-the-leadings-exporters-of-conventional-weapons/ And what Russia is lacking in terms of electronics, comms or optics, it can trade with China and Iran (chips for thermals and missiles, digital comms, body armor and helmets, anti-drone rifles, UAVs - all this has been steadily supplied from there). All while European countries, being protected by US, drastically scaled down their weapons production in past decades, maintaining force only large enough for short-term conflict or counter-insurgency.
So everything is much less simple than you put it.
The first link I googled says the USA spent $8 trillion over 20 years for the war on terror. That's $400B a year, for a war barely anyone in the continental USA really noticed.
In the past year, it's been somewhere just above $110B of military aid to Ukraine (Period Jan 24 to Nov 20, 2022). There's PPP, and a lot of other factors to consider, but if the USA wanted to actually commit money (and not just send over equipment from the gigantic stockpiles they already have), production has a huge amount of room to grow.
On February 09 2023 17:33 Lmui wrote: The first link I googled says the USA spent $8 trillion over 20 years for the war on terror. That's $400B a year, for a war barely anyone in the continental USA really noticed.
In the past year, it's been somewhere just above $110B of military aid to Ukraine (Period Jan 24 to Nov 20, 2022). There's PPP, and a lot of other factors to consider, but if the USA wanted to actually commit money (and not just send over equipment from the gigantic stockpiles they already have), production has a huge amount of room to grow.
High costs of the War of terror are due to the direct and massive involvement of the US military, which costs a ton, considering the cost of logistics to the other side of the world, and all the spendings on procurement of equipment, supplies, ordnance as wel as personnel costs for the Western (hence, expensive to maintain) army that numbered in hundreds of thousands men (especially during the active phase of the Iraqi War). And since US military doesn't want to go to Ukraine themselves, or strip themselves dry of their own weapons and ammo (or reduce their own maintenance costs), US will have to commit money and effort (and they already do, increasing production of artillery shells six times by 2025). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/us/politics/pentagon-ukraine-ammunition.html And then there is a question, how much they are eager to sacrifice from other sectors of economy for the sake of Ukraine, how much they are ready for it to be direct loss investment (if Ukraine wins decisively, all this production will have to be shut down again, since it won't be of use), and what time it would take, since even something as simple as shells takes few years to drastically inrease production, so what can we say about more sophisticated systems like tanks and jets?
On the other matters: Judging by the photos from Zelensky's visit to British training grounds, Challys could go to the tank company of 25th Airmobile brigade (Zelensky was shaking hands with a person bearing markings of said brigade). It's currently on the front near Svatovo. I wonder where first Leo2s would go, considering they low confirmed supplies in the first month (Germany promised a batallion in spring, though it seems odd since they confirmed only 14 tanks (that's a company number).
All the spare stock and stock with promises of replacement that get send to Ukraine will need to be replaced. Military contractors will be producing equipment or ordnance for many years after the end of the war to fill that stock. Scaling back is something they probably won't have to worry about for quite some time, even before we consider that the EU may well be looking at a higher state of readiness going forward in case Russia gets this dumb idea a second time.
On February 09 2023 15:55 Simberto wrote: Except in 1984, it required roughly evenly matched participants.
If every NATO country sends 1% of their GDP in military aid, that is more than the total GDP of Russia. We will not get in a position where we need to make major economical sacrifices by supporting Ukraine. In fact, we are already building that military stuff just in case. Now instead of waiting on some yard for obsolescence, it can instead be shipped to Ukraine.
Would like to respond to this - that's not correct. Even if we take nominal GDP values (I'll take IMF ones), all NATO countries combined (i'll even throw in Oz for the good measure, since they participate in weapon deliveries as well) is around 50 trillion dollars, Russian GDP is 2,1 trillion, so you would already need 4% if GDP, not 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) Then if we compare PPP values (IMF again) - NATO countries combined will have around 60 trillion dollars combined (since most of them are developed one, the equivalent-to-dollar pricing is much higher there), while Russia has 4,6 trillion. So comparison is even closer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) Then we should remember, that while Russia itself isn't entering total war stage, our military industry sure is, with defence spendings being almost doubled and factories entering 3-shift all-week production. While for NATO it's, as Gorsameth put it "another day in the office" (though not exactly true, NATO defence industry is also ramping up production of certain stuff, just not as rapidly). Then we should also remember, that while Russia is not too sophisticated of economy, it's still a major producer of both raw resources and materials (which is much more necessary for the war effort than different service sectors making a huge part of Western economy) as well as one of the largest arms suppliers in the world, second only to US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/267131/market-share-of-the-leadings-exporters-of-conventional-weapons/ And what Russia is lacking in terms of electronics, comms or optics, it can trade with China and Iran (chips for thermals and missiles, digital comms, body armor and helmets, anti-drone rifles, UAVs - all this has been steadily supplied from there). All while European countries, being protected by US, drastically scaled down their weapons production in past decades, maintaining force only large enough for short-term conflict or counter-insurgency.
So everything is much less simple than you put it.
Well, we're for sure entering Cold War v2. Stakes are too high for west to lose, it would mean a different world for decades. If Russia loses, it means nothing. Russia will still have its territory, +/- Crimea which isn't Russia's anymore anyway. You don't get to gift something only to take it back but that's another topic. So, if Putin loses, he loses his power. This is all this is about. He wants to be the next Peter the Great but he won't be remembered as such.
Also this isn't World War 2 where you throw cannon fodder at enemy. Russia is stuck in World War 2 period. I believe modern weapons will make the difference.
On February 09 2023 18:42 Gorsameth wrote: All the spare stock and stock with promises of replacement that get send to Ukraine will need to be replaced. Military contractors will be producing equipment or ordnance for many years after the end of the war to fill that stock. Scaling back is something they probably won't have to worry about for quite some time, even before we consider that the EU may well be looking at a higher state of readiness going forward in case Russia gets this dumb idea a second time.
That and every country in the world is placing orders for American hardware after this. Even if Russia wins today those American factories will still be running non stop for years on export orders.
On February 09 2023 18:49 SC-Shield wrote: Also this isn't World War 2 where you throw cannon fodder at enemy. Russia is stuck in World War 2 period. I believe modern weapons will make the difference.
Modern weapons made the difference in WW2 too. The Eastern front wasn’t just won with Soviet manpower, it was won with western industry. Lend lease turned the tide. American oil in American trucks moved the Soviet army. The lesson of the Eastern front may well be “whichever side has American backing wins” in which case their WW2 strategy is lacking a crucial component.
EPT
