4 ms·

It is really fascinating how frequently we see these posts about Russia being on the verge of losing its war. Yet we are now nearly six months in to the fight,

It is really fascinating how frequently we see these posts about Russia being on the verge of losing its war. Yet we are now nearly six months in to the fight, with every major Western nation having invested massively in the effort to repel Russian forces (which are always "on the verge" of losing, of course), and yet Russia keeps not losing. They keep claiming more territory, despite everything the West can do to repel them. I don't know whether Russia will ultimately be repelled or not, but whatever this thing is they're doing, they're clearly not "losing"

sorokod 4y ago
Funny, the word "loosing" is not in the body of the article and the HN title seems to be completely made up.
- ogurechny 4y ago
  Caption length is limited.
- mandeepj 4y ago
  There’s a big difference between losing and loosing! Also, ‘losing’ is perfectly fine to use in-lieu of ‘taking a beating’ especially when title length is limited.
brnt 4y ago
Hold on. Russia went from invading a neighbouring country less then 5% its own size on 4 fronts, which we all deemed plausible and likely a success within weeks, if not days, to being relegated to engaging in artillery warfare like it's 1922 over a fraction of the initial front line and territory it was 5 months ago. Ukraine who has a fraction of the armed forces and materiel are receiving materiel, yes, but they are unfamiliar with it nor did they have had time training with it. Russia went through its supply of modern materiel in the first weeks of the war and is fielding old tech and are only able to keep some momentum because of said artillery warfare, because it's both ruthless and destructive as well as low in technical requirements. They are in addition having to reconfigure their economy for total war over what is a fraction of a far smaller neighbouring country which was utterly unprepared and one of Europe's poorest. The West sending some of it's military surplus is far from doing everything they can. Russia having some minor gains recently is very much a matter of winning the battle but not the war. The only way they keep that up is total self destruction, which is not winning.
- empressplay 4y ago
- ab_testing 4y ago
  I think size is a poor differentiator of might. A better comparison could be population or GDP. Population wise, Russia is a small country with about the same population as Mexico and about a third of the US. GDP wise, it is even smaller. As a result, its yearly military budget is what the US and NATO spend in a week on defense. In fact, looking at raw dollar figures, the biggest spend in this was between Russia and Ukraine has been by US and NATO - which is surprising when we like to say it is not US or NATO's war.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Russia has massively more population than Ukraine, and (at least had) an economy also significantly larger. Russia was originally planning on winning in a week; and if it wasn’t for their massive corruption and general incompetence they would have.
  - brnt 4y ago
    Comparing military expenditures between east and west has always required a correction for general level of development: an hour of a soldiers or manufacturers time have vastly different costs. Russia has the odd 100 million citizens more, so you'd think that'd make a difference too. As sibling writes, were discovering the depths of Russias problems which seem to be far greater than most of us knew.
bsder 4y ago
> It is really fascinating how frequently we see these posts about Russia being on the verge of losing its war. Russia is "winning" because it is willing to turn contested area into barren wasteland. But is it really "winning" if what you're taking over is completely destroyed?
- RichardHesketh 4y ago
  It is, if your aim is to eliminate a state. Think.
  - tim333 4y ago
    They are not doing that well at eliminating a state though.
- pbak 4y ago
  According to the PR standards set up by Bush the Second in Mosul, Najaf, and others, yes, absolutely.
saargrin 4y ago
they have already lost. now they are just burning everything down with their own ship ,possibly to hide their crimes against humanity

sorokod 4y ago

Funny, the word "loosing" is not in the body of the article and the HN title seems to be completely made up.

ogurechny 4y ago
Caption length is limited.
mandeepj 4y ago
There’s a big difference between losing and loosing! Also, ‘losing’ is perfectly fine to use in-lieu of ‘taking a beating’ especially when title length is limited.

brnt 4y ago

Hold on. Russia went from invading a neighbouring country less then 5% its own size on 4 fronts, which we all deemed plausible and likely a success within weeks, if not days, to being relegated to engaging in artillery warfare like it's 1922 over a fraction of the initial front line and territory it was 5 months ago. Ukraine who has a fraction of the armed forces and materiel are receiving materiel, yes, but they are unfamiliar with it nor did they have had time training with it. Russia went through its supply of modern materiel in the first weeks of the war and is fielding old tech and are only able to keep some momentum because of said artillery warfare, because it's both ruthless and destructive as well as low in technical requirements. They are in addition having to reconfigure their economy for total war over what is a fraction of a far smaller neighbouring country which was utterly unprepared and one of Europe's poorest. The West sending some of it's military surplus is far from doing everything they can. Russia having some minor gains recently is very much a matter of winning the battle but not the war. The only way they keep that up is total self destruction, which is not winning.

empressplay 4y ago
ab_testing 4y ago
I think size is a poor differentiator of might. A better comparison could be population or GDP. Population wise, Russia is a small country with about the same population as Mexico and about a third of the US. GDP wise, it is even smaller. As a result, its yearly military budget is what the US and NATO spend in a week on defense. In fact, looking at raw dollar figures, the biggest spend in this was between Russia and Ukraine has been by US and NATO - which is surprising when we like to say it is not US or NATO's war.
- lazide 4y ago
  Russia has massively more population than Ukraine, and (at least had) an economy also significantly larger. Russia was originally planning on winning in a week; and if it wasn’t for their massive corruption and general incompetence they would have.
- brnt 4y ago
  Comparing military expenditures between east and west has always required a correction for general level of development: an hour of a soldiers or manufacturers time have vastly different costs. Russia has the odd 100 million citizens more, so you'd think that'd make a difference too. As sibling writes, were discovering the depths of Russias problems which seem to be far greater than most of us knew.

bsder 4y ago

> It is really fascinating how frequently we see these posts about Russia being on the verge of losing its war. Russia is "winning" because it is willing to turn contested area into barren wasteland. But is it really "winning" if what you're taking over is completely destroyed?

RichardHesketh 4y ago
It is, if your aim is to eliminate a state. Think.
- tim333 4y ago
  They are not doing that well at eliminating a state though.
pbak 4y ago
According to the PR standards set up by Bush the Second in Mosul, Najaf, and others, yes, absolutely.

saargrin 4y ago

they have already lost. now they are just burning everything down with their own ship ,possibly to hide their crimes against humanity