5 ms·

I'd probably agree that over the long haul, Russia can defeat Ukraine even if they consistently suffer double the casualties, other things being equal. But the

I'd probably agree that over the long haul, Russia can defeat Ukraine even if they consistently suffer double the casualties, other things being equal. But there are other fronts. Russia is being attrited in more ways than simply manpower. Every month is reducing their military, economic, and cultural influence worldwide. They're already at the point where if they succeeded completely in Ukraine tomorrow they'd still be worse off than before the invasion. A victorious war of attrition can be a loss for Russia and Ukraine.

lisasays 4y ago
Russia can defeat Ukraine even if they consistently suffer double the casualties, other things being equal. "Other things being equal" means they'll continue the current state of never gaining territory. And perhaps again losing large chunks of it, like back in Sept and Nov. How does that translate to a win for them?
- roody15 4y ago
  Because they already control 20 percent of Ukraine. The 20 percent they currently control is their prime objective. It ensures that the crimean peninsula remains russian. It ensures that the north crimean canal stays open providing fresh water. It ensures land access to crimean peninsula. It captures some of the best agricultural lands. The idea that Russia is looking to conquer all of Ukraine and more is simply war propaganda. It makes no geopolitical sense for them to really conquer much more than they already have. Russia’s goal would be to destroy the ukrainian army and state apparatus to the point where Ukraine concedes the land they currently under Russian control.
  - lisasays 4y ago
    The idea that Russia is looking to conquer all of Ukraine and more is simply war propaganda. They probably never wanted to permanently hold all of the territory (especially not predominantly Ukrainian-speaking regions in the west). But it definitely was their stated objective from the very beginning to decapitate the country's current leadership, and install a permanently "friendly" (to Russia) government in its place. Not to simply grab the 4 regions in the east -- which they've still not been able to fully take a hold of, despite explicitly claiming to "annex" them. The idea that the disastrous initial attempt to encircle Kyiv (and the failed attempt to take Odesa) was some kind of brilliantly executed feint to obscure their "true" current (and ever-shrinking) objectives - that, I'm afraid, it simply "war propaganda". It makes no geopolitical sense for them to really conquer much more than they already have. Nothing about what the Russian Federation has done makes any kind of geopolitical sense. It's all just a giant (and incredibly murderous and destructive) fantasy.
- primitivesuave 4y ago
  We're only a year into the conflict - a year into WW2, the Soviet Union was losing large swathes of territory and million-man armies to German encirclement. Even when they had the numeric advantage (e.g. Finland) they suffered disproportionate losses for the same reason they do today. I presently anticipate that what happens in the upcoming months/years will mirror what happened back then - they optimize wartime production, conscript a large number of their population, and think of new technology to kill people. Keep in mind that this is all coming from an armchair historian. It's easy to have a selection bias when comparing such things.
  - genmud 4y ago
    The huge difference was the red army had the US and Canadian industries providing significant backstops in the form of resources. Something like 30-40% of all jeeps and infantry transports were provided by the US. Similar numbers for their airplanes and food. Had they not had the logistical and material support from the US in the first few years of the war, it’s quite possible the whole course of the war could have been changed.
    - klausjensen 4y ago
      That fact is conveniently never mentioned in the story of how USSR beat the nazis. The "Great patriotic war", as WW2 is usually referred to in Russia, also conveniently starts in 41 - not in 39. The reason being, that USSR were allied with nazi-germany 39-41 (which is also conveniently never mentioned).
  - lisasays 4y ago
    You're forgetting the most important distinction: this time, they're the side that's attempting to encircle and subjugate another country. A country a third of its size (in population), that -- very much like the Soviet Union itself in WW2 -- is resolutely determined not to be subjugated.
primitivesuave 4y ago
Completely agree. The modern equivalent of the Berlin Wall has already gone up (i.e. sanctions and divestment) and will stay up for at least one generation. However, Americans underestimate how much our own influence is shrinking. I traveled to many countries in the last two years, and found that most people associate America with its most extreme ideologies (QAnon, gender theory, Trump policies, etc). The Russian bloc of the upcoming Cold War v2 will likely coalesce around the notion that America/Europe has no right to dictate global policy.
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  > The Russian bloc of the upcoming Cold War v2 will likely coalesce around the notion that America/Europe has no right to dictate global policy. Hasn't that been their position since the first cold war?
  - lttlrck 4y ago
    Yes and it's not like the rest of the world has been in love with USA imperialism since WWII either.
  - baybal2 4y ago
    [dead]
  - HillRat 4y ago
    It’s remarkable how much of Kennan’s “long telegram” can be lifted and applied, with only cosmetic changes, from a Soviet Communist Russia led by Stalin, to a nationalist right-wing Russia led by Putin. It’s not simply “America and Europe have no right to dictate global policy,” it’s “Russia has the sovereign right to control the countries in its putative sphere of influence.” One can meaningfully argue as to whether the Western “rules-based order” is facially neutral, but it’s certainly the case that Russia’s smaller neighbors prefer it to living under diktat from the Kremlin.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  The Russian/Chinese bloc has already coalesced around this policy. Unfortunately, both countries have done a pretty good job of terrifying their (non-vassal) neighbors, so it's unlikely that they'll be able to do much with it.

lisasays 4y ago

Russia can defeat Ukraine even if they consistently suffer double the casualties, other things being equal. "Other things being equal" means they'll continue the current state of never gaining territory. And perhaps again losing large chunks of it, like back in Sept and Nov. How does that translate to a win for them?

roody15 4y ago
Because they already control 20 percent of Ukraine. The 20 percent they currently control is their prime objective. It ensures that the crimean peninsula remains russian. It ensures that the north crimean canal stays open providing fresh water. It ensures land access to crimean peninsula. It captures some of the best agricultural lands. The idea that Russia is looking to conquer all of Ukraine and more is simply war propaganda. It makes no geopolitical sense for them to really conquer much more than they already have. Russia’s goal would be to destroy the ukrainian army and state apparatus to the point where Ukraine concedes the land they currently under Russian control.
- lisasays 4y ago
  The idea that Russia is looking to conquer all of Ukraine and more is simply war propaganda. They probably never wanted to permanently hold all of the territory (especially not predominantly Ukrainian-speaking regions in the west). But it definitely was their stated objective from the very beginning to decapitate the country's current leadership, and install a permanently "friendly" (to Russia) government in its place. Not to simply grab the 4 regions in the east -- which they've still not been able to fully take a hold of, despite explicitly claiming to "annex" them. The idea that the disastrous initial attempt to encircle Kyiv (and the failed attempt to take Odesa) was some kind of brilliantly executed feint to obscure their "true" current (and ever-shrinking) objectives - that, I'm afraid, it simply "war propaganda". It makes no geopolitical sense for them to really conquer much more than they already have. Nothing about what the Russian Federation has done makes any kind of geopolitical sense. It's all just a giant (and incredibly murderous and destructive) fantasy.
primitivesuave 4y ago
We're only a year into the conflict - a year into WW2, the Soviet Union was losing large swathes of territory and million-man armies to German encirclement. Even when they had the numeric advantage (e.g. Finland) they suffered disproportionate losses for the same reason they do today. I presently anticipate that what happens in the upcoming months/years will mirror what happened back then - they optimize wartime production, conscript a large number of their population, and think of new technology to kill people. Keep in mind that this is all coming from an armchair historian. It's easy to have a selection bias when comparing such things.
- genmud 4y ago
  The huge difference was the red army had the US and Canadian industries providing significant backstops in the form of resources. Something like 30-40% of all jeeps and infantry transports were provided by the US. Similar numbers for their airplanes and food. Had they not had the logistical and material support from the US in the first few years of the war, it’s quite possible the whole course of the war could have been changed.
  - klausjensen 4y ago
    That fact is conveniently never mentioned in the story of how USSR beat the nazis. The "Great patriotic war", as WW2 is usually referred to in Russia, also conveniently starts in 41 - not in 39. The reason being, that USSR were allied with nazi-germany 39-41 (which is also conveniently never mentioned).
- lisasays 4y ago
  You're forgetting the most important distinction: this time, they're the side that's attempting to encircle and subjugate another country. A country a third of its size (in population), that -- very much like the Soviet Union itself in WW2 -- is resolutely determined not to be subjugated.

primitivesuave 4y ago

Completely agree. The modern equivalent of the Berlin Wall has already gone up (i.e. sanctions and divestment) and will stay up for at least one generation. However, Americans underestimate how much our own influence is shrinking. I traveled to many countries in the last two years, and found that most people associate America with its most extreme ideologies (QAnon, gender theory, Trump policies, etc). The Russian bloc of the upcoming Cold War v2 will likely coalesce around the notion that America/Europe has no right to dictate global policy.

rolenthedeep 4y ago
> The Russian bloc of the upcoming Cold War v2 will likely coalesce around the notion that America/Europe has no right to dictate global policy. Hasn't that been their position since the first cold war?
- lttlrck 4y ago
  Yes and it's not like the rest of the world has been in love with USA imperialism since WWII either.
- baybal2 4y ago
  [dead]
- HillRat 4y ago
  It’s remarkable how much of Kennan’s “long telegram” can be lifted and applied, with only cosmetic changes, from a Soviet Communist Russia led by Stalin, to a nationalist right-wing Russia led by Putin. It’s not simply “America and Europe have no right to dictate global policy,” it’s “Russia has the sovereign right to control the countries in its putative sphere of influence.” One can meaningfully argue as to whether the Western “rules-based order” is facially neutral, but it’s certainly the case that Russia’s smaller neighbors prefer it to living under diktat from the Kremlin.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
The Russian/Chinese bloc has already coalesced around this policy. Unfortunately, both countries have done a pretty good job of terrifying their (non-vassal) neighbors, so it's unlikely that they'll be able to do much with it.