3 ms·

Russia can defeat Ukraine even if they consistently suffer double the casualties, other things being equal. "Other things being equal" means they'll continue t

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.

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.