4 ms·

The cynical take about the West's slow titration of giving weapons to Ukraine is that it maximizes the amount of time that Russia throws its men into the meat g

The cynical take about the West's slow titration of giving weapons to Ukraine is that it maximizes the amount of time that Russia throws its men into the meat grinder. Once Russian loses most of its fighting age men, it can't engage in another one of those types of wars for another generation at least.

jncfhnb 3y ago
I think the most likely take here is bureaucratic incompetence though. It’s not like the current administration can even guarantee it will continue through 2025.
pydry 3y ago
That might have been how it worked out if Ukraine successfully fought a war of attrition and Russia fought a war for territory, but it was the exact opposite. To take Bakhmut as an example, Ukraine kept feeding men into cauldrons long after they should have cut their losses because they had orders to make a stand and fight to the last for every inch of territory. This is where the phrase "meat grinder" originated - it described Russia's plan for capitalizing upon those orders. Ukraine ended up suffering vastly worse casualties than Russia did as a result - their troops spent most of their time surrounded on 3 sides by a force with overwhelming artillery superiority. The Ukrainian soldiers fed into these cauldrons often died within hours from an artillery strike, usually without even seeing a Russian soldier. Russia tried to keep this process going for as long as possible. Hence meat grinder. This pattern of Ukraine prioritizing territorial gains over lives and falling into traps sprung by Russia as a result has been repeated elsewhere across the front line too, and is symptomatic of the failure of the counteroffensive.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  That is… the opposite of what has happened. Russia is the one the spent 9 months throwing Russian troops into the Bakhmut meat grinder which had no strategic merit. Russia is the one that has seen massive attrition on its artillery and is constantly complaining about Ukrainian counterbattery capabilities are far superior. Ukraine has been very clear that these areas were held to fix and attrite Russian forces. And it worked. The Russian offense culminated with basically nothing achieved and is now on the ropes with Ukraine getting awfully close to gaining fire control on the last train lines leading west in Tokmak. Russia is the one that is notoriously throwing its men at senseless counterattacks rather than trying to maintain its own defensive lines
  - pydry 3y ago
    Russia has had overwhelming artillery superiority for well over a year. Even the most pro Ukrainian news outlets haven't denied this. Hell, Biden even came out and said that the US had run out of 155mm shells to give Ukraine. This is after a year of fire rates that were 1/3 of what the Russians managed. Again public information. The offensive was initially supposed to reach Mariupol or Melitopol which would have been a legitimate success. It's ended with a promise to maybe get to Tokmak which will make zero difference strategically. It's failed - completely.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Russia had overwhelming artillery support but it’s completely turned around. Western AND Russian sources say this, with the latter taking the form of complaints about how shitty everything is. Melitopol being liberated would almost end the war giving fire control over all of crimea’s logistics and making the entire point of the war that siege. Tokmak will not end the war, but it is THE rail line supplying the west.
- mauvehaus 3y ago
  If Ukraine had ceded Bakhmut, they'd have to retake it at some point. Taking ground is harder than holding it, especially against a prepared defense. Which we're seeing in the ongoing counteroffensive. I don't see you proposing an alternative to what the Ukrainians have chosen to do that doesn't leave them with a lot more territory to retake, or ceding a bunch of territory to Russia on a basically permanent basis. And let's not forget that they're doing their damnedest to attrit Russian materiel all the while they've been fighting to hold or retake territory. Every weapon system they've been given to strike behind Russian lines and destroy materiel, they've used for that purpose. That both reduces Russia's availability materiel, and screws with their logistics by pushing back their various assets and supply depots.
  - pydry 3y ago
    If the goal was to keep territory they'd have been better off taking Russia's pre-war deal - minsk 2, cede Crimea, pledge to stay out of NATO. Even after that though, I think they should have prioritized lives over territory. Luring Russia deeper into their territory so that their supply lines could be cut and trying to fight maneuver warfare would have worked better than trying to win a WW1 style war of attrition against an enemy 5x the power and equivalent sophistication that is fighting a war of attrition against you. Russian logistics were only really seriously threatened by HIMARS and only then for a short period (theyve since deployed counter measures). Ukraine only really has the resources to hit propaganda targets behind enemy lines now - Russian logistics are not being threatened in any meaningful way any more.
    - polotics 3y ago
      I would seriously challenge your "equivalent sophistication" statement. The human resources management of Russia's army is below WW2 Soviet's abysmal standard. The russian population is starting to notice.
      - pydry 3y ago
        According to some western sources, yes, but many of these same sources have also made false reports on everything from Russian ammo shortages, missile shortages to total economic collapse before rolling back on them so I wouldn't necessarily put too much faith in them. I would calibrate the predictions you see from your sources with the predictions that they made 12 months ago. The results may surprise. There are several technological areas where Russia is obviously ahead of the west - the two most notable being anti aircraft defences (S-400) and hypersonic missiles.
- Gud 3y ago
  This is the complete opposite of what happened in Bakhmut.
polotics 3y ago
It is worst than this for Russia: demographic decline was already well established before the war starred, the hole this is adding to the reproductive capacity of the russian population is going to be very hard to get out of, so the "another generation" is just not going to be there with the mass of WW2 or WUkrZ.

jncfhnb 3y ago

I think the most likely take here is bureaucratic incompetence though. It’s not like the current administration can even guarantee it will continue through 2025.

pydry 3y ago

That might have been how it worked out if Ukraine successfully fought a war of attrition and Russia fought a war for territory, but it was the exact opposite. To take Bakhmut as an example, Ukraine kept feeding men into cauldrons long after they should have cut their losses because they had orders to make a stand and fight to the last for every inch of territory. This is where the phrase "meat grinder" originated - it described Russia's plan for capitalizing upon those orders. Ukraine ended up suffering vastly worse casualties than Russia did as a result - their troops spent most of their time surrounded on 3 sides by a force with overwhelming artillery superiority. The Ukrainian soldiers fed into these cauldrons often died within hours from an artillery strike, usually without even seeing a Russian soldier. Russia tried to keep this process going for as long as possible. Hence meat grinder. This pattern of Ukraine prioritizing territorial gains over lives and falling into traps sprung by Russia as a result has been repeated elsewhere across the front line too, and is symptomatic of the failure of the counteroffensive.

jncfhnb 3y ago
That is… the opposite of what has happened. Russia is the one the spent 9 months throwing Russian troops into the Bakhmut meat grinder which had no strategic merit. Russia is the one that has seen massive attrition on its artillery and is constantly complaining about Ukrainian counterbattery capabilities are far superior. Ukraine has been very clear that these areas were held to fix and attrite Russian forces. And it worked. The Russian offense culminated with basically nothing achieved and is now on the ropes with Ukraine getting awfully close to gaining fire control on the last train lines leading west in Tokmak. Russia is the one that is notoriously throwing its men at senseless counterattacks rather than trying to maintain its own defensive lines
- pydry 3y ago
  Russia has had overwhelming artillery superiority for well over a year. Even the most pro Ukrainian news outlets haven't denied this. Hell, Biden even came out and said that the US had run out of 155mm shells to give Ukraine. This is after a year of fire rates that were 1/3 of what the Russians managed. Again public information. The offensive was initially supposed to reach Mariupol or Melitopol which would have been a legitimate success. It's ended with a promise to maybe get to Tokmak which will make zero difference strategically. It's failed - completely.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Russia had overwhelming artillery support but it’s completely turned around. Western AND Russian sources say this, with the latter taking the form of complaints about how shitty everything is. Melitopol being liberated would almost end the war giving fire control over all of crimea’s logistics and making the entire point of the war that siege. Tokmak will not end the war, but it is THE rail line supplying the west.
mauvehaus 3y ago
If Ukraine had ceded Bakhmut, they'd have to retake it at some point. Taking ground is harder than holding it, especially against a prepared defense. Which we're seeing in the ongoing counteroffensive. I don't see you proposing an alternative to what the Ukrainians have chosen to do that doesn't leave them with a lot more territory to retake, or ceding a bunch of territory to Russia on a basically permanent basis. And let's not forget that they're doing their damnedest to attrit Russian materiel all the while they've been fighting to hold or retake territory. Every weapon system they've been given to strike behind Russian lines and destroy materiel, they've used for that purpose. That both reduces Russia's availability materiel, and screws with their logistics by pushing back their various assets and supply depots.
- pydry 3y ago
  If the goal was to keep territory they'd have been better off taking Russia's pre-war deal - minsk 2, cede Crimea, pledge to stay out of NATO. Even after that though, I think they should have prioritized lives over territory. Luring Russia deeper into their territory so that their supply lines could be cut and trying to fight maneuver warfare would have worked better than trying to win a WW1 style war of attrition against an enemy 5x the power and equivalent sophistication that is fighting a war of attrition against you. Russian logistics were only really seriously threatened by HIMARS and only then for a short period (theyve since deployed counter measures). Ukraine only really has the resources to hit propaganda targets behind enemy lines now - Russian logistics are not being threatened in any meaningful way any more.
  - polotics 3y ago
    I would seriously challenge your "equivalent sophistication" statement. The human resources management of Russia's army is below WW2 Soviet's abysmal standard. The russian population is starting to notice.
    - pydry 3y ago
      According to some western sources, yes, but many of these same sources have also made false reports on everything from Russian ammo shortages, missile shortages to total economic collapse before rolling back on them so I wouldn't necessarily put too much faith in them. I would calibrate the predictions you see from your sources with the predictions that they made 12 months ago. The results may surprise. There are several technological areas where Russia is obviously ahead of the west - the two most notable being anti aircraft defences (S-400) and hypersonic missiles.
Gud 3y ago
This is the complete opposite of what happened in Bakhmut.

polotics 3y ago

It is worst than this for Russia: demographic decline was already well established before the war starred, the hole this is adding to the reproductive capacity of the russian population is going to be very hard to get out of, so the "another generation" is just not going to be there with the mass of WW2 or WUkrZ.