3 ms·

Ukraine is fucked in the long term by demographics and economics, not by the lack of any particular weapon or munition. Now that the war has settled into an att

Ukraine is fucked in the long term by demographics and economics, not by the lack of any particular weapon or munition. Now that the war has settled into an attritional phase, it's a question of who will run out of fighting men and war materiel first. The answer is unfortunately clear.

brabel 3y ago
People down-voting this, care to explain how this is wrong?? I've thought about this a lot and as far as I can tell, this is the only reasonable expectation I can come up with as well... it seems quite possible to me that the reason Europe and the USA are turning up the "Russia will soon attack us" rhetoric is to justify higher military spending in the short term, and sending boots to Ukraine in the medium term, given that if you look at the reality of the situation, the Russian military has been stopped by a weak (compared to NATO) Ukrainian military, hence you would have to conclude that the possibility of Russia actually even thinking of attacking NATO in the next few decades should be very much zero under any circumstances. It's like thinking in the 60's that if we don't stop North Vietnam, they will come for the rest of Asia :D it just doesn't add up to any reasonable, rather than passion/hate-filled analysis (which is what we mostly see in the media, unfortunately).
- tw04 3y ago
  Sure: he's flat out wrong. This has been played out again and again - "winning a war" is meaningless if you can't retain the territory. Unless the world is going to stand by and allow Russia to commit genocide of the entirety of the Ukranian population, this will move from a traditional war to a guerilla war. Ukrainians can fight guerilla warfare longer than Putin is going to be alive and able to maintain support of the Russian population. They couldn't conquer Afghanistan drawing from more than double the population. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFG/afghanistan/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFG/afghanistan/popula... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072400/population-us-ussr-cold-war/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072400/population-us-us... https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/population
- watwut 3y ago
  In the short term, as in right now these days they suffer lack of ammunition. And if they loose the war, they won't exist at all. Despite Russia having demographic and economic issues too.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  Wars aren't decided by pure manpower/materiel, or the US would have won the Vietnam war. It's all about win conditions. For instance, if Russia loses e.g. 20% of their population then the economy will utterly tank, and if the economy tanks then Putin will lose support for the war and risk falling out of a window. Ukraine doesn't actually need to win here, they just need to stall the war out for longer than Russia is willing to stay. Russia doesn't need to wipe out Ukraine, they just need to kill Western support of Ukraine and dry up the flow of military aid. So if Ukraine just needs to stall then why did they go on a counterattack? Because it brings in more military aid now while Russia still has a materiel shortage. If Ukraine has a harsh materiel advantage over Russia then they can push Russian casualty rates far harder and force Putin into political strife much sooner. Putin crippled the Russian economy by refusing to sell gas to the EU and by extension hurt Russian materiel production, but the tactic makes sense when you consider his win conditions: break Ukraine's western support, so that Russia has a materiel advantage. >"Russia will soon attack us" rhetoric I think that's actually Russian propaganda - Russia wants the West afraid to give Ukraine aid, so they play up the nuclear threat every time new milestones in aid are suggested (e.g. when the first F35 is given to Ukraine), then fold the moment the milestone is reached. Russia does this because slowing western aid to Ukraine is vital for their theory of victory.
  - brabel 3y ago
    > I think that's actually Russian propaganda Not at all. Are you joking? Multiple governments in Europe issued warnings to the population that they should prepare for war. Sweden is even re-opening Cold War era bunkers for the population to hide in case of attacks, and old military bases are re-opening.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
But what does "win" mean here? Ukraine clearly is not going to displace Russia, but they can presumably make Russia's occupation expensive and net-negative for several more years at a fraction of their current attrition rate, unless they're forced to the table. And this seems like a functional loss for Russia. The Eastern provinces Russia holds aren't that valuable in any objective sense. Crimea provides an extremely valuable Black Sea port, but only if Russia can safely keep warships there -- which Russia currently is not able to do. Russia has certainly proven that if they rebuild their entire economy around the goal of holding these assets they can, indeed defend them indefinitely. But they haven't demonstrated that this is worthwhile or sustainable without a very generous peace deal from Ukraine.

brabel 3y ago

People down-voting this, care to explain how this is wrong?? I've thought about this a lot and as far as I can tell, this is the only reasonable expectation I can come up with as well... it seems quite possible to me that the reason Europe and the USA are turning up the "Russia will soon attack us" rhetoric is to justify higher military spending in the short term, and sending boots to Ukraine in the medium term, given that if you look at the reality of the situation, the Russian military has been stopped by a weak (compared to NATO) Ukrainian military, hence you would have to conclude that the possibility of Russia actually even thinking of attacking NATO in the next few decades should be very much zero under any circumstances. It's like thinking in the 60's that if we don't stop North Vietnam, they will come for the rest of Asia :D it just doesn't add up to any reasonable, rather than passion/hate-filled analysis (which is what we mostly see in the media, unfortunately).

tw04 3y ago
Sure: he's flat out wrong. This has been played out again and again - "winning a war" is meaningless if you can't retain the territory. Unless the world is going to stand by and allow Russia to commit genocide of the entirety of the Ukranian population, this will move from a traditional war to a guerilla war. Ukrainians can fight guerilla warfare longer than Putin is going to be alive and able to maintain support of the Russian population. They couldn't conquer Afghanistan drawing from more than double the population. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFG/afghanistan/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFG/afghanistan/popula... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072400/population-us-ussr-cold-war/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072400/population-us-us... https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/population
watwut 3y ago
In the short term, as in right now these days they suffer lack of ammunition. And if they loose the war, they won't exist at all. Despite Russia having demographic and economic issues too.
Qwertious 3y ago
Wars aren't decided by pure manpower/materiel, or the US would have won the Vietnam war. It's all about win conditions. For instance, if Russia loses e.g. 20% of their population then the economy will utterly tank, and if the economy tanks then Putin will lose support for the war and risk falling out of a window. Ukraine doesn't actually need to win here, they just need to stall the war out for longer than Russia is willing to stay. Russia doesn't need to wipe out Ukraine, they just need to kill Western support of Ukraine and dry up the flow of military aid. So if Ukraine just needs to stall then why did they go on a counterattack? Because it brings in more military aid now while Russia still has a materiel shortage. If Ukraine has a harsh materiel advantage over Russia then they can push Russian casualty rates far harder and force Putin into political strife much sooner. Putin crippled the Russian economy by refusing to sell gas to the EU and by extension hurt Russian materiel production, but the tactic makes sense when you consider his win conditions: break Ukraine's western support, so that Russia has a materiel advantage. >"Russia will soon attack us" rhetoric I think that's actually Russian propaganda - Russia wants the West afraid to give Ukraine aid, so they play up the nuclear threat every time new milestones in aid are suggested (e.g. when the first F35 is given to Ukraine), then fold the moment the milestone is reached. Russia does this because slowing western aid to Ukraine is vital for their theory of victory.
- brabel 3y ago
  > I think that's actually Russian propaganda Not at all. Are you joking? Multiple governments in Europe issued warnings to the population that they should prepare for war. Sweden is even re-opening Cold War era bunkers for the population to hide in case of attacks, and old military bases are re-opening.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

But what does "win" mean here? Ukraine clearly is not going to displace Russia, but they can presumably make Russia's occupation expensive and net-negative for several more years at a fraction of their current attrition rate, unless they're forced to the table. And this seems like a functional loss for Russia. The Eastern provinces Russia holds aren't that valuable in any objective sense. Crimea provides an extremely valuable Black Sea port, but only if Russia can safely keep warships there -- which Russia currently is not able to do. Russia has certainly proven that if they rebuild their entire economy around the goal of holding these assets they can, indeed defend them indefinitely. But they haven't demonstrated that this is worthwhile or sustainable without a very generous peace deal from Ukraine.