6 ms·

> Why is Russia winning the war despite having a fraction of GDP compared to its western opponents? This was a huge eye-opener for me, the fact that we are spe

> Why is Russia winning the war despite having a fraction of GDP compared to its western opponents? This was a huge eye-opener for me, the fact that we are spending 20x more on the military industrial complex and yet it cannot supply enough shells and bullets for the war, to me, indicates that all of our posturing is a bad joke. Either there is huge waste and abuse in the system, or we've literally set Ukraine up to lose.

kelnos 3y ago
Throwing money and war materiel at Ukraine doesn't ensure victory. Clearly the lack of it will ensure failure. But weapons are mostly only as good as the training of the people wielding them. On top of that, there's fear of nuclear weapons taking the stage. If the US military went head to head with the Russian military, and we didn't have to worry about MAD, I think it's reasonable to assume that the US would win. But is the Ukrainian military, supplied with Western military supplies (and even Western military advisors), a better fighting force than the Russian military, even with a home-field advantage? Unclear. And on the other hand... when the war started, a lot of people assumed Russia would achieve their objectives within a few weeks, or at most a month or two. Ukraine has turned out to be much more capable than initially expected. > ...and yet it cannot supply enough shells and bullets for the war It absolutely can, but politics, as usual, gets in the way. And, as I said, shells and bullets are necessary, but not sufficient.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  The object was to break Ukraine's toys. Mission accomplished. Putin attacked Ukraine to prevent being eclipsed by it. Zelenski became, rich, powerful AND popular much faster than Putin. He was insanely jealous. Consumed. Ukraine was on a path to eliminate corruption and join NATO and then easily become far more wealthy than Russia. It would have consumed Russia by the will of the people on both sides of the border. Zelenski created his own media empire before he was thirty years old. Then he created a new political party and it beat all the others. He is preferred by the people. He accomplished more in a quarter of his life than Putin could in all of his and was going to help Ukraine achieve prosperity. Putin just wanted to stop that. Period.
  - dxhdr 3y ago
    That's some hallucinated nonsense. Putin gave an "explicit warning that Russia perceived NATO's eastward expansion as a threat to its national security" as early as 2007 in his Munich speech [0]. The Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014 with the ouster of Yanukovych, who was pro-Russia and opposed closer ties with the EU [1]. Zelensky became president in 2019 and initially promised to end the Russo-Ukranian war, but instead continued to pursue NATO protection and in August 2021 "urged NATO members to speed up Ukraine's request for membership" [2]. Russia escalated the Russo-Ukrainian war and invaded Ukraine for a second time in February 2022 [3]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
    - datavirtue 3y ago
      I see that you bought into it.
    - jeffdn 3y ago
      Is it a surprise to you that all of the countries that have historically been imperial subjects of Russia seek protection from the possibility of that eventuality coming to pass again? Is it surprising after Georgia in 2008 and Crimea/Donbas in 2014 that Ukraine would want some assurance of security and independence for the remainder of their country?
    - khokhol 3y ago
      Whereas the nonsense you're providing us here is not hallucinated (by you), but rather cut-and-pasted from the usual pro-Russian sources. Putin gave an "explicit warning that Russia perceived NATO's eastward expansion as a threat to its national security" as early as 2007 in his Munich speech. And as a result (in combination with other factors) Ukraine's NATO aspirations were effectively halted by 2009. Simply put - some hawks in the U.S. wanted it, but it never got traction in Europe - not even after the initial invasion in 2014. In other words - in regard to the NATO-Ukraine question Putin had by that time already achieved a successful, non-violent containment strategy. But ultimately he opted for the full-scale invasion in 2022 anyway. Why? Because it was never his real reason in the first place. The Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014 with the ouster of Yanukovych, who was pro-Russia and opposed closer ties with the EU. First, it wasn't an "ouster" - he fled to escape likely imminent charges of corruption and complicity in murder. Second - if you really believe that whatever happens in the internal politics of one country is a "reason for", or can "provoke" another country into launching a full-scale invasion -- then I don't know what to tell you.
jeffdn 3y ago
I’d start by saying that the Russians aren’t winning the war, it is in a period of stalemate, like 1915 or 1916. Accepting tens of thousands of casualties for incremental movement of a front line, over time periods that allow the side withdrawing to first build new fortifications to fall back on, is not a recipe for success. The Russians are digging deep into Soviet-era stockpiles, rolling out tanks built in the ‘50s and ‘60s (T-55 and T-62, respectively). Each of these is much less well equipped to face Western-style military hardware than more modern variants. Russia’s ability to replenish its stockpiles is at even more a disadvantage than the West, and meanwhile Ukraine has been tooling up to build shells of their own. The U.S. has (had?) colossal stockpiles of shells and ammunition. There is a false equivalence between the ability to supply the Ukrainians at a rate of 10,000+ shells a day for years on end and the ability of the United States to engage in a major conflict. The Russians are also having trouble keeping their artillery pieces adequately supplied. The calculus is about the acceptable rate of drawdown of stockpiles in relation to the increase in the likelihood of a near-peer conflict arising due to the support given by the very drawdown of those stockpiles. If we give everything we have to Ukraine, and they lose, for whatever reason, then we have disadvantaged ourselves. However, any major conflict between the United States and a near-peer adversary wouldn’t be so heavily reliant on artillery as this current war is — the U.S. has spent decades building an Air Force that can dominate the battle space in ways that artillery alone cannot match. As Ukraine is set to receive several squadrons worth of F-16s this year, I believe we will see things change. Planes can interdict resupply and troop movements in ways that are beyond the capability of artillery. SEAD aircraft can target and destroy SAM radars to allow large strike packages to accurately blow bridges and rail lines with a much greater radius and accuracy than any other conventional munition. It is very cynical realpolitik, but Russia’s armed forces have been gutted with this approach.
- geraldhh 3y ago
  > Russia’s armed forces have been gutted with this approach. a growing feeling of this being the conflict's main objective makes me shiver of what comes next

kelnos 3y ago

Throwing money and war materiel at Ukraine doesn't ensure victory. Clearly the lack of it will ensure failure. But weapons are mostly only as good as the training of the people wielding them. On top of that, there's fear of nuclear weapons taking the stage. If the US military went head to head with the Russian military, and we didn't have to worry about MAD, I think it's reasonable to assume that the US would win. But is the Ukrainian military, supplied with Western military supplies (and even Western military advisors), a better fighting force than the Russian military, even with a home-field advantage? Unclear. And on the other hand... when the war started, a lot of people assumed Russia would achieve their objectives within a few weeks, or at most a month or two. Ukraine has turned out to be much more capable than initially expected. > ...and yet it cannot supply enough shells and bullets for the war It absolutely can, but politics, as usual, gets in the way. And, as I said, shells and bullets are necessary, but not sufficient.

datavirtue 3y ago
The object was to break Ukraine's toys. Mission accomplished. Putin attacked Ukraine to prevent being eclipsed by it. Zelenski became, rich, powerful AND popular much faster than Putin. He was insanely jealous. Consumed. Ukraine was on a path to eliminate corruption and join NATO and then easily become far more wealthy than Russia. It would have consumed Russia by the will of the people on both sides of the border. Zelenski created his own media empire before he was thirty years old. Then he created a new political party and it beat all the others. He is preferred by the people. He accomplished more in a quarter of his life than Putin could in all of his and was going to help Ukraine achieve prosperity. Putin just wanted to stop that. Period.
- dxhdr 3y ago
  That's some hallucinated nonsense. Putin gave an "explicit warning that Russia perceived NATO's eastward expansion as a threat to its national security" as early as 2007 in his Munich speech [0]. The Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014 with the ouster of Yanukovych, who was pro-Russia and opposed closer ties with the EU [1]. Zelensky became president in 2019 and initially promised to end the Russo-Ukranian war, but instead continued to pursue NATO protection and in August 2021 "urged NATO members to speed up Ukraine's request for membership" [2]. Russia escalated the Russo-Ukrainian war and invaded Ukraine for a second time in February 2022 [3]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
  - datavirtue 3y ago
    I see that you bought into it.
  - jeffdn 3y ago
    Is it a surprise to you that all of the countries that have historically been imperial subjects of Russia seek protection from the possibility of that eventuality coming to pass again? Is it surprising after Georgia in 2008 and Crimea/Donbas in 2014 that Ukraine would want some assurance of security and independence for the remainder of their country?
  - khokhol 3y ago
    Whereas the nonsense you're providing us here is not hallucinated (by you), but rather cut-and-pasted from the usual pro-Russian sources. Putin gave an "explicit warning that Russia perceived NATO's eastward expansion as a threat to its national security" as early as 2007 in his Munich speech. And as a result (in combination with other factors) Ukraine's NATO aspirations were effectively halted by 2009. Simply put - some hawks in the U.S. wanted it, but it never got traction in Europe - not even after the initial invasion in 2014. In other words - in regard to the NATO-Ukraine question Putin had by that time already achieved a successful, non-violent containment strategy. But ultimately he opted for the full-scale invasion in 2022 anyway. Why? Because it was never his real reason in the first place. The Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014 with the ouster of Yanukovych, who was pro-Russia and opposed closer ties with the EU. First, it wasn't an "ouster" - he fled to escape likely imminent charges of corruption and complicity in murder. Second - if you really believe that whatever happens in the internal politics of one country is a "reason for", or can "provoke" another country into launching a full-scale invasion -- then I don't know what to tell you.

jeffdn 3y ago

I’d start by saying that the Russians aren’t winning the war, it is in a period of stalemate, like 1915 or 1916. Accepting tens of thousands of casualties for incremental movement of a front line, over time periods that allow the side withdrawing to first build new fortifications to fall back on, is not a recipe for success. The Russians are digging deep into Soviet-era stockpiles, rolling out tanks built in the ‘50s and ‘60s (T-55 and T-62, respectively). Each of these is much less well equipped to face Western-style military hardware than more modern variants. Russia’s ability to replenish its stockpiles is at even more a disadvantage than the West, and meanwhile Ukraine has been tooling up to build shells of their own. The U.S. has (had?) colossal stockpiles of shells and ammunition. There is a false equivalence between the ability to supply the Ukrainians at a rate of 10,000+ shells a day for years on end and the ability of the United States to engage in a major conflict. The Russians are also having trouble keeping their artillery pieces adequately supplied. The calculus is about the acceptable rate of drawdown of stockpiles in relation to the increase in the likelihood of a near-peer conflict arising due to the support given by the very drawdown of those stockpiles. If we give everything we have to Ukraine, and they lose, for whatever reason, then we have disadvantaged ourselves. However, any major conflict between the United States and a near-peer adversary wouldn’t be so heavily reliant on artillery as this current war is — the U.S. has spent decades building an Air Force that can dominate the battle space in ways that artillery alone cannot match. As Ukraine is set to receive several squadrons worth of F-16s this year, I believe we will see things change. Planes can interdict resupply and troop movements in ways that are beyond the capability of artillery. SEAD aircraft can target and destroy SAM radars to allow large strike packages to accurately blow bridges and rail lines with a much greater radius and accuracy than any other conventional munition. It is very cynical realpolitik, but Russia’s armed forces have been gutted with this approach.

geraldhh 3y ago
> Russia’s armed forces have been gutted with this approach. a growing feeling of this being the conflict's main objective makes me shiver of what comes next