4 ms·
Even if Ukraine is doomed to lose, we need to still continue supporting them, simply to win time to rearm, and also to kill enough Russians to make further aggr
by anovikov 2y ago
Even if Ukraine is doomed to lose, we need to still continue supporting them, simply to win time to rearm, and also to kill enough Russians to make further aggression unlikely.
In WWII, Soviet Union suffered 7.9M combat dead and dead/incapacitated ratio was way softer back then simply because healthcare was on the lower level - it was 80 years ago. Meaning, for each dead there are more incapacitated today simply because severely wounded people (with heavy concussions, explosive amputaions, multiple fractures and shrapnel, infections), mostly died in WWII and now they survive so don't add to the dead statistics - but are useless for warfare later.
Soviet Union had 190M people in 1941 and Russia has 145M, plus in 1940, 6050K kids were born in the USSR and in Russia today, barely 1200K are born each year. So availability of manpower is about 75% of 1941 and rate of replacement is only 1/5 as high.
In 1945, Soviet Union was a country of invalids and widows. It utterly lacked any mobilisation capacity - 1946 conscripts served for 5-7 years in peacetime army because there was no one to replace them (my grandfather was conscripted in 1947 and served till 1953 while there was no war going on).
Easy to see that approximately 3, or max 4 million combat dead (1/2 to 2/3 the share of population) will bring Russia to the same position, considering lower replacement rate of manpower, and lower share of young population.
What is the fraction of those that need to be killed for Putin to see it's going nowhere? My bet is with 1 million. Losing 1 million dead before Ukraine falls means he will not be able to do much else after it does, putting him in a bind. It will be enough for even the most mindless dictator to stop.
- rainworld 2y ago[flagged]