4 ms·

> It would be beyond naive to assume that Russia would just announce "we're out of tanks, gonna call of the war now!". That is not how supply shortages affect a

> It would be beyond naive to assume that Russia would just announce "we're out of tanks, gonna call of the war now!". That is not how supply shortages affect a military. The West has been repeating the mantra of "the Russians are out of [insert Russian weapon here]" for two and a half years now, but objectively judging by what happens on the field (which is the main thing that counts during the phase of active war) that is demonstrably false. Unless you think the Russians are winning this war (which they are) with shovels. Other than that I'm sure that the Germans themselves must have thought that the Soviets didn't have enough tanks to pass the Vistula or the Oder back in the day, not after Kursk.

aguaviva 2y ago
And yet - we have the fact that (unlike that other war you are making a false analogy to) at their current rates of "winning" it will take them literally decades to reach Kyiv. Which is suggestive of some form of difficulties with supply and materiel.
- ossobuco 2y ago
  > at their current rates of "winning" it will take them literally decades to reach Kyiv. This is a war of attrition. The progress is not linear, and it's not about how much territory is held by each side. The defender holds the line until it collapses because they've exhausted manpower and weapons. We've seen the first signs in the past few months, and that's why Ukraine invaded Kursk. They knew very well that simply holding the line was a lost cause for them, due to attrition. The question was never "How long will it take for Russia to get to Kiev", but "How long can Ukraine hold the line before it's out of steam".
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    The defender holds the line until it collapses because they've exhausted manpower and weapons. Or the aggressor gives up because the cost is simply too high, and the whole thing was completely optional for them to begin with, anyway. As all colonial powers do eventually.
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      All Empires fall.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Unfortunately they don't, and a great many "regular" countries today are in effect matured empires, rump versions of former empires, or local hegemonies / forced unions of other sorts. In effect, they're the successful ones. The thing is, very few have quite as much of an obsession with their former status, and such a strong revanchist axe to grind (or to be as stuck in such an archaic form of "empire" mode generally) as Russia's current regime does/is. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstoßlegende https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstoßlegende
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      See how you're just escalating the discussion? Your claim was that Russia is losing because the territorial conquest progress is "slow". Now you're claiming that Russia is losing because they will exhaust their resources before Ukraine. Even this argument is weak, as proven by Ukraine's invasion of Kursk.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        We know which side you're cheering for. If every response to what you say is considered an "escalation", then that's your mindset, I suppose.
        ossobuco 2y ago
        It's ad hominem time, meaning you have no actual arguments. We can consider the discussion resolved.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        aguaviva 2y ago
mopsi 2y ago
> The West has been repeating the mantra of "the Russians are out of [insert Russian weapon here]" for two and a half years now, but objectively judging by what happens on the field (which is the main thing that counts during the phase of active war) that is demonstrably false. No, it's objectively true. Modern tanks like T-90 peaked a long time ago in visually confirmed losses. The share of all types of tanks has been diminishing in favor of ancient models like T-62 and even T-55, which Russia did not use at the start of the invasion. Stockpiles of modern tanks have run dry. Refurbishment nor new production can keep up with losses. The effect is seen on the battlefield too. Russian losses - for both tanks and people - are the highest that they've been in the war so far, and are among the highest for anyone in the world since the urban combat at Stalingrad in 1942-43. North Korean slaves have been brought in to plug the holes and keep Ukraine from intruding further into Russia. Is this how success is supposed to sound? Western observers see this as a phenomenal failure, and if they make mistakes in their forecasts, then mainly because they can't believe Russia would keep on burning through Soviet stockpiles at such a high rate and throwing away people in such a wasteful way, more than thousand a day, month after month, with nothing to show for it.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  As I've said, the facts speak for themselves. If Russia had enough modern tanks and wasn't running out of tanks, it would not use T-54 tanks in Ukraine. If one looks at the satelitte images over time of Russian tank and artillery storage sites, they empty out and we do not see massive amounts of tanks at the front, we still see 5-10 vehicle tank attacks, so tanks are depleting - or where are they? "throwing away people in such a wasteful way, more than thousand a day" I wonder why "the West" can't believe it, the high number of Russian troop losses in WW2 where exactly for the same reason - and in WW1. That is how Russia operates since Iwan IV.

aguaviva 2y ago

And yet - we have the fact that (unlike that other war you are making a false analogy to) at their current rates of "winning" it will take them literally decades to reach Kyiv. Which is suggestive of some form of difficulties with supply and materiel.

ossobuco 2y ago
> at their current rates of "winning" it will take them literally decades to reach Kyiv. This is a war of attrition. The progress is not linear, and it's not about how much territory is held by each side. The defender holds the line until it collapses because they've exhausted manpower and weapons. We've seen the first signs in the past few months, and that's why Ukraine invaded Kursk. They knew very well that simply holding the line was a lost cause for them, due to attrition. The question was never "How long will it take for Russia to get to Kiev", but "How long can Ukraine hold the line before it's out of steam".
- aguaviva 2y ago
  The defender holds the line until it collapses because they've exhausted manpower and weapons. Or the aggressor gives up because the cost is simply too high, and the whole thing was completely optional for them to begin with, anyway. As all colonial powers do eventually.
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    All Empires fall.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Unfortunately they don't, and a great many "regular" countries today are in effect matured empires, rump versions of former empires, or local hegemonies / forced unions of other sorts. In effect, they're the successful ones. The thing is, very few have quite as much of an obsession with their former status, and such a strong revanchist axe to grind (or to be as stuck in such an archaic form of "empire" mode generally) as Russia's current regime does/is. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstoßlegende https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstoßlegende
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    See how you're just escalating the discussion? Your claim was that Russia is losing because the territorial conquest progress is "slow". Now you're claiming that Russia is losing because they will exhaust their resources before Ukraine. Even this argument is weak, as proven by Ukraine's invasion of Kursk.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      We know which side you're cheering for. If every response to what you say is considered an "escalation", then that's your mindset, I suppose.
      - ossobuco 2y ago
        It's ad hominem time, meaning you have no actual arguments. We can consider the discussion resolved.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        aguaviva 2y ago

mopsi 2y ago

> The West has been repeating the mantra of "the Russians are out of [insert Russian weapon here]" for two and a half years now, but objectively judging by what happens on the field (which is the main thing that counts during the phase of active war) that is demonstrably false. No, it's objectively true. Modern tanks like T-90 peaked a long time ago in visually confirmed losses. The share of all types of tanks has been diminishing in favor of ancient models like T-62 and even T-55, which Russia did not use at the start of the invasion. Stockpiles of modern tanks have run dry. Refurbishment nor new production can keep up with losses. The effect is seen on the battlefield too. Russian losses - for both tanks and people - are the highest that they've been in the war so far, and are among the highest for anyone in the world since the urban combat at Stalingrad in 1942-43. North Korean slaves have been brought in to plug the holes and keep Ukraine from intruding further into Russia. Is this how success is supposed to sound? Western observers see this as a phenomenal failure, and if they make mistakes in their forecasts, then mainly because they can't believe Russia would keep on burning through Soviet stockpiles at such a high rate and throwing away people in such a wasteful way, more than thousand a day, month after month, with nothing to show for it.

KingOfCoders 2y ago
As I've said, the facts speak for themselves. If Russia had enough modern tanks and wasn't running out of tanks, it would not use T-54 tanks in Ukraine. If one looks at the satelitte images over time of Russian tank and artillery storage sites, they empty out and we do not see massive amounts of tanks at the front, we still see 5-10 vehicle tank attacks, so tanks are depleting - or where are they? "throwing away people in such a wasteful way, more than thousand a day" I wonder why "the West" can't believe it, the high number of Russian troop losses in WW2 where exactly for the same reason - and in WW1. That is how Russia operates since Iwan IV.