6 ms·

I have heard this argument before, but I'm not particularly convinced. Either way pretty much all their pre-war modern equipment has already been destroyed. No

I have heard this argument before, but I'm not particularly convinced. Either way pretty much all their pre-war modern equipment has already been destroyed. Now they're fighting with really old stuff like T-55s pulled from storage, newly manufactured equipment, or whatever North Korea thinks it can spare.

brabel 2y ago
Your impression of Russia's war capabilities is vastly mistaken. "According to Joseph Fitsanakis, professor of intelligence and security studies at Coastal Carolina University, “Russian military production is currently outpacing that of the US and all of NATO member states combined. This may be hard to believe, but Russia is obligated to do it if it is going to outpace the support given to Ukraine." Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/2/russia-races-ahead-of-nato-in-weapons-production-for-ukraine-war-sipri https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/2/russia-races-ahead-...
- fardo 2y ago
  It shouldn’t be surprising that a country with a war economy has a higher first derivative at producing material, the question of import is 1. What is the difference between absolute quantities comparing against all relevant players, 2. How long would it take to bridge the gap at current production rates, and 3. Can that rate of production be sustained long enough for it to alter any fundamentals? The point to rebut isn’t that Russia is making more, it’s whether they can continue to do so ongoingly before Ukrainian advances, regime falter or economic collapse, US/China step-in, or internal unrest will dramatically weaken or make the current Russian negotiating position untenable.
  - wiseowise 2y ago
    All of this is irrelevant if Ukraine crumbles first.
    - TheAlchemist 2y ago
      Same goes for Russia, and is all seems pretty relevant. The article seem to indicate that it's much more sustainable for the West than for Russia.
      - wiseowise 2y ago
        It’s not sustainable for Ukraine.
        fooker 2y ago
        NATO is ensuring it’s just about sustainable.
        lukan 2y ago
        Yes, by pushing to reduce the drafting age, which the Ukrainian don't want to, because someone needs to raise families and Ukraine has a way lower population, while Putin brings in north koreans already. And can also escalate by general mobilisation at some point if cornered. So I don't see the outcome as clear.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        It's not sustainable for -either- side. Both sides are aching (very badly) for this thing to be over, or at least taken off the stove. One can quibble further as to the details -- which are a matter of metrics, wildcards, politics. And (as recent events have shown) there are still many cards to be played. But that's the fundamental equation we need to keep in mind.
      - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
        the article is not the reality tho
  - sincerecook 2y ago
    Ongoingly is not a word.
    - tim333 2y ago
      OED has it https://www.oed.com/dictionary/ongoingly_adv?tl=true https://www.oed.com/dictionary/ongoingly_adv?tl=true
      - sincerecook 2y ago
        Have you ever in your life heard someone say the word ongoingly?
        gonzo 2y ago
        it shows up in papers from a decade ago. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ongoingly-redesigning-metacognitive-questionnaires-Fernández-Ribas/54d54f828a009b9a7097eccad4cb60ea135fcfa7 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ongoingly-redesigning-... I agree that it's not in common use.
        tim333 2y ago
        No but I'm in favour of word inventability and extensionabilityization.
      - netsharc 2y ago
        I see the meaning of that word is "To continue reading, please sign in or purchase a subscription."...
  - Etherlord87 2y ago
    Love the "first derivative" view! One can take a snapshot of a good day, but if russia really was producing more weapons than USA + NATO for a prolonged time, having also more people, Ukraine would fall a long time ago. It didn't. As we say in Poland "paper will accept everything". And russia is known for shameless propaganda.
    - xg15 2y ago
      So far, Russia is still making gains on the battlefield though, not Ukraine. At some point, that momentum would have to reverse. Also, I don't think it's an "until" about China stepping in, they seem to be squarely on Russia's side, just presenting themselves slightly more moderate in public to appear suitable as a mediator. (Maybe sort of like the US does with Israel) Finally, there is BRICS and some massive shifts of attitude in Africa that seem to work in Russia's favor.
      - Etherlord87 2y ago
        > So far, Russia is still making gains on the battlefield though, not Ukraine. This is again first derivative. Russia annexed Crimea, sent unofficial troops to Donbas, in 2022 moved rapidly and captured a lot of territory... But later was pushed back severely. And after that, it was gaining terrain in a truly snail pace. BTW India and China are in an ongoing border conflict, the hostilities don't end there, with India banning many Chinese apps for example. They're nowhere near as united as EU or NATO, it's more like the Visegrád Group.
  - programjames 2y ago
    Do Americans have the technical expertise for a higher curvature? The American primary/secondary schooling system sucks, and most of the top STEM students at university are not interested in working for the military.
- postingawayonhn 2y ago
  I partly agree, in that by drip feeding Ukraine supplies we have given Russia time to build up their production rates. And my earlier comment was disputing the idea that drip feeing the supplies was some kind of intentional strategy. With regards to the broader claim that Russian production is outpacing that of the west. Yes, with artillery shells that's probably true, though we are continuing to ramp production. There aren't really any other areas though where a combination of western production + stock drawdowns couldn't supply Ukraine with greater quantities of material.
  - fooker 2y ago
    They have destroyed the rest of their industrial capacity and economy in the process, an outcome very much desired by US and friends.
    - cutemonster 2y ago
      Russia isn't that interesting any longer, economy wise. China is the competitor to the US nowadays. All Russia has is nukes and troll farms, and corruption.
      - mensetmanusman 2y ago
        Russia has all the minerals to support any size of Chinese war machine ramping. It’s not their economy that matters.
        cutemonster 2y ago
        That doesn't make sense. The minerals don't disappear just because Putin fails invading Ukraine. The minerals will be waiting in the ground no matter what.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      It seems that something like "they've trashed their economy" would have been a better choice of words. But -- "destroyed"? What's that supposed to mean? What purpose is served by the use of such hyperbolic language?
- KptMarchewa 2y ago
  Their "production" includes restoring stuff from the soviet equipment bases. When they make stuff from scratch, they are as much drip-feeding as west is, or even less - for example they make 6-8 Su-34s a year, while Lockmart is making 156 F-35s a year.
fooker 2y ago
Yes. Given their fall in Syria one might assume they are getting close to a breaking point. But it’s difficult to know for sure as they lie at every step of the process, even to themselves.
- hollerith 2y ago
  Assad's fall doesn't signify much because we should expect Moscow to prioritize its own backyard.
  - philistine 2y ago
    Syria is Russia's backyard! It is not culturally close like Ukraine, but Syria has been an ally of the Soviet Union and Russia for decades through the Assad family. Nevertheless, Russia clearly chose to stop their support; the Assad regime was cooked.
    - mahirsaid 2y ago
      Things are not based on history anymore. It atleast as much as we might think. Russia just took a trip to Afghanistan to try build relations and encoporate a way to utilize Afghanistan. Historically this would make no sense since they have a bad history between each other out of all the countries in the region Afghanistan was the own Russia couldn't possess or influence in the past. That being said Russian lost many battles against Afghanistan against the very same government today "taliban".
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Russian lost many battles against Afghanistan against the very same government today "taliban". Except they weren't "the same" parties at all.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      >Syria has been an ally of the Soviet Union and Russia for decades through the Assad family I realize that and I realize that this outcome is bad for Moscow, but the Nazis (and others, e.g., the Turks) went through Ukraine to invade Russia whereas no one has ever gone through Syria to get at Russia, so I would expect Moscow to care less about whether the government of Syria is aligned with Moscow than whether the government of Ukraine is aligned with Moscow.

brabel 2y ago

Your impression of Russia's war capabilities is vastly mistaken. "According to Joseph Fitsanakis, professor of intelligence and security studies at Coastal Carolina University, “Russian military production is currently outpacing that of the US and all of NATO member states combined. This may be hard to believe, but Russia is obligated to do it if it is going to outpace the support given to Ukraine." Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/2/russia-races-ahead-of-nato-in-weapons-production-for-ukraine-war-sipri https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/2/russia-races-ahead-...

fardo 2y ago
It shouldn’t be surprising that a country with a war economy has a higher first derivative at producing material, the question of import is 1. What is the difference between absolute quantities comparing against all relevant players, 2. How long would it take to bridge the gap at current production rates, and 3. Can that rate of production be sustained long enough for it to alter any fundamentals? The point to rebut isn’t that Russia is making more, it’s whether they can continue to do so ongoingly before Ukrainian advances, regime falter or economic collapse, US/China step-in, or internal unrest will dramatically weaken or make the current Russian negotiating position untenable.
- wiseowise 2y ago
  All of this is irrelevant if Ukraine crumbles first.
  - TheAlchemist 2y ago
    Same goes for Russia, and is all seems pretty relevant. The article seem to indicate that it's much more sustainable for the West than for Russia.
    - wiseowise 2y ago
      It’s not sustainable for Ukraine.
      - fooker 2y ago
        NATO is ensuring it’s just about sustainable.
        lukan 2y ago
        Yes, by pushing to reduce the drafting age, which the Ukrainian don't want to, because someone needs to raise families and Ukraine has a way lower population, while Putin brings in north koreans already. And can also escalate by general mobilisation at some point if cornered. So I don't see the outcome as clear.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        It's not sustainable for -either- side. Both sides are aching (very badly) for this thing to be over, or at least taken off the stove. One can quibble further as to the details -- which are a matter of metrics, wildcards, politics. And (as recent events have shown) there are still many cards to be played. But that's the fundamental equation we need to keep in mind.
    - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
      the article is not the reality tho
- sincerecook 2y ago
  Ongoingly is not a word.
  - tim333 2y ago
    OED has it https://www.oed.com/dictionary/ongoingly_adv?tl=true https://www.oed.com/dictionary/ongoingly_adv?tl=true
    - sincerecook 2y ago
      Have you ever in your life heard someone say the word ongoingly?
      - gonzo 2y ago
        it shows up in papers from a decade ago. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ongoingly-redesigning-metacognitive-questionnaires-Fernández-Ribas/54d54f828a009b9a7097eccad4cb60ea135fcfa7 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ongoingly-redesigning-... I agree that it's not in common use.
      - tim333 2y ago
        No but I'm in favour of word inventability and extensionabilityization.
    - netsharc 2y ago
      I see the meaning of that word is "To continue reading, please sign in or purchase a subscription."...
- Etherlord87 2y ago
  Love the "first derivative" view! One can take a snapshot of a good day, but if russia really was producing more weapons than USA + NATO for a prolonged time, having also more people, Ukraine would fall a long time ago. It didn't. As we say in Poland "paper will accept everything". And russia is known for shameless propaganda.
  - xg15 2y ago
    So far, Russia is still making gains on the battlefield though, not Ukraine. At some point, that momentum would have to reverse. Also, I don't think it's an "until" about China stepping in, they seem to be squarely on Russia's side, just presenting themselves slightly more moderate in public to appear suitable as a mediator. (Maybe sort of like the US does with Israel) Finally, there is BRICS and some massive shifts of attitude in Africa that seem to work in Russia's favor.
    - Etherlord87 2y ago
      > So far, Russia is still making gains on the battlefield though, not Ukraine. This is again first derivative. Russia annexed Crimea, sent unofficial troops to Donbas, in 2022 moved rapidly and captured a lot of territory... But later was pushed back severely. And after that, it was gaining terrain in a truly snail pace. BTW India and China are in an ongoing border conflict, the hostilities don't end there, with India banning many Chinese apps for example. They're nowhere near as united as EU or NATO, it's more like the Visegrád Group.
- programjames 2y ago
  Do Americans have the technical expertise for a higher curvature? The American primary/secondary schooling system sucks, and most of the top STEM students at university are not interested in working for the military.
postingawayonhn 2y ago
I partly agree, in that by drip feeding Ukraine supplies we have given Russia time to build up their production rates. And my earlier comment was disputing the idea that drip feeing the supplies was some kind of intentional strategy. With regards to the broader claim that Russian production is outpacing that of the west. Yes, with artillery shells that's probably true, though we are continuing to ramp production. There aren't really any other areas though where a combination of western production + stock drawdowns couldn't supply Ukraine with greater quantities of material.
- fooker 2y ago
  They have destroyed the rest of their industrial capacity and economy in the process, an outcome very much desired by US and friends.
  - cutemonster 2y ago
    Russia isn't that interesting any longer, economy wise. China is the competitor to the US nowadays. All Russia has is nukes and troll farms, and corruption.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      Russia has all the minerals to support any size of Chinese war machine ramping. It’s not their economy that matters.
      - cutemonster 2y ago
        That doesn't make sense. The minerals don't disappear just because Putin fails invading Ukraine. The minerals will be waiting in the ground no matter what.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    It seems that something like "they've trashed their economy" would have been a better choice of words. But -- "destroyed"? What's that supposed to mean? What purpose is served by the use of such hyperbolic language?
KptMarchewa 2y ago
Their "production" includes restoring stuff from the soviet equipment bases. When they make stuff from scratch, they are as much drip-feeding as west is, or even less - for example they make 6-8 Su-34s a year, while Lockmart is making 156 F-35s a year.

fooker 2y ago

Yes. Given their fall in Syria one might assume they are getting close to a breaking point. But it’s difficult to know for sure as they lie at every step of the process, even to themselves.

hollerith 2y ago
Assad's fall doesn't signify much because we should expect Moscow to prioritize its own backyard.
- philistine 2y ago
  Syria is Russia's backyard! It is not culturally close like Ukraine, but Syria has been an ally of the Soviet Union and Russia for decades through the Assad family. Nevertheless, Russia clearly chose to stop their support; the Assad regime was cooked.
  - mahirsaid 2y ago
    Things are not based on history anymore. It atleast as much as we might think. Russia just took a trip to Afghanistan to try build relations and encoporate a way to utilize Afghanistan. Historically this would make no sense since they have a bad history between each other out of all the countries in the region Afghanistan was the own Russia couldn't possess or influence in the past. That being said Russian lost many battles against Afghanistan against the very same government today "taliban".
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Russian lost many battles against Afghanistan against the very same government today "taliban". Except they weren't "the same" parties at all.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >Syria has been an ally of the Soviet Union and Russia for decades through the Assad family I realize that and I realize that this outcome is bad for Moscow, but the Nazis (and others, e.g., the Turks) went through Ukraine to invade Russia whereas no one has ever gone through Syria to get at Russia, so I would expect Moscow to care less about whether the government of Syria is aligned with Moscow than whether the government of Ukraine is aligned with Moscow.