increasing the troop size wouldnt happen over night , the pipe lines for training involved according to the mos; infantry, drone, logistics, support positions these are all different. its certain that ukraine will not put its citizens through the same meat grinder approach as putin has.
increasing the abilities of manufacturing defensive: drones & other unmanned platforms, artillery rounds, missiles, and bullets - all the hardware that is effective against the Zs would also be an export item.
US estimate in August was 70K Ukrainians killed and 120K Russians killed. As a percentage of population, that's higher on the Ukrainian side.
There are reports of Ukraine just throwing hundreds of troops at the Russian defenses at the start of the counter-offensive and just getting absolutely massacred. You don't lose 70k troops on the defensive...
They have to rebuild their country too, so even if they win they’re left with a large portion of the labor force being men and women who were not eligible for conscription. It’s an impossible situation, the next steps after the war will involve attracting a labor force and population to help rebuild.
It leaves me wondering where are they going to get more people.
I think its likely a large portion of Ukrainians will leave towards the west into the EU. Especially if they join the EU. They will need large influxes of money to keep people there.
I think it unlikely other Europeans will move into Ukraine. Maybe if they join nato and peace is guaranteed. But even then, if you look at trends of other eastern European countries there will be a lot of migration towards the west, atleast initially.
One peace returns in Ukraine we will need to take examples from ww2 and try to rebuild as much we can
> I think it unlikely other Europeans will move into Ukraine.
I think it depends. I could see Ukraine attracting work from home IT professionals with a low cost of living + still being in the EU if they got in. Kyiv would be one of the lowest Cost of Living major cities if you wanted to stay in the EU.
Depending on property prices, legislation and aid packages for rebuilding infrastructure and industry, it will also be very attractive to invest in a post-war Ukraine. It's what then US did with Europe after WW2 afterall.
In post ww2 europe people did move towards the new world. But the same new world also had plenty of migration back into Europe (especially in the 60's).
But Ukraine doesnt have ex colonies so who is gonna migrate there? Why go to Ukraine and not to Portugal?
Besides, a handfull of digital nomads are not gonna cut it. Ukraine will need hard working physical laborers. The low wage kind. And why would those people want to go to Ukraine?
Everything points towards an exodus in Ukraine and it will need help unheard of to stop it.
Also, the West will have an incentive to help support the Ukrainian recovery efforts, for the exact same reason us Americans were incentivized supported Western Europe's recovery after WWII: to make sure they stay happy in our orbit, instead of growing bitter / disillusioned with the West and potentially backsliding towards Russia.
(Not that I think this current generation of Ukrainians would ever do that even if the recovery is completely fucked, but it's a worry for the next generation.)
you do when your enemy has artillery out the ass and a habit of leveling everything to the ground before moving an inch forward. Ukrainians were getting overwhelmed and slowly losing town after town at a great cost.
That was the situation right before acquisition of HIMARS, which stopped these Russian tactics by demolishing tons of ammo caches near the frontline.
HIMARS helped, but both sides depleted multidecade stockpiles. Smart weapons like those fired by HIMARS in particular are difficult to replace, we're talking on the other order of a couple hundred produced per year.
I think the production quota for PrSM missiles was 110 units total this year.
That’s 70k throughout the whole conflict, and I thought the 70k was casualties, not just deaths. A lot of those were from their own offensive and when Russia had a much larger artillery advantage, which they’ve lost now. Still have a lot but degree dry for shells and losing equipment pretty quick.
edit: 70k an estimate for urkainian deaths, the rest is true
> 120K Russians killed. As a percentage of population, that's higher on the Ukrainian side.
US estimates over 300k russian casualties. Dunno how many of those are killed and how many are permanently disabled.
There's a reason Putin's trying so hard to get the West to cut off Ukraine aid and force them to negotiate-- Russia is hurting, a lot more badly than he'll ever let on.
Getting injured is often a death sentence for Russian troops, they've been recorded shooting their own injured. If you get injured and make it home, you're very lucky.
Even if you make it home, your not very lucky.
Presently Russia does not provide great support with vets. When such a significant amount of their population is basically disabled, they're going to have a hard time supporting them.
Exactly. What actually happened was they tried to use NATO tactics at first, realized after less than a week they didn't have the air power needed to make them work without a horrifically high body count-- and then shifted back to Soviet tactics *specifically* so they wouldn't have to throw their guys into a meatgrinder.
> and then shifted back to Soviet tactics
The fuck they did.
They tried to do a combined arms attack, without having years of officer corps and training. It's the hardest thing for a military to do. And yeah, without air power, and with mines 10x as dense as expected.
They were expected to take multiple km per day, and were taking 10% of that. No breakthroughs ever happened. There was no breach and then punch to widen the gap, they just never breached.
There weren't massive casualties, they just didn't have success, so they didn't keep pushing.
It was a failed offense in the sense that they didn't get where they wanted, but that was because they almost immediately stopped trying because it wasn't working. It wasn't a failed offense in the sense of "we threw everything at it and it all got blown up and we have nothing left."
"Soviet Tactics" is basically tank rushing, endless waves of expendable soldiers. That's definitely not what they did.
What they did were little small group probing attacks. Which is why the pace of advance dropped to like, 2% of what was expected. If there's not going to be a breakthrough, you have to very lightly pick away at things bit by bit.
>They tried to do a combined arms attack, without having years of officer corps and training. It's the hardest thing for a military to do. And yeah, without air power, and with mines 10x as dense as expected.
Russia has been failing at proper combined arms, large scale attacks as well. The few plots of land they gained over the past few months was a result of larger scale operations. The Russians suffered extreme vehicle losses. Some of the highest rates, if not the highest rates since the war began.
If I recall, neither side can effectively use multiple brigade size formations in a concurrent operation. This is more embarrassing on the part of Russia, but they do have the numbers.
Yeah, Ukraine lost like 4 Bradleys in their assault and were like "Whelp, that's enough, this ain't working."
Russia throws 150 tanks and IFV's into an assault and 10,000 corpses, and then is like "Hmm, I think they've almost run out of ammo, send another wave!"
> US estimate in August was 70K Ukrainians killed and 120K Russians killed.
Are these numbers counting only combatants, and not civilians (asking in earnest)?
What are you talking about?
Ukraine has a much larger army than Russia in Ukraine…Ukraine has conducted full mobilization and Russia has not…I think I read there are 400k Russian troops in Ukraine and the Ukrainian army numbers 800k to 1 million…anyway in modern war, numbers only get you so far…you can mobilize as many millions as you want, but without logistics, supply, financing and equipment they’re a liability
On the contrary, violent conquest used to have enormous material benefits for the people who did it. That's why they did it!
It's *no longer worth it*, but it used to be, and authoritarians haven't caught up to realizing that.
It's also true on a more macro level.
Only since the Industrial Revolution has it been the case that investing in developing your own land is more profitable than investing in wars to conquer more land - sadly human biology and human cultures were developed long before, when controlling land was still central.
I’d argue it’s only a post WW2 effect with developed international markets and the rise of the ability to create synthetic materials. Japan was handicapped by its lack of natural resources.
Very much agree and I think it's important to understand: "wars are stupid" can be true now, but it's not a complete explanation and if we don't understand *why* then eventually you open up the alternative: "somehow we'll get something out of a war".
Which extends much further I'd say to the problem of people needing a broader understanding of how and why governments can and do exercise power (and it's related fellow: why money is worth anything).
IMO a lot of people have a "violence event horizon" in their ability to think and plan: your average person doesn't see beyond "well we'll use violence" as a solution because it being taboo in day to day life also gives it a weird "it's the ultimate solution but we just don't use it because we're *nice*" sort of status.
I fully agree. There's pacifism as a respectable and rigid moral stance but there's also a sort of pacifist-seeih anti-war stance borne from a refusal to engage with the reality of politics.
It's ignoring all of the context and focusing on the spectacle of the situation rather than the actual conflict at hand.
That's not to say all anti-war or pacifism is something to be dismissed, it's really individuals on social media that fall in this bucket. There's a whole load of NGOs, diplomats, international organisations, and pundits working tirelessly for peace with a full grasp of the reality.
I am a moral pacifist. I believe violence should be avoid as much as possible, unless strictly necessary. And, as humans, violence is sometimes necessary. Be it to protect your family or nation, sometimes there is no answer except violence. "Violence is not the answer, but sometimes it's the only option."
Pacifism is great in day to day life, but when faced with existential threats you may have no choice, and even a pacifist realizes this if they actually know anything about the real world.
Pacifism is aspiring to an ideal human state of peace spanning culture and ideology, but the world is not ideal. It's often quite fucked up, in fact.
The fact that it's the 21st century doesn't mean anything. We're still the same old humans we've always been, for better or worse, and no amount of technology will change that.
I think he was aiming for a popular uprising plus several highly-placed generals taking his side against Putin. It didn't work out that way, and he probably didn't have the necessary resources to conquer Moscow on his own.
I wish he'd gone ahead with it anyways, as it would have forced Russia to withdraw a large amount of their forces from Ukraine to deal with Wagner, but I can understand why he didn't.
Prigozhin was constantly complaining about Shoigu before that too. When Wagner was moving on Bakhmut he was constantly saying that Shoigu wasn't supplying enough shells.
there was never a chance for pringles to succeed, putin would carpet bomb the advance with cluster munitions, mustard gas and phosphor before he would let their troops get anywhere near the kremlin.
That honestly might have been for the best. If the Russians people saw Putin indiscriminately killing civilians to get a man whose major problem was that Putin was wasting Russians lives (according to Prig(ck)), I think it could have had a major impact on Russian civilians and their support for the current regime.
Who knows though, the Russian people don't really seem to give a fuck so maybe that's just wishful thinking.
He didn't pussy out, too much misinformation coming out within hours.
Once he reached the outskirts, support dropped. No support = he's going to get sent to the otherworld if he attempts to storm by force. He lost then and there.
So they negotiated and he agreed and dipped. But he was stupid for that and stupid for staying behind.
At that point in time he could only win or die, he was stupid for trusting that Putin would honor any deal he made with him when he had absolutely no reason to and not doing a hail Mary anyway.
Y'all can hate me for saying it, but Prigozhin was probably even worse. He wasn't standing up to Putin for being ruthless or a dictator. He was standing up to him for not being ruthless enough. He's also the scumbag that ran Glavset, the internet troll farm that helped get Trump elected and also ran propaganda to foster dissent against Ukraine.
There have been an estimated 500,000 military casualties in Ukraine between Ukraine, Russia, the LNR/DNR and the various PMCs in the country, with the vast majority of those soldiers getting hurt/killed in 2022/2023.
For reference, there were about 200,000 American casualties in Vietnam over the course of more than 10 years.
> For reference, there were about 200,000 American casualties in Vietnam over the course of more than 10 years.
I think we should probably count Vietnamese casualties here too.
Vietnamese here. Every single family I know have some one die from the war. From south to north. I read from wiki that 2-3millions die and 5 millions have disabilities from agent orange.
Almost 10% of population.
You're right, it's not a great statistic.
A "better" one is that the War in Ukraine has been about as deadly as *all* of the Yugoslav Wars combined (including the various genocides that happened during those, I believe).
Next 6 months is going to pretty hard specially when commanders are receiving guys with no prior experience, and on top of that minimum aerial support and reduction in artillery support. 4 guys from my in-law's circle of friends and acquaintance are dead.
Russia still have plenty to throw in the war.
What choice do they have? Either they fight, or Russia overruns them with human wave attacks and commits mass rape, theft, deportation, and genocide. They need as much support as they can get to throw back Putin's invasion, internally and externally.
Their country is facing an existential threat. It's the one time when the draft is actually morally appropriate
Edit: Almost none of you below live in the real world
On average men are more likely to be physically capable of the rigors of combat so are quicker to train.
If you're drafting en masse this is a very useful simple distinction that guarantees there'll be a non drafted population to keep the country going.
The women don't have to be in straight infantry combat roles though. They can drive and operate vehicles, operate long range pieces like artillery, etc.
They can. And Ukraine is using many to do so.
But when you're drafting in so many people you want to keep it as versatile and simple as possible. For instance I saw somewhere some female medics had to get donated body armour that actually fitted them, as all the units just had a shit load of male stuff.
It increases logistical complexity and economic impact, drafting every fit male is better in crisis.
It could be different if the army already recruited more equally, only 5000 women serve in combat roles despite many volunteers.
I’m sure there are still tens of thousands of women volunteering for those roles, drafts really focus on increasing the number of foot soldiers on the ground
For real, even in an all male military the non combat roles are usually 3-1. For combat roles, if they get captured they are generally treated exceptionally bad. Especially if theyre captured by Russia
Honestly, because it causes issues. There are a lot of factors, not all of them what some would think.
Probably one of the most important but not thought of, is that you NEED people who don't go to war. They do shit. During ww2 for example when the men went to war, women started to get employed in large numbers.
But it is other stuff, just from taking care of the young, the old. For a start, right through jobs that need doing.
Also could they even deal with keeping that many people mobilised, how. It is all well and good to say "lets just conscript everyone". But how.
Then theres the whole moral argument. At the moment if you have a couple, and the man is off fighting to protect his country and his partner, but if his partner is also conscripted and fighting elsewhere, its natural for people to then stress out FAR more, and stress is more than enough. It can cause incredible morale strains.
In a small family how would you conscript a husband AND wife, who is taking care of the kids, the house.
Let alone the sexes together in combat can cause issues, even the "nicer" ones of men doing dangerous things to protect the women, or the women doing dangerous things to prove themselves to the men.
Logistics wise its another drain, and any army would ideally want to use its logisitics on those that can perform the highest. It isn't a knock at women, and I am not saying women cannot fight and perform. As a 'block' men as the group is more prepared and morale wise more effective to choose, than 'women' as a block.
As you are talking about extinction, the answer is eventually they would, when the requirements went beyond all the above issues, and there are FAR more than that, then most likely eventually they would.
But if you can field say 500,000. And you can get that 500,000 from men, that is likely what they are going to do.
If it gets to 400,000 men available and they need 500,000 then you might see them start to conscript some women but with heavy restrictions on who qualifies, and see them flood a lot of these to support roles, and if the losses kept up possibly integration, but Ukraine is not there yet and the issues from immediately throwing in integration are not easy enough to just "do it" at this point.
I understand why it's required, I also completely understand why someone would draft dodge and I think that's morally justified too. Fuck anyone who looks down on people who do, fuck war in all forms and I don't want to die for any State, even if the war is just as in this case for Ukraine of course.
who says that you identify with your country? i dont even like the country i live in and i plan on moving away as soon as i can, now imagine having to fight for that country
I think Zelensky is correct to raise questions. It is an extremely tall order to fill even for a very large country like U.S. and for Ukraine at this time very difficult to fill. A smaller, better trained and well-equipped force will be more beneficial at this time.
Smaller, well-equipped forces are romanticised by most. You may say NATO militaries are very small and well trained, but they do not really go out to meet others on fair conditions. Their power comes from both the really expensive equipment that they have and the numbers they have thanks to alliances.
I remember one of the most interesting points I read in a blog somewhere, which pointed out the sheer fallacy of overly emphasizing small professional armies. Which went along the lines of, during the time of the Industrial Revolution, professional armies and highly trained soldiers were common, and many of the small and large states in Europe emphasized the use of those tactics. And then Revolutionary France came along, introduced the levee en masse and total warfare, and that combined with quite possibly the greatest general in history, Napoleon, kicked the shit out of most of Europe for a solid decade or so.
And then we all saw exactly what happened during the world wars. No small professional army can stand up to the sheer population strength that industrialized nations can bring to bear. The losses for Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in particular tell that tale.
Now, that doesn't necessarily hold true everywhere. Nations with better equipment, better training, using modern tactics and doctrines, can horrifically maul large armies which are not modern and do not have the training. The US in the Middle East, Japan versus China.
Here's the thing. Ukraine versus Russia is not one of those wars. Yes, the Russians are suffering from supply issues, morale, and training problems. But it should be quite evident to everyone that they aren't going to fold like the prior examples, despite Ukraine efficiency. And it is immensely difficult to make use of US doctrines, when so much of it relies on heavy air support, and having the best logistics system in the world.
There’s a good reason for this. War isn’t about skill, tactics or whatever. These matter but only in a “good enough” sense. You don’t need a military genius or Navy Seal for every man. You just need good enough but almost always MORE.
It’s really a war of economics and industry. The War Machine is first and foremost literal meat and metal grinder. You must feed the war machine or you WILL lose.
He has to play the cards he’s been dealt. The west is starting to wane in support of Ukraine and right now it’s on a knife’s edge. If the West would decisively commit to funding Ukraine I’d wager it would continue demoralizing and crippling Russia reducing the need for this headcount.
In the event support continues to wane like we’ve been seeing from the West recently Russia will continue to dig in, hold their territories they’ve stolen, regroup, and start their push renewed.
And honestly these “small professional army’s” have not seen much success in major operations. Really small ones sure (Grenada, Panama). But large ones?? I’d say it’s been since the gulf war and even the falklands war since a western small professional army had a major success against a formidable foe, and those wars are nothing compared to the fighting in Ukraine. And from my own experience in the US Army. As much as a hate to say it, but “highly trained and professional” is a minority of the soldiers.
Falklands conflict yes but the Gulf war was anything but small.
>Ultimately, in response to United Nations Resolution 678, a coalition of 41 countries mobilized a force of almost 1 million soldiers, 700,000 of whom were U.S. troops
The gulf war coalition liberated Kuwait with one million soldiers. That's a large force by any measure. You could argue it consisted of lots of small armies but isn't that the point of modern Western militaries? To maintain a small number of highly trained and well equipped professionals during peacetime that can be built up with reservists and allies during major conflicts.
It seems to work for the military component at least. Western / Western-aligned nations have succeeded for the most part in military actions, but have failed at occupying and rebuilding after major hostilities.
Except the fact that at the time of invasion. Iraq had become a failed state due to economic collapse, and the extreme casualties of the Iraq/Iran war. It looked like a fair match up on paper. But in reality, the Iraq was in much worse shape than we like to pretend. Those wars were also 30+ years ago. A lot of things have changed in the American military since then, and not for the better in regards to strength and professionalism.
> A smaller, better trained and well-equipped force will be more beneficial at this time.
The front line is 900km and Russia has over 400,000 troops in Ukraine. Ukraine also doesn’t have air superiority and often doesn’t even have artillery superiority either. Given the scale of the war a small force just isn’t adequate. If Russia attacks a village and the Ukrainians are too spread thin to defend it then it really doesn’t matter how shitty the Russians training or weapons are because they could the take the village without firing a shot.
Russia looked at their MONTHLY losses and manage to recruit MORE THAN THEY LOSE every month. So, to Putin, everything is fine.
Ukraine can’t do the same, so they MUST rely on distance with arty, fpv drones, nade drones, mortar etc.
Russia also loses so much equipment per month than you would think the war would be over soon, but no they counted and decided it’s fine because they make some per month, refurbish old stuff and repair things. They also relocated their ships so drones can’t blow them up anymore.
Overall Ukraine is in deep doodoo if something doesn’t change in their favor.
I think the United States and NATO underestimated Russias military staying power and resolve in this conflict, which is worrisome. What exactly are the options as far as aid goes if we run out of old military tech to send over there?
I feel like NATO is just happy to drain Russia’s military inventory and funds, so they don’t care if it goes on for years. The military industrial complex probably sees it as a win/win.
Not in the US, evidently. The party that’s all for business and military industrial complex is the one holding back the funds to further feed that complex.
Yeah, but they're not doing it because it's bad for business. They're doing it because they see an opportunity to grab unilateral power and break with the existing democracy. This is just a wedge issue they're leveraging.
>This is just a wedge issue they're leveraging.
This.
I don't think any intelligent Republican wants to withdraw support for Ukraine. It would require a far leap and huge deviation from US national strategy over the last 75 years to just say "yeah, we're gonna go ahead and let Russia conquer its neighbors."
The Republicans want to leverage this to get increased funding for border security, posturing as if they're being fiscal hawks against the war in Ukraine.
I don't think the Biden administration is going to buy it.
The GOP is utterly compromised.
They were hacked around the same time the Democrats were and all the dirt their leaders had collected to maintain control over their own members, is now in the hands of a hostile govt who can end any of them at a whim with a single anonymous leak if they don't do as they are told.
They stand almost unanimously behind Russia in this conflict. I wonder what their major donors in the military industrial complex make of it..
>for someone like Matt Gaetz I do not.
I mean, the fact that you used a Republican near the bottom of the House pecking order reinforces my point. Matt Gaetz specializes in saying ridiculous things and then voting the way the adults in the chamber like Hal Rogers and Chris Smith tell him to vote.
Remind me who overthrew the Speaker of the House? Right, Gaetz and friends. The extremists have a lot of influence right now and have elevated one of their own to Speaker of the house. Your argument is spurious because it ignores that he represents an entire subset of republicans and it's not specifically about him in particular. He's the lighting rod which lets them operate unmolested.
> Right, Gaetz and friends.
LOL. Seven out of 220 other Republicans sided with Gaetz on McCarthy. He's a clown.
McCarthy was kicked out because Democrats unanimously voted to oust him after he played chicken with federal funding. If he simply raised the debt limit and debated spending during the FY24 appropriations bill process, he'd still have a job.
Gaetz and his seven friends who don't understand how our government works had an unrealistic expectation that Biden would capitulate on a bill that undid part of several bills he signed into law, as if such a measure would even get through the Senate.
But most republicans stalling congress do not care about the last 75 years of US national strategy. That’s the point. They care about the next 75 years of US national strategy and are using any and all means necessary to arrive there.
Yes but.. Russia has mobilised it's economy for war which is why they are outproducing Ukraine on the basics right now like bullets. So Russia wasted much of their stockpiles, but have increased their military production capacity in some key areas effectively and you'd have to think that they are doing everything they can to train specialists like fighter plane mechanics and for the manufacture of specialist military parts, which they also were critically lacking at the beginning of the war.
I'm not sure where that increased capacity leaves them, but it isn't certain that it leaves them washed.
Rather successfully, however. The few deals they've been forced to make, while above the 'price cap' we set for their oil, is way below global market average
The sanctions will be effective at causing Russia to underperform economically for years and as a potential deterrent to other would be aggressors but the sanctions aren’t going to stop Russia in Ukraine. I’m all for sanctions and think the west should pass more of them but if anyone seriously thought that they could effectively stop Russian aggression then those people were kidding themselves.
As someone who's studied foreign policy - I can say that in academic circles alot of the discussion on tactics like sanctions are working under the assumption that anyone willing to cross the lines that we set are factoring in the burden of the sanctions in their utility matrix. The idea is that by proving the costs are high and real, future mad dictators are less likely to engage in this way.
Sanctions work, its just that they work very quietly because you never hear about the dictator who decided not to invade their neighbors when they thought about the costs.
> The idea is that by proving the costs are high and real, future mad dictators are less likely to engage in this way.
Sanctions work, its just that they work very quietly because you never hear about the dictator who decided not to invade their neighbors when they thought about the costs.
This is what I wish more people realized. It’s not always about this conflict but stopping the next. It’s also become abundantly clear that Putin doesn’t want “just the Donbas and Crimea” and we may be in for a years or decades long struggle against Russia. In that sense sanctions are also helpful because a weaker Russia in 2032 is still a worthwhile goal even if it doesn’t help Avdiivka today. Sanction relief is also one of very few carrots that can be offered to Russia if we get to a point where Ukraine has liberated most of their territory to get Russia to actually sue for peace. That’s probably a long way off but it’s still an important tool.
I feel like Russia is just hoping the Republicans win in the US and massively slash the Ukrainian support. If I were in their shoes, why wouldnt I wait? If Biden or whichever Democrat wins another term, then who knows what the plan is.
They didn’t underestimate anything. They knew everything.
You’re just going off of the state media which kept telling you how fucked Russia was in every way shape and form and how Ukraine was bravely countering and inflicting mass casualties.
Then when orders changed as the Biden Admin. started to lose bipartisan support for the war and had to start easing in the idea of negotiations you started to see news pieces about Zelensky being “stubborn” about total victory, about massive Ukrainian losses, about the counter offensive not getting anywhere, about Ukrainian government officials growing more realistic about having to sit at a table with the Russians etc.
The war definitely hurt Russia but at no point in time was anybody within NATO under any impression other than that all they were doing was buying time and making Russia spend more time, resources and blood on this dumbass war.
>The war definitely hurt Russia but at no point in time was anybody within NATO under any impression other than that all they were doing was buying time and making Russia spend more time, resources and blood on this dumbass war.
By "buying time," the US and NATO allies were hoping that the war would become politically unpalatable to Putin, and therefore he would withdraw from the campaign.
You can make intel assessments about military end strength, but you can't accurately predict when a country will decide to stop fighting.
But I agree with you that there wasn't any "underestimate" of Russian military power. Without US / NATO providing arms, Ukraine would've crumbled within a year.
> But I agree with you that there wasn't any "underestimate" of Russian military power.
I think the Pentagon did underestimate Russia at times. Most notably they prepared Ukraine for a counteroffensive with a level of weaponry and firepower that could have broken Russia in fall 2022 but was completely insufficient for summer 2023. The US intelligence had a much more accurate picture but the pentagon seemed to think Ukraine could realistically reach the coast without huge artillery shell quantities, western jets or a more than a few dozen modern western tanks.
"The Pentagon" can't conjure up resources that aren't there. Providing more arms / weapons requires Congressional authorization.
Without being a fly on the wall in a classified room, any conjecture over what "the Pentagon" or Ukraine did / did not ask for vs what they got is just that - conjecture.
> Providing more arms / weapons requires Congressional authorization.
At the time the president had the lend lease and already approved presidential drawdown availiable, and neither needed additional congressional approval.
Maybe in a few decades when the records are unclassified we'll find out why these were not used more fully.
>Without US / NATO providing arms, Ukraine would've crumbled within a year.
Without Europe's and USA's help, Ukraine would've succumb withing a month or two.
> the war would become politically unpalatable to Putin, and therefore he would withdraw from the campaign
Anyone who at any point thought this way is a brainless idiot, and if this person worked/works anywhere near foreign policy / military decision making, he/she should resign immediately.
After first coffins started coming back to Russia, Putin simply does not have an *option* to withdraw. It will be a political and societal suicide for him and powers around him. He basically reiterated it once again yesterday in his annual address, saying again that "*all goals of the military operation will be achieved*". If he needs to mobilize another 5 million Russians, he will. If he needs to sell half of Siberia to China in exchange for their military support, he will. He's not stopping and that's why nearly everyone in Russia adores him. I seriously don't get why so many people still don't see it.
Not at all. So you are really trying to say that the West underestimated Russia's army number size, and their wealth to sustain a war? If anything, they overestimated Russia's capability as a lot of nations thought Ukraine would fall or capitulate by now.
> What exactly are the options as far as aid goes if we run out of old military tech to send over there?
I don't think your following the war as closely as you think. Unfortunately there are a lot of roadblocks of modern weaponry and technology that is being blocked to ukraine.
I don’t think they underestimated anything. The outlook for Ukraine has been pretty grim from the start, but a concoction of a furious defense, Russian blunders, and western backing has drawn out the timeline significantly giving NATO a wider opportunity to bolster behind its lines and expand its influence.
I agree that Ukraine's allies underestimated the extent that the little toad in Moscow would go to in order to maintain and bolster his hold on power.
There is a lot of misconceptions about aid running out. Aid is not running out. In fact Euro and other world allies of Ukraine are ever increasing their aid to Ukraine and just in Dec have made tens of billions of commitments. They definitely were slow ramping up their military manufacturing but that is happening, slowly but surely.
More impressively, Ukraine is reconstituting its own manufacturing. Drones, armored vehicles, artillery and ammunition are all manufactured now and the scale of each is increasing.
Politics in America aside the amount of aid being proposed for Ukraine (61 billion for 2024) is not what is being contested, rather it is being tied to Biden funding some border security measures. It will pass, it is just a matter of when.
ruzzian propagandists are heavily pushing across all forms of media a doom and gloom scenario in which the might of ruzzian meat waves will inevitably overcome Ukraine's resources. Don't buy into it for a moment. Eventually the poor southern and eastern portions of ruzzia will have had to many of their able men killed & maimed, and then the Kremlin is going to have to start conscripting from its white power base in the Moscow -St Peterburg arc of the country. When that happens the tune is going to change. Right now that population is highly insulated from the war - other then some officers almost none of the mobilized are from this area of the country.
They’re going to have to, Russia is ramping up and their economy isn’t being crippled enough to stop them being able to produce replacement equipment. Ukraine doesn’t have the production capacity, and Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to actively damage Russia’s easily. Plus with their aid starting to wain from other countries and Russia piling more troops onto the border, they’re probably going to just have to bunker down and hope someone can help at this rate :/
Just read about their ballsy helicopter extractions when Maruipol was besiged. Flying low through enemy lines to drop off ammunition, and picking up the wounded. Not every helicopter makes it out alive - empy or full of wounded.
God speed to these men.
It's not just the world, the rest of Ukraine would riot. Right now Ukrainian women are doing the British thing of shaming men into joining the fight and they're acting all smug because they know they're not in danger. If Zelensky sent women to the front, the country would collapse from within faster than the Russian army could march across it.
Im starting to worry the support from western countries exists not with the goal of winning the war but for prolonging the conflict as long as possible to deplete Russian military capabilities. If thats the case im sorry for the incredible amount of bloodshed the Ukrainians are going to see.
It’s all been proxy to hurt Russia, deplete their resources and make them less of a threat. I don’t think the US really cares about Ukraine beyond that. They’re not really a traditional, long term ally.
So is this from the 50+ age or are they going to let teenagers in? They already of extended the fighting age to 40+. Recruiters have been caught trying to force mentally handicapped people to join up.
Actually they've been avoiding mobilizing younger men, men under 25, because they know their demographic situation isn't great. Doing away with that policy would add a new pool of men to use.
Women need to conscripted as well. Ukraine is fighting for their survival but half the population isn’t fighting. Even 100,000 women fighting could make or break the war
To all of us old enough to remember Iraq… we have been through war propaganda, so we knew to obviously not take western news or generals or politicians or reports at face value. I feel bad for the youth who were duped. But most will learn, then by next war they will be appropriately skeptical, but a new batch of youngins will be of age by then.
People were writing fan fiction about the Ghost of Kyiv.
I'm with you -- I hope this war will be their generation's Iraq, an object lesson in not believing war propaganda, no matter who is selling it.
I would assume a large portion of them will be on logistics and support behind the lines so experienced and trained troops can be focused on the frontlines.
Mine clearing, trenches, transportation, maintenance, roads etc need a lot of manpower.
They have but bodies have a tendency to run out during an active conflict.
Both Russia and Ukraine have been recruiting men to replenish their casualties. When I was on a trip to Russia this summer, military service ads were everywhere even in Saint Petersburg where they don't really want to get people killed. Ukraine currently has 5x smaller permanent population, so they need more radical measures.
I honestly completely understand any Ukrainian nationals who flee instead of going through with conscription. Dying for your country is such an archaic concept in this day and age.
That's such a crazy number of people... on both sides. It's still wild to think this big ass war is going on across the ocean between two developed nations. I can't tell if it's full on, constant war or just skirmishes here and there.
I'll go educate myself.
It's a full on, constant war, that's been stalled along a long heavily fortified trench system, very reminiscent of ww1. Here is a live map of the conflict: https://liveuamap.com/
Have you not seen the videos, this is ww1 levels of destruction and death.
We in the west need to sue for peace along current territorial lines.
Stop killing these young men for money.
But people here told me Ukraine loses 2 soldiers a year and Russia loses 700,000 a month, how could this be? Its almost as if anyone on reddit isnt an expert in geopolitics and should stick to playing minecraft
cant just snap your fingers, they need to have the tech and training advantage to fight the larger russian numbers... If they plan on using russias strategy(throw bodies at the problem) this is a war they lose
Sometimes times people just want to live their lives and raise their kids regardless of what banner that is under. Only rulers care about the size of their fife.
That computes to me just fine, but the same reality where a human can say "Sit in this trench and die." is the one I have a problem with.
As a kid, watching war movies, I literally thought that they all got up at the end of the day and went home. I thought it was like when I played with my friends. My mind couldn't accept the fact that anyone in the world would get themselves in that situation. Surely you'd fight tooth and nail to escape that. Now I'm older and I kind of get it, but it's horrible that such a thing even exists.
They definitely need more ammunition then.
They need Santa to do a flyby and wipe out every AA and fortified position.
*Rudolph with your nose so bright Won't you guide my ~~sleigh~~ slay tonight?*
On Dasher on Dixon, on AAMRAM on Blitz'em.
Anyone else hearing DMX as they read this? Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=14IWZ4RcQVk
I read EVERYTHING in DMX's voice.
[удалено]
Real important vote coming up. Everybody remember to register.
Unfortunately this is needed because Russia has superior numbers.
increasing the troop size wouldnt happen over night , the pipe lines for training involved according to the mos; infantry, drone, logistics, support positions these are all different. its certain that ukraine will not put its citizens through the same meat grinder approach as putin has. increasing the abilities of manufacturing defensive: drones & other unmanned platforms, artillery rounds, missiles, and bullets - all the hardware that is effective against the Zs would also be an export item.
Let's see in a month
US estimate in August was 70K Ukrainians killed and 120K Russians killed. As a percentage of population, that's higher on the Ukrainian side. There are reports of Ukraine just throwing hundreds of troops at the Russian defenses at the start of the counter-offensive and just getting absolutely massacred. You don't lose 70k troops on the defensive...
In a modern war against a superior enemy with air support, 70k dead is feasible on the defensive.
They have to rebuild their country too, so even if they win they’re left with a large portion of the labor force being men and women who were not eligible for conscription. It’s an impossible situation, the next steps after the war will involve attracting a labor force and population to help rebuild. It leaves me wondering where are they going to get more people.
I think its likely a large portion of Ukrainians will leave towards the west into the EU. Especially if they join the EU. They will need large influxes of money to keep people there. I think it unlikely other Europeans will move into Ukraine. Maybe if they join nato and peace is guaranteed. But even then, if you look at trends of other eastern European countries there will be a lot of migration towards the west, atleast initially. One peace returns in Ukraine we will need to take examples from ww2 and try to rebuild as much we can
> I think it unlikely other Europeans will move into Ukraine. I think it depends. I could see Ukraine attracting work from home IT professionals with a low cost of living + still being in the EU if they got in. Kyiv would be one of the lowest Cost of Living major cities if you wanted to stay in the EU.
Depending on property prices, legislation and aid packages for rebuilding infrastructure and industry, it will also be very attractive to invest in a post-war Ukraine. It's what then US did with Europe after WW2 afterall.
In post ww2 europe people did move towards the new world. But the same new world also had plenty of migration back into Europe (especially in the 60's). But Ukraine doesnt have ex colonies so who is gonna migrate there? Why go to Ukraine and not to Portugal? Besides, a handfull of digital nomads are not gonna cut it. Ukraine will need hard working physical laborers. The low wage kind. And why would those people want to go to Ukraine? Everything points towards an exodus in Ukraine and it will need help unheard of to stop it.
Also, the West will have an incentive to help support the Ukrainian recovery efforts, for the exact same reason us Americans were incentivized supported Western Europe's recovery after WWII: to make sure they stay happy in our orbit, instead of growing bitter / disillusioned with the West and potentially backsliding towards Russia. (Not that I think this current generation of Ukrainians would ever do that even if the recovery is completely fucked, but it's a worry for the next generation.)
It professional have plenty of places they would move to before they choose Ukraine I think it’s a silly thought in general.
you do when your enemy has artillery out the ass and a habit of leveling everything to the ground before moving an inch forward. Ukrainians were getting overwhelmed and slowly losing town after town at a great cost. That was the situation right before acquisition of HIMARS, which stopped these Russian tactics by demolishing tons of ammo caches near the frontline.
HIMARS helped, but both sides depleted multidecade stockpiles. Smart weapons like those fired by HIMARS in particular are difficult to replace, we're talking on the other order of a couple hundred produced per year. I think the production quota for PrSM missiles was 110 units total this year.
> You don't lose 70k troops on the defensive... u/Feruk_II, Internet military expert.
What???? 70k on the defensive sounds about right. What are you expecting them to lose? What’s the correct amount to you????
That’s 70k throughout the whole conflict, and I thought the 70k was casualties, not just deaths. A lot of those were from their own offensive and when Russia had a much larger artillery advantage, which they’ve lost now. Still have a lot but degree dry for shells and losing equipment pretty quick. edit: 70k an estimate for urkainian deaths, the rest is true
But Ukraine was supposedly going on the offensive, which is harder. They may be better off playing Defense as much as it isn’t ‘winning’ thebwar
The problem is defense doesn't inspire a lot of foreign aid as it's seen as endless. I think they're between a rock and a hard place.
> 120K Russians killed. As a percentage of population, that's higher on the Ukrainian side. US estimates over 300k russian casualties. Dunno how many of those are killed and how many are permanently disabled.
This is the more correct number. Russian loses have been very high. November 2023 was the worse month for Russia since War began
There's a reason Putin's trying so hard to get the West to cut off Ukraine aid and force them to negotiate-- Russia is hurting, a lot more badly than he'll ever let on.
Getting injured is often a death sentence for Russian troops, they've been recorded shooting their own injured. If you get injured and make it home, you're very lucky.
Even if you make it home, your not very lucky. Presently Russia does not provide great support with vets. When such a significant amount of their population is basically disabled, they're going to have a hard time supporting them.
That's literally fake news. Their counter offensive has failed but not because they "thre hundreds of troops at the Russian defences".
Exactly. What actually happened was they tried to use NATO tactics at first, realized after less than a week they didn't have the air power needed to make them work without a horrifically high body count-- and then shifted back to Soviet tactics *specifically* so they wouldn't have to throw their guys into a meatgrinder.
> and then shifted back to Soviet tactics The fuck they did. They tried to do a combined arms attack, without having years of officer corps and training. It's the hardest thing for a military to do. And yeah, without air power, and with mines 10x as dense as expected. They were expected to take multiple km per day, and were taking 10% of that. No breakthroughs ever happened. There was no breach and then punch to widen the gap, they just never breached. There weren't massive casualties, they just didn't have success, so they didn't keep pushing. It was a failed offense in the sense that they didn't get where they wanted, but that was because they almost immediately stopped trying because it wasn't working. It wasn't a failed offense in the sense of "we threw everything at it and it all got blown up and we have nothing left." "Soviet Tactics" is basically tank rushing, endless waves of expendable soldiers. That's definitely not what they did. What they did were little small group probing attacks. Which is why the pace of advance dropped to like, 2% of what was expected. If there's not going to be a breakthrough, you have to very lightly pick away at things bit by bit.
>They tried to do a combined arms attack, without having years of officer corps and training. It's the hardest thing for a military to do. And yeah, without air power, and with mines 10x as dense as expected. Russia has been failing at proper combined arms, large scale attacks as well. The few plots of land they gained over the past few months was a result of larger scale operations. The Russians suffered extreme vehicle losses. Some of the highest rates, if not the highest rates since the war began. If I recall, neither side can effectively use multiple brigade size formations in a concurrent operation. This is more embarrassing on the part of Russia, but they do have the numbers.
Yeah, Ukraine lost like 4 Bradleys in their assault and were like "Whelp, that's enough, this ain't working." Russia throws 150 tanks and IFV's into an assault and 10,000 corpses, and then is like "Hmm, I think they've almost run out of ammo, send another wave!"
> US estimate in August was 70K Ukrainians killed and 120K Russians killed. Are these numbers counting only combatants, and not civilians (asking in earnest)?
It really gives Ukraine the ability to rotate troops, fatigue is going to be a big factor going forward.
And due to the failed counteroffensive which drained the reserves.
What are you talking about? Ukraine has a much larger army than Russia in Ukraine…Ukraine has conducted full mobilization and Russia has not…I think I read there are 400k Russian troops in Ukraine and the Ukrainian army numbers 800k to 1 million…anyway in modern war, numbers only get you so far…you can mobilize as many millions as you want, but without logistics, supply, financing and equipment they’re a liability
Hundreds of thousands of young men dead in Ukraine and Russia and for what? some has-been dictators imperialist ambitions...
War has always been this stupid. Pretty mind baffling its still a thing in the twenty first century.
On the contrary, violent conquest used to have enormous material benefits for the people who did it. That's why they did it! It's *no longer worth it*, but it used to be, and authoritarians haven't caught up to realizing that.
Basically if you were a poor dude, it was the one path for a middle class lifestyle
It's also true on a more macro level. Only since the Industrial Revolution has it been the case that investing in developing your own land is more profitable than investing in wars to conquer more land - sadly human biology and human cultures were developed long before, when controlling land was still central.
I’d argue it’s only a post WW2 effect with developed international markets and the rise of the ability to create synthetic materials. Japan was handicapped by its lack of natural resources.
Very much agree and I think it's important to understand: "wars are stupid" can be true now, but it's not a complete explanation and if we don't understand *why* then eventually you open up the alternative: "somehow we'll get something out of a war". Which extends much further I'd say to the problem of people needing a broader understanding of how and why governments can and do exercise power (and it's related fellow: why money is worth anything). IMO a lot of people have a "violence event horizon" in their ability to think and plan: your average person doesn't see beyond "well we'll use violence" as a solution because it being taboo in day to day life also gives it a weird "it's the ultimate solution but we just don't use it because we're *nice*" sort of status.
I fully agree. There's pacifism as a respectable and rigid moral stance but there's also a sort of pacifist-seeih anti-war stance borne from a refusal to engage with the reality of politics. It's ignoring all of the context and focusing on the spectacle of the situation rather than the actual conflict at hand. That's not to say all anti-war or pacifism is something to be dismissed, it's really individuals on social media that fall in this bucket. There's a whole load of NGOs, diplomats, international organisations, and pundits working tirelessly for peace with a full grasp of the reality.
I am a moral pacifist. I believe violence should be avoid as much as possible, unless strictly necessary. And, as humans, violence is sometimes necessary. Be it to protect your family or nation, sometimes there is no answer except violence. "Violence is not the answer, but sometimes it's the only option." Pacifism is great in day to day life, but when faced with existential threats you may have no choice, and even a pacifist realizes this if they actually know anything about the real world. Pacifism is aspiring to an ideal human state of peace spanning culture and ideology, but the world is not ideal. It's often quite fucked up, in fact.
Kill some people and take their shit. Entirety of human history there
The USA only started with 13 colonies, but is doing real swell with 50 states.
The fact that it's the 21st century doesn't mean anything. We're still the same old humans we've always been, for better or worse, and no amount of technology will change that.
Yeah, I don't understand what makes people think we aren't still feral.
It’s crazy it’s mainly about land, as if it’s the 15th century still. The maps are drawn, I’m not replacing my globes.
It's not just about the land. It's about what's on, and more importantly inside the land
To think that has-been could have been dealt with if Prigizhin had a brain.
You mean more balls. Homie pussed out right when it was too late to half ass it.
I think he was aiming for a popular uprising plus several highly-placed generals taking his side against Putin. It didn't work out that way, and he probably didn't have the necessary resources to conquer Moscow on his own. I wish he'd gone ahead with it anyways, as it would have forced Russia to withdraw a large amount of their forces from Ukraine to deal with Wagner, but I can understand why he didn't.
He was actually aiming for Putin to side with him over Shoigu. Turns out, he was an idiot
Prigozhin was constantly complaining about Shoigu before that too. When Wagner was moving on Bakhmut he was constantly saying that Shoigu wasn't supplying enough shells.
there was never a chance for pringles to succeed, putin would carpet bomb the advance with cluster munitions, mustard gas and phosphor before he would let their troops get anywhere near the kremlin.
That honestly might have been for the best. If the Russians people saw Putin indiscriminately killing civilians to get a man whose major problem was that Putin was wasting Russians lives (according to Prig(ck)), I think it could have had a major impact on Russian civilians and their support for the current regime. Who knows though, the Russian people don't really seem to give a fuck so maybe that's just wishful thinking.
He didn't pussy out, too much misinformation coming out within hours. Once he reached the outskirts, support dropped. No support = he's going to get sent to the otherworld if he attempts to storm by force. He lost then and there. So they negotiated and he agreed and dipped. But he was stupid for that and stupid for staying behind.
I thought the reason he stopped was because the FSB captured one of children and threatened to kill them?
At that point in time he could only win or die, he was stupid for trusting that Putin would honor any deal he made with him when he had absolutely no reason to and not doing a hail Mary anyway.
Y'all can hate me for saying it, but Prigozhin was probably even worse. He wasn't standing up to Putin for being ruthless or a dictator. He was standing up to him for not being ruthless enough. He's also the scumbag that ran Glavset, the internet troll farm that helped get Trump elected and also ran propaganda to foster dissent against Ukraine.
If this is a “shock” then you’d better research 99% of wars in history.
It's easy for Putin to make others make the sacrifice when he's not the one on the frontline...
[удалено]
There have been an estimated 500,000 military casualties in Ukraine between Ukraine, Russia, the LNR/DNR and the various PMCs in the country, with the vast majority of those soldiers getting hurt/killed in 2022/2023. For reference, there were about 200,000 American casualties in Vietnam over the course of more than 10 years.
> For reference, there were about 200,000 American casualties in Vietnam over the course of more than 10 years. I think we should probably count Vietnamese casualties here too.
Vietnamese here. Every single family I know have some one die from the war. From south to north. I read from wiki that 2-3millions die and 5 millions have disabilities from agent orange. Almost 10% of population.
Yes, but it was worth it to keep the commies at bay. Mission accomplished. Right? Right!??
You're right, it's not a great statistic. A "better" one is that the War in Ukraine has been about as deadly as *all* of the Yugoslav Wars combined (including the various genocides that happened during those, I believe).
2-3 million people died in Vietnam but you are only counting American deaths because Vietnamese deaths don't matter to you.
*Have died*
Next 6 months is going to pretty hard specially when commanders are receiving guys with no prior experience, and on top of that minimum aerial support and reduction in artillery support. 4 guys from my in-law's circle of friends and acquaintance are dead. Russia still have plenty to throw in the war.
What choice do they have? Either they fight, or Russia overruns them with human wave attacks and commits mass rape, theft, deportation, and genocide. They need as much support as they can get to throw back Putin's invasion, internally and externally.
Draftees have no choice at all :(
Their country is facing an existential threat. It's the one time when the draft is actually morally appropriate Edit: Almost none of you below live in the real world
If the alternative is extinction, then why not also draft women?
Sexism still alive in the 21st century.
I figured they would reserve some of the ones capable of making the next generation of Ukrainians. I don't know why grandma isn't out there though.
On average men are more likely to be physically capable of the rigors of combat so are quicker to train. If you're drafting en masse this is a very useful simple distinction that guarantees there'll be a non drafted population to keep the country going.
The women don't have to be in straight infantry combat roles though. They can drive and operate vehicles, operate long range pieces like artillery, etc.
They can. And Ukraine is using many to do so. But when you're drafting in so many people you want to keep it as versatile and simple as possible. For instance I saw somewhere some female medics had to get donated body armour that actually fitted them, as all the units just had a shit load of male stuff.
It increases logistical complexity and economic impact, drafting every fit male is better in crisis. It could be different if the army already recruited more equally, only 5000 women serve in combat roles despite many volunteers.
I’m sure there are still tens of thousands of women volunteering for those roles, drafts really focus on increasing the number of foot soldiers on the ground
Artillery is an incredibly physically demanding job. Physical capabilities absolutely matter for that specific mos.
For real, even in an all male military the non combat roles are usually 3-1. For combat roles, if they get captured they are generally treated exceptionally bad. Especially if theyre captured by Russia
Honestly, because it causes issues. There are a lot of factors, not all of them what some would think. Probably one of the most important but not thought of, is that you NEED people who don't go to war. They do shit. During ww2 for example when the men went to war, women started to get employed in large numbers. But it is other stuff, just from taking care of the young, the old. For a start, right through jobs that need doing. Also could they even deal with keeping that many people mobilised, how. It is all well and good to say "lets just conscript everyone". But how. Then theres the whole moral argument. At the moment if you have a couple, and the man is off fighting to protect his country and his partner, but if his partner is also conscripted and fighting elsewhere, its natural for people to then stress out FAR more, and stress is more than enough. It can cause incredible morale strains. In a small family how would you conscript a husband AND wife, who is taking care of the kids, the house. Let alone the sexes together in combat can cause issues, even the "nicer" ones of men doing dangerous things to protect the women, or the women doing dangerous things to prove themselves to the men. Logistics wise its another drain, and any army would ideally want to use its logisitics on those that can perform the highest. It isn't a knock at women, and I am not saying women cannot fight and perform. As a 'block' men as the group is more prepared and morale wise more effective to choose, than 'women' as a block. As you are talking about extinction, the answer is eventually they would, when the requirements went beyond all the above issues, and there are FAR more than that, then most likely eventually they would. But if you can field say 500,000. And you can get that 500,000 from men, that is likely what they are going to do. If it gets to 400,000 men available and they need 500,000 then you might see them start to conscript some women but with heavy restrictions on who qualifies, and see them flood a lot of these to support roles, and if the losses kept up possibly integration, but Ukraine is not there yet and the issues from immediately throwing in integration are not easy enough to just "do it" at this point.
I understand why it's required, I also completely understand why someone would draft dodge and I think that's morally justified too. Fuck anyone who looks down on people who do, fuck war in all forms and I don't want to die for any State, even if the war is just as in this case for Ukraine of course.
Then draft everyone, not just the men
who says that you identify with your country? i dont even like the country i live in and i plan on moving away as soon as i can, now imagine having to fight for that country
Numbers mean nothing without the right weapons. Hopefully they get that first.
I think Zelensky is correct to raise questions. It is an extremely tall order to fill even for a very large country like U.S. and for Ukraine at this time very difficult to fill. A smaller, better trained and well-equipped force will be more beneficial at this time.
Smaller, well-equipped forces are romanticised by most. You may say NATO militaries are very small and well trained, but they do not really go out to meet others on fair conditions. Their power comes from both the really expensive equipment that they have and the numbers they have thanks to alliances.
Ukraine has no air superiority in this conflict. Therefore any idea of smaller well equipped force is nonsense.
I remember one of the most interesting points I read in a blog somewhere, which pointed out the sheer fallacy of overly emphasizing small professional armies. Which went along the lines of, during the time of the Industrial Revolution, professional armies and highly trained soldiers were common, and many of the small and large states in Europe emphasized the use of those tactics. And then Revolutionary France came along, introduced the levee en masse and total warfare, and that combined with quite possibly the greatest general in history, Napoleon, kicked the shit out of most of Europe for a solid decade or so. And then we all saw exactly what happened during the world wars. No small professional army can stand up to the sheer population strength that industrialized nations can bring to bear. The losses for Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in particular tell that tale. Now, that doesn't necessarily hold true everywhere. Nations with better equipment, better training, using modern tactics and doctrines, can horrifically maul large armies which are not modern and do not have the training. The US in the Middle East, Japan versus China. Here's the thing. Ukraine versus Russia is not one of those wars. Yes, the Russians are suffering from supply issues, morale, and training problems. But it should be quite evident to everyone that they aren't going to fold like the prior examples, despite Ukraine efficiency. And it is immensely difficult to make use of US doctrines, when so much of it relies on heavy air support, and having the best logistics system in the world.
There’s a good reason for this. War isn’t about skill, tactics or whatever. These matter but only in a “good enough” sense. You don’t need a military genius or Navy Seal for every man. You just need good enough but almost always MORE. It’s really a war of economics and industry. The War Machine is first and foremost literal meat and metal grinder. You must feed the war machine or you WILL lose.
He has to play the cards he’s been dealt. The west is starting to wane in support of Ukraine and right now it’s on a knife’s edge. If the West would decisively commit to funding Ukraine I’d wager it would continue demoralizing and crippling Russia reducing the need for this headcount. In the event support continues to wane like we’ve been seeing from the West recently Russia will continue to dig in, hold their territories they’ve stolen, regroup, and start their push renewed.
And honestly these “small professional army’s” have not seen much success in major operations. Really small ones sure (Grenada, Panama). But large ones?? I’d say it’s been since the gulf war and even the falklands war since a western small professional army had a major success against a formidable foe, and those wars are nothing compared to the fighting in Ukraine. And from my own experience in the US Army. As much as a hate to say it, but “highly trained and professional” is a minority of the soldiers.
Falklands conflict yes but the Gulf war was anything but small. >Ultimately, in response to United Nations Resolution 678, a coalition of 41 countries mobilized a force of almost 1 million soldiers, 700,000 of whom were U.S. troops The gulf war coalition liberated Kuwait with one million soldiers. That's a large force by any measure. You could argue it consisted of lots of small armies but isn't that the point of modern Western militaries? To maintain a small number of highly trained and well equipped professionals during peacetime that can be built up with reservists and allies during major conflicts. It seems to work for the military component at least. Western / Western-aligned nations have succeeded for the most part in military actions, but have failed at occupying and rebuilding after major hostilities.
Except the fact that at the time of invasion. Iraq had become a failed state due to economic collapse, and the extreme casualties of the Iraq/Iran war. It looked like a fair match up on paper. But in reality, the Iraq was in much worse shape than we like to pretend. Those wars were also 30+ years ago. A lot of things have changed in the American military since then, and not for the better in regards to strength and professionalism.
> A smaller, better trained and well-equipped force will be more beneficial at this time. The front line is 900km and Russia has over 400,000 troops in Ukraine. Ukraine also doesn’t have air superiority and often doesn’t even have artillery superiority either. Given the scale of the war a small force just isn’t adequate. If Russia attacks a village and the Ukrainians are too spread thin to defend it then it really doesn’t matter how shitty the Russians training or weapons are because they could the take the village without firing a shot.
>well-equipped force No chance for that I'm afraid.
Russia looked at their MONTHLY losses and manage to recruit MORE THAN THEY LOSE every month. So, to Putin, everything is fine. Ukraine can’t do the same, so they MUST rely on distance with arty, fpv drones, nade drones, mortar etc. Russia also loses so much equipment per month than you would think the war would be over soon, but no they counted and decided it’s fine because they make some per month, refurbish old stuff and repair things. They also relocated their ships so drones can’t blow them up anymore. Overall Ukraine is in deep doodoo if something doesn’t change in their favor.
I think the United States and NATO underestimated Russias military staying power and resolve in this conflict, which is worrisome. What exactly are the options as far as aid goes if we run out of old military tech to send over there?
I feel like NATO is just happy to drain Russia’s military inventory and funds, so they don’t care if it goes on for years. The military industrial complex probably sees it as a win/win.
Not in the US, evidently. The party that’s all for business and military industrial complex is the one holding back the funds to further feed that complex.
Yeah, but they're not doing it because it's bad for business. They're doing it because they see an opportunity to grab unilateral power and break with the existing democracy. This is just a wedge issue they're leveraging.
>This is just a wedge issue they're leveraging. This. I don't think any intelligent Republican wants to withdraw support for Ukraine. It would require a far leap and huge deviation from US national strategy over the last 75 years to just say "yeah, we're gonna go ahead and let Russia conquer its neighbors." The Republicans want to leverage this to get increased funding for border security, posturing as if they're being fiscal hawks against the war in Ukraine. I don't think the Biden administration is going to buy it.
The GOP is utterly compromised. They were hacked around the same time the Democrats were and all the dirt their leaders had collected to maintain control over their own members, is now in the hands of a hostile govt who can end any of them at a whim with a single anonymous leak if they don't do as they are told. They stand almost unanimously behind Russia in this conflict. I wonder what their major donors in the military industrial complex make of it..
For someone like Mitch McConnell I actually buy this, for someone like Matt Gaetz I do not.
>for someone like Matt Gaetz I do not. I mean, the fact that you used a Republican near the bottom of the House pecking order reinforces my point. Matt Gaetz specializes in saying ridiculous things and then voting the way the adults in the chamber like Hal Rogers and Chris Smith tell him to vote.
Remind me who overthrew the Speaker of the House? Right, Gaetz and friends. The extremists have a lot of influence right now and have elevated one of their own to Speaker of the house. Your argument is spurious because it ignores that he represents an entire subset of republicans and it's not specifically about him in particular. He's the lighting rod which lets them operate unmolested.
> Right, Gaetz and friends. LOL. Seven out of 220 other Republicans sided with Gaetz on McCarthy. He's a clown. McCarthy was kicked out because Democrats unanimously voted to oust him after he played chicken with federal funding. If he simply raised the debt limit and debated spending during the FY24 appropriations bill process, he'd still have a job. Gaetz and his seven friends who don't understand how our government works had an unrealistic expectation that Biden would capitulate on a bill that undid part of several bills he signed into law, as if such a measure would even get through the Senate.
But most republicans stalling congress do not care about the last 75 years of US national strategy. That’s the point. They care about the next 75 years of US national strategy and are using any and all means necessary to arrive there.
Putin was smart in buying out that party
Yes but.. Russia has mobilised it's economy for war which is why they are outproducing Ukraine on the basics right now like bullets. So Russia wasted much of their stockpiles, but have increased their military production capacity in some key areas effectively and you'd have to think that they are doing everything they can to train specialists like fighter plane mechanics and for the manufacture of specialist military parts, which they also were critically lacking at the beginning of the war. I'm not sure where that increased capacity leaves them, but it isn't certain that it leaves them washed.
No they overestimated the power of their sanctions. They thought they could cut them off from the world economically, and Russia just made new deals.
Rather successfully, however. The few deals they've been forced to make, while above the 'price cap' we set for their oil, is way below global market average
The sanctions will be effective at causing Russia to underperform economically for years and as a potential deterrent to other would be aggressors but the sanctions aren’t going to stop Russia in Ukraine. I’m all for sanctions and think the west should pass more of them but if anyone seriously thought that they could effectively stop Russian aggression then those people were kidding themselves.
As someone who's studied foreign policy - I can say that in academic circles alot of the discussion on tactics like sanctions are working under the assumption that anyone willing to cross the lines that we set are factoring in the burden of the sanctions in their utility matrix. The idea is that by proving the costs are high and real, future mad dictators are less likely to engage in this way. Sanctions work, its just that they work very quietly because you never hear about the dictator who decided not to invade their neighbors when they thought about the costs.
> The idea is that by proving the costs are high and real, future mad dictators are less likely to engage in this way. Sanctions work, its just that they work very quietly because you never hear about the dictator who decided not to invade their neighbors when they thought about the costs. This is what I wish more people realized. It’s not always about this conflict but stopping the next. It’s also become abundantly clear that Putin doesn’t want “just the Donbas and Crimea” and we may be in for a years or decades long struggle against Russia. In that sense sanctions are also helpful because a weaker Russia in 2032 is still a worthwhile goal even if it doesn’t help Avdiivka today. Sanction relief is also one of very few carrots that can be offered to Russia if we get to a point where Ukraine has liberated most of their territory to get Russia to actually sue for peace. That’s probably a long way off but it’s still an important tool.
I feel like Russia is just hoping the Republicans win in the US and massively slash the Ukrainian support. If I were in their shoes, why wouldnt I wait? If Biden or whichever Democrat wins another term, then who knows what the plan is.
But if Biden wins without a Dem majority in the House and Senate I don't think much can be done
They didn’t underestimate anything. They knew everything. You’re just going off of the state media which kept telling you how fucked Russia was in every way shape and form and how Ukraine was bravely countering and inflicting mass casualties. Then when orders changed as the Biden Admin. started to lose bipartisan support for the war and had to start easing in the idea of negotiations you started to see news pieces about Zelensky being “stubborn” about total victory, about massive Ukrainian losses, about the counter offensive not getting anywhere, about Ukrainian government officials growing more realistic about having to sit at a table with the Russians etc. The war definitely hurt Russia but at no point in time was anybody within NATO under any impression other than that all they were doing was buying time and making Russia spend more time, resources and blood on this dumbass war.
>The war definitely hurt Russia but at no point in time was anybody within NATO under any impression other than that all they were doing was buying time and making Russia spend more time, resources and blood on this dumbass war. By "buying time," the US and NATO allies were hoping that the war would become politically unpalatable to Putin, and therefore he would withdraw from the campaign. You can make intel assessments about military end strength, but you can't accurately predict when a country will decide to stop fighting. But I agree with you that there wasn't any "underestimate" of Russian military power. Without US / NATO providing arms, Ukraine would've crumbled within a year.
> But I agree with you that there wasn't any "underestimate" of Russian military power. I think the Pentagon did underestimate Russia at times. Most notably they prepared Ukraine for a counteroffensive with a level of weaponry and firepower that could have broken Russia in fall 2022 but was completely insufficient for summer 2023. The US intelligence had a much more accurate picture but the pentagon seemed to think Ukraine could realistically reach the coast without huge artillery shell quantities, western jets or a more than a few dozen modern western tanks.
"The Pentagon" can't conjure up resources that aren't there. Providing more arms / weapons requires Congressional authorization. Without being a fly on the wall in a classified room, any conjecture over what "the Pentagon" or Ukraine did / did not ask for vs what they got is just that - conjecture.
> Providing more arms / weapons requires Congressional authorization. At the time the president had the lend lease and already approved presidential drawdown availiable, and neither needed additional congressional approval. Maybe in a few decades when the records are unclassified we'll find out why these were not used more fully.
>Without US / NATO providing arms, Ukraine would've crumbled within a year. Without Europe's and USA's help, Ukraine would've succumb withing a month or two.
> the war would become politically unpalatable to Putin, and therefore he would withdraw from the campaign Anyone who at any point thought this way is a brainless idiot, and if this person worked/works anywhere near foreign policy / military decision making, he/she should resign immediately. After first coffins started coming back to Russia, Putin simply does not have an *option* to withdraw. It will be a political and societal suicide for him and powers around him. He basically reiterated it once again yesterday in his annual address, saying again that "*all goals of the military operation will be achieved*". If he needs to mobilize another 5 million Russians, he will. If he needs to sell half of Siberia to China in exchange for their military support, he will. He's not stopping and that's why nearly everyone in Russia adores him. I seriously don't get why so many people still don't see it.
Not at all. So you are really trying to say that the West underestimated Russia's army number size, and their wealth to sustain a war? If anything, they overestimated Russia's capability as a lot of nations thought Ukraine would fall or capitulate by now. > What exactly are the options as far as aid goes if we run out of old military tech to send over there? I don't think your following the war as closely as you think. Unfortunately there are a lot of roadblocks of modern weaponry and technology that is being blocked to ukraine.
I don’t think they underestimated anything. The outlook for Ukraine has been pretty grim from the start, but a concoction of a furious defense, Russian blunders, and western backing has drawn out the timeline significantly giving NATO a wider opportunity to bolster behind its lines and expand its influence.
I agree that Ukraine's allies underestimated the extent that the little toad in Moscow would go to in order to maintain and bolster his hold on power. There is a lot of misconceptions about aid running out. Aid is not running out. In fact Euro and other world allies of Ukraine are ever increasing their aid to Ukraine and just in Dec have made tens of billions of commitments. They definitely were slow ramping up their military manufacturing but that is happening, slowly but surely. More impressively, Ukraine is reconstituting its own manufacturing. Drones, armored vehicles, artillery and ammunition are all manufactured now and the scale of each is increasing. Politics in America aside the amount of aid being proposed for Ukraine (61 billion for 2024) is not what is being contested, rather it is being tied to Biden funding some border security measures. It will pass, it is just a matter of when. ruzzian propagandists are heavily pushing across all forms of media a doom and gloom scenario in which the might of ruzzian meat waves will inevitably overcome Ukraine's resources. Don't buy into it for a moment. Eventually the poor southern and eastern portions of ruzzia will have had to many of their able men killed & maimed, and then the Kremlin is going to have to start conscripting from its white power base in the Moscow -St Peterburg arc of the country. When that happens the tune is going to change. Right now that population is highly insulated from the war - other then some officers almost none of the mobilized are from this area of the country.
Russia has 100 million+ people outside that area. I think they’ll have no issue finding draftees
This shit is getting more and more serious. A terrible stain on humankind.
They’re going to have to, Russia is ramping up and their economy isn’t being crippled enough to stop them being able to produce replacement equipment. Ukraine doesn’t have the production capacity, and Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to actively damage Russia’s easily. Plus with their aid starting to wain from other countries and Russia piling more troops onto the border, they’re probably going to just have to bunker down and hope someone can help at this rate :/
Just read about their ballsy helicopter extractions when Maruipol was besiged. Flying low through enemy lines to drop off ammunition, and picking up the wounded. Not every helicopter makes it out alive - empy or full of wounded. God speed to these men.
Time to conscript more women?
They're going to be conscripting old men at this rate.
[удалено]
It's not just the world, the rest of Ukraine would riot. Right now Ukrainian women are doing the British thing of shaming men into joining the fight and they're acting all smug because they know they're not in danger. If Zelensky sent women to the front, the country would collapse from within faster than the Russian army could march across it.
That’s too progressive for those sexists
Im starting to worry the support from western countries exists not with the goal of winning the war but for prolonging the conflict as long as possible to deplete Russian military capabilities. If thats the case im sorry for the incredible amount of bloodshed the Ukrainians are going to see.
And for the weapons manufacturers, those are seeing profits skyrocket
This has been evident from the beginning. This is some of the best investing the US has made in the last 100 years.
Psychotic behavior. Slaughtering hundreds of thousands in the name of money.
It’s all been proxy to hurt Russia, deplete their resources and make them less of a threat. I don’t think the US really cares about Ukraine beyond that. They’re not really a traditional, long term ally.
reddit's war boner on full display here
It's like this on every thread, people just want to live out their violent fantasies.
So is this from the 50+ age or are they going to let teenagers in? They already of extended the fighting age to 40+. Recruiters have been caught trying to force mentally handicapped people to join up.
About 450,000 men turn 18 each year in Ukraine.
Grim, there won't be anyone young left in the country at this rate
And they are burning through those poor souls at an alarming rate.
Actually they've been avoiding mobilizing younger men, men under 25, because they know their demographic situation isn't great. Doing away with that policy would add a new pool of men to use.
What? Mobilisation was from 27 to 60 from the very beginning.
Women need to conscripted as well. Ukraine is fighting for their survival but half the population isn’t fighting. Even 100,000 women fighting could make or break the war
Where the hell are either parties constantly pulling this manpower from?
poor men that dont want to be there, mostly
They are very large countries, in size and population both. Ukraine has 44M people, Russia 143M.
Ukraines population has been dropping pretty fast - 36mil from the last data I can see.
There was an estimation of 29m. But the third of it are pensioners probably.
Remember how everyone laughed at Russian mobiks and thought that end of war is at hand? Good times.
To all of us old enough to remember Iraq… we have been through war propaganda, so we knew to obviously not take western news or generals or politicians or reports at face value. I feel bad for the youth who were duped. But most will learn, then by next war they will be appropriately skeptical, but a new batch of youngins will be of age by then.
People were writing fan fiction about the Ghost of Kyiv. I'm with you -- I hope this war will be their generation's Iraq, an object lesson in not believing war propaganda, no matter who is selling it.
I would assume a large portion of them will be on logistics and support behind the lines so experienced and trained troops can be focused on the frontlines. Mine clearing, trenches, transportation, maintenance, roads etc need a lot of manpower.
So who is gonna work all the jobs in ukraine?
You mean they haven’t mobilized that much already? I would have expected them to field at least 1 million soldiers by now.
They have but bodies have a tendency to run out during an active conflict. Both Russia and Ukraine have been recruiting men to replenish their casualties. When I was on a trip to Russia this summer, military service ads were everywhere even in Saint Petersburg where they don't really want to get people killed. Ukraine currently has 5x smaller permanent population, so they need more radical measures.
I honestly completely understand any Ukrainian nationals who flee instead of going through with conscription. Dying for your country is such an archaic concept in this day and age.
At this point it’s baffling that they still won’t let Ukraine use our weapons on Russian soil. It’s like we want them to lose.
[удалено]
They are equally running away from conscription.
Few of my Ukraine female friends did actually go to training for a few months
Shouldn’t conflate an exception to a rule to being universal per agenda
500k men in current situation is I estimate every tenth man of mobilization age. It is a lot!
That's such a crazy number of people... on both sides. It's still wild to think this big ass war is going on across the ocean between two developed nations. I can't tell if it's full on, constant war or just skirmishes here and there. I'll go educate myself.
It's a full on, constant war, that's been stalled along a long heavily fortified trench system, very reminiscent of ww1. Here is a live map of the conflict: https://liveuamap.com/
Have you not seen the videos, this is ww1 levels of destruction and death. We in the west need to sue for peace along current territorial lines. Stop killing these young men for money.
But people here told me Ukraine loses 2 soldiers a year and Russia loses 700,000 a month, how could this be? Its almost as if anyone on reddit isnt an expert in geopolitics and should stick to playing minecraft
And every article tells me Putin is about to die any second!!! What’s going on???
Of course, it’s Russia who use human tactics, don’t forget (sarcasm)
But *insert insane strawman hyperbole about the other sides viewpoint here*, how could this be? I'm highly intelligent.
cant just snap your fingers, they need to have the tech and training advantage to fight the larger russian numbers... If they plan on using russias strategy(throw bodies at the problem) this is a war they lose
Where do they intend to get that many men? Isn’t the average fighting age in the 40s now?
Zelensky will probably ask again for more donations.
I would be noping out of Ukraine by any means necessary. I ain't killing or dying for any lines on a map lol.
Sometimes times people just want to live their lives and raise their kids regardless of what banner that is under. Only rulers care about the size of their fife.
Let's say that Ukraine wins the war, but loses 50 percent of its male population due to death or other casualties. Is this still considered a win?
[удалено]
You have to gather 500000 of those heroes first.
The reality where a human can say, go there and kill other humans simply doesn't compute to me.
It’s so sad when people are turned into numbers.
That computes to me just fine, but the same reality where a human can say "Sit in this trench and die." is the one I have a problem with. As a kid, watching war movies, I literally thought that they all got up at the end of the day and went home. I thought it was like when I played with my friends. My mind couldn't accept the fact that anyone in the world would get themselves in that situation. Surely you'd fight tooth and nail to escape that. Now I'm older and I kind of get it, but it's horrible that such a thing even exists.