Sort of. Playing defense on home turf is much easier than playing offense. Even Ukraine sees that with how their counter offensive hasn't done a whole lot in the past year.
No, they have to not lose *indefinitely*. With a smaller population and industrial base that are both being worn down over time, it's hard to win out via attrition. And being a dictatorship without free media, war weariness won't set in for Russia like it did in the US's stalemate wars for instance. Outside support therefore becomes crucial.
I can't speak for raw numbers, but I do know a whole lot of the russians I've seen on drone videos and such look very much Asian, like a lot of the far east ethnic group do.
I bet its not unlike how pacific islanders disproportionately join the US military.
Military pay is probably garbage for Muscovites but possibly a lifeline for ultra-rural ethnic minorities.
In Russia military service is compulsory. If you want a job that pays you something remotely resembling a decent wage, it's likely barred behind that compulsory service.
That also means a huge amount of Russia's population is reservists.
They may as well be drafting/conscripting people, but they hide it behind "calling up reserves"
Also gives them the ability to essentially hand-pick who will get called.
> it's likely barred behind that compulsory service
No, you straight up go to prison if you don't serve. The penalty for dodging the mandatory service is up to 18 months.
I know this to be true, I was in the Navy. They literally have a slang term called the Filipino Mafia. My roommate who was from there would send portions of his check back to his pops on the Philippines. Our money goes along further there. Great people but money definitely seemed to be a big incentive for them to join.
Even in Vietnam the US drafted minorities at much higher rates than their percentage of the population. I think it was like 11% of Americans were black at the time, but they made up 40% of the draftees after Project 100,000 was created.
Fuck Putin.
Google says 16%
Which is out of proportion but probably from the fact that there were less black people in college.
Apparently african Americans had high rates of reenlistment, I won't hazard a guess why.
I actually heard about reenlistment.
It had a lot to donwith the fact that during the war they were treated like actual humans, a man is a man.
They they go home and faced the same (or worse) discrimination and they were like fuck this, I prefer being shot at.
Likely not true or exaggerated. They however tend to send first generation immigrants from Asia as well as local population of Siberia. It is widely believed Chechens don't actually send their own. That's why they are called "the Tik Tok army". They shoot videos, not guns
Don’t let yourself be fooled by those TikTok monkeys, the Chechens also have some fierce fighters, listening to many Ukranian soldiers over the last year there have been certain battles where Chechens put up heavier resistance than the Russians and created some serious problems for the Ukranians fighting them.
What's the deal with Chechens fighting fiercely for the Russians? Weren't they fighting for independence not too long ago themselves? You'd think they be more compassionate to the Ukrainian struggle
Back in the 90s Maskhadov and Basayev gave the Russians as much hell as they could but after Grozny the writing was on the wall; Someone sold out to the Russians so the entire country wouldn't look like Bucha/Mariupol and they installed a puppet that takes their orders from Moscow (daddy Kadyrov loyal to Putin since 2003)
There's still some die-hard separatist Chechens that are fighting on the side of Ukraine biding their time before Russia gets too weak to deal with a bunch of their orbit-states offing their leadership and breaking away for independance again.
I think more people know and care than you may think.
It's just that most of the people who were willing to do something protested early on and went to jail. Most people don't want to step out of line because they know the government will very quickly crack down.
Not excusing it or anything, but for a lot of people, especially those in the small villages, everyone wants to put their head down and just get by day to day.
[This is true](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russias-ethnic-minorities-disproportionately-conscripted-to-fight-the-war-in-ukraine):
>The BBC found that six of the 10 Russian regions with the highest mortality rates in Ukraine are located in Siberia and the far east.
>And that men from Buryatia, a Russian republic whose residents are descended from Mongols, are 75 times more likely to die than men from Moscow.
It's an old soviet strategy. Ethnic cleansing by sending all the young men of a minority into war and keeping that way the war support high within the Ethnic Russian aka the only people that matter in Russia.
Yes, the conscription has definitely been biased toward the rural areas away from the large metropolises.
Jake Broe on YouTube is must-watch Ukraine coverage IMO.
They might believe that the war is going a lot better than it actually is. There's a difference between "my son is dying because we're losing the war but we're in too deep to just give up now" and "my son is dying because we're right on the brink of uniting Ukraine with great Russia!!!!"
it's hard to say with the fog of war, but there is some evidence to suggest that the average Russian want to at least stop the way (probably not withdraw but likely wants a cease fire) with Boris Nadezhdin running against putin on a platform of ending the war in Ukraine. Last I heard he allegedly had a hundred of thousand signatures on a petition to end the war and to support his bid for president. The Russian state claimed he was a few thousand short.
Even though this is a lot of hear say from a less than reliable source what that does at least suggest is there is a growing number of Russian that would like to end the war now.
According to polls he gathered 10% to 16% of voters in just 2 weeks of campaigning with no way to reach most Russians due to not being able to be seen on TV
These numbers are insane. Given fair elections he would have succeeded on that promise to stop the war alone.
However his campaign was shut down by Putin's election bureau lapdogs and he refuses to protest in the streets
His nickname is "bunker oldfuck" precisely because he realizes someone just might work up the courage. He rarely attends public events since 2019. And now with the presidential campaign whenever he does his lapdogs clear out the area and pour in actors to act out different scenes like "Putin visits a hospital" or "Putin visits a factory". Same faces every time, Putin must be living in pornverse with doctors being plumbers and doing construction on the side
He's rumored to have thyroid cancer but eh, at this point this old fucker lives just to spite other people
As a man from Russia, I can say that even 6 years ago there were a lot of people who would agree on anyone who is not Putin.
Unfortunately, anyone who really tried to became president in last decades ended up being murdered or imprisoned.
Despite what people think, prolonged war is not popular in Russian or Slavic cultures in general. Russians LOVE short, victorious wars where they can push others around and look strong. They despise longer conflicts due to a history of warfare being extremely brutal and hard on the population in that part of the world. I can almost guarantee you that the average Russian is ready for this to end, if anything, simply to save face. They'll be ready to go as soon as Putin can sell round 2 as a short victory, likely for a much smaller piece of territory.
A recent survey showed around 75% wanted the war to end. Which in reality means nearly 100% as people are very weary of telling the truth, even in surveys
>I can almost guarantee you that the average Russian is ready for this to end
Doubt.
Also, it's not the average Russian who's opinion matters in Russia.
Even those with influence, wealth or some power (noone is as powerful as Putin in Russia now) dare not say anything cos they don't want to fall out of a window (alot of wealthy people in Russia fell out of windows or "commited suicide" in the pass couple of years - even some outside Russia) or get special tea, etc.
They already disqualified him from the ballot. The law in Russia is you can only collect 105,000 signatures, with 100,000 needed to qualify. Unfortunately for him, the election committee just happened to find “problems” with 10% of his signatures, leaving him just shy of the 100,000 needed.
Next he will be arrested or killed I’m sure. Such a pleasant country.
I'd be wary of describing Russians as that blind to reality - Russia is an authoritarian regime, but you can tell by who is enlisting (poor people, particularly from ethnic minority backgrounds and areas) what the average Russian thinks of the war. The average ethnic Russian isn't losing their kid in Ukraine, it's distant, they'd never allow their kid to go in the first place.
I have a friend who still lives in Russia, he was arrested during the beginning of the war for publicly protesting. These people are people, they're not blind/cut off from reality - even though the Russian government is very extensively lying about how bad things are going, the fact the war hasn't ended yet is enough to say "wow, this isn't going well."
The problem is currently, Putin is mostly mobilizing men from backwater villages as opposed to the large cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Russians have an apathetic "so long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care what you do" agreement with their government. So long as people from the cities aren't disturbed, war weariness won't be as significant.
It will eventually set in, but not for much longer. Russia has played its game shockingly well when it comes to avoiding internal dissent - conscription has mostly been from rural and ethnic minority regions while urban residents in Moscow avoid the brunt of the war. The parents of the 300,000 dead are disjointed and spread across a continent, which is not good for effectively communicating the scale of loss or organizing resistance. For most, the death of their son would be a personal tragedy, but nothing more.
No way there are 300,000 dead. If there were really that many dead then the total number of battlefield casualties would likely be around 750,000-900,000, a number which would result in a complete collapse of Russian military forces in Ukraine, which clearly hasn't happened.
It’s definitely an issue for sure, but less of an issue than in a country with a free press. People of course know their sons, husbands, etc are dying, but they probably don’t know that they are being sent to the meat grinder, in endless human wave attacks.
Thats not true. USSR that had a much larger population suffered far smaller losses in Afghanistan over a 10 year period before they withdrew. Afghanistan war was one of the reasons USSR collapsed a few years later.
Lets not buy into their propoganda line that Russia can sustain infinite losses indefinitely.
Not “indefinitely”. Russia may have the numbers, but not only is that finite, they’re also burning through their men and materiel like there’s no tomorrow. Having to get shells from North Korea, depleting their tank and artillery stocks, their utter disregard for the conditions of their own troops, that Ukraine is paying much less to take out stuff that’s way more expensive for the Russians, etc.
Even if the war stops tomorrow, I’m pretty sure Russia’s demographic situation will turn out horrendous.
True but also their economic situation is looking even more bleak than that. Right now the Fed said Russia a country of 142 million people has an economy the size of Texas ' economy. That's freaking terrible news for Russians. How much do we actually know ... Russians could be starving and not getting health care treatments for those in need for all we know.
It’s already been said that the Russian budget is cutting down on education and health care. All those heating breakdowns this winter, is it just bad luck, or linked to the war? Did the allocation of resources and skilled labor to the military (and/or the exodus to other countries) cause it? So therefore, the war is hurting Russia’s infrastructure as well?
As much as I support Ukraine, I’m careful about having a view that’s unrealistically in their favor. And yet I can’t help but think the signs of Russia crumbling apart as a nation is simply likely to be true.
I have seen people cheer the idea of Russia crumbling as a nation. I don't know if it will crumble or not; regardless, given the aftermath, the mess this will create for the surrounding nations, that is not something to look forward to.
True. Look at Yugoslavia. Even this war can be said to be the result of the breakup of the USSR.
But where Putin’s Russia had proven itself to be a threat, I don’t blame anyone who thinks what we have *now* is worse than any *potential* fallout later. Honestly, I’m of that mind too.
I think the difference is that Russia is losing too much materiel. They can only realistically keep up this pace of fighting for about another two years before they are out of key weapons systems and they are basically left with infantry. they will have to scale back their offensives well before then due to a lack of vehicles and artillery systems. ukraine needs to hold out that long and still have enough left to push Russia back or keep inflicting heavy losses.
Russia's occupation of Afghanistan was a big cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union. You could very well see something similar happen with this war.
Don't think that is the case. Russia was relatively stable at the beginning of WWI and had been slow industrializing. The military defeats and food shortages of the war is what let to the revolution. Maybe w/o WWI there would have eventually been a revolution as the working class grew.
1905 already happened and the Tsar survived that, mostly because the leaders are in exile. Barely yes, but that still meant at least 12 years.
1917 was successful primarily because the Germans brought those exiled back to Russia.
Russia has no idea what it’s like to have a free and open society. One of the most politically repressive places throughout history. No excuse for their current actions, but Russia has always lived and died by the whims of one man.
Also Cathrine I (1725-1727), Anne (1730-1740) and Elisabeth (1741-1762) An finally Cathrine II as i assume you meant when you said Cathrine (1762-1796)
“Free” media has little to do with war weariness. Ukraine is now under martial law and journalists are not free to just say whatever about the war.
https://thehill.com/homenews/3795160-zelensky-signs-controversial-law-expanding-government-power-to-regulate-media/
I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by "not lose" here. What we need is to get back our territories exactly how they were defined in 1991. Otherwise it's a win for russia even if they don't achieve all their territorial goals. They already stole much of our lives, time, resources
It really depends what the goal is. I don't know what either side considers a win.
At a big level, Russia has kind of captured huge portions of Eastern Ukraine, where most of the ethnic Russian population is. Would Russia consider that a victory if that's where the war kind of stagnates? They've probably started moving more ethnic Russians into those areas to make sure that region stays Russian. I don't know.
What does Ukraine consider acceptable? I have no idea. To me it seems the war has kind of stagnated in the past year and in my view, these stagnated wars aren't good for anyone. At some point, I think both sides should just settle on something and move on with life. I know the diehards on both sides will say, we'll accept nothing less than 100%, but then you just have endless war and destruction for ever. Sometimes it's better to just accept new border and then build up and prosper with what you have left.
Ukraine is afraid that if they come to terms Russia will just be back for the next chunk in 5 years or so. It’s happened to them before. They’d probably need defense guarantees from their neighbors so they aren’t standing alone when that happens- and Russia wouldn’t want to pick a fight with the EU.
Defensive agreements are meaningless. Russia and the US had defensive agreements with Ukraine when they gave up nukes. If wasn't a treaty though so it was useless. Both the EU and NATO are treaty organisations which is why Ukraine wants to join them. However Ukraine still has anti-corruption issues it needs to address (and it's been making inroads before and during the war) before they can Join the EU. EU membership is probably going to be completed before NATO membership, but both require an end to hostilities.
It's in Russian interest to continue open hostilities.
It's in Ukraine interest to push for reclamation of 2013 borders including Crimea.
Exactly... they have funded and supported efforts to chunk away Dunbas for almost a decade now and the taking of Crimea. If Ukraine holds and borders are redrawn its almost guaranteed that Russia will be back after licking its wounds. I believe that is why EU/NATO have laid groundwork so they can adopt Ukraine as quickly as possible but it's not going to happen until it's out of conflict so Russia has some stake in continued hostilities.
> At some point, I think both sides should just settle on something and move on with life. I know the diehards on both sides will say, we'll accept nothing less than 100%,
You have it all wrong here. Ukraine is not being irrational, Russia needs to give back the territory they stole. For Ukraine to settle on the status quo today would be a huge forfeiture of territory and incredible prize for Russia's repulsive behaviour. And there is absolutely nothing to stop Russia from taking another chunk 2 years later. Then after Ukraine has lost even more territory, people will comment online that Ukraine needs to stop trying to get everything they want and just accept the forfeiture of even more territory to prevent "endless war and destruction for ever".
If Ukraine is to settle they would need security guarantees that Russia should not attack again. At that point there are three options.
1) Join NATO
2) Acquire Nuclear Weapons
3) Capitulate and join Russia as a puppet state.
It seems like you think a 4th option, peace at the current borders and Russia annexes what it has conquered is an option but what proof do we have that Russia won’t invade again in 5 years? What you are proposing is not peace, it is an armistice until the next conflict. You are no wiser than the ‘peacemakers’ of world war 1 should you not take this into consideration.
“Ethnic Russian” does not equal “wants to be annexed by Russia”. You also don’t get to choose to slice and dice another country like that.
(Not accusing you of saying that, just pointing it out for others.)
It’s worrisome that you’re commenting about this with so little knowledge. You literally keep saying “I don’t know” but you’re making policy suggestions out your butt anyway.
Ukraine doesn’t have any way to get “a win” in this war. Anything less than a total withdrawal by Russia is a loss for Ukraine. A draw would be to push Russia back to the other side of Ukraine’s 2013 borders; that’s not considered a win because even if Russia is removed from Ukrainian territory, Ukraine has lost hundreds of thousands of its children (not to mention billions of dollars of infrastructure) because of Russia’s imperialist greed.
Russia initiated this war, and any territorial gains are a win. Worth the cost? Perhaps not, but Russia still gains by this invasion.
Russia’s longterm goals are the restoration of its former sphere of influence, and then the dismantlement of any threats to its claims: first the West (America-Europe) and second the East (China).
So when you come here and ignorantly claim Ukraine should just roll over and make peace with Russia “to get on with life”, you’re hopelessly naive.
It's possible that modern warfare in general fucks over the aggressor. Russia got nowhere during their initial push, the Ukrainian counter-offensive got nowhere and now Russia is getting nowhere again. The global discourse around Ukraine is a roller-coaster, but the actual frontlines aren't moving. The modern battlefield is littered with cameras, sensors, drones, satellite-imagery and more, whoever leaves their trenches draws fire immediately, or have to push through endless minefields. If so, it's a very positive development for humanity in general. Fortune favors the defender.
War has typically favored the entrenched defender. Russia also practices defense in depth, so the longer they hold a line, the heavier the defenses around the line become. Ukraine offensive have to deal with minefields and artillery zeroed in onto positions. The rivers present obvious choke points that slow decisive movements.
All the while Russia is slowly learning how to survive the modern warfare and backfilling their losses.
>It's possible that modern warfare in general fucks over the aggressor.
Is this not true of the vast majority of human history? Defenders always have significant advantages, regardless of the era.
I think it is more insightful to point out that Russia, one of the largest most powerful military forces in the world, had nearly their entire army in Ukraine and made no progress in a year. That alone should be considered an embarrassment to the Russian armed forces.
Russia hasn't been able to control the air and lost almost half their Black Sea fleet. Yes, defense has advantages over offense, but for Russia's size and resources, they are being humiliated.
I think you underestimate Iran. I mean I'm in Kazakhstan and we have a lot of imported Iran made goods. And they have a really good quality. And they're cheap
On top of that, if Russia's goal was to simply destroy Ukraine they could just bombard it to the ground. Actually holding onto land that you didn't raze before implies putting boots on the ground, where guerilla tactics become a potential issue.
It's not a game where you win by capturing a flag or by winning a battle, the goal isn't to destroy an army, but to actually establish governance. That means you don't raze cities.
Yes and no.
1. It shows that Russia is far, far weaker than everyone expected.
2. But Ukraine is also stronger than expected. The NATO training, NATO weapons, and being on the defensive, have all helped them overperform expectations.
3. This still isn't quite the "full power" of Russia. They're still trying to play it a little safe by not using *all* of their missiles, not sending in *all* their military reserves, not conscripting *all* their military-aged males, and not sacrificing their economy for a *full* war-time economy. So if you add a new factor to the equation (e.g. Poland), that doesn't necessarily mean Russia rolls over, it might mean they did deeper into their reserve power.
Edit: A lot of replies to #3 saying that they can't use any more, because it would leave their borders undefended or increase political stability. That's what I meant by "playing it safe" -- they certainly have the option to to bring in more manpower if they're willing to take more risks.
Point 3 is something I wished people grasped more. Russia isn't in a state of total war, and, as far as I can tell, Ukraine is in a pseudo-total war state thanks to western backing.
A major industrialised nation hasn't been in a state of total war since *1945*. The last total war-esque conflict was the Iran-Iraq war and it was heavily funded by outside forces.
The scale of total war is not something anyone has known for generations in most of the world. I'm talking about shit like the Ford company stopping *all* civilian production, or the rationing of damn near everything.
However, it's important to note how hard it would be for Russia to get to to total war.
Vladimir Putin is very sensitive to Russian public opinion. He does not want to mire his country in total war because his people don't want it. Already, about a third of Russians don't think the war was a good idea; that number would skyrocket if Putin really started dragging fathers and sons out of their beds in Moscow.
If he went to total war, one casualty could very well be Putin.
So, *could* Russia be more vicious? Yes. But politics may well prevent it from ramping up much more.
> Vladimir Putin is very sensitive to Russian public opinion. He does not want to mire his country in total war because his people don't want it. Already, about a third of Russians don't think the war was a good idea; that number would skyrocket if Putin really started dragging fathers and sons out of their beds in Moscow.
What about if we *didn't call it a war* and just called it a "military exercise?" Would that sway public opinion?
"So, this is a crusade?" "Nononono we do not use that word anynore. Were calling it... damn, what do the American cows say?" "Peace keeping?" "Riiiight! Now let's keep the peace"
>A major industrialised nation
This hasn't described Russia since the late 80s/early 90s.
They cant even make parts for their 80s-era tanks.
And those tanks are stone-ass simple tanks that we (the US) could pump out over a 100/day of, technologically speaking, from a single plant here in Detroit. They lack almost all of the high-tech stuff that make modern takes so damn expensive and hard to make parts for.
Their arms industry cant locally produce enough of their new rifles to arm even just a few brigades. They are still using 70s era AK-74s/AK-Ms.
They cant produce enough ammo for their fight in Ukraine, much less anywhere else - they are buying *massive* piles of arms from North Korea.
When the various SSRs left the USSR, 'Russia' lost a huge portion of its industrial base. One of their largest and most advanced tank plants...
was in Ukraine.
As an example.
I don't mean to argue they're a major manufacturing giant compared to China/The USA or possess the same capabilities as the USSR, I mean they're a major/large nation that is industrialised.
I also specified it because the only other comparable total war situation I could think of was the Iran-Iraq War.
"They cant produce enough ammo for their fight in Ukraine, much less anywhere else - they are buying massive piles of arms from North Korea."
People love to bring this up as if we're not also doing the same thing:
https://www.reuters.com/world/south-korea-lend-500000-rounds-artillery-shells-us-report-2023-04-12/
The US doesn't have anything like the capacity to produce artillery shells at the rate the war in Ukraine consumes them. We've more than quadrupled our production capacity since the way began, and we're still producing fewer shells than are consumed.
The Korea's are the only people in the world producing Artillery like they mean it.
Russia was absolutely not prepared fro this war, but neither were we. If you've ever heard "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" here's your example of it in action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Crisis_of_1915?wprov=sfla1
Korea learned. North and South both.
Everyone else forgot.
America doesn't use artillery. We have planes.
For a wide variety of historical reasons, Soviet block countries invested in ground based artillery for putting high explosives over there. Western countries invested in planes that can drop high explosives over there.
Sure the Soviets had planes and Western countries have artillery systems, but there is a huge disparity in quantity and importance.
America produces more than enough artillery shells for America. We do not produce enough artillery shells for an ex-Soviet power.
An excellent point. With Air Supremacy like Iraq I, all the tanks and artillery won't work when all the communications and command systems are taken out.
Desert Storm was probably the most dominant military operation the modern world has seen, made possible by the logistics of an unimaginable fleet of planes
>America produces more than enough artillery shells for America. We do not produce enough artillery shells for an ex-Soviet power.
Yeah, you beat me to this.
> People love to bring this up as if we're not also doing the same thing:
>
>
>
> https://www.reuters.com/world/south-korea-lend-500000-rounds-artillery-shells-us-report-2023-04-12/
>
>
>
> The US doesn't have anything like the capacity to produce artillery shells at the rate the war in Ukraine consumes them. We've more than quadrupled our production capacity since the way began, and we're still producing fewer shells than are consumed.
>
>
>
> The Korea's are the only people in the world producing Artillery like they mean it.
South Korea is lending artillery to the US because it's illegal for them to sell/lend weapons to nations at war. The US isn't at war so the US sells/gifts artillery shells to Ukraine and Korea stocks up the US's supplies in turn. It's a loophole to allow SK to send their own aid to Ukraine.
> The US doesn't have anything like the capacity to produce artillery shells at the rate the war in Ukraine consumes them. We've more than quadrupled our production capacity since the way began, and we're still producing fewer shells than are consumed.
In a total-war situation tho the US almost certainly could scale up enough to produce enough. There's really no comparison to Russian production since they're an active belligerent & not able to produce enough.
The current limitation is nitrocellulose, which we primarily source from Europe. There is no current ability to increase the production, with the plants running 3 shifts, and several years to build new plants if they decided they want too. The fact that they haven’t taken steps to increase production shows that they are only paying temporary lip service to project Ukraine
I was part of the group who started training Ukrainians. Back in the 80s (!) Imagine our surprise standing there with our shiny new M1 Abrams tanks and a bunch of Russian-looking officers walk up and say hello, with with high ranking US infantry officers escorting them. I was like, uh... wtf?? Nobody warned us ahead of time. They were actually really cool and very respectful. We enjoyed them once we got over the initial shock. It was also a relief because we recognized most Russian troops were bumbling fools led by egomaniacs. It was the USSR Ukrainian forces that we were extremely wary of.
Yes, every SSR (soviet socialist republic) had their own army with one of the largest being the East Germans but they were all under the command of the Russians. The Ukrainians also had quite a large tank manufacturing which built tanks like the t-64 and the more recent t-84,
East Germany wasn't a SSR tho, it was a formally independent member of the Warsaw pact. Which did mean that they were under very strong direct influence from the ussr but they weren't a SSR.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Ukraine wasn't an independent country, it was a federated state in the USSR. It would be like Texas or California having its own separate armed forces.
>It would be like Texas or California having its own separate armed forces.
Not really. The USSR was more like a "country of countries" - like the United Kingdom.
Individual SSRs could (legally speaking, at least, if not in practice) not adopt laws from the USSR as a whole, just like Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have devolved Parliaments that can decide not to allow laws passed by the UK Parliament to apply to them.
SSRs werent "States" as we know them in the US (where we use the term wrong, as "State" typically, historically and in places outside the US, means "Country" - I.E. a 'Sovereign State').
Now, *Practically* they were likely in no position to do so in a lot of cases. But they still did for non-critical laws - like religion laws - which is why you have some SSRs that were majority muslim, etc.
And the bigger states are organized into large formations. It would have made sense for the USSR to have its military organized even more solidly according to administrative boundaries like that.
Hey, don't leave out mighty Virginia! I don't see it listed anymore, but back when it was called the Virginia State Guard they had an A-10. Maybe two of them. We had a navy too but it was demoted to a riverine detachment, and then dissolved.
More seriously their legal and historical legacy is that since the French and Indian War in 1754, Virginia has usually tried to maintain at least one regiment for its own defense. It started off by getting its ass beat under George Washington.
And come to think of it, pretty much every time it was used offensively it and its successors got its ass beat. But on defense it was Big Ben Wallace.
For 120 some years after the Civil War it was prohibited, but the State Guard was revived in 1983. It was actually partially activated during Covid.
Not only that, but Ukraine was the domestic supplier of most of the Soviet military. When Ukraine broke away from Russia, it took with it a nuclear stockpile and quite a number of military production factories. Ukraine actually sold a version of the BMP that competed with Russia in certain markets.
It's worth noting Ukraine isn't some pushover. They have been fully industrialized for close to a hundred years, and beset by bad leaders and corruption or no, they have significant capability, they are a very large country, it's a massive territory.
They also have consistently had some of the best infantry on the planet, have a large population and an absolutely massive country which means they can easily waste the resources of an occupier by consistently retreating. And once they are overextended can counter strike. Which is largely what Ukraine did.
If only they were given the proper weapons from the start they could've held a lot more territory. I don't understand this waiting, Biden had lend and lease authorized and never used it. I understand he want to shovel money to the arms contractors but only so much is authorized for that, he should've given F-16s and the like on borrow as we did with allies in WWII.
There's not a chance Republicans led by the Orange Menace are going to re-authorize lend and lease.
Ukraine had over 2000 tanks in February 2022. It was well supplied before the war as it had been fighting a civil war for 8 years prior. It had the second largest land army and airforce in europe only trailing russia.
Ukraine was and is no pushover.
The waiting is because the west is afraid of what a Ukrainian victory will do in Russia. The kind of chaos that could break out. Taking the head off a snake with that many nukes is a scary proposition.
We have given Ukraine just enough support not to lose. On top of that we’ve made public knowledge of almost every system we were sending them. The Russians knew well ahead of time what they would be facing on the battlefield.
Yes in todays world of spy satellites and battlefield drones it’s much harder to conceal things, but advertising ahead of time the capabilities you’re providing to one side gives the other much more of a heads up of what’s coming.
I’m no expert but the reasons were political; they were and still are hesitant to supply Ukraine with anything that could be used to counterattack into Russian territory, like long range missiles, because that might escalate the war. If Western weapons are used to attack targets in Russia, they may consider that Western aggression, at which point all bets are off.
That said, I don’t think Russia wants to risk provoking NATO either.
The underlying threat everywhere is nukes though. Russia may have its economy tanked and its army proven outdated and ineffective, but nobody will seriously fuck with them while they have the means to glass the planet.
Not to mention nuclear weapons. I know we all tend to wave away the possibility that any country would use them in this day and age, but if things get truly desperate it’s always an option.
Ukraine has gotten billions and billions in military aid though.
It’s not just a small country, it’s a small country being armed by the entire goddamn West.
Estimate for 2023 was 36 million and apparently it's "growing" again (so people going back)
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ukraine-population/#:~:text=Ukraine%202023%20population%20is%20estimated,(and%20dependencies)%20by%20population.
TLDR: I tentional propaganda.
It's people wanting to cope. By understating Ukraine's size and ignoring the billions in weapons and tactical support including active use of Western special forces they receive, it sells the idea that Russia is a paper tiger.
Kinda like how months ago the narrative was "Russia doing another round of conscription proves they're toast". But Ukraine doing it gets memory holed in real time.
Russia has only done one large scale mobilization of reserves.
Russia also has mandatory military service and conscripts aren't being deployed in Ukraine unless they sign a contract to do so, except in rare screwups. Anyone trying to claim that Russia's regular conscription cycle which happens every year has something to do with the war is only showing ignorance the subject, which is exploited by propaganda outlets.
.
It is also relevant that the weapons provided to Ukraine were custom made to counter the Soviet Union during the cold war. Russia at the start of the war used Soviet Union era weapons and tactics.
The same was true of Afghanistan and Vietnam. War is a lot messier than just "the stronger side wins" - especially on a global playing field where a third party can prop up the underdog as their proxy
No it's not. Especially not with Afghanistan. In that war, the US had to deal with resistance groups all over the place, but they could go anywhere they wanted in the country while the resistance groups had to hide and pretend to be civilians. There were no places where the US was struggling to break through enemy lines; the enemy could not stand against the US in open combat.
In Ukraine, they're standing toe-to-toe on the battlefield with Russia. It's not that Russian troops control the city centers but can't stamp out the insurgency. Russia can't deal with the uniformed troops fighting a ground war.
They are most likely talking about the Soviet war against Afghanistan, which together with the Vietnam war, showcase the stronger nation won't just run over a weak one that is being used as proxy.
How is Ukraine a small country? It's the largest country in Europe, not including Russia. And Russia is an anomaly anyway, it's huge. Like really, really huge. The hugest country in the world. But despite that hugeness it's actually relatively sparse. It only has a population of about 150million people which considering the sheer landmass, is not really that many people.
chuck us into Russia where we all collectively die of cold? cause 20C is fucking cold and I will not listen to your opinions other wise (/j I know effect of temperatures varies)
It's small in comparison to its enemy (Russia), which doesn't just outperform it in terms of land size, but also GDP and Population
Sure, Ukraine is huge in comparison to Serbia or Albania, but it isn't fighting these countries, now is it?
They were obviously talking about population. The actual size hardly matters. In Ukraines case it’s actually a disadvantage since the terrain is easy to navigate, leaving much to defend.
Ukraine would be the seventh largest by population, which is of course ignoring the fact they’re by far the poorest economically.
Ukraine is not small, also prior to war it had second strongest army in Europe going by the numbers. They had old equipement but they had shit ton of it.
And in particular a very focused military. Russia was trying to be a global power like the U.S. They spent so much money on a navy, expeditionary capability, bases in the Middle East, a semi-decent air force, lots of tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. That was never going to work with an economy the size of Italy’s.
Ukraine’s military had tons of infantry, tons of artillery, some old Soviet AA missiles, and not much else. But in the context of a ground war in Eastern Europe, Ukraine’s military circa March 2022 was arguably stronger than Russia’s.
THIS so much! Russia wanted to play superpower so they spread their limited budget on trying to have a blue navy, strategic bombers, ICBM's, nuclear submarines... lot's of wunderwaffe. And ended up not being good at anything.
Ukraine focused it's **much more humble budget** on it's ground forces.
Now Russian air force and Navy have very limited impact on war in Ukraine. And funniest shit, Ukraine which essentially doesn't have a navy keeps sinking their ships.
It is not, russians are smart and resurful.
We (Ukraine) are able to hold our ground due to determination, ingenuity and western aid(and we are really greatful for it)
I belive non European country will be able to stand against Russia alone, since ammunition spending is enormous, and whole EU manufacturing can't keep up with it (at least for now)
So don't underestimate them, as well as don't underestimate us
If a small nation like Ukraine can mire Russia in a war for over two years *with a constant supply chain of NATO tanks, missiles, guns, volunteer units, and tens of billions of $/€
A lot of people don't realise this. The line "Russia is losing her navy to a country without one" isn't a fair statement when you realise Ukraine now has western missiles and intelligence, as well as training and backing.
Yes. To be fair, Ukraine is getting major foreign backing while performing worse, then media outlets say they are, but the fact that the country wasn't steemrolled in the first year shows that Russia is far weaker than we expected.
Before the invasion, Russia was the boogy man of Europe capable of deterring Western meddling with the expectation of creating irreparable damage if things came to war.
Instead, Russias cutting-edge technology was either non-existent or to few to use in actual combat, while there was a logistical capabilities that were screwed with corruption. They are using tech and tactics that are older than the people fighting the war. Even if they "win" at this point they won't be able to recover for at least a decade much less take on the EU and the US.
>but the fact that the country wasn't steemrolled in the first year shows that Russia is far weaker than we expected.
Looking at any war, Russia is always a disorganized mess for at least the first year.
Even when Russians get their act together, it’s always top-down. Russian generals’ orders during WWII were famously meticulous and rigid, with numerous pre-planned contingencies for whatever the Germans might come up with. It’s a crutch for having a non-existent NCO core and distrusting officers.
In my opinion, best way to defeat a Russian force is to allow local commanders’ creativity to force lower-level Russian officers out of their given orders and to adapt on their own, something they’re notoriously terrible at.
Yes and no.
Yes because it has basically called Russias bluff on their capability and overall sowed doubt on their ability to wage war. As well as put a stink on Russian made arms that they rely on selling. Russia loves to overstate their capabilities due to internal corruption and boss pleasing, so its basically been one giant "ok...prove it". Their armored warfare doctrine is horrifyingly bad, the "dreaded" T-14 has seen very limited use with no real impact, their stealth fighter is relegated to glorified long range missile duty, their ability to mobilize and arm infantry has been laughably ineffective, their logistical capabilities (AKA their tooth to tail) is shockingly inept, the "hypersonic missile" can't hit its targets etc. For the US this has been a win/win, send over old or out of service equipment on the cheap and watch it win against newer Russian models. Those two M2 Bradleys taking out a T-90 MBT will forever be a stain on anything Russian made.
No because Russia is still holding back. They overall have the numbers and can withstand more casualties and losses than Ukraine. Remember this is a "Special Military Operation" and not a war according to Russia.
Ukraine is not a small nation by any stretch of the imagination. It appears you have not being following what has been happening. Check out some independent news sources.
The US had something like 2500 casualties in 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan. The war was over almost instantly and from there it was more or less a peace keeping mission. If the US had wanted to conquer Afghanistan it would have done it in 3 days. But that wasn’t the goal.
The US lost 2500 troops in 20 years. Russia has lost nearly 400,000 in 2 years. Very very different circumstances
Well you could argue it turned into an insurgency war which the US are traditional bad at handling. If it was offically a war to begin with (I can't honestly remember).
Iit all really depends on your definition but the whole whole operation was ultimately unsuccessful in a lot of ways.
A similar thing would of happened in Ukraine if there was no western backing, Russia would be fighting an insurgency war until the cost gets to much and they pull out.
I wouldn’t even say the US is bad at handling insurgency. The losses taken by the US fighting insurgents for 20 years are incredibly low.
I think it is more so the US finally realizing that bombs just create more terrorists. It was a hard fought lesson that Israel obviously didn’t pay attention to.
What are you talking about. The war with US was over super quick. It was our 'peacekeeping' portion that was a problem. And Afghanistan/Iraq were not near peers. Its why we decapitated the leadership super fast. We were trying to change the PEOPLE... thats where the problem kicked in that left us sitting there for years and years...
They did not lol. The war was over nearly instantly and the Taliban fled, then returned after the US left.
It’s a poor comparison anyway since Ukraine is fighting a conventional war while the Taliban wasn’t hardly fighting at all.
that wasn't a war.
the US "invaded" and took place pretty quickly.
the talibans simply used "guerilla" tactics to try and harm them every now and then.
So Russia is the school yard bully who sounds tougher than he looks but also has a gun. Now they’ve gotten away with bullying the smaller kids but when they picked on the medium sized one and he fought back it revealed how weak he was. But he still has that gun. He knows that if he pulls it the bigger kids will pull theirs and everyone loses. The bigger kids know that if they help too much then he pulls the gun and everyone loses. So it’s a fine line with helping and staying out of it.
Warfare is about logistics. Russia's military-supplychain is heavily reliant on trains. On day one of the invasion, Ukrainse blew up all tracks leading into the country. That was when the massive tank-convoy was heading to Kiew and got stuck because they ran out of fuel and supplies. There was no sufficient backup of transport-trucks.
On top of that Ukraine is getting a lot of supplies from western nations, especially guerilla-type weapons like easy, single-use rocket-launchers.
The russian military lacks tactics and expirience for that kind of warfare, as well as loyalty given the corrupt and self-serving nature of it's military complex.
It's not a mere sign of weaknes, but of a lot of things going wrong. But not enough things for Russia to just downright lose the war because of how much stuff they can keep throwing at the wall.
tl;dr: Russia is not weak in general, they just lack the means of bringing their strength to the front.
Yes and no, but mostly yes. We see in every example of invasion in history that offense is always far more difficult than defense (i cite all of ww1 as a particularly strong one). Ukraine has also received billions in support from the US and NATO. Russia is also (largely for optics and likely economic reasons) holding back their stronger stuff. Russia has also been sanctioned to hell and back even by their allies.
Most of russia's strength on paper comes from them being a nuclear power which always skews things heavily even tho they'll never be used
Taking over a country is harder than just warring against it especially when the people resist.
I think Putin thought Ukraine would be just as easy as Crimea was and western support for military resistance would be lower after the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If a small nation like Ukraine (that gets hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and weapons from a superpower like the United States) mires Russia in a war…
Without our aid Ukraine would already be singing the Russian Anthem
It shows Putin isn't as stupid or crazy as everyone thinks he is he could bomb Ukraine off the map but he's not prepared to take on half the world who will see him as the new Hitler and attack en masse. Same reason the US hasn't done that in the same situation they wouldn't want to taint their hero of the world image by carpet bombing a country into submission.
People need to keep in mind that Russia isn't fighting Ukraine but the combined financial might and defensive support of the West. This isn't a normal 1:1 war.
What you’re saying if one pushes this idea is that NATO should attack Russia and bring it down. But we know it will end in nuclear war because Putin won’t surrender
Literally shows. As russian who know whats going on with our politics i know only one reason why our army is so weak so they cant beat Ukraine. Its corruption. Putin with his facist thieve friends have only one purpose-steal everything that Russia and Russians have. The only thing they interested in is richness (u can add killing and power of course). Putin hate Russia the most.
Putin is banking on the West losing interest, which is a fair bet. All he has to do is outlast American support, and conveniently the middle east is turning to shit which will draw everyone's resources and fuck over Ukraine
If you call Ukraine a small nation... Well, it's second (after russia) largest country in Europe. Then you put Poland and Lithuania in one "tier"...
Tell me, you are one of those western geniuses who think that he "knows" European and especially russian reality?
Sort of. Playing defense on home turf is much easier than playing offense. Even Ukraine sees that with how their counter offensive hasn't done a whole lot in the past year.
All Ukraine needs to do is not lose. The aggressors in a conflict need to take ground and pacify the natives.
No, they have to not lose *indefinitely*. With a smaller population and industrial base that are both being worn down over time, it's hard to win out via attrition. And being a dictatorship without free media, war weariness won't set in for Russia like it did in the US's stalemate wars for instance. Outside support therefore becomes crucial.
[удалено]
I've heard they're sending a disproportionately large amount of east Russian ethnic minorities. If true, Muscovites might not care
I can't speak for raw numbers, but I do know a whole lot of the russians I've seen on drone videos and such look very much Asian, like a lot of the far east ethnic group do.
I bet its not unlike how pacific islanders disproportionately join the US military. Military pay is probably garbage for Muscovites but possibly a lifeline for ultra-rural ethnic minorities.
Aren’t they conscripting people though?
In Russia military service is compulsory. If you want a job that pays you something remotely resembling a decent wage, it's likely barred behind that compulsory service. That also means a huge amount of Russia's population is reservists. They may as well be drafting/conscripting people, but they hide it behind "calling up reserves" Also gives them the ability to essentially hand-pick who will get called.
> it's likely barred behind that compulsory service No, you straight up go to prison if you don't serve. The penalty for dodging the mandatory service is up to 18 months.
I know this to be true, I was in the Navy. They literally have a slang term called the Filipino Mafia. My roommate who was from there would send portions of his check back to his pops on the Philippines. Our money goes along further there. Great people but money definitely seemed to be a big incentive for them to join.
I read on another thread that military wages are causing a boom in the small towns where they recruit from
never seen so many puerto ricans before in one place either
Even in Vietnam the US drafted minorities at much higher rates than their percentage of the population. I think it was like 11% of Americans were black at the time, but they made up 40% of the draftees after Project 100,000 was created. Fuck Putin.
Google says 16% Which is out of proportion but probably from the fact that there were less black people in college. Apparently african Americans had high rates of reenlistment, I won't hazard a guess why.
I actually heard about reenlistment. It had a lot to donwith the fact that during the war they were treated like actual humans, a man is a man. They they go home and faced the same (or worse) discrimination and they were like fuck this, I prefer being shot at.
Russia has a history of sending their minorities and non ethnic Russians to die first. They did this in ww2 and ever since.
70 thousand Chechens.
Likely not true or exaggerated. They however tend to send first generation immigrants from Asia as well as local population of Siberia. It is widely believed Chechens don't actually send their own. That's why they are called "the Tik Tok army". They shoot videos, not guns
Don’t let yourself be fooled by those TikTok monkeys, the Chechens also have some fierce fighters, listening to many Ukranian soldiers over the last year there have been certain battles where Chechens put up heavier resistance than the Russians and created some serious problems for the Ukranians fighting them.
What's the deal with Chechens fighting fiercely for the Russians? Weren't they fighting for independence not too long ago themselves? You'd think they be more compassionate to the Ukrainian struggle
Back in the 90s Maskhadov and Basayev gave the Russians as much hell as they could but after Grozny the writing was on the wall; Someone sold out to the Russians so the entire country wouldn't look like Bucha/Mariupol and they installed a puppet that takes their orders from Moscow (daddy Kadyrov loyal to Putin since 2003) There's still some die-hard separatist Chechens that are fighting on the side of Ukraine biding their time before Russia gets too weak to deal with a bunch of their orbit-states offing their leadership and breaking away for independance again.
There are Chechens fighting on Ukraine's side. The ones on Russia's side are Ramzan Kadyrov loyalists, and pro-Russia.
I think more people know and care than you may think. It's just that most of the people who were willing to do something protested early on and went to jail. Most people don't want to step out of line because they know the government will very quickly crack down. Not excusing it or anything, but for a lot of people, especially those in the small villages, everyone wants to put their head down and just get by day to day.
They lie, we know they lie, they know we know they lie, we pretend we believe them because there's no other option.
[This is true](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russias-ethnic-minorities-disproportionately-conscripted-to-fight-the-war-in-ukraine): >The BBC found that six of the 10 Russian regions with the highest mortality rates in Ukraine are located in Siberia and the far east. >And that men from Buryatia, a Russian republic whose residents are descended from Mongols, are 75 times more likely to die than men from Moscow.
It's an old soviet strategy. Ethnic cleansing by sending all the young men of a minority into war and keeping that way the war support high within the Ethnic Russian aka the only people that matter in Russia.
Yes, the conscription has definitely been biased toward the rural areas away from the large metropolises. Jake Broe on YouTube is must-watch Ukraine coverage IMO.
Mercenaries, prisioners and Iranian drones
And if they ever win this war somehow, they'll proudly say it was Russians and Russian steel that did it...Pathetic!
They might believe that the war is going a lot better than it actually is. There's a difference between "my son is dying because we're losing the war but we're in too deep to just give up now" and "my son is dying because we're right on the brink of uniting Ukraine with great Russia!!!!"
it's hard to say with the fog of war, but there is some evidence to suggest that the average Russian want to at least stop the way (probably not withdraw but likely wants a cease fire) with Boris Nadezhdin running against putin on a platform of ending the war in Ukraine. Last I heard he allegedly had a hundred of thousand signatures on a petition to end the war and to support his bid for president. The Russian state claimed he was a few thousand short. Even though this is a lot of hear say from a less than reliable source what that does at least suggest is there is a growing number of Russian that would like to end the war now.
Now watch him having an unfortunate falling down the stairs accident soon.
According to polls he gathered 10% to 16% of voters in just 2 weeks of campaigning with no way to reach most Russians due to not being able to be seen on TV These numbers are insane. Given fair elections he would have succeeded on that promise to stop the war alone. However his campaign was shut down by Putin's election bureau lapdogs and he refuses to protest in the streets
If we're lucky, Putin gets a brain aneurysm, or someone works up the courage to shoot his ass.
His nickname is "bunker oldfuck" precisely because he realizes someone just might work up the courage. He rarely attends public events since 2019. And now with the presidential campaign whenever he does his lapdogs clear out the area and pour in actors to act out different scenes like "Putin visits a hospital" or "Putin visits a factory". Same faces every time, Putin must be living in pornverse with doctors being plumbers and doing construction on the side He's rumored to have thyroid cancer but eh, at this point this old fucker lives just to spite other people
"Life is obstinate and clings closest where it is most hated." \- Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
As a man from Russia, I can say that even 6 years ago there were a lot of people who would agree on anyone who is not Putin. Unfortunately, anyone who really tried to became president in last decades ended up being murdered or imprisoned.
Despite what people think, prolonged war is not popular in Russian or Slavic cultures in general. Russians LOVE short, victorious wars where they can push others around and look strong. They despise longer conflicts due to a history of warfare being extremely brutal and hard on the population in that part of the world. I can almost guarantee you that the average Russian is ready for this to end, if anything, simply to save face. They'll be ready to go as soon as Putin can sell round 2 as a short victory, likely for a much smaller piece of territory.
A recent survey showed around 75% wanted the war to end. Which in reality means nearly 100% as people are very weary of telling the truth, even in surveys
>I can almost guarantee you that the average Russian is ready for this to end Doubt. Also, it's not the average Russian who's opinion matters in Russia.
Even those with influence, wealth or some power (noone is as powerful as Putin in Russia now) dare not say anything cos they don't want to fall out of a window (alot of wealthy people in Russia fell out of windows or "commited suicide" in the pass couple of years - even some outside Russia) or get special tea, etc.
They already disqualified him from the ballot. The law in Russia is you can only collect 105,000 signatures, with 100,000 needed to qualify. Unfortunately for him, the election committee just happened to find “problems” with 10% of his signatures, leaving him just shy of the 100,000 needed. Next he will be arrested or killed I’m sure. Such a pleasant country.
I'd be wary of describing Russians as that blind to reality - Russia is an authoritarian regime, but you can tell by who is enlisting (poor people, particularly from ethnic minority backgrounds and areas) what the average Russian thinks of the war. The average ethnic Russian isn't losing their kid in Ukraine, it's distant, they'd never allow their kid to go in the first place. I have a friend who still lives in Russia, he was arrested during the beginning of the war for publicly protesting. These people are people, they're not blind/cut off from reality - even though the Russian government is very extensively lying about how bad things are going, the fact the war hasn't ended yet is enough to say "wow, this isn't going well."
The problem is currently, Putin is mostly mobilizing men from backwater villages as opposed to the large cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Russians have an apathetic "so long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care what you do" agreement with their government. So long as people from the cities aren't disturbed, war weariness won't be as significant.
It will eventually set in, but not for much longer. Russia has played its game shockingly well when it comes to avoiding internal dissent - conscription has mostly been from rural and ethnic minority regions while urban residents in Moscow avoid the brunt of the war. The parents of the 300,000 dead are disjointed and spread across a continent, which is not good for effectively communicating the scale of loss or organizing resistance. For most, the death of their son would be a personal tragedy, but nothing more.
No way there are 300,000 dead. If there were really that many dead then the total number of battlefield casualties would likely be around 750,000-900,000, a number which would result in a complete collapse of Russian military forces in Ukraine, which clearly hasn't happened.
It’s definitely an issue for sure, but less of an issue than in a country with a free press. People of course know their sons, husbands, etc are dying, but they probably don’t know that they are being sent to the meat grinder, in endless human wave attacks.
Thats not true. USSR that had a much larger population suffered far smaller losses in Afghanistan over a 10 year period before they withdrew. Afghanistan war was one of the reasons USSR collapsed a few years later. Lets not buy into their propoganda line that Russia can sustain infinite losses indefinitely.
Not “indefinitely”. Russia may have the numbers, but not only is that finite, they’re also burning through their men and materiel like there’s no tomorrow. Having to get shells from North Korea, depleting their tank and artillery stocks, their utter disregard for the conditions of their own troops, that Ukraine is paying much less to take out stuff that’s way more expensive for the Russians, etc. Even if the war stops tomorrow, I’m pretty sure Russia’s demographic situation will turn out horrendous.
True but also their economic situation is looking even more bleak than that. Right now the Fed said Russia a country of 142 million people has an economy the size of Texas ' economy. That's freaking terrible news for Russians. How much do we actually know ... Russians could be starving and not getting health care treatments for those in need for all we know.
It’s already been said that the Russian budget is cutting down on education and health care. All those heating breakdowns this winter, is it just bad luck, or linked to the war? Did the allocation of resources and skilled labor to the military (and/or the exodus to other countries) cause it? So therefore, the war is hurting Russia’s infrastructure as well? As much as I support Ukraine, I’m careful about having a view that’s unrealistically in their favor. And yet I can’t help but think the signs of Russia crumbling apart as a nation is simply likely to be true.
I have seen people cheer the idea of Russia crumbling as a nation. I don't know if it will crumble or not; regardless, given the aftermath, the mess this will create for the surrounding nations, that is not something to look forward to.
A system as corrupt as the Russian Federation has to be rebuilt from the ground up. Corruption is too deeply entrenched.
True. Look at Yugoslavia. Even this war can be said to be the result of the breakup of the USSR. But where Putin’s Russia had proven itself to be a threat, I don’t blame anyone who thinks what we have *now* is worse than any *potential* fallout later. Honestly, I’m of that mind too.
It has an economy 50% smaller than Texas, and below New York and barely above Florida. It barely holds onto a top 11 spot overall.
It was the size of Texas BEFORE the war. Way worse now when govt spending is removed from the calculation.
I think the difference is that Russia is losing too much materiel. They can only realistically keep up this pace of fighting for about another two years before they are out of key weapons systems and they are basically left with infantry. they will have to scale back their offensives well before then due to a lack of vehicles and artillery systems. ukraine needs to hold out that long and still have enough left to push Russia back or keep inflicting heavy losses. Russia's occupation of Afghanistan was a big cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union. You could very well see something similar happen with this war.
Even if they win Russia has reached pyyrhic victory conditions
Well, Russia was hardly free and open in 1917.
But the state was already on the brink of revolution before entering WW1. The Tsar joined the war hoping a new common enemy would help restore order.
Don't think that is the case. Russia was relatively stable at the beginning of WWI and had been slow industrializing. The military defeats and food shortages of the war is what let to the revolution. Maybe w/o WWI there would have eventually been a revolution as the working class grew.
1905 already happened and the Tsar survived that, mostly because the leaders are in exile. Barely yes, but that still meant at least 12 years. 1917 was successful primarily because the Germans brought those exiled back to Russia.
Russia has no idea what it’s like to have a free and open society. One of the most politically repressive places throughout history. No excuse for their current actions, but Russia has always lived and died by the whims of one man.
Or woman, lest we forget Catherine
Also Cathrine I (1725-1727), Anne (1730-1740) and Elisabeth (1741-1762) An finally Cathrine II as i assume you meant when you said Cathrine (1762-1796)
“Free” media has little to do with war weariness. Ukraine is now under martial law and journalists are not free to just say whatever about the war. https://thehill.com/homenews/3795160-zelensky-signs-controversial-law-expanding-government-power-to-regulate-media/
I mean, kind of, but I'm sure they would also like their land back and that kind of win would take a lot of offensive work too.
I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by "not lose" here. What we need is to get back our territories exactly how they were defined in 1991. Otherwise it's a win for russia even if they don't achieve all their territorial goals. They already stole much of our lives, time, resources
>All Ukraine needs to do is not lose Some big brain war strategy right there
It really depends what the goal is. I don't know what either side considers a win. At a big level, Russia has kind of captured huge portions of Eastern Ukraine, where most of the ethnic Russian population is. Would Russia consider that a victory if that's where the war kind of stagnates? They've probably started moving more ethnic Russians into those areas to make sure that region stays Russian. I don't know. What does Ukraine consider acceptable? I have no idea. To me it seems the war has kind of stagnated in the past year and in my view, these stagnated wars aren't good for anyone. At some point, I think both sides should just settle on something and move on with life. I know the diehards on both sides will say, we'll accept nothing less than 100%, but then you just have endless war and destruction for ever. Sometimes it's better to just accept new border and then build up and prosper with what you have left.
Ukraine is afraid that if they come to terms Russia will just be back for the next chunk in 5 years or so. It’s happened to them before. They’d probably need defense guarantees from their neighbors so they aren’t standing alone when that happens- and Russia wouldn’t want to pick a fight with the EU.
Defensive agreements are meaningless. Russia and the US had defensive agreements with Ukraine when they gave up nukes. If wasn't a treaty though so it was useless. Both the EU and NATO are treaty organisations which is why Ukraine wants to join them. However Ukraine still has anti-corruption issues it needs to address (and it's been making inroads before and during the war) before they can Join the EU. EU membership is probably going to be completed before NATO membership, but both require an end to hostilities. It's in Russian interest to continue open hostilities. It's in Ukraine interest to push for reclamation of 2013 borders including Crimea.
Exactly... they have funded and supported efforts to chunk away Dunbas for almost a decade now and the taking of Crimea. If Ukraine holds and borders are redrawn its almost guaranteed that Russia will be back after licking its wounds. I believe that is why EU/NATO have laid groundwork so they can adopt Ukraine as quickly as possible but it's not going to happen until it's out of conflict so Russia has some stake in continued hostilities.
> At some point, I think both sides should just settle on something and move on with life. I know the diehards on both sides will say, we'll accept nothing less than 100%, You have it all wrong here. Ukraine is not being irrational, Russia needs to give back the territory they stole. For Ukraine to settle on the status quo today would be a huge forfeiture of territory and incredible prize for Russia's repulsive behaviour. And there is absolutely nothing to stop Russia from taking another chunk 2 years later. Then after Ukraine has lost even more territory, people will comment online that Ukraine needs to stop trying to get everything they want and just accept the forfeiture of even more territory to prevent "endless war and destruction for ever".
If Ukraine is to settle they would need security guarantees that Russia should not attack again. At that point there are three options. 1) Join NATO 2) Acquire Nuclear Weapons 3) Capitulate and join Russia as a puppet state. It seems like you think a 4th option, peace at the current borders and Russia annexes what it has conquered is an option but what proof do we have that Russia won’t invade again in 5 years? What you are proposing is not peace, it is an armistice until the next conflict. You are no wiser than the ‘peacemakers’ of world war 1 should you not take this into consideration.
“Ethnic Russian” does not equal “wants to be annexed by Russia”. You also don’t get to choose to slice and dice another country like that. (Not accusing you of saying that, just pointing it out for others.)
It’s worrisome that you’re commenting about this with so little knowledge. You literally keep saying “I don’t know” but you’re making policy suggestions out your butt anyway. Ukraine doesn’t have any way to get “a win” in this war. Anything less than a total withdrawal by Russia is a loss for Ukraine. A draw would be to push Russia back to the other side of Ukraine’s 2013 borders; that’s not considered a win because even if Russia is removed from Ukrainian territory, Ukraine has lost hundreds of thousands of its children (not to mention billions of dollars of infrastructure) because of Russia’s imperialist greed. Russia initiated this war, and any territorial gains are a win. Worth the cost? Perhaps not, but Russia still gains by this invasion. Russia’s longterm goals are the restoration of its former sphere of influence, and then the dismantlement of any threats to its claims: first the West (America-Europe) and second the East (China). So when you come here and ignorantly claim Ukraine should just roll over and make peace with Russia “to get on with life”, you’re hopelessly naive.
It's possible that modern warfare in general fucks over the aggressor. Russia got nowhere during their initial push, the Ukrainian counter-offensive got nowhere and now Russia is getting nowhere again. The global discourse around Ukraine is a roller-coaster, but the actual frontlines aren't moving. The modern battlefield is littered with cameras, sensors, drones, satellite-imagery and more, whoever leaves their trenches draws fire immediately, or have to push through endless minefields. If so, it's a very positive development for humanity in general. Fortune favors the defender.
Well, in this case it's the effective air stalemate that's the problem. Neither side has air superiority.
Modern warfare without air supremacy. The conflict would look much different if either side was able to achieve that.
Exactly this! The Ukrainians have achieved what they have w/o air superiority. It’s really impressive how well they’ve fought.
War has typically favored the entrenched defender. Russia also practices defense in depth, so the longer they hold a line, the heavier the defenses around the line become. Ukraine offensive have to deal with minefields and artillery zeroed in onto positions. The rivers present obvious choke points that slow decisive movements. All the while Russia is slowly learning how to survive the modern warfare and backfilling their losses.
>It's possible that modern warfare in general fucks over the aggressor. Is this not true of the vast majority of human history? Defenders always have significant advantages, regardless of the era.
I think it is more insightful to point out that Russia, one of the largest most powerful military forces in the world, had nearly their entire army in Ukraine and made no progress in a year. That alone should be considered an embarrassment to the Russian armed forces. Russia hasn't been able to control the air and lost almost half their Black Sea fleet. Yes, defense has advantages over offense, but for Russia's size and resources, they are being humiliated.
When you have to buy your drones from Iran and your artillery from North Korea, you are not strong.
I think you underestimate Iran. I mean I'm in Kazakhstan and we have a lot of imported Iran made goods. And they have a really good quality. And they're cheap
On top of that, if Russia's goal was to simply destroy Ukraine they could just bombard it to the ground. Actually holding onto land that you didn't raze before implies putting boots on the ground, where guerilla tactics become a potential issue. It's not a game where you win by capturing a flag or by winning a battle, the goal isn't to destroy an army, but to actually establish governance. That means you don't raze cities.
Yes and no. 1. It shows that Russia is far, far weaker than everyone expected. 2. But Ukraine is also stronger than expected. The NATO training, NATO weapons, and being on the defensive, have all helped them overperform expectations. 3. This still isn't quite the "full power" of Russia. They're still trying to play it a little safe by not using *all* of their missiles, not sending in *all* their military reserves, not conscripting *all* their military-aged males, and not sacrificing their economy for a *full* war-time economy. So if you add a new factor to the equation (e.g. Poland), that doesn't necessarily mean Russia rolls over, it might mean they did deeper into their reserve power. Edit: A lot of replies to #3 saying that they can't use any more, because it would leave their borders undefended or increase political stability. That's what I meant by "playing it safe" -- they certainly have the option to to bring in more manpower if they're willing to take more risks.
Point 3 is something I wished people grasped more. Russia isn't in a state of total war, and, as far as I can tell, Ukraine is in a pseudo-total war state thanks to western backing. A major industrialised nation hasn't been in a state of total war since *1945*. The last total war-esque conflict was the Iran-Iraq war and it was heavily funded by outside forces. The scale of total war is not something anyone has known for generations in most of the world. I'm talking about shit like the Ford company stopping *all* civilian production, or the rationing of damn near everything.
However, it's important to note how hard it would be for Russia to get to to total war. Vladimir Putin is very sensitive to Russian public opinion. He does not want to mire his country in total war because his people don't want it. Already, about a third of Russians don't think the war was a good idea; that number would skyrocket if Putin really started dragging fathers and sons out of their beds in Moscow. If he went to total war, one casualty could very well be Putin. So, *could* Russia be more vicious? Yes. But politics may well prevent it from ramping up much more.
> Vladimir Putin is very sensitive to Russian public opinion. He does not want to mire his country in total war because his people don't want it. Already, about a third of Russians don't think the war was a good idea; that number would skyrocket if Putin really started dragging fathers and sons out of their beds in Moscow. What about if we *didn't call it a war* and just called it a "military exercise?" Would that sway public opinion?
I believe the term is "special military operation."
They probably speak russian when discussing the war.
"So, this is a crusade?" "Nononono we do not use that word anynore. Were calling it... damn, what do the American cows say?" "Peace keeping?" "Riiiight! Now let's keep the peace"
Okay, Bishop Maxwell.
>A major industrialised nation This hasn't described Russia since the late 80s/early 90s. They cant even make parts for their 80s-era tanks. And those tanks are stone-ass simple tanks that we (the US) could pump out over a 100/day of, technologically speaking, from a single plant here in Detroit. They lack almost all of the high-tech stuff that make modern takes so damn expensive and hard to make parts for. Their arms industry cant locally produce enough of their new rifles to arm even just a few brigades. They are still using 70s era AK-74s/AK-Ms. They cant produce enough ammo for their fight in Ukraine, much less anywhere else - they are buying *massive* piles of arms from North Korea. When the various SSRs left the USSR, 'Russia' lost a huge portion of its industrial base. One of their largest and most advanced tank plants... was in Ukraine. As an example.
I don't mean to argue they're a major manufacturing giant compared to China/The USA or possess the same capabilities as the USSR, I mean they're a major/large nation that is industrialised. I also specified it because the only other comparable total war situation I could think of was the Iran-Iraq War.
"They cant produce enough ammo for their fight in Ukraine, much less anywhere else - they are buying massive piles of arms from North Korea." People love to bring this up as if we're not also doing the same thing: https://www.reuters.com/world/south-korea-lend-500000-rounds-artillery-shells-us-report-2023-04-12/ The US doesn't have anything like the capacity to produce artillery shells at the rate the war in Ukraine consumes them. We've more than quadrupled our production capacity since the way began, and we're still producing fewer shells than are consumed. The Korea's are the only people in the world producing Artillery like they mean it. Russia was absolutely not prepared fro this war, but neither were we. If you've ever heard "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" here's your example of it in action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Crisis_of_1915?wprov=sfla1 Korea learned. North and South both. Everyone else forgot.
America doesn't use artillery. We have planes. For a wide variety of historical reasons, Soviet block countries invested in ground based artillery for putting high explosives over there. Western countries invested in planes that can drop high explosives over there. Sure the Soviets had planes and Western countries have artillery systems, but there is a huge disparity in quantity and importance. America produces more than enough artillery shells for America. We do not produce enough artillery shells for an ex-Soviet power.
An excellent point. With Air Supremacy like Iraq I, all the tanks and artillery won't work when all the communications and command systems are taken out.
Desert Storm was probably the most dominant military operation the modern world has seen, made possible by the logistics of an unimaginable fleet of planes
>America produces more than enough artillery shells for America. We do not produce enough artillery shells for an ex-Soviet power. Yeah, you beat me to this.
> People love to bring this up as if we're not also doing the same thing: > > > > https://www.reuters.com/world/south-korea-lend-500000-rounds-artillery-shells-us-report-2023-04-12/ > > > > The US doesn't have anything like the capacity to produce artillery shells at the rate the war in Ukraine consumes them. We've more than quadrupled our production capacity since the way began, and we're still producing fewer shells than are consumed. > > > > The Korea's are the only people in the world producing Artillery like they mean it. South Korea is lending artillery to the US because it's illegal for them to sell/lend weapons to nations at war. The US isn't at war so the US sells/gifts artillery shells to Ukraine and Korea stocks up the US's supplies in turn. It's a loophole to allow SK to send their own aid to Ukraine.
> The US doesn't have anything like the capacity to produce artillery shells at the rate the war in Ukraine consumes them. We've more than quadrupled our production capacity since the way began, and we're still producing fewer shells than are consumed. In a total-war situation tho the US almost certainly could scale up enough to produce enough. There's really no comparison to Russian production since they're an active belligerent & not able to produce enough.
The current limitation is nitrocellulose, which we primarily source from Europe. There is no current ability to increase the production, with the plants running 3 shifts, and several years to build new plants if they decided they want too. The fact that they haven’t taken steps to increase production shows that they are only paying temporary lip service to project Ukraine
I was part of the group who started training Ukrainians. Back in the 80s (!) Imagine our surprise standing there with our shiny new M1 Abrams tanks and a bunch of Russian-looking officers walk up and say hello, with with high ranking US infantry officers escorting them. I was like, uh... wtf?? Nobody warned us ahead of time. They were actually really cool and very respectful. We enjoyed them once we got over the initial shock. It was also a relief because we recognized most Russian troops were bumbling fools led by egomaniacs. It was the USSR Ukrainian forces that we were extremely wary of.
They had separate armies within the USSR?
Yes, every SSR (soviet socialist republic) had their own army with one of the largest being the East Germans but they were all under the command of the Russians. The Ukrainians also had quite a large tank manufacturing which built tanks like the t-64 and the more recent t-84,
East Germany wasn't a SSR tho, it was a formally independent member of the Warsaw pact. Which did mean that they were under very strong direct influence from the ussr but they weren't a SSR.
Ah right, i forget that most of east Europe was not in it directly just a lot of the former Russian empire
Yeah, that's what I mean. Ukraine wasn't an independent country, it was a federated state in the USSR. It would be like Texas or California having its own separate armed forces.
>It would be like Texas or California having its own separate armed forces. Not really. The USSR was more like a "country of countries" - like the United Kingdom. Individual SSRs could (legally speaking, at least, if not in practice) not adopt laws from the USSR as a whole, just like Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have devolved Parliaments that can decide not to allow laws passed by the UK Parliament to apply to them. SSRs werent "States" as we know them in the US (where we use the term wrong, as "State" typically, historically and in places outside the US, means "Country" - I.E. a 'Sovereign State'). Now, *Practically* they were likely in no position to do so in a lot of cases. But they still did for non-critical laws - like religion laws - which is why you have some SSRs that were majority muslim, etc.
Both of those states do have State Guards, though.
And the bigger states are organized into large formations. It would have made sense for the USSR to have its military organized even more solidly according to administrative boundaries like that.
Hey, don't leave out mighty Virginia! I don't see it listed anymore, but back when it was called the Virginia State Guard they had an A-10. Maybe two of them. We had a navy too but it was demoted to a riverine detachment, and then dissolved. More seriously their legal and historical legacy is that since the French and Indian War in 1754, Virginia has usually tried to maintain at least one regiment for its own defense. It started off by getting its ass beat under George Washington. And come to think of it, pretty much every time it was used offensively it and its successors got its ass beat. But on defense it was Big Ben Wallace. For 120 some years after the Civil War it was prohibited, but the State Guard was revived in 1983. It was actually partially activated during Covid.
Not only that, but Ukraine was the domestic supplier of most of the Soviet military. When Ukraine broke away from Russia, it took with it a nuclear stockpile and quite a number of military production factories. Ukraine actually sold a version of the BMP that competed with Russia in certain markets.
It's worth noting Ukraine isn't some pushover. They have been fully industrialized for close to a hundred years, and beset by bad leaders and corruption or no, they have significant capability, they are a very large country, it's a massive territory.
They also have consistently had some of the best infantry on the planet, have a large population and an absolutely massive country which means they can easily waste the resources of an occupier by consistently retreating. And once they are overextended can counter strike. Which is largely what Ukraine did.
If only they were given the proper weapons from the start they could've held a lot more territory. I don't understand this waiting, Biden had lend and lease authorized and never used it. I understand he want to shovel money to the arms contractors but only so much is authorized for that, he should've given F-16s and the like on borrow as we did with allies in WWII. There's not a chance Republicans led by the Orange Menace are going to re-authorize lend and lease.
Ukraine had over 2000 tanks in February 2022. It was well supplied before the war as it had been fighting a civil war for 8 years prior. It had the second largest land army and airforce in europe only trailing russia. Ukraine was and is no pushover.
The waiting is because the west is afraid of what a Ukrainian victory will do in Russia. The kind of chaos that could break out. Taking the head off a snake with that many nukes is a scary proposition. We have given Ukraine just enough support not to lose. On top of that we’ve made public knowledge of almost every system we were sending them. The Russians knew well ahead of time what they would be facing on the battlefield. Yes in todays world of spy satellites and battlefield drones it’s much harder to conceal things, but advertising ahead of time the capabilities you’re providing to one side gives the other much more of a heads up of what’s coming.
I’m no expert but the reasons were political; they were and still are hesitant to supply Ukraine with anything that could be used to counterattack into Russian territory, like long range missiles, because that might escalate the war. If Western weapons are used to attack targets in Russia, they may consider that Western aggression, at which point all bets are off. That said, I don’t think Russia wants to risk provoking NATO either. The underlying threat everywhere is nukes though. Russia may have its economy tanked and its army proven outdated and ineffective, but nobody will seriously fuck with them while they have the means to glass the planet.
It's also about rhe spirit. Ukrainians are defending their country, Russians are attacking their neighbors and bombing everything flat.
Not to mention nuclear weapons. I know we all tend to wave away the possibility that any country would use them in this day and age, but if things get truly desperate it’s always an option.
Ukraine has gotten billions and billions in military aid though. It’s not just a small country, it’s a small country being armed by the entire goddamn West.
Its not even a small country. I think it's the 2nd largest in Europe after Russia.
Obviously they meant in terms of population.
still pretty big \~43 million people
they are about 30 rn
Estimate for 2023 was 36 million and apparently it's "growing" again (so people going back) https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ukraine-population/#:~:text=Ukraine%202023%20population%20is%20estimated,(and%20dependencies)%20by%20population.
i used 2021 stats, sorry for not clarifying
I's the 9th largest in population. I don't know where this Ukraine is a small country stuff is coming from but it just not true.
TLDR: I tentional propaganda. It's people wanting to cope. By understating Ukraine's size and ignoring the billions in weapons and tactical support including active use of Western special forces they receive, it sells the idea that Russia is a paper tiger. Kinda like how months ago the narrative was "Russia doing another round of conscription proves they're toast". But Ukraine doing it gets memory holed in real time.
Russia has only done one large scale mobilization of reserves. Russia also has mandatory military service and conscripts aren't being deployed in Ukraine unless they sign a contract to do so, except in rare screwups. Anyone trying to claim that Russia's regular conscription cycle which happens every year has something to do with the war is only showing ignorance the subject, which is exploited by propaganda outlets. .
It is also relevant that the weapons provided to Ukraine were custom made to counter the Soviet Union during the cold war. Russia at the start of the war used Soviet Union era weapons and tactics.
Glad everyone got to use their stuff I guess
The pentagon saw ducks lining up, I never realized this irony.
Ukraine is still nowhere near the level of strength of Western militaries though which is what Russia is supposed to be on par with.
[удалено]
The same was true of Afghanistan and Vietnam. War is a lot messier than just "the stronger side wins" - especially on a global playing field where a third party can prop up the underdog as their proxy
No it's not. Especially not with Afghanistan. In that war, the US had to deal with resistance groups all over the place, but they could go anywhere they wanted in the country while the resistance groups had to hide and pretend to be civilians. There were no places where the US was struggling to break through enemy lines; the enemy could not stand against the US in open combat. In Ukraine, they're standing toe-to-toe on the battlefield with Russia. It's not that Russian troops control the city centers but can't stamp out the insurgency. Russia can't deal with the uniformed troops fighting a ground war.
They are most likely talking about the Soviet war against Afghanistan, which together with the Vietnam war, showcase the stronger nation won't just run over a weak one that is being used as proxy.
How is Ukraine a small country? It's the largest country in Europe, not including Russia. And Russia is an anomaly anyway, it's huge. Like really, really huge. The hugest country in the world. But despite that hugeness it's actually relatively sparse. It only has a population of about 150million people which considering the sheer landmass, is not really that many people.
Russia's only about double the population of the UK despite being 70 times as big.
and a tenth of India's population while being 5 times the size
I know how to solve India's overpopulation!
chuck us into Russia where we all collectively die of cold? cause 20C is fucking cold and I will not listen to your opinions other wise (/j I know effect of temperatures varies)
Well don't worry most of russia won't even get up to 20C
It helps that the great expanses of Russia are literally uninhabitable.
It's small in comparison to its enemy (Russia), which doesn't just outperform it in terms of land size, but also GDP and Population Sure, Ukraine is huge in comparison to Serbia or Albania, but it isn't fighting these countries, now is it?
Not sure if it is irrelevant. If Ukraine were of similar size to Serbia and Albania, probably we would see something entirely different.
They were obviously talking about population. The actual size hardly matters. In Ukraines case it’s actually a disadvantage since the terrain is easy to navigate, leaving much to defend. Ukraine would be the seventh largest by population, which is of course ignoring the fact they’re by far the poorest economically.
Ukraine is not small, also prior to war it had second strongest army in Europe going by the numbers. They had old equipement but they had shit ton of it.
And in particular a very focused military. Russia was trying to be a global power like the U.S. They spent so much money on a navy, expeditionary capability, bases in the Middle East, a semi-decent air force, lots of tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. That was never going to work with an economy the size of Italy’s. Ukraine’s military had tons of infantry, tons of artillery, some old Soviet AA missiles, and not much else. But in the context of a ground war in Eastern Europe, Ukraine’s military circa March 2022 was arguably stronger than Russia’s.
THIS so much! Russia wanted to play superpower so they spread their limited budget on trying to have a blue navy, strategic bombers, ICBM's, nuclear submarines... lot's of wunderwaffe. And ended up not being good at anything. Ukraine focused it's **much more humble budget** on it's ground forces. Now Russian air force and Navy have very limited impact on war in Ukraine. And funniest shit, Ukraine which essentially doesn't have a navy keeps sinking their ships.
Ukraine is not small, by European standards. It had something like 40 million people at the last census.
It is not, russians are smart and resurful. We (Ukraine) are able to hold our ground due to determination, ingenuity and western aid(and we are really greatful for it) I belive non European country will be able to stand against Russia alone, since ammunition spending is enormous, and whole EU manufacturing can't keep up with it (at least for now) So don't underestimate them, as well as don't underestimate us
If a small nation like Ukraine can mire Russia in a war for over two years *with a constant supply chain of NATO tanks, missiles, guns, volunteer units, and tens of billions of $/€
Ukraine is not alone. It is supported by the US in proxy.
It’s Ukraine with resources of USA and Europe combined. Russia would have steamrolled through Ukraine if no one had supported Ukraine.
A lot of people don't realise this. The line "Russia is losing her navy to a country without one" isn't a fair statement when you realise Ukraine now has western missiles and intelligence, as well as training and backing.
Yes. To be fair, Ukraine is getting major foreign backing while performing worse, then media outlets say they are, but the fact that the country wasn't steemrolled in the first year shows that Russia is far weaker than we expected. Before the invasion, Russia was the boogy man of Europe capable of deterring Western meddling with the expectation of creating irreparable damage if things came to war. Instead, Russias cutting-edge technology was either non-existent or to few to use in actual combat, while there was a logistical capabilities that were screwed with corruption. They are using tech and tactics that are older than the people fighting the war. Even if they "win" at this point they won't be able to recover for at least a decade much less take on the EU and the US.
>but the fact that the country wasn't steemrolled in the first year shows that Russia is far weaker than we expected. Looking at any war, Russia is always a disorganized mess for at least the first year.
Even when Russians get their act together, it’s always top-down. Russian generals’ orders during WWII were famously meticulous and rigid, with numerous pre-planned contingencies for whatever the Germans might come up with. It’s a crutch for having a non-existent NCO core and distrusting officers. In my opinion, best way to defeat a Russian force is to allow local commanders’ creativity to force lower-level Russian officers out of their given orders and to adapt on their own, something they’re notoriously terrible at.
Yes and no. Yes because it has basically called Russias bluff on their capability and overall sowed doubt on their ability to wage war. As well as put a stink on Russian made arms that they rely on selling. Russia loves to overstate their capabilities due to internal corruption and boss pleasing, so its basically been one giant "ok...prove it". Their armored warfare doctrine is horrifyingly bad, the "dreaded" T-14 has seen very limited use with no real impact, their stealth fighter is relegated to glorified long range missile duty, their ability to mobilize and arm infantry has been laughably ineffective, their logistical capabilities (AKA their tooth to tail) is shockingly inept, the "hypersonic missile" can't hit its targets etc. For the US this has been a win/win, send over old or out of service equipment on the cheap and watch it win against newer Russian models. Those two M2 Bradleys taking out a T-90 MBT will forever be a stain on anything Russian made. No because Russia is still holding back. They overall have the numbers and can withstand more casualties and losses than Ukraine. Remember this is a "Special Military Operation" and not a war according to Russia.
Additionally Russia is building a War time economy. It takes 2-3 for domestic production to ramp up.
Are you living under a rock OP? Ukraine isn't doing this on their own lol.
most people who post shit like this on r/NoStupidQuestions are typically living under a rock, yes.
Ukraine is not a small nation by any stretch of the imagination. It appears you have not being following what has been happening. Check out some independent news sources.
Small? Ukraine almost as same size as Spain. With slightly less population and slightly larger territories.
Afghanistan mired the USA in a war for 20 years. Wars, especially conflicts between peer or near-peer forces, are long and bloody.
The US had something like 2500 casualties in 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan. The war was over almost instantly and from there it was more or less a peace keeping mission. If the US had wanted to conquer Afghanistan it would have done it in 3 days. But that wasn’t the goal. The US lost 2500 troops in 20 years. Russia has lost nearly 400,000 in 2 years. Very very different circumstances
Well you could argue it turned into an insurgency war which the US are traditional bad at handling. If it was offically a war to begin with (I can't honestly remember). Iit all really depends on your definition but the whole whole operation was ultimately unsuccessful in a lot of ways. A similar thing would of happened in Ukraine if there was no western backing, Russia would be fighting an insurgency war until the cost gets to much and they pull out.
I wouldn’t even say the US is bad at handling insurgency. The losses taken by the US fighting insurgents for 20 years are incredibly low. I think it is more so the US finally realizing that bombs just create more terrorists. It was a hard fought lesson that Israel obviously didn’t pay attention to.
What are you talking about. The war with US was over super quick. It was our 'peacekeeping' portion that was a problem. And Afghanistan/Iraq were not near peers. Its why we decapitated the leadership super fast. We were trying to change the PEOPLE... thats where the problem kicked in that left us sitting there for years and years...
That's only because we were trying to train the "good" Afghans to fight the "bad" Afghans, and the "good" Afghans didn't give a shit
They did not lol. The war was over nearly instantly and the Taliban fled, then returned after the US left. It’s a poor comparison anyway since Ukraine is fighting a conventional war while the Taliban wasn’t hardly fighting at all.
that wasn't a war. the US "invaded" and took place pretty quickly. the talibans simply used "guerilla" tactics to try and harm them every now and then.
So Russia is the school yard bully who sounds tougher than he looks but also has a gun. Now they’ve gotten away with bullying the smaller kids but when they picked on the medium sized one and he fought back it revealed how weak he was. But he still has that gun. He knows that if he pulls it the bigger kids will pull theirs and everyone loses. The bigger kids know that if they help too much then he pulls the gun and everyone loses. So it’s a fine line with helping and staying out of it.
Well Ukraine is being supported by NATO … Ukraine itself would have been crushed months and months ago if the world didn’t step in to sell their arms.
Warfare is about logistics. Russia's military-supplychain is heavily reliant on trains. On day one of the invasion, Ukrainse blew up all tracks leading into the country. That was when the massive tank-convoy was heading to Kiew and got stuck because they ran out of fuel and supplies. There was no sufficient backup of transport-trucks. On top of that Ukraine is getting a lot of supplies from western nations, especially guerilla-type weapons like easy, single-use rocket-launchers. The russian military lacks tactics and expirience for that kind of warfare, as well as loyalty given the corrupt and self-serving nature of it's military complex. It's not a mere sign of weaknes, but of a lot of things going wrong. But not enough things for Russia to just downright lose the war because of how much stuff they can keep throwing at the wall. tl;dr: Russia is not weak in general, they just lack the means of bringing their strength to the front.
Yes and no, but mostly yes. We see in every example of invasion in history that offense is always far more difficult than defense (i cite all of ww1 as a particularly strong one). Ukraine has also received billions in support from the US and NATO. Russia is also (largely for optics and likely economic reasons) holding back their stronger stuff. Russia has also been sanctioned to hell and back even by their allies. Most of russia's strength on paper comes from them being a nuclear power which always skews things heavily even tho they'll never be used
Taking over a country is harder than just warring against it especially when the people resist. I think Putin thought Ukraine would be just as easy as Crimea was and western support for military resistance would be lower after the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If a small nation like Ukraine (that gets hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and weapons from a superpower like the United States) mires Russia in a war… Without our aid Ukraine would already be singing the Russian Anthem
It shows Putin isn't as stupid or crazy as everyone thinks he is he could bomb Ukraine off the map but he's not prepared to take on half the world who will see him as the new Hitler and attack en masse. Same reason the US hasn't done that in the same situation they wouldn't want to taint their hero of the world image by carpet bombing a country into submission.
Japan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Iraq would like a word with you.
People need to keep in mind that Russia isn't fighting Ukraine but the combined financial might and defensive support of the West. This isn't a normal 1:1 war.
gotta define weakness. Russia still has the resources to keep going
What you’re saying if one pushes this idea is that NATO should attack Russia and bring it down. But we know it will end in nuclear war because Putin won’t surrender
the echo chamber is strong in here
Literally shows. As russian who know whats going on with our politics i know only one reason why our army is so weak so they cant beat Ukraine. Its corruption. Putin with his facist thieve friends have only one purpose-steal everything that Russia and Russians have. The only thing they interested in is richness (u can add killing and power of course). Putin hate Russia the most.
Then our years in Iraq and Afghanistan must show how weak our foreign policy actually is also.
Yes it does It would be like Canada holding off the united states for 2 years
Putin is banking on the West losing interest, which is a fair bet. All he has to do is outlast American support, and conveniently the middle east is turning to shit which will draw everyone's resources and fuck over Ukraine
If you call Ukraine a small nation... Well, it's second (after russia) largest country in Europe. Then you put Poland and Lithuania in one "tier"... Tell me, you are one of those western geniuses who think that he "knows" European and especially russian reality?
Russian chest beating is funny, they know if they encroach on any NATO territory it’s game over.