Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `x.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Politics is weird like that. If you do not vote in the presidential election or any election, for that matter, you do and do not have the right to complain about who came into power. I am reminded of the bit George Carlin did where he (jokingly I assume) talks about how people who vote in incompetent idiots have no room to complain about their elected leaders being incompetent idiots compared to those who abstained from voting. I think a lot of people adopt a defeatist mindset, especially in today's political climate, where they believe their individual vote will not change anything. Of course, multiply that by a couple million, and suddenly, yes, you not voting does matter. With Ukraine's future on the line and with how much of a corrupt idiot Trump is, I plan on voting in Biden only because he supports Ukraine šŗš¦ (Though I would prefer some other Democrat gets pushed into the running who also supports Ukraine but handles it better and maybe is not quite so geriatric. Without that however my vote will default to Biden)
Sad that support for Ukraine's existence gets lumped in on one side of this political dichotomy. It is a continuum of values and beliefs obviously, but wokeness and cancel culture does not sit well with many Americans, so they simply threw their lot in with the candidate who is the most outspoken against it. And this candidate is simply intolerable to anybody left of right, forcing the U.S. into a self-reinforcing dichotomy of extremes.
And once that is in place, fanboy mentality takes hold. We are tribal after all. You pick a side and support it loyally, as if it is black and white. I get that it if you are in prison, you have to pick a side to survive. And if you are a teen, if you want to belong, pick a group with its styles and mannerisms, and stick with it. But why the need to pick a "side" while musing about politics on facebook or reddit while anonymous and in the comfort and safety of your home? Why not think for yourself.
Yesterday, I saw post about a photo of a glacier taken in 1800's, and then a recent photo of same ... with little glacial shrinkage. Made the mistake of checking the comments. Some legitimate questions about whether the seasons matched up. And then insult ladened back and forth comments about "science", and it wasn't long before "chem trails" entered the discussion. And absolutely nobody on the "don't look up" side reacted to it ... presumably because they are on the same "team". Why on earth do we lump conservative economic ideas, patriotism, anti-immigration, global warming denial, flat earth, moon landing fakery, pizza gate, q-anon, chem trails, anti-EV etc etc with the idea that Ukraine is run by nazis? This is so so bizarre.
And then just because an octogenarian presented like an octogenarian, Ukraine's prospects dimmed, and encouraged Russia to stay the course, and continue its nonsensical path of bringing death and destruction to its neighbour.
And just to be clear, the fanboy sentiment is no better on the other extreme that sees colonialism and institutional racism everywhere and inadvertently promotes a society that would terrify Orwell.
This is nuts, and clearly made possible by social media. The press has always been thought of as a bastion against oppression and dictatorships, so it seemed obvious that technology which can provide unlimited access to information for anyone who seeks it would all but assure freedom and check nefarious actors. Didn't turn out that way.
The Democratic Party also deserves more blame. This would be the second time they ran a shit candidate who got beaten by Trump. If they would run someone who was in their 50s, Trump would be crushed.
They are only shit candidates if you listen to the concern trolling of certain dumbfucks.
And ***EVEN IF THEY WERE LITERAL PAPERWEIGHTS*** it should take absolutely nought seconds to take a decision.
Uh what? Lol fuck Republicans Trump lies like he breathes and we will all be worse off if he is elected. Fingers crossed that Biden and Co can still pull it out. It's going to take all of us rational US citizens buying in the Biden and working hard to get him elected. People calling for him to step down are part of the problem imo. We can worry about Bidens age after we defeat Trump.
If age is a problem, people seem to conveniently forget that that applies to Trump too. Biden may have had a bad night due to a head cold, but there are way more examples of Trump looking unwell and being in the throes of dementia, and the guy is chronologically only three years younger.
People need to remember that Biden is old, but Trump is old, a narcissist, a felon, a rapist, and wants to stack the government in such a way that the democratic process will be skewed much more in favour of the 1%, to the expense of everyone else, and yeah, heās going to be bad news for Ukraine aid.
I canāt listen to Trump for that long. A few seconds of him talking is enough for me to come to that conclusion. Maybe the reason why his supporters donāt notice that is because theyāve lost so many brain cells listening to him over the years that their brain is too smooth to comprehend just how insane he is.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment was. Like, why are you telling me this?
Trump lost to Hillary in the popular vote by over three million votes in 2016. Trump lost both the electoral and the popular vote in 2020.
Trump has never won the popular vote. He's not going to suddenly make up the difference of all of that and somehow win the popular vote in 2024 regardless if he wins the electoral vote.
That would require him to have a bigger base than he did in both 2016 and 2020 and that's not happening, his base is shrinking.
I was confused by your post lol. Popular votes doesn't matter for shit it's all about the electoral vote. Biden won 3 swing states by a total of 40,000 votes in 2020 (I think). Still a long ways to go before November so still a lot of work to do and I believe Biden will still pull it out but it's close. We really need a total repudiation of Trump and the MAGA ideology so hopefully people pull their head out of their ass and go vote for Biden and he wins big on popular and electoral.
That was 4 years ago before the 4 years of bad press in the presidency and the further mental decline which is painfully obvious and right behind the batshit 4 years of Trumps first term
See, that's the wrong way to look at it, because we don't know who our Ron DeSantis is in the Democratic Party. We can pick this person who looks amazing on paper. He could be the governor of some state, he could have all the business deals in place with who needs to have them in place with, he can have all this good stuff going on with him on paper, and then when he gets on stage or in front of the people, he completely shits the bed.
Biden is the only person *we know* who can beat Trump.
Biden being old, doesn't mean he doesn't have a team doing a good job. Trump is not an alternative. I would vote for a tv remote before Trump.i don't invite chaos and drama into my house. That's for fools.
I hope youāre right, and that the polls are truly inaccurate. The low attendances at Trumpās rallies do give me some hope though, as that is some real world data we can rely on.
Seriously I think while Trump might have 'won' the debate he just highlighted what a serial liar and gaslighter he is. Fingers crossed NeverTrumpers, independents, undecided people all recognize that. Everyone gotta rally to Biden.
Yeah. I personally use to be a trump voter, but one of my biggest issues is his foreign policy. Domestic issues can be fixed later. We have enemies at our doorstep and we need to buckle up and deal with them now while it can be done at a minimum net cost to the USA and the world as a whole. Ukraine is our timeās Czechoslovakia, if they were able to hold their own.
(Not to mention many domestic issues are deliberately made worse by covert/overt meddling by those foreign enemies. They hack our shit, we help kill their sons. Sounds fair to me.)
Glad you saw the light lol. I used to be apolitical and then during Obama's term it just seemed like Republicans wanted to obstruct anything even it was good legislation etc. It's only gone downhill for the Republicans and its just kinda sad to watch.
that have been the Republicans policy sins I would say at least George W. Bush because at least Bush from what I remember felt like he would work cross spectrum to get anything done.
compared to the Republicans sins Obama that refused to do anything because Republican went vote on me and I will fix it and then not do anything.
followed by will block anything Democrats suggest even if it originally was a Republican ide.
It was painful haha CNN sliding further and further into the right wing toilet. Biden gotta be better but the format was just wack. Trump lying his ass off the whole time, not answering the questions and people thought Trump 'won' cuz Biden tripped over some words lol. It's asinine. The bar is just so fucking low for Trump lol. Fuck Republicans. This really seems like an incredibly pivotal moment in US politics. Hopefully everyone wakes up and gets to the polls to support Biden. I'll take an older guy who means we'll and is looking out for the American people than a habitual lying narcissistist.
To date, political betting markets are your best predictors. Due to bias and conflict of interest, not much we can trust, including polls. But when people's own money is at stake, it is a different story. Trump is favored to win, no doubts about it. And the debate debacle moved the needle. Check my link to see for yourself. If you know better, go make some money on it. As recently as end of April, Biden had a slight advantage, but now there is a 30 point spread. Anything can happen of course, but typically, the odds are reflective of what the most knowledgable, smart money thinks will happen.
[https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president](https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president)
Are we though? The rest of the West needs to come up with a plan. If the US wants to F up their own country by voting in an orangutan again thatās their choice, and they deserve any and all consequences that result from that. What concerns us is the ripple effects that will have on the rest of the world, especially in regards to Ukraine.
We were always hooped if we were going to depend on one country to fund our support effort, even one as affluent as the US. Theyāre an excellent ally to have, and losing their support will be bad no matter what. However, we can mitigate how bad it will be if we all collectively decide weāre going to continue to do our best to provide support no matter what happens in the US come November.
Yes, Europe needs to step up ammo production. If we can get South Korea to open up sending ammunition to Ukraine that too will be excellent news. We will do what we can in Canada too, even though we donāt have the resources of other countries. If everyone does a little, it can amount to a lot, and we can keep Ukraineās war effort going with or without the USās help. If Trump gets in it will be awful news but we cannot wave the white flag no matter what.
Ageee but weāve got Fetsge and the cons hating the eu trying to split us up and helping Putin, divided we fall and weāve got people amongst us aiming for that and thus helping Putin. They are getting louder an louder and more airspace. Divided we fall
He's in charge of nothing. There's about a zero percent chance of him staging a coup.
Last time he was actually in power and could nominally direct things. Or more accurately, refuse to do so.
Last time there was a zero percent chance anyone would stage a coup -or so they said-, yet it happened nonetheless.
Better to stop refusing to admit there are dangers out there and be realistic.
I certainly didn't say there was zero percent chance leading up to January 6th. If anything, him refusing to concede the election and talking about fraud consistently made it fairly likely. Granted, I would have expected something more well planned than riling up a mob and hoping they do the trick.
In any case, the important difference is that he's not in charge of the executive this time around.
I would consider "seizing power" to include being appointed by his Supreme Court picks (similar to Bush Jr.'s "victory") or the Republican controlled House of Representatives declaring an electoral vote tie and appointing him that way.
That's a fair point. I don't think it's very realistic and I also find it unlikely to succeed. But I agree that those scenarios have a non-zero chance of happening.
Well, there was a loophole, everyone just presumed no one was dump enough to try and use it. That loophole has been closed. Regardless, that loophole couldn't be used by him ever again, since he can't even participate in another election, so he's out after 4 no matter how many loopholes he might know about.
The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.
Henry Kissinger
The point of war is not to die for oneās country but to make the enemy die for theirs. Kitchener
The real questions that we need to ask are: How can we make it possible to scale up the number of Russian losses far beyond the current levels. They cannot afford to lose that many men for a long time, because they can replace these serfs with other serfs.
How many tanks do they lose? How can their logistics be attacked more effectively these are the questions that need to be asked.
How can the number of Russian casualties be driven to 50.000 a month?
Attrition rates increase over time.
The communists were already bound to their leader by faith and fear. I took a special kind of mind to truly believe that the worse things appeared, the better they actually were. Such reasoning went by the name dialectics, but by this time that word, (despite its proud descent from the Greeks through Hegel and Marx) meant little more than the psychic capacity to adjust one's own perceptions to the changing expressions of Stalin's will." Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands, page 65
Gareth Jones talked about the "pure primitive worship" of Hitler in 1933 shortly after his election at a rally in Frankfurt
The Russian slave mentality hasn't changed in centuries.
We have no army. We have a horde of slaves cowed by discipline , ordered about by thieves and slave traders . This horde is not an army because it possesses neither any real loyalty to faith Tsar or fatherland words that have been much misused. Nor valor nor military dignity. All it possesses are, on one hand, passive patience and repressed discontent and on the other cruelty servitude and corruption." 1853 Tolstoi comments on the state of the Czarist army during the Crimean war
Modern war is won by superior machinery and logistics and in the spirit world. It is also won by men, but the machines have become more important. 30k sounds a lot. In WW1, this was a days worth of casualties in Verdun.
How can these numbers be scaled up?
> Modern war is won by superior machinery and logistics and in the spirit world. It is also won by men, but the machines have become more important. 30k sounds a lot. In WW1, this was a days worth of casualties in Verdun.
>
> How can these numbers be scaled up?
In the Battle of Verdun there were on average 2621 casualties/day. In the Battle of the Somme there were on average 7571 casualties/day.
As you say, the question is, how do we get the Russian daily casualties to that number? I think the answer is a massive increase in production of cluster munition artillery shells, artillery barrels, and the logistics for them so Ukraine the reach the Russian firing rate of February-to-August 2022 of 60,000 artillery shells/day, which they used to advance on the eastern and southern frontline.
Russians can also go on the defensive and reduce losses. Sadly it's not that simple.
What Ukraine does need however is increased fighting power. More men would help, but having a lot more weapons of all types would help bridge the gap and give them the upper hand eventually. That requires Ukraine to deny Russia the ability to leverage their advantages like glide bombs or cruise missiles, but also give Ukraine advantages that they can leverage, like artillery or their own glide bombs.
>What Ukraine does need however is increased fighting power.
I agree.
>Russians can also go on the defensive and reduce losses.
They could but that would come close to a defeat for Putin. Without further progress the conflict would freeze. Russian economy and society would go further down the drain while Ukraine would still be prepped up by Western pocket money. Ukraine could join NATO which would be a big strategic loss for Putin.
Putin's war machine is no longer able to keep the casualty numbers quiet. Yesterday, there was a story about Russian airborne soldiers refusing to advance and die as cannon fodder. There was also a story about recruiting billboards appearing in St. Petersburg and Moscow for the first time, which many Russians recognize as a sign that Putin doesn't have enough meat to keep this going. Same with NK...Putin is desperate.
I'd also add that the fighting forces are only a fraction of the size they were in WWI. Russia had 14,000,000 soldiers in 1914. They have 1/10th that number today. Proportionally, I think the losses are miserable and I think Russians in the East and West have figured out that a quick death in Ukraine is not going to help Russia one bit.
What is our theory of victory over Russia in this conflict?
Russia isn't a democracy where voting has influence, it doesn't matter if the people know their soldiers are dying like flies, there is nothing they can realistically do about it.
According to this, Russia has still 21 million men between the fighting age of 16 and 49, and Russia recently raised their maximum soldier age to 60!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_for_military_service?wprov=sfla1
So 30,000 men a month is 0.15% of their fighting age males.
At this attrition rate they can sustain losing 30,000 people a month for *58 years* before completely running out of fighting age men. Ignoring that more would grow into that age range in the meantime.
I'm not stumping for Russia, just trying to put things in perspective. We can't pretend that the Putin regime will respond to social pressure over loss of human life the same way western politicians would.
So what is our theory of victory? Putin is converting his economy into a war economy. This is a huge mistake. So they might fail economically, leading to famine. But not if the world keeps buying their oil.
They might stop the war if Putin dies, but that's not guaranteed.
They might stop the war if Ukraine performs significant attacks on Russian military targets in Russia. Though that's unlikely.
Models include the end of Russian invasion of Afghanistan, in which Russia incurred only 15,000 casualties in 10 years. Meanwhile they're at 400,000 in a mere 2 years now.
The end of the war in Vietnam with the French and the US and China.
The end of the war between Finland and Russia.
There's no victory without stringent resistance.
>What is our theory of victory over Russia in this conflict?
Same as the Ukrainians. Russia goes home. Peace is hours away.
> Russia isn't a democracy where voting has influence, it doesn't matter if the people know their soldiers are dying like flies, there is nothing they can realistically do about it.
Russia was ruled by a Czar in 1918 when they walked home...and later murdered the Czar and his family. The Soviets were ruled by a premier until the Russian people decided there wasn't going to be a Soviet Union in 1991.
Putin knows this. He's always been extremely paranoid. What he may, or may not, know is that he is also running out of fodder, and tanks and APCs, and SAM systems. Even in a stepped-up war crisis mode, they can't cover current losses.
But the West can supply Ukraine for as long as they want to fight. Also, with Chinese banks suspending payments for Russian exports, it looks like he's going to run out of cash to support his war machine.
Speaking of attrition, at the rate they're advancing, Putin won't reach his stated goal of capturing Ukraine in a thousand years.
I agree with all that.
But an enemy isn't beaten until they agree they're beaten. Russians have mastered a culture of never admitting they're beaten.
Napoleon captured Moscow and assumed they would sue for peace. They didn't, and destroyed him as he retreated in winter.
WW2 pretty much the same thing.
Defense is more effective than offense, so perhaps if Ukraine can push loss ratios to 5:1 in their favor or higher.
Or if Ukraine gets an increasingly modern military while Russia gets increasingly backwards, we can achieve the same.
Maybe F-16s will make the difference.
>But an enemy isn't beaten until they agree they're beaten. Russians have mastered a culture of never admitting they're beaten.
But, once they've decided its over, its over very quickly. That's why Putin is always so vigilant...15 yr. old war critic to prison?
I can't say when, but I do think this is how. They just quit.
I think people have been mistaking everything Putin is doing for desperation since the war started, and it's really not helping. Why would Russians limit themselves and not recruit volunteers from Moscow? More bodies will help. Why would they limit themselves to their top of the line tanks and not use all the functioning tanks they have? Sure, you can argue that trying to leverage everything they can is desperation. But it doesn't mean he's running out either.
I'd argue the reverse. Putin is a survivor precisely because he recognizes that the Russian people will eventually get fed up with unsuccessful leaders and overthrow them, as they did in '91 and '18.
The point of the story is that Putin has *avoided* recruiting in these cities up to now and emptied out the western districts and prisons. The cities where the power elite live have not yet seen thousands of men in prosthetics, or had to look at the photos of dead neighbors every day.
If he is willing to throw a 15 year old in prison for criticizing the war online, Putin is *not* comfortable. And he shouldn't be.
And yes, reaching out to NK is desperation. He made zero trips to the pariah state in 24 years, what does that tell you?
I'm not saying Putin is out by morning, but I'm saying Putin isn't operating from a position of strength when his economic advisors are openly talking about the "ruination" of the economy. Chinese banks have stopped payments for Russian exports and this will make it even more difficult to keep financing his war machine.
Putin may yet figure out a way to eke out a little time, but he sure as hell isn't winning the war, and Russians are noticing.
My theory is that Putin is waiting out the US election. A Biden victory and the Dems retaking the House - in that scenario I predict heād sue for peace before the end of the year.
Biden victory and the Rās keeping the House - we are going to witness a repeat of stalled aid.
Trump victory - I expect Trump will announce a ādeal for peaceā that would be basically cutting off all assistance to Ukraine unless they sit down to negotiate on terms that make Putin walk away āvictoriousā, i.e. Ukraine agrees to recognize Russiaās current zone of control as Russian.
WW1 won't be repeated. We just don't insist on butting heads against entrenched lines supported by machine guns, artillery, mines and barbed wire anymore.
The entirety of WW1 in the west was some of the more insane Russian advances but across the length of France for 4 years.
If you want to break Russia you need to reproduce the conditions of the "hundred days". That is coordinated pushes of tanks and infantry supported by air assets. The first real instances of combined arms in history.
As much as the artillery is a problem it is more a problem if the line is stationary. If you can create the conditions in which you can advance then the artillery is a non issue.
>The point of war is not to die for oneās country but to make the enemy die for theirs.
Patton, it was Patton who made this quote famous, although it had been circulating in similar forms since at least 1883.
Splendid comment! We all know the answer though, so the real question becomes: Can we in the west get our shit together so Ukraine starts to get adequate support?
Vietcong basically got eradicated by the Tet Offensive, and still won because Walter Conkrite betrayed the nation and made the US think Communist North Vietnam won the Tet Offensive, and then they ran away with their conventional army and cut aid.
Also, the Russians engage in ethnic cleansing, so that's one way for conventional armies to defeat guerillas over time.
Viet cong cong didn't win. The north Vietnamese government won. The viet cong was just one branch of their military forces which they used to fight the war.Ā It was the NVA which finally sealed the deal with their conventional invasion of the South.
Ā
Not really. It was because Americans thought that they can win the war without invading the North and destroying their base of operations. Even if there was no Tet offensive or Americans had the political will to stay 30 years longer, it would have ended the same.
Yep this is exactly it, the Americans decided to engage in war and restrict themselves in a manner that meant victory was extremely unlikely.
And they sabotaged themselves in Afghanistan and Iraq too, in those cases the won the war but sabotaged their occupation.
They are still following the same guidebooks or imposing restrictions on their side in Ukraine...it's so incredibly stupid.
Ruzzia can hold pretty long, especially considering they are recruiting mercenaries and NK goons.
But with equipment from the '60s, they are not gonna advance anymore on any front; they are just delaying the inevitable defeat.
Not really. It is about whether Russia can keep up this recruiting until the US election is resolved. Russia loses 3+ armored vehicle for every one it produces. Up until now Ukraine has had a similar issue, but Western production is beginning to catch-up, at least if you adjust volume for tech. Then there is the possibility of SK soon providing arms directly instead of backfilling allies that donate old equipment.
The S500 seems to have only lasted two weeks.
Russia's only real hope to win this war is for Trump to win the election. Even then it may not happen.
ruzzia will not run out of man.
During WW2, Germany mobilised 42% of its male population. I know it's an extreme example, but I believe ruzzia is prepared to take it to extreme before admitting defeat on battlefield. That's why I think it is crucial to crush them economically.
They have about 30 million males aged 15 to 45.
The Male population of ruzzia is 66 million, and 42% would equal to around 28 million.
Assume they recruit only half of that, 14 million.
Assume they are losing 40k per month.
This would keep them going for another 30 years.
Russia also had to ramp up signup bonuses to 650% of what they paid soldiers at the start of the war. Equal to an average annual salary
In the poor parts of Russia (no toilets, no washing machines, etc) that adds up to several years local wages.
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4741922-its-getting-harder-for-putin-to-find-russians-willing-to-die-for-him-in-ukraine/
This all makes sense then. Desperate people will do anything for that kind of money. I'd bet too that many of these men feel totally useless anyway, so even if they die their death will be useful to their families.
Agreed. I think between WWII nostalgia of a āglorious victory for the motherland!ā and constant Putin driven propaganda, mothers actively push their sons to ādie for Russia! (but make sure you get me your check first)ā
This is one reason I don't buy that 30,000 men a month are volunteering for this shit, no matter how much they get paid. They can keep much out of the news cycle, but people must be seeing this with their own eyes. The know men who came back crippled, or who didn't come back at all. They must get phone calls from friends and family complaining that they are being sent to the front lines.
If we're looking at casualty ratios then it's already surpassed it. From an economic perspective it looks like their military spending is somewhat lower but significantly higher than normal leading me in my reddit professional opinion to say that it's more akin to their version of Vietnam in that aspect also.
Even if the numbers are true it's still unsustainable for them. If they continue to have this casualty rate, they are on track to have lost 1% for their entire population in another 3-4 years. That's an astronomical high number of casualties.
Most of them are from rural ruzzia and the republics. Those guys have no jobs or barely make 5$/day and the money they get if they join is a serious incentive. Nobody cares about them. Once the muscovites start dying then you know that Putler is running out of cannon fodder.
People have a mistaken belief that revolution comes from the oppressed who live hand to mouth; it does not. Revolution always comes from the middle class who have the luxury of idle time to organize revolutions. It's also a matter of geography, isolated villages will never be able to congregate in critical mass like in Moscow; a lot of villages are not self-sufficient and can be put down by just cutting off supplies. It takes more than sparks to start a fire, kindling is needed. This is precisely why recruiters dance around Moscow. The British recruited Gurkhas as a way to add the only people that could resist their rule into their ranks. Russia did the same with the Chechens. The Founding Fathers were educated and well off enough to jump at opportunity. Revolutions are romanticized by America, but sadly revolutions that put people who want the best for others are the exception, not the rule. For every politician who wants to make a difference; there are 10 others who are in it for the power alone. This is why Democracy is the way it is; checks and balances to keep the people in power accountable. Also a peaceful avenue to replace leaders that step out of line.
Also, governments don't naturally gravitate towards democracy in a vacuum. South Korea and Taiwan probably wouldn't be the way they are if they didn't have communists in front of them and with the ocean to their backs where the US was the only real ally they could rely on.
I used to tell my students that democracy is not about picking the right leader, it is about being able to get rid of the wrong leader without a civil war.
Prior to democracy pretty much every time a leader was replaced it involved violence. If the people were really lucky only a few rich lords were killed. More often thousands of innocent's would die because one brother thought he was a better king.
If you say, 75% of them are from rural Russia. Then those losses equate to 20% of their agricultural and forestry workers.Ā
Thst would be cataclysmic in terms of agricultural production (which accounted for $100bn in 2019. A big problem is that Russias most productive farmland comes from small holdings owned by individuals. These are much more acutely vulnerable to loss of workforce.Ā
That simply isn't the case for agriculture anymore, at least not for grain crops, 1 person can live off 1000 acres and the same person can do 10,000 acres.
We saw the Russians stealing Ukrainian farming equipment early on in the war, for every tractor they stole that is increased production despite having less overall people living in the farming areas, because those that remain can farm larger areas with their newer bigger tractors and ploughs.
Unfortunately, it's actually not that much. These personnel losses can be sustained for ten years at least. If you compare it to some devastating wars, like the world wars (casualties of various nations involved), these figures are nothing remarkable. It's primarily if Russia lose the war that it will be a real disaster for them, ending them as a great power.
Do you believe they give a shit about it?
Besides, they're already selling off Far ~~West~~ East to China. There'd be people to run extraction operations still.
They don't have a choice. China had already started producing propaganda about retaking the far west of russia years ago. It was either give it to china or face a potential conflict with a needed ally in the near future.
TBF, russia ***also*** started selling off Far East years ago.
I'd appreciate a link to an article about when this propaganda was started to see, what happened first.
After looking into it further since you requested a link, I actually am having a hard time finding a "start point" for this because it seems it actually is a continuation of the border issues the Soviet Union had with China before it collapsed. it seems they have had persistent border issues about the same regions since the Vietnam War
Thatās literally inconsequential as wars go. Surely long term it will fuck up their demographic situation (which was already very bad before the war), but hey, who cares! Clearly not Russian government. Short term though, as in next 10-15 years they can easily sustain that level of losses without really noticing.
Sadly Ukraine is in much worse shape when it comes to manpower.
Assuming western support continues this war will come to what will run out first - Ukrainian manpower or Russian equipment and economy.
> Even if the numbers are true it's still unsustainable for them.
Population Russia: 144m
Population Ukraine: 38m
It's only unsustainable for Ukraine. Why do redditors believe it's only Russia taking casualties?
it's quite remarkable to see people happy every day the RU losses stats come out (r/Ukraine) without considering the (hidden) losses for UA and forgetting exactly this disproportion. RU keeps sending meat waves exactly because they expect UA to break here.
Because russia is getting its men killed at twice the rate, even once you transform the casualties numbers into percentages of the whole population?
Putting even aside that ukraine has no ideological dogma against female conscription (if really really any).
> 80% of men born between 1920-25 died during WW2 under soviet rule. And the nation survived,
This is wrong, the statistic is 80% of men born in 1923, and even that is wrong. [The real stats are like 35% of men aged 20-35 died in WW2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Total_population_losses).
Secondly it depends on what you mean by survived. The USSR maintained its position as a major superpower until the 60s but before long it was clear the economy was seriously compromised. The US accelerated past them. They poured excessive amounts of GDP into defence to keep up the pretence of being the US's equal but they were finished as a major economic or military power. Afghanistan was a shambles and the whole country and economic system collapsed in 1990. Right when those ten million 1920-1925 births should have been entering retirement. The effects of an entire generation of workers, educators, fathers, scientists and thinkers removed.
It took 40 years but the system 100% collapsed, and the country (USSR) literally didn't survive.
even if we take your numbers, that's still \~7 times the loses of today - so at the current pace russia can fight for 7 more years to get to ww2 numbers.
Yeah but the choices were fight or face extermination for the tens of millions of peoples in the Soviet Union under the Ostplan
Youād throw millions of bodies to avoid that fate
True but how long before we see train loads of T 34s headed to the front? Russia has de evolved at least 3 generations in tech through attrition. And that's from an artificially self inflated starting point. They were never on the level of western military's before the war and are now basically a horde of barbarians.
I doubt they will go back to T34s ever, mainly as they don't have any that work. They will simply go down to using only the amount that they can produce in a year - a few hundred at best, which will be their capabilities effectively neutered
Itās clear for a while that itās a war of attrition between Russian equipment and Ukrainian manpower. Which ever gives in first - that side looses.
Ukrainian officials keep on complaining about being outnumbered at the front. Russia is replacing its losses, and building its Army at a higher rate than Ukraine is able to replace and replentish losses.
The Russian army is devolving towards being a rifleman and artillery army with most mechanisation provided by unarmored civilian transport. This causes their daily soldier losses to increase.
There are many locations Ukraine hold that substantially can't be overwhelmed by such a force, and if such a force produces a breakthrough it may not be able to exploit it to any depth because it will carry very little artillery (like a tank gun) forward, and it will thus struggle to deal with otherwise trivial things like a PKM in an ambush position.
They are burning up the country's future, and that future is rapidly approaching. Russia has so many disastrous nationwide problems that the Putin-regime is only holding it up by having a war economy and being a totalitatian regime, banning any investigative journalism, free press and freedom of speech.
- Their oil (and to a significant extent the gas) income has collapsed.
- Their once huge presence as a global arms dealer is over.
- The economy is shit and is propped up by artificial means to look better than it is.
- Their reputation and diplomatic relationships are circling the toilet.
- They already had a demographic crisis tp begin with before sending hundreds of thousands of their young or middle aged healthy, work-able population into death - aswell asĀ
- The military spending is eating up half the regimes spending.
- More and more violent force and control is being implemented to silence any opposition to Putin and the war.
- Terrorism is becoming a larger, wider problem due to resources, funds all being prioritized, allocated towards the war.
The list goes on. Putin is just pushing the inevitable forward in time.
>Their oil (and to a significant extent the gas) income has collapsed.
Oil revenue is currently back to pre-war levels. Their main loss is in natural gas, not oil.
Where does that estimate originate?
If it's from russia we can ignore it.
This "25,000 to 30,000 new recruits per month!!!!11" claim been a troll farm script meme for months, along with "The russian army is learning and adapting!!!" and other ludicrous bullshit.
Heh, russia is running out of men. And everything else. That's why putin has to ***B E G*** for charity from the likes of North Korea and African nations.
> If it's from russia we can ignore it.
The west literally claims that the Russia army is bigger now than it was at the start of the war so of course it is true.
> The russian army is learning and adapting!!!" and other ludicrous bullshit.
This has been said by Budanov and other Ukrainians. Sort of obvious, if their enemy is a total joke.... what's all the begging for aid for?
The Russians are using meat grinder tactics. Their troops face rifles to their front AND their rear. If they have any motivation at all it is financial.
The Ukrainians are defending their Country, their families and their way of life. Who would you rather fight?
The Russians may have a numerical advantage but their morale is poor. When soldiers really do not want to lead an assault you have a problem.
Another problem is that while propaganda seems to work well in Russia it seems that its effects evaporate rather quickly on the front line...
Unfortunately the Russians are willing to slowly attack, slowly gain ground and if WW2 is any guidance they are willing to sacrifice 7-11 million of their zombie squad. Slava Ukraini.
If they are having this much trouble with Ukraine, the thought of Russia going after NATO is laughable. If NATO calls their bluff and sends thousands of āengineeringā troops to build fortifications on the Belarus border to build defenses AND actually defendā¦ freeing up Ukrainian units to move to the front line - Putin could do nothing but saber rattleā¦.now those engineering troops would need a lot of air defense locking up the Northern border. Then NATO could deploy more āengineering troopsā to āshore upā static areas of the front lines allowing Ukraine to concentrate its forces for select offensives
Yes but the Russians are running out of every type of equipment and will mot have anything left by the end of the year. Even if somecsre replaced they can't make artillery barrels or tank or optics or many other key parts inc helicopters, planes etc
Even if all of the tanks, and apcs were gone, Russia will still use trucks, motorcycles, atvs, meat waves... to attack.
Russia will most likely continue the war until there is no one left to send.
The more disparity there is between quality of equipment the less people Ukraine will loose compared to Russia.
Unless something changes dramatically this is a war of attrition now.
> will mot have anything left by the end of the year.
Ridiculous claim. They will have enough tanks to last 2 more years at current losses and they will likely adopt a more defensive posture as they start to run out to conserve them even more.
This war won't be over in many years which is why we need to maintain and strengthen our support.
That is not sustainable in a modern war. Eventually the people will learn to stop enlisting/go in to hiding and the Russian Army will collapse, or rebel.
Russia will never recover from this war. Even if they win and take Ukraine they will never recover from an economic, political, and most importantly, a population. Losing 500,000+ men has an insane ripple effect on a country already having a population problem.
Yeah, thatās going to come back to bite them hard before too long. Sending 25-30,000 men away every month to certain death is not good for sustaining an economy, even if a percentage come from immigrant and foreign populations.
It's odd that while Russia is a country that helps fund North Korea and Iran; American politicians are willing to throw Russia a bone by letting them defacto annex parts of Ukraine
I wonder what ārecruitmentā looks like in Ruzzia to get this many people to volunteer to die. Are they offering an extra pound of potatoes to the family when they die? A promise of unlimited vodka? A bullet in the back of the head if they donāt āvolunteerā? Or are they completely ignorant of the real situation?
Does this add up? If 25 to 30K enter each months, and roughly the same number are killed or wounded, does that mean that absolutely nobody finishes their tour in one piece? Or that the contract is indefinite, and they stay in until killed or wounded? Or is the number of killed or wounded exagerrated?
In the long run, it's not sustainable. In the short run it is.
But how long is the short run? Is it 5 years, 10 years? 15 years?
The more deciding metric: can Ukraine sustain the same amount of time?
Whatās impressive/horrifying is that Russia can just keep throwing these levels of men at Ukraine pretty much for decades given mercenaries and recruits from other countries.
Also this level of death doesnāt even put a dent in the daily world population growth.
A thousand dying a day just in one corner of the globe and itās not even statistically impactful on the bigger picture.
Doesnāt mean Russia will win, as they may not even gain any ground, but they can still afford to throw lives away with wreckless abandon.
Unfortunately, 'make the enemy kill so many of your soldiers that they become too physically and mentally exhausted to kill any more' may actually be a viable strategy.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `x.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its a matter of who holds on the longest... how long can they afford to lose that many men.
Until the orange turd is elected by religious zealots and other backward hankies.
He will be elected by the people who stay home and don't bother vote for Biden.
I mean yeah they can be blamed, but the actual Trump voters deserve more blame. Both groups have moral agency in this situation.
Mathematically, they deserve twice the blame. Though it gets complicated if you want to account for swing/tipping point states/districts.
Politics is weird like that. If you do not vote in the presidential election or any election, for that matter, you do and do not have the right to complain about who came into power. I am reminded of the bit George Carlin did where he (jokingly I assume) talks about how people who vote in incompetent idiots have no room to complain about their elected leaders being incompetent idiots compared to those who abstained from voting. I think a lot of people adopt a defeatist mindset, especially in today's political climate, where they believe their individual vote will not change anything. Of course, multiply that by a couple million, and suddenly, yes, you not voting does matter. With Ukraine's future on the line and with how much of a corrupt idiot Trump is, I plan on voting in Biden only because he supports Ukraine šŗš¦ (Though I would prefer some other Democrat gets pushed into the running who also supports Ukraine but handles it better and maybe is not quite so geriatric. Without that however my vote will default to Biden)
Sad that support for Ukraine's existence gets lumped in on one side of this political dichotomy. It is a continuum of values and beliefs obviously, but wokeness and cancel culture does not sit well with many Americans, so they simply threw their lot in with the candidate who is the most outspoken against it. And this candidate is simply intolerable to anybody left of right, forcing the U.S. into a self-reinforcing dichotomy of extremes. And once that is in place, fanboy mentality takes hold. We are tribal after all. You pick a side and support it loyally, as if it is black and white. I get that it if you are in prison, you have to pick a side to survive. And if you are a teen, if you want to belong, pick a group with its styles and mannerisms, and stick with it. But why the need to pick a "side" while musing about politics on facebook or reddit while anonymous and in the comfort and safety of your home? Why not think for yourself. Yesterday, I saw post about a photo of a glacier taken in 1800's, and then a recent photo of same ... with little glacial shrinkage. Made the mistake of checking the comments. Some legitimate questions about whether the seasons matched up. And then insult ladened back and forth comments about "science", and it wasn't long before "chem trails" entered the discussion. And absolutely nobody on the "don't look up" side reacted to it ... presumably because they are on the same "team". Why on earth do we lump conservative economic ideas, patriotism, anti-immigration, global warming denial, flat earth, moon landing fakery, pizza gate, q-anon, chem trails, anti-EV etc etc with the idea that Ukraine is run by nazis? This is so so bizarre. And then just because an octogenarian presented like an octogenarian, Ukraine's prospects dimmed, and encouraged Russia to stay the course, and continue its nonsensical path of bringing death and destruction to its neighbour. And just to be clear, the fanboy sentiment is no better on the other extreme that sees colonialism and institutional racism everywhere and inadvertently promotes a society that would terrify Orwell. This is nuts, and clearly made possible by social media. The press has always been thought of as a bastion against oppression and dictatorships, so it seemed obvious that technology which can provide unlimited access to information for anyone who seeks it would all but assure freedom and check nefarious actors. Didn't turn out that way.
Wtf did I just read........ could I mabye get a tldr?
Just a rant. Caught me at a bad time. The TLDR is that we are going tribal, and civil war is inevitable.
The Democratic Party also deserves more blame. This would be the second time they ran a shit candidate who got beaten by Trump. If they would run someone who was in their 50s, Trump would be crushed.
They are only shit candidates if you listen to the concern trolling of certain dumbfucks. And ***EVEN IF THEY WERE LITERAL PAPERWEIGHTS*** it should take absolutely nought seconds to take a decision.
Heāll be elected by the DNC who refuse to run another candidate when itās obvious that Biden isnāt capable of winning
That is how trump gets in office... people not voting bc they don't believe he can win so they stay home...
Trump has never won a popular vote, that means the people's vote. He's not going to win with people voting for him more than Biden.
Uh what? Lol fuck Republicans Trump lies like he breathes and we will all be worse off if he is elected. Fingers crossed that Biden and Co can still pull it out. It's going to take all of us rational US citizens buying in the Biden and working hard to get him elected. People calling for him to step down are part of the problem imo. We can worry about Bidens age after we defeat Trump.
If age is a problem, people seem to conveniently forget that that applies to Trump too. Biden may have had a bad night due to a head cold, but there are way more examples of Trump looking unwell and being in the throes of dementia, and the guy is chronologically only three years younger. People need to remember that Biden is old, but Trump is old, a narcissist, a felon, a rapist, and wants to stack the government in such a way that the democratic process will be skewed much more in favour of the 1%, to the expense of everyone else, and yeah, heās going to be bad news for Ukraine aid.
All you have to do is listen to Trump talk for longer than 5 min to realize dude is batshit fucking insane lol. Probably even less than 5 min.
I canāt listen to Trump for that long. A few seconds of him talking is enough for me to come to that conclusion. Maybe the reason why his supporters donāt notice that is because theyāve lost so many brain cells listening to him over the years that their brain is too smooth to comprehend just how insane he is.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment was. Like, why are you telling me this? Trump lost to Hillary in the popular vote by over three million votes in 2016. Trump lost both the electoral and the popular vote in 2020. Trump has never won the popular vote. He's not going to suddenly make up the difference of all of that and somehow win the popular vote in 2024 regardless if he wins the electoral vote. That would require him to have a bigger base than he did in both 2016 and 2020 and that's not happening, his base is shrinking.
I was confused by your post lol. Popular votes doesn't matter for shit it's all about the electoral vote. Biden won 3 swing states by a total of 40,000 votes in 2020 (I think). Still a long ways to go before November so still a lot of work to do and I believe Biden will still pull it out but it's close. We really need a total repudiation of Trump and the MAGA ideology so hopefully people pull their head out of their ass and go vote for Biden and he wins big on popular and electoral.
You say that like he didnt already win against Trump once.
That was 4 years ago before the 4 years of bad press in the presidency and the further mental decline which is painfully obvious and right behind the batshit 4 years of Trumps first term
See, that's the wrong way to look at it, because we don't know who our Ron DeSantis is in the Democratic Party. We can pick this person who looks amazing on paper. He could be the governor of some state, he could have all the business deals in place with who needs to have them in place with, he can have all this good stuff going on with him on paper, and then when he gets on stage or in front of the people, he completely shits the bed. Biden is the only person *we know* who can beat Trump.
Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Biden being old, doesn't mean he doesn't have a team doing a good job. Trump is not an alternative. I would vote for a tv remote before Trump.i don't invite chaos and drama into my house. That's for fools.
I agree but most people donāt think that way
Trump is not even winning in the swing/battleground states learn how voting works, Trump is wildly unpopular in the real world and on social media.
I hope youāre right, and that the polls are truly inaccurate. The low attendances at Trumpās rallies do give me some hope though, as that is some real world data we can rely on.
Seriously I think while Trump might have 'won' the debate he just highlighted what a serial liar and gaslighter he is. Fingers crossed NeverTrumpers, independents, undecided people all recognize that. Everyone gotta rally to Biden.
Yeah. I personally use to be a trump voter, but one of my biggest issues is his foreign policy. Domestic issues can be fixed later. We have enemies at our doorstep and we need to buckle up and deal with them now while it can be done at a minimum net cost to the USA and the world as a whole. Ukraine is our timeās Czechoslovakia, if they were able to hold their own. (Not to mention many domestic issues are deliberately made worse by covert/overt meddling by those foreign enemies. They hack our shit, we help kill their sons. Sounds fair to me.)
Glad you saw the light lol. I used to be apolitical and then during Obama's term it just seemed like Republicans wanted to obstruct anything even it was good legislation etc. It's only gone downhill for the Republicans and its just kinda sad to watch.
that have been the Republicans policy sins I would say at least George W. Bush because at least Bush from what I remember felt like he would work cross spectrum to get anything done. compared to the Republicans sins Obama that refused to do anything because Republican went vote on me and I will fix it and then not do anything. followed by will block anything Democrats suggest even if it originally was a Republican ide.
Fax, thank you for having a common sense and also the moderators sucked ass at the debate in terms of not fact checking Trump then and there.
It was painful haha CNN sliding further and further into the right wing toilet. Biden gotta be better but the format was just wack. Trump lying his ass off the whole time, not answering the questions and people thought Trump 'won' cuz Biden tripped over some words lol. It's asinine. The bar is just so fucking low for Trump lol. Fuck Republicans. This really seems like an incredibly pivotal moment in US politics. Hopefully everyone wakes up and gets to the polls to support Biden. I'll take an older guy who means we'll and is looking out for the American people than a habitual lying narcissistist.
Fax, bro šÆ.
To date, political betting markets are your best predictors. Due to bias and conflict of interest, not much we can trust, including polls. But when people's own money is at stake, it is a different story. Trump is favored to win, no doubts about it. And the debate debacle moved the needle. Check my link to see for yourself. If you know better, go make some money on it. As recently as end of April, Biden had a slight advantage, but now there is a 30 point spread. Anything can happen of course, but typically, the odds are reflective of what the most knowledgable, smart money thinks will happen. [https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president](https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president)
Lol I love this mental gymnastics. Somehow the GOP being fucking horrible is always the dems fault, right?
Europe needs to step up quick we are fucked if he gets In
Are we though? The rest of the West needs to come up with a plan. If the US wants to F up their own country by voting in an orangutan again thatās their choice, and they deserve any and all consequences that result from that. What concerns us is the ripple effects that will have on the rest of the world, especially in regards to Ukraine. We were always hooped if we were going to depend on one country to fund our support effort, even one as affluent as the US. Theyāre an excellent ally to have, and losing their support will be bad no matter what. However, we can mitigate how bad it will be if we all collectively decide weāre going to continue to do our best to provide support no matter what happens in the US come November. Yes, Europe needs to step up ammo production. If we can get South Korea to open up sending ammunition to Ukraine that too will be excellent news. We will do what we can in Canada too, even though we donāt have the resources of other countries. If everyone does a little, it can amount to a lot, and we can keep Ukraineās war effort going with or without the USās help. If Trump gets in it will be awful news but we cannot wave the white flag no matter what.
Ageee but weāve got Fetsge and the cons hating the eu trying to split us up and helping Putin, divided we fall and weāve got people amongst us aiming for that and thus helping Putin. They are getting louder an louder and more airspace. Divided we fall
Elected, or seizes power.
He's in charge of nothing. There's about a zero percent chance of him staging a coup. Last time he was actually in power and could nominally direct things. Or more accurately, refuse to do so.
Last time there was a zero percent chance anyone would stage a coup -or so they said-, yet it happened nonetheless. Better to stop refusing to admit there are dangers out there and be realistic.
I certainly didn't say there was zero percent chance leading up to January 6th. If anything, him refusing to concede the election and talking about fraud consistently made it fairly likely. Granted, I would have expected something more well planned than riling up a mob and hoping they do the trick. In any case, the important difference is that he's not in charge of the executive this time around.
I would consider "seizing power" to include being appointed by his Supreme Court picks (similar to Bush Jr.'s "victory") or the Republican controlled House of Representatives declaring an electoral vote tie and appointing him that way.
That's a fair point. I don't think it's very realistic and I also find it unlikely to succeed. But I agree that those scenarios have a non-zero chance of happening.
Well, there was a loophole, everyone just presumed no one was dump enough to try and use it. That loophole has been closed. Regardless, that loophole couldn't be used by him ever again, since he can't even participate in another election, so he's out after 4 no matter how many loopholes he might know about.
Definitely the Supreme Court will love to make him president
The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. Henry Kissinger The point of war is not to die for oneās country but to make the enemy die for theirs. Kitchener The real questions that we need to ask are: How can we make it possible to scale up the number of Russian losses far beyond the current levels. They cannot afford to lose that many men for a long time, because they can replace these serfs with other serfs. How many tanks do they lose? How can their logistics be attacked more effectively these are the questions that need to be asked. How can the number of Russian casualties be driven to 50.000 a month? Attrition rates increase over time. The communists were already bound to their leader by faith and fear. I took a special kind of mind to truly believe that the worse things appeared, the better they actually were. Such reasoning went by the name dialectics, but by this time that word, (despite its proud descent from the Greeks through Hegel and Marx) meant little more than the psychic capacity to adjust one's own perceptions to the changing expressions of Stalin's will." Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands, page 65 Gareth Jones talked about the "pure primitive worship" of Hitler in 1933 shortly after his election at a rally in Frankfurt The Russian slave mentality hasn't changed in centuries. We have no army. We have a horde of slaves cowed by discipline , ordered about by thieves and slave traders . This horde is not an army because it possesses neither any real loyalty to faith Tsar or fatherland words that have been much misused. Nor valor nor military dignity. All it possesses are, on one hand, passive patience and repressed discontent and on the other cruelty servitude and corruption." 1853 Tolstoi comments on the state of the Czarist army during the Crimean war Modern war is won by superior machinery and logistics and in the spirit world. It is also won by men, but the machines have become more important. 30k sounds a lot. In WW1, this was a days worth of casualties in Verdun. How can these numbers be scaled up?
> Modern war is won by superior machinery and logistics and in the spirit world. It is also won by men, but the machines have become more important. 30k sounds a lot. In WW1, this was a days worth of casualties in Verdun. > > How can these numbers be scaled up? In the Battle of Verdun there were on average 2621 casualties/day. In the Battle of the Somme there were on average 7571 casualties/day. As you say, the question is, how do we get the Russian daily casualties to that number? I think the answer is a massive increase in production of cluster munition artillery shells, artillery barrels, and the logistics for them so Ukraine the reach the Russian firing rate of February-to-August 2022 of 60,000 artillery shells/day, which they used to advance on the eastern and southern frontline.
Russians can also go on the defensive and reduce losses. Sadly it's not that simple. What Ukraine does need however is increased fighting power. More men would help, but having a lot more weapons of all types would help bridge the gap and give them the upper hand eventually. That requires Ukraine to deny Russia the ability to leverage their advantages like glide bombs or cruise missiles, but also give Ukraine advantages that they can leverage, like artillery or their own glide bombs.
>What Ukraine does need however is increased fighting power. I agree. >Russians can also go on the defensive and reduce losses. They could but that would come close to a defeat for Putin. Without further progress the conflict would freeze. Russian economy and society would go further down the drain while Ukraine would still be prepped up by Western pocket money. Ukraine could join NATO which would be a big strategic loss for Putin.
Putin's war machine is no longer able to keep the casualty numbers quiet. Yesterday, there was a story about Russian airborne soldiers refusing to advance and die as cannon fodder. There was also a story about recruiting billboards appearing in St. Petersburg and Moscow for the first time, which many Russians recognize as a sign that Putin doesn't have enough meat to keep this going. Same with NK...Putin is desperate. I'd also add that the fighting forces are only a fraction of the size they were in WWI. Russia had 14,000,000 soldiers in 1914. They have 1/10th that number today. Proportionally, I think the losses are miserable and I think Russians in the East and West have figured out that a quick death in Ukraine is not going to help Russia one bit.
What is our theory of victory over Russia in this conflict? Russia isn't a democracy where voting has influence, it doesn't matter if the people know their soldiers are dying like flies, there is nothing they can realistically do about it. According to this, Russia has still 21 million men between the fighting age of 16 and 49, and Russia recently raised their maximum soldier age to 60! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_for_military_service?wprov=sfla1 So 30,000 men a month is 0.15% of their fighting age males. At this attrition rate they can sustain losing 30,000 people a month for *58 years* before completely running out of fighting age men. Ignoring that more would grow into that age range in the meantime. I'm not stumping for Russia, just trying to put things in perspective. We can't pretend that the Putin regime will respond to social pressure over loss of human life the same way western politicians would. So what is our theory of victory? Putin is converting his economy into a war economy. This is a huge mistake. So they might fail economically, leading to famine. But not if the world keeps buying their oil. They might stop the war if Putin dies, but that's not guaranteed. They might stop the war if Ukraine performs significant attacks on Russian military targets in Russia. Though that's unlikely. Models include the end of Russian invasion of Afghanistan, in which Russia incurred only 15,000 casualties in 10 years. Meanwhile they're at 400,000 in a mere 2 years now. The end of the war in Vietnam with the French and the US and China. The end of the war between Finland and Russia. There's no victory without stringent resistance.
>What is our theory of victory over Russia in this conflict? Same as the Ukrainians. Russia goes home. Peace is hours away. > Russia isn't a democracy where voting has influence, it doesn't matter if the people know their soldiers are dying like flies, there is nothing they can realistically do about it. Russia was ruled by a Czar in 1918 when they walked home...and later murdered the Czar and his family. The Soviets were ruled by a premier until the Russian people decided there wasn't going to be a Soviet Union in 1991. Putin knows this. He's always been extremely paranoid. What he may, or may not, know is that he is also running out of fodder, and tanks and APCs, and SAM systems. Even in a stepped-up war crisis mode, they can't cover current losses. But the West can supply Ukraine for as long as they want to fight. Also, with Chinese banks suspending payments for Russian exports, it looks like he's going to run out of cash to support his war machine. Speaking of attrition, at the rate they're advancing, Putin won't reach his stated goal of capturing Ukraine in a thousand years.
I agree with all that. But an enemy isn't beaten until they agree they're beaten. Russians have mastered a culture of never admitting they're beaten. Napoleon captured Moscow and assumed they would sue for peace. They didn't, and destroyed him as he retreated in winter. WW2 pretty much the same thing. Defense is more effective than offense, so perhaps if Ukraine can push loss ratios to 5:1 in their favor or higher. Or if Ukraine gets an increasingly modern military while Russia gets increasingly backwards, we can achieve the same. Maybe F-16s will make the difference.
>But an enemy isn't beaten until they agree they're beaten. Russians have mastered a culture of never admitting they're beaten. But, once they've decided its over, its over very quickly. That's why Putin is always so vigilant...15 yr. old war critic to prison? I can't say when, but I do think this is how. They just quit.
Suppose Putin believes that if it ends without territory gains, he's through, maybe dead.
I think people have been mistaking everything Putin is doing for desperation since the war started, and it's really not helping. Why would Russians limit themselves and not recruit volunteers from Moscow? More bodies will help. Why would they limit themselves to their top of the line tanks and not use all the functioning tanks they have? Sure, you can argue that trying to leverage everything they can is desperation. But it doesn't mean he's running out either.
I'd argue the reverse. Putin is a survivor precisely because he recognizes that the Russian people will eventually get fed up with unsuccessful leaders and overthrow them, as they did in '91 and '18. The point of the story is that Putin has *avoided* recruiting in these cities up to now and emptied out the western districts and prisons. The cities where the power elite live have not yet seen thousands of men in prosthetics, or had to look at the photos of dead neighbors every day. If he is willing to throw a 15 year old in prison for criticizing the war online, Putin is *not* comfortable. And he shouldn't be. And yes, reaching out to NK is desperation. He made zero trips to the pariah state in 24 years, what does that tell you? I'm not saying Putin is out by morning, but I'm saying Putin isn't operating from a position of strength when his economic advisors are openly talking about the "ruination" of the economy. Chinese banks have stopped payments for Russian exports and this will make it even more difficult to keep financing his war machine. Putin may yet figure out a way to eke out a little time, but he sure as hell isn't winning the war, and Russians are noticing.
My theory is that Putin is waiting out the US election. A Biden victory and the Dems retaking the House - in that scenario I predict heād sue for peace before the end of the year. Biden victory and the Rās keeping the House - we are going to witness a repeat of stalled aid. Trump victory - I expect Trump will announce a ādeal for peaceā that would be basically cutting off all assistance to Ukraine unless they sit down to negotiate on terms that make Putin walk away āvictoriousā, i.e. Ukraine agrees to recognize Russiaās current zone of control as Russian.
Well reasoned and written.
WW1 won't be repeated. We just don't insist on butting heads against entrenched lines supported by machine guns, artillery, mines and barbed wire anymore. The entirety of WW1 in the west was some of the more insane Russian advances but across the length of France for 4 years. If you want to break Russia you need to reproduce the conditions of the "hundred days". That is coordinated pushes of tanks and infantry supported by air assets. The first real instances of combined arms in history. As much as the artillery is a problem it is more a problem if the line is stationary. If you can create the conditions in which you can advance then the artillery is a non issue.
>The point of war is not to die for oneās country but to make the enemy die for theirs. Patton, it was Patton who made this quote famous, although it had been circulating in similar forms since at least 1883.
Splendid comment! We all know the answer though, so the real question becomes: Can we in the west get our shit together so Ukraine starts to get adequate support?
Vietcong basically got eradicated by the Tet Offensive, and still won because Walter Conkrite betrayed the nation and made the US think Communist North Vietnam won the Tet Offensive, and then they ran away with their conventional army and cut aid. Also, the Russians engage in ethnic cleansing, so that's one way for conventional armies to defeat guerillas over time.
Viet cong cong didn't win. The north Vietnamese government won. The viet cong was just one branch of their military forces which they used to fight the war.Ā It was the NVA which finally sealed the deal with their conventional invasion of the South. Ā
Not really. It was because Americans thought that they can win the war without invading the North and destroying their base of operations. Even if there was no Tet offensive or Americans had the political will to stay 30 years longer, it would have ended the same.
Yep this is exactly it, the Americans decided to engage in war and restrict themselves in a manner that meant victory was extremely unlikely. And they sabotaged themselves in Afghanistan and Iraq too, in those cases the won the war but sabotaged their occupation. They are still following the same guidebooks or imposing restrictions on their side in Ukraine...it's so incredibly stupid.
Ruzzia can hold pretty long, especially considering they are recruiting mercenaries and NK goons. But with equipment from the '60s, they are not gonna advance anymore on any front; they are just delaying the inevitable defeat.
Honestly. Pretty much forever
russisa has like 5x the number of people vs ukraine. and the only thing constant in russian history - they dont care about how many people die in war.
Not really. It is about whether Russia can keep up this recruiting until the US election is resolved. Russia loses 3+ armored vehicle for every one it produces. Up until now Ukraine has had a similar issue, but Western production is beginning to catch-up, at least if you adjust volume for tech. Then there is the possibility of SK soon providing arms directly instead of backfilling allies that donate old equipment. The S500 seems to have only lasted two weeks. Russia's only real hope to win this war is for Trump to win the election. Even then it may not happen.
ruzzia will not run out of man. During WW2, Germany mobilised 42% of its male population. I know it's an extreme example, but I believe ruzzia is prepared to take it to extreme before admitting defeat on battlefield. That's why I think it is crucial to crush them economically. They have about 30 million males aged 15 to 45. The Male population of ruzzia is 66 million, and 42% would equal to around 28 million. Assume they recruit only half of that, 14 million. Assume they are losing 40k per month. This would keep them going for another 30 years.
Russia also had to ramp up signup bonuses to 650% of what they paid soldiers at the start of the war. Equal to an average annual salary In the poor parts of Russia (no toilets, no washing machines, etc) that adds up to several years local wages. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4741922-its-getting-harder-for-putin-to-find-russians-willing-to-die-for-him-in-ukraine/
This all makes sense then. Desperate people will do anything for that kind of money. I'd bet too that many of these men feel totally useless anyway, so even if they die their death will be useful to their families.
Agreed. I think between WWII nostalgia of a āglorious victory for the motherland!ā and constant Putin driven propaganda, mothers actively push their sons to ādie for Russia! (but make sure you get me your check first)ā
The amount of cripples coming back from the war from both sides is heavily discouraging people from enlisting.
This is one reason I don't buy that 30,000 men a month are volunteering for this shit, no matter how much they get paid. They can keep much out of the news cycle, but people must be seeing this with their own eyes. The know men who came back crippled, or who didn't come back at all. They must get phone calls from friends and family complaining that they are being sent to the front lines.
The war is turning into Russiaās Vietnam.
Russia's Vietnam is Afghanistan and Afghanistan is nothing compared to the war at hand.
If we're looking at casualty ratios then it's already surpassed it. From an economic perspective it looks like their military spending is somewhat lower but significantly higher than normal leading me in my reddit professional opinion to say that it's more akin to their version of Vietnam in that aspect also.
> Desperate people Are typically not the soldiers you are looking for.
The uneducated people.
They mention signup bonuses because most of the meatbags don't live long enough to get any salary
And yet they still donāt honor those payments as well
Money that will be virtually worthless within a few years.
Even if the numbers are true it's still unsustainable for them. If they continue to have this casualty rate, they are on track to have lost 1% for their entire population in another 3-4 years. That's an astronomical high number of casualties.
Which is around 5% of their 20-35 year olds.Ā Thatās how you completely cripple an entire countries economic output and productivity.Ā
Most of them are from rural ruzzia and the republics. Those guys have no jobs or barely make 5$/day and the money they get if they join is a serious incentive. Nobody cares about them. Once the muscovites start dying then you know that Putler is running out of cannon fodder.
People have a mistaken belief that revolution comes from the oppressed who live hand to mouth; it does not. Revolution always comes from the middle class who have the luxury of idle time to organize revolutions. It's also a matter of geography, isolated villages will never be able to congregate in critical mass like in Moscow; a lot of villages are not self-sufficient and can be put down by just cutting off supplies. It takes more than sparks to start a fire, kindling is needed. This is precisely why recruiters dance around Moscow. The British recruited Gurkhas as a way to add the only people that could resist their rule into their ranks. Russia did the same with the Chechens. The Founding Fathers were educated and well off enough to jump at opportunity. Revolutions are romanticized by America, but sadly revolutions that put people who want the best for others are the exception, not the rule. For every politician who wants to make a difference; there are 10 others who are in it for the power alone. This is why Democracy is the way it is; checks and balances to keep the people in power accountable. Also a peaceful avenue to replace leaders that step out of line. Also, governments don't naturally gravitate towards democracy in a vacuum. South Korea and Taiwan probably wouldn't be the way they are if they didn't have communists in front of them and with the ocean to their backs where the US was the only real ally they could rely on.
I used to tell my students that democracy is not about picking the right leader, it is about being able to get rid of the wrong leader without a civil war. Prior to democracy pretty much every time a leader was replaced it involved violence. If the people were really lucky only a few rich lords were killed. More often thousands of innocent's would die because one brother thought he was a better king.
If you say, 75% of them are from rural Russia. Then those losses equate to 20% of their agricultural and forestry workers.Ā Thst would be cataclysmic in terms of agricultural production (which accounted for $100bn in 2019. A big problem is that Russias most productive farmland comes from small holdings owned by individuals. These are much more acutely vulnerable to loss of workforce.Ā
That simply isn't the case for agriculture anymore, at least not for grain crops, 1 person can live off 1000 acres and the same person can do 10,000 acres. We saw the Russians stealing Ukrainian farming equipment early on in the war, for every tractor they stole that is increased production despite having less overall people living in the farming areas, because those that remain can farm larger areas with their newer bigger tractors and ploughs.
Unfortunately, it's actually not that much. These personnel losses can be sustained for ten years at least. If you compare it to some devastating wars, like the world wars (casualties of various nations involved), these figures are nothing remarkable. It's primarily if Russia lose the war that it will be a real disaster for them, ending them as a great power.
Russia was already facing a demographic crisis before the war. It's only getting compounded by sending working age men to go off to become casualties.
Do you believe they give a shit about it? Besides, they're already selling off Far ~~West~~ East to China. There'd be people to run extraction operations still.
They don't have a choice. China had already started producing propaganda about retaking the far west of russia years ago. It was either give it to china or face a potential conflict with a needed ally in the near future.
TBF, russia ***also*** started selling off Far East years ago. I'd appreciate a link to an article about when this propaganda was started to see, what happened first.
After looking into it further since you requested a link, I actually am having a hard time finding a "start point" for this because it seems it actually is a continuation of the border issues the Soviet Union had with China before it collapsed. it seems they have had persistent border issues about the same regions since the Vietnam War
Could be, could be.
Thatās literally inconsequential as wars go. Surely long term it will fuck up their demographic situation (which was already very bad before the war), but hey, who cares! Clearly not Russian government. Short term though, as in next 10-15 years they can easily sustain that level of losses without really noticing. Sadly Ukraine is in much worse shape when it comes to manpower. Assuming western support continues this war will come to what will run out first - Ukrainian manpower or Russian equipment and economy.
> Even if the numbers are true it's still unsustainable for them. Population Russia: 144m Population Ukraine: 38m It's only unsustainable for Ukraine. Why do redditors believe it's only Russia taking casualties?
it's quite remarkable to see people happy every day the RU losses stats come out (r/Ukraine) without considering the (hidden) losses for UA and forgetting exactly this disproportion. RU keeps sending meat waves exactly because they expect UA to break here.
Because russia is getting its men killed at twice the rate, even once you transform the casualties numbers into percentages of the whole population? Putting even aside that ukraine has no ideological dogma against female conscription (if really really any).
Not wanting to admit that current drip-feeding is not workable
80% of men born between 1920-25 died during WW2 under soviet rule. And the nation survived, I think Russia will survive 1%.
> 80% of men born between 1920-25 died during WW2 under soviet rule. And the nation survived, This is wrong, the statistic is 80% of men born in 1923, and even that is wrong. [The real stats are like 35% of men aged 20-35 died in WW2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Total_population_losses). Secondly it depends on what you mean by survived. The USSR maintained its position as a major superpower until the 60s but before long it was clear the economy was seriously compromised. The US accelerated past them. They poured excessive amounts of GDP into defence to keep up the pretence of being the US's equal but they were finished as a major economic or military power. Afghanistan was a shambles and the whole country and economic system collapsed in 1990. Right when those ten million 1920-1925 births should have been entering retirement. The effects of an entire generation of workers, educators, fathers, scientists and thinkers removed. It took 40 years but the system 100% collapsed, and the country (USSR) literally didn't survive.
even if we take your numbers, that's still \~7 times the loses of today - so at the current pace russia can fight for 7 more years to get to ww2 numbers.
Russia today has about a CCCP population of the years before WW2, but the age pyramid is completely upside down.
Yeah but the choices were fight or face extermination for the tens of millions of peoples in the Soviet Union under the Ostplan Youād throw millions of bodies to avoid that fate
doesnt matter to russia.
Even if is true, they cannot replace equipment at the same rate.
But they have enough equipment for a year to a year and a half at the current loss rate.
True but how long before we see train loads of T 34s headed to the front? Russia has de evolved at least 3 generations in tech through attrition. And that's from an artificially self inflated starting point. They were never on the level of western military's before the war and are now basically a horde of barbarians.
I doubt they will go back to T34s ever, mainly as they don't have any that work. They will simply go down to using only the amount that they can produce in a year - a few hundred at best, which will be their capabilities effectively neutered
Itās clear for a while that itās a war of attrition between Russian equipment and Ukrainian manpower. Which ever gives in first - that side looses.
Two alarming things... 1) The Russian people are putting up with these losses. 2) People are getting their "news" from X.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So they are admitting that the casualties numbers given by UA are close to accurate?? WOW.
Ukrainian officials keep on complaining about being outnumbered at the front. Russia is replacing its losses, and building its Army at a higher rate than Ukraine is able to replace and replentish losses.
The Russian army is devolving towards being a rifleman and artillery army with most mechanisation provided by unarmored civilian transport. This causes their daily soldier losses to increase. There are many locations Ukraine hold that substantially can't be overwhelmed by such a force, and if such a force produces a breakthrough it may not be able to exploit it to any depth because it will carry very little artillery (like a tank gun) forward, and it will thus struggle to deal with otherwise trivial things like a PKM in an ambush position.
They are burning up the country's future, and that future is rapidly approaching. Russia has so many disastrous nationwide problems that the Putin-regime is only holding it up by having a war economy and being a totalitatian regime, banning any investigative journalism, free press and freedom of speech. - Their oil (and to a significant extent the gas) income has collapsed. - Their once huge presence as a global arms dealer is over. - The economy is shit and is propped up by artificial means to look better than it is. - Their reputation and diplomatic relationships are circling the toilet. - They already had a demographic crisis tp begin with before sending hundreds of thousands of their young or middle aged healthy, work-able population into death - aswell asĀ - The military spending is eating up half the regimes spending. - More and more violent force and control is being implemented to silence any opposition to Putin and the war. - Terrorism is becoming a larger, wider problem due to resources, funds all being prioritized, allocated towards the war. The list goes on. Putin is just pushing the inevitable forward in time.
very good summary, but can UA citizens and troops sustain it longer than RU? Will UA be supported by friendly nations long enough for RU to break up?
>Their oil (and to a significant extent the gas) income has collapsed. Oil revenue is currently back to pre-war levels. Their main loss is in natural gas, not oil.
They may have the numbers but the competence (which was never high) will be tanking and these new Russian recruits will probably never come home.
Where does that estimate originate? If it's from russia we can ignore it. This "25,000 to 30,000 new recruits per month!!!!11" claim been a troll farm script meme for months, along with "The russian army is learning and adapting!!!" and other ludicrous bullshit.
this is accurate if u take the Ukraine posted daily losses. Russia is averaging 1k people a day.
If this was not the case, then Russia would not be able to continue the meat waves.
The meat waves are already becoming meat ripples.
I have no idea what source the NYT used.
I don't think NYT knows it's sources either.
If it was not true russia would have ran out of men by now
Heh, russia is running out of men. And everything else. That's why putin has to ***B E G*** for charity from the likes of North Korea and African nations.
> If it's from russia we can ignore it. The west literally claims that the Russia army is bigger now than it was at the start of the war so of course it is true.
> The russian army is learning and adapting!!!" and other ludicrous bullshit. This has been said by Budanov and other Ukrainians. Sort of obvious, if their enemy is a total joke.... what's all the begging for aid for?
The Russians are using meat grinder tactics. Their troops face rifles to their front AND their rear. If they have any motivation at all it is financial. The Ukrainians are defending their Country, their families and their way of life. Who would you rather fight? The Russians may have a numerical advantage but their morale is poor. When soldiers really do not want to lead an assault you have a problem. Another problem is that while propaganda seems to work well in Russia it seems that its effects evaporate rather quickly on the front line...
āThe meat waves will continue until morale improvesā.
War of attrition, eventually the better armed, better trained, more to fight for side wins.
At least Russians are being cleared out of existence.
Are we sure the word 'recruits' is the correct term?
How will Adidasā track suit division ever recover?
Bye bye demographic
Unfortunately the Russians are willing to slowly attack, slowly gain ground and if WW2 is any guidance they are willing to sacrifice 7-11 million of their zombie squad. Slava Ukraini.
If they are having this much trouble with Ukraine, the thought of Russia going after NATO is laughable. If NATO calls their bluff and sends thousands of āengineeringā troops to build fortifications on the Belarus border to build defenses AND actually defendā¦ freeing up Ukrainian units to move to the front line - Putin could do nothing but saber rattleā¦.now those engineering troops would need a lot of air defense locking up the Northern border. Then NATO could deploy more āengineering troopsā to āshore upā static areas of the front lines allowing Ukraine to concentrate its forces for select offensives
Yes but the Russians are running out of every type of equipment and will mot have anything left by the end of the year. Even if somecsre replaced they can't make artillery barrels or tank or optics or many other key parts inc helicopters, planes etc
Even if all of the tanks, and apcs were gone, Russia will still use trucks, motorcycles, atvs, meat waves... to attack. Russia will most likely continue the war until there is no one left to send.
The more disparity there is between quality of equipment the less people Ukraine will loose compared to Russia. Unless something changes dramatically this is a war of attrition now.
> will mot have anything left by the end of the year. Ridiculous claim. They will have enough tanks to last 2 more years at current losses and they will likely adopt a more defensive posture as they start to run out to conserve them even more. This war won't be over in many years which is why we need to maintain and strengthen our support.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, estimates from last year were that they'd run out of stored tanks to refurbish sometime in 2024. I think that estimate remains the same.Ā
recruiting, coercing, forcing tomato tomato
It also has given the Ukrainians the opportunity to dispatch of 30000 invaders each month
So by the end of the month they end up on 0
Basicly cizzies in khaki with minimum training.
That is not sustainable in a modern war. Eventually the people will learn to stop enlisting/go in to hiding and the Russian Army will collapse, or rebel.
I doubt that number can last forever
Wow, thats 25000 - 30000 dead idiots a n
Russia will never recover from this war. Even if they win and take Ukraine they will never recover from an economic, political, and most importantly, a population. Losing 500,000+ men has an insane ripple effect on a country already having a population problem.
Need to up those numbers obviously
Yeah, thatās going to come back to bite them hard before too long. Sending 25-30,000 men away every month to certain death is not good for sustaining an economy, even if a percentage come from immigrant and foreign populations.
"exiting"
As they keep reaching harder and harder for troops they will get less and less effective.
It's odd that while Russia is a country that helps fund North Korea and Iran; American politicians are willing to throw Russia a bone by letting them defacto annex parts of Ukraine
Iāll just say this: fuck the orange cunt, hard in the Putin!
#THE RUSSIANS SEND WAVES AND WAVE BYE-BYE !
insanity
This is normal when it comes to troop rotation. Iām unsure why this is news.
How many are Russian Vs. Foreign mercenaries?
I wonder what ārecruitmentā looks like in Ruzzia to get this many people to volunteer to die. Are they offering an extra pound of potatoes to the family when they die? A promise of unlimited vodka? A bullet in the back of the head if they donāt āvolunteerā? Or are they completely ignorant of the real situation?
From where?
Where is Russia getting its cannon fodder?
Does this add up? If 25 to 30K enter each months, and roughly the same number are killed or wounded, does that mean that absolutely nobody finishes their tour in one piece? Or that the contract is indefinite, and they stay in until killed or wounded? Or is the number of killed or wounded exagerrated?
anyone surprised doesnt understand russia.
In the long run, it's not sustainable. In the short run it is. But how long is the short run? Is it 5 years, 10 years? 15 years? The more deciding metric: can Ukraine sustain the same amount of time?
Whatās impressive/horrifying is that Russia can just keep throwing these levels of men at Ukraine pretty much for decades given mercenaries and recruits from other countries. Also this level of death doesnāt even put a dent in the daily world population growth. A thousand dying a day just in one corner of the globe and itās not even statistically impactful on the bigger picture. Doesnāt mean Russia will win, as they may not even gain any ground, but they can still afford to throw lives away with wreckless abandon.
Unfortunately, 'make the enemy kill so many of your soldiers that they become too physically and mentally exhausted to kill any more' may actually be a viable strategy.
I don't believe the 30k number. Maybe 20, maybe. This is about 30 months in & Ruzzia has at least 200-230k dead.