Late Christmas Day or early Tuesday, Ukrainian air force bombers struck the Russian Black Sea Fleet landing ship 'Novocherkassk' in Feodosia in southeastern Crimea.
Russia has orders of a magnitude more fighting age men and resources than Ukraine. If Russian losses are two to one or three to one in a battle it is still a loss for Ukraine. Ukraine just don’t have the population or material to absorb those losses. Ukraine needs to have a 5 or 6 to one ratio to win in a conflict with Russia.
In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.
The fact that Ukraine which five or six years ago didn’t have a
functional military is still in this fight is very telling for how bad Russia’s military has atrophied after the Cold War.
The front lines have solidified and Russia has shown they can learn to fight defensively. The best Ukraine can do now is perhaps cut off transport routes to Crimea and make the Russian position there untenable. Otherwise unless there is some kind of major revolution in Russia it’s doubtful that Ukraine can retake their lost lands.
However, I still support supplying Ukraine with arms. This is Russia’s 9th military invasion of a neighboring country since the end of the Cold War. It won’t be their last unless they are bled dry. Ukraine has the will to fight them, they just need arms.
Russia doesn’t have anywhere near “orders of magnitude” more fighting men. That’s 100 times more at minimum. Russia’s population is about four times that of Ukraine, and their demographic pyramids are similar.
Russia’s actual limitations are not in the raw numbers of people, though. It’s in public support. Russia doesn’t have the base of domestic support that Ukraine naturally has by defending against an invader.
Russia is also absolutely not unbeatable. It has lost plenty of wars. 1st Chechen war, Afghanistan, World War One, Crimea.
There are over 143 million Russians and only 38 million Ukrainians. With similar demographics my point still stands Ukraine needs at least a 5 to 1 ratio or higher to bleed Russia dry of fighting age men.
I agree with you on support, but Russian society can absorb horrific losses before there is any danger of revolution. Perhaps the one thing that Putin is very good at is managing his rivals and keeping the oligarchy in line. He knows he has to win to keep them in line and will do so at any cost to Russia.
You mentioned the first Chechen war but not the second one. How did that war turn out?
WWI saw huge losses of over a million men. While Russian losses are high they are nowhere near that number today.
The Crimean war saw Russia take strategic losses while in direct conflict with the largest powers of that time. The loss of Crimea itself would be a strategic loss but nothing Ukraine can realistically do beyond that is at the same level. Nor is Ukraine a major power.
I’d agree with you on Afghanistan. It is probably the closest analog to Ukraine. The position of the Soviet Union was economically unviable and they were forced to pull out shortly before the USSR dissolved. Russia’s current economy is in the same position. But Afghanistan was a ten year war. Can Ukraine hold on long enough with Western support to push modern Russia over that same edge? I don’t think it would take ten years to destabilize Russia, but I don’t know that Ukraine can keep this fight up or keep Western powers involved long enough for that to happen.
Though they cannot take land, the Ukrainians are only getting better at dismantling Russian fires capabilities and eliminating enemy units. They are learning too and they are learning where it counts in an attritional fight. War is politics and this conflict will become politically untenable for Russia far earlier than it will for Ukraine.
Both sides learn. Sometime i ask myself if americans believe that the americans and their allies are the only smart people in the world. You have seen too much hollywood movies…
The American military can be open minded. We’re just so accustomed to being let down. I have a lot of respect for the French artillery units and Singaporean intelligence among others. I know people scoff at the idea that we are team players but we really are when everyone is working towards the same strategic objective.
In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.
That’s patently wrong. Russia at best has very mixed records. They don’t win every conflict. Take the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, invasion of Afghanistan and Chechen Wars. There is the famous adage: Russia is neither weak nor strong.
In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.
Then again, in almost every past conflict in history Russia has had Ukrainians fighting for them.
I’d point out Vietnam and Afghanistan for the USA, or Afghanistan vs the USSR. Those were tiny, poorly equipped countries fighting against the most powerful militaries in the world. Said small countries eventually started receiving materiel, training, and intelligence support from powerful allies.
They didn’t have to kill all their enemies or push them off the land they held – they weren’t capable of it. They won by just dragging the conflict on and making it as expensive and difficult as possible for the other side. A common path to victory is the enemy saying “this fight is no longer politically/economically worth it” and withdrawing.
Because they’re an enormous army with decades upon decades of stocks behind them aswell as the support of oil producing nations.
But to answer after 9 years of war Ukraine holds over 80% of their territory and with the second anniversary of the escalation of the invasion Russia has gained less than 10% and have lost or injured over 350,000 people. They have lost their educated work force, fucked their positioning globally with the destruction of their relationship with Europe and now have to bend over for Winne the Xi to take them for a ride.
While also revealing themselves to be a paper tiger and an absolute joke on the world stage. Only clowns still believe Russia is the “second strongest army in the world” after their comical display of incompetence and failure.
Russia lost as soon as they failed to complete their stated “objectives” as fast as they arrogantly thought they would as they mixed up cosplaying as a superpower with actually being one. They’re no longer able to meaningfully “win” in Ukraine and with each passing day their position only weakens, while Ukraine gets stronger. The only question now is how badly Russia’s going to lose.
The real question is can Russia outlast outside aid to Ukraine.
If USA aid dries up, that will substantially hurt Ukraine. Can the EU make up for it? Even if they can, will they?
Are there any elections coming up in EU support heavy countries where that support could flip like in USA? Can Putin wait that out?
If Russia can start moving forward due to less Ukraine support, will Ukraine keep fighting indefinitely or will they eventually give up territory to Russia to end it?
There’s so many unknowns.
The win Russia wanted is gone, but make no mistake Ukraine can only hold out as long as they have support. Russia can and will meat grinder past them if support erodes and they can wait quite awhile longer.
Hopefully they can hold out long enough for this US madness to sort itself out. (Edit but that might last until Jan 2025 and only change if Dems flip the house)
Even if Russia totally breaks Ukraine’s military, we can just go back to the original plan America had before they realized that Ukraine actually held the line: armed insurgency. Think Iraqi insurgency against America with the tenacity of the Maripol defenders.
Thanks for the reply. Just wanted to let you know, I only got this today (6 days later), even though I’ve been frequently using lemmy.world directly on the website and the sync app and getting replies from others with reasonable times. Might be a problem on your end?
Putin has effectively destroyed Russia’s position on the world stage, calling it a loss is really understating things. When we saw their military was a joke, they lost significant credibility. They’re nowhere near superpower status, and their global influence has happened in spite of their military – and is endangered now that it’s truly seen.
Ukraine was invaded. They are defending. Their purpose is to defend their country, not to “win”, and yes they are doing it. However, Russia has actually managed to lose the war.
Russia and Ukraine are on a stalemate. We don’t know how long this will last. But stalemate does not necessarily mean winning or losing.
It’s too early to tell if Ukraine will actually win or lose. This war has unexpected surprises from both sides. Although I will say that the stalemate is in Putin’s favour. The longer the war drags on, the more the Western support could diminish and he could bide time until Trump returns and American support might withdraw. But even if Russia wins or get concessions, the resulting demographic crisis, financial cost and loss of international image is pyrrhic victory.
Of course they’re not, Ukraine has zero chance of actually beating the Russian military. I’m on Ukraine’s side on this, but elementary school math here. Unless a major country puts boots on the ground with them, which is unlikely because that’ll start WW3, Ukraine’s only buying time.
Afghanistan was a colonial war. Crimea is the only base Russia has in hot seas. Major wars was fought to conquer it. So USA cannot win a war because they too had lost in Afghanistan? And the enemy was even weaker, without any major power support ( see Rambo 3 for reference )
That was a “loss” huh? Aside from there being what 15 countries involved in that one against the Soviets? The Afghans/Mujahideen lost 5x the troops during that conflict than the Soviets did. The Soviets pulling out was them being tired of it clearly because they sure as shit weren’t losing. Ukraine has small contributions from random countries at this point, these two wars aren’t even remotely comparable.
We’ve been hearing this for over a year now but it seems like Russia keeps going. Is Ukraine actually winning?
Russia has orders of a magnitude more fighting age men and resources than Ukraine. If Russian losses are two to one or three to one in a battle it is still a loss for Ukraine. Ukraine just don’t have the population or material to absorb those losses. Ukraine needs to have a 5 or 6 to one ratio to win in a conflict with Russia.
In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.
The fact that Ukraine which five or six years ago didn’t have a
functional military is still in this fight is very telling for how bad Russia’s military has atrophied after the Cold War.
The front lines have solidified and Russia has shown they can learn to fight defensively. The best Ukraine can do now is perhaps cut off transport routes to Crimea and make the Russian position there untenable. Otherwise unless there is some kind of major revolution in Russia it’s doubtful that Ukraine can retake their lost lands.
However, I still support supplying Ukraine with arms. This is Russia’s 9th military invasion of a neighboring country since the end of the Cold War. It won’t be their last unless they are bled dry. Ukraine has the will to fight them, they just need arms.
Russia doesn’t have anywhere near “orders of magnitude” more fighting men. That’s 100 times more at minimum. Russia’s population is about four times that of Ukraine, and their demographic pyramids are similar.
Russia’s actual limitations are not in the raw numbers of people, though. It’s in public support. Russia doesn’t have the base of domestic support that Ukraine naturally has by defending against an invader.
Russia is also absolutely not unbeatable. It has lost plenty of wars. 1st Chechen war, Afghanistan, World War One, Crimea.
There are over 143 million Russians and only 38 million Ukrainians. With similar demographics my point still stands Ukraine needs at least a 5 to 1 ratio or higher to bleed Russia dry of fighting age men.
I agree with you on support, but Russian society can absorb horrific losses before there is any danger of revolution. Perhaps the one thing that Putin is very good at is managing his rivals and keeping the oligarchy in line. He knows he has to win to keep them in line and will do so at any cost to Russia.
You mentioned the first Chechen war but not the second one. How did that war turn out?
WWI saw huge losses of over a million men. While Russian losses are high they are nowhere near that number today.
The Crimean war saw Russia take strategic losses while in direct conflict with the largest powers of that time. The loss of Crimea itself would be a strategic loss but nothing Ukraine can realistically do beyond that is at the same level. Nor is Ukraine a major power.
I’d agree with you on Afghanistan. It is probably the closest analog to Ukraine. The position of the Soviet Union was economically unviable and they were forced to pull out shortly before the USSR dissolved. Russia’s current economy is in the same position. But Afghanistan was a ten year war. Can Ukraine hold on long enough with Western support to push modern Russia over that same edge? I don’t think it would take ten years to destabilize Russia, but I don’t know that Ukraine can keep this fight up or keep Western powers involved long enough for that to happen.
Which is far from happening because for now, the average Russian (not Moscow) has seen its life improved by the money provided by the military enrollments. See this point of view from a Russian historian/independent journalist https://www.newsdirectory3.com/the-majority-of-russians-have-never-had-it-so-good/.
Well 100x is two orders of magnitude, so, it was technically correct.
Though they cannot take land, the Ukrainians are only getting better at dismantling Russian fires capabilities and eliminating enemy units. They are learning too and they are learning where it counts in an attritional fight. War is politics and this conflict will become politically untenable for Russia far earlier than it will for Ukraine.
Both sides learn. Sometime i ask myself if americans believe that the americans and their allies are the only smart people in the world. You have seen too much hollywood movies…
The American military can be open minded. We’re just so accustomed to being let down. I have a lot of respect for the French artillery units and Singaporean intelligence among others. I know people scoff at the idea that we are team players but we really are when everyone is working towards the same strategic objective.
I had a long answer, but i agree with you.
Edit: peace
deleted by creator
Friends in army. But, trust me, i don’t want to fight against americans
Sorry please
That’s patently wrong. Russia at best has very mixed records. They don’t win every conflict. Take the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, invasion of Afghanistan and Chechen Wars. There is the famous adage: Russia is neither weak nor strong.
Then again, in almost every past conflict in history Russia has had Ukrainians fighting for them.
I’d point out Vietnam and Afghanistan for the USA, or Afghanistan vs the USSR. Those were tiny, poorly equipped countries fighting against the most powerful militaries in the world. Said small countries eventually started receiving materiel, training, and intelligence support from powerful allies.
They didn’t have to kill all their enemies or push them off the land they held – they weren’t capable of it. They won by just dragging the conflict on and making it as expensive and difficult as possible for the other side. A common path to victory is the enemy saying “this fight is no longer politically/economically worth it” and withdrawing.
Because they’re an enormous army with decades upon decades of stocks behind them aswell as the support of oil producing nations.
But to answer after 9 years of war Ukraine holds over 80% of their territory and with the second anniversary of the escalation of the invasion Russia has gained less than 10% and have lost or injured over 350,000 people. They have lost their educated work force, fucked their positioning globally with the destruction of their relationship with Europe and now have to bend over for Winne the Xi to take them for a ride.
While also revealing themselves to be a paper tiger and an absolute joke on the world stage. Only clowns still believe Russia is the “second strongest army in the world” after their comical display of incompetence and failure.
Haven’t heard Winnie the Xi before. I’m partial to Xi Xinpooh
Russia lost as soon as they failed to complete their stated “objectives” as fast as they arrogantly thought they would as they mixed up cosplaying as a superpower with actually being one. They’re no longer able to meaningfully “win” in Ukraine and with each passing day their position only weakens, while Ukraine gets stronger. The only question now is how badly Russia’s going to lose.
The real question is can Russia outlast outside aid to Ukraine.
If USA aid dries up, that will substantially hurt Ukraine. Can the EU make up for it? Even if they can, will they?
Are there any elections coming up in EU support heavy countries where that support could flip like in USA? Can Putin wait that out?
If Russia can start moving forward due to less Ukraine support, will Ukraine keep fighting indefinitely or will they eventually give up territory to Russia to end it?
There’s so many unknowns.
The win Russia wanted is gone, but make no mistake Ukraine can only hold out as long as they have support. Russia can and will meat grinder past them if support erodes and they can wait quite awhile longer.
Hopefully they can hold out long enough for this US madness to sort itself out. (Edit but that might last until Jan 2025 and only change if Dems flip the house)
Even if Russia totally breaks Ukraine’s military, we can just go back to the original plan America had before they realized that Ukraine actually held the line: armed insurgency. Think Iraqi insurgency against America with the tenacity of the Maripol defenders.
Ya, it’s definitely not the end if Russia “wins”
Removed by mod
Thanks for the reply. Just wanted to let you know, I only got this today (6 days later), even though I’ve been frequently using lemmy.world directly on the website and the sync app and getting replies from others with reasonable times. Might be a problem on your end?
Putin has effectively destroyed Russia’s position on the world stage, calling it a loss is really understating things. When we saw their military was a joke, they lost significant credibility. They’re nowhere near superpower status, and their global influence has happened in spite of their military – and is endangered now that it’s truly seen.
“Ukraine sunk their battleship, so why hasn’t the war ended?”
If you’re going to insist on learning the realities of war from a boardgame, at least use Risk.
The people we are dealing with have not mastered Connect Three.
I only play 5d chess.
5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel is a crazy game.
Ukraine was invaded. They are defending. Their purpose is to defend their country, not to “win”, and yes they are doing it. However, Russia has actually managed to lose the war.
It’s more of a stalemate where small pieces of land are traded back and forth with no real winner or loser.
Russia and Ukraine are on a stalemate. We don’t know how long this will last. But stalemate does not necessarily mean winning or losing.
It’s too early to tell if Ukraine will actually win or lose. This war has unexpected surprises from both sides. Although I will say that the stalemate is in Putin’s favour. The longer the war drags on, the more the Western support could diminish and he could bide time until Trump returns and American support might withdraw. But even if Russia wins or get concessions, the resulting demographic crisis, financial cost and loss of international image is pyrrhic victory.
Seems like a brutal stalemate
My guess is the current front line will soon become the new borders
No
deleted by creator
That’s the only true statement in your comment, the rest is inaccurate and incoherent.
deleted by creator
Of course they’re not, Ukraine has zero chance of actually beating the Russian military. I’m on Ukraine’s side on this, but elementary school math here. Unless a major country puts boots on the ground with them, which is unlikely because that’ll start WW3, Ukraine’s only buying time.
Russia lost in Afghanistan (a much smaller and weaker country than Ukraine), they can lose here too.
Afghanistan was a colonial war. Crimea is the only base Russia has in hot seas. Major wars was fought to conquer it. So USA cannot win a war because they too had lost in Afghanistan? And the enemy was even weaker, without any major power support ( see Rambo 3 for reference )
Novorossiysk (sp?) Only needs to be dug out IIRC. Might he cheaper than maintaining Crimea.
That was a “loss” huh? Aside from there being what 15 countries involved in that one against the Soviets? The Afghans/Mujahideen lost 5x the troops during that conflict than the Soviets did. The Soviets pulling out was them being tired of it clearly because they sure as shit weren’t losing. Ukraine has small contributions from random countries at this point, these two wars aren’t even remotely comparable.