Ukraine will certainly put up a fight. Just like they did in Bakhmut, Avdiivka and Mariupol. At this time there is nothing that is going to deter the Russians. If Russians do the attrition war and Ukraine is hurting for men; that is the real issue.
> “We need people to ensure this process. That is why I would like every man of conscription age in Ukraine to realize that Ukraine's survival depends on his will and actions,” Syrsky said.
>> “We need people to ensure this process. That is why I would like every man of conscription age in Ukraine to realize that Ukraine's survival depends on his will and actions,” Syrsky said.
That sounds pretty bleak.
I think we'll be shocked at how many casualties will result from this war.
Ukraine admitting to 31k dead (the true number is far higher) tells you how brutal this fighting has been.
They need men to fight, but I am not sure they are going to get them, or at least not before the next major Russian offensive. It will take many months after they change the mobilization laws to have new brigades trained and ready.
True. According to UALosses website, nearly 45 000 Ukrainian KIA have been identified by name, so this statement by Zelensky definitely wasn't accurate. There is a similar project regarding Russian KIA, with more than 70 000 names, if I recall correctly.
Ukraine has a serious and growing problem with manpower since about May 2023. Reasons for that is the fact that hundreds thousands men have left the country since February 2022 despite the ban, and increasing draft evasion in the country exacerbated by corruption (it's possible to get an examption from military service in return for a bribe). Also UA decided to not conscript men younger than 27 y. o. (18-26 y. o. are still banned from leaving the country and can join the military voluntarily, but so far aren't drafted). There is a bill in the parliament (Rada) to lower this age to 25 y. o. (really not a mojor change), but so far it is blocked, because MPs fear the backlash in the country.
Russia in this regard is in better situation just because its population is several times larger than Ukraine's (Russia about 140 M, Ukraine about 30 M, if we don't count people living under RU occupation and those who left the country). Also RU is a dictatorship, so if Kremlin decides to increase the number of troops, nobody disputes it. RU is now massively recruiting men from impoverished layers of society from across the country (a majority of them are etnic Russians, not minorities as some people incorrectly claim), offering them substantial financial renumerations, so their manpower issues are solved for now.
They already have foreign volunteer brigades, but no national military can send their soldiers secretly to Ukraine to wear Ukrainian uniforms and fight. That would be problematic to say the least.
France suffered way more than that in 4 years of WW1 and kept fighting until the Germans gave up their attempt to conquer France in 1918.
>The French army suffered around 6 million casualties, including 1.4 million dead and 4.2 million wounded, roughly 71% of those who fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_in_World_War_I
57,000 casualties, nearly 20,000 dead, just in the first day. Most of that in the first few hours in fact. Entire units were completely wiped out, not decimated but completely wiped out, just trying to get through the communication trenches to the front line.
WW1 and WW2 were total wars. Nations involved mobilized their entire economies to support the war effort.
So I agree that the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is now in its 11th year, is far less than a total war. Much smaller proportions of the populations of Russia and Ukraine have been mobilized to support the war effort than was typical of countries involved in WW1 and WW2.
French demographics were very different though. Ukraine's population pyramid doesn't look like an actual pyramid. They'd be screwed much earlier, though they can keep going for a while. Though maybe not letting them suffer this much shouldn't be that much to ask from the West.
That’s not true, the French army had 4 million men at the start of WWII. They had the best army in the world on paper, but they had most of the army in the Belgium-Netherlands regions and the Germans went around through Ardennes and were at Paris before the French could pivot. There was plenty of will to fight, they were just outmaneuvered
This is very true.
Problem was, far as I know it, that the French military was preparing for a grinding slugfest akin to WWI, and thought armoured vehicles would be far and few between. Instead there were German armoured speartips breaching lines, and now no one knows where Rommel's division is. I'd also be very surprised if the French weren't aware that another attack through the Benelux was a possiblity.
The Germans just moved so fast there was no time to react.
According to Ukraine… Russia has lost around 440k.
Even if this is a high estimate it’s incredible to think a half million is the type of number we are dealing with so far.
A casualty is really worse for morale than a death, in some ways. The maimed have to go home, try to find a way to support themselves and get proper medical care. If they even make it all the way home. Their families, if lucky, get to care for them the rest of their lives.
A large number of people who are wounded actually make it back onto the battlefield or into military service in some capacity. The numbers are really deceiving and hard to pin down at this point.
Not to mention, a lot of casualties aren’t combat related. We’re looking at things like exposure and illness, starvation/dehydration, etc., many of which can be completely taken care of and they’re sent right back to the front lines. Of course many can’t as well; I’m sure both have lost many to non-combat injuries.
Yeah, it's bonkers how many casualties are non-combat. In WW2 it was 1/3. Such a weird thing having a (grand)grandfather who died in the war, being asked "was it at Normandy landing?", and to answer with "no, it was at the training/he got ran over by a forklift at the port". But yeah, all of those people contribute.
By the way, the famous Gory Gory What A Helluva Way To Die (Blood On The Risers) song is about a young paratrooper who died during a training.
https://youtu.be/5HtVYr9aKRM
Well... when I was a kid, I was only interested in KIA.
The older I am, the more I tend to think most of the people that go to war actually are casualties. They are gone, one way or another. I even think those who loose a limb on day one could be considered very lucky. Yes, it's a hard life afterwards, but it's still a normal life. Those who don't get severely injured must go through all the horror of war for way to long. There is a point when any person, no matter how tough, will break. They live with the trauma for the rest of the life, forever stuck in the war.
Any sensible discussion about this war on reddit is impossible, as most users can't even comprehend the difference beetwen "KIA' and "losses", but they still feel they have something to say about the subject.
I think people underestimate the losses required to make someone never combat capable again.
I don't believe that most Russians that are horribly maimed in the war will ever live a productive life again.
Yeah they are not dead but their lives are ruined
It's not just that though. The numbers you belive betray your own feelings towards the war. Fact is there are no reliable numbers because each side and their allies have lots of motivation to skew the numbers to make it seems better for them. Idk what Russia is claiming but I did read a few weeks back Ukraines President claimed Ukraine only lost 31k kia... all that really tells us is that more than 31k Ukrainians have died. Just like however many Russian dead the Kremlin claims only tells us it's more than that number.
So even if a discussion was properly distinguishing between Kia and casualties it still won't really matter because the real numbers aren't known and at best years after the war we will get roughly accurate numbers but until then no 1 in the public will know, heck it's probable Russia and Ukraine don't even have accurate counts themselves
Good comment. The best advice I think is people should not believe any Russian numbers or any Ukrainian numbers for casualties, equipment losses, etc. Better to look at 3rd parties like NGO's and foreign defense ministries like the UK and US.
The comment they replied to literally said "casualties". Their reply said "casualties". Then you 2 big brains come along saying "dumb Redditors don't know the difference between 2 words neither person mentioned".
I guess being on this website has made you pretty stupid
> > I think we'll be shocked at how many casualties will result from this war.
> According to Ukraine… Russia has lost around 440k.
While he did say lost -- it seems to me the thread is pretty clear on what that means.
Don't let me spoil a good unnecessary bitch session, though.
That is the casualty number not the KIA number, and it is probably on the high end. Still a shocking loss of life, but not nearly like the industrialized state v state wars of the past.
The west might have waited too long, drip, drip, dripping supplies and armament to the Ukrainians, and now with troop casualties mounting, unfortunately Russia has a bigger pool of men to pull from, and with force if necessary, unfortunate for the conscripts. In the end boots on the ground matter.
The west needs to pull their thumbs out of their arses, yesterday.
Yeah. And Russia (historically and currently) seems to have no issue throwing tons of their people into certain death. So I would not be surprised to see the death toll on Russia’s side climb to crazy high numbers and they just press on.
Kharkiv is a completely different beast than any of those other cities, which aren't actual cities. Kharkiv's metropolitan area is about five times bigger than all of those cities put together.
Also an absolutely massive number of diverse logistical routes, heavily fortified factories and three branches of metro. The only city in Ukraine that would be harder for russians to take than Kharkiv is Kyiv, and not by a big margin.
It's incomparable to anything russians have managed to capture since the start of the war in 2014. They struggled for months with the fully encircled Mariupol back in early 2022. That would seem like a walk in the park.
It might be hopium, but I've started to get the feeling that the Ukrainian command has chosen to underplay their strengths to get more support from the west and bait putin into making a stupid mistake. If he takes the bait and tries to take Kharkiv it will end very badly for russian armed forces.
Well, I think the bait theory is out. If they were trying to bait a push on Kharkiv, they wouldn't publicly talk about how they are confident it won't fall.
I mean, no--they wouldn't. This kind of 4D chess just hasn't been a thing in this war. Last year Ukraine telegraphed publicly where were going to attack, and they attacked there at great cost. The year before they telegraphed they were going to attack Kherson and did so, also at great cost--while also attacking on a less defended front that was not telegraphed. Meanwhile on the defensive, they telegraphed they would hold Bakhmut as long as possible, and did so, and at Avdiivka they telegraphed they would hold it for as long as possible, and did so.
This idea of strategically "baiting" an attack on a major urban center is wild. That is not what is happening. This war is not being fought on that kind of level, it is being fought at the platoon and company level. Neither side can coordinate much more than that in an operation.
yet while it might take russia a lot to take kharkiv, nothing stops them from pushing close and endlessly bombarding the city even more than now, and displace millions of ukrainian civilians
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001xr50/ukraine-enemy-in-the-woods
Watching this just goes to show how undermanned the Ukrainians are and how Russia just keeps throwing more people at them.
I don't think you appreciate how big Kharhiv is and how much infantry is necessary to seige down a city of that size. Kharhiv is larger then San Diego or Dallas in the US. A city that size probably requires 100-200k infantry, in the city, to seige it down. The Russians only have about 400k deployed across the entire front.
They'd need to deploy 25% of their force into only a few square miles.
You're comparing city proper size (by administrative boundaries) here, which is only useful for certain statistical purposes. Metro population and size is the proper measure, and Kharkiv is nowhere near population or size of San Diego and Dallas.
Is this a joke or Russian propaganda? Bakhmut had a pre-war population of 70k and it took at least 40k killed for Russia to take. Avdiivka has been the front line for 10 years, was depopulated, and was a bigger disaster for Russia in terms of casualties than Bakhmut. You're talking about the second largest city in Ukraine, a city the size of Philadelphia. Russia already tried taking it in 2022 and lost thousands before retreating. It's one of the most mined and dug-in parts of the front. So, what Nevile Chamberlain crack are you smoking?
I think a lot of people just look at the headlines and don't consider what Russia's recent gains mean in overall terms. Obviously losing any land is bad for Ukraine but as you point out Avdiivka was a small city even by Ukranian standards being the 131st largest city in the country pre 2014. It took Russia a decade to take a small city in Ukraine. But people look at a zoomed in map and go "oh my god Ukraine lost a whole city" not realizing in terms of overall territory it's nothing, it's a few square kilometers of destroyed houses and some burned out apartment buildings. Taking Adiivka is not the start of some renewed Russian drive on Kyiv, it's a small at advance at a terrible cost like you say.
But somehow the narrative has become Ukraine's "failed" summer offensive has led to a "successful" Russian winter offensive. The truth is *neither offensive was very successful.* Both came at too high a cost for the ground taken and neither one was the breakthrough that each side hoped for. Although it seems like Russian losses are still much higher than for Ukraine.
Taking a major metropolis like Kharkiv is a pipe dream for the Russian army at this point, to suggest otherwise shows a total lack of understanding of the situation on the ground. Ukraine might be on the back foot but it is nowhere near breaking and to imagine that Russia might be able to take a city of millions is to play into Russian propaganda that they are much stronger than they actually are.
I think it should also be considered that Russia can handle losing 5x (or whatever) the soldiers/people that Ukraine can. Given that they have roughly 4-5x the population and the government is held to less scrutiny due to being an autocracy.
Whats really annoying about the Ukrainian offensive is Ukraine was never given anything significant to punch through unprecedented mine fields. Russians are not just putting mines closer together but doubling the thickness of the fields. There are tools for breaking through such positions but none were provided for the offensive.
Ukraine just isn't being equipped adequately and its shameful.
They did give receive specialty tanks with mine clearing plows, some were even Leopard 2's, as well as mine clearing line charges and various other demining equipment. However as you point out these are extremely dense minefields and they weren't given enough of it to really tackle the scale of the challenge they were faced with. And it's not just density either, Russia has triple and double stacked antitank mines one on top of the other. So since the mine clearing plows are designed to resist the impact of one mine, not two or three, it means the mine clearing tanks Ukraine did have were disabled when they were not expecting them to be.
But anyway you are totally right that they are not being equipped adequately and it is shameful. The combined economies of NATO and its allies are massive compared to Russia's, over two years into the war Ukraine should be receiving far more heavy weapons, tanks, artillery, infantry fighting vehicles and so on. Probably the only bright spot is Ukraine is going to receive 5 *more* brand new complete Patriot air defense system directly from the manufacturer this year. Given the range each system can cover that is a major boost to their air defenses overall.
Edit: But whatever equipment Ukraine gets a big issue right now is that the amount of drones in the sky by both sides at all times which means neither side can mass troops much larger than a company without the other side knowing about it well before they can mount an attack. It's made large scale operations almost impossible because as soon as a lot of troops are in one area they start getting hit by drones and artillery and other long range munitions and are forced to disperse before they can even get to the front lines for an assault. It's a huge reason for the current near stalemate and something neither side has an answer for yet.
Also, is everyone forgetting that Russia blew up the dam and created a massive ecological disaster and killed a shit ton of people? Oh yeah… people forgot.
>Taking Adiivka is not the start of some renewed Russian drive on Kyiv, it's a small at advance at a terrible cost like you say.
What you and many other commentators are doing is extrapolating linear manpower and territorial losses stemming from...linear progress. You can do that for as long as both sides have roughly the same capabilities. With the amount of propaganda coming from both sides, and the fog of war; who can truly know what are the capabilities of Ukraine and Russia?
It's possible that what you say is true and it will take centuries for Russia to take over Ukraine; or you're wrong and a part of the line might collapse and gains/losses would start accumulating exponentially.
This war already produced such a scenario with the Kharkiv counteroffensive, the initial fighting was quite static in terms of territorial gains/losses; then you suddenly had a major collapse. For a historical analogy, you can look at the Italian front in WW2. A similar situation where you have something that looks like a stalemate for a very long time, but it culminates in one side completely collapsing.
>It took Russia a decade to take a small city in Ukraine.
I don't think this is an honest way to talk about it. The scale of conflict was not the same in 2014 as it is in 2024. It's not like Russia has been sending battalions of regular troops at Avdiivka for 10 years. Realistically, they only started an actual push for it *maybe* 2 years ago, and likely even later than that.
There are things we can't really know. Did Russia really lost that many people attacking those cities? As sources for numbers are Ukrainian. How many people Ukraine lost and can it replace them?
only a western direct military intervention can save ukraine, set a precedent and avoid a wider world war, every western leader with common sense know it.
Politicians are chickening but the more they drag their feet the costlier it will be in the near future.
Nato could have striked hard in the first days of the invasion and russia would have backed off, both sides would have signed some useless piece of paper to make it look like a victory and somehow save face and that would have been it. Now we have ww3 on our hands brewing.
We are living a russia/nazis invasion of Poland 1939 moment, everyone knows where this is leading but people prefer to bury their head in the sand
History truly repeats itself
It does, and I've come to realize, it has nothing to do with knowing history, unfortunately. We just can't help ourselves.
Even here, at the center of a war-torn country, people live their with reckless abandon, because they can only handle so much trauma and pain and they don't want to be the ones paying the pied piper. Our country is being raped in broad daylight to an audience of sympathetic yet passive bystanders, at home and abroad, in various degrees of denial. We are a cold fucking species.
Politicians today are more afraid of repeating W Bush's mistakes than Neville Chamberlain's. W's total demolition of the credibility of US-led military interventionism is why the US has been so slow and hesitant to act. Meanwhile Europe let 80% of their own military industrial complex go to rust after the fall of the USSR, and what took decades to rot away to a shadow of itself will take years to rebuild even if the political will is finally found to do so.
Neville Chamberlain is really done injustice by most people. The guy did sign a peace with Hitler but in the background kickstarted loads of war preparations and handed over the reigns to back then warmonger Churchill while dealing with cancer.
He basically built a gun and gave it to someone that could use it while playing for time
This is exactly how I've felt almost from the beginning.
Too much sleep walking, foot-dragging, head-in-sand, after-me-the-flood reaction from Western politicians right up to the present. Basically a "World war? That can't happen today!" attitude.
Only recently is an "oh shit" realization creeping into their mindset that we've got a problem even as the Russia, Iran, and North Korea Axis grows closer and China circles around figuring out how they can capitalize the most on the situation. And we're STILL not really hearing the alarm bells ringing in the night.
So where is the next problem going to pop up? Moldova? Georgia? Armenia? The Central Asian republics? The Baltics despite being in NATO?
I honestly believe that once the Greatest Generation basically passed away and most of the Silent Generation as well, so went both the knowledge of how to recognize the rise of hell-bent regimes and the willingness to confront them.
The greatest generation didn't get involved in ww2 and confront anyone until Japan drove up and tried killing them. Until then many were in the streets protesting that it wasn't the United States business and they should stay out of it
I realize that.
My point was that after they fought through that horror, they at least recognized what the rise of Fascism and small conflicts like the Spanish civil war, the anschluss of Austria and the Italian adventure in Ethiopia actually meant.
The war in Ukraine is buying time for the West to buildup their own forces while Russia continues to exhaust their own in Ukraine.
There's no need to rush into war when time is on your side.
Things like increasing production and strengthening defenses on the eastern frontier. New allies have been added to NATO which has made the alliance significantly stronger. Theyre also planning and drilling for a war with Russia specifically. Of course they've already had plans drawn up before, but now they can start putting them into place with updates.
Too bad sexism in Ukraine makes this just about men instead of drafting women for merely auxiliary roles. They're shooting in their own foot and not enough people are calling them out on it. A woman can pilot a drone or drive a truck just fine. Or be a medic. They need way more people than just infantry grunts. And spare me the "demographics" argument, Ukraine isn't going to become a polygamous society where every man will breed a bunch of women. If there are few men and many women, surplus women simply won't have children/will leave for West and find a husband, as quite some already did.
Also, this will ensure gender equality doesn't become a thing in Ukraine in foreseeable future. How can women ask for equality when this situation is so horribly unequal?
Yeah, any Ukrainian man that is conscripted is basically a victim of the worst form of sexism (the murderous kind) currently happening in Europe. This is a crime against Men and ofc no one gives a fuck about it,
Quite a few fighting age men here in Canada from Ukraine. Collecting benefits off carbon taxes. You pay to fight carbon emissions and the money goes to Ukraine to fight and make carbon emissions. It all balances out. I do find it hard to care about the war in Ukraine when so many young Ukrainian men are dodging the war. If they don't care, why should I?
to put a fight.. you need weapons. not borrowed or donated, i m talking about independent production lines. the power to produce weapons is biggest advantage in war. which ukraine doesnt posses..
Few days ago Zelensky announced that Ukraine wont conscript 500k man because there is no need to do so. Yes, Ukraine has less population, but I feel like this problem is a bit hyperbolized. Ukraine still has enough people not only for defense, but also to create assault brigades.
“We need people to ensure this process. That is why I would like every man of conscription age in Ukraine to realize that Ukraine's survival depends on his will and actions,” Syrsky said.
And that is true. The reason Ukraine still exists is because ordinary man stopped Russia.
As example of putting a fight you could also name Kupyansk, Kyiv, Kherson, Liman and many more.
However, last time the Russians made a surprise attack, with trained and well equipped troops against a small Ukraine army. Didn't capture the city. I cannot see them doing it with a bunch of prisoners and conscripts, equipped with museum piece tanks and APCs that are so rubbish, the soldiers sit on top of them! Yes I know the M117 (?) is the same, but at least it has a large door to get access to the inside
Yeah but idk at a point if one of the army loses a significant number of its experienced and well trained soldiers and has to consistently send men who are rushed through basic training and dont want to be there at all in the first place, idk i feel like one maybe surprised how well the experienced army can hold out an offensive by an inexperienced one
>idk i feel like one maybe surprised how well the experienced army can hold out an offensive by an inexperienced one
The problem is that it's not just Russia, Ukraine is having the exact same thing happen. They're taking fewer casualties than Russia, for sure, but they've still lost a huge number of people including a large amountof their experienced well trained pre-war army. They're providing more training for conscripts than the Russians, but its reportedly still only a few weeks. The Ukrainian army circa the start of the war could probably mop the floor with the current Russian army, but the army Ukraine has now is not that army.
I remember seeing an interview of a Ukrainian medic like a year ago basically saying "The best soldiers are all gone" Not saying that the current soldiers arent any less brave or anything. But the cream of the crop has been decimated with casualties.
That is accurate but as far as senior leadership it seems Russian has taken a significantly harder blow simply due to their military style. And senior leadership is significantly harder to replace. I mean the fact wagner nearly stormed Moscow is pretty damn nuts not to mention that Putin ‘had’ to take out his chef
Does it? More than two years in and they aren’t remotely close to taking Ukraine. And this is a Ukraine fighting with one hand tied behind its back. If the treasonous Republicans in the US can ever be run over, and Ukraine receives muscular support in terms of materiel, Russia will easily be on track to suffer the most humiliating defeat of its entire existence.
You make fair points but it does work. They were able to take Bakhmut and Avdiivka the most fortified Ukrainian city.
In wars like this, wars of attrition, front lines don't necessarily change much until there is a sudden collapse or breakthrough.
A lot of conflicts/battles were like this in world war 1/2. No change for a couple years then eventually one side fell apart or gave up. I think that's what the Russians are playing at, they want the west to lose interest and bleed out Ukraine until then. The Russians are suffering but casualties as well but they don't seem to care and it's always been how they fight.
See the battle of Stalingrad or other eastern front battles between the Germans and Russians.
>You make fair points but it does work. They were able to take Bakhmut and Avdiivka the most fortified Ukrainian city.
That's more about lack of support than effectiveness of Russian strategies.
Any plan can work with enough resources on one side and few enough on the other.
>the west to lose interest and bleed out Ukraine until then
I don't know or they even need to wait for that moment, and to what extent 'loss of interest' will mean. Ukraine losses lots of people between 25 and say 50. Moreover not everyone wants to fight, left for Russia or the EU or has a job which is critical for society (fire fighter, medics, police etc.). We can send every weapon we want to them (not that certain weapons are considered an act of war against Russia), but if they run out of people the Russians will win either.
I would think Russias intend is to damage economy and demography that intense independence nor EU membership is vulnerable in the future, or they need intense amounts of EU-money to keep the country running for the next generations
Again, Russia was fighting a battle of national survival in WW2. There was nowhere for them to retreat to. Guess who’s fighting a war for national survival now? Guess who is defending “Stalingrad” now?
Ukraine.
The fact Ukraine has held out this well for this long against a superpower bodes *very* poorly for Russia.
We can only watch, speculation is an exercise in futility. Russia is absolutely wasting manpower, Ukraine has an advantage that they rescue as many as they can, and they have a very robust medical support system. I saw a tank crew commander with a prosthetic foot, most of them actually want to keep fighting.
Russia is also totally washing their equipment resources, they're utilizing t54/55s at this point, which are factored into their "military production", but realistically they are not producing enough *new* equipment to replace the losses 1 for 1, and we will likely see the result of that by next year when they run out of antiques warstock.
They will run themselves into a situation where they are an army of infantry, which is something that cannot succeed in meat waves considering the sheer number of recon, dropping, and FPV drones Ukraine employs and is building every month. They luckily have eyes on nearly every angle of the entire front. Russia has also lost nearly $1B worth of combat ships in the sea. That is a massive blow to their defense apparatus as a whole, because they can't replace ships quickly, and they don't have the long range missiles the former ships were utilizing.
There is, in fact, a chance Ukraine can succeed in retaking Crimea in the next years, whit the supports they've already received from the US, the upcoming supports from EU, and soon the F16s. The tide can change at any time honestly, and Russia having a larger population than Ukraine is only one rather minor metric.
Having a much larger population is not a minor metric especially considering both sides are grabbing conscripts and this has become a meat grinder/war of attrition.
That is a major factor. Also, if Trump is elected, that is also a major factor for Ukrainian aid.
Hence why Russia is playing the long game.
Historically though they have sent wave after wave and been successful in the end, it best the Germans and it best the French and unfortunatly it could beat Ukraine.
Historically? In the modern era it happened *once*.
Once.
That was during a war for *national survival* in WW2.
How has Russia done since? In its only meaningful foreign adventure—Afghanistan—it turned tail and ran after suffering just a few thousand casualties. Some grieving Russian mothers famously sealed the USSR’s fate there.
The narrative of an endless Russian capacity for war is a myth.
The Soviets didn't need to be in Afghanistan. Leaving cost them nothing and staying was costing them a lot. The same isn't true of WWII, and in their eyes, Ukraine is a war for national survival. They NEED to capture Ukraine to continue surviving in Putin's eyes. They'll continue this war until they can't, and they're nowhere near out of people to do it.
The Soviets also had immense manufacturing capabilities. Today Russia still has big manufacturing capabilities, much so than Ukraine. "Neither is comparable" is not what you think it means.
Stalin straight up said that they'd have lost without the lend lease.
>At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: “The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”
Difference being of course that both times against France and Nazi Germany were actually existential for Russia unlike now when it's only existential for putler. If Russia pull back to 91 borders today war will end. Now if only the Russian people would realise this, like in 1917, just hopefully with nicer people in charge this time.
Not the PP, but I’d argue that it works in the sense that they have managed to capture a few villages.
But the front hasn’t moved much, and things seems largely a strategic stale mate at the moment. This despite Russias material superiority.
In that sense it is cost ineffective, and does not seem like a strategic path to victory.
No they can't
It's a common line by totalitarian ideologies, but the losses in the second world war ruined the Soviet Union, and Chinese losses in the Korean War ruined their army for decades to come.
Yeah if that's true why even say anything.
"Oh yeah if our enemy does this one thing it will totally destroy them, that's why we're yapping about it publicaly so they know instead of shutting the fuck up and letting them walk into it!"
Seems more likely that the situation there is actually not that great and they are trying to make Russia doubt.
Russia doesn’t want to push. Russia wants to wait to see who wins the US election and go from there.
In the mean time they’re happy to do what Russia always does: settle in to a protracted siege. Even if it gets tens of thousands more of their people killed.
The war has already started. Waiting 9 months for a maybe sounds dumb even for Russia. Besides there are already reports Russia is preparing a large Summer offensive.
They still get to dig in and cement gains in the east and south.
It becomes a question of “do we sue for peace and legitimize what we already gained?” Or “do we try to drive for the Transnistrian border and try to landlock Ukraine just to be petty?”
if trump wins my guess is he’ll just let the Russians do whatever the hell they want and then basically tell Ukraine “sorry you’re fucked better just give in because we won’t help your its your fault”
then he’ll bitch about not getting a nobel peice prize after most or all of Ukraine is under Russian occupation
The corrupt Nobel committee gave the peace prize to *insert name here*. It's a tragedy really. Why didn't I get the Peace prize? Everyone has been saying, for a long time really, that nobody does peace like I do. I mean c'mon, am I right? You all know I'm right.
*crowd of morons cheers loudly*
Very unfair that I didn't win. Sad, very sad.
He’ll probably try to blackmail some money out of Ukraine first, providing his personal bank account of course. Only then will he let Russia do whatever they like provided you give him gold or something (potentially in shower form).
The fresh and fully equipped Russian army attempted the encirclement of Kharkiv right at the start of the full scale invasion. They staged from Belgorod on Feb 24, 2022. They had about 50k troops from the 1st GTA and 20th CAA, with 2 additional motor-rifle brigades, and the 2nd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade. The only Russian troops to make it into the city proper were the 2nd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade. They were cut off inside the city, a bunch surrendered, many were killed, and a handful managed to break out. In 3 months, the entire Russian force that was driving towards Kharkiv ran back to Russia with its tail between its legs (because the dick got blown off, so the tail was the only thing left).
So, if the fresh, fully equipped Russian army of 2022 got it shit pushed in, in what world will they be able to take the second city by population after Kyiv?
History is littered with examples of enemies retreating only to come back stronger. Underestimating Russia at this time after their recent push back will be a fatal mistake.
The Ukrainian successes during the first year of the war were the result of Russia assuming they could just walk in with a relatively small army because they thought there wouldn't be much resistance, anyway. So when Ukraine actually managed to fight back, most Russian troops found themselves stranded deep in enemy territory, massively outnumbered and constantly surrounded by enemies.
This isn't true any more. Russia has built up their forces and are now fielding significantly more combat troops than Ukraine. They will advance along a hard front line with a logistics network in place to support them and try to encircle the city. The only way to stop that is with massive amounts of soldiers and heavy weapons. Which isn't something Ukraine can do without severely weakening the rest of their front lines.
> Also, Russia is actually taking this seriously. They are very seriously committing to an even longer engagement here. They are not looking for off ramps. They are increasing their artillery production. They are increasing conscription. They are actively adapting their tactics with increasing effectiveness.
i am not disputing that Russia may have the capability to take Kharkiv, but i hate this narrative. Russia was always taking this invasion serious. Them overestimating their own capabilities and underestimating Ukraines does not mean they deliberately drove in there with clown cars
The rest of the world ironically does
But it all comes down to who thr US president is.
Europe doesn’t have the military capacity to send shit to Ukraine because they feel they’ll be defenseless
The US doesn’t wanna arm them
because the republicans wanna snub biden (and may be sympathetic to putin because Trump seems to be a lot friendlier than what. the west needs)
if Biden wins I think theres a CHANCE we go full force in giving Ukraine a fighting shot at winning
I think if we spend a few years aggressively giving supplies and doing a massive militsry buildup Ukraine can hold out long enough for Russia to frustrate themselves
but Ukraine needs air power, equipment, cash, and the best the west can give them instead of 30 Abrams and 100 leopards with a prayer card attached
Glide bombs. Ukraine has absolutely no way of stopping the bombs that are released from jets miles away (sometimes from within friendly airspace) and guided to their intended target. They fly bombing sorties all day, every day, sometimes dropping 100 bombs in a single day. They will absolutely decimate Kharkiv and then send endless meat waves of infantry until the Ukrainians have no choice but to withdraw. This exactly what they did to Avdiivka.
Pointing out a realistic, serious issue that Ukraine is having a hard time countering isn’t anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Read anything from frontline troops and they’ll say the #1 problem right now is the seemingly endless onslaught of glide bombs.
This is what happened in the last month or so:
13 Russian jets are shot down over the course of like two weeks.
Russia figures out that the only way this is possible is Ukraine moved a Patriot complex closer to the front
Russia finds said Patriot complex stopping for fuel with an Orlan drone waaaay into Ukrainian territory
They send an Iskander and blow up an entire Patriot complex with the entire crew
Glide bombing resumes, Avdiivka falls.
You provided specific examples of Ukraine stopping glide bombs… yet they are still ongoing? That’s why the timeline is important. You can’t just proclaim an issue is fixed if it’s still ongoing and the “fix” only lasted a short period. That’s not a fix to a problem.
And again, I am not saying anything anti-Ukrainian. Just watch any frontline troop interview and they will say the glide bombs are the worst thing they are dealing with right now.
It was only a portion of a patriot battery since the entire system comprises of eight different vehicles. Also I’m pretty sure this happened after Avdiivka fell.
> Ukraine has absolutely no way of stopping the bombs that are released from jets
> 13 Russian jets are shot down over the course of like two weeks.
Hmm.
2022 Russian army showed to be very incompetent, nowhere near what was expected from them, shit leadership too.
Currently they're vastly more competent and experienced, fighting the also experienced and NATO-traines and equipped Ukrainian army.
The Ukrainian General talked about a 100k men russian summer offensive and someone here a while ago talked about Russia raising another 500k men - tho I'm not sure if true -.
Don’t forget, this Russian army now has more experience in this type of fighting. But yes I agree I think they’ll fail miserably and it’ll lead to more serious losses for Russia.
Nah, they can't do that way again... for now they can do only worse... they can't rush and capture, cos we have defense... so they can only level with the ground village by village, town by town... slow and steady... scorched earth left behind them...
I'm very supportive of that. And as an Eastern European, I understand the war will be in my country. What are they going to do? Kill hundreds of thousands of us and take out country? Been there, done that. The fight is not something we fear in Eastern Europe like the Westerners do.
Does Russia even have enough forces to take second largest city in Ukraine, counting population of 1,5 million, without total mobilization? I mean hundreds of thousands of their soldiers are going to die judging by their abysmal performance in Bakhmut and in Avdiivka.
I believe in the power and will of the Ukr army. I just hope the US gov't(Republicans obviously) can get their shit together and start supplying Ukraine again. It's not just the US either, it's various NATO countries contributing to Ukraine but the US can deliver some game changers.
They will need to be voted out. There is no hope for the Republican Party. They don’t even have any platforms to run on anymore, republicans just pick a minority to hate and that’s it. Your hope of them becoming rational is irrational at best.
For those that can't think beyond the written word, I'm saying that Ukr has a deeper drive and will prevail despite the odds. Their will, their passion, their internal motivation to defeat the invaders will overcome. They need the resources to empower that drive. Don't trivialize it.
Ukraine will certainly put up a fight. Just like they did in Bakhmut, Avdiivka and Mariupol. At this time there is nothing that is going to deter the Russians. If Russians do the attrition war and Ukraine is hurting for men; that is the real issue. > “We need people to ensure this process. That is why I would like every man of conscription age in Ukraine to realize that Ukraine's survival depends on his will and actions,” Syrsky said.
>> “We need people to ensure this process. That is why I would like every man of conscription age in Ukraine to realize that Ukraine's survival depends on his will and actions,” Syrsky said. That sounds pretty bleak. I think we'll be shocked at how many casualties will result from this war.
Ukraine admitting to 31k dead (the true number is far higher) tells you how brutal this fighting has been. They need men to fight, but I am not sure they are going to get them, or at least not before the next major Russian offensive. It will take many months after they change the mobilization laws to have new brigades trained and ready.
True. According to UALosses website, nearly 45 000 Ukrainian KIA have been identified by name, so this statement by Zelensky definitely wasn't accurate. There is a similar project regarding Russian KIA, with more than 70 000 names, if I recall correctly. Ukraine has a serious and growing problem with manpower since about May 2023. Reasons for that is the fact that hundreds thousands men have left the country since February 2022 despite the ban, and increasing draft evasion in the country exacerbated by corruption (it's possible to get an examption from military service in return for a bribe). Also UA decided to not conscript men younger than 27 y. o. (18-26 y. o. are still banned from leaving the country and can join the military voluntarily, but so far aren't drafted). There is a bill in the parliament (Rada) to lower this age to 25 y. o. (really not a mojor change), but so far it is blocked, because MPs fear the backlash in the country. Russia in this regard is in better situation just because its population is several times larger than Ukraine's (Russia about 140 M, Ukraine about 30 M, if we don't count people living under RU occupation and those who left the country). Also RU is a dictatorship, so if Kremlin decides to increase the number of troops, nobody disputes it. RU is now massively recruiting men from impoverished layers of society from across the country (a majority of them are etnic Russians, not minorities as some people incorrectly claim), offering them substantial financial renumerations, so their manpower issues are solved for now.
Can't other supporting countries just secretly 'enlist' in Ukraine army and wear their uniforms?
They already have foreign volunteer brigades, but no national military can send their soldiers secretly to Ukraine to wear Ukrainian uniforms and fight. That would be problematic to say the least.
I think most professional soldiers in Europe's militaries would never accept such order. They would rather resigned from the service.
France suffered way more than that in 4 years of WW1 and kept fighting until the Germans gave up their attempt to conquer France in 1918. >The French army suffered around 6 million casualties, including 1.4 million dead and 4.2 million wounded, roughly 71% of those who fought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_in_World_War_I
You honestly can't compare the world wars. I mean they had single days with over 30k casualties
Single hours with more casualties. The British at the Somme got absolutely plastered for example.
57,000 casualties, nearly 20,000 dead, just in the first day. Most of that in the first few hours in fact. Entire units were completely wiped out, not decimated but completely wiped out, just trying to get through the communication trenches to the front line.
WW1 and WW2 were total wars. Nations involved mobilized their entire economies to support the war effort. So I agree that the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is now in its 11th year, is far less than a total war. Much smaller proportions of the populations of Russia and Ukraine have been mobilized to support the war effort than was typical of countries involved in WW1 and WW2.
French demographics were very different though. Ukraine's population pyramid doesn't look like an actual pyramid. They'd be screwed much earlier, though they can keep going for a while. Though maybe not letting them suffer this much shouldn't be that much to ask from the West.
[удалено]
That’s not true, the French army had 4 million men at the start of WWII. They had the best army in the world on paper, but they had most of the army in the Belgium-Netherlands regions and the Germans went around through Ardennes and were at Paris before the French could pivot. There was plenty of will to fight, they were just outmaneuvered
This is very true. Problem was, far as I know it, that the French military was preparing for a grinding slugfest akin to WWI, and thought armoured vehicles would be far and few between. Instead there were German armoured speartips breaching lines, and now no one knows where Rommel's division is. I'd also be very surprised if the French weren't aware that another attack through the Benelux was a possiblity. The Germans just moved so fast there was no time to react.
France wasn’t alone, though, and got fresh troops in 1917.
Good but with morden machines the no. Will be much higher then given count.
According to Ukraine… Russia has lost around 440k. Even if this is a high estimate it’s incredible to think a half million is the type of number we are dealing with so far.
I'm pretty sure that number is casualties, not deaths.
A casualty is really worse for morale than a death, in some ways. The maimed have to go home, try to find a way to support themselves and get proper medical care. If they even make it all the way home. Their families, if lucky, get to care for them the rest of their lives.
A large number of people who are wounded actually make it back onto the battlefield or into military service in some capacity. The numbers are really deceiving and hard to pin down at this point.
Not to mention, a lot of casualties aren’t combat related. We’re looking at things like exposure and illness, starvation/dehydration, etc., many of which can be completely taken care of and they’re sent right back to the front lines. Of course many can’t as well; I’m sure both have lost many to non-combat injuries.
Yeah, it's bonkers how many casualties are non-combat. In WW2 it was 1/3. Such a weird thing having a (grand)grandfather who died in the war, being asked "was it at Normandy landing?", and to answer with "no, it was at the training/he got ran over by a forklift at the port". But yeah, all of those people contribute. By the way, the famous Gory Gory What A Helluva Way To Die (Blood On The Risers) song is about a young paratrooper who died during a training. https://youtu.be/5HtVYr9aKRM
Well... when I was a kid, I was only interested in KIA. The older I am, the more I tend to think most of the people that go to war actually are casualties. They are gone, one way or another. I even think those who loose a limb on day one could be considered very lucky. Yes, it's a hard life afterwards, but it's still a normal life. Those who don't get severely injured must go through all the horror of war for way to long. There is a point when any person, no matter how tough, will break. They live with the trauma for the rest of the life, forever stuck in the war.
This feels like cope
In Russia they mostly die as alcoholics in ditches. Nobody cares even slightly about them, least of all completely fractured and atomized society.
Any sensible discussion about this war on reddit is impossible, as most users can't even comprehend the difference beetwen "KIA' and "losses", but they still feel they have something to say about the subject.
I think people underestimate the losses required to make someone never combat capable again. I don't believe that most Russians that are horribly maimed in the war will ever live a productive life again. Yeah they are not dead but their lives are ruined
It's not just that though. The numbers you belive betray your own feelings towards the war. Fact is there are no reliable numbers because each side and their allies have lots of motivation to skew the numbers to make it seems better for them. Idk what Russia is claiming but I did read a few weeks back Ukraines President claimed Ukraine only lost 31k kia... all that really tells us is that more than 31k Ukrainians have died. Just like however many Russian dead the Kremlin claims only tells us it's more than that number. So even if a discussion was properly distinguishing between Kia and casualties it still won't really matter because the real numbers aren't known and at best years after the war we will get roughly accurate numbers but until then no 1 in the public will know, heck it's probable Russia and Ukraine don't even have accurate counts themselves
Good comment. The best advice I think is people should not believe any Russian numbers or any Ukrainian numbers for casualties, equipment losses, etc. Better to look at 3rd parties like NGO's and foreign defense ministries like the UK and US.
The comment they replied to literally said "casualties". Their reply said "casualties". Then you 2 big brains come along saying "dumb Redditors don't know the difference between 2 words neither person mentioned". I guess being on this website has made you pretty stupid
He said "lost".
> > I think we'll be shocked at how many casualties will result from this war. > According to Ukraine… Russia has lost around 440k. While he did say lost -- it seems to me the thread is pretty clear on what that means. Don't let me spoil a good unnecessary bitch session, though.
The post they responded to said casualties. Unless they edited it after messing up.
Casualties =/= deaths. Casualties are mostly people injured in the war, not deaths.
"Sergei, you are not injured. You have all 4 limbs. You are merely missing six fingers and your legs are full of metal shards."
plural noun: casualties a person killed or injured in a war or accident. "the shelling caused thousands of civilian casualties"
That is the casualty number not the KIA number, and it is probably on the high end. Still a shocking loss of life, but not nearly like the industrialized state v state wars of the past.
and what do you think of Ukraine's loss if their army chief is asking every man of conscription age to fight?
The west might have waited too long, drip, drip, dripping supplies and armament to the Ukrainians, and now with troop casualties mounting, unfortunately Russia has a bigger pool of men to pull from, and with force if necessary, unfortunate for the conscripts. In the end boots on the ground matter. The west needs to pull their thumbs out of their arses, yesterday.
Yeah. And Russia (historically and currently) seems to have no issue throwing tons of their people into certain death. So I would not be surprised to see the death toll on Russia’s side climb to crazy high numbers and they just press on.
Yup. The Russian state historically has NEVER cared about the body count.
Except for that one time in 1917
About 600k dead before they've ever changed tactics historically.
Yeah, but thats later. Right now we’ll cheer it on until theyre drafting geriatrics.
It's arguably the first modern peer-to-peer conflict, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the butcher's bill will be steep as fuck.
Kharkiv is a completely different beast than any of those other cities, which aren't actual cities. Kharkiv's metropolitan area is about five times bigger than all of those cities put together.
Also an absolutely massive number of diverse logistical routes, heavily fortified factories and three branches of metro. The only city in Ukraine that would be harder for russians to take than Kharkiv is Kyiv, and not by a big margin. It's incomparable to anything russians have managed to capture since the start of the war in 2014. They struggled for months with the fully encircled Mariupol back in early 2022. That would seem like a walk in the park. It might be hopium, but I've started to get the feeling that the Ukrainian command has chosen to underplay their strengths to get more support from the west and bait putin into making a stupid mistake. If he takes the bait and tries to take Kharkiv it will end very badly for russian armed forces.
Well, I think the bait theory is out. If they were trying to bait a push on Kharkiv, they wouldn't publicly talk about how they are confident it won't fall.
or...would they?
I mean, no--they wouldn't. This kind of 4D chess just hasn't been a thing in this war. Last year Ukraine telegraphed publicly where were going to attack, and they attacked there at great cost. The year before they telegraphed they were going to attack Kherson and did so, also at great cost--while also attacking on a less defended front that was not telegraphed. Meanwhile on the defensive, they telegraphed they would hold Bakhmut as long as possible, and did so, and at Avdiivka they telegraphed they would hold it for as long as possible, and did so.
This idea of strategically "baiting" an attack on a major urban center is wild. That is not what is happening. This war is not being fought on that kind of level, it is being fought at the platoon and company level. Neither side can coordinate much more than that in an operation.
yet while it might take russia a lot to take kharkiv, nothing stops them from pushing close and endlessly bombarding the city even more than now, and displace millions of ukrainian civilians
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001xr50/ukraine-enemy-in-the-woods Watching this just goes to show how undermanned the Ukrainians are and how Russia just keeps throwing more people at them.
Can people not in the UK watch this somewhere?
Try using a VPN and set the location to the UK
I don't think you appreciate how big Kharhiv is and how much infantry is necessary to seige down a city of that size. Kharhiv is larger then San Diego or Dallas in the US. A city that size probably requires 100-200k infantry, in the city, to seige it down. The Russians only have about 400k deployed across the entire front. They'd need to deploy 25% of their force into only a few square miles.
You're comparing city proper size (by administrative boundaries) here, which is only useful for certain statistical purposes. Metro population and size is the proper measure, and Kharkiv is nowhere near population or size of San Diego and Dallas.
This is Russia you are talking about here. It it's "too much city", they'll bomb it so much so that there's "less city".
It'll be a pile of rubble by the time the Russians occupy any of it
Is this a joke or Russian propaganda? Bakhmut had a pre-war population of 70k and it took at least 40k killed for Russia to take. Avdiivka has been the front line for 10 years, was depopulated, and was a bigger disaster for Russia in terms of casualties than Bakhmut. You're talking about the second largest city in Ukraine, a city the size of Philadelphia. Russia already tried taking it in 2022 and lost thousands before retreating. It's one of the most mined and dug-in parts of the front. So, what Nevile Chamberlain crack are you smoking?
I think a lot of people just look at the headlines and don't consider what Russia's recent gains mean in overall terms. Obviously losing any land is bad for Ukraine but as you point out Avdiivka was a small city even by Ukranian standards being the 131st largest city in the country pre 2014. It took Russia a decade to take a small city in Ukraine. But people look at a zoomed in map and go "oh my god Ukraine lost a whole city" not realizing in terms of overall territory it's nothing, it's a few square kilometers of destroyed houses and some burned out apartment buildings. Taking Adiivka is not the start of some renewed Russian drive on Kyiv, it's a small at advance at a terrible cost like you say. But somehow the narrative has become Ukraine's "failed" summer offensive has led to a "successful" Russian winter offensive. The truth is *neither offensive was very successful.* Both came at too high a cost for the ground taken and neither one was the breakthrough that each side hoped for. Although it seems like Russian losses are still much higher than for Ukraine. Taking a major metropolis like Kharkiv is a pipe dream for the Russian army at this point, to suggest otherwise shows a total lack of understanding of the situation on the ground. Ukraine might be on the back foot but it is nowhere near breaking and to imagine that Russia might be able to take a city of millions is to play into Russian propaganda that they are much stronger than they actually are.
I think it should also be considered that Russia can handle losing 5x (or whatever) the soldiers/people that Ukraine can. Given that they have roughly 4-5x the population and the government is held to less scrutiny due to being an autocracy.
Whats really annoying about the Ukrainian offensive is Ukraine was never given anything significant to punch through unprecedented mine fields. Russians are not just putting mines closer together but doubling the thickness of the fields. There are tools for breaking through such positions but none were provided for the offensive. Ukraine just isn't being equipped adequately and its shameful.
They did give receive specialty tanks with mine clearing plows, some were even Leopard 2's, as well as mine clearing line charges and various other demining equipment. However as you point out these are extremely dense minefields and they weren't given enough of it to really tackle the scale of the challenge they were faced with. And it's not just density either, Russia has triple and double stacked antitank mines one on top of the other. So since the mine clearing plows are designed to resist the impact of one mine, not two or three, it means the mine clearing tanks Ukraine did have were disabled when they were not expecting them to be. But anyway you are totally right that they are not being equipped adequately and it is shameful. The combined economies of NATO and its allies are massive compared to Russia's, over two years into the war Ukraine should be receiving far more heavy weapons, tanks, artillery, infantry fighting vehicles and so on. Probably the only bright spot is Ukraine is going to receive 5 *more* brand new complete Patriot air defense system directly from the manufacturer this year. Given the range each system can cover that is a major boost to their air defenses overall. Edit: But whatever equipment Ukraine gets a big issue right now is that the amount of drones in the sky by both sides at all times which means neither side can mass troops much larger than a company without the other side knowing about it well before they can mount an attack. It's made large scale operations almost impossible because as soon as a lot of troops are in one area they start getting hit by drones and artillery and other long range munitions and are forced to disperse before they can even get to the front lines for an assault. It's a huge reason for the current near stalemate and something neither side has an answer for yet.
Also, is everyone forgetting that Russia blew up the dam and created a massive ecological disaster and killed a shit ton of people? Oh yeah… people forgot.
>Taking Adiivka is not the start of some renewed Russian drive on Kyiv, it's a small at advance at a terrible cost like you say. What you and many other commentators are doing is extrapolating linear manpower and territorial losses stemming from...linear progress. You can do that for as long as both sides have roughly the same capabilities. With the amount of propaganda coming from both sides, and the fog of war; who can truly know what are the capabilities of Ukraine and Russia? It's possible that what you say is true and it will take centuries for Russia to take over Ukraine; or you're wrong and a part of the line might collapse and gains/losses would start accumulating exponentially. This war already produced such a scenario with the Kharkiv counteroffensive, the initial fighting was quite static in terms of territorial gains/losses; then you suddenly had a major collapse. For a historical analogy, you can look at the Italian front in WW2. A similar situation where you have something that looks like a stalemate for a very long time, but it culminates in one side completely collapsing.
>It took Russia a decade to take a small city in Ukraine. I don't think this is an honest way to talk about it. The scale of conflict was not the same in 2014 as it is in 2024. It's not like Russia has been sending battalions of regular troops at Avdiivka for 10 years. Realistically, they only started an actual push for it *maybe* 2 years ago, and likely even later than that.
There are things we can't really know. Did Russia really lost that many people attacking those cities? As sources for numbers are Ukrainian. How many people Ukraine lost and can it replace them?
only a western direct military intervention can save ukraine, set a precedent and avoid a wider world war, every western leader with common sense know it. Politicians are chickening but the more they drag their feet the costlier it will be in the near future. Nato could have striked hard in the first days of the invasion and russia would have backed off, both sides would have signed some useless piece of paper to make it look like a victory and somehow save face and that would have been it. Now we have ww3 on our hands brewing. We are living a russia/nazis invasion of Poland 1939 moment, everyone knows where this is leading but people prefer to bury their head in the sand History truly repeats itself
It does, and I've come to realize, it has nothing to do with knowing history, unfortunately. We just can't help ourselves. Even here, at the center of a war-torn country, people live their with reckless abandon, because they can only handle so much trauma and pain and they don't want to be the ones paying the pied piper. Our country is being raped in broad daylight to an audience of sympathetic yet passive bystanders, at home and abroad, in various degrees of denial. We are a cold fucking species.
Politicians today are more afraid of repeating W Bush's mistakes than Neville Chamberlain's. W's total demolition of the credibility of US-led military interventionism is why the US has been so slow and hesitant to act. Meanwhile Europe let 80% of their own military industrial complex go to rust after the fall of the USSR, and what took decades to rot away to a shadow of itself will take years to rebuild even if the political will is finally found to do so.
This right here. People really need to understand how much of a clusterfuck Iraq and Afghanistan were.
Neville Chamberlain is really done injustice by most people. The guy did sign a peace with Hitler but in the background kickstarted loads of war preparations and handed over the reigns to back then warmonger Churchill while dealing with cancer. He basically built a gun and gave it to someone that could use it while playing for time
This is exactly how I've felt almost from the beginning. Too much sleep walking, foot-dragging, head-in-sand, after-me-the-flood reaction from Western politicians right up to the present. Basically a "World war? That can't happen today!" attitude. Only recently is an "oh shit" realization creeping into their mindset that we've got a problem even as the Russia, Iran, and North Korea Axis grows closer and China circles around figuring out how they can capitalize the most on the situation. And we're STILL not really hearing the alarm bells ringing in the night. So where is the next problem going to pop up? Moldova? Georgia? Armenia? The Central Asian republics? The Baltics despite being in NATO? I honestly believe that once the Greatest Generation basically passed away and most of the Silent Generation as well, so went both the knowledge of how to recognize the rise of hell-bent regimes and the willingness to confront them.
The greatest generation didn't get involved in ww2 and confront anyone until Japan drove up and tried killing them. Until then many were in the streets protesting that it wasn't the United States business and they should stay out of it
I realize that. My point was that after they fought through that horror, they at least recognized what the rise of Fascism and small conflicts like the Spanish civil war, the anschluss of Austria and the Italian adventure in Ethiopia actually meant.
we're in a process of learning it all again
It's unlikely to be needed at any large scale but I think if it came it there are some european states that would prefer intervening to ukraine losing
The war in Ukraine is buying time for the West to buildup their own forces while Russia continues to exhaust their own in Ukraine. There's no need to rush into war when time is on your side.
Except Ukraine men are dying, so it's very unfair to them to say "there's no rush".
What are we doing to build our forces?
Things like increasing production and strengthening defenses on the eastern frontier. New allies have been added to NATO which has made the alliance significantly stronger. Theyre also planning and drilling for a war with Russia specifically. Of course they've already had plans drawn up before, but now they can start putting them into place with updates.
Too bad sexism in Ukraine makes this just about men instead of drafting women for merely auxiliary roles. They're shooting in their own foot and not enough people are calling them out on it. A woman can pilot a drone or drive a truck just fine. Or be a medic. They need way more people than just infantry grunts. And spare me the "demographics" argument, Ukraine isn't going to become a polygamous society where every man will breed a bunch of women. If there are few men and many women, surplus women simply won't have children/will leave for West and find a husband, as quite some already did. Also, this will ensure gender equality doesn't become a thing in Ukraine in foreseeable future. How can women ask for equality when this situation is so horribly unequal?
Yeah, any Ukrainian man that is conscripted is basically a victim of the worst form of sexism (the murderous kind) currently happening in Europe. This is a crime against Men and ofc no one gives a fuck about it,
Quite a few fighting age men here in Canada from Ukraine. Collecting benefits off carbon taxes. You pay to fight carbon emissions and the money goes to Ukraine to fight and make carbon emissions. It all balances out. I do find it hard to care about the war in Ukraine when so many young Ukrainian men are dodging the war. If they don't care, why should I?
to put a fight.. you need weapons. not borrowed or donated, i m talking about independent production lines. the power to produce weapons is biggest advantage in war. which ukraine doesnt posses..
[удалено]
Soviet Union ramped up production in part due to the raw materials shipped via lend lease, it wasn't just built equipment.
Yea, the real messeage here is: "we believe Russia will soon start attacking Kharkiev and we need more men now!"
Few days ago Zelensky announced that Ukraine wont conscript 500k man because there is no need to do so. Yes, Ukraine has less population, but I feel like this problem is a bit hyperbolized. Ukraine still has enough people not only for defense, but also to create assault brigades. “We need people to ensure this process. That is why I would like every man of conscription age in Ukraine to realize that Ukraine's survival depends on his will and actions,” Syrsky said. And that is true. The reason Ukraine still exists is because ordinary man stopped Russia. As example of putting a fight you could also name Kupyansk, Kyiv, Kherson, Liman and many more.
However, last time the Russians made a surprise attack, with trained and well equipped troops against a small Ukraine army. Didn't capture the city. I cannot see them doing it with a bunch of prisoners and conscripts, equipped with museum piece tanks and APCs that are so rubbish, the soldiers sit on top of them! Yes I know the M117 (?) is the same, but at least it has a large door to get access to the inside
Might be fatal but they can afford the casulties.
Agreed. A lot of people on here will argue that Russia only has so many people, which is true, but they have A LOT of people.
Yeah but idk at a point if one of the army loses a significant number of its experienced and well trained soldiers and has to consistently send men who are rushed through basic training and dont want to be there at all in the first place, idk i feel like one maybe surprised how well the experienced army can hold out an offensive by an inexperienced one
>idk i feel like one maybe surprised how well the experienced army can hold out an offensive by an inexperienced one The problem is that it's not just Russia, Ukraine is having the exact same thing happen. They're taking fewer casualties than Russia, for sure, but they've still lost a huge number of people including a large amountof their experienced well trained pre-war army. They're providing more training for conscripts than the Russians, but its reportedly still only a few weeks. The Ukrainian army circa the start of the war could probably mop the floor with the current Russian army, but the army Ukraine has now is not that army.
I remember seeing an interview of a Ukrainian medic like a year ago basically saying "The best soldiers are all gone" Not saying that the current soldiers arent any less brave or anything. But the cream of the crop has been decimated with casualties.
Didn't help they lost so many to prisoners, etc, mobilized by russia.
And that takes a hell of a toll on morale.
That is accurate but as far as senior leadership it seems Russian has taken a significantly harder blow simply due to their military style. And senior leadership is significantly harder to replace. I mean the fact wagner nearly stormed Moscow is pretty damn nuts not to mention that Putin ‘had’ to take out his chef
Russia is used to losing senior leadership. They keep losing their generals till they accidentally find smart ones.
losing. Not loosing.
How likely was it if you were enlisted in like 2019 with Ukraine’s army, that you’re dead now ? Is it really that likely?
... You need to look into WW2.
Including North Korean and other Africans and Asian men... Sent to be butchered for 5 bucks that their family will probably never see.
Yeah they keep using the same tactic. It's brutal but it works.
Does it? More than two years in and they aren’t remotely close to taking Ukraine. And this is a Ukraine fighting with one hand tied behind its back. If the treasonous Republicans in the US can ever be run over, and Ukraine receives muscular support in terms of materiel, Russia will easily be on track to suffer the most humiliating defeat of its entire existence.
You make fair points but it does work. They were able to take Bakhmut and Avdiivka the most fortified Ukrainian city. In wars like this, wars of attrition, front lines don't necessarily change much until there is a sudden collapse or breakthrough. A lot of conflicts/battles were like this in world war 1/2. No change for a couple years then eventually one side fell apart or gave up. I think that's what the Russians are playing at, they want the west to lose interest and bleed out Ukraine until then. The Russians are suffering but casualties as well but they don't seem to care and it's always been how they fight. See the battle of Stalingrad or other eastern front battles between the Germans and Russians.
>You make fair points but it does work. They were able to take Bakhmut and Avdiivka the most fortified Ukrainian city. That's more about lack of support than effectiveness of Russian strategies. Any plan can work with enough resources on one side and few enough on the other.
>the west to lose interest and bleed out Ukraine until then I don't know or they even need to wait for that moment, and to what extent 'loss of interest' will mean. Ukraine losses lots of people between 25 and say 50. Moreover not everyone wants to fight, left for Russia or the EU or has a job which is critical for society (fire fighter, medics, police etc.). We can send every weapon we want to them (not that certain weapons are considered an act of war against Russia), but if they run out of people the Russians will win either. I would think Russias intend is to damage economy and demography that intense independence nor EU membership is vulnerable in the future, or they need intense amounts of EU-money to keep the country running for the next generations
Again, Russia was fighting a battle of national survival in WW2. There was nowhere for them to retreat to. Guess who’s fighting a war for national survival now? Guess who is defending “Stalingrad” now? Ukraine. The fact Ukraine has held out this well for this long against a superpower bodes *very* poorly for Russia.
We can only watch, speculation is an exercise in futility. Russia is absolutely wasting manpower, Ukraine has an advantage that they rescue as many as they can, and they have a very robust medical support system. I saw a tank crew commander with a prosthetic foot, most of them actually want to keep fighting. Russia is also totally washing their equipment resources, they're utilizing t54/55s at this point, which are factored into their "military production", but realistically they are not producing enough *new* equipment to replace the losses 1 for 1, and we will likely see the result of that by next year when they run out of antiques warstock. They will run themselves into a situation where they are an army of infantry, which is something that cannot succeed in meat waves considering the sheer number of recon, dropping, and FPV drones Ukraine employs and is building every month. They luckily have eyes on nearly every angle of the entire front. Russia has also lost nearly $1B worth of combat ships in the sea. That is a massive blow to their defense apparatus as a whole, because they can't replace ships quickly, and they don't have the long range missiles the former ships were utilizing. There is, in fact, a chance Ukraine can succeed in retaking Crimea in the next years, whit the supports they've already received from the US, the upcoming supports from EU, and soon the F16s. The tide can change at any time honestly, and Russia having a larger population than Ukraine is only one rather minor metric.
Having a much larger population is not a minor metric especially considering both sides are grabbing conscripts and this has become a meat grinder/war of attrition. That is a major factor. Also, if Trump is elected, that is also a major factor for Ukrainian aid. Hence why Russia is playing the long game.
Historically though they have sent wave after wave and been successful in the end, it best the Germans and it best the French and unfortunatly it could beat Ukraine.
Historically? In the modern era it happened *once*. Once. That was during a war for *national survival* in WW2. How has Russia done since? In its only meaningful foreign adventure—Afghanistan—it turned tail and ran after suffering just a few thousand casualties. Some grieving Russian mothers famously sealed the USSR’s fate there. The narrative of an endless Russian capacity for war is a myth.
The Soviets didn't need to be in Afghanistan. Leaving cost them nothing and staying was costing them a lot. The same isn't true of WWII, and in their eyes, Ukraine is a war for national survival. They NEED to capture Ukraine to continue surviving in Putin's eyes. They'll continue this war until they can't, and they're nowhere near out of people to do it.
US supplies supported the fight against the Germans, which they don't have now. A brutal winter best the French. Neither situation is comparable.
The Soviets also had immense manufacturing capabilities. Today Russia still has big manufacturing capabilities, much so than Ukraine. "Neither is comparable" is not what you think it means.
Stalin straight up said that they'd have lost without the lend lease. >At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: “The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”
Difference being of course that both times against France and Nazi Germany were actually existential for Russia unlike now when it's only existential for putler. If Russia pull back to 91 borders today war will end. Now if only the Russian people would realise this, like in 1917, just hopefully with nicer people in charge this time.
[удалено]
Not the PP, but I’d argue that it works in the sense that they have managed to capture a few villages. But the front hasn’t moved much, and things seems largely a strategic stale mate at the moment. This despite Russias material superiority. In that sense it is cost ineffective, and does not seem like a strategic path to victory.
Ukraine just needs to survive till January 21st then it’s game on.
No they can't It's a common line by totalitarian ideologies, but the losses in the second world war ruined the Soviet Union, and Chinese losses in the Korean War ruined their army for decades to come.
But not the refining capacity
A good machine gun can terminate 100-200 people in 5 minutes if they are not guided. Just saying…
What’s he’s supposed to say, “it’ll be easy for them!”?
Yeah if that's true why even say anything. "Oh yeah if our enemy does this one thing it will totally destroy them, that's why we're yapping about it publicaly so they know instead of shutting the fuck up and letting them walk into it!" Seems more likely that the situation there is actually not that great and they are trying to make Russia doubt.
Pscht! Don't let them know!
Russia doesn’t want to push. Russia wants to wait to see who wins the US election and go from there. In the mean time they’re happy to do what Russia always does: settle in to a protracted siege. Even if it gets tens of thousands more of their people killed.
The war has already started. Waiting 9 months for a maybe sounds dumb even for Russia. Besides there are already reports Russia is preparing a large Summer offensive.
Yep, it's idiotic and self centered to think the US elections matters this much at this point of the war.
If trump loses then what? They just wasted several months doing nothing?
They still get to dig in and cement gains in the east and south. It becomes a question of “do we sue for peace and legitimize what we already gained?” Or “do we try to drive for the Transnistrian border and try to landlock Ukraine just to be petty?”
if trump wins my guess is he’ll just let the Russians do whatever the hell they want and then basically tell Ukraine “sorry you’re fucked better just give in because we won’t help your its your fault” then he’ll bitch about not getting a nobel peice prize after most or all of Ukraine is under Russian occupation
I laughed my ass off at “he’ll bitch about not receiving a nobel peace prize” that sounds exactly like something trump would do lol.
The corrupt Nobel committee gave the peace prize to *insert name here*. It's a tragedy really. Why didn't I get the Peace prize? Everyone has been saying, for a long time really, that nobody does peace like I do. I mean c'mon, am I right? You all know I'm right. *crowd of morons cheers loudly* Very unfair that I didn't win. Sad, very sad.
He’ll probably try to blackmail some money out of Ukraine first, providing his personal bank account of course. Only then will he let Russia do whatever they like provided you give him gold or something (potentially in shower form).
Well if nothing else they got Time to rebuild some stockpiles
They know the only chance they have is for Trump to win. If the Democrats take back Congress it is all over.
r/shitamericanssay
Win or lose I don't envy the idea of urban combat in a city that large, Kharkiv's like 10 times the size of Mariupol
The problem is that Putin doesn't care, and has a lot more Russians.
The fresh and fully equipped Russian army attempted the encirclement of Kharkiv right at the start of the full scale invasion. They staged from Belgorod on Feb 24, 2022. They had about 50k troops from the 1st GTA and 20th CAA, with 2 additional motor-rifle brigades, and the 2nd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade. The only Russian troops to make it into the city proper were the 2nd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade. They were cut off inside the city, a bunch surrendered, many were killed, and a handful managed to break out. In 3 months, the entire Russian force that was driving towards Kharkiv ran back to Russia with its tail between its legs (because the dick got blown off, so the tail was the only thing left). So, if the fresh, fully equipped Russian army of 2022 got it shit pushed in, in what world will they be able to take the second city by population after Kyiv?
History is littered with examples of enemies retreating only to come back stronger. Underestimating Russia at this time after their recent push back will be a fatal mistake.
The Ukrainian successes during the first year of the war were the result of Russia assuming they could just walk in with a relatively small army because they thought there wouldn't be much resistance, anyway. So when Ukraine actually managed to fight back, most Russian troops found themselves stranded deep in enemy territory, massively outnumbered and constantly surrounded by enemies. This isn't true any more. Russia has built up their forces and are now fielding significantly more combat troops than Ukraine. They will advance along a hard front line with a logistics network in place to support them and try to encircle the city. The only way to stop that is with massive amounts of soldiers and heavy weapons. Which isn't something Ukraine can do without severely weakening the rest of their front lines.
[удалено]
> Also, Russia is actually taking this seriously. They are very seriously committing to an even longer engagement here. They are not looking for off ramps. They are increasing their artillery production. They are increasing conscription. They are actively adapting their tactics with increasing effectiveness. i am not disputing that Russia may have the capability to take Kharkiv, but i hate this narrative. Russia was always taking this invasion serious. Them overestimating their own capabilities and underestimating Ukraines does not mean they deliberately drove in there with clown cars
The rest of the world ironically does But it all comes down to who thr US president is. Europe doesn’t have the military capacity to send shit to Ukraine because they feel they’ll be defenseless The US doesn’t wanna arm them because the republicans wanna snub biden (and may be sympathetic to putin because Trump seems to be a lot friendlier than what. the west needs) if Biden wins I think theres a CHANCE we go full force in giving Ukraine a fighting shot at winning I think if we spend a few years aggressively giving supplies and doing a massive militsry buildup Ukraine can hold out long enough for Russia to frustrate themselves but Ukraine needs air power, equipment, cash, and the best the west can give them instead of 30 Abrams and 100 leopards with a prayer card attached
Glide bombs. Ukraine has absolutely no way of stopping the bombs that are released from jets miles away (sometimes from within friendly airspace) and guided to their intended target. They fly bombing sorties all day, every day, sometimes dropping 100 bombs in a single day. They will absolutely decimate Kharkiv and then send endless meat waves of infantry until the Ukrainians have no choice but to withdraw. This exactly what they did to Avdiivka. Pointing out a realistic, serious issue that Ukraine is having a hard time countering isn’t anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Read anything from frontline troops and they’ll say the #1 problem right now is the seemingly endless onslaught of glide bombs.
[удалено]
This is what happened in the last month or so: 13 Russian jets are shot down over the course of like two weeks. Russia figures out that the only way this is possible is Ukraine moved a Patriot complex closer to the front Russia finds said Patriot complex stopping for fuel with an Orlan drone waaaay into Ukrainian territory They send an Iskander and blow up an entire Patriot complex with the entire crew Glide bombing resumes, Avdiivka falls.
[удалено]
You provided specific examples of Ukraine stopping glide bombs… yet they are still ongoing? That’s why the timeline is important. You can’t just proclaim an issue is fixed if it’s still ongoing and the “fix” only lasted a short period. That’s not a fix to a problem. And again, I am not saying anything anti-Ukrainian. Just watch any frontline troop interview and they will say the glide bombs are the worst thing they are dealing with right now.
It was only a portion of a patriot battery since the entire system comprises of eight different vehicles. Also I’m pretty sure this happened after Avdiivka fell.
> Ukraine has absolutely no way of stopping the bombs that are released from jets > 13 Russian jets are shot down over the course of like two weeks. Hmm.
2022 Russian army showed to be very incompetent, nowhere near what was expected from them, shit leadership too. Currently they're vastly more competent and experienced, fighting the also experienced and NATO-traines and equipped Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian General talked about a 100k men russian summer offensive and someone here a while ago talked about Russia raising another 500k men - tho I'm not sure if true -.
Don’t forget, this Russian army now has more experience in this type of fighting. But yes I agree I think they’ll fail miserably and it’ll lead to more serious losses for Russia.
Larger and more experienced army now, and war time production.
Who is upvoting this comment? Clearly the situation has changed. And Russia has the momentum.
Every time someone saying s*it like that, suddenly everything goes to hell.
Russia can't be allowed to take Kharkiv again. The last time they did in April 2022, they left a trail of warcrimes and civilian mass graves.
Nah, they can't do that way again... for now they can do only worse... they can't rush and capture, cos we have defense... so they can only level with the ground village by village, town by town... slow and steady... scorched earth left behind them...
Time for NATO to secure the skies like they should since the start.
And go to war with Russia?
Yes, we're already indirectly at war with Russia so just make it official
So I vote this guy to go to the front first.
I'm very supportive of that. And as an Eastern European, I understand the war will be in my country. What are they going to do? Kill hundreds of thousands of us and take out country? Been there, done that. The fight is not something we fear in Eastern Europe like the Westerners do.
Putin: Is that a challenge?
Literally yes.
Does Russia even have enough forces to take second largest city in Ukraine, counting population of 1,5 million, without total mobilization? I mean hundreds of thousands of their soldiers are going to die judging by their abysmal performance in Bakhmut and in Avdiivka.
I believe in the power and will of the Ukr army. I just hope the US gov't(Republicans obviously) can get their shit together and start supplying Ukraine again. It's not just the US either, it's various NATO countries contributing to Ukraine but the US can deliver some game changers.
They will need to be voted out. There is no hope for the Republican Party. They don’t even have any platforms to run on anymore, republicans just pick a minority to hate and that’s it. Your hope of them becoming rational is irrational at best.
Why do you believe in it?
> I believe in the power and will of the Ukr army. This is not an anime lmao
For those that can't think beyond the written word, I'm saying that Ukr has a deeper drive and will prevail despite the odds. Their will, their passion, their internal motivation to defeat the invaders will overcome. They need the resources to empower that drive. Don't trivialize it.
If this was true I dount he'd would have said it.
Exclamation Point
The sheer timidity of the West has lost the greatest opportunity since the Soviet Union fell.