On Friday, Russian state media reported that�dictator Vladimir Putin had ordered the size of the Russian military to increase by 170,000 active members. This is the second time in a year that Putin ...
If anything, russia is showing clear signs of sunk-cost fallacy
Doesn’t mean anything. They have plenty of more meat to throw in. The horrifying thing about an enemy like russia is that they have no respect for human life and suffering is an integral part of their culture.
The people in charge are more than willing to absorb casualties that are at least an order of magnitude greater than what we’ve seen so far for their colonial aspirations and the population will let them.
So, 47% of their population is male. Out of 145 million of bodies they posses, males are 68 million. The percentage of 18-44 year olds is 35. That’s 23 million potential soldiers.
Omg, that’s one massive army, one would say.
But this is russia, we’re talking about.
In June 2009, the Public Chamber of Russia reported over 500,000 alcohol-related deaths annually. They have 1.3% of population dying every year. In 2009 it meant about 1.8 million dead. 25% of those were alcohol related. That’s only deaths.
They improved, but an average russian is still a professional alcoholic. Let’s assume that a whooping 80% of those 23 millions are actually relatively healthy. That’s 18 million potential soldiers.
The big difference is that for last 9 years, Ukraine was at war with russia, while russia was enjoying its second army of the world status. In other words they were stealing as usual.
So yes, one can think that it is impossible to fight against an army of 18 million. But russia started this war with 800k and two years later, lost already half of them, bumped the army to two million and still is making an occasional 200 meters of progress only to lose them in a week.
Ukraine still not losing and not planning to, is what matters.
Not quite so. Last time Putin mobilized that cause mass migration and some limited protests. In the mean time some mercenaries went on a day trip to Moscow and he still does not call the war in Ukraine a war.
In other words it is not obvious that Putin can just call more Russian men to the front on a large scale, without causing trouble for himself.
I generally agree, but the devil is in the details. An order of magnitude more casualties would be approximately the entire Russian army and its reservists. It’s currently thought that an army loses operational efficacy at 30-40% losses.
Looking at WW2 numbers, they still have some way to go and I suppose you don’t need to worry too much about defending other borders, as long as you giver a finger over the nuclear suicide button.
They’ve already lost what, roughly ten percent of personnel?
I think they’ve lost about the amount of troops that Napoleon lost in Russia funnily enough.
Doesn’t mean anything. They have plenty of more meat to throw in. The horrifying thing about an enemy like russia is that they have no respect for human life and suffering is an integral part of their culture.
The people in charge are more than willing to absorb casualties that are at least an order of magnitude greater than what we’ve seen so far for their colonial aspirations and the population will let them.
Oh, but it does. True, they have no regard for human casualties, but even with their population, they cannot maintain the meatwaves forever.
Let’s have a look. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
So, 47% of their population is male. Out of 145 million of bodies they posses, males are 68 million. The percentage of 18-44 year olds is 35. That’s 23 million potential soldiers.
Omg, that’s one massive army, one would say.
But this is russia, we’re talking about.
In June 2009, the Public Chamber of Russia reported over 500,000 alcohol-related deaths annually. They have 1.3% of population dying every year. In 2009 it meant about 1.8 million dead. 25% of those were alcohol related. That’s only deaths.
They improved, but an average russian is still a professional alcoholic. Let’s assume that a whooping 80% of those 23 millions are actually relatively healthy. That’s 18 million potential soldiers.
Still a lot.
But it’s still russia.
Apart from alcohol, it’s famous for the widespread thievery. I’m not joking. https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Пьют_и_воруют?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
The big difference is that for last 9 years, Ukraine was at war with russia, while russia was enjoying its second army of the world status. In other words they were stealing as usual.
So yes, one can think that it is impossible to fight against an army of 18 million. But russia started this war with 800k and two years later, lost already half of them, bumped the army to two million and still is making an occasional 200 meters of progress only to lose them in a week.
Ukraine still not losing and not planning to, is what matters.
Not quite so. Last time Putin mobilized that cause mass migration and some limited protests. In the mean time some mercenaries went on a day trip to Moscow and he still does not call the war in Ukraine a war.
In other words it is not obvious that Putin can just call more Russian men to the front on a large scale, without causing trouble for himself.
I generally agree, but the devil is in the details. An order of magnitude more casualties would be approximately the entire Russian army and its reservists. It’s currently thought that an army loses operational efficacy at 30-40% losses.
Looking at WW2 numbers, they still have some way to go and I suppose you don’t need to worry too much about defending other borders, as long as you giver a finger over the nuclear suicide button.
Why should we suppose that the current Russian military is as resilient as the Soviet one was?
Come to that, why should we suppose even their nukes are in similar condition?
It’s been decades of essentially government by organized crime and kleptocracy in Russia. Their shit is wack, in the parlance.
Assuming the Russian army had any operational efficiency to begin with.
Half their tanks?
About 50% of what they had at the beginning two years ago.