Late Christmas Day or early Tuesday, Ukrainian air force bombers struck the Russian Black Sea Fleet landing ship 'Novocherkassk' in Feodosia in southeastern Crimea.
Russia has orders of a magnitude more fighting age men and resources than Ukraine. If Russian losses are two to one or three to one in a battle it is still a loss for Ukraine. Ukraine just don’t have the population or material to absorb those losses. Ukraine needs to have a 5 or 6 to one ratio to win in a conflict with Russia.
In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.
The fact that Ukraine which five or six years ago didn’t have a
functional military is still in this fight is very telling for how bad Russia’s military has atrophied after the Cold War.
The front lines have solidified and Russia has shown they can learn to fight defensively. The best Ukraine can do now is perhaps cut off transport routes to Crimea and make the Russian position there untenable. Otherwise unless there is some kind of major revolution in Russia it’s doubtful that Ukraine can retake their lost lands.
However, I still support supplying Ukraine with arms. This is Russia’s 9th military invasion of a neighboring country since the end of the Cold War. It won’t be their last unless they are bled dry. Ukraine has the will to fight them, they just need arms.
Russia doesn’t have anywhere near “orders of magnitude” more fighting men. That’s 100 times more at minimum. Russia’s population is about four times that of Ukraine, and their demographic pyramids are similar.
Russia’s actual limitations are not in the raw numbers of people, though. It’s in public support. Russia doesn’t have the base of domestic support that Ukraine naturally has by defending against an invader.
Russia is also absolutely not unbeatable. It has lost plenty of wars. 1st Chechen war, Afghanistan, World War One, Crimea.
There are over 143 million Russians and only 38 million Ukrainians. With similar demographics my point still stands Ukraine needs at least a 5 to 1 ratio or higher to bleed Russia dry of fighting age men.
I agree with you on support, but Russian society can absorb horrific losses before there is any danger of revolution. Perhaps the one thing that Putin is very good at is managing his rivals and keeping the oligarchy in line. He knows he has to win to keep them in line and will do so at any cost to Russia.
You mentioned the first Chechen war but not the second one. How did that war turn out?
WWI saw huge losses of over a million men. While Russian losses are high they are nowhere near that number today.
The Crimean war saw Russia take strategic losses while in direct conflict with the largest powers of that time. The loss of Crimea itself would be a strategic loss but nothing Ukraine can realistically do beyond that is at the same level. Nor is Ukraine a major power.
I’d agree with you on Afghanistan. It is probably the closest analog to Ukraine. The position of the Soviet Union was economically unviable and they were forced to pull out shortly before the USSR dissolved. Russia’s current economy is in the same position. But Afghanistan was a ten year war. Can Ukraine hold on long enough with Western support to push modern Russia over that same edge? I don’t think it would take ten years to destabilize Russia, but I don’t know that Ukraine can keep this fight up or keep Western powers involved long enough for that to happen.
Though they cannot take land, the Ukrainians are only getting better at dismantling Russian fires capabilities and eliminating enemy units. They are learning too and they are learning where it counts in an attritional fight. War is politics and this conflict will become politically untenable for Russia far earlier than it will for Ukraine.
Both sides learn. Sometime i ask myself if americans believe that the americans and their allies are the only smart people in the world. You have seen too much hollywood movies…
The American military can be open minded. We’re just so accustomed to being let down. I have a lot of respect for the French artillery units and Singaporean intelligence among others. I know people scoff at the idea that we are team players but we really are when everyone is working towards the same strategic objective.
In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.
That’s patently wrong. Russia at best has very mixed records. They don’t win every conflict. Take the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, invasion of Afghanistan and Chechen Wars. There is the famous adage: Russia is neither weak nor strong.
I’d point out Vietnam and Afghanistan for the USA, or Afghanistan vs the USSR. Those were tiny, poorly equipped countries fighting against the most powerful militaries in the world. Said small countries eventually started receiving materiel, training, and intelligence support from powerful allies.
They didn’t have to kill all their enemies or push them off the land they held – they weren’t capable of it. They won by just dragging the conflict on and making it as expensive and difficult as possible for the other side. A common path to victory is the enemy saying “this fight is no longer politically/economically worth it” and withdrawing.
Russia has orders of a magnitude more fighting age men and resources than Ukraine. If Russian losses are two to one or three to one in a battle it is still a loss for Ukraine. Ukraine just don’t have the population or material to absorb those losses. Ukraine needs to have a 5 or 6 to one ratio to win in a conflict with Russia.
In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.
The fact that Ukraine which five or six years ago didn’t have a
functional military is still in this fight is very telling for how bad Russia’s military has atrophied after the Cold War.
The front lines have solidified and Russia has shown they can learn to fight defensively. The best Ukraine can do now is perhaps cut off transport routes to Crimea and make the Russian position there untenable. Otherwise unless there is some kind of major revolution in Russia it’s doubtful that Ukraine can retake their lost lands.
However, I still support supplying Ukraine with arms. This is Russia’s 9th military invasion of a neighboring country since the end of the Cold War. It won’t be their last unless they are bled dry. Ukraine has the will to fight them, they just need arms.
Russia doesn’t have anywhere near “orders of magnitude” more fighting men. That’s 100 times more at minimum. Russia’s population is about four times that of Ukraine, and their demographic pyramids are similar.
Russia’s actual limitations are not in the raw numbers of people, though. It’s in public support. Russia doesn’t have the base of domestic support that Ukraine naturally has by defending against an invader.
Russia is also absolutely not unbeatable. It has lost plenty of wars. 1st Chechen war, Afghanistan, World War One, Crimea.
There are over 143 million Russians and only 38 million Ukrainians. With similar demographics my point still stands Ukraine needs at least a 5 to 1 ratio or higher to bleed Russia dry of fighting age men.
I agree with you on support, but Russian society can absorb horrific losses before there is any danger of revolution. Perhaps the one thing that Putin is very good at is managing his rivals and keeping the oligarchy in line. He knows he has to win to keep them in line and will do so at any cost to Russia.
You mentioned the first Chechen war but not the second one. How did that war turn out?
WWI saw huge losses of over a million men. While Russian losses are high they are nowhere near that number today.
The Crimean war saw Russia take strategic losses while in direct conflict with the largest powers of that time. The loss of Crimea itself would be a strategic loss but nothing Ukraine can realistically do beyond that is at the same level. Nor is Ukraine a major power.
I’d agree with you on Afghanistan. It is probably the closest analog to Ukraine. The position of the Soviet Union was economically unviable and they were forced to pull out shortly before the USSR dissolved. Russia’s current economy is in the same position. But Afghanistan was a ten year war. Can Ukraine hold on long enough with Western support to push modern Russia over that same edge? I don’t think it would take ten years to destabilize Russia, but I don’t know that Ukraine can keep this fight up or keep Western powers involved long enough for that to happen.
Which is far from happening because for now, the average Russian (not Moscow) has seen its life improved by the money provided by the military enrollments. See this point of view from a Russian historian/independent journalist https://www.newsdirectory3.com/the-majority-of-russians-have-never-had-it-so-good/.
Well 100x is two orders of magnitude, so, it was technically correct.
Though they cannot take land, the Ukrainians are only getting better at dismantling Russian fires capabilities and eliminating enemy units. They are learning too and they are learning where it counts in an attritional fight. War is politics and this conflict will become politically untenable for Russia far earlier than it will for Ukraine.
Both sides learn. Sometime i ask myself if americans believe that the americans and their allies are the only smart people in the world. You have seen too much hollywood movies…
The American military can be open minded. We’re just so accustomed to being let down. I have a lot of respect for the French artillery units and Singaporean intelligence among others. I know people scoff at the idea that we are team players but we really are when everyone is working towards the same strategic objective.
I had a long answer, but i agree with you.
Edit: peace
deleted by creator
Friends in army. But, trust me, i don’t want to fight against americans
Sorry please
That’s patently wrong. Russia at best has very mixed records. They don’t win every conflict. Take the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, invasion of Afghanistan and Chechen Wars. There is the famous adage: Russia is neither weak nor strong.
deleted by creator
I’d point out Vietnam and Afghanistan for the USA, or Afghanistan vs the USSR. Those were tiny, poorly equipped countries fighting against the most powerful militaries in the world. Said small countries eventually started receiving materiel, training, and intelligence support from powerful allies.
They didn’t have to kill all their enemies or push them off the land they held – they weren’t capable of it. They won by just dragging the conflict on and making it as expensive and difficult as possible for the other side. A common path to victory is the enemy saying “this fight is no longer politically/economically worth it” and withdrawing.