The War in the Ukraine

emblem21 said:

Simple conclusion is, land can be taken back, lives cannot. If all the fights in Ukraine the USA and Europe sends their soldiers in as mercenaries, ok simply kill them too and they will lose soldiers and equipment to meaning that Ukraine and the EU and to some small level the USA will lose troops and weapons as well so in the long run, Russia is only going to be gaining with a Ukraine no longer capable of fighting and an EU and USA with depleted man power and resources. And those that are lost will not be coming back any time soon, particular when the EU and USA doesn’t quite have the resources to produce the required soldiers and weapons in bulk that they need to beat Russia without escalating into nuclear war

Click to expand...

Exactly this.

Some may point to the counterexample of Vietnam, where North Vietnam took disproportionate casualties yet still conventionally defeated the US and puppet regime.

But that conflict had many differences:

1. It was not a total war between US and North Vietnam, and US self limited itself (due to fear of escalation with China and broader strategic consideration of NATO vs Warsaw Pact global balance of forces) from invading North Vietnam. It is a total war between Russia and Ukraine.

2. Vietnam had typical developing country demographics with a fertility rate of 5.7 children per woman and a median age of 20 even in 1991, which is on par with African countries. Ukraine has demographics worse than Japan with a fertility rate of 1.4 and median age of 41.




3. Ukraine is in a much more hostile climate where more substantial infrastructure is required for supporting life than Vietnam, where people can sleep in the open year round and multiple crops of rice can be grown and harvested by hand.

So you cannot compare the capability of Vietnam to absorb casualties and Ukraine. Vietnam had a much younger population, much more fertile population, living in a much less hostile environment.

Overbom said:

What?? Did you just miss Soviet Union's defence against the Germans??

Soviet Union threw untold number of troops to defend vital key locations in order to buy item for its industry and military to regroup.

What Ukraine is now buying time for, is obviously neither for its industry or its military to suddenly turn it around. It is waiting for Western MIC to ramp up. The more it can survive, the more weapons and equipment will flood in.

Click to expand...

The Soviets gave up vast amounts of land after scorched earthing it to preserve their forces as much as possible and where they did make a stand, it was because they were incompetent and got inferior forces encircled by the Germans, or because they were stronger than or equal to the Germans locally and didn't need to retreat.

FriedButter said:

I am probably looking at it the wrong way but wouldn’t Stalingrad fall under the “hold at all cost?” Tho attrition at the end of the day was still the ending factor.

Click to expand...

The original Stalingrad garrison got encircled and destroyed. The Germans did reach the Volga. Then the Germans were told not 1 step back and to hold the ruined city even though Hitler's generals were begging him to allow a retreat. It ended with Field Marshal Paulus being led to Moscow in chains.

Overbom said:

What?? Did you just miss Soviet Union's defence against the Germans??

Soviet Union threw untold number of troops to defend vital key locations in order to buy time for its industry and military to regroup.

What Ukraine is now buying time for, is obviously neither for its industry or its military to suddenly turn it around. It is waiting for Western MIC to ramp up. The more it can survive, the more weapons and equipment will flood in.

Click to expand...

But if Ukraine is destroyed and all those refugees swarm into Europe in the millions, well what was the point of all the time being bought if the EU ends up in an energy crisis along with a food crisis plus all these mouths that now need to be feed and a Europe that simply isn’t equipped to handle a migrant crisis times two.

At that time which is fast approaching, there will be no point in arming Ukraine then as their will no longer be a Ukraine to defend plus they will be at the mercy of Russian missile and shells in an open wasteland by that point. Western MIC needs a lot of resources and time to ramp up production and also time to train the necessary personal to use those weapons, which will take months to accomplish, which Ukraine doesn’t have any time for with their energy grids going dark right now and there soldiers getting shelled to death right at this moment in the dead of winter. you are assuming that the west can magically buy the time it needs to fight off Russia like in the lord of the rings but all those need lots of time, which Ukraine doesn’t have the time to waste even one day given the loses occurring right now. Does Ukraine lives grow on trees, it’s silly having to repeat that while the USA and the EU can provide the weapons and capital, what is the point if Ukraine is destroyed well before the time they can even make use of them, I mean look at all those electrical black out happening in Kyiv and Odessa and ask yourself, would the average person want to live in a place that has no gas, not electricity, no food, no water, if you say that they can and will, please get help
Immediately because no Ukraine deserves to die in those conditions when they have the option to evacuate and go to Europe because quite frankly, given how much of a part the EU has played into the ruination of their nation, they owe them a duty of care

FairAndUnbiased said:

The Soviets gave up vast amounts of land after scorched earthing it to preserve their forces as much as possible and where they did make a stand, it was because they were incompetent and got inferior forces encircled by the Germans, or because they were stronger than or equal to the Germans locally and didn't need to retreat.

Click to expand...

It still defended various locations until the very end though.

Ukraine obviously hasn't reached that predicament (yet?). When it does, probably when manpower reserves start becoming low, it will follow the same script. Abandon waste land, and then defend key locations.

And its not like Ukrainians are suffering Soviet Union-style loses either. People say "Russia is winning casualties wise", so I ask how many casualties has Ukraine suffered so far. 200k, 300k, 400k, 500k. Still peanuts to what it can mobilise and where the number goes dangerously low to start abandoning ground.

In addition, you forget that the war will ultimately end in the negotiating table. The more land Ukraine loses now, the worse it will be for it when Ukraine (and its US daddy) sit down with Russia to talk. So why should Ukraine retreat from its land because it suffered a measly for it, just throwing a number, 300k casualties.

I think people here should focus more on ground realities and not on a make up a reality. Russia inflicts more casualties to Ukraine, that's a fact. So what? Are wars won by who inflicted the most casualties? Why did Nazi Germany lose to the SU then lol.

Again. Casualties for Ukraine don't matter for it as much as people think. What it actually cares about though is equipment, which funnily enough (and coming back at your question) is why Ukraine is buying time. Buying time for Western MIC to expand production

FairAndUnbiased said:

The original Stalingrad garrison got encircled and destroyed. The Germans did reach the Volga. Then the Germans were told not 1 step back and to hold the ruined city even though Hitler's generals were begging him to allow a retreat. It ended with Field Marshal Paulus being led to Moscow in chains.

Click to expand...

From the German POV yes but what about the Soviet POV? Didn’t they also hold the city (specially the West Bank) no matter the cost as well?

FairAndUnbiased said:

Exactly this.

Some may point to the counterexample of Vietnam, where North Vietnam took disproportionate casualties yet still conventionally defeated the US and puppet regime.

But that conflict had many differences:

1. It was not a total war between US and North Vietnam, and US self limited itself (due to fear of escalation with China and broader strategic consideration of NATO vs Warsaw Pact global balance of forces) from invading North Vietnam. It is a total war between Russia and Ukraine.

2. Vietnam had typical developing country demographics with a fertility rate of 5.7 children per woman and a median age of 20 even in 1991, which is on par with African countries. Ukraine has demographics worse than Japan with a fertility rate of 1.4 and median age of 41.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

3. Ukraine is in a much more hostile climate where more substantial infrastructure is required for supporting life than Vietnam, where people can sleep in the open year round and multiple crops of rice can be grown and harvested by hand.

So you cannot compare the capability of Vietnam to absorb casualties and Ukraine. Vietnam had a much younger population, much more fertile population, living in a much less hostile environment.

Click to expand...

As well as that, countries are now run very differently compared to WW1 & 2. To keep a country running you can't just put people into mines and draft them into metal foundries. People require a lot more training and education to do jobs that were previously unskilled.

The idea that the number of military age men in a country is the total number of possible soldiers is not realistic.

There is also a massive elderly population that needs to be looked after which didn't exist in the world war years.

Hence why we'll soon be seeing certain east European countries drafting their men to fight against Russia.

generalmeng said:

This question should have been asked from the start. Not like 11 months after the war started. The bottom line question for the Zelensky regime is, what do they actually want to achieve? I am of the opinion, Ukraine is a lost cause, and their goal is to kill as many Russians as possible. The USA already achieved one of their objective, which was to severe economic ties between Russia and Europe. Remember, NATO was "to keep the Soviet Union (now Russia) out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,"(

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

).

I mean, if you look at NATO, it actually has no purpose (if this war never starts). I don't see France and Germany going to war again. If the Europeans develop a closer tie with Russia, there is even less incentive for war. Russia supplied Europe with the energy they needed, for their manufacturing, and then sales to the USA. It's a pretty symbiotic relationship.

The Russian's aims are clear, they want to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, and autonomy for the Russian ethnic regions. I think initially the Russian's didn't think the Americans would be so involved, so they did not start wrecking Ukraine's electrical infrastructure. Russians hoped for a fast war. Now it has been clear the Americans are somewhat committed, its a war of attrition. I believe the attack on the power plant started in September. From a grand strategy perspective, the power plant should have been bombed in the first month. One can argue, the Russians showed Ukraine mercy for 7 months.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the Russians made a fundamental strategic error in understanding what they got themselves into - a total war, not a quick COIN policing action. But now the total war mechanism has been set into motion. We can expect further strikes against the infrastructure that allows Ukraine to continue functioning as a country - power, water, sewage, fuel, data centers, grain storage, etc.

Overbom said:

It still defended various locations until the very end though.

Ukraine obviously hasn't reached that predicament (yet?). When it does, probably when manpower reserves start becoming low, it will follow the same script. Abandon waste land, and then defend key locations.

And its not like Ukrainians are suffering Soviet Union-style loses either. People say "Russia is winning casualties wise", so I ask how many casualties has Ukraine suffered so far. 200k, 300k, 400k, 500k. Still peanuts to what it can mobilise and where the number goes dangerously low to start abandoning ground.

In addition, you forget that the war will ultimately end in the negotiating table. The more land Ukraine loses, the worse it will be for it when Ukraine (and its US daddy) sit down with Russia to talk. So why should Ukraine retreat from its land because it suffered a measly for it, just throwing a number, 300k casualties.

I think people here should focus more on ground realities and not on a make up a reality. Russia inflicts more casualties to Ukraine, that's a fact. So what? Are wars won by who inflicted the most casualties? Why did Nazi Germany lose to the SU then lol.

Again. Casualties for Ukraine don't matter for it as much as people think. What it actually cares about though is equipment, which funnily enough (and coming at your question) is why Ukraine is buying time. Buying time for Western MIC to expand production

Click to expand...

Will it really end at the negotiating table? I don't think so, because both sides have irreconcilable and maximalist demands. It'll end when one or both sides are incapable of waging war.

Based on previous videos (before being censored) Ukrainians have suffered 100k KIA. Given standard 1:3 KIA WIA ratio, that's 400k casualties total.


8 million fled to EU.


Another 2.7 million fled to Russia.


Donetsk and Lugansk have another 2.3 and 1.5 million respectively.

There's a fluid number under other Russian occupation.

So total, Ukraine has lost at least 6.5 million population to Russia, 8.7 million population to EU. 15 million population losses in a country of 40 million is indeed WW2 level loss.

Even prewar, Ukrainian population was dropping like a rock, as even RFE admits.


So in my opinion this is going to end with either the collapse of Russia or of Ukraine. And between the two, I'm betting that the side with intact infrastructure won't break first.

Abominable said:

The idea that the number of military age men in a country is the total number of possible soldiers is not realistic.

Click to expand...

That's true. Given Western funding for Ukraine though, Ukraine can utilise a higher percentage of its military age men than other countries.

That's the difference here. Ukraine isn't anything special. Its Western funding that enables this strategy to be used to such a degree

Abominable said:

There is also a massive elderly population that needs to be looked after which didn't exist in the world war years.

Click to expand...

You mean after the war? I don't think the West cares about how Ukraine is going to fare after the war.

If you mean during the war, these things take a backseat. In a war for survival such things go down the priority list. Not only from the government but from the society itself

That's how I envision a normal conversation to go:
"People are fighting for the survival of the country and you say we should stop to help our elderly?? Lol fck off"

FriedButter said:

From the German POV yes but what about the Soviet POV? Didn’t they also hold the city (specially the West Bank) no matter the cost as well?

Click to expand...

Rather than holding ground itself being bad, it's bad to hold ground without a plan on how to use the ground.

At stalingrad, holding made sense for the Soviets because it was a point where they can eventually encircle a huge amount of Germans.

If the decisions of Ukraine to hold territory at all cost is worth or not would depend on if they have a plan how to use the locked fronts in order to destroy a larger amount of Russian forces then they themselves lost holding the areas.