Well, negotiating table can either mean willingly or unwillingly. I don't think our opinions diverge here. Just for the record though, I think the US will try and push Ukraine all the way till the very end and only go for negotiations when Ukraine has collapsedWill 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.
I agree with you here, Ukraine will collapse first. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.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.
What does Russia lose against NATO when NATOs main goal is the expand and once Ukraine falls, NATO can no longer expand east ward hence NATO will be a loser in every sense of the word given the economic damages that these NATO states are undergoing right now.Well, negotiating table can either mean willingly or unwillingly. I don't think our opinions diverge here. Just for the record though, I think the US will try and push Ukraine all the way till the very end and only go for negotiations when Ukraine has collapsed
I agree with you here, Ukraine will collapse first. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
My opinion about the overall outcome:
- Russia will militarily win against Ukraine
- Russia will lose against NATO strategically
NATO's primary goal is to weaken Russia. Expanding NATO serves to constrict Russia's strategic space.What does Russia lose against NATO when NATOs main goal is the expand and once Ukraine falls, NATO can no longer expand east ward hence NATO will be a loser in every sense of the word given the economic damages that these NATO states are undergoing right now.
Holy cow! if you were to crudely breakdown the figures further, we might not be looking at a country called Ukraine in 2 years. Having lost 15 million people to the EU and Russia, it leaves them with 25 million, half of whom are women . We are left 12.5 million men and according to StatistaI 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.
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.
I want to point out a minor point, I believe it would not be correct to assume 50% of the 25 estimated remaining population is female.Holy cow! if you were to crudely breakdown the figures further, we might not be looking at a country called Ukraine in 2 years. Having lost 15 million people to the EU and Russia, it leaves them with 25 million, half of whom are women . We are left 12.5 million men and according to Statista
" In 2021, approximately 15.91 percent of the population in Ukraine was aged between 0 and 14, about 66.78 percent were between 15 and 64 years old, and about 17.31 percent were aged 65 and older."
If 33.2% can't be drafted, Ukraine can only recruit from a pool of 8 million men, and it falls further if they draft from ages 20–50.
This is a lost cause, and the earlier they come alive to that fact, the faster they can save their country .
I think Biden might disagree with you there that NATO's primary goal is to weaken Russia.NATO's primary goal is to weaken Russia. Expanding NATO serves to constrict Russia's strategic space.
If you can't expand NATO to Ukraine, which btw I always thought was a ridiculous idea, then surely bleeding Russia dry on the Ukraine war is surely the best thing that happened to NATO since the Soviet Union's dissolution
As for economic damage inflicted to NATO, that's certainly true. But it is an acceptable price for them to pay for such an once or so opportunity in a century where your enemy so badly miscalculates and is now stuck in a years-long quagmire
Its all about if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages
You are right. I was being generous for ease of maths but to be specific, the pre-war male population was 46.34 percent.I want to point out a minor point, I believe it would not be correct to assume 50% of the 25 estimated remaining population is female.
I would believe, the 15 million who emigrated are 80% female, and children, and elderly I would imagine 60% to 70% of the 25 million remainings are male.
I think Biden might disagree with you there that NATO's primary goal is to weaken Russia.
Russia is just an expensive side quest while NATO's main campaign was always against China, the only superpower standing in the way of American global rule.
If the gains from the side quest don't provide any use in the main campaign, then the side quest was a waste of time and resources.
Certainly if there is a maximum NATO victory and they can take over all of Russia (through force or a coup or otherwise), it would be worth it because that would be useful to NATO's main mission of global rule. But is that really realistic given the current situation on the ground?
Well, negotiating table can either mean willingly or unwillingly. I don't think our opinions diverge here. Just for the record though, I think the US will try and push Ukraine all the way till the very end and only go for negotiations when Ukraine has collapsed
I agree with you here, Ukraine will collapse first. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
My opinion about the overall outcome:
- Russia will militarily win against Ukraine
- Russia will lose against NATO strategically
NATO's primary goal is to weaken Russia. Expanding NATO serves to constrict Russia's strategic space.
If you can't expand NATO to Ukraine, which btw I always thought was a ridiculous idea, then surely bleeding Russia dry on the Ukraine war is surely the best thing that happened to NATO since the Soviet Union's dissolution
As for economic damage inflicted to NATO, that's certainly true. But it is an acceptable price for them to pay for such an once or so opportunity in a century where your enemy so badly miscalculates and is now stuck in a years-long quagmire
Its all about if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages
Oh well, Russia and the "Russia beating Ukraine in inflicting casualties = winning the war now guys" are out of luck then. Along with Western funding, lets say Ukraine can use 40% of the available military-age men.I would believe, the 15 million who emigrate are 80% female, and children, and elderly I would imagine 60% to 70% of the 25 million remainings are male.
Sorry, mate, but are you all right ?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
Oh well, Russia and the "Russia beating Ukraine in inflicting casualties = winning the war now guys" are out of luck then. Along with Western funding, lets say Ukraine can use 40% of the available military-age men.
So that would give us a comfortable 5+ million pool for Ukraine to draw from. Lets see how fast Russia can grind through that number lol
So in almost 1 year, 400k Ukrainian casualties. Going at the same consumption, Russia will still be fighting for the next 10 years then (assuming everything remains the same and Western MIC doesn't flood equipment to Ukraine in 3-5 years...). Good luck to Russia if it keeps using the same tactics. Maybe the US was right when it said that this would be Russia's Afghanistan
So as I said, manpower is the least of Ukraine's issues. People's arguments here would have more validity if they focused on those other, and very real, issues instead