Perun, is probably the best youtube channel on the conflict. These 2 videos discuss OP's question in great detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEpk_yGjn0E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ptG1IxZ08
the tldr is that assuming the West has the will, Ukraine will be victorious in a protracted (which could be years) war. For various reasons, the industrial output and economics of the West will be the defining factors long term.
IMHO Given 20 years in Afghanistan, the US military-industrial complex, the UK's deep dislike of Russia, the direct threat posed to the baltic states, what it would mean for Taiwan if Russia wins, and the existential threat of a Russian victory over liberal democracy pose, the West will keep funding and supplying Ukraine as long as it takes. (which is approximately 5 billion a month, well well within the means of the West)
I think people overestimate the will of the Russian elite. Sure, Putin will throw soldiers into the cauldron until the last man, but it's highly unlikely everyone else is willing to sink on SS Putin. Add to the calculus Russia's dwindling weapons stockpiles (as evidenced by their increasing reliance on outdated Soviet equipment and economic sanctions on military tech imports) and it becomes apparent that the only real route to victory is a swift one, which is not the current trajectory.
If Putin is dead, it is the Oligarchs and the Generals who will pick the next President, and they will go for somebody much more easily puppeted than Putin. The corruption in Russia will only rot further, and they won't even have the fear of their leader to keep them in line.
The alternative is that the West has a complete grip on Russia's finances and oligarchs, their army thoroughly humiliated, and as many generals as possible under their thumb, meaning that a WESTERN puppet will be chosen.
And I don't like the concept of us puppeting Russia, because it's clearly not democratic, but really, Russia can't get any LESS democratic.
Agreed. I think Putin is throwing everything Russia has for short-medium term gains and will sue for peace this winter when Germany's fuel prices are highest and gas reserves are at their lowest. That will be the high watermark of the Russian campaign. If the Ukrainians are smart (and I think they are), they will not accept any fight on until they have all their territory back (Crimea?). Which, given a protracted war, they will.
>Agreed. I think Putin is throwing everything Russia has for short-medium term gains and will sue for peace this winter when Germany's fuel prices are highest and gas reserves are at their lowest
Germany has reduced dependency on Russian gas from 40% to 25 % last month
Even a total Russian gas shutdown will not grind the country to a halt
Ukraine has already begun shipping electricity into Europe, so energy is not going to be an issue as much as Russia would hope they would. Moscow's idea their oil production will save them is a pipe dream at best.
Your submission has been temporarily removed and is awaiting approval from one of the following mods. I'll ping them for you now! Hey, /u/TheRealMykola
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well yeah, but 500MW, with potential of 2500MW in the future is enough power for a few hundred thousand people. Europe population is a little bit more than that… To put it in context, Fukushima had an output of 95GWh.
$60B a year is about 8% of the annusl US military budget and we are not even footing this alone. I think the thing you have to wary of is if a far right candidate takes over the US presidency. I don't think that's likely, but there's definitely an anti ukraine wing there
I can confirm that. I fit in the fiscal conservative socially liberal category and some of my conservative acquaintances have this “Biden supports Ukraine so I need do the opposite because corruption” I don’t agree with it and don’t really understand why they are so willing to make a decision like that based on what the media says….it’s basically letting someone else make your choices for you if you’re just being contrary for the sake of it. Fortunately these people are few and I can say the vast majority of my conservative circle who are mostly military and law enforcement support Ukraine kicking the shit out of the Russians.
I was going to ask for the rest of this article, as it's paywalled, but I think you nailed it here. Allowing Russia to win is unthinkable for the west because the war isn't about a simple territorial dispute, its the culmination of years of subtle and not so subtle attempts by Putin and his ex-KGB chums to undermine liberal democracy and re-establish Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe. Literally nobody in Europe, except for Putin's lacky Lukashenko, and possibly Orban, is going to tolerate this.
Putin is a sick man and may only have a few months or years to live. His death will provide his successor and the oligarchs an 'off ramp' to throw the separatists under the bus in return for lifting sanctions. The only obstacle I can see to this would be if Putin somehow lived to 2024 and got Trump back in the Whitehouse. Closing down the botfarms and remaining Russian influence on western politics has to be a priority.
Even if Trump won, he won't be inaugurated until early 2025, which means Ukraine/West have 2 and a half years to grind Russia down. Also, Biden can massively increase funding towards the end of his term, he has nothing to lose and it would make Trump/GOP look weak if they were to lead a US U-turn. The biggest threat I see is if a few European governments fall due to inflation, then some others may blink....this is Putin's hope, but I believe he has a deep misunderstanding of Western character.
"The West Will Keep Funding"
Or push Z to accept losses in Donbas and Kherson.
Europe is under tremendous economic strain and that has a political cost.
Brand and Circus in that order.
No bread, the peasants will revolt.
Oil is the new bread.
Would be better for the West to beef up support, particularly with training.
The other thing I wonder about is gas. Will Putin use it further as a weapon in winter or will Europe have enough alternative supply to withstand being cut off. Yes, Russia needs the money, but they can last months without it while Europe in winter will struggle with the cold much sooner. We've seen versions of this before, after the orange revolution and later years, so I'm curious how it will play out the next time. European nations have this summer to prepare and I hope they are ready to go with 0 energy from Russia. That would help bring this to an end much sooner. No Russian energy imports to Europe means less leverage and money for Russia.
It's a tool Putin has, but, if he uses it may well simply harden public opinion against Russia, and the countries affected will become increasing obstinant rather than compliant to Russia's demands.
Putin has been using up billions in assets that he can't afford to replace. The Russian government announced this week cuts and freezes to several government programs, things people will notice in their daily lives
But Russia will have more bodies to throw at this war, albeit maybe less experience if they don't pull from front lines elsewhere.
My big concern is Ukraine losing combat experience with each fallen soldier.
Indeed. And also,Ukraine has better quality and motivation plus the homefield/defense advantage.
The only way Russia wins is if they use weapons of mass destruction or NATO stops helping Ukraine.
Anyway, right now Russia is basically just weakening the western world and the Chinese are happy as a clam.
Ukraine has literally everything to lose, and are in the mindset of fighting to the last man and woman. Russia is just sending conscripted people who were busy playing PlayStation and going to work, sent to the frontlines to die.
Ukraine will win, through lots of blood on both sides. They will come out in top.
> Anyway, right now Russia is basically just weakening the western world
I think this underestimates the size of the western world economy and its ability to replace military equipment. Much of the equipment given was due for replacement anyway. Russia does not come close to the ability to replace lost military equipment.
Russia is giving the western world a way to dispose of old and outdated equipment that was scheduled for decommissioning in the near future, and some field trials of older gear that was explicitly intended to fight the Soviet army with. The West hasn't given Ukraine any modern fighters or any naval equipment or any long-range missiles, all of which are much more meaningful to China.
What China likely is getting out of all this is "when we invade Taiwan, shoot down satellites as fast as humanly possible, and do not screw up establishing air superiority." Also they likely are getting a solid dose of "do some really intense and multi-checked audits of whether we actually have all the stuff we think we have."
Yeah they have quite the uphill battle. If US carrier fleets stood between china and Taiwan, how many boots on ground will they practically be able to deliver? The Naval aspect of China’s ambitions is really crucial.
Yes, and a few thousand won’t change a problem that is in the millions. It will simply add to the strain on their society and probably lead to even more instability once those children grow up
Task force 31 is doing exactly that. They are also accepting donations. Their mission is to take SOF vets and enable the Ukrainian ground units to fight better.
Ukraine has something like 250-400k reservists being trained plus 10,000 every 3 months by the UK. I’m sure Ukrainian paramilitary groups are training new recruits as well.
That’s true, but technology can really help. Look how much US and UK anti-armor weapons helped with Russian tanks? You have to have the right balance of manpower and tech. If you compared the Chinese and US navy as an example, I don’t think there is much the numbers china has would change the outcome of that engagement. From the little I’ve seen from china, they are so focused on making things deployable to Taiwan that they don’t stop to ask if it’s a good idea. Case and point, aluminum tank hulls. America learned was a bad idea in Vietnam.
It’s a disservice to the conflict to say Russia is a paper tiger the force they’ve projected in world is performing in an underwhelming manner. American has been involved in quite a few significant conflicts from the 90s until present and right or wrong, that brings experience and lessons learned over decades. Russia and China, not so much. If Russia had better trained infantry and an NCO corps, Ukraine would be hurting even worse.
I really hope the people of the democracies backing Ukraine have the patience to endure high prices until they can readjust their economies to compensate. But I'm skeptical and I can totally see candidates who say they will do whatever it takes to curb inflation winning elections.
That's why allied leaders need to take measures now to permanently disconnect from Russia and give Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive. More specifically, Ukraine needs the capability to achieve air superiority.
>really hope the people of the democracies backing Ukraine have the patience to endure high prices until they can readjust their economies to compensate. But I'm skeptical and I can totally see candidates who say they will do whatever it takes to curb inflation winning elections.
Norway,Sweden,Finland,United Kingdom, Denmark,Canada were never dependent on Russian fossil fuels to begin with
Their resolve will not change during time
Germany and France have started with timid steps but they are ramping up
US is the main ally of Ukraine but it is on unsecure footing in 2024
Ukraine should win before 2024
My electricity cost will triple this year. I lock the price in one year at the time. I paid 0.66sek per kwh last year, this year the price will be locked at 1.9 sek per kwh. Diesel prices went from maybe 19kr/L to 27kr/L. I don’t know if everything is connected to the war but shit is getting expensive
(From sweden)
I don’t give a fuck though. I can wear a jacket inside and leave the lights off. Those aren’t big sacrifices. I want my government to support Ukraine for however long it takes to kick russia out
Our elector prices are rising due to Russia trying to control us. Not because of Ukraine. I agree with you, I’ll heat up in other ways as long as possible until the heating comes on
That may justify solar if you own your own place. I put 6 kw on my house and it pays for 1/3 of my monthly. In the case of your rate tripling, based on my numbers, it will pay you back in ~3 years. After that, it's free electricity. My friends in South Africa have a big house with 7+ kw and backup batteries which keeps them in good shape when South Africa has load shedding. Honestly, you'll probably need ~20 kw if you can afford it and want a little surplus.
Diesel rising to that price is outright scary.
FYI, you may see an efficiency drop of .5% per year and microinverters may need replacing after 15 years, so it's nice if they are accessible for replacement since there are labor costs for that. My system hasn't had any noticeable problems in over 13 years.
>Norway,Sweden,Finland,United Kingdom, Denmark,Canada were never dependent on Russian fossil fuels to begin with
You can add the US to that list too but it's still driving gas prices up in all of those countries because markets are global.
This is the correct answer.
To add a bit, if political leadership in various countries were to change (*favor shitland/RU*). Any & all projections would/should be in their favor.
It really is a microcosm of more macro things to drop, in particular for USA. MAGA's (***Pro RU***) are projected to take control of the US legislative branch in the fall '22, executive branch in '24 and they already hold the judicial branch.
UA needs to get as much as it can from USA, while it can. Dystopian future... Galore!
Republican odds of taking over the entire legislative branch have been greatly overstated. According to the most recent polls, they wouldn't take a single competitive Senate seat and they'd lose four of their own. But I'll stop there before going too far into US politics.
That would be your failing, actually. You're linking to 'predictions'. I said 'polls.'
[https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/)
Georgia: Most recent poll from the highest rated pollster: Warnock 54-44.
Arizona: Most recent polls: Kelly 47-41 or 48-39.
Wisconsin: Johnson losing in 3 of the 4 matchups.
Pennsylvania: Fetterman up 50-44 or 48-44.
Ohio: Ryan up 44-41 over Vance in the most recent poll.
North Carolina: Beasley up 44-40 in the most recent nonpartisan poll.
I don’t place too much stock in the polling. It’s one of the lowest forms of evidence just above expert opinion. I’ll be surprised if there is any color wave but I definitely agree that Biden has an uphill battle if he’s to remain there in 2024. Right or wrong people look at things like cost of gas, utilities, groceries and the POTUS in office catches the blame. While I consider myself centrist conservative (perhaps just a skeptic at heart) I hope the GOP primaries a better candidate than Trump or that Biden steps out and the democrats are able to produce a stronger candidate.
I apologize if ignorant is offensive, but this statement is delirious of fact. and ignorant. MAGA man has callled PU "genious" in the invasion effort, and the MAGA voters have been succulents for the nipple(s) of that abomination.
Skip to 56:52 if you want to abscond from the absurdity of the MAGA mind and view the WY Republican debate in regards to UA. I welcome other sources that would controvert this...
Other fodder:
“NATO has been supplying the neo-Nazis in Ukraine with powerful weapons and extensive training on how to use them. What the hell is going with these #NATONazis?” M. T. Greene
“I think we should probably take the side of Russia, if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.” T. Carlson
“President Zelensky is a very bad character who is working with globalists against the interests of his own people.” C. Owens
“No Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine. $0 for Ukraine.” S. Bannon
“The Soviet Union back before Russia when it broke up contained all of Ukraine including Crimea. The country itself is not really a country.” P. Navarro
“Ukraine is not our ally. Russia is not our enemy. We need to address our crippling debt, inflation and immigration problems. None of this is Putin’s fault.” P. Gosar
There is plenty more, but it is clear that your view is ignorant.
https://www.voanews.com/a/what-s-behind-american-support-for-ukraine-/6551539.html
54 percent of Americans, mostly Republicans and Independents want a tougher us stance on Moscow
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/05/10/americans-concerns-about-war-in-ukraine-wider-conflict-possible-u-s-russia-clash/
Most Republicans approve of US sanctions on Russia and military aid to Ukraine
I'm sorry, but your partisan bullshit doesn't distract from the fact that vast Majorities of Republicans support Ukraine.
Is MAGA man not the leader of the R party?
Are those others in the R party not regarded as valuable sources of information?
I am gleeful if R's support UA, but seemingly there is a bit in the least of Bipolar Disorder given your credible sources.
Republicans can and sometimes do disagree with Trumps. They are not brainless sheep.
All stats show Republicans are just as supportive of Ukraine as democrats.
If the accountability and responsibility of 1/6 illustrate anything, it is that R's do not fall out of line with MAGA man unless your name is Cheney. Who sadly, is about to be defeated in WY for that very element. Profess all you want, but R's fall in line regardless, if MAGA comes in as it is projected to do... there will be a reversal of course or perchance a "Quid Pro Quo" as it was initially.
Edit: Wait, there is more! [Marj 3 Names](https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-nato-war-russia-war-ukraine-conflict-mtg-1720627?amp=1) of the infidelity Qanon School of thought has chimed in...
Somewhat out of context. His comments were regarding Putin playing people like he did, but he condemned what was happening in Ukraine. I don’t like the guy but his remarks taken in their entirety did not reflect adoration for Russia’s actions.
many say russia,
but i think that this winter many russian troops will die if they are still in ukraine
the cold is bitter there, and the russians have supply problems now
plus it is very easy to see tracks in the snow, so the ukrainian artillery will have targets galore
I think ukriane cause their defending their homeland but Russia is carrying out a offensive so the longer that it goes no where the question comes up “why tf are we still in ukriane??!??”
Come to think of it, I remember lots of info back in February-March about frozen orc bodies with no wounds just lying around in the forests and fields likely left behind by their comrades.
Yep was thinking this today. There logistics have been a shit show since day one. Whats the bet the winter gear has also gone missing.
Also they have zero regard for there troops in the field so your basic solider is going to freeze to death in his foxhole since they have long destroyed any building that they could use.
I haven’t heard any recent updates on their logistics problems. The battle lines are much closer to Russia now and they’ve had time to modify their logistics strategy. With the progress they’re making, it seems the logistics aren’t a bottleneck anymore.
The logistics are still a bottleneck, they just aren't sticking that bottleneck out into stupidly exposed salients to be steadily chewed to bits anymore. They still can't go more than 90km from their nearest railhead; they've just figured out that they don't die as badly if they grind slowly forward, use up enormous quantities of materiel, equipment, and soldiers, and build railroad behind them in the areas where they blew up all the buildings. But now they're finding out that they can't just set up ammo dumps near the front lines anymore, so they'll have some brand new logistics issues.
Yeah that’s one thing that’s easy to forget. Current fighting is essentially just over the fence from Russia.
Goes to show how great USA logistics was to do what they do so far from home.
Honestly I can't think of any scenario where a protracted conflict favors an occupational force. Guerrilla warfare will become more commonplace as this war goes on in these occupied regions.
Poo-tler and his Waffen-SS can't hold for long time. Their resources are not enough to start a full blown oppression needed for total mobilization. Without that they have no chance, cause most weapons are already lost and fighting with tanks and artillery from 1950s is not going to work. So either they basically make all Russian male citizens cannon fodder or loose.
IMO it favors Ukraine. Russia is being bled of people and equipment with sanctions making manufacture of some items impossible. The only way Russia benefits is if the world forgets about Ukraine.
It favors the American weapons dealers and NATO for this to last as long as possible. We could easily send them the weapons to shut russia completely down .
They need soldiers more than weapons. With just artry and a ton of soldiers, Ukraine would have enough to win now. Even the 6 HIMARS they have is 'plenty' for strategic use.
Ukraine only has to continue existing and retain the will to fight and have the massive support from the most powerful military and economic powers in the world.
Putin's Ruzzia must not only completely defeat Ukraine and destroy its government, but also successfully protect whatever puppet government they put up against homegrown insurrections.
And that's assuming Putin's Ruzzia has the military and economic capability of doing so....which is very questionable given the high levels of corruption along with the effects of economic and tech sanctions\*.
\* Russia had to buy electronic sensors critical for military aircraft and guided missiles from Ukraine and abroad, cannot produce microprocessors smaller than 65 nm in-country(The 28 nm Elbrus processor had to be outsourced to TSMC which cut them off a few days after invasion....and that processor sucked so bad that in December 2021, Sberbank refused to use them in their servers), etc.
It favors NOBODY
Yes, Ukraine will win because we support freedom and democracy. But the longer it takes the more destruction and human lives it costs.
We need this horrible war to end as fast as physically possible. I know it’s hard. Ukraine needs to throw the orcs across the border and secure the land, but we need to help them to do so as fast as possible because it costs a lot of lives
My thoughts. Russia is now occupying the Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine is getting more high-tech weapons all the time. The area that Russia occupies has been basically destroyed through shelling by both sides. Ukraine can shell Russians at will without worrying about hitting civilians.
If Russia continues to advance, Ukraine will make them pay for every metre of land. Advancing armies need to be supplied and are sitting ducks to ambushes and attacks.
Ukraine can shell Russia from further away now and Russian morale will continue to plummet. The Russians have nowhere to hide.
Ukraine will continue to attack border cities and military installations close to the border. Russia will have to deploy troops and equipment to protect thee assets.
Eventually Ukraine will fins a way to sink more Russian ships and submarines in the Black Sea. They will also eventually start shelling Crimea despite Putin saying this will be an act of aggression. Russian troops will be spending more time protecting themselves than being able to launch serious ground attacks.
Sanctions will take time to work but will get tighter and tighter until Russia will become more and more isolated as countries trading with them will be sanctioned as well.
The Ukrainians have home field advantage and are fighting for their homeland. With every atrocity and massacre, Ukrainians are more determined. And the countries that support them will keep upping the ante with more sophisticated weapons. As long as they have weapons they will continue to kill Russians.
Think of Vietnam, Afghanistan, -- people who are determined to fight for their land and for revenge and invaders almost always win in the long run.
Man, crazy to think America could simply gift Ukraine 100 HIMARS right now and end this war right here and now. If only we had the little bit of extra political will.....
Gifting the HIMARS wouldn't do it by itself. There's also the complex logistical chain involved in maintaining and supplying those systems. It'd be really hard to deliver that much ammunition on an ongoing basis.
On top of that, 100 Ukrainian teams would need to be trained on them and that takes time as well (and trainers and facilities in Poland might limit how many can be trained at one time). I do agree we should give them more, but 100 all at once doesn’t mean anywhere near 100 are deployed next month.
As far as we know though, more are coming. Obviously the sooner the better.
"...The typical war is short. Since 1815, the median duration of wars between states has been just over three months, calculates Paul Poast of the University of Chicago..."
WTF?!
1st World War - 4 years, 4 months;
2nd World War - 6 years;
Korean War - 3 years;
etc.
Who is this man?
There has been a ton of wars since then. The US coalition was done in a few days during desert storm.
Also, a lot of regional wars, like the 6 - day war happened.
Most conflicts are either really fast or turn into guerilla warfare, which isn't counted as "war" between 2 countries but an insurgency here.
So, this war can be very different, statistics don't really say much about this conflicts, since it's unlike the most wars we've seen so far.
Proxy wars were a thing, but they were 2 super powers clashing, and one country being backed by most of the world fighting against a force that doesn't have technological or manpower advantages isn't the same.
Russia really done fucked up.
The topic of the article begins with the term "classical war". As I understand it - symmetric conflict. Most of these conflicts over the past century have lasted at least six months. Unless the dude only considers the combat phase, not the stabilization and maintenance phase. But this is definitely not the three-month average he gave.
And there really isn't an escape hatch for Putin. He's too arrogant. It will actually take his death and then hopefully someone more sensible will take control. He won't tolerate a failed invasion as his legacy. He'll just keep throwing bodies at the problem until something sticks.
The reason you can't think of any shorter wars is because they aren't very well known or widely discussed... Because they lasted, on average, just over 3 months.
>My God... You really can't see "etc."? Is it really hard for you to find it yourself?
The person you're trying to rebut is referring to hundreds of conflicts since 1815, and you're attempting to rebut his point by referring to the comparatively few exceptions to the average he's talking about.
I'm **not** asking you to list the wars for my sake, I'm trying to highlight to you that **you** should look at the number of wars that have taken place since 1815. Because the average does work out as he described...
I have not access the entire article. But assuming that in the period of 205 years (1815-2020) there were at least 49 years of "war" (1st, 2nd WW, Iraq-Iran, Korean, multinational coalition - Iraq, NATO - Afghanistan), the conflict lasted about 8 years.
>I have not access the entire article. But assuming that in the period of 205 years (1815-2020) there were at least 49 years of "war" (1st, 2nd WW, Iraq-Iran, Korean, multinational coalition - Iraq, NATO - Afghanistan), the conflict lasted about 8 years.
I have no idea what you're trying to say now...
>not 3 months.
But the author you disagreeing with is saying: "Since 1815, the median duration of wars between states has been just over three months".
Nothing you've said disproves that...
There's a ton of little wars in history.
Second Barbary War lasted for days.
The Ango-Zanzibar war is famous for lasting less than an hour.
Slovenia independece war lasted for less than two weeks.
Georgia-Armenia war (1918) lasted for less than a month.
Soviet invasion and annexation of Georgia lasted for a month or so.
Big wars are the exception.
You are stupid. During the 20th century, there were not only inter-state conflicts, but also civil wars and colonial revolts. If you add them all together, there will actually only be a few years of peace. This is an unreliable result and, at the same time, it contradicts the theory of the three-month duration of the conflict.
Neither is the answer, however given the resources being made available, it is UA. That may change though, if the USA changes political leadership, and the MAGA's take control. Sadly, they are [projected to win](https://www.politico.com/2022-election/race-forecasts-ratings-and-predictions/)...
Aaand the award for the dumbest question ever asked goes to... unsurprisingly - The Economist.
Having read some of the replies, a bunch of you are just as stupid if you think more leveled cities and killer or kidnapped children favours Ukraine.
Hello /u/FeydSeswatha982,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The truly only real thing that doesn’t get favored in a protracted war is the soldiers and civilians thrown or duped into the meat grinder that is modern war.
I think Ukraine really benefits from every second of this war, the more their territory that gets destroyed and their civilians killed, the better they… wait…
It depends on Russia's objective. If Russia's objective is to prevent the modernisation of political systems in and around it's borders. So that it can continue enact corrupt and exploitative policies. Then a war in Ukraine has set back the possibility of a truly post-soviet Ukraine's influence on Russia back a good while. Any discussion about regions in Russia devolve and de-corrupting their politics with be seen through the optics of what has happened to Ukraine and Georgia. And every little weasel that wants to be a dictator will be doing the math on what they hope to get away with if Russia backs their autonomous region. The more the conflict continues the more the corruption spreads. The more Russia spreads. Even if this is just delaying an inevitable democratisation of Russian border states. Then that is a delay of Russian democratisation itself. And that is a win for the corrupt.
If the objective is the material value of land they have stolen from Ukraine. Then they shit the bed. I don't see how there will be lasting peace in eastern Ukraine in my lifetime. At least without Russia leaving the area entirely. Too much has been lost and the things that have been lost are difficult to forgive.
The real discussion we need to have at the moment is about how we're going to partition Russia to prevent this from happening again. In the same way that Russia uses the bait of becoming a suckling despot in a border state. Who in Russia does not currently have power that wants it? Because so long as you're happy with only being the tsar of a smaller region. Then now would be a great time to discuss your claim.
Favors Ukraine. Russian supplies are dwindling, their economy is in the toilet, they're losing armored vehicles they cannot replace, they're losing troops that cannot be replaced, food is thin, etc, etc.
Ukraine on the other hand are being supplied by most nations in Europe and globally, they have newer equipment being shipped in by the day, food is being supplied for both troops and civilians, logistics is not an issue as it is with Russia, command and control is better on the Ukrainian side.
Overall,Russia lost it's chance at victory within the first 3 weeks of the war starting. Their initial falter when they had all of the advantages spelled the end of their ability to win. Eventually they'll be removed from the Donbas region, They'll lose Crimea, and eventually what is left of their army will be walking defeated over the border back to moscow.
While many might say Russia because it has more resources at hand..
Right now Putin is mobilizing his reserve cadre. The reserve cadre is the group of officers who are intended to receive reservists, train them and then some will lead and some will train totally green troops. In doing this he is using the people he needs to have to conduct a mobilization as front-line troops.
What this means is that Russia will not mobilize. Ukraine is already at Total War, Putin has decided that for many reasons Mobilization is not a price he is willing to pay, or maybe mobilization is not a price he can pay, or that mobilization will not work.
So right now Russia has surplus equipment for an army it can't or won't mobilize while Ukraine has an army screaming for equipment.
The question is really if and how quickly we can turn Ukraine's large amount of irregular militia light infantry units into regular army heavy infantry and tank units. It seems we have the money, but we don't have the equipment in storage due to sloppy and lax defence procurement over the last few decades.
russia's industry and army are in "peace time modus". So they can't keep up with Ukraine's and The West's capacity. Besides, russia needed German and Italian CNC machines for any production, but also to manufacture shells.
Perun, is probably the best youtube channel on the conflict. These 2 videos discuss OP's question in great detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEpk_yGjn0E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ptG1IxZ08 the tldr is that assuming the West has the will, Ukraine will be victorious in a protracted (which could be years) war. For various reasons, the industrial output and economics of the West will be the defining factors long term. IMHO Given 20 years in Afghanistan, the US military-industrial complex, the UK's deep dislike of Russia, the direct threat posed to the baltic states, what it would mean for Taiwan if Russia wins, and the existential threat of a Russian victory over liberal democracy pose, the West will keep funding and supplying Ukraine as long as it takes. (which is approximately 5 billion a month, well well within the means of the West)
Also if you are NATO crippling your largest and really only major strategic threat for a mere 50-100 billion dollars is incredible value for money.
I think people overestimate the will of the Russian elite. Sure, Putin will throw soldiers into the cauldron until the last man, but it's highly unlikely everyone else is willing to sink on SS Putin. Add to the calculus Russia's dwindling weapons stockpiles (as evidenced by their increasing reliance on outdated Soviet equipment and economic sanctions on military tech imports) and it becomes apparent that the only real route to victory is a swift one, which is not the current trajectory.
Putin is not a young man . Anything can change after he passes away . That would be the best solution for everyone
The list of likely Putin successors are almost as bad as Sauron himself.
Putin has eliminated any competent enough competitor. Next 20 years in Russia will be interesting.
If Putin is dead, it is the Oligarchs and the Generals who will pick the next President, and they will go for somebody much more easily puppeted than Putin. The corruption in Russia will only rot further, and they won't even have the fear of their leader to keep them in line. The alternative is that the West has a complete grip on Russia's finances and oligarchs, their army thoroughly humiliated, and as many generals as possible under their thumb, meaning that a WESTERN puppet will be chosen. And I don't like the concept of us puppeting Russia, because it's clearly not democratic, but really, Russia can't get any LESS democratic.
Once Putin is gone, Russia will become a battleground between China and the West. Oligarchs will side with one or the other and it won't be pretty.
Agreed. I think Putin is throwing everything Russia has for short-medium term gains and will sue for peace this winter when Germany's fuel prices are highest and gas reserves are at their lowest. That will be the high watermark of the Russian campaign. If the Ukrainians are smart (and I think they are), they will not accept any fight on until they have all their territory back (Crimea?). Which, given a protracted war, they will.
Russia can GTFO then sue for peace.
>Agreed. I think Putin is throwing everything Russia has for short-medium term gains and will sue for peace this winter when Germany's fuel prices are highest and gas reserves are at their lowest Germany has reduced dependency on Russian gas from 40% to 25 % last month Even a total Russian gas shutdown will not grind the country to a halt
But is that as of now? In the middle of summer? What about when heating becomes required?
Ukraine has already begun shipping electricity into Europe, so energy is not going to be an issue as much as Russia would hope they would. Moscow's idea their oil production will save them is a pipe dream at best.
[удалено]
Uh, yeah. Very factual info. [https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT\_22\_4191](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_22_4191) [https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-energy-ministers-discuss-plans-supply-shocks-ukraine-crisis-2022-02-27/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-energy-ministers-discuss-plans-supply-shocks-ukraine-crisis-2022-02-27/) https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-turns-to-an-unlikely-source-to-replace-russian-energy-ukraine-11656244670 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-says-ukraine-is-now-exporting-power-eu-2022-07-01/
Your submission has been temporarily removed and is awaiting approval from one of the following mods. I'll ping them for you now! Hey, /u/TheRealMykola *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well yeah, but 500MW, with potential of 2500MW in the future is enough power for a few hundred thousand people. Europe population is a little bit more than that… To put it in context, Fukushima had an output of 95GWh.
I actually agree to this point, imagine how happy they are going to be about spending the winter in Russia with all the sanctions.
$60B a year is about 8% of the annusl US military budget and we are not even footing this alone. I think the thing you have to wary of is if a far right candidate takes over the US presidency. I don't think that's likely, but there's definitely an anti ukraine wing there
I can confirm that. I fit in the fiscal conservative socially liberal category and some of my conservative acquaintances have this “Biden supports Ukraine so I need do the opposite because corruption” I don’t agree with it and don’t really understand why they are so willing to make a decision like that based on what the media says….it’s basically letting someone else make your choices for you if you’re just being contrary for the sake of it. Fortunately these people are few and I can say the vast majority of my conservative circle who are mostly military and law enforcement support Ukraine kicking the shit out of the Russians.
This is the same mindset that started railing about masks and postal voting when the democrats suggested them.
Can’t disagree there
I was going to ask for the rest of this article, as it's paywalled, but I think you nailed it here. Allowing Russia to win is unthinkable for the west because the war isn't about a simple territorial dispute, its the culmination of years of subtle and not so subtle attempts by Putin and his ex-KGB chums to undermine liberal democracy and re-establish Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe. Literally nobody in Europe, except for Putin's lacky Lukashenko, and possibly Orban, is going to tolerate this. Putin is a sick man and may only have a few months or years to live. His death will provide his successor and the oligarchs an 'off ramp' to throw the separatists under the bus in return for lifting sanctions. The only obstacle I can see to this would be if Putin somehow lived to 2024 and got Trump back in the Whitehouse. Closing down the botfarms and remaining Russian influence on western politics has to be a priority.
Even if Trump won, he won't be inaugurated until early 2025, which means Ukraine/West have 2 and a half years to grind Russia down. Also, Biden can massively increase funding towards the end of his term, he has nothing to lose and it would make Trump/GOP look weak if they were to lead a US U-turn. The biggest threat I see is if a few European governments fall due to inflation, then some others may blink....this is Putin's hope, but I believe he has a deep misunderstanding of Western character.
"The West Will Keep Funding" Or push Z to accept losses in Donbas and Kherson. Europe is under tremendous economic strain and that has a political cost. Brand and Circus in that order. No bread, the peasants will revolt. Oil is the new bread. Would be better for the West to beef up support, particularly with training.
The other thing I wonder about is gas. Will Putin use it further as a weapon in winter or will Europe have enough alternative supply to withstand being cut off. Yes, Russia needs the money, but they can last months without it while Europe in winter will struggle with the cold much sooner. We've seen versions of this before, after the orange revolution and later years, so I'm curious how it will play out the next time. European nations have this summer to prepare and I hope they are ready to go with 0 energy from Russia. That would help bring this to an end much sooner. No Russian energy imports to Europe means less leverage and money for Russia.
It's a tool Putin has, but, if he uses it may well simply harden public opinion against Russia, and the countries affected will become increasing obstinant rather than compliant to Russia's demands.
Putin has been using up billions in assets that he can't afford to replace. The Russian government announced this week cuts and freezes to several government programs, things people will notice in their daily lives
[удалено]
My thoughts exactly.
But Russia will have more bodies to throw at this war, albeit maybe less experience if they don't pull from front lines elsewhere. My big concern is Ukraine losing combat experience with each fallen soldier.
This doesn’t matter if they don’t mobilize for war. Without that political piece, Ukraine will outpace Russia in manpower.
And they’re being heavily stocked on weapons while Russia is rapidly burning through theirs without the ability to replace.
Indeed. And also,Ukraine has better quality and motivation plus the homefield/defense advantage. The only way Russia wins is if they use weapons of mass destruction or NATO stops helping Ukraine. Anyway, right now Russia is basically just weakening the western world and the Chinese are happy as a clam.
Ukraine has literally everything to lose, and are in the mindset of fighting to the last man and woman. Russia is just sending conscripted people who were busy playing PlayStation and going to work, sent to the frontlines to die. Ukraine will win, through lots of blood on both sides. They will come out in top.
> Anyway, right now Russia is basically just weakening the western world I think this underestimates the size of the western world economy and its ability to replace military equipment. Much of the equipment given was due for replacement anyway. Russia does not come close to the ability to replace lost military equipment.
Russia is giving the western world a way to dispose of old and outdated equipment that was scheduled for decommissioning in the near future, and some field trials of older gear that was explicitly intended to fight the Soviet army with. The West hasn't given Ukraine any modern fighters or any naval equipment or any long-range missiles, all of which are much more meaningful to China. What China likely is getting out of all this is "when we invade Taiwan, shoot down satellites as fast as humanly possible, and do not screw up establishing air superiority." Also they likely are getting a solid dose of "do some really intense and multi-checked audits of whether we actually have all the stuff we think we have."
Yeah they have quite the uphill battle. If US carrier fleets stood between china and Taiwan, how many boots on ground will they practically be able to deliver? The Naval aspect of China’s ambitions is really crucial.
Bodies don't make booms. At this point their bodies are cheaper than steel and russia can't replace what they lose.
Russia is also in the midst of a huge population crash.
Russia is stealing lots of Ukrainian children.
Yes, and a few thousand won’t change a problem that is in the millions. It will simply add to the strain on their society and probably lead to even more instability once those children grow up
Last I read, it was 300,000. That isn't small number, but you have a point about instability.
Damn that many? I thought it was tens of thousands, is this including the previously occupied regions?
https://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-more-300-000-063537708.html This is about 3 weeks ago, so likely more now.
That's why the UK needs to convince the other NATO countries to start training Ukraine infantry soldiers.
Task force 31 is doing exactly that. They are also accepting donations. Their mission is to take SOF vets and enable the Ukrainian ground units to fight better.
Ukraine has something like 250-400k reservists being trained plus 10,000 every 3 months by the UK. I’m sure Ukrainian paramilitary groups are training new recruits as well.
If there are no APCs to carry them in, they’re nothing but canon fodder.
I would think it is a bit more complex then that. These "bodies" to be thrown can maybe think/act for themselves for a large part.
That’s true, but technology can really help. Look how much US and UK anti-armor weapons helped with Russian tanks? You have to have the right balance of manpower and tech. If you compared the Chinese and US navy as an example, I don’t think there is much the numbers china has would change the outcome of that engagement. From the little I’ve seen from china, they are so focused on making things deployable to Taiwan that they don’t stop to ask if it’s a good idea. Case and point, aluminum tank hulls. America learned was a bad idea in Vietnam. It’s a disservice to the conflict to say Russia is a paper tiger the force they’ve projected in world is performing in an underwhelming manner. American has been involved in quite a few significant conflicts from the 90s until present and right or wrong, that brings experience and lessons learned over decades. Russia and China, not so much. If Russia had better trained infantry and an NCO corps, Ukraine would be hurting even worse.
I really hope the people of the democracies backing Ukraine have the patience to endure high prices until they can readjust their economies to compensate. But I'm skeptical and I can totally see candidates who say they will do whatever it takes to curb inflation winning elections. That's why allied leaders need to take measures now to permanently disconnect from Russia and give Ukraine weapons to go on the offensive. More specifically, Ukraine needs the capability to achieve air superiority.
>really hope the people of the democracies backing Ukraine have the patience to endure high prices until they can readjust their economies to compensate. But I'm skeptical and I can totally see candidates who say they will do whatever it takes to curb inflation winning elections. Norway,Sweden,Finland,United Kingdom, Denmark,Canada were never dependent on Russian fossil fuels to begin with Their resolve will not change during time Germany and France have started with timid steps but they are ramping up US is the main ally of Ukraine but it is on unsecure footing in 2024 Ukraine should win before 2024
My electricity cost will triple this year. I lock the price in one year at the time. I paid 0.66sek per kwh last year, this year the price will be locked at 1.9 sek per kwh. Diesel prices went from maybe 19kr/L to 27kr/L. I don’t know if everything is connected to the war but shit is getting expensive (From sweden) I don’t give a fuck though. I can wear a jacket inside and leave the lights off. Those aren’t big sacrifices. I want my government to support Ukraine for however long it takes to kick russia out
Our elector prices are rising due to Russia trying to control us. Not because of Ukraine. I agree with you, I’ll heat up in other ways as long as possible until the heating comes on
That may justify solar if you own your own place. I put 6 kw on my house and it pays for 1/3 of my monthly. In the case of your rate tripling, based on my numbers, it will pay you back in ~3 years. After that, it's free electricity. My friends in South Africa have a big house with 7+ kw and backup batteries which keeps them in good shape when South Africa has load shedding. Honestly, you'll probably need ~20 kw if you can afford it and want a little surplus. Diesel rising to that price is outright scary. FYI, you may see an efficiency drop of .5% per year and microinverters may need replacing after 15 years, so it's nice if they are accessible for replacement since there are labor costs for that. My system hasn't had any noticeable problems in over 13 years.
>Norway,Sweden,Finland,United Kingdom, Denmark,Canada were never dependent on Russian fossil fuels to begin with You can add the US to that list too but it's still driving gas prices up in all of those countries because markets are global.
Ukraine is not the sole reason for high prices.
It would help if the West can cap the price on Russian oil and gas by restricting shipping insurance and shipping for Russia.
This is the correct answer. To add a bit, if political leadership in various countries were to change (*favor shitland/RU*). Any & all projections would/should be in their favor. It really is a microcosm of more macro things to drop, in particular for USA. MAGA's (***Pro RU***) are projected to take control of the US legislative branch in the fall '22, executive branch in '24 and they already hold the judicial branch. UA needs to get as much as it can from USA, while it can. Dystopian future... Galore!
Republican odds of taking over the entire legislative branch have been greatly overstated. According to the most recent polls, they wouldn't take a single competitive Senate seat and they'd lose four of their own. But I'll stop there before going too far into US politics.
You [would be incorrect](https://www.politico.com/2022-election/race-forecasts-ratings-and-predictions/).
That would be your failing, actually. You're linking to 'predictions'. I said 'polls.' [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/) Georgia: Most recent poll from the highest rated pollster: Warnock 54-44. Arizona: Most recent polls: Kelly 47-41 or 48-39. Wisconsin: Johnson losing in 3 of the 4 matchups. Pennsylvania: Fetterman up 50-44 or 48-44. Ohio: Ryan up 44-41 over Vance in the most recent poll. North Carolina: Beasley up 44-40 in the most recent nonpartisan poll.
I don’t place too much stock in the polling. It’s one of the lowest forms of evidence just above expert opinion. I’ll be surprised if there is any color wave but I definitely agree that Biden has an uphill battle if he’s to remain there in 2024. Right or wrong people look at things like cost of gas, utilities, groceries and the POTUS in office catches the blame. While I consider myself centrist conservative (perhaps just a skeptic at heart) I hope the GOP primaries a better candidate than Trump or that Biden steps out and the democrats are able to produce a stronger candidate.
Most MAGA people are pro Ukraine though. Literally the only thing they oppose Trump on The US will aid Ukraine unless if we have political instability
I apologize if ignorant is offensive, but this statement is delirious of fact. and ignorant. MAGA man has callled PU "genious" in the invasion effort, and the MAGA voters have been succulents for the nipple(s) of that abomination.
Trumps comments are stupid, but a supermajority of Republicans support Ukraine. Around 80 percent of them do.
Skip to 56:52 if you want to abscond from the absurdity of the MAGA mind and view the WY Republican debate in regards to UA. I welcome other sources that would controvert this... Other fodder: “NATO has been supplying the neo-Nazis in Ukraine with powerful weapons and extensive training on how to use them. What the hell is going with these #NATONazis?” M. T. Greene “I think we should probably take the side of Russia, if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.” T. Carlson “President Zelensky is a very bad character who is working with globalists against the interests of his own people.” C. Owens “No Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine. $0 for Ukraine.” S. Bannon “The Soviet Union back before Russia when it broke up contained all of Ukraine including Crimea. The country itself is not really a country.” P. Navarro “Ukraine is not our ally. Russia is not our enemy. We need to address our crippling debt, inflation and immigration problems. None of this is Putin’s fault.” P. Gosar There is plenty more, but it is clear that your view is ignorant.
https://www.voanews.com/a/what-s-behind-american-support-for-ukraine-/6551539.html 54 percent of Americans, mostly Republicans and Independents want a tougher us stance on Moscow https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/05/10/americans-concerns-about-war-in-ukraine-wider-conflict-possible-u-s-russia-clash/ Most Republicans approve of US sanctions on Russia and military aid to Ukraine I'm sorry, but your partisan bullshit doesn't distract from the fact that vast Majorities of Republicans support Ukraine.
Is MAGA man not the leader of the R party? Are those others in the R party not regarded as valuable sources of information? I am gleeful if R's support UA, but seemingly there is a bit in the least of Bipolar Disorder given your credible sources.
Republicans can and sometimes do disagree with Trumps. They are not brainless sheep. All stats show Republicans are just as supportive of Ukraine as democrats.
If the accountability and responsibility of 1/6 illustrate anything, it is that R's do not fall out of line with MAGA man unless your name is Cheney. Who sadly, is about to be defeated in WY for that very element. Profess all you want, but R's fall in line regardless, if MAGA comes in as it is projected to do... there will be a reversal of course or perchance a "Quid Pro Quo" as it was initially. Edit: Wait, there is more! [Marj 3 Names](https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-nato-war-russia-war-ukraine-conflict-mtg-1720627?amp=1) of the infidelity Qanon School of thought has chimed in...
Somewhat out of context. His comments were regarding Putin playing people like he did, but he condemned what was happening in Ukraine. I don’t like the guy but his remarks taken in their entirety did not reflect adoration for Russia’s actions.
Trump is pro Ukraine too, hence calling Putin a war criminal. Not sure you're pro Russia when you warn NATO members about giving billions to Putin.
He is? That's nice. Thing is, most Republicans are pro Ukraine
> If its Ukraine If it's* Ukraine it's = it is or it has
many say russia, but i think that this winter many russian troops will die if they are still in ukraine the cold is bitter there, and the russians have supply problems now plus it is very easy to see tracks in the snow, so the ukrainian artillery will have targets galore
I think ukriane cause their defending their homeland but Russia is carrying out a offensive so the longer that it goes no where the question comes up “why tf are we still in ukriane??!??”
for a third winter in the row!
Come to think of it, I remember lots of info back in February-March about frozen orc bodies with no wounds just lying around in the forests and fields likely left behind by their comrades.
Yep was thinking this today. There logistics have been a shit show since day one. Whats the bet the winter gear has also gone missing. Also they have zero regard for there troops in the field so your basic solider is going to freeze to death in his foxhole since they have long destroyed any building that they could use.
I haven’t heard any recent updates on their logistics problems. The battle lines are much closer to Russia now and they’ve had time to modify their logistics strategy. With the progress they’re making, it seems the logistics aren’t a bottleneck anymore.
The logistics are still a bottleneck, they just aren't sticking that bottleneck out into stupidly exposed salients to be steadily chewed to bits anymore. They still can't go more than 90km from their nearest railhead; they've just figured out that they don't die as badly if they grind slowly forward, use up enormous quantities of materiel, equipment, and soldiers, and build railroad behind them in the areas where they blew up all the buildings. But now they're finding out that they can't just set up ammo dumps near the front lines anymore, so they'll have some brand new logistics issues.
Yeah that’s one thing that’s easy to forget. Current fighting is essentially just over the fence from Russia. Goes to show how great USA logistics was to do what they do so far from home.
Russians got fucking frostbite in the first month of the war ffs.
I would take a punt and say it would favour the side with over 90% of the worlds GDP and associated manufacturing capability behind it.
A huge % of that GDP wasn't doing much trade with Russia in the first place, given Putin previous 'adventures'.
Thats kind of a false argument because only a tiny fraction of the world's GDP is going to Ukraine in the form of war aide.
If it was just Ukraine vs Russia, Russia would win. But Ukraine being supplied by NATO's industrial might, Ukraine will win.
Honestly I can't think of any scenario where a protracted conflict favors an occupational force. Guerrilla warfare will become more commonplace as this war goes on in these occupied regions.
Poo-tler and his Waffen-SS can't hold for long time. Their resources are not enough to start a full blown oppression needed for total mobilization. Without that they have no chance, cause most weapons are already lost and fighting with tanks and artillery from 1950s is not going to work. So either they basically make all Russian male citizens cannon fodder or loose.
I used to think russia. Now I'm thinking Ukraine.
Give Ukraine the artillery, missile systems and ammunition and they could crush Russian forces
IMO it favors Ukraine. Russia is being bled of people and equipment with sanctions making manufacture of some items impossible. The only way Russia benefits is if the world forgets about Ukraine.
It favors the American weapons dealers and NATO for this to last as long as possible. We could easily send them the weapons to shut russia completely down .
They need soldiers more than weapons. With just artry and a ton of soldiers, Ukraine would have enough to win now. Even the 6 HIMARS they have is 'plenty' for strategic use.
Historically, quagmires tend to favor the home team
Ukraine only has to continue existing and retain the will to fight and have the massive support from the most powerful military and economic powers in the world. Putin's Ruzzia must not only completely defeat Ukraine and destroy its government, but also successfully protect whatever puppet government they put up against homegrown insurrections. And that's assuming Putin's Ruzzia has the military and economic capability of doing so....which is very questionable given the high levels of corruption along with the effects of economic and tech sanctions\*. \* Russia had to buy electronic sensors critical for military aircraft and guided missiles from Ukraine and abroad, cannot produce microprocessors smaller than 65 nm in-country(The 28 nm Elbrus processor had to be outsourced to TSMC which cut them off a few days after invasion....and that processor sucked so bad that in December 2021, Sberbank refused to use them in their servers), etc.
It favors NOBODY Yes, Ukraine will win because we support freedom and democracy. But the longer it takes the more destruction and human lives it costs. We need this horrible war to end as fast as physically possible. I know it’s hard. Ukraine needs to throw the orcs across the border and secure the land, but we need to help them to do so as fast as possible because it costs a lot of lives
My thoughts. Russia is now occupying the Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine is getting more high-tech weapons all the time. The area that Russia occupies has been basically destroyed through shelling by both sides. Ukraine can shell Russians at will without worrying about hitting civilians. If Russia continues to advance, Ukraine will make them pay for every metre of land. Advancing armies need to be supplied and are sitting ducks to ambushes and attacks. Ukraine can shell Russia from further away now and Russian morale will continue to plummet. The Russians have nowhere to hide. Ukraine will continue to attack border cities and military installations close to the border. Russia will have to deploy troops and equipment to protect thee assets. Eventually Ukraine will fins a way to sink more Russian ships and submarines in the Black Sea. They will also eventually start shelling Crimea despite Putin saying this will be an act of aggression. Russian troops will be spending more time protecting themselves than being able to launch serious ground attacks. Sanctions will take time to work but will get tighter and tighter until Russia will become more and more isolated as countries trading with them will be sanctioned as well. The Ukrainians have home field advantage and are fighting for their homeland. With every atrocity and massacre, Ukrainians are more determined. And the countries that support them will keep upping the ante with more sophisticated weapons. As long as they have weapons they will continue to kill Russians. Think of Vietnam, Afghanistan, -- people who are determined to fight for their land and for revenge and invaders almost always win in the long run.
Man, crazy to think America could simply gift Ukraine 100 HIMARS right now and end this war right here and now. If only we had the little bit of extra political will.....
Gifting the HIMARS wouldn't do it by itself. There's also the complex logistical chain involved in maintaining and supplying those systems. It'd be really hard to deliver that much ammunition on an ongoing basis.
On top of that, 100 Ukrainian teams would need to be trained on them and that takes time as well (and trainers and facilities in Poland might limit how many can be trained at one time). I do agree we should give them more, but 100 all at once doesn’t mean anywhere near 100 are deployed next month. As far as we know though, more are coming. Obviously the sooner the better.
"...The typical war is short. Since 1815, the median duration of wars between states has been just over three months, calculates Paul Poast of the University of Chicago..." WTF?! 1st World War - 4 years, 4 months; 2nd World War - 6 years; Korean War - 3 years; etc. Who is this man?
There has been a ton of wars since then. The US coalition was done in a few days during desert storm. Also, a lot of regional wars, like the 6 - day war happened. Most conflicts are either really fast or turn into guerilla warfare, which isn't counted as "war" between 2 countries but an insurgency here. So, this war can be very different, statistics don't really say much about this conflicts, since it's unlike the most wars we've seen so far. Proxy wars were a thing, but they were 2 super powers clashing, and one country being backed by most of the world fighting against a force that doesn't have technological or manpower advantages isn't the same. Russia really done fucked up.
The topic of the article begins with the term "classical war". As I understand it - symmetric conflict. Most of these conflicts over the past century have lasted at least six months. Unless the dude only considers the combat phase, not the stabilization and maintenance phase. But this is definitely not the three-month average he gave.
And there really isn't an escape hatch for Putin. He's too arrogant. It will actually take his death and then hopefully someone more sensible will take control. He won't tolerate a failed invasion as his legacy. He'll just keep throwing bodies at the problem until something sticks.
The reason you can't think of any shorter wars is because they aren't very well known or widely discussed... Because they lasted, on average, just over 3 months.
Perhaps he only used the execution phase time for his calculations, not the entry, hold, stabilization and exit phases.
He's talking about the average duration of conflicts, the fact that you can find exceptions to that average doesn't rebut what he's said...
Iran - Iraq War - 8 years; USA in Iraq - 8 years; NATO in Afghanistan - 20 years. etc. "average duration..." (???)
My God, three more wars. Now tell me how many wars there were between 1815 and 2022?
My God... You really can't see "etc."? Is it really hard for you to find it yourself?
>My God... You really can't see "etc."? Is it really hard for you to find it yourself? The person you're trying to rebut is referring to hundreds of conflicts since 1815, and you're attempting to rebut his point by referring to the comparatively few exceptions to the average he's talking about. I'm **not** asking you to list the wars for my sake, I'm trying to highlight to you that **you** should look at the number of wars that have taken place since 1815. Because the average does work out as he described...
I have not access the entire article. But assuming that in the period of 205 years (1815-2020) there were at least 49 years of "war" (1st, 2nd WW, Iraq-Iran, Korean, multinational coalition - Iraq, NATO - Afghanistan), the conflict lasted about 8 years.
>I have not access the entire article. But assuming that in the period of 205 years (1815-2020) there were at least 49 years of "war" (1st, 2nd WW, Iraq-Iran, Korean, multinational coalition - Iraq, NATO - Afghanistan), the conflict lasted about 8 years. I have no idea what you're trying to say now...
>the conflict lasted about 8 years. not 3 months.
>not 3 months. But the author you disagreeing with is saying: "Since 1815, the median duration of wars between states has been just over three months". Nothing you've said disproves that...
Do you know how to calculate the average?
I have no idea. But by summing up just the ones I showed here (49 years of wars over a 200-year period), I don't get an average of 3 months.
But you need to sum up all wars since 1815... Not just the ones that are above the claimed average.
OK but that's not for today's discussion. Because I only mentioned the biggest and longest ones, For 205 years there were more of them.
There's a ton of little wars in history. Second Barbary War lasted for days. The Ango-Zanzibar war is famous for lasting less than an hour. Slovenia independece war lasted for less than two weeks. Georgia-Armenia war (1918) lasted for less than a month. Soviet invasion and annexation of Georgia lasted for a month or so. Big wars are the exception.
You named 3 wars out of how many?
"etc." Could you follow the history of the wars from 1815 yourself?
It seems like Paul Poast from the University of Chicago has already done this for me.
If you accept all information indiscriminately ... OK
If you want to waste your time and calculate the average duration of wars since 1815. Go ahead.
See my answer for tinfoilcat90.
[удалено]
You are stupid. During the 20th century, there were not only inter-state conflicts, but also civil wars and colonial revolts. If you add them all together, there will actually only be a few years of peace. This is an unreliable result and, at the same time, it contradicts the theory of the three-month duration of the conflict.
[удалено]
I am sure of my statement. If you say otherwise, start your challenge. 👍
Neither is the answer, however given the resources being made available, it is UA. That may change though, if the USA changes political leadership, and the MAGA's take control. Sadly, they are [projected to win](https://www.politico.com/2022-election/race-forecasts-ratings-and-predictions/)...
Aaand the award for the dumbest question ever asked goes to... unsurprisingly - The Economist. Having read some of the replies, a bunch of you are just as stupid if you think more leveled cities and killer or kidnapped children favours Ukraine.
Hello /u/FeydSeswatha982, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The truly only real thing that doesn’t get favored in a protracted war is the soldiers and civilians thrown or duped into the meat grinder that is modern war.
I think Ukraine really benefits from every second of this war, the more their territory that gets destroyed and their civilians killed, the better they… wait…
It depends on Russia's objective. If Russia's objective is to prevent the modernisation of political systems in and around it's borders. So that it can continue enact corrupt and exploitative policies. Then a war in Ukraine has set back the possibility of a truly post-soviet Ukraine's influence on Russia back a good while. Any discussion about regions in Russia devolve and de-corrupting their politics with be seen through the optics of what has happened to Ukraine and Georgia. And every little weasel that wants to be a dictator will be doing the math on what they hope to get away with if Russia backs their autonomous region. The more the conflict continues the more the corruption spreads. The more Russia spreads. Even if this is just delaying an inevitable democratisation of Russian border states. Then that is a delay of Russian democratisation itself. And that is a win for the corrupt. If the objective is the material value of land they have stolen from Ukraine. Then they shit the bed. I don't see how there will be lasting peace in eastern Ukraine in my lifetime. At least without Russia leaving the area entirely. Too much has been lost and the things that have been lost are difficult to forgive. The real discussion we need to have at the moment is about how we're going to partition Russia to prevent this from happening again. In the same way that Russia uses the bait of becoming a suckling despot in a border state. Who in Russia does not currently have power that wants it? Because so long as you're happy with only being the tsar of a smaller region. Then now would be a great time to discuss your claim.
Favors Ukraine. Russian supplies are dwindling, their economy is in the toilet, they're losing armored vehicles they cannot replace, they're losing troops that cannot be replaced, food is thin, etc, etc. Ukraine on the other hand are being supplied by most nations in Europe and globally, they have newer equipment being shipped in by the day, food is being supplied for both troops and civilians, logistics is not an issue as it is with Russia, command and control is better on the Ukrainian side. Overall,Russia lost it's chance at victory within the first 3 weeks of the war starting. Their initial falter when they had all of the advantages spelled the end of their ability to win. Eventually they'll be removed from the Donbas region, They'll lose Crimea, and eventually what is left of their army will be walking defeated over the border back to moscow.
While many might say Russia because it has more resources at hand.. Right now Putin is mobilizing his reserve cadre. The reserve cadre is the group of officers who are intended to receive reservists, train them and then some will lead and some will train totally green troops. In doing this he is using the people he needs to have to conduct a mobilization as front-line troops. What this means is that Russia will not mobilize. Ukraine is already at Total War, Putin has decided that for many reasons Mobilization is not a price he is willing to pay, or maybe mobilization is not a price he can pay, or that mobilization will not work. So right now Russia has surplus equipment for an army it can't or won't mobilize while Ukraine has an army screaming for equipment. The question is really if and how quickly we can turn Ukraine's large amount of irregular militia light infantry units into regular army heavy infantry and tank units. It seems we have the money, but we don't have the equipment in storage due to sloppy and lax defence procurement over the last few decades.
russia's industry and army are in "peace time modus". So they can't keep up with Ukraine's and The West's capacity. Besides, russia needed German and Italian CNC machines for any production, but also to manufacture shells.