- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
I'm really curious why Biden thinks a negotiated end is likely. The situation looks really bad for Russia from where I'm sitting, and if that doesn't change how would a negotiation work? The Americans have awesome intelligence on Russia, but they also have nuclear fears that might lead upper leadership to do some wishful thinking.
The situation looks really bad for Russia from where I'm sitting
And where exactly are you sitting? Because that is not at all how it looks to people paying attention.
Sorry, I've already hit my quota for pointless hexbear arguments in the last 30 days.
This war will either grind through the male population of both countries (which is probably good for US interests tbh) or will end in negotiations.
Russia has a few things in abundance: land, labour, and artillery. They can afford to defend for years while taking much fewer casualties than the Ukrainian side (simply by virtue of, y'know, not attacking) and simply waiting to exhaust Ukraine's human capital.
Russia can mine every field from Bakhmut to Moscow. Their domestic industrial capacity is skyrocketing and they (like Ukraine) can still import consumer electronics from manufacturers in China. They've found solid buyers in India for their O&G who are less concerned about international backlash as they are about making money.
Eventually Ukraine will run out of able-bodied men in an offensive op. So will Russia if Russia decides to have another go at the offensive meat grinder.
Attrition benefits neither Ukraine nor Russia, but it does benefit the West. So...
which is probably good for US interests tbh
I don't see how. Ukraine is a very firm, committed US and Western ally at this point.
Russia has a few things in abundance: land, labour, and artillery.
True, although I'm less sure about the artillery situation. I heard they bought a bunch of shells off of North Korea recently, but their whole doctrine revolves around shooting them en mass and their own ammunition manufacturing was ground down to almost nothing before the war started.
It's pretty impossible to find reliable recent casualty numbers, but the closest reasonably trustworthy ones are from the pentagon leaks, and they are more favourable to the Ukrainians - over 2 Russians per Ukrainian.
Their domestic industrial capacity is skyrocketing
That is not at all what I've heard. It's more like they're desperately dragging the neglected war-relevant parts of it back online. Like, I think you're right that if the political situation stays stable they could keep going, but I don't really see a way to turn the tide, because all Ukraine has to do to get stronger is learn to use gifted Western weapons.
Early in the invasion I saw a video that basically said Russia had to wrap it up in a few months to stay competitive because of this, and that's broadly panned out. Ukraine has indeed shifted to NATO systems with supply only constrained by diplomacy, and Russia has indeed had some logistical problems.
Eventually Ukraine will run out of able-bodied men in an offensive op. So will Russia if Russia decides to have another go at the offensive meat grinder.
Maybe. Russia's has some sort of path to victory if (again assuming political stability) they can keep their casualty rates controllable. They do have 4x the population.
I mean, Russia's been on the offensive, so are you surprised that they're losing more men? Attacking is notoriously challenging and has been for most of human history. As an aggressor, you only really win with overwhelming force or by grinding your opponents down until you find a breakthrough that your opponents can't fill. Russia started with overwhelming force, which is where most of the territorial gains were made.
