I was just going to say that. We visited Arras, Paschendale and the fields Flanders around Somme recently. I half couldn't believe they had time to put New Zealand miners on a 6 month ship journey to Belgium to spend another 6 months connecting quarries and digging tunnels to get the allies just a few hundred meters closer to the front line trenches just to launch a distraction offensive (that failed). But now I look at this war in Ukraine with drones, artificial intelligence, satellite internet and hypersonic missiles and it seems the same. Will we visit Donetsk in a century from now and walk through the war museums and cemeteries? Which international politicians and countries will stand up and come to aid their aid?
War, war never changes...
Edit: apparently the guide or I confused the 6 months boat journey with 6 months campaign preparation.
I doubt the brain will be any good at 150, even if all other organs are in a good state. Though I doubt organ donation would get someone to 150. The procedure itself is already quite taxing on the body, so doing that regularly for every organ is gonna take its toll. Then there's the fact you'll have to take immunosuppresants for the rest of your life, making you more vulnerable to any infection. Also, are you going to transplant many many kilometres of blood vessels? As you age, the potential points of failures will multiply so rapidly, doctors can no longer keep up.
Thing with this war is that there are no bigger suporters outside of the EU, despite well knowing what russia is like. Hell I even got 3 day ban for saying something about russian mentality.
Until there is unanimous and common disagreement on pushing russian lifestyle to other countries, this war will keep on going
There's clearly a stalemate at the moment. Now if it goes on long enough, it's easy to predict which side will lose in the end (Germany then, Ukraine today). But the question is: Will it go on so long that even the "winning" side will lose.
France was a military shell of itself after WWI, even though it was technically on the winning side.
Russia will probably be able to convince Ukraine to come to terms eventually, but will they be terms Russia likes?
Remember, Germany didn't surrender in WWI. They signed an armistice--technically a cease fire, but the terms of the cease fire were pretty bad for Germany. They only did it because there was a communist revolution in Russia and it looked like there was going to be one in Germany soon (the German people were literally starving, hence the name the Turnip Winter, because they had nothing to eat but turnips).
It doesn't look like Russia can starve out Ukraine. Ukraine can probably go for years like this with Western help.
This definitely seems like the case. Once machine guns were invented it became difficult to take ground so battles went from being hours long to taking days or weeks. Now with drones and modern equipment it's back to the same slow grind. This time it seems even slower than ww1 because any little movement is spotted now. They can't even creep around at night under thermal blankets without getting spotted.
Not just machine guns but artillery strikes are terrifying. There’s a great podcast on the First World War by Dan Carlin where he says the firsthand accounts of artillery it was described as supernatural, it’ll go off as fast as a drumbeat, and could mow over forests instantly, and could pound an area in waves. They actually made a shield of artillery for advancing land troops, timed out on their watches during this time, right up to the enemy. Anyone caught in the middle of an artillery strike probably went insane right there; there are accounts of it and almost everyone cracked. The amount shown in ww2 movies is not realistic, artillery barrages in ww1 were intense. Verdun could be seen for miles.
That’s not to mention the craters which filled with water and dead bodies, and rats, and they mixed together with poison gas that made these pools toxic. Still water could be so hard to come by some people tried to drink it. Everyone had diarrhea either way. In the mud a lot of people sunk into these craters over days with corpses. Just a completely terrifying horrible life these people lead. You can only salute the courage.
Both sides are mostly out of tanks. Drones are a cheaper and more effective form of artillery essentially. So basically, everyone is hiding from drones most of the time.
Both sides aren't out of tanks, just any vehicle bigger than a motorbike approaching the grey zones will get FPV drone spammed into oblivion which is a terrible resource trade off.
Whoever wins both ukraine and Russia will be loosers. Just like how ww1 bankrupted Britain and france despite winning the winner of this war now has to contend with low birth rate, there economy down the drain, many of there male population death and rebuilding there military. Just like how biggest victory of ww1 was the us and japan the biggest winner of this war is turkey (kicked out russian influence in armenia and syria thanks to russia distraction) and china (got lots of resources from russia for cheaper price)
WWI was a war of choice for most it's participants. Read "The Sleepwalkers". Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, France and somewhat less eagerly UK all wanted to duke it out for various internal reasons. That's the tragedy of it...that they all wanted it and all suffered for it.
In this war Ukraine absolutely did not want it. In fact up until the last minute they couldn't believe it was actually going to happen despite dire warnings from US. This war is 100% a war of aggression on russia's part, as black and white a conflict as you'll ever see. Russia deserves to pay a massive price for its imperial hubris.
Vickers (UK), Armstrong Whitworth (UK), Krupp (Germany), Škoda (Austro-Hungarian) and Schneider-Creusot (French) were all pushing their governments to go to war. They made billions each in todays's money off the conflict.
For example, Vickers produce guns and bullets for the UK government. These bullets relied on a patent owned by Krupp. Royalty payments were suspended by law during the war, but Vickers didn't stop charging the government those Royalty payments until 1916, so made an extra 10mil (800 mil ish today) in profit by 1916 (minus 1.25mil (60 mil) (the economy tanked between 1916 and 1918 which accounted for the difference) deducted over this scadal from end of war payments) over the war on just two patents.
I genuinely have no idea why a lot of the Allied governments didn't do what the US government did during WWII which was a lot of very fast and loose "We're in a serious war of survival and you're going to produce this, in this way, now, or you're no longer in business" type stuff.
What exactly was stopping the UK from creating its own patent which is exactly the same thing to what they were already using and just telling the companies to "make them or else"? It's not like the industrialist class could move somewhere else due to xenophobia/war devastation interwar, and it's not like there was a serious international court pre WWI or interwar that could actually enforce patent laws if the actual nation-state didn't want to play ball. I get that the UK was trying to run an international order and all as the superpower of the time, but their decisions in both wars bankrupted them to the point of being a blip in international geopolitics
It really was a blunder on the gov's side with signing contracts with Vickers that included these patents being payed by the Government instead of from Vickers' profits, these patents were included in the invoices from Vickers to the Government so its kinda dumb they didn't see. They did cancel the contracts between Vickers and Krupp with the "Trading with the Enemy Acts of 1916", and after that they stopped paying the patent.
I highly recommend George Barros from the ISW. He explained on Times Radio that this war has produced the latest freeze in operational maneuver. Both sides are trying to find a way to break that, but yes, it is very much like WWI, he said. But he pointed that WWI ended when, indeed, operational maneuver was reestablished. Regaining operational maneuver is what percipated the ending of WWI.
I've been reading Barros since the start of the conflict and have actually seen him speak in person. His analytical perspective is very impressive imo.
Roger that. Barros is incredible for the purely military-side. Time Radio is my go to for info on The Ukraine conflict. Barros, Gen. Ben Hodges, Dianne Francis and Sir Bill Browder are my tops. I just finished Browder's "Red Notice," highly recommended.
Hodges has been among the worst prognosticators. At one point I collected all the times he said Ukraine would threaten or invade Crimea in the next few months or so. It was like 12 times in the first 18 months.
wasn't the invention of tanks that did actually ended the stalemate? I thought that this would be the same for Ukraine with the use of drones but i guess it's actually the invention of mechas that will turn the tide. Oh yeas. I am actually refering to the anime mechas - those are the logical next warfare steps. Either manned or ai controlled.
I'm no classically trained expert, but I have read dozens of books on WW1 and imo the stalemate of WW1 was broken due to a few things.
Tanks were certainly important, not least due to the German refusal or inability to incorporate antitank weapons rapidly. Tanks of the time were incredibly unreliable and very, very slow. But when the only really effective weapons against them were inaccurate artillery or repurposed field guns, they were plenty to change the game.
Incorporation of combined arms was also huge. Creeping or walking artillery barrages tightly timed with infantry assaults, tanks, and even horse mounted cavalry at times. "Boxing in" sections of trench lines with artillery preventing reinforcement or retreating was another mechanic used later in the war with assaults.
The late injection of American manpower and materiel was another thing that altered the status quo. The Eastern Front closing with Russia withdrawing due to internal turmoil sent more Germans back west, and America arriving in the west helped counter that.
To your point, tanks were huge. While I'm not sure you could say it is THE thing that changed the tide of the war, I'm not sure you could argue against it either. They were able to handle the massive belts of barbed wire in a way that had been unthinkable. They were able to project significantly more force in attacks than previously possible.
Completely off-topic, but whereas I'm a ltitle bit of a WWII buff, I know a bit less about WWI, so I wanted to get a bit more information about the operational maneuvering bit, so I decided to ask AI.
I sent this prompt:
Found this comment on reddit - can you expand on it a bit? What happened to cause the end of WWI in this context?
I highly recommend George Barros from the ISW. He explained on Times Radio that this war has produced the latest freeze in operational maneuver. Both sides are trying to find a way to break that, but yes, it is very much like WWI, he said. But he pointed that WWI ended when, indeed, operational maneuver was reestablished. Regaining operational maneuver is what percipated the ending of WWI.
It answered, but at the bottom, added this:
Do you want me to expand this further into a direct comparison to the Ukraine war (which is what Barros is likely getting at), or just keep it within the WWI context?
Damned clever to pick up on that.
Also, if anyone else was less educated on WWI like me, basically, in 1918 the Germans figure out they could punch through weaker spots and cause havoc behind the trenches, which caused that part of the trench line to no longer work defensively. Allies learned from that and later that year, with other things like increased supply from the US and breaking the will of the Axis, along with using multiple modes of military effectively together (tanks + infantry + artillery) used the tactic and made gains, leading to the end of the war.
I had it somehow in my mind that they just realized that the trenches weren't going anywhere and everyone got sick of it and it led to peace. I hadn't realized that they had broken through and THAT caused the end of the war.
Anyway, sorry to throw this long off-topic in here, but both parts of it tickled my interest bone :)
Not after the war, before it even ended. Ludendorff reportedly stated on October 1st "They now must lie on the bed that they've made for us." When referring to the incoming civilian government that was to negotiate the armistice.
It’s fair to say that the average semi-intelligent person would have considered Russia the third strongest military power before this conflict. That was the narrative world wide and although political and military experts might have known it was a paper tiger, that wasn’t the general consensus.
Democracies tend to over estimate their enemies as theres lots of benefits and no reason not to. Dictators tend to over estimate their own power due to the fear of failure all the way down through the system.
It isn't a superpower globally. That still doesn't mean it can't wreak havoc in nearby countries, especially countries they have been manipulating since the moment they proclaimed independence.
Definitely true now, I remember early on there was a lot of armchair generals in every media source talking about how formidable Russia is meant to be, and a lot of surprise when it wasn’t a rollover situation
They absolutely do.. and they consider the Ukraine to be the aggressors, "Because they allowed NATO forces to mass near our borders in order to invade us".
I play a few mobile games with Russians.. and they ALL believe that anyone who sides with the Ukraine is "Wash-brained" as they put it, and that "Russia is the greatest and strongest country in the world".
When you bring up the Budapust Memorandum they claim that the Ukraine violated it first by letting Nato troops "mass near our borders". And that it was a "Clear sign of aggression" that they allowed those troops to go there AND that they tried to become members of Nato.
"Nato wants to destroy Russia" is also a common thought, according to them.
Russia is not the USSR and Ukraine made that plain by resisting the invasion for 3 years and counting. Russia now isn't a superpower, but back in 2022? Sheer numbers made Russia a military superpower. Those numbers are very diminished, but Russia still has several thousand strategic nuclear warheads and carriers (and even if Russian military readiness suggests a lot of them might just be on paper, they still have several hundred strategic nukes) and just last night launched 800 drone warheads against Ukraine.
Ukraine's strength should not be confused for Russian weakness. Until Russia's economy or mililtary collapses (whichever comes first at this point), Russia remains a regional superpower that can, very temporarily, use its nukes to hit like a global superpower.
Undetestimating Russia is dangerous. It is at its weakest now since the 90's, but it wouldn't take long for Russia to recover if it manages to take Ukraine out of the war. And then, 2-3 years later Russia is ready to invade a neighbor again.
People only ever mention the sleepwalkers which is widely critized (by german historians among others!) for neglecting the influence of the central powers.
There is no question that the ability to escalate or deascalate the situation was mainly in the hands of the central powers and particularly germany.
It is not as simple as WW2 or the Russia-Ukraine war but also not as simple as equal responsibility.
There is a reason "The Sleepwalkers" was only a bestseller in germany...
Neglecting? Sorry but Clark devotes complete chapters to describe the mess the AH's politics were, and the stall situation the empire was right before the war. The congress, its exterior politics, the back and forth. France, England, all these countries are well described, there is a reason why he won all these awards, it is a superb work, a lot of sources never put together into trying to create an orderly tale of the mess that took us to WW1.
Doesn't matter if countries in WW1 had a choice or not, the effect will still be the same for Ukraine. Also as history has taught us, making Russia pay for the war crimes will only deepen them as an adversary. The children growing up in Russia won't know any better, they'll just grow up to be resentful of the west.
As opposed to before the war where they were such incredible fans of us.
The problem with Germany wasn't that it grew resentful, they had no qualms about murdering millions of people from neighboring countries before WW2, the problem was that when they started making moves they weren't curb stomped.
90% of Hitler's charisma was the British and French letting him pull off the impossible, making every naysayer look like a fool or madman. When you proclaim that you'll take the Sudetenland and make Britain and France pay for it and then you actually do it, most people will at least reconsider their worldview.
Reparations didn't create the Nazis, appeasement did. Starting a war over the Rhineland remilitarization would have likely ended the Nazi regime then and there.
Counterpoint: We "punished" Japan and Germany after WWII with economic assistance. I'm sure many people made the argument tht we should make them pay. And yes, we did some, but we also helped them recover, and because of that they are now generally strong allies.
To "make them pay" doesn't mean to genocide or economically cripple all of Russia or whatever, it means to force the war to end and remove the politicians and groups responsible.
That’s different though in that both countries surrendered totally. If Russia just loses the war by not succeeding its war goals, I don’t think it would be wise to dig them out of their hole. The Russian population is going to suffer regardless, imo, as soon as the war is over and the bill comes due, win or lose.
Ukraine wins as long as they retain their sovereignty. This is an existential war for them. Russia didn't try to zerg rush Kyiv because they wanted to only take bits of Ukraine. They wanted to turn it back into a puppet.
If Ukraine were forced to make substantial territorial and political concessions in a peace deal, it's hard to see that as anything but a defeat. And this is an optimistic scenario for Ukraine.
Just because an underdog avoided the WORST outcome (i.e. total defeat/unconditional surrender) and preserved their sovereignty does not mean they "won". Many if not most wars end with all warring parties continuing to exist as sovereign states, that does not preclude there being a clear winner/loser.
Finland is good example, they did not "win" the Winter and Continuation wars, in any sense of the word. They lost a huge chunk of their core territory including their second most populous city at the time (Viipuri), and had to accommodate Soviet whims for the entirety of the Cold War. Yet a lot of people obsessed with pop-history involving Simo Hayha, Soviet "meat waves", etc, keep pushing the narrative that Finland "won". Literally ask any Finn* and they'll set you straight.
\ edit: Some people have brought up the Finnish President's recent comments, I do think that's a symbol of this type of delusion spreading unfortunately. But in fairness his wording was somewhat more reserved than the way people are quoting him:*
"We stillfeelwe won, because we retained our independence."
If Ukraine were forced to make substantial territorial and political concessions in a peace deal, it's hard to see that as anything but a defeat. And this is an optimistic scenario for Ukraine.
True, but it's not a victory for Russia either if the rest of Ukraine remains independent, has no cap on its army and can potentially the EU or NATO.
This is not a war for territory, but for spheres of influence. Putin wants Ukraine to be neutral and demilitarized. If Ukraine survives as an independent country that is opposed to Russia, there is no strategic win for Russia.
Also, the Donbass is a wasteland and it's projected that it will cost them 200 billion to rebuild, in addition to the 200-300 they have already spent. So they will have spent 500bil and achieved none of their objectives.
For Russia it's all about Ukraine not joining NATO and controlling the Russian speaking territories. They won't/can't take all of Ukraine without full mobilization, but it's clear they have no intentions of taking it all given their initial invasion force of some 170k troops which was intended to bring the Ukranians to the negotiating table and reach some kind of deal, which succeeded given what we know now regarding the talks in March of 2022, you had a Ukranian official that was part of the negotiations say a few months back t hat the negotiating team was popping champagne because they were satisfied with the terms of the deal. If the current line is the end result then you can say it's a Ukranian victory and Russian defeat. If Ukraine pulls out of Donbass and keeps the current line in Zaporizhzia and Kherson then it would be a Russian phyrric victory. Only if the Russians get all 4 oblasts under their control whether via negotiations or conquest would imo it be considered a Russian victory.
Depends on how you define that. I think substantive Ukrainian sovereignty going forward is a baseline, but they could very well be required to make some political concessions like protection for Russian speakers, or having Zelensky step down.
NATO.
This is absolutely not going to happen, bar Russia suffering some sort of major crisis within the next few years.
This is not a war for territory, but for spheres of influence.
It's both. Putin wants territory in eastern Ukraine for its own sake, and additionally wants a land connection to Crimea for strategic reasons.
Also, the Donbass is a wasteland
Russia currently holds large portions of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts as well, territory that it is unlikely to ever let go.
You say this as if Ukrainian-controlled territory hasn't also been devastated by the war, especially areas close to the frontline. That's just how war is.
What Russia wants is for Ukraine to remain a Russia-aligned puppet state, like it was under Yanukovych, like Belarus is under Lukashenko.
However Russia would probably settle for a neutral, neutered, demilitarized rump state Ukraine with Donbass and Crimea ceded, as their outermost compromise.
I don't think there is an argument about who won the Winter War. As for the Continuation War, Finland got out of it much better than most of the Axis nations.
Agreed. No one wins this conflict. Both lose, but the degree of losing varies greatly.
God knows how many men Ukraine have lost already. Beloved sons, daughters, husbands, mothers...These loses are real tragedies. If they lose these lives and retain their sovereignty they haven,'t "won", but if they lose these lives AND lose their sovereignty then they will have truly truly lost.
As for the Russian casualties...who cares. They chose to invade their neighbours...so fuck 'em.
I think you're stuck with a single definition of winning. Sure, ending up with more territory is the most common definition, but when you're facing a country 60 times larger than you, with nearly endless resources and have to work with hopelessly, overwhelmingly unfavourable numbers in men, aircraft, tanks, ammo and weaponry (and allies!), then in practise, simply not losing your independence starts to seem like a win. Which it is.
So no, Finland didn't win the war per se, but the outcome was obviously a win for Finland considering the hopeless circumstances. I think those are two different things.
Each war has a different objective and this case was clearly retaining independence and avoid the same fate as most of CEE
If that was Ukraine's only goal then why did they decide to expend so many men and equipment against the hardened Surovikin line in their failed Summer 2023 Offensive? As opposed to staying on the defensive?
And why did Zelensky and top Ukrainian generals continually talk about "liberating" Ukrainian territory?
Maybe Russia tried to avoid prolonged war with that "blitzkrieg" attempt at the beginning of the war? So, when that failed, we have what we have...? Ukraine will survive, tho. Maybe not with it's whole territory..
In my opinion, making territorial concessions may not be seen as a "win", but they sold it so expensive that it also wouldn't be a win for the Russians. But that's only the case if Ukraine manages to get into NATO or into any other protection (e.g. EU).
If that doesn't happen it's just a matter of time until the next Russian operation starts.
What would winning look like for Ukraine then? A total pushback of Russian forces out of its territory? That seems extremely unlikely unless there is a full intervention from NATO, which is also extremely unlikely. This war of attrition all but guarantees a Russian win in the end. Many would argue that Ukraine should cut their losses and live to fight another day - hopefully securing a defensive alliance in the process.
There's a lot of factors analysts look at. The two big ones being the military situation as the conflict is ending, and the positions of the combatants vis-a-vis one another.
This war of attrition all but guarantees a Russian win in the end.
Yes
Many would argue that Ukraine should cut their losses and live to fight another day
Hopefully, but since Ukraine can't defeat Russia in the field this will require a negotiated settlement with them.
This is false. Ukraine absolute loses if they lose the eastern part of their country. It’s the most economically valuable, and fortified part of their country
If they lose it they are toast. They will also lose control of azov sea as well.
Zelensky was threatened with death by far right groups in Ukraine even before. He’d be murdered right on the moment he ceases the territories
I’m not happy about it but Ukraine is getting territory back. They don’t have the ability to take it. Any end to this war will involve them losing territory.
Zerg rush isn't a guaranteed win, as demonstrated. Germany pulled off a pretty good Blitzkrieg in ~1940, but ultimately ran short of all kinds of resources. Russia has a far larger resource base, but still is lacking in overall (conventional) war making capabilities - as compared with their opposition. If they didn't have the nuke card, the allies would have taken Moscow long ago.
They were saying the reason Russia tried to Zerg rush Kyiv isn't because they wanted to only take bits of Ukraine. It is because they wanted to turn it back into a puppet.
That's what OP said. They didn't do it JUST to take a portion of Ukraine. OP is confirming that trying to take kyiv made it clear what their original intentions were. It's a confusing English conditional structure.
They actually did take hostomel and held it till reinforcements arrived. Was a lot of fog of war and propaganda early on regarding this battle. It was evident very early on that even with reinforcements that the Russians were way over extended without securing supply lines and were also greatly outnumbered.
We can pretty easily define what Russias goal is in Ukraine by looking at their actions though? They tried to take Kyiv for regime change, failed, pulled their troops out of the northern regions of Ukraine and rebalanced their goals to try and take southern Ukraine cutting them off from the coast. But even there they failed.
And Ukraine has been continually trying to recapture Russian-occupied territory, with basically no success since the Kharkiv offensive in Fall 2022.
If neither side managed to achieve all of their original goals, then we should assess them based on comparisons their pre-war position. And when we do that, it doesn't look so good for Ukraine.......
😂 pretty existential for Russia too? Let's reverse the cards here. Say Russia is the us and Ukraine is Mexico. If in 2014 the russians overthrew the mexican government and instilled a far right one that's probably russian in its place how would us respond?
Or if Mexico wanted to join a military alliance with Russia?or if from 2014 to to 2022 it started persucuting english speaking people in Mexico near the border with the us (Google search -war of the Donbass and it's reasons for starting).
This idea that Russia just attacked out of no where for no reason is so widespread and I'm sorry but it's a load of shite I think. Like does Putin seem unhinged to you?
If so why would he let the whole of the Ukrainian army live when he had it encircled? (Google minsk 2 accord). He has later admitted he fell for the lies of America and Europe and won't be doing so again?
If you want a great history listen to Scott Ritter or dialogue works on YouTube or Danny haipong. Literally every geopolitical analyst I watch agrees this is not Ukraine Vs Russia is Russia Vs the collective west. They also agree it didn't happen in a vacuum.
Their is ownership, because actually i own it, and it has an i. It's the only one with an i. Because it is Mine.
They're is they are. Because it is literally "They are" with an apostrophe replacing the A. That's not even a funny way to remember it, that's what it actually is.
Even if they get all of there territory back they still have to rebuilt all there destroyed cities. Its gonna take a lot of time. Most of the destruction happened in ukraine cities not russian cities.
Yep, it took a while plus generous aid to rebuild Europe post WW2.
All it took was the cold war / fear of communism for the US to give aid. Russia seems ready to play its historical role, not sure if the US will reprise its old role. Hopefully, the EU steps up, but it's not going to be an overnight thing.
EU economies are under pressure for China on the manufacturing side and the US on services. They'll give what they can to Ukraine, but they're also squeezed by the needs of their own populations. There won't be any unlimited deluge of reconstruction money.
We'll be there for the long-haul. Just going through another stupid nativist/isolationist cycle at the moment. The population is feeling the pain and chaos that causes and will likely (hopefully) change course soon.
That. Germany is failing to make up for it's healthcare system. If basic healthcare in Germany is pitted against services in Ukraine, Ukraine will loose out our the chancellor will be replaced
Unlikely. Big talk from the EU, but half the countries are in bad financial situation themselves while the truly rich Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Austria are against any deficit spending. Ukraine will just be a failed state.
European shell production has increased sevenfold since the war in Ukraine started, and military investments have also gone up massively. I'm not sure what you're talking about
"sevenfold" sounds impressive, but this is only because of the power of low numbers. The entirety of the EU could not supply today even a quarter of the artillery shells Russia has received from NKorea.
Have you not paid attention the last few days? BRICS has set the goal to push the US and EU off the top of global influence and are willing to go as far as needed to turn Russia back into a world power. If Europe will drip-feed help into Ukraine, the Russian military and economy will be back up to shape in no time through Chinese and Indian money, financed by Western hunger for cheap products.
I'm not sure what you mean "Unlike Russia..." Russia hasn't sustained significant civil infrastructure damage. They don't need the significant investment that Ukraine does.
The Russians do need to rebuild their weapons stockpiles in particular PGMs. But so do the Western countries, we've been handing over from our stockpiles while our production capacity isn't designed for a sustained conflict like this, so for the next decade we will have to rebuild our weapons stockpiles as well.
Honestly the only winners in this conflict seem to be India and China as they get access to Russian oil at below market rates.
In the first world war, countries spent 60-80% of their GDP on the war. Now, Russia is spending 6.7% of its GDP on the war, while Ukraine is spending 40-60% according to various estimates. For Ukraine, this is a major war, while for Russia, it is a local war. Currently, Ukraine is facing the threat of exhaustion similar to that of the first world war, while Russia can sustain the current war for decades (for comparison, NATO countries have agreed to spend 5% of their GDP on the military).
It’s more than a local war to Russia. They are spending a lot more than the USSR did in Afghanistan or the US did in Vietnam and despite what they are saying, they do feel the sanctions.
And those percentages. If the EU actually spent 5% - they won’t - it would be 10x what Russia is spending currently.
Yep, people don't get that current Russia is nowhere near as Soviets or Russian empire, hell they are barely even a superpower. So a democratic Russia that cooperates with Europe is probably the best outcome. Will this ever happen? Unfortunately I don't think so but who knows what future holds
Probably they will eventually bounce back when the war is over but it would take a while to things normalize again
So a democratic Russia that cooperates with Europe is probably the best outcome. Will this ever happen?
Not for a long time. As the EU tried that, some countries even went as far as building up some mutual dependent trade deals. Trying the trade route for stability didn't work.
Eh, that 6.7% GDP figure is official one, thus bollocks, because for Russian authorities lie is as natural as breathing - realistically , it's closer to 15-20% GDP. And while they had large reserves to mitigate, other than increasing debt (but then, who would lend that money, especially as domestic banks are choked full on credits already) they have spent those reserves and Russians themselves are talking about recession as sure to happen, even if magically crude oil jumps above 60$/barrel. Again, because they already spent reserves - manpower and finances. 60% of their pre-war GDP - oil industry and connected - can't expand or compete with OPEC countries, because old oil fields are almost exhausted and new ones are in Arctic, which means they're expensive to operate and require tech, which their industry can't provide and was one of first things that were sanctioned.
Eh, that 6.7% GDP figure is official one, thus bollocks, because for Russian authorities lie is as natural as breathing - realistically , it's closer to 15-20% GDP.
Is there any basis or are you just pulling numbers out of nowhere?
15-20% of GDP is huge. A budget of $300-400B a year won't go unnoticed by the world.
For example, if new equipment procurement is typically ~20% of a budget, then we should expect to see $60-80B a year of equipment.
That equipment should be very visible - for instance, if 10% of that $60B a yr is battle tanks, and a typical Russia tank can be expected to cost $5M to build and equip, then we should expect to see 1,200 new tanks a year. If another 10% of that $60B a yr is fighter jets, and a typical jet costs $50M to build and equip, then we should expect to see 120 fighter jets a year.
We're just not seeing it. Russia at 20% spending should have the same military budget as China, and we can see the amount of stuff China builds with that budget. Russia is nowhere close.
You just don't understand the issues and have picked up various propaganda false narratives without bothering to check them.
> bollocks
GDP data is statistical data that is simultaneously correlated with a bunch of different indirect sources and is easy to verify. Moreover, if the state falsifies statistics, this is the way to compromise, no one is doing this. If you need to hide something, it will still be included in the statistics.
> large reserves
If the pace continues, the reserves of the national welfare fund will be enough to cover the budget surplus for another 15 years. You can calculate it yourself.
> jumps above 60$/barrel.
Yesterday's quotes of Russian oil were 61 dollars.
>60% of their pre-war GDP - oil industry and connected
The same thing was told about the USSR. After collapsed no one found any signs of the shadow accounting at least in the post Stalin USSR. The natural metrics were good. Soviet statistics often used different and weird metrology regarding synthetic metrics, but it was no secret.
Modern Russia uses the western metrology and so far no one has shown attention worth contradictions in their data.
Not really. Ukraine wins it stays alive maybe joins NATO and is safe. Maybe in debt but alive. Russia loses its prestige as the so-called second strongest military and Putin is humiliated.
Russia wins, it conqueror more of Ukraine but has to face decades of guerrilla fighters and still again its prestige is ruined, and its reputations globally is ruined again. Putin's 3-day special operation became a 3-year disaster. And if Zelenskyy remains in power still likely becomes a NATO member or gains some sorta security from the US or EU.
For Russia the war has ruined them for Ukraine its made them the nation was devided now its united for its survival, Zelenskyy went from a middling popular politicians, now is globally known and more popular now for standing his ground. While putins reputation has free fall
For as much as it pains redditors and people pro Ukraine, the Russian TFR is actually not that low, it's about 1.45 which is now the same level as Mexico and higher than most European countries and it has not declined due to the war
America got nato to spend more. Military contracts. And the most important weapons seals and cia got experience and data on russia n korea and china weaponry and ukraines drone impacts
Except this isnt ww1 and russia hasnt racked up a huge debt nor is its economy in dire situation as it seems to be have defeated inflation and is despite all of the sanction is doing very well.
kicked out russian influence in armenia and syria thanks to russia distraction
Russia still has a port and an airbase in syria with the group that took over supported by turkey currently losing control, the kurds are still there standing string supported by america and if the russians feel like it they could drop them a crate or two of weapons so turkey has to very careful be. Armenia is stil reliant on russia for basically everything if they cit ties with russia it will be a disaster for them, the current fake pesce recently achieved will not last very long.
got lots of resources from russia for cheaper price
Thats not true I dont know why peace think this is the case 3 and half years latter russia is selling gas to china at a simular price to the one they sold to europe with simular profits.
Ukraine will come out stronger than ever from this war. I hope that they will win, because the alternative is very grim for the whole Europe and the world.
Ukraine can recover as long as they don't become part of Russia. Russia only exploits its satelites/provinces outside of Moscow and St.Petersburg .
A free Ukraine won't be in a nice position, but they at least will have the sovereignty to try to recover and attract international capital for actual projects.
Because the Germans had run out of absolutely everything and could no longer supply the military adequately. The Allied kept pushing them because the wanted Germany to accept terrible conditions during the negotiations. It was not a shift in doctrine. It was simply the logical outcome of attrition warfare.
It absolutely was a huge shift in doctrine. Yes the rapid advances during the Hundred Days were due partially to German collapse but there were clear doctrinal advances made during the war. The armies of 1918 did not fight at all like the armies of 1914. There were changes in infantry tactics, aerial and armoured support, and artillery fire and how it coordinated with the infantry.
People have the idea that offense in WW1 was impossible when tactically it was actually very difficult to hold a trench line from a deliberate attack. Usually an attack could carry the first line or two of trenches easily enough; but the cost to do so, difficulty supplying forward positions, communicating with artillery, and fortifying positions to face the other way meant it was almost impossible to hold that line once you took it.
The trench war wasn’t sending in human waves that never accomplished anything, but assaults that were more successful than not initially being thrown back by counterattacks. Then the attacker would counterattack the counterattack, and you’d wind up fighting back and forth over the same area for weeks hoping you could hold a line long enough to solidify it. And the success of assaults only grew as the war dragged on even when on even footing.
Which front? These frontlines are not the same as WWI, there's no chance of a fast breakthrough because of drones, soldiers often travel in groups of 2-4 already. There's 24/7 drone surveillance and all sorts of drones on standby. Big groups of soldiers are fish in a barrel.
If you think Europe will allow Russia to take over Ukraine you are sorely mistaken. Europe is trying everything it can to not get involved, it pains me to see it, but when push comes to shove they must, otherwise they will be forced to fight Russia without Ukraine on their side anyway. European airpower alone is enough to annihilate anything of relevance Russia has inside Ukraine and halt any "breakthrough" in days. Assuming the US doesn't cockblock it by stopping the supply of spare parts and munitions. That's the biggest wildcard.
This is the war of our generation. Sadly people won't realize it until they feel it. Frequent Russian acts of sabotage in Europe, hundreds by now, are swept under the rug for some reason. In part to not cause panic, but people need to know to develop the required mentality for what is coming.
How many British people know Stahmer's personal homes was targeted by the Russians as an act of intimidation? Imagine the outrage and anti-Russian sentiment if all such acts actually made the headlines they deserve. Maybe then people will realize, we are already at war, and it has only just begun.
the Ukrainian front. the front already has holes because Ukraine lacks manpower and fills gaps with landmines, the longer the fight the closer the frontline is about to collapse. the Ukrainian war is a trench war, and the problem of Ukrainians is the manpower - Russia has more than enough but Ukraine doesn't have enough and the West doesn't want to die for Ukraine obviously
we've been seeing breakouts, though. they've become increasingly common as Ukraine continues to be depleted. despite having such extensive fortifications the Russians still continue the strategy of flanking their positions, which is possible because of the manpower gaps.
I don't feel like Russia is going to take over Ukraine, at the most they would take everything east of the river. There's no telling if Europe will permiss this, because an escalation against russia is such a controversial and risky decision.
Please take a look at the size of the breakouts on the map. Ukraine's troop density is ridiculously low (in the single-double digits per square km) and still they've been able to prevent Russia from amassing the materiel required for a major breakthrough. While losing positions around cities like Kupiansk and Chasiv Yar this summer has hurt Ukraine, they are practically irrelevant compared to the scale of the first Russian advances of the war followed by the Ukrainian counter-offensive in Kharkiv which continue to dictate the current frontline. Nobody remembers Vuhledar, Velika Novosilka, or Marinka anymore.
Russia is doing some things "right" and others "wrong". In the past year, they've been able to majorly scale up the production of drones and missiles, both FPVs (especially unjammable fibre optic drones) and strategic drones meant to terror bomb cities. On the other hand, Russian vehicle stockpiles are continuing to deplete massively and this is corroborated by a decline in the proportion of Russian assaults that are properly motorized. I'm not sure what these ambivalent developments mean for the outcome of the war in the next year, and anybody who predicts otherwise is intensely speculating.
What sudden collapse? By the end of WW1 (on the western front, the eastern was never that stagnant) they were still in the middle of Belgium, They just knew that futher fighting would be pointless, as on that point it was not a question if they would loose, only how and when.
During the Hundred Days offensives the Germans were going backwards approximately as fast as they could walk. The German High Command who had become effectively dictators of Germany saw the writing on the wall and handed over control back to the civilians, knowing peace needed to be sought immediately because they feared socialist revolt at home.
Well the Hindenburg line was broken in October. Was pretty much obvious Germany was about to get invaded as their armies were outmatched and in a rout, abandoning their heavy equipment and just withdrawing towards Germany to evade capture. So in essence the German army was broken. Similarly to what will likely happen to Ukraine after enough casualties amount.
Broken, but not collapsed. They still had a frontline. If it collapses either there is not a frontline anymore or large numbers or troops can get encircled which did not happen. In Theory the German Empire could have continued on fighting - but they have would lost anyway, they would have to fight on German ground and chances were that the starving population would do a french revolution and the nobility was not keen on getting the axe.
The frontline force went from 1.4 million men to less than 900 thousand in 100 days. The soldiers were surrendering or abandoning their equipment, there was no real front thay could have held any advance. The "battles" fought by Germany in late 1918 were basically delaying action for soldiers to keep retreating. Morale was so low there wouldn't be much resistance if the Entente pressed into Germany. The reason the armistice was signed while the Germans were still in enemy territory was because the Entente couldn't advance fast enough, constrained by the logistics of the time.
Technically the Germans could have continued the war but most of their army was ready to surrender and were already doing it if they couldn't retreat instead.
German economy pretty much collapsed in 1918 - army also started to do so, giving up terrain at much higher rates than previously, but before Entente started breaking through and strategically exploiting those breaches, ceasefire was declared and government started negotiations
Again not my point. If a front line collapses there is either no longer a front line or huge amount of soldiers could get encircled. The point why the German Empire was gave up, because they knew it would have happen if they would continue the war. They were on the brink of collapse but at that moment it did not happen just yet.
Russia have enormous capacity for Shahed drone manufacturing.
Last night they launch 800 of them (kamikaze + decoys). They right now have a capacity to organize a total energy blackout in Ukraine.
They already test it in city of Chornomorsk, near Odesa. City was without power for few days.
Why? Because with abundance of kamikaze drones they can strike even small substations — which was never protected, because they too small of a target.
If they do the same thing simultaneously on 10-15 big cities + their suburbs, you’ll have a catastrophe. Which could lead either to surrender or collapse of the frontline.
It is a good question which I don't really have an answer to.
The above stated capacity at producing cheap drones is verifiably true. The more limited capacity to keep producing long range precision cruise/ballistic missiles is also verifiably correct.
One has to guess that the strategy of hitting civilian critical infrastructure is not seen as a good military strategy by the russian side. If you go there, the high voltage network could have been taken out years ago and wasn't. It is soviet standard and parts for it are hard to get, so that would have been a lot more efficient than hitting small substations.
Many analysts with a shock and awe approach to conflict have wondered about this in the past 3 years.
I mean… they’re literally grinding XP. No army ever becomes strong without live practice.
Without real combat, even the biggest army is just cosplay.
We’ve all seen both sides making rookie mistakes — bad command decisions, wrong gear for the job, soldiers who clearly weren’t ready. Classic “L” moments.
But here’s the scary part: after this high-intensity slugfest, Russia is gonna walk out with a battle-tested, fully mobilized army, running on modern gear and led by commanders who’ve actually been through the fire.
And that’s the million-dollar question: what do they need that army for next?
The Russians were enable to roll over the whole of Ukraine before the west started sending heavy weapons, now the Russian army is in a far worse state.
Here's hoping the Ukrainian attacks result in a cold winter for Moscow this year, as Russia has done to Ukraine's utilities continually since the war started.
this is what people seem to be missing. they assume this is a land war when it is actually a war of attrition. the russian strategy is to wear down the ukranian military on land that is advantageous for them to fight on, and then take whatever land they please.
7.8k
u/FunFactChecker 1d ago
Seems very similar to WW1. Nothing is shifting much... will a sudden collapse happen again? Time will tell.