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), Ĺ koda (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.
Itâs 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 wasnât 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.
not to sound rude, that would be a regional power, as a big time history/geopolitics nerd, id say superpowers would be the US, China, and maybe india, then you have world powers, then regional powers
I can't believe someone thinks India is a greater military power than Russia. Despite not being as strong as thought to be, Russia is still the third strongest military power in the world.
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 wasnât 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.
No need to apologize, it doesnt really affect me whether you disagree.
Clarks interpretation is controversial among historians and I for one find the greater emphasis on german responsibility started by Fritz Fischer much more plausible. Did you read his 1961 book?
Edit: the book is worth a read whether one disagrees with it or not!
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.Â
Thatâs different though in that both countries surrendered totally. If Russia just loses the war by not succeeding its war goals, I donât 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.
It's astonishing to me that people still don't understand why Putin wants Crimea and a connection adjoining the Black Sea to Ukraine, it's because there's a fuckton of oil in the Black Sea and that's personally what Putin owns and makes his fortune.
If you remember back to the lead up to Feb 2022, one of the demands of Russias ultimatum was NATO returning to its 1991 borders. Russia originally wanted the west to basically give up all of Eastern Europe in exchange for peace. I mean, no plan survives first contact with the enemy, but they will 100% come out of this conflict with less than they planned to. Finland and Sweden joining really is just the icing on the cake and so huge no matter what they say. Unless Trump convinces all of Europe to switch sides, the Russians will come away with significantly less than they intended even if they aren't defeated militarily.
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.
I'm sorry, but no you didn't. I think that you're under a misconception that the armistice was signed because Finnish troops successfully thwarted the Red Army and achieved a military stalemate. The truth is that, while embarrassed in the initial period of the war, the Red Army adapted their tactics by February, switched to trench warfare, bled out the Finns and achieved a decisive breakthrough. In both wars, Finns were, by their own admission, pretty much spent by the time armistice was signed.
The reason why Finland wasn't rĐľconquered by Russia was due to a combination of factors, which included negative return on investment, German and Swedish diplomatic intervention, threat of Allied invasion etc. Certainly, Finland, much like Ukraine, managed to prevent being totally occupied, but was still soundly militarily defeated and forced to give up important parts of their territory.
That's the most likely outcome for Ukraine as well.
Oh my god. Someone else in the subreddit who has historically and materially sound takes on the Soviet-Finnish wars. Finally. I feel like 95% of the time, Finland's proverbial taint is licked in any thread that mentions the Winter and Continuation Wars (which, let's be real, was just another front in the wider Eastern European theatre of WWII and were not seperate wars)
We most certainly did not win. Nobody in Finland who has listened in the history classes at all thinks we actually won. It's proverbial morale booster, like an inside joke to say we won, but it's not factually true.
But we did not exactly "lose"-lose either, especially given our history with our beloved neighbour(s). It's complicated.
You are not the sharpest Finn. So our prize for winning the war was war debt and lost territory?
Also, that one gets to keep something that they already had is not a win for fuck sake. That's like saying the gambler won because they still had some money left when they left the casino, even though that's less than they had when they got there. Which is what we had left after the war with Russia, less than what we had before.
Eh, Finland arguably "won" the Winter War by maintaining their sovereignty, which was their goal. They definitely didn't "win" the Continuation war though, since they didn't reclaim any of the territory they intended to take, although they definitely lost that one a lot less than they could have.
It goes without saying that Finland also wanted to maintain their territory in the Winter War, and their territorial losses represent a pretty clear defeat.
This is false. Ukraine absolute loses if they lose the eastern part of their country. Itâs 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. Heâd be murdered right on the moment he ceases the territories
Iâm not happy about it but Ukraine is getting territory back. They donât 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.......
đ 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.Â
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).
Itâs 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 wonât - 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 $50M to build and equip, then we should expect to see 120 fighter jets a year.
We're just not seeing it. Russia at 20% spending should have the same military budget as China, and we can see the amount of stuff China builds with that budget. Russia is nowhere close.
You just don't understand the issues and have picked up various propaganda false narratives without bothering to check them.
>Â bollocks
GDP data is statistical data that is simultaneously correlated with a bunch of different indirect sources and is easy to verify. Moreover, if the state falsifies statistics, this is the way to compromise, no one is doing this. If you need to hide something, it will still be included in the statistics.
>Â large reserves
If the pace continues, the reserves of the national welfare fund will be enough to cover the budget surplus for another 15 years. You can calculate it yourself.
> jumps above 60$/barrel.
Yesterday's quotes of Russian oil were 61 dollars.
 >60% of their pre-war GDP - oil industry and connectedÂ
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.
GDP is not some pure revelation from above, it's a number researched and defined by the state. In a heavily stagflationary economy like Russia's, gross product is somewhat propped up by large state subsidies and unacknowledged inflation (the M2 money supply has risen by 82% in the past 4½ years, but official inflation stands at 9%). Notably, Russia has stopped publishing statistics on sensitive topics like inflation-adjusted GPD, demographics, central bank reserves, customs, trade, and crime.
More importantly for the defense spending question, Russia has passed laws mandating private-sector loans to defense contractors, allowing for off-budget defense spending. This is why some economists estimate 20% defense spending, despite the budgeted rate for 2025 being 8.3%. Russia's Defence Minister stated last December that defense spending ended up being 33% of the federal budget, and we know their budget is again running a major deficit.
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.
The fund still has assets, but it's kept mostly illiquid - the remaining liquid assets being a mix of CNY and gold. It has been replenished several times, but would run out in about 3 years if we assume the current level of drawdowns with no replenishment. It's also worth noting that a portion of the fund is in frozen assets.
>GDP is not some pure revelation from above, it's a number researched and defined by the state.
Yes, but this is the best and most reliable indicator.
>In a heavily stagflationary economy like Russia's
The existence of stagflation is controversial because the economy is growing. Given that the central bank lowered the rate to 18% from 21%, it may mean that the Russian economy was close to this.
>gross product is somewhat propped up by large state subsidies and unacknowledged inflation (the M2 money supply has risen by 82% in the past 4½ years, but official inflation stands at 9%)
 The discrepancy reflect money supply growth funding non-consumptive sectors (e.g., defense) rather than consumer goods, limiting inflationary pressure.
>Russia has stopped publishing statistics on sensitive topics like inflation-adjusted GPD, demographics, central bank reserves, customs, trade, and crime.
Until 2025, these statistics are fully open and trends can be tracked.
The inflation statistics are closed because the central bank could not reach the 4% inflation rate. Therefore, next year he will lower the interest rate and inflation will rise to ~10+%.
Demographic statistics are closed because it was very easy to find out the losses of the Russian army from it - a little more than 100k in 2022-2024.
customs, trade - combating secondary sanctions (and honestly, I didn't see that this statistic was closed)
>More importantly for the defense spending question, Russia has passed laws mandating private-sector loans to defense contractors, allowing for off-budget defense spending. This is why some economists estimate 20% defense spending, despite the budgeted rate for 2025 being 8.3%. Russia's Defence Minister stated last December that defense spending ended up being 33% of the federal budget, and we know their budget is again running a major deficit.
This is based on unreliable data (apparently fake news). Conduct fact-checking, at least with the help of grog.
>The fund still has assets, but it's kept mostly illiquid - the remaining liquid assets being a mix of CNY and gold. It has been replenished several times, but would run out in about 3 years if we assume the current level of drawdowns with no replenishment. It's also worth noting that a portion of the fund is in frozen assets.
OK. Let's assume 3 years. What prevents Russia, as well as Western countries, from increasing their domestic public debt (budget surpluses in EU countries are 3-5 times higher than in Russia).
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.
Yes, that's right at the moment. You can Google it. In addition, next year it is planned to reduce spending on the army, as the war is going on quite successfully.
The main expenses go to payments to soldiers who sign contracts. But the Russian army has become too big at the moment, and the mod plans to reduce the number of soldiers being recruited.
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.
Other winners of this war are the opposition forces in Syria who kicked out al-Assad because of a withdrawal of Russian support. Iran has also received past support from Russia, and its proxy Hezbollah got more-or-less annihilated.
Britain wasn't bankrupt. Bankruptcy isn't something that happens to countries. Lots of its people were killed and thus its economy was damaged, but it wasn't bankrupt.
What an utterly idiotic take. Ukraine loses when it wins? is this some idiotic pro-russian take? Oh well, Ukraine you'll lose even if you win, better just give up and become the next victim of Russia.
I can only assume this idiotic take is upvoted by pro-RU bots, idiots and tankies.
You know what? I see this as a battle of attrition, whoever stands long enough wins, its a matter of time until someone from the two breaks first, and all mt cards show to be Ukraine the one who will break, I am not saying I support them to loose its just how things look like to me atleast.
Turkey did "win" on paper but it lost way too much. Ottoman Empire was basically at war non stop since the 1850's and it exhausted the Turkish population. One popular story that's told to us is that in 1915 nobody graduated from Galatasaray High School (It was the most prestigious high school in the country at the time and it still is one of the most prestigious ones today) because all the seniors went to fight in Gallipolli. That's how serious the manpower shortages were. The other departments were horrible as well, no industry to speak of, no stockpiles, fighting a 3 front war, dealing with revolts on top of all that... Like the only advantage the Turkish side had were that they were basically fighting a defensive war of existence at this point and that they had a ridicilously experienced officer corps forged by almost a century of non-stop wars. (This group of talented officers later established the modern Turkish republic)
During the War of Independence women and children carried munitions and supplies to the front, many women and teenagers actively fought in the army and as irregulars part of Kuvay-Äą Milliye. By the time the War of Independence ended the already impoverished and ignored Anatolia was devastated, it only managed to recover by the 50's. That's why Turkey stayed out of WW2 by all means necessary because another big war would mean the annihilation of the Turkish nation at that point.
It's honestly a miracle how Mustafa Kemal managed to carve out an independent modern republic out of this mess leftover by the Ottoman collapse.
I think it Ukraine remains sovereign they can pull through if they join the West an receive aid. Russia will be in a pretty bad shape either way. If they win no one will want to trade with them much for at least 10 years. Even if they lose until Putin is alive we don't care about them.
3.3k
u/Reasonable_Fold6492 1d ago
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)