this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
69 points (94.8% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He should probably stop trying to take Avdiivka then. At this rate, there's only going to be 15% of his army left by the end of the winter.
They're not going to run out of meat to throw into the grinder anytime soon.
Indeed. In a war of attrition (which it looks like this is) Russia wins.
No, it's that easy either, because Russia has way more losses than Ukraine. You also cannot just look at raw population numbers like it is a video game where every number represents a potential soldier. There's people who aren't able to fight, there's also people with critical jobs to keep the economy afloat, or even just society or basic infrastructure. Those losses are very significant and will affect Russia for a very long time, hence why Putin called for women to become breeders for the motherland.
I just checked and you are correct. It is ay least 10x more (and that it including Ukraine civilians).
https://www.newsweek.com/how-russias-military-losses-compare-ukraines-this-month-1845800
Russian population is only 4-5 times that of Ukraine.
No, because will to fight is also a factor. Neither country will fight until the last man standing. Where the cutoff is will vary.
Ukraine's got significantly-stronger incentive here.
For Ukraine, losing the war badly means no more Ukraine.
For Russia, losing the war badly means Russia doesn't lop off part of a neighboring country, doesn't get larger.
Take the US in Vietnam. The US is unquestionably militarily more capable than North Vietnamese forces, never lost a significant battle. However, what dominated in determing the outcome of the war was that the resources that the US is willing to expend on a conflict that is only peripheral to American interests is far lower than what it is in an existential fight for the US. If an invading force were marching on Washington with the aim of ending the US, I'd expect the US to be ready to do total mobilization, to fight a nuclear war, to suffer the destruction of a lot of American industry, to burn through a large percentage of lives. But the interest in Vietnam was predicated on domino theory, a considerably smaller and more-uncertain threat.
There was a famous quote about Vietnam -- not about the Americans, about the French colonial forces, but same idea:
Ho Chi Minh was right.
France had double Vietnam's population, and a lot more sophisticated military hardware. But that wasn't the dominant factor -- what dominated was that the Vietnamese cared a whole lot more about being out of the French Empire than the French cared about keeping the Vietnamese in the French Empire.
And Ukraine isn't suffering anything like those kind of casualty ratios and has much more favorable ratio of support and hardware access than in Vietnam.
Sush! Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake ๐