Ukraine conflict
06-21-2024, 05:00 PM
#3341
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,112
I'd say unequivocally Russia.
They have lost tremendous status, blood, and treasure. Failed to achieve all but a fraction of their objectives. And have driven themselves into a quagmire that is two years and counting.
Yes you can point to Eastern Ukraine and say look at the craters. But buildings will be rebuilt and fields replanted.
Russia will never recover from this.
They have lost tremendous status, blood, and treasure. Failed to achieve all but a fraction of their objectives. And have driven themselves into a quagmire that is two years and counting.
Yes you can point to Eastern Ukraine and say look at the craters. But buildings will be rebuilt and fields replanted.
Russia will never recover from this.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vikrammittal/2024/06/07/artillery-delivered-mine-systems-are-key-in-ukrainian-defense
/
Rebuilding buildings and replanting fields won't be all that easy. But the biggest problem is still demographics. Even before the war the populations median age was rising because of outward migration and one of the lowest fertility rates in Europe:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...half%20younger.
it's not just the people they have lost in battle, it's the people who have left who will never come back. At least 7 million refugees registered in the EU countries many of whom will never come back and most of those the youngest cohort of the population. Another seven million are ethnic Russians who are unlikely to stay if Russia were to lose. Right now the fertility rate is 0.4 births/woman - way below the 2.1 replacement rate and creating a demographic bomb worse than the one the Chinese made for them selves with their ridiculous one-child policy.
If the Russians moved out today it would still be generations before Ukraine got back to where it was three years ago - assuming it ever does.
06-21-2024, 05:14 PM
#3342
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,112
Afghanistan defeated both the former Soviet Union and then the USA in a war in which they didn't militarily have a chance.
The Viet Minh defeated France in the 50's.
Combined forces of the Viet Cong and NVA defeated the combined forces of ARVN and the USA.
In these 3 examples the defeated forces had overwhelming superiority in both armaments and logistics. And yet, in the end, they failed to prevail.
In spite of tactically winning many battles, having lopsided kill/casualty ratios in their favor, and an almost limitless (by comparison) amount of material advantage/logistical advantage, the USSR, France, and the USA , in the end, lost.
Why? My opinions (I am not a military trained veteran) are that:
1.USSR, France, and the USA (and ARVN too, for that matter) never understood what the war(s) were about.
2. They faced an enemy who understood what the war was about, and why they fought and sacrificed.
3. The political support of the people eventually overcame the material/logistical advantages of their enemies.
4. See #3: because of that, the weaker forces always controlled the countryside.
5. The stronger forces never understood their enemies and what motivated them. The USSR, France, and the USA never understood they were involved in a colonial war.
They never understood the history nor the National/Tribal ethos of their enemies. Hence they lost.
In my past I was surrounded by stories of the Home Army in Poland and the long fight against the Germans, the Russians,and then again later the Russian's (USSR). While they could not prevail, as long as they had the support and protection of the people they also would never lose.
The restance fighters in Soviet Belarus effectively stopped the implementation of the Nazi's Generalplan Ost(East) in WW2. That success was a cog in Germany's defeat, but more importantly saved 25 to 45 million from a premature death.
The successes of these resistance movements were due to having the overwhelming support of the people, combined with forces willing to sacrifice all, because they understood the consequences their people would suffer if they failed.
What does this have to do with Ukraine/Russia?
Everything.
It is a colonial war. The Ukrainians know this even if the Russian's don't.
Even if defeated in a conventional war, Russia will be faced with a protracted guerrilla war with an enemy who would have the support of the people.
What I now write will anger some from both sides of this argument.
When I read the comments from career officers that focus on certain aspects to the exclusion of intangibles that I write about, I gain some understanding why the USA has so often failed to achieve its political objectives.
Putting numbers in a computer/war game do not begin to explain a system as complex as human resistance to submission.
Knowledge without understanding or morality, usually, in the long run, fails.
While individuals with no concern for others will out compete other individuals, if a society has an ethos of this behavior then that society will eventually be out competed by the society that has cohesion and concern for its fellow members.
Anyone with a bit of knowledge of present day Russia knows which societal values prevail there.
The Viet Minh defeated France in the 50's.
Combined forces of the Viet Cong and NVA defeated the combined forces of ARVN and the USA.
In these 3 examples the defeated forces had overwhelming superiority in both armaments and logistics. And yet, in the end, they failed to prevail.
In spite of tactically winning many battles, having lopsided kill/casualty ratios in their favor, and an almost limitless (by comparison) amount of material advantage/logistical advantage, the USSR, France, and the USA , in the end, lost.
Why? My opinions (I am not a military trained veteran) are that:
1.USSR, France, and the USA (and ARVN too, for that matter) never understood what the war(s) were about.
2. They faced an enemy who understood what the war was about, and why they fought and sacrificed.
3. The political support of the people eventually overcame the material/logistical advantages of their enemies.
4. See #3: because of that, the weaker forces always controlled the countryside.
5. The stronger forces never understood their enemies and what motivated them. The USSR, France, and the USA never understood they were involved in a colonial war.
They never understood the history nor the National/Tribal ethos of their enemies. Hence they lost.
In my past I was surrounded by stories of the Home Army in Poland and the long fight against the Germans, the Russians,and then again later the Russian's (USSR). While they could not prevail, as long as they had the support and protection of the people they also would never lose.
The restance fighters in Soviet Belarus effectively stopped the implementation of the Nazi's Generalplan Ost(East) in WW2. That success was a cog in Germany's defeat, but more importantly saved 25 to 45 million from a premature death.
The successes of these resistance movements were due to having the overwhelming support of the people, combined with forces willing to sacrifice all, because they understood the consequences their people would suffer if they failed.
What does this have to do with Ukraine/Russia?
Everything.
It is a colonial war. The Ukrainians know this even if the Russian's don't.
Even if defeated in a conventional war, Russia will be faced with a protracted guerrilla war with an enemy who would have the support of the people.
What I now write will anger some from both sides of this argument.
When I read the comments from career officers that focus on certain aspects to the exclusion of intangibles that I write about, I gain some understanding why the USA has so often failed to achieve its political objectives.
Putting numbers in a computer/war game do not begin to explain a system as complex as human resistance to submission.
Knowledge without understanding or morality, usually, in the long run, fails.
While individuals with no concern for others will out compete other individuals, if a society has an ethos of this behavior then that society will eventually be out competed by the society that has cohesion and concern for its fellow members.
Anyone with a bit of knowledge of present day Russia knows which societal values prevail there.
That has not been my experience. What we have entered into is a new Cold War, and perhaps not even all that cold. But historically, realpolitik - not morality - seems to be what prevails. Which is why the BRICS nations - representing half the population of the planet - are either sitting this out or actively supporting Russia. It's a battle of attrition currently and Russia can afford that attrition far better than Ukraine. A world where the good guys always win Woukd be a great one indeed, but that's not the one we are living in.
06-21-2024, 07:21 PM
#3343
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,828
Doubtful the dead care much anymore which side of the line they fell for. Fun is fun. Done is done.
06-21-2024, 09:48 PM
#3344
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,437
at least thats what selfish people with no passion and no community would believe…..
06-22-2024, 01:49 AM
#3345
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,828
gosh, i guess ukraine should just give up am i right? Comrade kargo/meto sure makes a convincing argument to just let ukraine die. I mean they can’t possibly win, and its better for them in the long run because the following generations will at least be alive serving the orwhellian state. Nothing is worth sacrificing for right?
at least thats what selfish people with no passion and no community would believe…..
at least thats what selfish people with no passion and no community would believe…..
06-22-2024, 05:11 AM
#3347
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,478
gosh, i guess ukraine should just give up am i right? Comrade kargo/meto sure makes a convincing argument to just let ukraine die. I mean they can’t possibly win, and its better for them in the long run because the following generations will at least be alive serving the orwhellian state. Nothing is worth sacrificing for right?
at least thats what selfish people with no passion and no community would believe…..
at least thats what selfish people with no passion and no community would believe…..
Ukrainians are making themselves generational proud at a terrible cost. Russia, for the umteenth time, has shown their colors.
We've been watching Russia act like this for 80 yrs and we have veterans on the internet hoping and praying for their ultimate victory. Thank goodness the real experts, like General Breedlove, give expert advice that contradicts the King's supporters.
06-22-2024, 05:16 AM
#3348
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,112
Ukraine updates: Russia hits power plants 2nd time this week
Published 5 hours agoPublished 5 hours agolast updated 4 hours agolast updated 4 hours agoUkrenergo, the national grid operator, said equipment at its facilities in Zaporizhzhia region in the southeast and Lviv region in the west were damaged in a large Russian strike, the second this week. DW has the latest.4 hours ago4 hours ago
Ukraine plans record high electricity imports following infrastructure damage
Ukraine's Energy Ministry said it plans to import a record high 33,559 megawatt hours (MWh) of power following the latest Russian strikes on energy stations.National grid operator Ukrenergo also announced that it would expand scheduled electricity cut-offs across the country.
Repeated Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure have crippled the country's power generation capacity and forced Kyiv to impose rolling blackouts.
Ukrenergo said this month that Ukraine would import electricity from Romania, Poland, Hungary and Moldova.
The blackouts in Kyiv are reportedly worse than the early months of the war when Russia's strikes on the country's power grid led to major winter-time blackouts.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-update.../live-69444611
06-22-2024, 08:14 AM
#3349
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,112
gosh, i guess ukraine should just give up am i right? Comrade kargo/meto sure makes a convincing argument to just let ukraine die. I mean they can’t possibly win, and its better for them in the long run because the following generations will at least be alive serving the orwhellian state. Nothing is worth sacrificing for right?
at least thats what selfish people with no passion and no community would believe…..
at least thats what selfish people with no passion and no community would believe…..
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
‘To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods
Manpower and logistics DO matter. Wishful thinking not so much.
You want to push back Russia to its internationally recognized borders? You'll need either NATO boots on the ground (as Macron and others have said) or nukes. Option a or option b, which do you recommend? Because Ukrainians dying valiantly are still dead Ukrainians. Perhaps you can write Homeric poems about them in the future, Hub, and perhaps it would all be worth it if there were enough of them to actually do the job, but there aren't.
So what's your preference, Hub, option a or option b?
06-22-2024, 09:07 AM
#3350
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,112
On the demise of the heroic age…
https://unherd.com/2024/06/who-will-...st-heroic-war/
An excerpt:
and another:
An excerpt:
But for Kyiv, the new post-heroic rules are only partly advantageous, and might even result in its final defeat: for while they have prevented an all-out Russian invasion, they also severely inhibit Nato’s capacity to help Ukraine.
On paper, Nato has some sizeable armies, but when French President Emmanuel Macron called for arms and troops to be sent to Ukraine in February, his plea fell on deaf ears. Indeed, the Italian defence and foreign ministers went out of their way to publicly declare that they wouldn’t send even one soldier to Ukraine, under any circumstances. In a similar vein, in spite of the severe economic damage that Houthi pirates in the Red Sea have inflicted upon European economies, only the US Navy and the Royal Navy have responded in earnest — while Italy’s navy was only allowed to send one ship, despite suffering the greatest damage from traffic being diverted from the Mediterranean. The same is true of Nato’s air forces: only the US and UK have bombed Houthi weapon stores in Yemen, while no European air force has taken any action, not even the French with their base in Djibouti next door.
The great question, of course, is why? Why is it that, with larger populations than ever before, our tolerance for casualties is increasingly low?
Back in 1994, I offered a simple theory: the wars of history were fought by “spare” male children. Even as late as the mid-20th century, the average European family had several children. In agricultural households, one male could inherit the family’s land, another might advantageously marry a land-owning wife, and one more might go into the Church — or off to war. If he failed to return, the survivors might miss him most intensely, but the family would not be extinguished. Today, however, with the average fertility of women across Europe less than two and still falling — the EU average was 1.46 in 2022 — there are no spare children.
On paper, Nato has some sizeable armies, but when French President Emmanuel Macron called for arms and troops to be sent to Ukraine in February, his plea fell on deaf ears. Indeed, the Italian defence and foreign ministers went out of their way to publicly declare that they wouldn’t send even one soldier to Ukraine, under any circumstances. In a similar vein, in spite of the severe economic damage that Houthi pirates in the Red Sea have inflicted upon European economies, only the US Navy and the Royal Navy have responded in earnest — while Italy’s navy was only allowed to send one ship, despite suffering the greatest damage from traffic being diverted from the Mediterranean. The same is true of Nato’s air forces: only the US and UK have bombed Houthi weapon stores in Yemen, while no European air force has taken any action, not even the French with their base in Djibouti next door.
The great question, of course, is why? Why is it that, with larger populations than ever before, our tolerance for casualties is increasingly low?
Back in 1994, I offered a simple theory: the wars of history were fought by “spare” male children. Even as late as the mid-20th century, the average European family had several children. In agricultural households, one male could inherit the family’s land, another might advantageously marry a land-owning wife, and one more might go into the Church — or off to war. If he failed to return, the survivors might miss him most intensely, but the family would not be extinguished. Today, however, with the average fertility of women across Europe less than two and still falling — the EU average was 1.46 in 2022 — there are no spare children.
For the rest of the West, meanwhile, these new post-heroic limits raise a question that nobody is willing to confront in earnest: why keep armies that will never be asked to fight?
The fact that so many European units have served in Afghanistan and Iraq does not prove anything at all, because in most cases their governments ensured that they would not be employed in raids or assaults, limited to cautious patrols close to their heavily fortified bases. (At least one Nato government sent intelligence agents to pay off the local Taliban to allow patrols to proceed unmolested.) As for the European troops serving in the United Nations peace-keeping force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) — established to ensure that Hezbollah stays well away from Israel’s border — they are considered war-experienced veterans when they return to their respective armies. But this overlooks the fact that UNIFIL has not even tried to keep Hezbollah from the border, for the simple reason that no UNIFIL battalion is willing to confront even the smallest Hezbollah infiltration.
The result is that, all across Europe, entire military institutions are colluding from top to bottom to sustain the illusion that they are capable of combat, which is now only true in rare cases, such as with Britain’s shrunken but still combative armed forces. But to some extent, the same can be said of their adversaries in Russia and China. In our current post-heroic age, everyone’s calculations of the true balance of power need to be revised.
The fact that so many European units have served in Afghanistan and Iraq does not prove anything at all, because in most cases their governments ensured that they would not be employed in raids or assaults, limited to cautious patrols close to their heavily fortified bases. (At least one Nato government sent intelligence agents to pay off the local Taliban to allow patrols to proceed unmolested.) As for the European troops serving in the United Nations peace-keeping force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) — established to ensure that Hezbollah stays well away from Israel’s border — they are considered war-experienced veterans when they return to their respective armies. But this overlooks the fact that UNIFIL has not even tried to keep Hezbollah from the border, for the simple reason that no UNIFIL battalion is willing to confront even the smallest Hezbollah infiltration.
The result is that, all across Europe, entire military institutions are colluding from top to bottom to sustain the illusion that they are capable of combat, which is now only true in rare cases, such as with Britain’s shrunken but still combative armed forces. But to some extent, the same can be said of their adversaries in Russia and China. In our current post-heroic age, everyone’s calculations of the true balance of power need to be revised.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
