The fact is that artillary war really sucks and you end up with a lot of ruined cities if you have one.
Have they been successfully liberated from the scourge of Al Nusra front and the moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army?
You left out the firearms part
These stories have been going on since April of last year.
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-army-days-away-running-out-...
Each side is basically creating an echo chamber for their citizens to believe, so they will keep supporting an ongoing war until “the other side” is “100% defeated” so it “can’t attack us again”.
I have seen this rhetoric in every proxy war, including Yemen since 2014 and Syria even before that. Sadly the same thing repeats in every conflict but most people don’t know that.
It means the intensity of artillery and missile strikes is decreasing. It means they have to import arms from Iran. It means they are now using ancient T-62s and recently started pulling T-55s out of storage.
So if the regions remain under Russian control, the fighting will continue. Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up, until it’s over. Most likely outcome is that Russia attempts to hold the invaded territory for a period of years and eventually leaves when it becomes untenable for Russian leadership
[0] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-...
https://www.iri.org/news/national-endowment-for-democracy-ne...
Wanna know what they think of China? The answer is, they don't think of China. This is because, while China can afford the big boy pants and has probably already purchased them, they haven't put them on yet.
According to that survey,
The polling shows that in February 2023
31% strongly approve
40% somewhat approve
7% somewhat disapprove
4% strongly disapprove
18% difficult to answer/no answer
of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. This is a drop from 48% strongly approving in April 2022.
The polling also shows that the percent that strongly approve of the activities of President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky have dropped from 74% in April 2022 to 58% in February 2023.
And support of The Parliament of Ukraine is low, with only 9% strongly approving.
So, I don't think that there's strong enough support of The Ukrainian establishment to conclude that the population agrees with their stance that "the war will end when the Ukraine wins the war" (not that I'm sure that is the Ukrainian establishment's stance).
>> Do we know if that's the view of the average Ukrainian?
Unless I misunderstood the question being discussed, it is answered precisely and directly.
"Do you believe that Ukraine will win the war?": 82% yes, 15% likely yes
"What will be the territorial boundaries of Ukraine as a result of this war?" 74% internationally recognized borders, 8% w/ Donbas but w/o Crimea, 9% status quo ante bellum.
These people didn't suffer for 13 months to accept some half-ass appeasement of a ceasefire to give Putin some breathing room to regroup.
I think this is not the case. The policy "we won't accept peace until we achieve x" is very different to "we won't accept peace until we achieve x conditional on the achievement of x being probable"[0]. The first implies a kind of "to the last Ukrainian"/"you'll have to take it from my cold, dead hands" attitude, the latter doesn't.
[0] A conditional such as this is implied by your claim that "The policy stance is directly implied by the probability estimate": if the probability estimate leads to the stance, then it stands to reason that the stance may change if the probability estimate changes, which would (in this case) contradict the very nature of the stance (specifically, the "to the last Ukrainian" aspect discussed above).
So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions.
Of course might-makes-right, the current world order was built on that - the military superiority of the US after WW2. Since then the champion of that new world order didn't shy away from invading other countries.
Or Russians.
Population Growth rate Decrease -0.39 (2020)[2] Birth rate Decrease 9.8 births/1,000 population (2020)[2] Death rate Neutral decrease 14.6 deaths/1,000 population (2020)[2] Life expectancy Decrease 71.54 years (2020)[2] • male Decrease 66.49 years (2020)[2] • female Decrease 76.43 years (2020)[2]
It is Russian that are deciding collectively that the world should run out of Russians. This is a sad fact, I wish Russians would get fairness and hope some day.
They have already formally annexed, and subsequently lost a tonne of the area they formally annexed.
Nothing happened.
Crimea is also Ukrainian territory and not Russian, when they lose it im sure they throw another hissy fit like they do nearly every week now. But no one will give it any mind as Russia does it weekly.
> So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions.
My guess is the war ends when enough Russians die that the Russians back at home decide they have had enough of the war.
They didn’t control much of the territory they purported to annex when they annexed it, and they’ve lost more of it since. The PR effort represented by that annexation is not a sign that the war will progress until Russian victory, if anything its the opposite.
> and the Crimea is strategically and historically important.
Crimea being strategically and historically important is certainly the reason it was invaded and seized in 2014, but its not something that makes Russian victory inevitable.
> So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict
A US president abandoning Ukraine would definitely impact the course of that front of the war, and might result in a complete Russian victory over Ukraine [0]; that won’t end the regional war that started with Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, it will just shift the active fronts to Moldova and Georgia.
Not to mention the impacts on other areas of friction between the same China/Russia/NK/Iran bloc and the US, particularly in Syria, that will result from a demonstration of America’s lack of resolve, especially if it is accompanied by easing of the resistance in the European front of what has already become a global conflict.
[0] it might also shatter US relations with European allies especially the Eastern flank of NATO, which has been pushing support for Ukraine against Russian aggression harder than anyone, including the US, for reasons which should be geographically and historically obvious. It’s clear that there is a faction in the US, including at least the leading contender for the main opposition party’s nomination for the Presidency, that would see that as a plus, too, though why is less clear.
They're pretty much going to have to give up at some point. The west can't feed them with sufficient arms and ammunition to keep up and it has blown through all of its spares. It can ramp up to match, but probably not within the next 2 years which is too late.
Western media has been putting a spin on this in the last week (e.g. blinken's "Ukraine will have to recover some territory through political means"), but it's pretty clear if you look at the production numbers, current shell rates, etc.
It's also why some Republicans are starting to feign being anti-war - to try and make this "Biden's" war, so in the event of failure the failure gets chalked up to him.
So can the entire West crank out more shells than Ukraine can shoot at Russia if global stability depends on it? Of course we can.
If China decides to supply Russia, it'll make even less of a difference. Russia already outproduces the US in steel (key input into shells, and a bottleneck in both wars). China outproduces by a factor of 10.
You mean Chinese steel, which is terrible, barely passable junk?
Yes, great for mission critical stuff.
And that's what Chinese steel does. Fail.
They've only been able to make ball point pens, with a proper round steel ball, for a decade!
Anshan Iron and Steel: https://www.steelorbis.com/steel-news/latest-news/ansteel-co...
Panzhihua Iron and Steel: https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101439663/The-exclusive-s...
Baotou Iron and Steel: http://innermongolia.chinadaily.com.cn/baotou/2020-01/03/c_4...
Wuhan Iron and Steel: https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/WUHAN-IRON-AND-ST...
Handan Iron and Steel: https://www.gneesteel.com/news/industry-news/hbis-successful...
Sounds like a dangerous railway, then.
That said, clearly they've just been lucky. Sadly, it won't last, and people will pay the price.
Because Chinese steel is junk.
Stating reality in China, is not racism.
It's junk because it's of poor quality, and even worse, poor quality control. Personal experience has shown me so, steel product from China is junk.
And no, I won't disbelieve my eyes, and experiences, nor will the many other people I know who have experienced what Chinese "steel" is like.
Car parts, every manner of tool, I've seen steel snap like twigs, screwdriver ends break off, plyers deform when used, brake calipers snap, while North America made parts do not, including tools 50 years old, rusted, stronger than Chinese steel junk.
Chinese steel is junk. Everyone knows this. It's junk.
And calling me a racist is utterly pathetic.
https://worldsteel.org/steel-topics/statistics/world-steel-i...
And tools I buy with Chinese steel, do snap like twigs. Other steel does not. Because it's not junk.
Like Chinese steel does.
Because it's junk.
A nice, classic deflection. Goes right up there with the racist deflection.
No. Western companies ask for spec, Chinese companies say "sure" when they bid, but then just make junk.
With junk parts.
Such as junk Chinese steel. Because they can't make quality steel, because the QA, and knowledge, and capability, and work culture isn't there. Note again, how it was only the early 2010s, when Chinese companies were able to make tiny little steel balls, reliably, and round enough, for ball point pens.
Because Chinese steel is junk.
Because no evidence.
Chinese steel is beautiful.
Because it is perfect.
If China decides to supply Russia, it won't be in the quantities sufficient to make much of a difference, because they don't wish to trigger significant retaliatory sanctions, certainly not right now when the Chinese economy is in a vulnerable state of coming out of the COVID-era funk. China significantly underproduces Western countries in terms of military industrial complex, quantity but especially quality. I don't want to pull numbers out of thin air but it's Nx, N > 1.
It's all about cost, not capability. And right now, that cost is being spread over dozens of nations, quite a few of them with wealth greater than Russia.
And that was GDP before sanctions.
So yes, 100%, we can supply the Ukraine forever. And beyond this, many countries are sending good, but aging equipment. Even artillery, ammo has age limits.
So we send older, but well maintained gear, and then buy new, refreshed supplies. That's what is happening in Canada, at least.
So Russia is actually helping the West's offensive capacities, by increasing military spending, and refreshing hardware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...
Russia is pulling out T54s on the battlefront, their T14 Armatas are still busy breaking down on red square, their planes are scared shitless and don't even dare fly close to the frontline, they're blindly firing S300s/S400s as a poor man's Grad, versus a Ukraine that receives 5% of the previous generation of crap from the western world. Add to that a highly motivated army (versus whatever clownery the russian army is) and Ukrainians that would rather see their entire country disappear than give in, because they remember the Holodomor.
Russia won't fall, but it sure as hell won't win.
Russian assaults are just hundreds of dumb artillery guns firing non stop to try and reduce the other side to rubble. And of course cruise missiles launched at civilian targets. You’ll find countless examples of areas that are just leveled.
Ukraine doesn’t do that. They have precise weapons that they do fire into occupied areas. They certainly aren’t randomly firing shells into their own cities for the lols.
But many, especially it seems on the American right, like to “both sides” no matter how clear cut.
My impression is that by now, both sides have heavily bombed some areas.
[1] That word depends on which newspaper you read.