In any case, this seems like a major loss for Russia.
Yes, and this point has been obvious to many for the last two years.
The problem has been the west drip feeding aid into the largest war since WW2. We actually have to define the objective as reclaiming all Ukranian territory (at least to the pre-2022 borders) and supply them appropriately. It might be expensive in the short-term but we can afford it, can seize the $300B of Russian assets, and will be able to reduce our defensive forces in the future use to the reduced Russian threat.
The problem now is that we may have run out of time with Ukraine experiencing significant manpower issues. They could mobilise a lot more people, but that will mean women and younger men (currently only 25+) from a generation that is already very thin.
We can ask Ukraine to do this, but we they will need an ironclad commitment that we will supply them with everything they ask for.
It’s not ideal for Ukraine right now.
Either way pretty much all their pre-war modern equipment has already been destroyed. Now they're fighting with really old stuff like T-55s pulled from storage, newly manufactured equipment, or whatever North Korea thinks it can spare.
"According to Joseph Fitsanakis, professor of intelligence and security studies at Coastal Carolina University, “Russian military production is currently outpacing that of the US and all of NATO member states combined. This may be hard to believe, but Russia is obligated to do it if it is going to outpace the support given to Ukraine."
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/2/russia-races-ahead-...
1. What is the difference between absolute quantities comparing against all relevant players,
2. How long would it take to bridge the gap at current production rates, and
3. Can that rate of production be sustained long enough for it to alter any fundamentals?
The point to rebut isn’t that Russia is making more, it’s whether they can continue to do so ongoingly before Ukrainian advances, regime falter or economic collapse, US/China step-in, or internal unrest will dramatically weaken or make the current Russian negotiating position untenable.
The article seem to indicate that it's much more sustainable for the West than for Russia.
Both sides are aching (very badly) for this thing to be over, or at least taken off the stove.
One can quibble further as to the details -- which are a matter of metrics, wildcards, politics. And (as recent events have shown) there are still many cards to be played.
But that's the fundamental equation we need to keep in mind.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ongoingly-redesigning-...
I agree that it's not in common use.
It didn't. As we say in Poland "paper will accept everything". And russia is known for shameless propaganda.
Also, I don't think it's an "until" about China stepping in, they seem to be squarely on Russia's side, just presenting themselves slightly more moderate in public to appear suitable as a mediator. (Maybe sort of like the US does with Israel)
Finally, there is BRICS and some massive shifts of attitude in Africa that seem to work in Russia's favor.
This is again first derivative. Russia annexed Crimea, sent unofficial troops to Donbas, in 2022 moved rapidly and captured a lot of territory... But later was pushed back severely. And after that, it was gaining terrain in a truly snail pace.
BTW India and China are in an ongoing border conflict, the hostilities don't end there, with India banning many Chinese apps for example. They're nowhere near as united as EU or NATO, it's more like the Visegrád Group.
With regards to the broader claim that Russian production is outpacing that of the west. Yes, with artillery shells that's probably true, though we are continuing to ramp production. There aren't really any other areas though where a combination of western production + stock drawdowns couldn't supply Ukraine with greater quantities of material.
China is the competitor to the US nowadays. All Russia has is nukes and troll farms, and corruption.
But -- "destroyed"? What's that supposed to mean? What purpose is served by the use of such hyperbolic language?
Nevertheless, Russia clearly chose to stop their support; the Assad regime was cooked.
Except they're not "the same" at all.
I realize that and I realize that this outcome is bad for Moscow, but the Nazis (and others, e.g., the Turks) went through Ukraine to invade Russia whereas no one has ever gone through Syria to get at Russia, so I would expect Moscow to care less about whether the government of Syria is aligned with Moscow than whether the government of Ukraine is aligned with Moscow.
Absolutely not, it's not intentional.
- Suddenly, the world defense base needed to get on up to a level to match the world's 5th largest army, with all its stockpiles -- regardless of if its just lil ol Ukraine, Russia is putting its full effort in.
- Politics in US delayed it several months, I can't recall the exact number, but it was at least 6.
Your points would have been valid maybe one year into the war. Unless you’re suggesting the US military industrial complex takes three years to respond.
You cannot appease an expansionist power that's intent on restoring the glory of an empire from days gone by (real or imagined).
Had all the escalations of the recent 2 years be condensed to the first month of war, BRICS (and not only, e.g. the pope was quite supportive of russia, not sure if he still is) could unite and coordinate a response, and the west could possibly lose the war in the political sense, kind of like Israel lost it. I'm not putting an equal sign between Israel and Ukraine, but who would predict a few years ago common harsh criticisms against Israel in mainstream TV?
Personally I think the west should have been firmer early on that the Russian invasion was unacceptable and they should go or be forced out. Instead they were kind of wishy washy.
They seem to have more of a weapon issues, with Zelenskyy saying that from 10 brigades formed in the last year only to a quarter of them they were able to give weapons provided by allies.
In total violent deaths, 2nd Congo is worse. Let’s hope the war ends before that happens again
Sounds like a good way to escalate the war.
I'll translate the quote to your native language for you: Мне нужны боеприпасы, а не поездка
I apologise if it's not exact, I used Google Translate.
that's very presumptious of you
> Here's a news report
are you saying that CNN knows about the conditions and preferences of Ukrainians better than Ukrainians in Kiyv?
"You might want to stop taking [CNN] as your news source."
I'm saying CNN knows more about the conditions and preferences of the Ukrainian people than you do. I've yet to see a shred of evidence for any of your insinuations.
delusional indeed, and a cowardly one
> I've yet to see a shred of evidence for any of your insinuations.
I'm yet to see you learn proper English. When shall I expect you arriving in Kiyv to volunteer straight into the war trenches?
Try again. Your post only suggests a slight majority of Kyiv residents want a "ceasefire." That's not "capitulation."
I'll let you know that I'm British so I'm familiar with news papers/sites putting up polls that tell the reader what they want the reader to hear so, just like you disregard sources, I disregarded this straw poll.
> I'm British so I'm familiar with news papers/sites putting up polls that tell the reader what they want
Exactly my point, you're a delusional member of the delusional society that somehow believes that the poll in Kiyv isn't indicative of the people's preference not to exchange their lives for land anymore.
Just in case you're confused, here's a link describing who the current President of Ukraine is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ukraine
completely out of touch of reality like a reality distortion field. screaming it louder won’t make you right.
2. I never said any of those things.
I don’t think I’m the one struggling with English.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
No, that's just a myth. Was a matter of speculation for a while, but when it got investigated, it didn't hold up.
OTOH, we have records of killings and rapes by American military personnel in Iraq when the US invaded the country back in 2003. And they did that unimpeded. Maybe you supported that invasion.
There were some, perhaps 1% to 2% of the population. There was not "a lot" and there never was.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60981238.amp
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/12/un-report-de...
Take your Russian propaganda back to Moscow, comrade.
Now about your last paragraph: I've never been to Moscow nor Russia, I'm a EU citizen so don't think I can take my comments anywhere. If it bothers you, maybe you can leave HN. You won't be missed.
Yes, I am 100% sure because the reporting was widespread, accurately conducted, and the Russians were widely condemned.
Sexual violence continues in Ukraine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/29/carved-on-bodi...
In fact, I'll save myself the effort and just give you a full list to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_the_Russian...
> I've never been to Moscow nor Russia
I think you should visit, I hear it's lovely this time of year.
Which may depend on continued US support from the newly elected administration.
This is normal in any political system, even during times of war. The UK during WWII still had many Labour MPs, meaning a significant portion of the British electorate did NOT support Churchill by definition. However, most people were united in their opposition to the Nazis.
That didn’t stop them voting out Churchill the first chance they got once the war was over.
I don’t think anyone is seriously naive enough to think the entirety of Ukraine loves Zelenskyy without reservation, however its clear that the Ukrainian people have no desire to let the Russians expand their campaign of torture, rape and murder throughout the country.
Is it really? Russia literally has to rely on North Korean soldiers to continue their own "special operation" a few miles away. Their power projection ability is now zero.
They maybe can do the good old Goebbels "total war" and stop producing consumer goods, but not sure if that's something they want to do.
I now think it was either only a few North Korean officers or it was just Ukrainian propaganda to justify more western support.
Russia is a country with a modest GDP. They are very close to Mexico or Brazil both in GDP and population. We wouldn't be surprised that Mexico couldn't hold multiple wars
Pretty much every nation bar the US was on the verge of economic collapse by the end of WWI (and Russia’s did). The financial burden of two world wars killed the French and British empires. Germany’s WWII war economy was totally unstainable and the USSR’s was bankrolled by the US lend-lease program.
It’s not a panacea - it’s just what you have to do to drive enough military production to sustain a near-peer conflict.
GDP was a good war metric for an industrial economy, and fucking terrible for a services based one. There's never one metric that describes all. You know it, Goodhart knew it, anyone was worked with metrics ever knows it. This is rather important and frankly I don't get the glibness. Russia's not an unstoppable force but it's not a joke either.
It's true however that winning a war is incredibly difficult, and the outcome could still be the same for Russia, if their GDP was increased by an order of magnitude.
Russia also has a unique ability to turn the entire economy into a sort of "war economy". That hasn't really been done yet.
More recent examples include the both sides of the Iran-Iraq war and Armenia in its war with Azerbaijan.
GDP has implications for the productivity of an economy and the budget of the government.
41% of Russia’s government spending at the minute is on the war which means they have to either cut spending on other things weakening the state or drive massive debt and inflation.
There’s a reason you can only run a war economy for so long - eventually you win the war or bleed your economy dry. Russia’s had the advantage of huge legacy reserves of equipment from the USSR days and a larger population. We’ll see how long they can last tapping the well.
Would you explain what you mean by this and why you believe it to be true?
Also, GDP is easy to manipulate: simply increase the bread price and your bread GDP will magically rise without any changes.
Did you miss that Russia has to import cannon fodder, artillery grenades and missiles from North Korea and attack drones from Iran? I don't think they have any resources to spare in Syria at the moment.
https://x.com/AXChristoforou/status/1864324321960972298?t=4H...
https://x.com/BowesChay/status/1864447294474457245?t=yK0OU-9...
The North Korean claims appear to be complete lies, designed to make Russia look bad.
The DoD says North Korean soldiers are already in Kursk and preparing? News of NK armament deliveries and use is old at this point and not debatable.
Is the DoD spreading fake news?
If that’s true, they might want to stop publishing press releases about their actions in Syria.
“CENCOM Destroys Threatening Weapons Systems in Syria” https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/39...
“US will remain in eastern Syria and seek to prevent IS resurgence, Pentagon says” https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-will-remain-eas...
Maybe NK will use Saddam's nukes against Ukraine...
All of this to say, pointing out the Daily Mail's crap doesn't really indict "the media" as a whole. I don't think that one story is what American big general guy is referring to as "reports".
Russia definitely does look bad though, and that is no accident -- but I don't think it's the fake stories doing the heavy lifting.
Most of the MSM in the UK has made false claims about NK soldiers in the Ukraine, but the Daily Mail was the most overt and easily debunked that I saw.
Easy. Because russia is all talk and no do. If you punch russia in the face it folds in half.
What is the hot take on the rebels.?
Are these the ones the US was backing a few years ago against ISIS?
Is this another case of the replacement is worse? Or not?
Assad was so bad for using chemical weapons on citizens, the US couldn't conceive of worse? But is that true?
> "with this spirit… we will not only reach Damascus, but, Allah permitting, Jerusalem will be awaiting our arrival”
https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/hayat-tahrir-al-sham-re...
Thats fake/contested
The dust hasn't settled, but my assumption is that the Russians had a sort-of working plan that the Syrian army would do the heavy lifting and Russia would be funnelling in supplies and providing power for key points - following a proxy-war style defensive model. Given the speed and totality of the Syrian army's collapse they didn't really have anything to do that wouldn't be hideously draining on resources that they don't really have.
The collapse of the Syrians may be related to the Russian military being distracted by the Ukraine war in an indirect or direct way. My base case guess is the Turks/Turk-backed faction spotted an opportunity while the Russians were distracted and went for it, and the Syrian forces were complacent because they hadn't really prepared for the situation where Russia is in a war elsewhere.
From the cold-blooded point of view, it makes sense, somehow "It's fine" when the US bombs are being dropped by the IDF, and screwing Russia helps Ukraine and Europe too. But probably that's a myopic point of view, a lot of the world has burning hatred against Israel and the USA now.
That's understandable for Iran which may want to avoid to overextend itself following the recent events, but it's hard to comprehend why Russia was unable to do anything at all.
In any case, it seems like there are several very important events happening recently that may reshape the world for the years to come.