Ukraine

[LennStar]

On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.

If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.

I think that's an idea that might actually fly.  The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda.  Putin would definitely love to enroll them.

I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.

Does it have to be strictly military?  It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years.  I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.

So now you do not only want the younger generationto shoulder their parents pension, their own (bc less children born in the last decades) and somehow manage the costs of climate change, you now also want their most important career years to be cleaning parks for less than minimum wage??

[pecunia]

On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.

If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.

I think that's an idea that might actually fly.  The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda.  Putin would definitely love to enroll them.

I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.

Does it have to be strictly military?  It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years.  I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.

So now you do not only want the younger generationto shoulder their parents pension, their own (bc less children born in the last decades) and somehow manage the costs of climate change, you now also want their most important career years to be cleaning parks for less than minimum wage??

That would be one task.  There are many others.  We all live in this Society.  To contribute to it is not such a worthless thing.  Many would receive exposure to another environment withing the country and perhaps be exposed to other perspectives.  The long term benefits could be great.  I did not say less than minimum wage.  In fact money could be set aside for something like the GI Bill.  The younger generation has shouldered an unfair debt burden for their education.  A period of public service and then to be rewarded with that education may be a worthwhile endeavor.  Of course opinions may differ.

[Michael in ABQ]

You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land.  China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival.  With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.

Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children and they are heading for their own population crash. (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)

That article about China's military being staffed with spoiled kids is from 2014.  Is that information still accurate?

That article was the first that came up on my search, but even if Chinese parents snapped into action in 2014 and procreated with abandon, the soldiers-to-be would be only 9 years old now. 
Anyway, this article is from last month.  Work-life balance is hard everywhere!

IMO, China needs to act scary because in reality there would be widespread upset if its army of only children (or at best, second children) were sent off to war. But apologies for derailing the discussion of Russia and Ukraine, please return to our regular programming.

On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.

I guarantee whatever study determined that used BMI while completely ignoring the fact that people in the military tend to have far more muscle mass and less body fat than a comparable civilian population. I've known guys in the Army that have always been overweight and have to get taped for bodyfat - because they are in great shape and have a bunch of muscle mass. If you're 5'8" and weigh 175 pounds as a 22-year-old you would be overweight.

The American Security Project, a Washington-based nonprofit, found that 68% of US troops qualified as either “overweight” or “obese” under the Body Mass Index, which takes into account a person’s age, height and weight.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24040523/ref-0286-combating-military-obesity-2.pdf

There are definitely some overweight people in the military. But there is no way more than 2/3 of the military is overweight or obese by any objective standard - other than BMI which is generally garbage.
Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus : NPR

If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.

There has been a program in place to grant citizenship through military service for at least as long as I've been in (over 20 years now).

[ChpBstrd]

On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.

If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.

I think that's an idea that might actually fly.  The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda.  Putin would definitely love to enroll them.

I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.

Does it have to be strictly military?  It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years.  I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.

So now you do not only want the younger generationto shoulder their parents pension, their own (bc less children born in the last decades) and somehow manage the costs of climate change, you now also want their most important career years to be cleaning parks for less than minimum wage??

That would be one task.  There are many others.  We all live in this Society.  To contribute to it is not such a worthless thing.  Many would receive exposure to another environment withing the country and perhaps be exposed to other perspectives.  The long term benefits could be great.  I did not say less than minimum wage.  In fact money could be set aside for something like the GI Bill.  The younger generation has shouldered an unfair debt burden for their education.  A period of public service and then to be rewarded with that education may be a worthwhile endeavor.  Of course opinions may differ.

The U.S. is already doing this with debt relief for teachers who often work with kids in poorer areas and debt relief programs for nurses and military personnel.

The idea of using young immigrants (instead of throwing more taxpayer subsidies at existing citizens and competing with the private sector) would fix our demographics / entitlements problem, relieve pressure on illegal immigration law enforcement, and address glaring needs.

However, just because there is a need doesn't mean a country will choose the simple solution to fix it. Japan is a demographic timebomb that has steadfastly resisted immigration for years despite a housing surplus in the countryside. Their projects to build caretaker robots have not yet worked out. If they don't open the doors soon a significant percentage of young people will be taken out of the economy to become caretakers instead of industrial producers, and will have to shoulder enormous costs instead of keeping Japanese industry going. Russia is another demographic timebomb, but due to racism they are not interested in the kinds of immigrants who would be willing to move there and contribute to society. The U.S. is self-conflicted between the logic of immigration versus fears about cultivating gang-filled urban slums of non-English speakers. Interestingly, Europe seems to be the new melting pot, with immigrants coming from every direction. After a period of forming, storming, and norming, I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.

[pecunia]

On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.

If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.

I think that's an idea that might actually fly.  The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda.  Putin would definitely love to enroll them.

I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.

Does it have to be strictly military?  It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years.  I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.

So now you do not only want the younger generationto shoulder their parents pension, their own (bc less children born in the last decades) and somehow manage the costs of climate change, you now also want their most important career years to be cleaning parks for less than minimum wage??

That would be one task.  There are many others.  We all live in this Society.  To contribute to it is not such a worthless thing.  Many would receive exposure to another environment withing the country and perhaps be exposed to other perspectives.  The long term benefits could be great.  I did not say less than minimum wage.  In fact money could be set aside for something like the GI Bill.  The younger generation has shouldered an unfair debt burden for their education.  A period of public service and then to be rewarded with that education may be a worthwhile endeavor.  Of course opinions may differ.

The U.S. is already doing this with debt relief for teachers who often work with kids in poorer areas and debt relief programs for nurses and military personnel.

The idea of using young immigrants (instead of throwing more taxpayer subsidies at existing citizens and competing with the private sector) would fix our demographics / entitlements problem, relieve pressure on illegal immigration law enforcement, and address glaring needs.

However, just because there is a need doesn't mean a country will choose the simple solution to fix it. Japan is a demographic timebomb that has steadfastly resisted immigration for years despite a housing surplus in the countryside. Their projects to build caretaker robots have not yet worked out. If they don't open the doors soon a significant percentage of young people will be taken out of the economy to become caretakers instead of industrial producers, and will have to shoulder enormous costs instead of keeping Japanese industry going. Russia is another demographic timebomb, but due to racism they are not interested in the kinds of immigrants who would be willing to move there and contribute to society. The U.S. is self-conflicted between the logic of immigration versus fears about cultivating gang-filled urban slums of non-English speakers. Interestingly, Europe seems to be the new melting pot, with immigrants coming from every direction. After a period of forming, storming, and norming, I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.

It's good these programs noted above list.  You can cut through right wing rhetoric against them because they are an investment in the country.  Government should work to help future generations and not simply to tend to the interests of the existing well to do.  Nothing wrong with immigration.  My grandparents were immigrants.  However, let's take care of citizens first.

[sixwings]

You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land.  China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival.  With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.

Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children and they are heading for their own population crash. (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)

That article about China's military being staffed with spoiled kids is from 2014.  Is that information still accurate?

That article was the first that came up on my search, but even if Chinese parents snapped into action in 2014 and procreated with abandon, the soldiers-to-be would be only 9 years old now. 
Anyway, this article is from last month.  Work-life balance is hard everywhere!

IMO, China needs to act scary because in reality there would be widespread upset if its army of only children (or at best, second children) were sent off to war. But apologies for derailing the discussion of Russia and Ukraine, please return to our regular programming.

On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.

I guarantee whatever study determined that used BMI while completely ignoring the fact that people in the military tend to have far more muscle mass and less body fat than a comparable civilian population. I've known guys in the Army that have always been overweight and have to get taped for bodyfat - because they are in great shape and have a bunch of muscle mass. If you're 5'8" and weigh 175 pounds as a 22-year-old you would be overweight.

The American Security Project, a Washington-based nonprofit, found that 68% of US troops qualified as either “overweight” or “obese” under the Body Mass Index, which takes into account a person’s age, height and weight.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24040523/ref-0286-combating-military-obesity-2.pdf

There are definitely some overweight people in the military. But there is no way more than 2/3 of the military is overweight or obese by any objective standard - other than BMI which is generally garbage.
Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus : NPR

If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.

There has been a program in place to grant citizenship through military service for at least as long as I've been in (over 20 years now).

I think the obesity issue is more that young americans who would be eligible to join the military are too fat to be effective soldiers and would require significant diet and training to become useful. This would severely limit the ability for america to respond to a large war where soldiers on the ground would be required. Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground. (The issue isnt just related to obesity but it's the most visible issue, the western diet is disgusting).

[zolotiyeruki]

Europe is definitely a melting-pot...of sorts.  They are still grappling with significant issues when it comes to assimilation, however, with cultural clashes and outright violence being sadly too common.  The immigration that boosted the US so tremendously happened in a far different cultural, economic, and regulatory age.  There was a greater expectation that immigrants would assimilate and bootstrap themselves, and the regulatory and welfare state jibed well with that.  Getting to the US was harder, but naturalization was a lot easier, and you had to be self-sufficient.  Nowadays, the existence of a rather extensive welfare state/social programs leads to the fear that people are coming to the US not to make an honest living for themselves, but to (in undiplomatic terms) mooch off the largesse of politicians spending Other People's Money.  How much of that fear is based in reality, I don't know, and the politicians on both sides have a vested interest in not resolving that question :D

On a lighter note, and in an (probably vain) attempt to bring this back on topic, at least our military doesn't look like Russia's.

[LennStar]

I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.

Unfortunately we have our own share of racists here. Just today they are shouting (on X) for a Boykott of ALDI because ALDI used a black man in it's ads and some of them have said unnice things about that so they got blocked by the PR account.

Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground.

I alwys was under the impression that the soldiers bootcamp was a tried and tested method of getting said boots on hte ground in a leaner shape.
If you burn 3000kcal more than you eat each day, you will slim down fast. Also saves money for the military!

[pecunia]

I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.

Unfortunately we have our own share of racists here. Just today they are shouting (on X) for a Boykott of ALDI because ALDI used a black man in it's ads and some of them have said unnice things about that so they got blocked by the PR account.

Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground.

I alwys was under the impression that the soldiers bootcamp was a tried and tested method of getting said boots on hte ground in a leaner shape.
If you burn 3000kcal more than you eat each day, you will slim down fast. Also saves money for the military!

There's 3500 calories (Kilo is dropped) in a lb of fat.  (1kg = 2.2 lbs)  For many people weight loss can take a while.  Avoiding type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, Cancer and other diseases should be an incentive, but they would rather give you pills than prevention in the United States.  With all they've learned about eating and disease in the past two generations, you would think preventive medicine would be emphasized.  OK - Sorry for the two cents.  Back to Ukraine.

[GuitarStv]

I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.

Unfortunately we have our own share of racists here. Just today they are shouting (on X) for a Boykott of ALDI because ALDI used a black man in it's ads and some of them have said unnice things about that so they got blocked by the PR account.

Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground.

I alwys was under the impression that the soldiers bootcamp was a tried and tested method of getting said boots on hte ground in a leaner shape.
If you burn 3000kcal more than you eat each day, you will slim down fast. Also saves money for the military!

There's 3500 calories (Kilo is dropped) in a lb of fat.  (1kg = 2.2 lbs)  For many people weight loss can take a while.  Avoiding type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, Cancer and other diseases should be an incentive, but they would rather give you pills than prevention in the United States.  With all they've learned about eating and disease in the past two generations, you would think preventive medicine would be emphasized.  OK - Sorry for the two cents.  Back to Ukraine.

It's difficult to perform at a physical peak while restricting calories, and basic training is hard.  Any significant weight loss will lead to severe underperformance and probably washing out.  I'd guess that the upper limit for weight loss while maintaining reasonable performance is somewhere around 1 lb a week.  Basic training takes somewhere between a month and a half and three months . . . so that's only really giving opportunity for a recruit to drop 6-12 lbs.  If they're getting people who are 40 - 60 lbs overweight that's not going to work.

[Michael in ABQ]

I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.

Unfortunately we have our own share of racists here. Just today they are shouting (on X) for a Boykott of ALDI because ALDI used a black man in it's ads and some of them have said unnice things about that so they got blocked by the PR account.

Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground.

I alwys was under the impression that the soldiers bootcamp was a tried and tested method of getting said boots on hte ground in a leaner shape.
If you burn 3000kcal more than you eat each day, you will slim down fast. Also saves money for the military!

There's 3500 calories (Kilo is dropped) in a lb of fat.  (1kg = 2.2 lbs)  For many people weight loss can take a while.  Avoiding type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, Cancer and other diseases should be an incentive, but they would rather give you pills than prevention in the United States.  With all they've learned about eating and disease in the past two generations, you would think preventive medicine would be emphasized.  OK - Sorry for the two cents.  Back to Ukraine.

It's difficult to perform at a physical peak while restricting calories, and basic training is hard.  Any significant weight loss will lead to severe underperformance and probably washing out.  I'd guess that the upper limit for weight loss while maintaining reasonable performance is somewhere around 1 lb a week.  Basic training takes somewhere between a month and a half and three months . . . so that's only really giving opportunity for a recruit to drop 6-12 lbs.  If they're getting people who are 40 - 60 lbs overweight that's not going to work.

I came in at 150 and was down to 135-140 by the time I left (with significantly more muscle). I was also eating as much as I could and was still hungry as we only got our 3 meals a day in the dining facility of relatively healthy food. No snacks or other food was allowed, and we definitely couldn't get a burger or a desert plate like regular Soldiers.

I'm sure there were days I burned 4-5,000 calories such as when we did a 12-mile ruck march. I saw a lot of guys drop 20-30 pounds if they were already on the heavy side - i.e. they came in weighing over 200 lbs. and were under 6 feet tall. But if you were 40-60 pounds overweight you were never going to make it past the initial processing station. I do recall one guy at the processing station who made weight by 1 pound - he was about 5"6" and only weighed around 110 pounds.

[LennStar]

Since nobody has posted in the last 20 days, I thought to give an update to all those who aren't following the war in details.

Sea:
First Ukraine managed to destroy 2 smaller ships on the "backside" of Crimea, further reducing the fighting and long range missiling capabilities of the Russians. That might be important for the surely to come attack on civil infrastruture this winter. It also places even more strain on the Russian fleet and logistics because they can't afford to lose a ship or two every 2 months, as it has been the case through this year.
Civil grain shippings have been going mor or less good in the East.

Land:
In the North, there have been extremely intensive battles around the town of Advijika. The Russians managed to get an important defensive position in the North of the town and a bit of land in the south, reducing the area Ukraine can use to supply the defenders in town.
However that came at a huge loss for Russians - about 10K troops and 200 armored vehicles in jsut 2 weeks.
And now the Russians seem to be stuck trying to get into the next village. A factory between the town and the above position give a clear shooting field for Ukrainians (as you can see by the losses) and every Russian advance is immediately under heavy fire from several directions. Also Ukrainian drones are spotting reinforcements as far as 10km away from the battle point, letting artillery rain on them bevore they can even reach the front.
At the moment it seems like a dicy standstill. My guess is the Russians will attack for 2 more weeks, suffering heavy losses, while the Ukrainians will hold the general position but losing a few stretches, making it an extremely dangerous position both to hold and counter attack.

In the middle around Tokmak the Ukrainian offensive seems to have completely stalled and the pocket they manged to get against anbelievable odds (and heavy casualties) is not likely to bring great strategic gains aside the surprisingly heavy losses of the Russians (still the ratio is worth then in other places).

In the South the little pockets of Ukrainian Infantry on the left/south side fo the Dnipro have increased in number and occupied territory.
It's not a real bridgehead so far, as there is only one confirmed heavy vehicle on this side, but the front is 35km long und slowly increasing. Russians tried to attack, but have been repelled. This is mainly because Ukrainians have free sight and fire lines from the other, higher side of the river. Russians even had to "relocate to better positions".

More to this, extremely fresh, from this Ukrainian (propaganda) channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atb7_zrVTqM

If the Ukrainians can hold this village (Krynky), it might become a real bridgehead and such a major pain for the Russians.

[pecunia]

Since nobody has posted in the last 20 days, I thought to give an update to all those who aren't following the war in details.

Sea:
First Ukraine managed to destroy 2 smaller ships on the "backside" of Crimea, further reducing the fighting and long range missiling capabilities of the Russians. That might be important for the surely to come attack on civil infrastruture this winter. It also places even more strain on the Russian fleet and logistics because they can't afford to lose a ship or two every 2 months, as it has been the case through this year.
Civil grain shippings have been going mor or less good in the East.

Land:
In the North, there have been extremely intensive battles around the town of Advijika. The Russians managed to get an important defensive position in the North of the town and a bit of land in the south, reducing the area Ukraine can use to supply the defenders in town.
However that came at a huge loss for Russians - about 10K troops and 200 armored vehicles in jsut 2 weeks.
And now the Russians seem to be stuck trying to get into the next village. A factory between the town and the above position give a clear shooting field for Ukrainians (as you can see by the losses) and every Russian advance is immediately under heavy fire from several directions. Also Ukrainian drones are spotting reinforcements as far as 10km away from the battle point, letting artillery rain on them bevore they can even reach the front.
At the moment it seems like a dicy standstill. My guess is the Russians will attack for 2 more weeks, suffering heavy losses, while the Ukrainians will hold the general position but losing a few stretches, making it an extremely dangerous position both to hold and counter attack.

In the middle around Tokmak the Ukrainian offensive seems to have completely stalled and the pocket they manged to get against anbelievable odds (and heavy casualties) is not likely to bring great strategic gains aside the surprisingly heavy losses of the Russians (still the ratio is worth then in other places).

In the South the little pockets of Ukrainian Infantry on the left/south side fo the Dnipro have increased in number and occupied territory.
It's not a real bridgehead so far, as there is only one confirmed heavy vehicle on this side, but the front is 35km long und slowly increasing. Russians tried to attack, but have been repelled. This is mainly because Ukrainians have free sight and fire lines from the other, higher side of the river. Russians even had to "relocate to better positions".

More to this, extremely fresh, from this Ukrainian (propaganda) channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atb7_zrVTqM

If the Ukrainians can hold this village (Krynky), it might become a real bridgehead and such a major pain for the Russians.

Feel free to correct the following.  It was from the top of my head.

There are a couple items that aren't so good.  The EU cannot deliver all the shells that were promised.  The EU promised a million shells, but due to production problems will only be able to deliver 300,000.   US aid is, of course, tied up due to the strange business in the House of Representatives.  Germany has stepped up its game and whereas they were slow to deliver in the past are now one of the chief contributors.  I think Germany s still slow with the Taurus missile.

The GLSDB glide bombs promised by Saab and Boeing seem held up for unknown reasons.

F-16 training continues and the planes look to be ready when the training is completed.

Russia is building and has built additional factories for more munitions.

Unlike the EU, it is said that starving North Korea has delivered a great number of shells to Russia.  Their workers are churning out more to aid Russia.

Russia is developing greater capabilities to use remote controlled drones.

Russia continues to use prisoners and new conscripts in meat waves.  They will also conscript foreign workers.  One news report said they are using Ukrainian POWs for some of their fighting.  Since they have had years conscripting the men of Donetsk and Luhansk, this may be a reality.

Russia is gathering missiles to once again attack power stations and substations in cold weather.

Russia has gathered a fleet of oil tankers and is getting around the oil sanctions (not fully).  Oil revenue enables them to pay for the "Special Military Operation."

Russia stopped export of refined diesel.  More money coukd be made selling it abroad shorting internal supply needed for the harvest.

Laws are slowly being changed in Russia to bring back the old USSR (Or maybe something worse).

The value of the ruble has slipped to around 1 US cent per Ruble. (.011 US dollars)

With the problems in Israel, the press has largely begun to ignore the "Special Military Operation."

Hungary continues to support Russia and blocks EU actions.  (God only knows why.)

Turkey has finally relented to allowing Sweden into NATO.

The Washington Post reported that a group of UKrainians blew up the Nordstream pipeline.  (Seems like news that Russia would like to see.  Wasn't there once a thing called fake news?)

Every couple of weeks some Russian threatens the world with Nukes.  (I don't think the sky is falling.)

One Russian was recently killed by a wild boar in the Ukraine.

The Freedom of Russia Legion is still out there flying under the radar and making occasional  forays into Russia.

Zelenskyy has fired some top officials to eliminate corruption.  Ukraine wants to join the EU and it appears the EU welcomes them sans Hungary.  This war with Russia must end first.

As of today one report of total Russian casualties is now Military personnel — aprx. 315620 people (+1330)  That is another 1330 in the past 24 hours.  How can any country sustain these losses and keep the folks back home so pacified?

So there's a couple of Rubles more of information.

[ChpBstrd]

In 20 years the Israel/Gaza conflict will be a footnote in history, but the Ukraine/Russia war will be seen as the thing which established the world order. Guess where all the attention went.

[LennStar]

The ammo problem is indeed a big one for both sides. Russia had to turn down fire rates both because they might run out otherweise and because transporting gets ever more dangerous.

The thing for Ukraine is that Ukraine still mainly uses soviet arty, and there simply is no production line in the West to produce it. And not enough Western cannons OR ammo to switch fully.

Hungary continues to support Russia and blocks EU actions.  (God only knows why.)

So much that Orban is called Putins submarine - in both EU and NATO.
Well, dictators like each other. The EU was pestering (and holding back money, that's what Orban wants now for agreeing to anything) him for such things as LGBTQ rights, control of the legislative and so on. Don't forget that Orban was the one that made SOROS the hate child of the west's righ wingers just to win his first election. He is really long in the game.

Zelenskyy has fired some top officials to eliminate corruption.  Ukraine wants to join the EU and it appears the EU welcomes them sans Hungary.  This war with Russia must end first.

Devils advocate: Or he is kicking out rivals and people who want to make peace even if that means losing half of Ukraine.

As of today one report of total Russian casualties is now Military personnel — aprx. 315620 people (+1330)  That is another 1330 in the past 24 hours.  How can any country sustain these losses and keep the folks back home so pacified?

Still the same answer:
1. History
2. Supression of reality and tellling them they get 3 month training (instead of the more realistic 3 weeks)
3. They are mostly recruited from the piss poor (remember: Stolen washing machines, surprise about asphalt roads). The army pays at least 5 times more than a job back at home (if you get one) and if you die, your family get's the equivalent of 10 years income, if not more.
4. Everyone who wanted to fight against fighting is either in prison, outside Russia, dead or very very careful.

[Radagast]

Last week I uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone because it was taking too much of my mind and time. Now I can only check on the war from by big desktop which I never have time to get to. Looks like not much has changed. I'm still pretty disappointed as the dubious support from the US and Europe and what IMO is the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years. I still see all the trends being the same, its just the time spent, lives lost, destruction caused, and money wasted getting there that I am in awe about. Also I see the deleterious effects of Russian propaganda everywhere. Really, this is the best policy we can come up with?

In the middle around Tokmak the Ukrainian offensive seems to have completely stalled and the pocket they manged to get against anbelievable odds (and heavy casualties) is not likely to bring great strategic gains aside the surprisingly heavy losses of the Russians (still the ratio is worth then in other places).

I'm still a little in disbelief that this is what they came up with. Really, attack at the most obvious and heavily defended location and not get anywhere? That was it? Ukraine is certainly the better army though, they've been taking around 1:1 losses on the offense and 1:6+ on defense. I see those numbers continuing to move in their favor.

[Michael in ABQ]

In 20 years the Israel/Gaza conflict will be a footnote in history, but the Ukraine/Russia war will be seen as the thing which established the world order. Guess where all the attention went.

People have short attention spans - especially in the media. The reality is the war in Ukraine has been going on for almost a decade now. It's not surprising it's no longer making front page news everyday - especially with relatively little movement on either side.

[Michael in ABQ]

Last week I uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone because it was taking too much of my mind and time. Now I can only check on the war from by big desktop which I never have time to get to. Looks like not much has changed. I'm still pretty disappointed as the dubious support from the US and Europe and what IMO is the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years. I still see all the trends being the same, its just the time spent, lives lost, destruction caused, and money wasted getting there that I am in awe about. Also I see the deleterious effects of Russian propaganda everywhere. Really, this is the best policy we can come up with?

It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.

You know what's worst than having a dictator in control of enough nuclear weapons to end the world? Having no one in control of those same nuclear weapons. Or having a dozen generals, oligarchs, warlords, etc. all fighting to control them.

[LennStar]

I'm still a little in disbelief that this is what they came up with. Really, attack at the most obvious and heavily defended location and not get anywhere?

You forget that they attacked in other places too. But the main thing is: The reason WHY this area was so well defended is precisey because it is so important.
At the start there were 3 areas under attack, but realizing they were better defended and better mined than  thought made the Ukrainians concentrate in one area. They did good - under the circumstances - but not good enough, not least because when they came close Russia through in everyone they could get hands on. That is part of the reason why Ukrainians could cross the Dnipro, troops from this area had been relocated to Tokmak area.

I dare say the Ukrainians would have liked to not try to break through at Tokmak, but to not risk losing support, they had to do something, and doing something at 3 positions did not work.

[ChpBstrd]

Last week I uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone because it was taking too much of my mind and time. Now I can only check on the war from by big desktop which I never have time to get to. Looks like not much has changed. I'm still pretty disappointed as the dubious support from the US and Europe and what IMO is the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years. I still see all the trends being the same, its just the time spent, lives lost, destruction caused, and money wasted getting there that I am in awe about. Also I see the deleterious effects of Russian propaganda everywhere. Really, this is the best policy we can come up with?

It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.

You know what's worst than having a dictator in control of enough nuclear weapons to end the world? Having no one in control of those same nuclear weapons. Or having a dozen generals, oligarchs, warlords, etc. all fighting to control them.

This is where the realpolitik meets the moralizing, and it's why Russia has a good chance of winning the war.

[waltworks]

Russia already lost. They lost about 2 weeks in, the rest of this is really just sorting out the details of whether they can hang onto a small part of a country they don't need for anything, after exchanging the majority of their conventional military power and mortgaging their economic future for a couple of generations at a minimum.

That's not to say that Ukraine will "win". Short of fully recovering all of their territory and joining the EU (and maybe even then) they have also lost.

It's a negative-sum game at this point.

-W

[Radagast]

Last week I uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone because it was taking too much of my mind and time. Now I can only check on the war from by big desktop which I never have time to get to. Looks like not much has changed. I'm still pretty disappointed as the dubious support from the US and Europe and what IMO is the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years. I still see all the trends being the same, its just the time spent, lives lost, destruction caused, and money wasted getting there that I am in awe about. Also I see the deleterious effects of Russian propaganda everywhere. Really, this is the best policy we can come up with?

It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.

You know what's worst than having a dictator in control of enough nuclear weapons to end the world? Having no one in control of those same nuclear weapons. Or having a dozen generals, oligarchs, warlords, etc. all fighting to control them.

As far as I can tell, for 15+ years Russia has been doing everything in its power to weaken, damage, and destroy Europe and the US and all associated countries. Collapsing Russia without the need for aggression or internal interference should be an acceptable or desirable policy outcome or even a goal to reduce damage and risk to our own nations. No more propping up a nation that wants to destroy us.

[Radagast]

I'm still a little in disbelief that this is what they came up with. Really, attack at the most obvious and heavily defended location and not get anywhere?

You forget that they attacked in other places too. But the main thing is: The reason WHY this area was so well defended is precisey because it is so important.
At the start there were 3 areas under attack, but realizing they were better defended and better mined than  thought made the Ukrainians concentrate in one area. They did good - under the circumstances - but not good enough, not least because when they came close Russia through in everyone they could get hands on. That is part of the reason why Ukrainians could cross the Dnipro, troops from this area had been relocated to Tokmak area.

I dare say the Ukrainians would have liked to not try to break through at Tokmak, but to not risk losing support, they had to do something, and doing something at 3 positions did not work.

Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage. Seen through that lens, the summer offensive was just another necessary step and would have contributed the same effort regardless of where or how it happened. Still, I can't help but think that somewhere (especially in foreign aid to Ukraine) somebody could have done more to increase attrition so that Ukraine could have had more success.

[RWD]

Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.

Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.

[dignam]

Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.

Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.

Midway also came to my mind, that was a very decisive turn of the Pacific theatre.  That essentially eliminated Japan's ability to be on the offensive. 

Or, the luck involved that the US carrier fleet was not at port during Pearl Harbor.  That could have been a lot worse.

It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.

I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.

That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia.  The population differences are too great.  I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance.  Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!).  The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.

[Michael in ABQ]

It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.

I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.

That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia.  The population differences are too great.  I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance.  Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!).  The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.

Foreign policy has little or no impact on the average American. That's the benefit of being the sole superpower - there's very little that could rise to the level of an existential threat when an enemy would need to cross an ocean to invade a very large and very heavily armed country. Considering the US is the only military with significant global power projection (i.e. the ability to deploy tens or hundreds of thousands of troops anywhere in the world) even China and Russia aren't truly threats to the homeland - unless things devolve to nuclear war.

Most presidential elections are based on domestic policy where arguably the President has limited power. Meanwhile foreign policy - where the President has far greater power - gets relatively little attention in the voting booth.

Americans just don't care about what's going on in the rest of the world because quite frankly they don't need to care. The US is so powerful, and has been for so many generations, that even when we massively screw up foreign policy it still presents very little real threat to the average American.

[GuitarStv]

In the Russia/Ukraine thing, the US is pretty clearly on the moral side.  In a conflict where that moral clarity is lacking, many people become concerned with government support of one faction.

[Radagast]

Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.

Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.

Midway also came to my mind, that was a very decisive turn of the Pacific theatre.  That essentially eliminated Japan's ability to be on the offensive. 

Or, the luck involved that the US carrier fleet was not at port during Pearl Harbor.  That could have been a lot worse.

It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.

I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.

That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia.  The population differences are too great.  I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance.  Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!).  The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.

Yes, but the US didn't win because of Midway. It won because of a huge overmatch in productive capacity, resources, technology, and population. Midway was just a coincidental manifestation of that. The US would have won within at most two years of when it did regardless of the details.

On it's own Ukraine can't win, but that's not because of population it's because Russia can easily strike all Ukrainian production centers, while Ukraine is likely unable to hit more than a small fraction of Russian territory for years to come. They need the safe industrial capacity of "the West". Even then I'd have to agree that if Russia turtled up it could become unwinnable for Ukraine absent much more and more potent Western weapons than we've seen transferred so far. Fortunately Russia has not turtled up, and Ukraine is well on track to win a war of attrition. I just wish the rate of attrition of Russian forces was faster.

[pecunia]

Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.

Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.

Midway also came to my mind, that was a very decisive turn of the Pacific theatre.  That essentially eliminated Japan's ability to be on the offensive. 

Or, the luck involved that the US carrier fleet was not at port during Pearl Harbor.  That could have been a lot worse.

It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.

I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.

That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia.  The population differences are too great.  I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance.  Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!).  The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.

Yes, but the US didn't win because of Midway. It won because of a huge overmatch in productive capacity, resources, technology, and population. Midway was just a coincidental manifestation of that. The US would have won within at most two years of when it did regardless of the details.

On it's own Ukraine can't win, but that's not because of population it's because Russia can easily strike all Ukrainian production centers, while Ukraine is likely unable to hit more than a small fraction of Russian territory for years to come. They need the safe industrial capacity of "the West". Even then I'd have to agree that if Russia turtled up it could become unwinnable for Ukraine absent much more and more potent Western weapons than we've seen transferred so far. Fortunately Russia has not turtled up, and Ukraine is well on track to win a war of attrition. I just wish the rate of attrition of Russian forces was faster.

Turtle up - To go on the defensive. To make oneself incapable of harm or damage.

To some extent, it seems like they have done this with their World Wat 1 style trench lines.  Perhaps after Putin's election, they will discontinue the meat wave attacks and even the civilian attacks.  Despite their boasting rhetoric, Russia has lost a lot and it is conceivable that they'll hunker down and do the turtle up thing to simply retain the stolen ground.

[Mr FrugalNL]

That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia.  The population differences are too great.  I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance.  Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!).  The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.

I'm with you 100% on people being too easily distracted. 'Hey look, a red herring!'

With regard to Ukraine's ability to win a war of attrition against Russia: it depends, really.

One big factor is the attrition ratio. If Ukraine can kill enough Russians for every Ukrainian life lost, it can in fact win a war of attrition against Russia. This factor is driven by a lot of other factors, most notably Western military aid to Ukraine. The more aid the better, and the sooner the war might be over. It's also worth bearing in mind that we're dealing with Russia in 2023, not the Soviet Union in 1941. It has fewer manpower reserves than the USSR did because its population is smaller and has a lower percentage of military-age individuals.

Ukraine obviously won't have to kill every last Russian though, because another big factor is Ukraine and Russia's relative pain thresholds. In a war of attrition, belligerents inflict losses on each other (how tidy a term for killing, wounding, maiming and destroying!) until one side is no longer willing or able to continue. As long as Ukrainians perceive the war as a struggle for national survival, they will be willing to make great sacrifices to continue the war. In other words, their point of unwillingness to continue the war will be relatively close to their point of inability to continue the war. Russia on the other hand is fighting a war of aggression and has far less to lose from a defeat. Consequently it will not be willing to make as great sacrifices as Ukraine. Just how high Russia's pain threshold is is unknowable in advance, of course.

Taking these factors into account, I could see Ukraine defeating Russia in a war of attrition. It's very far from a sure thing though. It could go the other way too, especially if Western aid for Ukraine wanes.

[Radagast]

Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.

Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.

Midway also came to my mind, that was a very decisive turn of the Pacific theatre.  That essentially eliminated Japan's ability to be on the offensive. 

Or, the luck involved that the US carrier fleet was not at port during Pearl Harbor.  That could have been a lot worse.

It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.

I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.

That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia.  The population differences are too great.  I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance.  Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!).  The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.

Yes, but the US didn't win because of Midway. It won because of a huge overmatch in productive capacity, resources, technology, and population. Midway was just a coincidental manifestation of that. The US would have won within at most two years of when it did regardless of the details.

On it's own Ukraine can't win, but that's not because of population it's because Russia can easily strike all Ukrainian production centers, while Ukraine is likely unable to hit more than a small fraction of Russian territory for years to come. They need the safe industrial capacity of "the West". Even then I'd have to agree that if Russia turtled up it could become unwinnable for Ukraine absent much more and more potent Western weapons than we've seen transferred so far. Fortunately Russia has not turtled up, and Ukraine is well on track to win a war of attrition. I just wish the rate of attrition of Russian forces was faster.

Turtle up - To go on the defensive. To make oneself incapable of harm or damage.

To some extent, it seems like they have done this with their World Wat 1 style trench lines.  Perhaps after Putin's election, they will discontinue the meat wave attacks and even the civilian attacks.  Despite their boasting rhetoric, Russia has lost a lot and it is conceivable that they'll hunker down and do the turtle up thing to simply retain the stolen ground.

Surovikin began a turtle up strategy, but whoever is in charge now seems intent on degrading Russia to nothing with pointless quasi-zerg-rushes which create enormous losses for little to no gains.

[Radagast]

Taking these factors into account, I could see Ukraine defeating Russia in a war of attrition. It's very far from a sure thing though. It could go the other way too, especially if Western aid for Ukraine wanes.

Either the US or Europe could easily hand Ukraine a decisive win if they wanted. Even some single EU countries like UK, France, or Germany could singly tip the scale toward a Ukraine win if they had the will. Essentially the fate of Russia and Ukraine depends on the whims of others. For that reason propaganda is the most decisive front of the war. Russia is putting a huge effort into it and it is having an effect. People ignoring that are making an enormous mistake.

[zolotiyeruki]

It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country.  That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg.  How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete?  If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age.  That's a lot of people to chew through.

[waltworks]

It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country.  That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg.  How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete?  If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age.  That's a lot of people to chew through.

That's solid logic but your priors are incorrect.

About 81% of Russia's population is ethnic Russian. And the vast majority of the population lives in the far west (75 percent live in the Moscow/St Pete side of the Urals).

So while there are plenty of destitute minorities that get treated like crap in the east (we have forms of that in the US too, I suppose) there definitely aren't 10 million of them available to to sent off to be human land mine detectors. There are about 25million ethnic minority citizens, of which ~12.5 million are male, of which maybe (maybe) 20% are of the right age/health to fight. So a couple million available, assuming you can force every single one to go fight. And that's prewar numbers, a lot of them are dead or badly injured now.

Russia's 18-30 or so age cohort is also very small (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/File:Russia_Population_Pyramid.svg).

That all being said, Ukraine has even fewer people available given that it's 1/4 of the population and equally old-person heavy, at least according to estimates. It looks like there has not been a real census since 2001.

-W

[Radagast]

It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country.  That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg.  How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete?  If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age.  That's a lot of people to chew through.

This is part of the reason why material attrition is so important. Russia's weak link isn't it's population size, it's its stockpiles and manufacturing capacity, and its training. At the beginning of the war Ukraine would have taken around 2:1 or greater casualties (bad for Ukraine) attacking a prepared defense. Because of improved Western training and equipment for Ukraine along with lower quality Russian troops and reduced quality of equipment, this summer it was 1:1 (still too high for Ukraine to win in all probability.) Ukraine may have originally caused 1:3 casualties on defense, rising to 1:6+ in Bakhmut against underequipped prisoners. It's probably 1:6+ right now against the regular Russian army in Avdiivka. Russian equipment will continue to get sparser and worse, while Ukraine will tap NATO supplies and training and become better. Eventually Russia's larger population won't matter at all. But Ukraine needs a lot of Western equipment to make that happen.

[Fru-Gal]

This is a really interesting point about the age cohort. Has there ever been a war in history with the aging populations we see worldwide (with the exception of Africa)? And as this is projected to only increase, how will this style of fighting continue? Even biologically, I think men are much less inclined to fight and kill other men as they age over say 35 or 40. Will all fighting be robots vs robots?

[pecunia]

It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country.  That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg.  How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete?  If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age.  That's a lot of people to chew through.

This is part of the reason why material attrition is so important. Russia's weak link isn't it's population size, it's its stockpiles and manufacturing capacity, and its training. At the beginning of the war Ukraine would have taken around 2:1 or greater casualties (bad for Ukraine) attacking a prepared defense. Because of improved Western training and equipment for Ukraine along with lower quality Russian troops and reduced quality of equipment, this summer it was 1:1 (still too high for Ukraine to win in all probability.) Ukraine may have originally caused 1:3 casualties on defense, rising to 1:6+ in Bakhmut against underequipped prisoners. It's probably 1:6+ right now against the regular Russian army in Avdiivka. Russian equipment will continue to get sparser and worse, while Ukraine will tap NATO supplies and training and become better. Eventually Russia's larger population won't matter at all. But Ukraine needs a lot of Western equipment to make that happen.

Russia is still a big country with a lot of resources.  I get the impression that they manufacture armaments continuously while Ukraine receives piecemeal shipments.  Some promises like the EU's promise to deliver a million shells are not kept.  Russia is not Western.  Perhaps, they do not suffer from the short attention span that it appears we in the West have.  As the West ignores this conflict, Russia builds new factories.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/08/17/russia-iran-drone-shahed-alabuga/

From the article:

"This was Russia’s billion-dollar weapons deal with Iran coming to life in November, 500 miles east of Moscow in the Tatarstan region. Its aim is to domestically build 6,000 drones by summer 2025 — enough to reverse the Russian army’s chronic shortages of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, on the front line. If it succeeds, the sprawling new drone factory could help Russia preserve its dwindling supply of precision munitions, thwart Ukraine’s effort to retake occupied territory and dramatically advance Moscow’s position in the drone arms race that is remaking modern warfare."

Russia still has a lot of oil money coming in.  Russia can sell stolen Ukrainian grain as well as their own.  They use a seeming endless supply of tanks and other old munitions built in Soviet times.  Using this old stuff costs them only the lives of prisoners when it is blown up forcing Ukraine to use its scarce munitions.

Russia is stockpiling a huge arsenal of missiles for use this Winter against Ukrainian civilians.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-stockpiling-these-weapons-winter-attacks-ukraine-1840462

How can Ukraine win this war of attrition when Russia can strike at civilians and Ukraine cannot?

It is said most Russians take little interest in this war.  They do not get emotionally upset when their country commits atrocities.

Sadly, I think a lot of the Western world takes the same attitude as the Russians.

[ChpBstrd]

This is a really interesting point about the age cohort. Has there ever been a war in history with the aging populations we see worldwide (with the exception of Africa)? And as this is projected to only increase, how will this style of fighting continue? Even biologically, I think men are much less inclined to fight and kill other men as they age over say 35 or 40. Will all fighting be robots vs robots?

It's always been the old men making the young men fight. Thus demographic graying means more war instigators and a smaller, less influential demographic to bear the burden.

[Radagast]

It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country.  That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg.  How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete?  If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age.  That's a lot of people to chew through.

This is part of the reason why material attrition is so important. Russia's weak link isn't it's population size, it's its stockpiles and manufacturing capacity, and its training. At the beginning of the war Ukraine would have taken around 2:1 or greater casualties (bad for Ukraine) attacking a prepared defense. Because of improved Western training and equipment for Ukraine along with lower quality Russian troops and reduced quality of equipment, this summer it was 1:1 (still too high for Ukraine to win in all probability.) Ukraine may have originally caused 1:3 casualties on defense, rising to 1:6+ in Bakhmut against underequipped prisoners. It's probably 1:6+ right now against the regular Russian army in Avdiivka. Russian equipment will continue to get sparser and worse, while Ukraine will tap NATO supplies and training and become better. Eventually Russia's larger population won't matter at all. But Ukraine needs a lot of Western equipment to make that happen.

Russia is still a big country with a lot of resources.  I get the impression that they manufacture armaments continuously while Ukraine receives piecemeal shipments.  Some promises like the EU's promise to deliver a million shells are not kept.  Russia is not Western.  Perhaps, they do not suffer from the short attention span that it appears we in the West have.  As the West ignores this conflict, Russia builds new factories.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/08/17/russia-iran-drone-shahed-alabuga/

From the article:

"This was Russia’s billion-dollar weapons deal with Iran coming to life in November, 500 miles east of Moscow in the Tatarstan region. Its aim is to domestically build 6,000 drones by summer 2025 — enough to reverse the Russian army’s chronic shortages of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, on the front line. If it succeeds, the sprawling new drone factory could help Russia preserve its dwindling supply of precision munitions, thwart Ukraine’s effort to retake occupied territory and dramatically advance Moscow’s position in the drone arms race that is remaking modern warfare."

Russia still has a lot of oil money coming in.  Russia can sell stolen Ukrainian grain as well as their own.  They use a seeming endless supply of tanks and other old munitions built in Soviet times.  Using this old stuff costs them only the lives of prisoners when it is blown up forcing Ukraine to use its scarce munitions.

Russia is stockpiling a huge arsenal of missiles for use this Winter against Ukrainian civilians.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-stockpiling-these-weapons-winter-attacks-ukraine-1840462

How can Ukraine win this war of attrition when Russia can strike at civilians and Ukraine cannot?

It is said most Russians take little interest in this war.  They do not get emotionally upset when their country commits atrocities.

Sadly, I think a lot of the Western world takes the same attitude as the Russians.

Of these, I only really see drones and attacks on power generation having much impact. However drones thus far are a supplement to rather than a replacement for other assets. Attacks on power generation will not affect manufacturing in Western nations. Attacks on civilians will not have little to no impact on the outcome. Russia's equipment stockpiles are not limitless, and their burn rate of artillery and armor vastly exceeds their current or near-term production capacity. Ukraine's military effectiveness relative to Russia roughly doubled over the first 18 months of the war, and may double again over the next 18 months. Pending sufficient support from Ukraine's partners of course.

[Michael in ABQ]

This is a really interesting point about the age cohort. Has there ever been a war in history with the aging populations we see worldwide (with the exception of Africa)? And as this is projected to only increase, how will this style of fighting continue? Even biologically, I think men are much less inclined to fight and kill other men as they age over say 35 or 40. Will all fighting be robots vs robots?

The Latin root of the word Infantry is infantem which means "a youth". There's a reason to recruit people at 18 when they still think they're invincible and don't have as much to lose (i.e. family, spouse, comfortable life, civilian career, etc.).

There are plenty of wars fought with only tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Even with declining youth populations there are still plenty of potential Soldiers even in a country like Russia.

[Telecaster]

Here is a side-by-side military comparison of Russia and Ukraine. 

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=russia&country2=ukraine

I don't know how meaningful it is.   For example, Russia is listed with 12,000 tanks.   I doubt all of those are battle ready.   But Russia has a lot more of everything, including potential soliders.   

We haven't been getting a ton of credible casualty reports, but it seems as if Russian losses are running at something like 11:1 when attacking and 1:1 when defending.    Which are really high loss rates.   But as high as they are Ukraine needs them to be even higher.

[Radagast]

Here is a side-by-side military comparison of Russia and Ukraine. 

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=russia&country2=ukraine

I don't know how meaningful it is.   For example, Russia is listed with 12,000 tanks.   I doubt all of those are battle ready.   But Russia has a lot more of everything, including potential soliders.   

We haven't been getting a ton of credible casualty reports, but it seems as if Russian losses are running at something like 11:1 when attacking and 1:1 when defending.    Which are really high loss rates.   But as high as they are Ukraine needs them to be even higher.

My go-to open source to track attrition is the Oryx website (and I really hope it continues to get updated).
Ukrainian losses: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html
Russian losses: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

These are minimum estimates. For big slow frontline trophies like tanks there is evidence Oryx captures ~80% of losses. For artillery far behind lines losses are probably much higher than listed. For small fast drones that are hard to find and nobody cares to brag about anyway it's probably much higher again.

I think that this resource also serves to provide a baseline for personnel casualty ratios between the two sides. Subtracting drones isn't a big deal but I think it should be done, which right now gives a ratio of 4392:12816, or 1:2.92. However differences in culture and purpose play an additional role. Ukraine is fighting a bottom up war to preserve its people, while Russia is fighting a top down war to rid of people (on both sides) it regards as anti-Russia. Russian internal and external propaganda and culture emphasize that Russians are willing to die in huge numbers for czar and country. Therefore I would multiply that ratio by 1.5, giving ~1:4.5 overall (or in the range of 3.5-6). I think that shows Ukraine is on track to win a war of population attrition. However, I think something else will become a deciding factor long before Russia runs out of people. Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.

[Tyson]

Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.

I agree.  Why aren't we doing that?

[Radagast]

Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.

I agree.  Why aren't we doing that?

It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.

[Tyson]

Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.

I agree.  Why aren't we doing that?

It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.

The other thing I wonder about is why Russia is using such a small force in Ukraine.  They've certainly fielded much larger armies in the past, why are they not doing that now? 

[pecunia]

Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.

I agree.  Why aren't we doing that?

It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.

The other thing I wonder about is why Russia is using such a small force in Ukraine.  They've certainly fielded much larger armies in the past, why are they not doing that now?

I've seen a lot of commentators say that despite being a virtual Czar, Putin still worries what the Russian populace think.  It is said that this is keeping him from doing another draft.

[dignam]

Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.

I agree.  Why aren't we doing that?

It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.

The other thing I wonder about is why Russia is using such a small force in Ukraine.  They've certainly fielded much larger armies in the past, why are they not doing that now?

Because then they'd have to start conscripting population from the more affluent areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg.  Then, the war becomes VERY unpopular.

[zolotiyeruki]

Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.

I agree.  Why aren't we doing that?

There are a few theories.
1) For a long time, it was "we don't want to give Russia a reason to escalate." The ensuing salami-slicing, i.e. very gradually increasing the power and quality of the support we provide, would be consistent with that approach.  It's a frog-boiling approach.
2) The realpolitik may be one of "we want to destroy Russia's ability to fight, without doing so suddenly and spooking a massive reaction."  A few months ago, I saw an estimate that Russia has lost 50% of its military capacity over the last 18 months in Ukraine.  Currently, Russia is feeding a constant stream of men and equipment into the meat grinder.  If Ukraine had overwhelming military capability, Russia could withdraw, preserving its troops.  In other words, Russia may deplete itself more thoroughly in a protracted war than in a swift defeat.
3) Russia has a lot of global influence.  A sudden (and big) military defeat may increase the probability of a government collapse, a coup, a domino effect of other countries leaving Russia's orbit, or perhaps an opening for China to make a move against Russia in the east.  Instability in a nuclear-armed country is something that could go very, very wrong.  But even without the nuclear factor, there are a lot of knock-on effects of a major government collapse.

I hate all of these reasons, because in the meantime, Ukraine is taking a terrible beating.  And there may be even more reasons.

[Travis]

Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.

I agree.  Why aren't we doing that?

It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.

The other thing I wonder about is why Russia is using such a small force in Ukraine.  They've certainly fielded much larger armies in the past, why are they not doing that now?

Because then they'd have to start conscripting population from the more affluent areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg.  Then, the war becomes VERY unpopular.

Also, this isn't the Soviet Union anymore. A significant amount of industrial and personnel strength from those days are now split up into the individual nations (especially Ukraine). Russia's military industry and ability to mobilize the population atrophied significantly since 1992. The Russian Army in Feb 2022 was about 400k with a reserve mobilization potential of about 2 million. They appear to have put about 300k back in uniform and look for creative ways to get more manpower like emptying the prisons. Their manpower pipeline is limited by available trainers, equipment, and how much time they want to spend training vs getting bodies on the front. If Shoigu is to be believed they can process 20k mobiks per month. The grand Red Army of tens of thousands of tanks now produces about 20 new hulls per month. They're able to refurbish about 100 more per month from deep storage across all of their factories and maintenance yards; however, those 12k tanks quoted on wikipedia is likely less than half of that number. It takes 30-60 days to turn a tank that has been sitting in the snow for 30 years into a useable machine. They're running a deficit between tanks destroyed and tanks rebuilt to replace them. Artillery and armored personnel carriers are also in similar straits. They losing them far faster than they can be replaced, but will likely run out in 18-24 months if nothing changes. Russia just bought 300k to 1 million artillery shells from North Korea. If their industry was able to keep up with demand this wouldn't be necessary.

[Radagast]

Here's sort of a mental model of how I see this playing out. In the 1st year Russia could deliver 4,000 operational first and second rate tanks to Ukraine. In the 2nd year they could deliver 3,000 mostly second rate. In the 3rd year they can deliver 2,000. In the 4th year 1,000, then 500 per year indefinitely. Each year they lose half of everything fielded, and half of what is left is cannibalized to keep the last quarter running, so they retain 25%. That gives the following numbers of tanks fielded per year:
4,000 (2022)
4,000 (2023)
3,000 (2024)
1,750 (2025)
938 (2026)
... converging to 666 which makes sense. They will never actually run out of tanks (or anything else), but eventually the numbers and quality in the field will drop below what is needed to sustain the intensity of the combat. And ditto for other equipment. So the first and second years are quite sustainable, but things get rougher in the 3rd year and dire beyond that. There is a huge drop as they transition from their stockpiles to their production capacity.  My argument is that sometime between Russian intensity of 4,000 and 666 tanks fielded per year Ukraine will become strong enough to overwhelm their efforts. In practice it will look like Russia suffering proportionally more and more personnel casualties to accomplish less and less.