I cannot speak to the second sentence about what specifically they’ll run out of first, but a common thought seems to be this push in the eastern-most part of the front will represent the culmination of their offensive force in the coming weeks. This would be followed by a complete exhaustion of strength by the end of summer.I’d really like to see some accurate information regarding how long Russia can keep fighting with this intensity. To put it differently, what equipment do people think they will run out of first, and when? Could be anything from manpower to missiles, tanks to ammunition etc. I’m sure the Americans have a pretty good idea and will be advising Ukraine as to what weak links there are in the system, but they’re not being particularly specific. Anyone hazard a guess?
What a middle paragraph. Crimea was part of Ukraine and therefore Ukrainian. That’s the only relevant metric.I think people underestimate the importance of geography. How is Ukraine supposed to retake Crimea without aviation & fleet when its only connected to the continent by a narrow strip of land.
Not to mention that Crimea was never really Ukrainian from a cultural and historical perspective — unlike Donbas regions that were close to Russia culturally & linguistically but were still Ukrainian by any relevant metric.
I’m not a supporter of the annexation by the way & I would’ve preferred for Crimea to remain a Ukrainian territory even without knowing the consequences of the whole 2014 conflict.
I think we are more so in the latter phases of this conflict than the earlier ones, mainly because the Russian side is rapidly running out of troops, weapons, morale, and domestic support. And that's before we even get to the the economic damage sanctions are doing to the economy. At some not too distant point, something will have to give, and I don't think it will be the Ukrainian side that eventually collapses.
Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.
This is why I am confident the Ukrainians will soon gain the upper hand. They will have the morale, financial resources, and very high tech military hardware at a time when the Russians are sorely lacking in all three categories. The Ukrainians already have a massive stash of new weapons which now include smart bomb howitzers to compliment all the javelins and other man pads they been using. This is before the current 40b from the US is even factored in.
Therefore at some point in the not too distant future, we are likely to see a tipping point moment where the Ukrainians gain the upper hand in this conflict. This is of course assuming Putin doesn’t use WMDs or thermobaric weapons, which imo would be game changers that trigger nato involvement.
I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.I’d really like to see some accurate information regarding how long Russia can keep fighting with this intensity. To put it differently, what equipment do people think they will run out of first, and when? Could be anything from manpower to missiles, tanks to ammunition etc. I’m sure the Americans have a pretty good idea and will be advising Ukraine as to what weak links there are in the system, but they’re not being particularly specific. Anyone hazard a guess?
I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.
They deployed roughly 75% of their BTGs for the invasion / war. I would gather 40 to 50% of them are degraded to a substantial degree. They don’t have that many fresh BTGs to throw into the fight.I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.
Sounds like my country.I would imagine this has something to do with the fact that it's mainly men from the less and least affluent sections of Russian society who get either conscripted into the military or else join because there are not that many other options job-wise.
In other words, it's a lot easier to support war when it's not you or your sons that might well get killed or maimed.
Well, I am just repeating what I saw on CNN. They could just be cautious and conservative with their assessment.They deployed roughly 75% of their BTGs for the invasion / war. I would gather 40 to 50% of them are degraded to a substantial degree. They don’t have that many fresh BTGs to throw into the fight.
Yep, they are probably being conservative.Well, I am just repeating what I saw on CNN. They could just be cautious and conservative with their assessment.
I think the tide changed with the Lend-and-lease act. The soviets were pretty much done concerning decisive war materials / ressources.I seem to recall that when the jerries invaded Russia in ‘41 that the Russians did quite poorly so Stalin replaced the head military guy with Zukhov and then tide changed for them. Hopefully nothing like this happens in the UKR.
Plus a major difference is that in ‘41 the Russians were defending their homeland. Not the case this time.
Even more astonishing when the entire Russian military budget for 2021 was $65billion (although we now know large chunks of that were being siphoned off).Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.
I would imagine this has something to do with the fact that it's mainly men from the less and least affluent sections of Russian society who get either conscripted into the military or else join because there are not that many other options job-wise.
In other words, it's a lot easier to support war when it's not you or your sons that might well get killed or maimed.
There’s this line between my opinion and me trying to explain the intricacies of the situation… Crimea was Ukrainian and the annexation & the referendum were unlawful etc. So yeah, all the cultural things that I’m talking about do not in any way excuse what Putin did in 2014, nor do they legitimize the “referendum”.What a middle paragraph. Crimea was part of Ukraine and therefore Ukrainian. That’s the only relevant metric.
Ukraine was entirely responsible (both as a Soviet Republic and then as an independent nation) for the development of its infrastructure to make it a liveable and arable land. Russia could never previously get it a fresh water supply, prior it to becoming part of the Ukrainian SSR, nor once it did to invade and occupy it.
Where we go from here though with the occupation and annexation of Crimea, I don’t know. Hopefully the bridge gets blown, the fresh water supply gets cut off again, and then we can start from there.
I seem to recall that when the jerries invaded Russia in ‘41 that the Russians did quite poorly so Stalin replaced the head military guy with Zukhov and then tide changed for them. Hopefully nothing like this happens in the UKR.
Plus a major difference is that in ‘41 the Russians were defending their homeland. Not the case this time.
I think the tide changed with the Lend-and-lease act. The soviets were pretty much done concerning decisive war materials / resources.
https://time.com/6179221/putin-information-war-column/Putin May Be Winning the Information War Outside of the U.S. and Europe
The first real shift was the battle for Moscow, which was won by throwing tens of thousands of people into a meat grinder basically (which was more or less Stalin’s & Zhukov’s tactics for the entire war).I think the tide changed with the Lend-and-lease act. The soviets were pretty much done concerning decisive war materials / ressources.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/21/7347610/President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that today Ukraine is being defended in the war by 700,000 military personnel.
Interesting DW article about what Germany is (still not) doing to help Ukraine. Compare what Germany is (not) doing with what USA is doing.
https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-is-germany-losing-its-eu-leadership-role/a-61879431
"The European Union expects strong leadership of Germany. But in the current crisis, the German government has continually acted very late and only in response to external pressure," said Weichsel.
This Friday, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk, told the RND media network that he believes "the chancellor doesn't want to deliver" weapons to Ukraine. "One can get the impression that they are waiting for a cease-fire," he said. "Then the pressure will be off Germany, and then there will be no need to make any more courageous decisions."
...
What can Germany do to regain trust? Political scientist Weichsel has three suggestions: "Support Ukraine's swift accession to the EU, provide consistent support for Ukraine's military defense, and complete a rapid and successful energy turnaround."
Indeed impressive numbers on the military side, Ukraine won't be running out of equipment, ammo or supplies anytime soon. What does worry me on the other hand is their overall economy and the situation of the civilian population even in the large parts of the country that are untouched by the conflict or the areas liberated like Kyiv and surrounding. I heard somewhere that their GDP estimate for 2022 is now -50%, given the inability to do some of their regular economic activities such as the harvest and export of grains. That loss of income to the population is a number that I don't think the US & other countries will be willing to make up, and could eventually prove a limiting factor in how long Ukraine can prosecute the war.Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.
Meanwhile……
Meanwhile……
It obviously depends a lot on how the war goes and if Putin manages to stay in power (and whenever his eventual successor would be one of his followers or someone with directly opposite views on the foreign politics in general).Is there a feasible non violent resolution for Crimea? I ask specially to those who know more about the region's history and their people's point of view, like @harms.
For example, is there a chance that maybe one of the following solutions could appear in an eventual peace treaty?
1. Crimea as a UN sponsored protectorate, followed by a 10 year deferred referendum on the region's future.
2. Draw a soft land border that allows both countries to get their strategic goals (de facto control of their borders, secured water supply, free access to all ports, etc) instead of their military goals.
I'm aware that both scenarios would be rejected by both countries as of now, but I'm curious about the crimeans stance since we don't hear a lot from them.
Putin May Be Winning the Information War Outside of the U.S. and Europe
https://time.com/6179221/putin-information-war-column/
