Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jadeddog t1_j6029ta wrote

Reply to comment by constantmusic in Norway will send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. The goverment is planning a larger contribution that will span several years. by Noxzen

Everybody is in agreement that this war is going to last a long time still. Never underestimate Russia's ability to absorb tremendous casualty rates

233

eetuu t1_j605eub wrote

How many men is Ukraine losing? Will they evantually run out of manpower?

54

Drgntrnr t1_j608qbq wrote

A lot, but they also have a lot, and a population that is extremely willing to fight. They will be able to get and train people.

Millions fled Russia in the “partial” mobilization, so it seems unlikely to me that they’ll be able to get enough people for a full scale mobilization; especially as the economy worsens, and the war continued to slog on.

96

Oerthling t1_j60bte5 wrote

What people also tend to forget is that Russia is a huge country with some potentially scary neighbors and regions that might take advantage of the situation if local army presence goes down. So while Russia has more population it also has a lot of border area and regions where they need to keep a strong military presence.

Ukraine OTOH has only 1 country to worry about (plus possibly Belarus, but the Belarusian army is tiny and needed to keep its dictator in power.

Thus in practice the size and population difference is much less relevant than it looks at first sight.

70

Drgntrnr t1_j60ccpn wrote

And they’ll be able to maintain that defense easily with all the troops they have parked over in Ukraine. No issues defending if you’re not busy attacking.

9

DlSSATISFIEDGAMER t1_j61n3ek wrote

also worth noting that Russian mobilizations are pulling workers out of the economy which effectively lowers their GDP and puts more hurt on the economy. And it can't take many more rounds of mobilization before it goes into the shitter. Then they might be back to Yeltsin-era levels of economically fucked.

5

FnordFinder t1_j63f8jd wrote

Not just GDP but it takes tax revenue right out of the governments coffers when they need it the most. It becomes a cycle of self-injury that will only get worse the longer it continues.

1

Lazorgunz t1_j60njpz wrote

the current trend is that russia gets worse trained and equipped troops while Ukraine gets better trained and equipped troops. I doubt the initially high losses on Ukraine's side where a lot of territorial defense units were holding back the 'best' russia had will be repeated.

Russia's best is long dead, while thousands of western trained troops flood to Ukraine's front lines. Add modern APCs, IFVs and now MBTs, the tech advantage is becoming extremely one sided. Dont forget, even now, Russia has more troops, arti, tanks etc than Ukraine, and the losses have been steadily decreasing in relation to russia's based of best guesses by unaffiliated sources

In 6 months to a year, itl be an Iraq style turkeyshoot.

Ukraine has lost around what russia has, very roughly. so 125k? they have millions of recruits. Last i heard they were still turning people down because they just arent able, even with western help, to train everyone that wants to fight.

Morale for the fight is still sky high in Ukraine. while they have overall less manpower, they wont run out for years yet. were talking several million people still willing but not able to get into uniform

25

ApostrophesForDays t1_j613g6y wrote

I don't think Ukraine has lost as many troops as Russia has. Perhaps you saw that Ukraine has high casualties and thought that meant "killed"? Because casualties is a broader term that includes killed, but also includes wounded, missing, or otherwise out of action. I could believe Ukrainian casualties are 125k maybe. Many do get wounded. But unlike their Russian counterparts, they often get proper medical treatment and many even get to go back into the fight. Russians get left to die. Likewise, Russians killed is definitely over 100k by now. The rest that counts as casualties is likely an even bigger number.

14

Lazorgunz t1_j613npn wrote

yea my bad, did indeed use Ukrainian casualyies vs ruzzian KIA

either way, that just further points at the mismatch

4

WildSauce t1_j614zc2 wrote

France in early 1914 and Ukraine in early 2022 had effectively the same population, about 40 million people. France suffered 1.4 million dead and 4.2 million wounded in WWI. Ukraine so far has suffered somewhere around 100k total casualties.

It is extremely difficult to break a modern nation through sheer body count. You might be able to break the political will to fight, but it would take a very, very long time for this war to burn itself out through casualties alone.

24

paulusmagintie t1_j61895v wrote

Can't really compare to WW1 or 2 since that was an all out total war with pretty much every country going 100% for 6 years.

7

torlesse t1_j61vo2a wrote

Umm, Ukraine is in total war. All their major cities are getting bombed, you think some are just relaxing at home like how the Americans were during the 20 year Afghan war?

26

paulusmagintie t1_j622qtd wrote

WW1 toral War was 60,000 dead in one battle in a day.

They are just not comparable.

2

MetzgerWilli t1_j666hfd wrote

Those battles were the absolute exception though. Even in WW1 few areas and days saw anything close to 60k deaths

2

WildSauce t1_j61c7u8 wrote

Ukraine today is in much the same position as France in WWI, being under invasion from a neighbor who poses an existential threat. But I do agree that Russia does not compare, because their people do not have that sort of strong reason to wish for continued war. High casualties very well may lead to the end of the war through political defeat in Russia.

12

FarawayFairways t1_j610j8o wrote

> How many men is Ukraine losing? Will they evantually run out of manpower?

Casualty rates are often reported as being broadly equal, so it could come down to a crude equation of whether Ukraine can retake territory before Russia would inevitably win a numbers game

At the moment Ukraine has been able to regain territory at a rate to suggest that they can get over the line. If the front deadlocks though, then that becomes a different equation

What happens however if they push Russia up to their border? Does Russia continue firing from the other side? In which case does Ukraine then have to cross the border?

23

Jacc3 t1_j62psm8 wrote

Neither Ukraine nor Russia seem to show a lack of manpower anytime soon. The issue for both sides are mostly material, which much depends on how aid Ukraine will get and how large Russia's weapon stockpiles actually are.

> What happens however if they push Russia up to their border? Does Russia continue firing from the other side? In which case does Ukraine then have to cross the border?

Ukraine has already been attacking military targets in Russia proper, so that's definitely something they'd continue to do if Russia refuses to give up. Sending troops in any significant number over the border seems unlikely tho.

But I doubt that would be an issue. If Russia would lose the war that hard, war support would probably be quite low in all classes of society.

11

CDNChaoZ t1_j63ladv wrote

Ukrainians are motivated, down to the last person, be it senior, woman, or child. Russians, not so much.

3

HouseOfSteak t1_j63mgpd wrote

Are Ukrainian casualty rates including Ukrainian civilians, or just its military?

1

FM-101 t1_j60hymh wrote

People are fleeing russia because of the war.
People are flocking to Ukraine because of the war

Yes, russia has more people but they are mostly unmotivated and will become even less motivated and willing as time goes on.
For Ukraine its the opposite. In terms of manpower Ukraine will be fine in the end.

3

Responsible_Walk8697 t1_j60a8q9 wrote

Plus I think no one wants this to end quickly. Russia can be crippled for good, and that’s where this is going.

2

Shurqeh t1_j60ghpq wrote

you're suggestion is tantamount to the west being happy to spend Ukrainian lives to make sure Russia is down for good. Which is exactly what Russia's propaganda wants us to believe.

12

Responsible_Walk8697 t1_j60m1ui wrote

I get your meaning, but I don't think Ukraine's agenda is different from the US / NATO / rest of the West.

- If you hear the Ukrainians (meaning their Gov), they are nowhere near ready to sit to negotiate with Putin. For them it's taking their territory back (including Crimea) or nothing. Analysts (for what they might know) think that could take years.

- Russia made a mess in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea (Ukraine) and now Ukraine again. Everyone was hesitant to intervene, but now that they did, it's unclear a quick hack would do.

- There is the precedent of intervening in Iraq, not finishing the job, and the US establishment pushing for a second round. Not sure they will leave the table until Russia has been knocked from old superpower to regional power.

- The US has Russia in mind, but also China. The US has been talking about the "shift to Asia" for 20 years. Multiple latent conflicts (Philippine, Vietnam, Taiwan) could kick off in the future. Crippling Russia has both the benefit of removing one problem off the table, weakening a China partner, and sending a clear message to China.

I cannot see the conflict being brushed under the carpet and forgotten. All participants (except Russia, one would assume) appear to be happy to go on for years if it gives them what they want (a strong Ukraine, a weak Russia?).

Of course they might all decide to have peace talks next week and settle. Who knows. Just not what it looks like...

14

decomposition_ t1_j60ok06 wrote

I just wanted to point out that Russia started out as a regional power going into this war, Russia never has been a superpower unless you are referring to the Soviet Union.

7

Responsible_Walk8697 t1_j60skhl wrote

Yes, you are right. There was however a perception that the Russian army was the closest adversary you could have to the US, and NATO still had Russian containment as a role. After this conflict, I doubt that will be tolerated. Whatever peace follows, Russia would have been knocked down enough that it's not a threat / able to project power again. That's what I was meant to say.

5

Gr33nBubble t1_j61bpwh wrote

Yes. Showing China that there will be a collective response from the free world if they invaded Taiwan, is very important.

3

Okbuddyliberals t1_j61tjnb wrote

Why would that be bad in the first place?

I mean, bearing in mind that the Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom against a fascist imperialist invader and are doing this freely and eagerly rather than being pushed into it by the west - with that in mind - why would it be bad?

If the Ukrainians want to fight to the last Ukrainian against the Russian menace, what's so bad about the west arming them and benefiting from it?

Seems like it would only be bad if the west was coercing and forcing Ukraine to do this

2

torlesse t1_j61w3o1 wrote

Happy? Definitely not.

But what are the options exactly? Let Russians over run Ukraine and take over?

Putin started the war and if Russia gets crippled as a result, its all on him.

2

f3n2x t1_j61qxkj wrote

Russia doesn't have the materiel to continue like this for years, they'll probably be pushed back to the border at some point this year and then we might have a situation like North Korea and South Korea where they're technically at war but nothing really happens.

1

lil_sh_t t1_j637bzs wrote

You misspelled 'tremendous disregard for life' as 'ability to absorb tremendous casualty rates'.

Russia will be crippled for years to come, as the youth will be as slaughtered as after WW2.

They were conscripting the elderly 6 months after the start of the war already.

1

go_on_now_boy t1_j60yjx7 wrote

So I guess the Reddit armchair generals were wrong when they said back in July of last year that Russia would be defeated easily.

−4