Europe at War

[amw]

Purported military experts on social media frequently repeat claims that Russia's military capabilities are nearly exhausted and soon it will be forced to sue for peace because it will run out of ammunition/missiles/troops/tanks/etc. I personally have no idea how long it "should" take to seize, say, a city of 400,000 inhabitants defended by a brigade of ~10-15,000 professional troops (Mariupol), and therefore cannot comment on whether taking 82 days to fully capture the city (all of the populated areas of which had been seized within the first 3 weeks) is a sign of military incompetence or not. The fact that Russia seems to be slowly but steadily gaining territory, while Ukraine is losing several hundred troops per day, suggest that the Russian military is at least outperforming the Ukrainian one, and the fact that Russia is distributing Russian passports to residents of conquered territories (at least in the Donbass), building new infrastructure, and taking over industrial operations there suggest that Russian leadership believes, at least, that it can dig into these territories and occupy them in the long term. This indicates either a high degree of confidence in the military, or a high degree of delusion.

Ukrainian sources claim that 100-200 soldiers are killed in action per day, with additional wounded. This suggests totals are now 14,000-28,000 KIA (7-14% of Ukraine's professional military; exact numbers of Territorial Defence/National Guard/assorted paramilitary personnel that have been mobilised for this war are not known). Russian sources claim 10,000-15,000 Ukrainian prisoners of war, although the true number is probably lower. The number of wounded is not known. Pro-Russian sources estimate total Ukrainian losses are 70-80,000, which is a fairly believable figure (35,000-50,000 WIA scales pretty well with the KIA estimates).

Russia has only acknowledged ~3,000 KIA, but pro-Russian sources claim about 13,000 KIA in total (5,000 Russian military and 8,000 LPR/DPR militias). Ukrainian and Western sources estimate total Russian losses at 35,000-40,000, and the number of Russian prisoners of war claimed by Ukraine is fairly small (2,000-ish), suggesting 20,000-25,000 WIA, which seems a bit low. I've seen estimates of ~175,000 Russian troops committed to Ukraine along with ~35,000 LPR/DPR paramilitaries, almost equal to the size of the Ukrainian professional military, and would mean that a minimum of ~20% of this force is now permanently out of action. Russia is fighting very cautiously, which suggests the real number may be higher.

What this does seem to indicate is that, where attacking forces usually lose more personnel than defending ones, Russia seems to have negated this advantage through its use of artillery and missiles, of which it uses approximately 10 times more than Ukraine does per day. These are apparently being resupplied without issue. I have seen it argued that no Western country at this point has the industrial capacity in existence to match Russian weapons production; I have no idea if that's true. Russian troops are also using the equipment they have been trained since the start of their careers to use, so this disparity isn't fixable by merely sending Western weapons to Ukraine; Ukrainian troops would have to then be trained to use those weapons, and that would take time, during which Russia can seize more territory and etc. Meanwhile, Western sources have published many articles claiming that Ukrainian conscripts (Territorial Defence, usually) are sent to the field with only five days, or only two weeks, etc, of training, which then contributes to higher death rates. Either way Ukraine loses ground, both bodies and acres.

Obviously, Russia could run out of ammunition next week or whatever. But it is not acting like it expects to. In fact it seems to have settled into a status quo of permanent war à la America's War on Terror.  Or the sanctions could finally cripple Russia's economy and industrial capacity. But Western countries have been unwilling to implement these sanctions fully, because they would also cripple Western economies in the process. Or the Russian government could collapse. But it would probably be replaced with an even more hard-line far-right regime (in Russia, Putin is considered a "moderate"). And it's theoretically possible that some group of Ukrainian forces has been held in reserve and will emerge to launch a massive counteroffensive in August or November or whenever. But it looks very likely that there is no military victory possible for Ukraine at this point.

As for political solutions... as I said, it does seem as though Russia is now looking to annex at least the Donbass (rather than leaving it as an independent state or an autonomous region within Ukraine), and has no reason to accede to a political resolution that allows the Ukrainian government to take a few years to train up its military with NATO weapons and retake that territory. Russia will demand complete demilitarisation (and possibly settle for a compromise where Ukraine retains a much smaller military), or continue attacking until the Ukrainian state collapses as a coherent entity. So it also doesn't seem like there's any political victory possible for Ukraine. (And with Ukraine under martial law, having banned more than a dozen opposition parties and cracked down on press freedom, etc, its democracy has already essentially been "annihilated". It is now approximately as democratic as Russia is.)

So, yeah. The West was, for whatever reason, not prepared for this and will have to take the L. If it wants to win victories in the future either some amount of industrial warfare capacity has to be built for "next time", and a new Cold War should be undertaken, or Russia has to be accepted as a legitimate political actor with legitimate concerns, so that there will be future grounds for diplomatic negotiation. Or, of course, if the West is comfortable sacrificing Ukraine, the status quo can continue indefinitely in the hope that maybe Russia will collapse by itself eventually, the war will probably be over by Christmas, and who cares about the death toll. I have a guess as to which one most Western countries will choose.

[LKB]

Your definition of "victory" includes a concession to Russia and does not mention reparations at all.  Your definition would likely invite contempt from the Russians, and all that implies from one of your prior posts. 

No matter, that will not happen.

It would end the war, and the only claim Putin could make would be that he still had forces in place as before. Not really a victory, though he undoubtedly would present it as such.

As for reparations, that is for the future. One thing at a time...

[Karl Henning]

Honestly, anyone who really thinks this war will eventually result in a complete Russian defeat and capitulation and in Ukraine's getting back all their territories, including Crimea, is delusional.

No tick ever agrees to be removed from its host.

[Madiel]

Reports of a conversation between Putin and Macron just before the invasion suggest Putin has somewhat peculiar views, or at least expresses somewhat peculiar views, about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government.

That there's been unrest in Ukrainian politics over the years, between Russophiles and western-looking factions, is undoubtedly true. That Zelenskyy is personally responsible for a bloody coup is rather more fanciful.

[71 dB]

Good news from the UK: Finland & Sweden NATO memberships ratified + Boris Johnson is finally resigning!  0:) Thank you! 
🇬🇧

[Todd]

I personally have no idea how long it "should" take to seize, say, a city of 400,000 inhabitants defended by a brigade of ~10-15,000 professional troops (Mariupol), and therefore cannot comment on whether taking 82 days to fully capture the city (all of the populated areas of which had been seized within the first 3 weeks) is a sign of military incompetence or not.

No one else on this forum does, either.  Nor does anyone in the press.  Nor does anyone in the military, really.  Triumphalist proclamations of Russian weakness do not change that.  There are a couple severe flaws with Western analyses on the military action in Ukraine.  First, the Russian military is being compared to the US military and its bold, quick military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The unparalleled conventional firepower of the US military is to be celebrated, and Shock and Awe is a doctrine to embrace.  Being able to launch over six-hundred cruise missiles on one city in one night, in tandem with traditional airstrikes, and being able to swoop in on capital cities of far smaller, weaker foes in a matter of days is the yardstick of successful war.  Any country that cannot do that is second rate at best.  Any non-American country that can do that is a threat to freedom.  You get it.  Second, proper definitions of victory and defeat are kind of hard to come by.  The US demonstrated its He Man military power earlier this century.  And it won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Right?

It is now approximately as democratic as Russia is.

That The West should be willing to prolong a war for something called Ukrainian Democracy - whatever that is, exactly - is just another of the follies of this war.  It would be far worse if it were not Slavs doing almost all of the dying. 

It would end the war, and the only claim Putin could make would be that he still had forces in place as before. Not really a victory, though he undoubtedly would present it as such.

As for reparations, that is for the future. One thing at a time...

What you describe is an ambiguous victory at best.  It is not at all explicit.  This is the exact opposite of your prior proclamation.  Even this will not happen.

[Florestan]

Good news from the UK: Finland & Sweden NATO memberships ratified + Boris Johnson is finally resigning!  0:) Thank you! 
🇬🇧

The Romanian bicameral Parliament is on vacation but they'll be convened in a joint extraordinary session for the ratification, probably next week.

What I can't wait for, though, is your thanking Turkey and waving their flag when time comes. 

[71 dB]

The Romanian bicameral Parliament is on vacation but they'll be convened in a joint extraordinary session for the ratification, probably next week.

Good good... 

What I can't wait for, though, is your thanking Turkey and waving their flag when time comes. 

After some point there are no thanks. Early birdies deserve thanks.  0:)

[Que]

What I can't wait for, though, is your thanking Turkey and waving their flag when time comes. 

Turkey will stall at the last moment and demand additional concessions, mark my words....

Blackmail and extortion are Erdoğan's specialities.

[Todd]

Blackmail and extortion are Erdoğan's specialities.

Blackmail and extortion are two of the key tools in all international politics.

[Todd]

The Great Global Rearmament

Ukraine and the Dangerous Rise in Military Spending

In the wake of Russia's invasion, it is easy to see these increases as necessary. But the belief that expanding defense budgets will necessarily help safeguard the world is both flawed and dangerous. Rather than deterring violence, rising military spending can contribute to a more fraught and explosive international system. It does this while diverting resources from other critical priorities, such as improving health care, preventing starvation, and fighting the climate crisis. These issues are just as important to the world's security as is stopping Russian aggression. But states must better balance the short-term military security crisis with long-term human security challenges if they have any hope of addressing the latter.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

The world has learned a lot in seventy years.

[71 dB]

Thank you Poland! 
🇵🇱

[71 dB]

Thank you Albania and Germany! 
🇦🇱 🇩🇪

[drogulus]

     The experts could be wrong and Russia conjure up ammo for its artillery. I'll bet they are right. Consider, though, that tank war failed, infantry can only go where artillery goes first and the air force can't operate outside the SAMNet.

     As long as the ammo lasts the advantage in artillery tubes will continue and the Russians will be able to make some progress. When ammo gets perilously low the will have to conserve.

     The Ukes now have the best artillery in the world, but the numbers are small and resupply will be a problem, though I expect that to improve.

     We've understood for some time that the war will last at least for months and very likely into next year. NATO has no choice but to fight a war of attrition as long as Ukraine continues to defend itself.

     I would say every gun is a theft from those who hunger for tax cuts. Even that is kind of false, since no country choose between essentials that can afford all of them. It underfunds according to an ideological presup, not an inability to provide, which in the case of the NATO countries is not a problem at all.

     The poor are not fed, if they're not, because they don't deserve food, or whatever they lack. Money "runs out" for them, then un-runs out for the next tax cut.

     It's common for a war to be "over by Christmas" at the beginning. This is one that might drag on. Russia has no position it can negotiate. At this point they will fight and hope they can outlast the resolve of their opponents. They will rely on NATO to stop resupplying Ukraine. Is Russia trying to convince Poland to abandon Ukraine? That would seem to be an impossible task.

[Karl Henning]

     The poor are not fed, if they're not, because they don't deserve food, or whatever they lack. Money "runs out" for them, then un-runs out for the next tax cut.

"Arm Ukraine, or feed the poor" isn't the choice, anyway. We could feed the poor, but the American affluent cannot be bothered. Token as the effort was, I remember collecting money in half-pint milk cartons for various needy folks when I was a boy. Gawd, what a loser I am.

[Florestan]

/quote]
    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

If only Putin read that! He'd instantly stop the war and start feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.

[Todd]

If only Putin read that! He'd instantly stop the war and start feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.

I'd settle for US policymakers acting on the very well-known words.  Even Ike couldn't, so powerful are US economic and institutional interests.  Oh well.  Onward to progress, and such.

[Todd]

Ukraine's Implausible Theories of Victory

The Fantasy of Russian Defeat and the Case for Diplomacy

[Florestan]

I'd settle for US policymakers acting on the very well-known words.  Even Ike couldn't, so powerful are US economic and institutional interests.  Oh well.  Onward to progress, and such.

Honestly, I'm greatly puzzled by the fact that a cynical Realpolitiker like you believe that such sentimental, empty rhetoric should have any bearing on international politics --- and this, only a few posts after you stated that blackmail and extortion are key tools in international politics.

Plus, if Mahathma Gandhi had said that, he'd have been credible. Coming from a professional top-rank officer who fought in the WWII, those words are just sentimental, empty rhetoric.

[Todd]

Honestly, I'm greatly puzzled by the fact that a cynical Realpolitiker like you believe that such sentimental, empty rhetoric should have any bearing on international politics --- and this, only a few posts after you stated that blackmail and extortion are key tools in international politics.

Plus, if Mahathma Gandhi had said that, he'd have been credible. Coming from a professional top-rank officer who fought in the WWII, those words are just sentimental, empty rhetoric.

I suggest you read a bio on Ike.  Ambrose's is the go-to, but there are others.  Eisenhower was not using empty rhetoric.  The desire to reduce the amount of public resources the US devotes to security is not incompatible with Realism.  Quite the contrary.