35
votes
Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - August 17
This thread is posted weekly on Thursday - please try to post relevant content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Especially significant updates may warrant a separate topic, but most should be posted here.
If you'd like to help support Ukraine, please visit the official site at https://help.gov.ua/ - an official portal for those who want to provide humanitarian or financial assistance to people of Ukraine, businesses or the government at the times of resistance against the Russian aggression.
It blew my mind a little bit to see how little the borders have changed the last many months.
One year ago
6 months ago
And current
There is simply no way this war ends in any other way than through attrition or high level politicking. Both sides are so well dug in (or keep making mistakes in their offensives) that the border from 6 months ago to today is indistinguishable from one another. I don't know if the words "frozen conflict" is the right term for it, but I have a difficult time seeing how this won't go on for many years.
Measuring territory controlled is a pretty horrible metric for measuring how a war is going. Its attractive because its very simple, you just look at lines on a map, there's no special knowledge necessary as long as everyone agrees on where the lines are (which they mostly do). And its pretty easy to say that owning more territory is good, so it looks like a very objective viewpoint.
But in reality that's just not how wars work. If you tried to use that metric in WW1, and just took random points in time to measure territory controlled and make predictions about how the war was going, you'd be horribly wrong at pretty much every point.
Obviously its not going to be a quick war, I don't know anyone knowledgeable who says the war is going to end before 2025 barring something exceptional happening, but that also doesn't mean it is going to be a stalemate forever and that nothing can be done. Russian attrition is taking a toll and the Russians cannot mobilize enough personnel to deal with the losses they are taking. There's plenty of evidence of this, from the lateral redeployments and complete lack of strategic reserves. So if the Russians suffer enough attrition that they cannot sufficiently defend a point on the frontline, the Ukrainians will be able to commit their mechanized/armored battalions with western equipment and make a breakthrough, just like they did near Kharkiv last year, except with more success given that they will have modern armor.
So while the front lines on the ground may not move much, or may not move at all due to Russian elastic defenses retaking lost territory immediately after the Ukrainian attacks, that does not mean that Ukraine is not making progress. Obviously the attrition hurts them as well, but Ukraine is not short of manpower and there's enough western material flowing in to keep the guns firing. On top of that, as the war drags on western powers are becoming more and more willing to escalate the level of aid they send to Ukraine, with F-16s just being confirmed and things like Storm Shadow not long ago. Up until now Russia has enjoyed huge advantages in long range artillery and air superiority, but with more western cruise missiles and jets flowing in to the war, those advantages will dissipate.
Now if Putin decides to call another mobilization that will reduce the Russian manpower issues, assuming they can find anyone not committed to the front who can train all of the mobilized personnel, but given the whole Wagner thing I don't think Putin is going to be very keen on doing anything that could increase domestic instability. But there's nothing he can do to reduce the balance of material swinging further and further towards Ukraine.
While World War 1 does have a reputation for being a senseless stalemate it's not at all true for the eastern front and only half-true for the western front. It was a war of movement in the beginning stages. Germany steamrolled Belgium and got within artillery range of Paris before being pushed back and digging those indeed famous trenches.
I suppose my comment about borders is because of how many laymen talk about it as the de facto way to measure how many points there are on each side. But yeah "anyone knowledgeable" is not included in that discourse, for example about the Ukrainian summer offensive which was also extremely propagandized, at least in the media in my country. There were of course experts who countered the idea that this was going to be the be all, end all of the war, but politicians were certainly quick to jump on the idea. But again, this may be different in other countries. But here, the government are really abusing this war as a way to excuse other areas of governing - the prime minister answers many critical questions with "but there's a war in Europe!".
As for your point on manpower issues, I definitely believe the opinion that once Russian elections are over, there will be another round of conscripting in Russia. And going by population, it's 1:3 in favour of Russia. However the rule of thumb is that when you're on the offensive, you need a 3:1 advantage
There's more to it than that of course, and I realise I may think of things in too simple ways. It's a special interest but I am certainly not an expert.
I didn't use WW1 as an example because it has a reputation for being a stalemate, I used it as an example because if you looked at territorial changes over time you'd be convinced that the war was either stalled or going in Germany's favor, and then suddenly Germany would just lose for no apparent reason. The point is demonstrating that lines on maps do not tell who is winning a war.
You could easily use WW2, if you looked at a map in late 1942, you would see the Japanese stalled in Guadalcanal but holding their advances everywhere else, the Germans pushing towards the Suez in Africa, and continuing to push east in Russia. The Axis powers in general would be either stalled or advancing, which just going by lines on maps would mean they would be winning.
In reality by late 1942 the war was decided in all theatres, after the defeats at Guadalcanal, Al Alamein, and Stalingrad there was no hope of any Axis victory.
For manpower, you aren't wrong that Putin may try to mobilize after the election, but its not guaranteed. So far the Russians have been doing everything they can to avoid sending conscripts to Ukraine, finding various ways to get people to volunteer or recruiting prisoners. This means that even if Putin were to do a mobilization, he would have a huge lack of qualified personnel ready to train these new soldiers. Anyone capable of training them well would be needed in Ukraine. So there will be a significant time lag between the mobilization and the troops arriving on the front. Or maybe the Wagner mutiny has him nervous enough that he won't mobilize at all, and will continue to rely on volunteers for a little longer.
Overall manpower is not a concern for either side in this war, if you look at high estimates of Ukrainian losses they're still under 200k, at least excluding the most unreasonable Russian ones. Ukraine has a population of 44 million people.
In WW1 France had a population of 40 million. They suffered ~6 million casualties and they still won. So unless this war drags on for several decades, manpower will not be a factor. The ability to motivate, train, and equip those men is what is important, and Ukraine has advantages in those areas.
This part, and u/CptBluebear's comment, made me understand your point about borders a lot better, thank you for that! They had indeed already lost the war by then - I recall an anecdote by a German pilot (or was it an aircraft engineer) who saw an Allied plane for the first time, and was dumbfounded that it was new and shiny. Because in comparison, Germany had been repairing the aircraft time and time again. And this made him realise that his side no longer stood a chance. I imagine it is much the same experiences that Russians have in Ukraine.
Do you think that the war ends any other way than through Russian instability?
Can I quickly add that I'm so appreciative of how this discussion progressed here? I've been reading a similar thread on Lemmy and it was a cesspit of posters defending entrenched views, whataboutism, and personal attacks. All y'all posts were thoughtful and focused on reaching a mutual understanding, and on the web in 2023 that's solidly the exception and not the rule.
Not really. Even if Ukraine was to retake all the land on their side of the 2014 border tomorrow, that wouldn't force Russia to stop fighting. The Russians would just fall back to their side of the border and continue the war. And Ukraine obviously does not have the capability or desire to march all the way to Moscow, given that Russia has nuclear weapons.
But that's not to say that territorial gains are meaningless, the losses in Ukraine will strengthen the position of politicians who are opposed to the war, and eventually they could manage to force Putin to end it, or remove Putin from power. Its just that military offensives alone will not end the war, they will have to force some internal Russian change
I share this notion too with @Kitahara_Kazusa.
At this point it's unlikely that anything but an internal revolt or mutiny will stop the fighting on the Russian side.
Buuut, we simply don't know. If the Ukrainians end up pushing the Russians back to the border we could see outside pressure mounting from Russia's adversaries, and perhaps more importantly their allies, to stop and take the loss.
There's plenty of reasons to call it quits already and the fact we don't see any of the aggression let up, we can start assuming internal strife may be the only way out.
I dare say France won because they wouldn't sign separate peace treaties, not because they didn't buckle hard under pressure at the end. The French mutinies weren't looking too hot either. It was touch and go for France at the end there.
Otherwise I have little to add. Your assessment on Ukraine matches what I think about it, the Manpower issues are overblown to the nth degree as if Moscow can just call on every able bodied man when the last round of mobilisation gave them some trouble already. Not to mention they're already scraping the bottom of the cosmoline barrel when it comes to hardware. Dudes with rusted AKs wasn't an uncommon sight during that mobilisation. They simply don't have the weapons and guns to mobilise another 3-400k, though I don't think this stops them from trying anyway.
On the topic of hardware, their tanks, artillery weapons, mine clearing vehicles, APCs, and everything else is diminished and continues to get decimated while the Ukrainians get more and more hardware by the day. It's just an unbalanced equation.
I don't think your axis comparison is that off, the war is already lost for Russia, they just don't want to admit it yet.
Edit: odd spelling
This is a great take that uses history as a guide. I’ll offer, however, that in this kind of war, who’s paying and why is almost more important than who’s fighting. Long wars are unpredictable wars, and all of Ukraines offensive potential dries up if the political will of its benefactors wanes.
The west is looking to spend money where money is being made. While looking at the map may not tell the whole story, it’s the measure of effectiveness of resources being pumped into this war. If that measure tells a story of battlefield failure, the resources will stop flowing and the result will be the same: a frozen conflict with seized territory that looks like Crimea after 2014, Russian in every way that matters.
That's why I think that developed countries should help Ukraine much more. It's not for the sake of defending Ukraine, it's for the sake of making Russia loose the war and stop being cancer and danger for the world.
But I think that too many western politicians and companies prefer to make business with aggresive and inhumane dictatorship, not matter how many lives will be lost, capitalism at it's best.
This is a super wild accusation tbh.
Western politicians mostly aren’t dumb, and most of them understand it’s in everyone’s interest for Russia to lose. Even from an economic perspective. That is a huge reason why the west is spending a LOT of money on Ukraine, especially the US.
Some companies still trade with Russia, yeah; but as far as countries go, Europe only trades for hard-to-replace necessities. (Except maybe germany)
It’s way too easy to just say “dumb politicians think money good capitalism best no matter the cost”. It’s also not the reality.
Yes, US is a huuuuuuuuuge help here, I agree. However EU countries could do way more than they do. Situation has changed a little bit, since finally afaik Netherlands and Denmark pledged F-16 which may finally allow Ukraine to penetrate deep into invader's territory and target key structures of its army. But I think the decision should be made much earlier, it would help enormously.
As a Polish citizen I know that lots of electronics and stuff is still transported to Belarus through Polish-Belarus borders, I even took part in protests and trying to stop the trucks near the border.
Well, I don't agree. Politicians only care about winning next elections. Which means that money has to flow, otherwise economy will drop and people will be dissatisfied because of possibility of loosing jobs. And brib... lobbying, of course. Most politicians are corrupted, otherwise we would live in a way different world.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/08/20/7416333/
Only have a Telegram link for now, but a business jet over Tver Oblast was shot down today, TASS (Russian News Agency) is reporting Prigozhin was on board: https://t.me/tass_agency/206513
Edit: BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66599733
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/08/19/7416226/
Im curious to see if f-16s will make a major difference in the battle for air for Ukraine.
It really depends on the support infrastructure that allied nations are willing/able to provide. F-16s are incredibly capable for both air-to-air combat and close air support, but keeping them fully or partially mission capable is difficult. Training for the ground personnel, parts sustainment and availability, and general airframe fatigue is a major hurdle for any nation during peace or war. All that being said, I hope like hell this acquisition will turn the tide.
I don’t think that will be an issue. Right now, with 8 pilots being trained, they are training 65 support staff. It’s also a massively deployed system with a vast amount of parts and skilled staff throughout NATO, so there shouldn’t be any shortages on the supplies side either.
I hope you’re right. Having seen first hand how long it takes to develop organizational competency on a new airframe, they do have their work cut out for them, but I’m thrilled that the deal has finally been made.
they have a lot to do in terms of maintenance and such but at least they took the first step