That’s my question. What will happen in the Russia-Ukraine War? And how do you know?
I honestly have no idea. To my eye it looks like the war will go on for the foreseeable future with no clear winner and both sides claiming victory. At this point practically all of the coverage of the war consists of press releases.
I also believe that the Germans will find some reason or other for not fulfilling their pledge to stop buying Russian oil and gas but that’s a different subject.
I don’t know either. Right now, each side has political goals for the conflict that appear unattainable in the near-to-medium term, given the present circumstances. Assuming the same conditions remain in place, such as continued western support to Ukraine, and Russia keeping this as a “special military operation” and not a formal war, then attritional warfare will likely continue.
The war is not stalemated. The Russians continue to make slow advances, especially in the east. They have committed only about 10 to 15% of their land forces, and most of their infantry is comprised of the Donbas militias, which have been considerably upgraded.
The attrition is nearly all on the Ukrainian side. Their fixed wing and rotary wing air forces are mostly destroyed and inactive. What is left of the Ukrainian armored vehicles is dispersed and in hiding. Most of the M777’s and HIMARS have been destroyed by counter battery fire. They are drafting teenage boys and middle-aged men, and they are sending them to the fronts with minimal training. They have formed penal brigades, and sent them to the front.
Recent comments by Russian leaders imply that Russia intends to occupy all of Ukraine and demilitarize and denazify it. After that they will partition Ukraine. How much they will annex seems to be up in the air, but certainly all the predominantly Russian speaking areas will be absorbed into the Russian Federation in one form or another.
The important thing right now is that the Ukrainians are shelling the area around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is controlled by the Russians. Evidently the Ukrainians hope to create an environmental crisis that will force a NATO intervention.
We could still get a general European war, which could (would?) spill over into the Far East. The wild card there is North Korea. The Kims are likely to assume that an America engaged in a European war would not be able to fight in the East, and they might invade the South.
Bob Sykes,
Out of curiosity, and not animus, would you please post your definition of “Nazi†?
@bob sykes
We could still get a general European war …
Regardless of any Alabamian orbital body may say, that is utter nonsense. The Russians do not have the ability to move much farther than the western Ukraine or Baltic State borders.
A sustained war requires not only the ability to manufacture beans, bullets, and bandages, but it requires the ability to deliver them. The Russians could produce the equipment and munitions needed and protect the manufacturing facilities. but they could not deliver those supplies to the troops on a westward campaign.
Furthermore, there is troop quality. To my knowledge, the Russians still follow Soviet military doctrine. This allows quick training, but lacking a robust NCO and junior officer corps, it is a top-down structure. So, it requires a senior officer to order a convoy to disperse.
Even were the Russians able to invade Poland and/or Hungry, they do not have the manpower needed to occupy that territory. There is a reason the KGB was feared. They had to be to keep the Polish and Hungarians subdued.
While the US would not lose a war against Russia or China, an invasion of either would fail, for similar reasons. Unfortunately, today’s warmongers have learned nothing. After our resounding successes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, they want to bring the party to the major leagues.
(Full disclosure: I am a warmonger, but I only monger for competently conducted wars. We declare war. We win war. We go home.)
Bob,
I think most of what you say is not correct.
For example, the Russians have a greater manpower problem right now than the Ukrainians, and the Russians have been short of infantry since the beginning. I’m not sure where you are getting the 10-15% of land forces from unless you’re considering every Russian with military experience who could be called up in a mobilization. The bulk of the trained and active force is currently fighting in Ukraine. If Russia actually did have 85+ percent of its manpower sitting on the sidelines, it would have used it.
I believe Bob’s meaning is a disproportionate amount of heavy fighting / dying in the Donbas on the Russian side is from conscripted soldiers in the declared DPR/LPR states. So the amount of fighting the regular Russian army is seeing is a bit less. If you consider the whole of the Russian army; it could about 15% are seeing frontline fighting on a given day; if one considers about 50% of forces must stay at home to maintain minimum security, and of the remaining 50%, perhaps 2/3 are rotated and rested away from frontline fighting on a regular basis as a best practice.
As to manpower — Ukrainians have enforced mobilization, the Russians haven’t. So the Russians could be in want of troops but also have a greater potential to enlarge their army if the decision is made to do so.
My assessment is things haven’t really changed in the last 4 months. The Russians keep grinding away — but that’s not the biggest concern. The thing to note is things continue to escalate — ever more advanced weapons deliveries, attacks on Russia ex-Crimea, shelling of nuclear power plants, increasing tensions in Lithuania, the European energy situation getting worse.
It seems improbable the situation triggers a real crisis (like a nuclear exchange or the collapse of government(s)) — but I can’t see how having the pressure keep building won’t shatter the whole edifice at some point.
“If you consider the whole of the Russian army; it could about 15% are seeing frontline fighting on a given day;”
That would suggest that only 15% of Russian units are engaged in this war when in reality, it is well over 80%. And most assessments agree that Russian units are not fully-manned. Units do get rotated off the front line, but the bulk of Russian ground combat power is focused on Ukraine.
And this is a huge frontline considering the total number of forces on each side – which makes them more spread out and also makes it more difficult to concentrate forces for breakthroughs. Breakthroughs require units in reserve to exploit and expand the breakthrough.
Russia isn’t doing such operations because it doesn’t have the manpower or logistics.
“As to manpower — Ukrainians have enforced mobilization, the Russians haven’t. So the Russians could be in want of troops but also have a greater potential to enlarge their army if the decision is made to do so.”
That’s definitely true. There are a lot of reasons why Putin doesn’t want to do this, however. And mobilization would take several months at least, longer to get new recruits fully trained. That would also be dangerous in that it would signal that the war is existential for Russia and that they are totally committed to winning,
@ Gary,
OK. Naziism, like Fascism, is a form of socialism. Both support all the usual socialist programs of universal free education, free medical care, senior citizen pensions, etc. But both valorize the nation in place of the proletariate, so they are not universalist like communism. Both allow private ownership of the means of production, but it is heavily regulated.
Mussolini proposed syndicalism, in which industries like steel or electricity were to be organized into cartels run by committees of workers, owners, and managers. The syndicates were supposed to set prices, wages, and production quotas. I don’t think it ever happened.
Mussolini originally was a senior leader in the Italian (Marxist) Socialist Party. He edited their journal, and even Lenin cited him. However, his conversion to Italian nationalism, and his support of Italy’s entry into WW I (on the side of the Allies) led to his expulsion from the Italian Socialist Party. He went on to form Fascism.
Fascism (and Naziism) were popular mass movements throughout Europe and the US in the 1930’s. Time made Hitler “Man of the Year†in 1935(?), and there is a video of GB Shaw extolling Fascism. The Prince Consort of the Netherlands in the 1930’s/1940’s was a Nazi.
The current junta running Ukraine (installed by the US in 2014) is infested and controlled by Nazis who are descendants of the Banderista Nazis who fought along side the Germans in WW II. Stalingrad saw Nazi/Fascist divisions from virtually every country in occupied Europe. They wanted to be there.
Naziism imposed detailed regulations on businesses of all types. Towards the end workers, owners and managers were drafted into a single union.
Naziism espoused an extreme form of racialism, the mythical Aryan, and tried to resurrect a bogus ancient Aryan mythology and religion.
Naziism also embraced extreme forms environmentalism. The Nazis were the first Green Party and the most successful Green Party yet.
The Jews were killed for environmental reasons as well lunatic racial reasons. The Nazis also killed cripples, Gypsys, and mentally retarded for eugenic reasons.
Please note that the Netherlands and other European countries like the UK and even Canada have reinstated euthanasia for eugenics reasons.
Germany lost WW II, but the Nazis ultimately won.
Maybe its about definitions.
It is clear Russian troops are being rotated in/out of frontline fighting — otherwise we’d see videos of overutilization like we have seen in the Ukrainian army. My understanding is rotation best practices is about 50/50 frontline vs rest or even less time in the frontline. If 80% of troops are on the frontline, its impossible do any sustainable rotation.
So it can be true that 80% of the deployable Russian army is involved in the Ukrainian war, but perhaps 30-50% are actually engaged in fighting (sitting in a trench) at any one time. And the deployable Russian army is a fraction (somewhere around 1/2) of the total Russian army — again, Russia has conscripts/conscription but they aren’t being sent to Ukraine, and beyond that, a significant portion of the army is on base as a minimum defense force.
As to whether Russians think its existential — its a wonder anyone asks that question. The Russians have been clear on the matter for a decade. One can hope Putin will surprise everyone by standing down if he is next asked to accept defeat or escalate.
Thank you.
Too many people who use the term are only name-calling.
“Maybe its about definitions.”
Could be. What most intel/military people look at is organized combat units since it’s those units that do the bulk of the fighting. Most of those are in the Ukraine theater, and most are undermanned. How many are actually on the front and actively fighting at any given time vs. how many are resting, reconstituting, or reorganizing in the rear is not something I have estimates for. But the last time I checked, ~85% of Russian ground combat units were in the Ukraine theater, which constitutes the bulk of their ground combat forces. And there are also many other types of units involved in the operation, Rosgvardia (Russian National Guard), Wagner group, and various militias, but they do not have much capability for offensive operations.
“As to whether Russians think its existential — its a wonder anyone asks that question. The Russians have been clear on the matter for a decade.”
I agree they have, but their initial war plan didn’t work. They could continue to muddle through as they’ve been doing for the past couple of months, they could try to declare the parts of Ukraine they have taken as “independent” and call that victory, or they could seek more maximalist goals and go all in, which would very likely require mobilization. But going “all in” also increases the risks because if Putin and Russian elites lose after going all in, they probably lose everything. And that doesn’t happen quickly – Russia has lots of equipment, but it would need to train and stand up new units.
“Naziism imposed detailed regulations on businesses of all types. Towards the end workers, owners and managers were drafted into a single union.”
Describes Ukraine? No.
“Naziism espoused an extreme form of racialism, the mythical Aryan, and tried to resurrect a bogus ancient Aryan mythology and religion.”
Describes Ukraine? No. (Russia closer with its Orthodoxy.)
“Naziism also embraced extreme forms environmentalism. The Nazis were the first Green Party and the most successful Green Party yet.”
Describes Ukraine? No.
“The Jews were killed for environmental reasons as well lunatic racial reasons. The Nazis also killed cripples, Gypsys, and mentally retarded for eugenic reasons.”
Describes Ukraine? No.
“Time made Hitler “Man of the Year†in 1935(?), and there is a video of GB Shaw extolling Fascism. ”
Describes Putin better than any Ukraine leader.
So none of the descriptions fit Ukraine. All that is left is that some people in Ukraine are children of former Nazis. Its just name calling to justify what you want to do anyway.
Does Russia view it as existential? Do its neighbors think Russia is an existential threat to them? As to the first, Russia clearly needs the economic vassalage. Was there ever a threat Ukraine would attack Russia? No. Was there a threat they would try to join NATO? Yes, because Russia was viewed as an existential threat. The same view held by all of the other countries who recently joined NATO and now with Finland and Sweden wanting to join.
So I find it really hard to judge the sincerity of that Russian belief, especially because they keep engaging in the kinds of behaviors that make those other countries want to join NATO and EU. I guess to be fair it is certainly possible that they are totally insight free and so behaviorally inept they cant see its their own behaviors leading to the (probably false) existential threats they think they see.
Steve
“But going “all in†also increases the risks because if Putin and Russian elites lose after going all in, they probably lose everything”
Agreed this is the risk. My interpretative lens is to put the situation into the larger Russian historical context. In living memory, Russia did voluntarily lose a war with the West, the Cold War. And 90’s Russia was a rotten experience (economic collapse, hyper-inflation, terrorism, guerilla movements, demographic collapse) which led many to question if Russia would exist as a state. Given the actions / stated desire of many in the West to return Russia to that place, a weak, chaotic and irrelevant country — the decision makers in Russia who have a visceral recollection of that time will consider it existential that Russia not lose another war to the West — and going to a true war footing is probably preferable to losing.
By the way, this is why US policy towards Russia in the 90’s was a mistake.
This doesn’t mean Russia will win — but I suspect Russia will keep escalating until they think they have reestablished deterrence from the West; a reality where American policy makers will consider Russian red lines before making policy.
In that respect, the war is both a bust and very dangerous. The US isn’t really paying a huge cost (no soldiers, economy doing better then Europe, Japan) and American policy makers seem determined to push unless/until there is a crisis.
You ignore or forget that the real push is coming from Ukraine. We are providing arms and intel but the will to fight comes from Ukraine itself. This is existential for them. Rather than be part of Russia they are will to fight against a country that, on paper, they have no chance of winning against. They would rather die than be part of Russia. That says a lot not just about the Ukrainians.
Steve
bob sykes: OK. Naziism, like Fascism, is a form of socialism. Both support all the usual socialist programs of universal free education, free medical care, senior citizen pensions, etc.
Uh, no. Ask the Jews at Auschwitz about universal health care under the Nazis. Nazis did not support universal social programs. They only supported social programs for so-called Aryans. They were no more socialist than the military, where everyone gets fed. But fascism is not an economic doctrine. They adopted different economic policies based on what furthered their own aims.
Fascism glorifies the state, and sees violent struggle between ethnic nations as not just inevitable, but something to be sought for, something giving meaning to national existence. Generally, socialists decry war, and see economic equality as removing the causes of conflict.
Those on the political left advocate for greater equality. That can be expressed as a violent overthrow of the old hierarchical institutions {e.g. Marxism}, or it can mean ending racial discrimination or instituting a social safety net to limit the worse aspects of inequality on the poor.
Those on the political right advocate for a hierarchical society. That can be expressed as conservatism entailing the preservation of existing hierarchies, or it can be expressed as reaction, where an envisioned glorious epoch of the past is to be reinstated {e.g. Nazism}.
Zachriel:
There has been no Socialism in Russia since Stalin, unless you include shared starvation.
I don’t aim to make apologies for Nazis, only want the term to be used carefully understanding that German Nazism was born of eugenics, and a very unapologetic form at that.
“violent struggle between ethnic nations as not just inevitable, but something to be sought for, “
Do Ukrainians become Nazis because they want to break free?
Because they choose National and ethnic separation over service to a failed Russian model ?
“Naziâ€, is not a description to be used lightly, perhaps we will find that Zelensky is the new Hitler, but evidence at this point, is lacking.
Grey Shambler: Do Ukrainians become Nazis because they want to break free?
Ukraine didn’t seek a war of conquest.
I agree Ukrainians are fighting like it is an existential matter to them (because it is). But from the perspective of this country, Ukraine’s will to fight isn’t the main topic.
The problem is Russia is 1 of 2 nations currently that can end civilized life in this country (the other being our own). The risks of being entangled into what Russia considers an existential fight (even if the US does not think it is existential for Russia) should be obvious. In mutual assured destruction, Russia would lose and be destroyed, but so would the US.
Curious,
I think you succinctly state the salient point.
I’m willing to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, but only so long as it doesn’t risk Russia going to war with us or NATO.
And this:
https://theaviationist.com/2022/08/21/ukrainian-mig-29s-are-hunting-russian-radars-with-agm-88-harm-missiles/
Giving Ukraine SEAD capabilities is potentially a very big deal as it could break the stalemate in the air war. The side with air superiority has significant advantages on the ground.
“I’m willing to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia, but only so long as it doesn’t risk Russia going to war with us or NATO.”
I agree with the sentiment but in practice this is pretty hard. As was pointed out in a long piece by someone from Finland Russia’s belief that NATO was an existential threat was not backed up by numbers. The troop levels (NATO troops) in all of the old Soviet countries has been minuscule. Hundreds of thousands of troops would have been needed to be put in place to be a realistic threat. No way that is done without being seen. So if Russia just wants to re-establish its empire and maintain economic vassalage all they have to do is claim they are worried about NATO and then saber rattle about nukes to have their way. That is if we want to have zero risk.
I think zero risk policies are usually bad. I am OK with what we are doing. Support Ukraine and no direct involvement.
Steve
There are no “zero risk” policies. Everything has tradeoffs IMO.
The Finnish person has an unusual definition of what constitutes a threat. You don’t need troops on the border before a country thinks it’s a threat.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of whatever the currently-deployed troop numbers are, most countries think that a hostile military alliance on their border is at least a potential threat. However unreasonable you may believe it to be, the Russians certainly considered and consider NATO expansion to be a threat, and their opinion is what matters, not some guy from Finland.
Sure, but then you can use that to make whatever claims you want. Lets say we have 50 troops in Latvia. Russia can use that to invade Latvia? Of course they can but it was not a realistic fear. We were not going to invade Russia with just 50 troops. Hence why this feels so much to me like Russia wanted to occupy Ukraine anyway and NATO was just a good excuse.
Steve
Washington policy makers are talking about intervening in the Solomon Islands because the government signed a security treaty that lets China send military personnel to the country — but the Chinese haven’t even sent any troops! Just the existence of the treaty was enough to spark talk of “intervention”.
The Solomon Islands is 1000 miles from Australia and 2000 miles to Guam, 3000 miles to Hawaii.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/don%E2%80%99t-rule-out-intervention-solomon-islands-204188
Great powers are paranoid (that’s why they are great). Its a reality of life.