Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[SilverMachine]

Well, okay, but for example...

"whether Russia starts running low on fighting vehicles, missiles"



This won't happen, it's fantasy. Russia's a monster of production, even on their own, and you factor in the whole China/NK/Iran thing...

Look, we all want this to go as well as possible for Ukraine. But you have to set a realistic ceiling on what's possible to do: it'd be stupid for the west to put any of their own boots on the ground, nobody wants that. The allowing western weapons for strikes inside Russia is already a *really* slippery slope, and not a road I think is wise to go down. Russia, while a paper tiger in a certain sense, isn't *entirely* paper, and they're more than capable of taking the gloves off too. Keep in mind they haven't even really broken out the big guns in terms of air power yet, they've been pretty overly cautious and playing all that close to the chest. F-16's are useful to Ukraine, yay, but they're a 40 year old airframe and something Russia's more than capable of countering with their newer aircraft they've barely used yet.

The US and Europe might be willing to ramp up weapons production, yes. But not for Ukraine. That's thinking "the day after" type of thing, worst case scenario for if Russia's dumb enough to go further into Poland (they're not dumb enough).

It might sound defeatist, but Ukraine isn't coming out of this thing with anything resembling a "win", or even intact as a whole country by 2014 standards. The UK's sent them about all they can, Norway's not much of a factor one way or the other, and the US has a ceiling in which it's not going to involve itself further.

This Kursk incursion succeeds, Zelenskyy has some territory and prisoners to strengthen a negotiating position? Great, awesome. Thing is, they're already lying about the numbers of Russians they've taken POW (it's nowhere near 20 000, usual Uke propagandist horseshit), and it's pretty damn likely these top-tier troops of theirs get cut off & encircled any week now. I wouldn't be hugely optimistic, ballsy a move as this invade-Russia-back tactic may be.

 

[contricusc]

Even just going by the numbers, Russia vastly outnumbers them: Ukraine's just opened a new front of all things, dispersed their armies out further, they're incapable of really pushing Russia back as we've seen. The last offensive was their do-or-die, it's not going to happen now. This Kursk thing has a real chance of backfiring, too, as plenty of people have mentioned - they've deployed a whole lot of irreplaceable crack troops and equipment in a venture that could likely see them cut off, surrounded, and destroyed, and on top of that it hasn't stopped Russia marching further toward taking Pokrovsk.

Russia’s population is much higher than Ukraine’s, but wars are not won on population numbers alone. If you get to the point where you can’t equip your army with enough weapons, your capability to field capable troops hits a ceiling.

While everyone is speaking about Ukraine running out of soldiers for a while (which I think it is greatly exaggerated and far from happening), nobody mentions that Russia has its own problems when it comes to recruiting troops. Russia mostly relies on paid troops right now, and they have kept raising the salaries of troops in order to be able to keep pace with recruiting. This strategy has its limits, because if they continue down this path of bidding up troop pay to attract new people, the government will run out of money.

Everyone believes that Russia has an unlimited supply of soldiers if they decide to do a mobilization, but why are they avoding doing it if it was such an easy solution? The reality is that a total mobilization is very risky for the Putin regime. Also, there is also the precedent of high paid troops in the Russian military, which makes mobilization much more problematic. People will find it unacceptable to fight for free, while those who volunteered got paid handsome money for the same thing.

A mobilization would also further strain the Russian economy, and would cause a big wave of migration, so it is not a good solution for Russia. The question is, will Russia be willing to sacrifice its entire country and future just to keep a few provinces in Ukraine?

Top-notch western military equipment is great and all, but you ultimately still need people to use it. For all of Russia's losses, they can be replaced, whereas Ukraine's already in dire straits in terms of filling out the ranks.

People keep telling that Ukraine is running out of people to use the weapons, yet they managed to surprise everyone by building up many well equipped and trained brigades to invade the Kursk region. If they were running out of troops, they wouldn’t be able to pull this off.

Do I think this will ultimately come to some negotiated political outcome with Russia (somewhat) going home? Absolutely. That's not going to be a "win" for Ukraine - a third of Ukraine will now be Russian territory, and they'll have lost more-or-less an entire generation of men.

Ukraine is not willing to accept losing territory in a negotiated peace. Their conditions are quite clear, they want their land back to 1994 levels, including Crimea. Why would they accept anything less, after they fought so hard and sacrificed so much?

A "lose" situation for Russia is still leaving Ukraine with more territory than they had initially, at the cost of not even a full mobilization of troops. Yes, Russia has a bloody nose from all of this, no question. But there's zero possibility here of a situation in which Zelenskyy "wins" this conflict. Man for man pound for pound, they've lost far more than Russia has, and they're not forcing Putin's troops home en-masse in any meaningful way.

Russia is losing men and equipment at a higher rate than Ukraine. While the initial stockpiles of weapons were much larger on Russia’s side, the production capabilities of new weapons are a differnt thing. Russia has managed to ramp up its production because it relies mostly on refurbishing stockpiles of old soviet equipment, which is cheaper and take less time than producing new equipment.

The problem with this type of ramp-up is that it will run out of equipment to refurbish (many estimates point to 2025 as the year when they run out of tanks/IFVs to refurbish). After that point, the production of new military vehicles will be much lower, and they won’t be able to properly equip their troops and replace the losses.

On the other side, Ukraine will benefit from a ramp-up in production on the Western side, so while the West will be able to donate more equipment, Russia will be able to produce less. This means that the balance of power will greatly shift in favor of Ukraine.

Add to that the increasing number of advanced weapons that Ukraine is allowed to use now than at the begining of the conflict, and the qualitative advantage will greatly turn in Ukraine’s favor.

The surprise Kursk invasion shows that Ukraine can still surprise analysts, and the fact that they were able to take more land in one week than Russia did in six months shows better strategy and more effective allocation of resources. As for Russia quickly taking back that land and encircling Ukrainian troops, that is wishful thinking on the Russian side. Ukraine is clearly trying to move the new border to the Seym river, where it has destroyed the bridges, making the resupply of Russian troops south of the river very difficult. After those troops surrender/retreat/are defeated and Ukraine secures all the land south of the river, the new positions will be very good for defending and creating a buffer zone inside the Kursk region.

 

[Spitfire9]

Well, okay, but for example...

"whether Russia starts running low on fighting vehicles, missiles"



This won't happen, it's fantasy. Russia's a monster of production, even on their own, and you factor in the whole China/NK/Iran thing...

Look, we all want this to go as well as possible for Ukraine. But you have to set a realistic ceiling on what's possible to do: it'd be stupid for the west to put any of their own boots on the ground, nobody wants that. The allowing western weapons for strikes inside Russia is already a *really* slippery slope, and not a road I think is wise to go down. Russia, while a paper tiger in a certain sense, isn't *entirely* paper, and they're more than capable of taking the gloves off too. Keep in mind they haven't even really broken out the big guns in terms of air power yet, they've been pretty overly cautious and playing all that close to the chest. F-16's are useful to Ukraine, yay, but they're a 40 year old airframe and something Russia's more than capable of countering with their newer aircraft they've barely used yet.

The US and Europe might be willing to ramp up weapons production, yes. But not for Ukraine. That's thinking "the day after" type of thing, worst case scenario for if Russia's dumb enough to go further into Poland (they're not dumb enough).

It might sound defeatist, but Ukraine isn't coming out of this thing with anything resembling a "win", or even intact as a whole country by 2014 standards. The UK's sent them about all they can, Norway's not much of a factor one way or the other, and the US has a ceiling in which it's not going to involve itself further.

This Kursk incursion succeeds, Zelenskyy has some territory and prisoners to strengthen a negotiating position? Great, awesome. Thing is, they're already lying about the numbers of Russians they've taken POW (it's nowhere near 20 000, usual Uke propagandist horseshit), and it's pretty damn likely these top-tier troops of theirs get cut off & encircled any week now. I wouldn't be hugely optimistic, ballsy a move as this invade-Russia-back tactic may be.

Fighting vehicles: I think Russia is losing tanks many times faster than it is producing new ones. I read that a lot of stored tanks are being brought back into service but they are older types and the stock is finite.

IISS estimate for 2023 T-90 production: 60-70
IISS estimate for 2024 T-90 production: 60-70+
IISS estimate for 2025 T-90 production: perhaps 90

Russian T-90M production: less than meets the eye

The rate of attrition of Russian armour in the war against Ukraine has been staggering. Less transparent, though, is Moscow’s capacity to continue to replace losses and to build or upgrade tanks such as the T-90M.

www.iiss.org

Analysts have tallied 3,000 destroyed, abandoned and captured Russian tanks. Numerically, that's the entire pre-war force—and the losses are disproportionately modern tanks rather than the older T-55s and T-62s the Russians began dragging out of open-air vehicle parks shortly after the war widened.

Sixty-Year-Old T-62s Are About To Become The Russian Army’s Main Tanks

Losses in Ukraine have greatly outpaced the production of new T-72s and T-90s.

www.forbes.com

I believe that Russia has put about 20 Su-57 into service since 2019. No avalanche of those being produced, it would seem.

Russian shell production has ramped up enormously, it seems. Ukraine's allies nowhere near as much.

I know little about Russian weapons production but apart from shells (and drones?) I don't see Russia producing the number of weapons required to maintain supply to its armed forces at the rate they are being used/lost. Additionally, the Kremlin has to find a way of paying for new production. Ukraine does not have to find the cash to settle for weapons supplied.

I suspect that Putin privately bitterly regrets deciding to wage a blitzkrieg attack on Ukraine intended to topple the country in a few days or weeks... and finding himself stuck in an extremely expensive stalemate years later.

 

[contricusc]

Well, okay, but for example...

"whether Russia starts running low on fighting vehicles, missiles"

This won't happen, it's fantasy. Russia's a monster of production, even on their own, and you factor in the whole China/NK/Iran thing...

Russia is a monster of production because it refurbishes old Soviet equipment from storage. Once they run out of things to refurbish, their production levels will drop a lot.

As for their allies, only China is a true manufacturing powerhouse, but so far they are unwilling to help Russia with weapons, because that would mean the end of their economic relationship with Europe. China wants to keep Europe as an economic partner, to counterbalance the US, and it is not willing to sacrifice this relationship for weak Russia, which will sell them cheap oil and gas anyway, because it has no alternative.

As for the eternal friendship between China and Russia, this is just another wishful thinking for Russian supporters. China’s relations are transactional in nature. They only look for their own interest, and they are extracting lots of benefits from Russia at a very low cost, so there is no need to help it more. Also, the weakenuing of Russia is in the interest of China, just as it is in the interest of Europe. In the end, the Chinese and the Europeans don’t have any land disputes and can be real economic partners, while both of them can put pressure on Russia from both sides. China still has territories to recover from Russia, not from Europe.

Look, we all want this to go as well as possible for Ukraine. But you have to set a realistic ceiling on what's possible to do: it'd be stupid for the west to put any of their own boots on the ground, nobody wants that. The allowing western weapons for strikes inside Russia is already a *really* slippery slope, and not a road I think is wise to go down.

The West needs to allow Ukraine to strike anywhere in Russia with the donated weapons. All the restrictions currently in place are total nonsense that are limiting the effective use of those weapons. But slowly the restrictions will be lifted, as it has happened before.

Russia, while a paper tiger in a certain sense, isn't *entirely* paper, and they're more than capable of taking the gloves off too. Keep in mind they haven't even really broken out the big guns in terms of air power yet, they've been pretty overly cautious and playing all that close to the chest.

The Russians have basically used everything they have except nuclear weapons (and chemical weapons). They don’t have any secret weapons left to deploy. They have used air power to their maximum capability.

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825940851308245228

 

[TheInsider]

The real problem is not tanks. Russians are ramping up the production of missiles, gliding bombs, kamikaze UAVs, and artillery shells. The accuracy of Russian missiles, UAVs, and gliding bombs improved greatly. I think Ukraine is moving towards a dire situation.

 

[Spitfire9]

The real problem is not tanks. Russians are ramping up the production of missiles, gliding bombs, kamikaze UAVs, and artillery shells. The accuracy of Russian missiles, UAVs, and gliding bombs improved greatly. I think Ukraine is moving towards a dire situation.

A good way to reduce the glide bomb damage to Ukraine is to strike the bases in Russia from which aircraft carrying them take off. Ukraine seems to be able to neutralise all or nearly all attack drones if numbers do not swamp defences.

 

[Relic]

The real problem is not tanks. Russians are ramping up the production of missiles, gliding bombs, kamikaze UAVs, and artillery shells. The accuracy of Russian missiles, UAVs, and gliding bombs improved greatly. I think Ukraine is moving towards a dire situation.

You need armor and artillery to conduct offensives. There is no reality in which Ukraine can take the offensive to Russia if it doesn't have sufficient armor to go on the offensive.

Both sides are losing loads of armor and artillery to drone strikes and counter battery fire. Defended land is extremely difficult to take in this war without exceptionally high losses.

Ukraine isn't it in a particularly dire situation. There is no situation in which Russia can penetrate deep into Ukraine and sustain those forces. Nor can Ukraine.

 

[TheInsider]

A good way to reduce the glide bomb damage to Ukraine is to strike the bases in Russia from which aircraft carrying them take off. Ukraine seems to be able to neutralise all or nearly all attack drones if numbers do not swamp defences.

Unfortunately, Ukrainians don't have enough missiles/long-range firepower to reduce Russian aviation to a manageable level. It seems Russians have enough fighter production capacity(SU-30,34,35, 57) to replace their losses. Russian Air Force took delivery of 24 fighters in 2023 according to conservative estimates some sources like Binkov claim up to 50 fighters are delivered.

Russians lost 2 Su-35, 1 Su-27, 7 Su-25, 4 Su-24, 4 Su-34, 1 Il-22, 4 Il-76, 1 Tu-22M in 2023.;
Russians lost 2 MiG-31, 2 Su-35, 3 Su-27, 1 Su-25, 4 Su-34, 1 Tu-22M, 2 A-50, 1 Il-22, 1 Il-76, 1 Be-200, 1 unidentified fixed wing aircraft so far in 2024

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

 

[TheInsider]

You need armor and artillery to conduct offensives. There is no reality in which Ukraine can take the offensive to Russia if it doesn't have sufficient armor to go on the offensive.

Both sides are losing loads of armor and artillery to drone strikes and counter battery fire. Defended land is extremely difficult to take in this war without exceptionally high losses.

Ukraine isn't it in a particularly dire situation. There is no situation in which Russia can penetrate deep into Ukraine and sustain those forces. Nor can Ukraine.

Russians are holding an artillery advantage both in number of guns and ammo production. This is evident as they execute vastly more artillery bombardment missions than Ukranian artillery. Russian tank and armored vehicle losses are not sustainable but so are Ukraine losses.

 

[SilverMachine]

People keep telling that Ukraine is running out of people to use the weapons, yet they managed to surprise everyone by building up many well equipped and trained brigades to invade the Kursk region. If they were running out of troops, they wouldn’t be able to pull this off.



Ukraine is not willing to accept losing territory in a negotiated peace. Their conditions are quite clear, they want their land back to 1994 levels, including Crimea. Why would they accept anything less, after they fought so hard and sacrificed so much?



Russia is losing men and equipment at a higher rate than Ukraine. While the initial stockpiles of weapons were much larger on Russia’s side, the production capabilities of new weapons are a differnt thing. Russia has managed to ramp up its production because it relies mostly on refurbishing stockpiles of old soviet equipment, which is cheaper and take less time than producing new equipment.

Regarding the first part, yes. They have been able to do that. A risky move, involving some of their best troops, mustering them in a risky gamble that has a pretty decent chance of not paying off. I wouldn't get ahead of ourselves here with calling the Kursk advance a success.

Ukraine not being "willing" to accept losing territory as part of a negotiation is neither here nor there at a certain point. No country fighting a war is "willing" to do that, it just gets to a point where the situation's so dire there's no choice. A year or two down the line they could very well find themselves in that situation, frankly I'd venture it's an almost definite. You can't keep on fighting if you can't keep on fighting, wars of attrition are bitches that way. Russia *will* outlast Ukraine in terms of manpower here, the western equipment's likely to keep coming, but things are eventually going to come to a point where there's nobody left to use it.

Russia's losing more men, absolutely. I said that. It's just that...they can lose more men. Ukraine can't. And, frankly? The old Soviet equipment's been getting the job done to a certain extent. They're still innovating and building more modern kit too, and at a pretty considerable rate.

We all want Ukraine to prevail in this thing (I guess that Gary guy aside), but it doesn't do anyone any good just hearing what you want to hear and dismissing the reality. The west isn't going to get to a point where they're putting troops on the ground for Ukraine, and that's what it would take for an outright win here getting Ukraine back to '94 borders. Crimea's Russia now, the east's Russia now, they're not getting them back. Zelenskyy will come to that conclusion most likely later than sooner, but he'll come to that conclusion all the same. Or, I guess he won't, he'll be kicked to the curb, and whoever's in charge next will.

 

[SilverMachine]

The West needs to allow Ukraine to strike anywhere in Russia with the donated weapons. All the restrictions currently in place are total nonsense that are limiting the effective use of those weapons. But slowly the restrictions will be lifted, as it has happened before.

This would be the absolute stupidest thing one could do here. Hard to get outraged about Russia bringing out tactical nukes and such, when the facts on the ground are "Britain and the US are providing the means to, and the advice on how, to hit Russia proper". That'd still be a proxy war rather than 'direct' direct, sure, but it's the type of heat nobody except Zelenskyy wants to get involved in. There's been some mission creep as you say, restrictions being lifted, but there's a line that's not going past, reality's a thing.

*Edit Damn double posts.

 

[Spitfire9]

This would be the absolute stupidest thing one could do here. Hard to get outraged about Russia bringing out tactical nukes and such, when the facts on the ground are "Britain and the US are providing the means to, and the advice on how, to hit Russia proper". That'd still be a proxy war rather than 'direct' direct, sure, but it's the type of heat nobody except Zelenskyy wants to get involved in. There's been some mission creep as you say, restrictions being lifted, but there's a line that's not going past, reality's a thing.

*Edit Damn double posts.

Ukraine targeting Russia with weapons provided by the West would be the stupidest thing to do? Would you advocate leaving intact Russian bases in Russia proper so that they can be used to launch attacks on Ukraine indefinitely? Do you think it sensible that attacks on Ukraine from within Russia should be guaranteed impunity by the West? No attempt to stop them with western weapons should be made until the border with Ukraine is crossed?

The restrictions on the use of donated weapons are absurdly stupid IMO.

 

[MaciekRS]

And they are US restrictions. They dont want russia to lose for whatever stupid reason.
Let Biden (and his administration) finally go and maybe next president will have some balls.

 

[contricusc]

You can't keep on fighting if you can't keep on fighting, wars of attrition are bitches that way. Russia *will* outlast Ukraine in terms of manpower here, the western equipment's likely to keep coming, but things are eventually going to come to a point where there's nobody left to use it.

Russian supporters keep saying that, but there is no indication of this being a real possibility in the near future. What if Ukraine can sustain the manpower losses for another 10 years? Can Russia’s economy and MIC sustain the war for 10 years as well? The West can easily support Ukraine for another 10 years, as the effort is minimal. And with weapons and ammunition production ramping up in the West, the losses for Russia will only get bigger.

Russia's losing more men, absolutely. I said that. It's just that...they can lose more men. Ukraine can't. And, frankly? The old Soviet equipment's been getting the job done to a certain extent. They're still innovating and building more modern kit too, and at a pretty considerable rate.

But there will be a time when Russia runs out of old Soviet equipment. From that moment, they will have to replensih their losses only with brand new kit, and that will not be sufficient. They won’t be able tu support the same rhythm of combat once they run out od Soviet equipment.

Ukraine already has much better weapons now than what it had at the beginning of the war. They have better precision and more long range strike options. Two years ago, Ukraine had no ability to strike Russian targets behind the frontline. Now they are constantly hitting military and industrial targets in Russia proper.

The economic losses will also mount for Russia, as the sanctions, lack of investment, the cost of the war and the constant destruction of oil refineries by Ukraine will reduce the Russian economy to a point where it is no longer able to sustain the country. At that point, Putin might find his position untenable, and accepting a peace where Ukraine gets back all its territory might look as his best option. Or he may just lose control of the country, and a new government could emerge.

We all want Ukraine to prevail in this thing (I guess that Gary guy aside), but it doesn't do anyone any good just hearing what you want to hear and dismissing the reality. The west isn't going to get to a point where they're putting troops on the ground for Ukraine, and that's what it would take for an outright win here getting Ukraine back to '94 borders. Crimea's Russia now, the east's Russia now, they're not getting them back. Zelenskyy will come to that conclusion most likely later than sooner, but he'll come to that conclusion all the same. Or, I guess he won't, he'll be kicked to the curb, and whoever's in charge next will.

Your opinion is that Ukraine will be the first country unable to sustain the war. My opinion is that Russia will be the one that will find it harder and harder to keep up as the war drags on. Ukraine’s backers have unlimited resources compared to Russia, and their economies are not at war, so they can continue to provide both financial and military support for as long as it takes. So from this point of view, form Ukraine’s side, the war is sustainable long term from an economic and industrial point of view. Only the manpower issue is debatable.

On Russia’s side, while the manpower pool is not going to run out, the economic and industrial capacity to sustain the war may not be sufficient in the long term. It is more likely that a country faces a total economic collapse before it runs out of people to sustain a war.

My opinion is that Ukraine’s manpower can outlast Russia’s economy and industrial capacity, and if the West continues to give incremewntal support to Ukraine, there will be a point when Russia is simply unable to hold the equilibrium at the frontlines.

 

[Ryder]

If the West cared so much combating Russia they would have knocked them out in the 90s and the 2000s. The reason why they care about Ukraine because its right at there doorstep.

If Russia did not invade Ukraine and perhaps took its chance invading Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Azerbaijan or even more of Georgia. I dont think would have cared.

Think about it if they gave as much support to Chechens and the Georgians like they do with Ukraine.

Russia would have not grown this large not to mention how you had Russia getting into Syria and being helped by France in Libya.

Lets not forget how Dudayev was assasinated by the Russians whose coordinates were given to them by the Americans.

Lets not forget how Ukraine lost Crimea while the EU and the USA turned a blind eye to it. Ukraine could have easily repelled Russia invading in 2014 and 2015. Instead Ukraine had to give up these lands up just to keep Putin happy.

Ukrainians live by day with regret of giving up their nukes. Even having 5 nukes would be enough to deter Russia from invading.

 

[Spitfire9]

Russian supporters keep saying that, but there is no indication of this being a real possibility in the near future. What if Ukraine can sustain the manpower losses for another 10 years? Can Russia’s economy and MIC sustain the war for 10 years as well? The West can easily support Ukraine for another 10 years, as the effort is minimal. And with weapons and ammunition production ramping up in the West, the losses for Russia will only get bigger.



But there will be a time when Russia runs out of old Soviet equipment. From that moment, they will have to replensih their losses only with brand new kit, and that will not be sufficient. They won’t be able tu support the same rhythm of combat once they run out od Soviet equipment.

Ukraine already has much better weapons now than what it had at the beginning of the war. They have better precision and more long range strike options. Two years ago, Ukraine had no ability to strike Russian targets behind the frontline. Now they are constantly hitting military and industrial targets in Russia proper.

The economic losses will also mount for Russia, as the sanctions, lack of investment, the cost of the war and the constant destruction of oil refineries by Ukraine will reduce the Russian economy to a point where it is no longer able to sustain the country. At that point, Putin might find his position untenable, and accepting a peace where Ukraine gets back all its territory might look as his best option. Or he may just lose control of the country, and a new government could emerge.



Your opinion is that Ukraine will be the first country unable to sustain the war. My opinion is that Russia will be the one that will find it harder and harder to keep up as the war drags on. Ukraine’s backers have unlimited resources compared to Russia, and their economies are not at war, so they can continue to provide both financial and military support for as long as it takes. So from this point of view, form Ukraine’s side, the war is sustainable long term from an economic and industrial point of view. Only the manpower issue is debatable.

On Russia’s side, while the manpower pool is not going to run out, the economic and industrial capacity to sustain the war may not be sufficient in the long term. It is more likely that a country faces a total economic collapse before it runs out of people to sustain a war.

My opinion is that Ukraine’s manpower can outlast Russia’s economy and industrial capacity, and if the West continues to give incremewntal support to Ukraine, there will be a point when Russia is simply unable to hold the equilibrium at the frontlines.

 

[contricusc]

If Russia did not invade Ukraine and perhaps took its chance invading Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Azerbaijan or even more of Georgia. I dont think would have cared.

Of course Ukraine mattered more because it was bordering the EU, and a potential future member. Also, having a direct border makes helping them much easier from a logistical point of view. Europe cannot deliver help to a far away country without a direct border in the same way it supplies Ukraine through Poland and Romania.

Also, the fact that Ukrainians fought so hard and kept themselves in the fight at the beginning of the war made it possible for them to be helped. Georgia surrendered in a few days, and was too small to be able to resist Russia, so no amount of help would have saved it.

If Ukraine collapsed in a few days, there would have been no help for them as well. Help is received only by those who can fight by themsleves for a while.

Lets not forget how Ukraine lost Crimea while the EU and the USA turned a blind eye to it. Ukraine could have easily repelled Russia invading in 2014 and 2015. Instead Ukraine had to give up these lands up just to keep Putin happy.

The invasion of Crimea happened suddenly, had popular support and Ukraine was not able to mount a resistance at the time. Things changed dramatically in the following eight years, as Ukraine moved closer to the West and strengthened its army, so the second invasion was met with a much stronger resistance. Wars ae never equal or the same, and circumstances matter a lot. This time, Ukraine was strong enough to resist and to be able to receive the help.

Ukrainians live by day with regret of giving up their nukes. Even having 5 nukes would be enough to deter Russia from invading.

Giving up those nukes was not something they had much of a choice in deciding. At the time they were a Russian vassal state, and their independence was conditioned by giving up those nukes, as they didn’t have control over them, they were just deployed on their territory.

 

[Oublious]

Ukraine is going to March Moskova , Putin wtf did you do? This was real smart move from Ukraine.

 

[Spitfire9]

Your opinion is that Ukraine will be the first country unable to sustain the war. My opinion is that Russia will be the one that will find it harder and harder to keep up as the war drags on. Ukraine’s backers have unlimited resources compared to Russia, and their economies are not at war, so they can continue to provide both financial and military support for as long as it takes. So from this point of view, form Ukraine’s side, the war is sustainable long term from an economic and industrial point of view. Only the manpower issue is debatable.

On Russia’s side, while the manpower pool is not going to run out, the economic and industrial capacity to sustain the war may not be sufficient in the long term. It is more likely that a country faces a total economic collapse before it runs out of people to sustain a war.

My opinion is that Ukraine’s manpower can outlast Russia’s economy and industrial capacity, and if the West continues to give incremewntal support to Ukraine, there will be a point when Russia is simply unable to hold the equilibrium at the frontlines.

I agree - Ukrainian manpower long term is of concern to me.

Assuming the EU continues its support for democracy on its doorstep, I think that Ukraine can carry on fighting for years. Ukrainians want to retain their country's independence and culture by resisting the Russians. How many would be prepared to swap living in a free, democratic state for living under the control of a tyrannical foreign state? I think that most Ukrainians are far more motivated to defend their way of life that Russians are to end it.

No expert me but I doubt that AFU troops can retake their lost territory through soldiers retaking the ground. Russia has had the time required to set up considerable ground defences. I see the degradation of the logistics supporting the occupying Russian army as the way to beat them through forcing them to withdraw from untenable positions in areas where the population sees them as the occupying enemy. That may not be the case in Donetsk and Luhansk.

I agree that the financial burden of supporting Ukraine is not large for the EU and can therefore be maintained as long as needed. I don't see Russia being able to sustain the cost of the war for as long as needed.