Western militaries are seeing great value in this, understanding Russian (and by proxy, Chinese) capability versus some Western weapon systems. That does not necessarily translate into national interest at the political level.
The NATO 2% actually works at cross-purposes. NATO members are simultaneously being pressed to build their own military capacity (increasing spending) while supporting UKR (increasing spending).
What the US wants is extremely volatile. The White House wants that. The Senate wants that. The House may or may not care, at this point it is scarcely capable of dealing with serious questions.
I saw a report on Arte just yesterday evening, showing that an increasingly big number of russian speaking Kazakhs, and people from other former Soviet republics, have been enroled in the Russian army since the start of the war. Either they volunteer, or they are also increasingly pressurised to enrole themselves.
Agree on your two first points, mate, although it will have to be seen whether the people in the US and in Europe accept this kind of politics. As @JU97ICE says, future elections will show the way.
On your third point, it remains to be seen if Russia succeeds in forming a strong alliance able to counter the US and the EU over the long term. BRICS for instance has been significantly enlarged recently. It isnāt a military alliance of course, but it can do a lot on an economic level to sustain Russia if needed.
For now, the Russian state is able to offer a recruiting bonus that is comparatively attractive in some of those former Soviet areas, as well as their own economic hinterland.
I think Western military support is far more important than raw manpower in this kind of war. Certainly the manpower advantage Russia supposedly had over Ukraine prior to the war was quite overblown.
Just want to note, those who do not worry a but about this are fools imo.
Russia will win unless the West can sustain support for probably at least another 2 years. Russia isnāt beaten easily and Russia unlike most countries, have a big enough army for military comebacks. They can lose several battles, learn, adjust, then win. Many underestimate this. They donāt have a small sleek and elite army that bang, bang, bang wins in an impressive manner in a short time, but a massive one that is cumbersome and can take a lot of punishment. They have done this many times before in history.
But the noteable difference between this war and say, Second World War, is that they have not been invaded and far from all Russians are convinced that the war is necessary, resullting in far worse morale. The Herrenvolk is not coming to Moskva to make them serfs. It is they who have ventured out on an imperial adventure this time, so too pessimistic to assume that they will fight like they did in WW 2; because this isnāt about survival for them.
And one should neither underestimate the posibiliity of unstability in Russia. The problem with an Authoritarian state is that it is hard to estimate how much political capital they have in their population, since they clamp down on dissent and do not have fair elections. I am sure they still have plenty, but nothing is unlimited even for Russia with their imperial nationalist propaganda.
But hard to say.
So far, only a small segment of the Middle Class has been drafted. It has all been very cynical as you note, and aimed (of course) to protect their economy, brainpower and pollitical stability. This of course isnāt fair in a draft system, so also leads to problems in regards to morale.
But honestly, they still have a decent pool of draftees (those who were drafted this year for instance, not sent into combat yet as far as I know, and they will try to make them sign contracts). They are not running out yet , Ukraineās manpower is more problematic tbh. But yes, Russia too has manpower problems and no way are Russians willing to sacrifice millions in a War of Choice. Revolution before then probably and certainly Coup the Etat. This isnāt a War of Annihilation for Russia after all, although in many ways, it is for Ukraine.
I donāt think it is a matter of running out, this is not 1942. it is a matter of who is being made to serve, and on what terms, and what tensions that produces.
Agreed. Political instability is key to end of war (on both sides, also in the West in regards to sustained support for Ukraine). Authoritarian leaders like Putin, needs support rule and Kreml is very careful to play various interests in Russia indeed.
Siden note, not so much to you but more to others: some people think Putin and Kreml does whatever they like, and in a certain mannner they do, but they are very careful regarding public support and takes it very seriously. Kreml has a very good polling system for instance, according to Norwegia experts on Russia and is quite sensitive to public. Unfortunately, they also have a very good although vulgar, propaganda system to shape/brainwash the public with.
It relatively simple. Are there more Russians? If yes, then I can see the Russians playing the attrition game to exhaust Ukraine - simply in terms of warm bodies. If there are no Ukrainians to fight, then all the toys in all the malls wont make a difference.
The resolution to this has to arrive soon and I guess that is why we have the offensive. At some point a conclusive action had to have been initiated. You cannot fight a war for ever - at some point one side is dead (or as good as) and with equal or even 1-to-3 losses, Ukraine still probably looses. The game the West is playing is particularity cruel for the Ukrainians - it is their blood which is fertilizing the battle fields.
this has been beaten to death already. the West have their own political issues to deal with when it comes to Russia. The stalling on the Leopard tanks and fighter jets is a political issue not a funding one. But without the support the west have given, Ukraine would be already annexed like Crimea was.
I would say the support hasnāt been enough. Thereās been too much pussy footing around. Give real aid and go as far as putting feet on the ground. Everything else is cruel.
I very highly recoment reading Part 1 and todayās part 2:
It is a very good assessment of Ukraineās struggling counter offensive, where it has gone wrong, what realistic goals it can now achieve and so on. Also for the future.
Some Ukrainian accounts are celebrating breach of Surovikin line and UA vehicles getting attacked at outskirts of Verbove on Russian videos. I am more careful, I see not indication that it is a large UA force and for now I think it is Recce in force.
Itās here by the way:
Maybe I havenāt been reading the BBC much lately, but there appears to be a spate of articles the last 2 days mentioning how heavy the Ukrainian losses have been. Is this a deliberate ploy or something? I would have thought the last thing Ukraine wants to be made public is how many soldiers they are losing.
Information on approximate losses are not that well hidden in truth. I recommend reading the anaylysis of the offensive I just posted above by the Lookout, it explains many of these thing far better than a BBC article can do alone.
In terms of material (then you have to extrapolate manpower loss from that), this is the best list you will find:
In summary for those who donāt want to read much: #Zaporizhzhia counter-offensive equipment loss numbers as of 25 August 2023. In summary: 367 UA losses vs. 363 RU losses
hey @magnus what ever happened to that scammer with the fundraising from the spring. I noticed that the JamesVasquez account of him going back and forth from US into Ukraine, is now gone.
