Comment by spywaregorilla | Hacker News Reader

Comment by spywaregorilla | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The reason this is significant, besides being an enormous loss of difficult to replace aircraft, is that it was so far from the front lines. Russia has been fumbling in the last month to adjust to western HIMAR weapons that have been precisely targeting ammo depots, hqs, and other high value targets far behind the front lines. Russian logistics is largely train based. They ship everything by train and unpack it to a nearby warehouse, then rely on trucks for the last mile. The HIMARs have been destroying the warehouses, meaning Russia is now needing to use trucks for much much more than the last mile because they can't unpack everything near the front. This new strike is even longer range than the weapon specs Ukraine was believed to have. And it was 2 very precise explosions. How this was achieved is not clear, but if Ukraine now has frequent precise missile capabilities for 200-300km strikes, that means Russia may need to scramble their logistics all over again.

Right now the most important location in the war is Kherson, occupied by Russia. It's the only truly valuable asset that Russia has seized, and recent Ukranian advances have made Russia pull 20-30k troops off of other front lines to reinforce this area. It's a very difficult position for Russia. There's just a couple bridges leading into Kherson from the south (Russia / Crimea side) and Ukraine has been blowing them up. Logistics of supplying those 30k troops is going to be really tough. And now Crimea, the main logistics hub for those troops, is appearing very vulnerable.

Ukraine's goal here is to make the defense of Kherson extremely resource intensive, meaning Russia has to either lose the territory or weaken up on other fronts.

I think it's absolutely nuts Russia isn't just walking away from this fight. They're fighting a war of choice. Their military is very slowly getting ground down to capture territory they are unable to comprehensively defend.

Russia is probably suffering from the sunk cost fallacy: this war has been painfully expensive, but they don't have anything to show for that expense.

Realistically, if you were to imagine what the negotiating table looks like at this point, Ukraine is aiming for restoration of its pre-2014 borders--that is recovery of Luhansk and Donetsk, not to mention Crimea. Those terms are almost certainly nonstarters to Russia, but Russia hasn't inflicted sufficient damage on Ukraine to cause them to ask for anything less. For its part, Russia seems determined still to ask for annexation of large parts of Ukraine--they are currently attempting to put together a referendum showing that occupied Kherson wants to be part of Russia (and it seems the current offensive is interfering with their planned timetable--embarrassingly, they might not hold Kherson when the "referendum" is currently planned).

So the only way that Russia is likely to capitulate is if the military situation is so hopeless that it has to admit defeat in the conflict. The military situation has yet to reach that point, though. Instead, we seem to be set for a years-long grinding stalemate as the most likely outcome.

I guess Russia also wants to see what happens in winter when gas resources will be important on several fronts ?

Quite possibly. But since Russia itself is one of those fronts (its tax revenues from oil and gas dropped >30% YoY in July despite high prices), what happens in winter might be More Bad News.

Russians tolerated 10 years of basket case economics in the 90s. Prior to that, they [patiently] suffered under USSR's police state. I wouldn't bet the farm on who can tolerate more pain and misery. They will win that one.

Likely Russian calculus: Fissures in NATO/EU, creation of new fronts (Taiwan, Middle East), and continued madness of US's political and social space are all ticking bombs. It the West that needs to wrap this up quickly, not Russia.

(dated) Likely Western calculus: The European war is intolerable to Chinese (because of BRI plans) and China will lean on Russia to end the war so business can resume. The recent brouhaha over Taiwan however likely has altered the equation.

I agree, there'll be suffering both here and there, and the Russians have suffered stolidly before.

The sauna I used to visit has closed. It was heated using geothermal energy IIRC, and that energy can practically be used to replace a gas-fired furnace somewhere in the city. So the sauna was closed a few days ago. I'm sad about that.

The Russians didn't have to go without a sauna in the nineties, they suffered this: https://nitter.it/pic/orig/enc/bWVkaWEvRllyM0std1ZzQUFqWnotL...

A bakery where I bought a bread this week has stated publicly that the selection may be worse during the winter. There'll be enough, just not as varied as until now. Not like this photo, also from Russia: https://nitter.it/pic/enc/bWVkaWEvRllyM0tqSFVJQUVKWGpFLmpwZz...

The Russians may have a great capacity for suffering compared to westerners, and if the suffering coming their way were only what's coming to the western countries, I don't doubt that the Russians would handle it.

Those were russians coming from the Soviet Union though. What of the Russians in Moscow that have enjoyed western standards of living for the past few decades?

>years-long grinding stalemate

Fortunately, the facts on the ground indicate otherwise. Russia's losses in materiel and men are unsustainable and no match for surviving Ukraine's frequent resupply of western military donations. How much more blood and treasure he wastes is really up to Putin, but there's no way he can sustain the losses as his paper tiger turns to ashes.

As much as I'd love this to be true, we get a lot of propaganda here in the West and in general both sides are burning a lot of resources. Russia had more resources to start with and can probably replenish at least some of them (manpower and tanks).

It's not that clear. Russia had huge stockpiles of stuff. But it's old, and much of it is in poor quality. The tech being deployed in Ukraine is very poor. We've seen WWI era rifles, almost WW2 era tanks, tanks that don't work or don't have gunners, planes without navigation. A gun is still a gun, but they also don't have as many people. The Russian army was a peacetime army. It wasn't ready for war and they've had a tough time recruiting people in the past several months. They've also drawn a hard line against recruiting from ethnic Russians in places like Moscow. The biggest conflict though is in getting the stuff to the frontlines. Their comms, intel, and logistics are pretty poor.

But they do have a lot of people, and if they're willing to let them die, it'll take a long time to get rid of them.

For comparison, Ukraine's military is quickly replacing its old Soviet junk with more modern (sometimes top of the line!), advanced western weaponry while Russia is replenishing its equipment with... even older Soviet junk. Even if Putin is willing to throw more bodies into the meat grinder, the average lifespan of a Russian grunt will diminish at an increasing rate. Russian bodies are piling up faster and faster as WW2 equipment is no match for modern warfare.

For comparison, the Soviet Afghan war had 14.5k killed and 53k wounded over a decade.

Western intel estimates 80k total casualties killed & wounded on the Russian side in 6 months in Ukraine.

> They've also drawn a hard line against recruiting from ethnic Russians in places like Moscow.

Interesting. First I've heard of this.

Sounds like Putin wants the large number of casualties to not be in areas where unhappy family members rioting can affect politics.

Pretty much. Also general racism. The real meat shields are the russian "separatists" from eastern ukraine.

> and no match for surviving Ukraine's frequent resupply of western military donations

The West is only giving weapons to the Ukraine, and unfortunately, as good as they may be, they still need boots on the ground to be operated, and Ukraine is bleeding them as fast as Russia.

That's not much of a problem now that Russia won't/can't mobilize “for real”; but were it to come to this end, the long-term perspective wouldn't look so shiny for Ukraine.

An army of untrained, underequipped nobodies is alright for a civil defense. It's useless for an invading force in a hostile land.

That's what happened in every lengthy major war: the highly-trained experienced pre-war army melts, and they are replaced by hastily trained new recruits. Still, it turns out they work just fine, even on the offensive: Romans conquered Carthago, the Soviets crushed Germany, the Entente put the Alliance to its knees, North-Vietnam is now the ruling body, Mao beat Chag Kaï Chek, the Whites lose the Russian Civil War, etc.

Assuming the populations remain unto control from the governments, my informed guess is that the deciding factor between the Ukraine and Russia will be economical, as it had been for all grindfest-wars. And at this game, I wonder what will crumble first: the Russian economy or the Western support to the Ukraine – hopefully the former. In any case, victor or vanquished, the Ukraine will end up gutted by what is probably a good contender for the stupidest war of the 21st century.

> Ukraine is bleeding them as fast as Russia

Proportionally maybe yes. But count-wise Russians are losing more soldiers than Ukrainians.

That maybe true (do we really have precise enough numbers for that?), but they are of the same magnitude order, which is the problem.

I'm not so sure. As a result of this invasion, Ukraine has gotten immensely more powerful with a demonstrated western backing, both on the theoretical geopolitical level, and the active day-to-day reality on the front.

If they were to pull out, Ukraine would continue to take back Crimea. They would probably sweep the Russians out of Moldova too. They may plausibly assist in a coup in Belarus. That is to say, Russia doesn't have the ability to walk away without Ukraine hitting them several more times.

Fighting to a loss doesn't actually avoid these outcomes but it... buys time for other shit to happen? An openly pro russian second term for trump in the us, for example.

> They would probably sweep the Russians out of Moldova too. They may plausibly assist in a coup in Belarus.

I think those would be quite unwise.

But the thing is, Russia pulling out might lead to the biggest political prize of all - the end of Putin. He'd lose too much prestige. And he knows it. If he visibly loses, he's done. Therefore, he will keep fighting until others at home remove him, until he wins, or until his military is in such a state that it cannot continue.

> I think those would be quite unwise.

Why?

This isn't how Russia thinks though.

Russia is so full of paranoia and hubris that it considers rejection of "superiority of all things Russia" as evidence of a dire threat. As a not entirely absurd metaphor, Russian imperialism is like Fatal Attraction. Russia referred to Ukrainians as "little Russians". But upon rejecting Putanism and Russia, in favor of Ukrainian language, culture, history, and government - that is to Russia completely unacceptable. The only explanation for rejecting the superiority of Russia is corruption, i.e. Nazification.

Of course this is demented, delusional, crazy, but that's an external assessment. Russia will persist in murdering Ukrainians until Russia is stopped. Nations party to the U.N. Charter are obligated to assist under Article 2(5). And I think China and India aren't doing enough to meet this obligation they've voluntarily and formally agreed to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com