Comment by primitivesuave | Hacker News Reader

Comment by primitivesuave | Hacker News Reader

If it comes down to a grinding war of attrition, Russia will probably fare much better than the media suggests. By the Guardian's own reporting, they are using the same tactics as WW2 (e.g. blocking troops from retreating, mass conscription, etc) and have a similar willingness to throw soldiers into the "meat grinder" for victory at all costs.

Konstantin Rokossovsky [1] was a Polish-born cavalry officer who was imprisoned and tortured during Stalin's pre-war purges - he later replaced the teeth that his interrogators pulled out with metal ones. He was eventually released and returned to military service, fighting loyally in multiple theaters of the Eastern front. By the end of the war, he was a top general and a loyal Soviet for the subsequent two decades.

A combination of fear, rabid ideologues, and lack of alternate economic opportunity, creates a breed of soldier that we would be wholly unfamiliar with. The Guardian is projecting the war's outcome from a younger generation of Russians serving on the ground or posting on Facebook, but the only way to understand the leaders is to reach back in history.

[1] https://www.beachesofnormandy.com/articles/The_man_with_iron...

I'd probably agree that over the long haul, Russia can defeat Ukraine even if they consistently suffer double the casualties, other things being equal.

But there are other fronts. Russia is being attrited in more ways than simply manpower. Every month is reducing their military, economic, and cultural influence worldwide. They're already at the point where if they succeeded completely in Ukraine tomorrow they'd still be worse off than before the invasion.

A victorious war of attrition can be a loss for Russia and Ukraine.

Russia can defeat Ukraine even if they consistently suffer double the casualties, other things being equal.

"Other things being equal" means they'll continue the current state of never gaining territory. And perhaps again losing large chunks of it, like back in Sept and Nov.

How does that translate to a win for them?

Because they already control 20 percent of Ukraine. The 20 percent they currently control is their prime objective.

It ensures that the crimean peninsula remains russian. It ensures that the north crimean canal stays open providing fresh water. It ensures land access to crimean peninsula. It captures some of the best agricultural lands.

The idea that Russia is looking to conquer all of Ukraine and more is simply war propaganda. It makes no geopolitical sense for them to really conquer much more than they already have.

Russia’s goal would be to destroy the ukrainian army and state apparatus to the point where Ukraine concedes the land they currently under Russian control.

The idea that Russia is looking to conquer all of Ukraine and more is simply war propaganda.

They probably never wanted to permanently hold all of the territory (especially not predominantly Ukrainian-speaking regions in the west).

But it definitely was their stated objective from the very beginning to decapitate the country's current leadership, and install a permanently "friendly" (to Russia) government in its place. Not to simply grab the 4 regions in the east -- which they've still not been able to fully take a hold of, despite explicitly claiming to "annex" them.

The idea that the disastrous initial attempt to encircle Kyiv (and the failed attempt to take Odesa) was some kind of brilliantly executed feint to obscure their "true" current (and ever-shrinking) objectives - that, I'm afraid, it simply "war propaganda".

It makes no geopolitical sense for them to really conquer much more than they already have.

Nothing about what the Russian Federation has done makes any kind of geopolitical sense. It's all just a giant (and incredibly murderous and destructive) fantasy.

We're only a year into the conflict - a year into WW2, the Soviet Union was losing large swathes of territory and million-man armies to German encirclement. Even when they had the numeric advantage (e.g. Finland) they suffered disproportionate losses for the same reason they do today. I presently anticipate that what happens in the upcoming months/years will mirror what happened back then - they optimize wartime production, conscript a large number of their population, and think of new technology to kill people.

Keep in mind that this is all coming from an armchair historian. It's easy to have a selection bias when comparing such things.

The huge difference was the red army had the US and Canadian industries providing significant backstops in the form of resources. Something like 30-40% of all jeeps and infantry transports were provided by the US. Similar numbers for their airplanes and food.

Had they not had the logistical and material support from the US in the first few years of the war, it’s quite possible the whole course of the war could have been changed.

That fact is conveniently never mentioned in the story of how USSR beat the nazis.

The "Great patriotic war", as WW2 is usually referred to in Russia, also conveniently starts in 41 - not in 39. The reason being, that USSR were allied with nazi-germany 39-41 (which is also conveniently never mentioned).

You're forgetting the most important distinction: this time, they're the side that's attempting to encircle and subjugate another country.

A country a third of its size (in population), that -- very much like the Soviet Union itself in WW2 -- is resolutely determined not to be subjugated.

Completely agree. The modern equivalent of the Berlin Wall has already gone up (i.e. sanctions and divestment) and will stay up for at least one generation.

However, Americans underestimate how much our own influence is shrinking. I traveled to many countries in the last two years, and found that most people associate America with its most extreme ideologies (QAnon, gender theory, Trump policies, etc). The Russian bloc of the upcoming Cold War v2 will likely coalesce around the notion that America/Europe has no right to dictate global policy.

> The Russian bloc of the upcoming Cold War v2 will likely coalesce around the notion that America/Europe has no right to dictate global policy.

Hasn't that been their position since the first cold war?

Yes and it's not like the rest of the world has been in love with USA imperialism since WWII either.

It’s remarkable how much of Kennan’s “long telegram” can be lifted and applied, with only cosmetic changes, from a Soviet Communist Russia led by Stalin, to a nationalist right-wing Russia led by Putin. It’s not simply “America and Europe have no right to dictate global policy,” it’s “Russia has the sovereign right to control the countries in its putative sphere of influence.” One can meaningfully argue as to whether the Western “rules-based order” is facially neutral, but it’s certainly the case that Russia’s smaller neighbors prefer it to living under diktat from the Kremlin.

The Russian/Chinese bloc has already coalesced around this policy. Unfortunately, both countries have done a pretty good job of terrifying their (non-vassal) neighbors, so it's unlikely that they'll be able to do much with it.

America has also done a pretty good job of terrifying other countries in the past century. The most destructive phase of this conflict will probably happen after the Russia-Ukraine war is over, as these two groups conduct proxy wars in unstable regions by supplying weapons to their respective factions.

America tends to show its problems out in the open unlike other powers. Other powers have much worse problems, such as a shrinking/aging population, lack of economic prospects or resources.

The last drawn out proxy war with the West didn't end very well for the Soviets. The Ukraine war is already many times more costly.

Remember too, those tactics during WW2 were on the backdrop of a brutal fight for survival where it was easy for most of the population to see they had no choice but to fight. Not a Special Military Operation against a weaker enemy.

Meaning Afghanistan/America won anything from that stint?

The collapse of the Soviet Union...

This is true (in WW2 it was clearly a war of annihilation to everyone in the country vs protested decision today) and a good example for another comment I wrote above, that there is considerable selection bias amongst armchair historians :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com