Why Ukraine Is Starting to Lose
journalofdemocracy.org
journalofdemocracy.org
Western arms still require soldiers, who are in short supply, with Ukraine resorting at times to forced conscription of young men. Tough outlook...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-mili...
Putin's demand list at the time was clearly stated, and went well beyond simply requiring that Ukraine eschew NATO membership. And no, Russia is not simply invincible and impossible to defeat. In fact it has lost plenty of wars - and my its own leaders' telling, would have lost WW 2 had it not been for massive assistance from the United States.
So you're off way off base, and on multiple counts here.
The point I was making was that Ukraine sadly appears to be devastated by this war and is arguably worse off today by the choice they made to engage instead of finding a peaceful solution.
I don't see any mention of Russia being invincible in my comment - little confused by your comment there.
I am stating, however, that it is increasingly obvious that Ukraine is running out of young men to fight with. A quick internet search gave me these results:
"The average age of Russian soldiers in the last two years is not explicitly mentioned in the provided search results. However, it is noted that at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the average age of Russian soldiers was reported to be 20-25 years old. Additionally, there is a mention of reports indicating that the average age of Ukrainian forces is around 43 years old"
This is an increase of between 27% and 43% depending on how you calculate it, in the age of Ukrainian soldiers over the last 2 years. Not a winning proposition.
Under those circumstances, donor countries like the US will either have to provide their own young men to die supporting Ukraine, or provide more expensive weapons to a country that has continued to lose ground in spite of the weapons we did provide.
Ukraine doesn't send young men to frontline. :-/
I'd say that's for Ukrainians to decide. They might just have more information on the costs and risks (and infinitely more actual stake in the matter) than you would, after all.
I don't see any mention of Russia being invincible in my comment
You said "Ukraine lost the minute they refused to accept Russia's demands", which immediately implies "They lost the minute Russia invaded".
Nevermind the fact that nobody has "lost" yet by this stage. The outcome is far from clear or assured for either party, and will likely be for quite some time.
I found an interesting study quoting 400 years of US Military Studies, that claims: "The average advance rate across the Russian front ... is 7.8 km per day – still putting Russia well ahead of pre-1990 historical averages" (this was at the start of the war). 7.8 km per day was well above historic averages of advance against peer forces, suggesting Ukraine's army was not a peer army as the Western media proclaimed, and would likely not have lasted more than a couple of months without western support. https://www.leidensecurityandglobalaffairs.nl/articles/keepi...
NATO weapons slowed the Russian advance down by making Ukraine more of a "peer", at least until the weapons dried up. Now that they have, Russia seems to be steadily and rapidly taking territory back while the West is distracted with Israel and the Houthis.
Ukraine will last as long as the West is willing to give it (expensive) weapons in the middle of an election season. And Russia will gleefully watch us burn taxpayer money while they ensure there is no one left to give those weapons to.
You're losing focus here. When I said "It's up to them to decide", this was clearly in reference to the question of whether worse off, by this point, for having made a decision to not simply roll over and let Putin have his way with them ("finding a peaceful solution", in your words). Which, if you don't think they're capable of evaluating for themselves -- you must think they're basically very stupid, as a people. For not being able to make heads or tails such an important matter as that.
Whereas now you're referring to an entirely different decision -- "Whether it makes sense to continue fighting".
So like, okay - you can think whatever you want about that issue. But it's entirely different from the assertion you made where I jumped in -- the assertion that "Ukraine ... is arguably worse off today by the choice they made to engage instead of finding a peaceful solution", offered with absolutely no regard to what the Ukrainians themselves might have to say about the matter.
And for Putin's idea of "peaceful", which you apparently accept without reservation.
Very problematic it is to suggest that the above analysis (being limited enough in its own scope) has much, if any, extrapolation to the situation now 2 years later -- when so many things have changed (in some aspects quite categorically) in the interim, on both sides.
For starters: no, you don't just grab a 37-day window at the start of the conflict when one party temporarily enjoyed the initiative and achieved a partial breakthrough; wave a measuring stick around various places at the map, and guesstimate a "velocity"; then conclude their this their intrinsic, operational "velocity", and hence will surely kick in again at some point.
Simply put, this is just now how wars work.
Russia seems to be steadily and rapidly taking territory
Russia has made some notable gains in recent months, on top of Ukraine's vastly larger rebound across the previous year-plus.
But there is no way you can call Russia's recent gains "rapid" by the standards of the current (full-scale) phase of the conflict. They've taken months to achieve, and at very heavy cost. Including the total obliteration of most of those areas now deemed to be suitably cleansed and purified -- and now finally fit and ready for their glorious re-admission to the Russian World.