War: Russia vs. Ukraine?

[GloomCookie]

Thought I'd share this from the CIA World Factbook.

Military and Security
Military and security forces
Armed Forces of the Russian Federation: Ground Troops (Sukhoputnyye Voyskia, SV), Navy (Voyenno-Morskoy Flot, VMF), Aerospace Forces (Vozdushno-Kosmicheskiye Sily, VKS); Airborne Troops (Vozdushno-Desantnyye Voyska, VDV), and Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose (Raketnyye Voyska Strategicheskogo Naznacheniya, RVSN) referred to commonly as Strategic Rocket Forces, are independent "combat arms," not subordinate to any of the three branches

Federal National Guard Troops Service of the Russian Federation (National Guard (FSVNG), Russian Guard, or Rosgvardiya): created in 2016 as an independent agency for internal/regime security, combating terrorism and narcotics trafficking, protecting important state facilities and government personnel, and supporting border security; forces under the National Guard include the Special Purpose Mobile Units (OMON), Special Rapid Response Detachment (SOBR), and Interior Troops (VV); these troops were originally under the command of the Interior Ministry (MVD); also nominally under the National Guard’s command are the forces of Chechen Republic head Ramzan KADYROV

Federal Security Services (FSB): Federal Border Guard Service (includes land and maritime forces) (2022)

note: the Air Force and Aerospace Defense Forces were merged into the VKS in 2015; VKS responsibilities also include launching military and dual‐use satellites, maintaining military satellites, and monitoring and defending against space threats

Military expenditures
4% of GDP (2021 est.)

4% of GDP (2020 est.)

3.8% of GDP (2019 est.) (approximately $104 billion)

3.7% of GDP (2018 est.) (approximately $100 billion)

4.2% of GDP (2017 est.) (approximately $104 billion)

country comparison to the world: 18
Military and security service personnel strengths
information varies; prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, approximately 850,000 active duty troops (300,000 Ground Troops; 40,000 Airborne Troops; 150,000 Navy; 160,000 Aerospace Forces; 70,000 Strategic Rocket Forces; approximately 20,000 special operations forces; approximately 100,000 other uniformed personnel (command and control, cyber, support, logistics, security, etc.); estimated 200-250,000 Federal National Guard Troops (Feb 2022)

note: in August 2022, President Vladimir PUTIN ordered the military to increase the total number of armed forces personnel by 137,000

Military equipment inventories and acquisitions
the Russian Federation's military and paramilitary services are equipped with domestically-produced weapons systems, although since 2010 Russia has imported limited amounts of military hardware from several countries, including Czechia, France, Israel, Italy, Turkey, and Ukraine; the Russian defense industry is capable of designing, developing, and producing a full range of advanced air, land, missile, and naval systems; Russia is the world's second largest exporter of military hardware (2021)

Military service age and obligation
18-27 years of age for compulsory service for men; 18-40 for voluntary/contractual service; women and non-Russian citizens (18-30) may volunteer; men are registered for the draft at 17 years of age; 12 month service obligation (Russia offers the option of serving on a 24-month contract instead of completing a 12 month conscription period); reserve obligation for non-officers to age 50; enrollment in military schools from the age of 16 (2022)

note 1: in May 2022, Russia's parliament approved a law removing the upper age limit for contractual service in the military

note 2: in the spring of 2022, Russia drafted 134,500 conscripts into the military; as of 2021, conscripts reportedly comprised about 30% of the Russian military's active duty personnel; in April of 2019, the Russian Government pledged its intent to end conscription as part of a decade-long effort to shift from a large, conscript-based military to a smaller, more professional force; an existing law allows for a 21-month alternative civil service for conscripts in hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities for those who view military duty as incompatible with their beliefs, but military conscription offices reportedly often broadly ignore requests for such service

note 3: as of 2020, women made up about 5% of the active duty military

Military deployments
information varies; approximately 3,000 Armenia; approximately 2,000 Armenia/Azerbaijan (peacekeepers for Nagorno-Karabakh); estimated 3,000-5,000 Belarus; approximately 7,000-10,000 Georgia; approximately 500 Kyrgyzstan; approximately 1,500 Moldova (Transnistria); estimated 3,000-5,000 Syria; approximately 5,000 Tajikistan (February 2022)

note 1: in February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with an estimated 150,000 troops; prior to the invasion, it maintained an estimated 30,000 troops in areas of Ukraine occupied since 2014

note 2: prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Russia was assessed to have about 3,000-5,000 private military contractors conducting military and security operations in Africa, including in the Central African Republic, Libya, Mali, and Sudan

Military - note
as of 2022, Russian military forces continued to conduct active combat operations in Syria; Russia intervened in the Syrian civil war at the request of the ASAD government in September 2015; Russian assistance included air support, special operations forces, military advisors, private military contractors, training, arms, and equipment

Russia is the leading member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and contributes approximately 8,000 troops to CSTO's rapid reaction force (2022)

[Humble Scribe]

This is de facto mobilization, nothing "partial" about it - that word was used to limit political backlash.

From press reports the mobilisation seems to be more vigorous in... shall we say the further flung, out of the way territories like Siberia and Dagestan, rather than downtown Moscow and St Petersburg...

[gaggedLouise]

I've also heard that, since yesterday, one of the most common Google searches in Russia are: "How to get out of Russia" and "How to break an arm at home"...

Several EU countries are trying to restrict visas and stuff, but it will probably be hard to legally enforce a blanket ban on all visas to Russian citizens. Also, even if it does get harder to arrange for a visa, I don't see how the EU would be able, under its own laws and asylum conventions, to stop Russians from actually seeking asylum in the EU, and claiming the right to have their asylum applications processed, just like those who have arrived to Greece and Italy over the last decade. Going from Russia to Europe offers excellent justificatory reasons for claiming asylum, as of now: the EU can hardly deny that Russia is an autocratic and repressive state toward even its own citizens, now can they? 

If a million people were able to enter Europe on foot through Thracia and in dodgy boats over the Aegean Sea in 2015 - asylum seekers generally avoid going by legit boats or airplane rides because they don't want to have to present themselves with documents at the customs, at an airport or at a check-in point - there's no reason to doubt that large numbers of Russians would be able to do the same, through the border regions of Turkey/Greece, Belarus/Poland, Kaliningrad/Poland or Russia/Finland (a +1000 km long forested border running mostly through regions that are practically empty of inhabitants and not heavily patrolled by soldiers). And once they have set foot on the soil of an EU country, they are legally entitled to apply for asylum - and to stay for the time it takes, which can stretch to years in some countries. By the precedent of 2015/16, they would also be able to claim the right to move beyond the country they first entered and ask to have their asylum rights processed in another country, for example Germany.

This is going to be...interesting. 

[Dashenka]

Most go to Georgia, Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan. The route through Finland is too far north for most people to flee Russia, so I don't think Europe will get a big influx of Russian refugees.

[Thufir Hawat]

Yes every sane person agrees with that.

But Putin has already warned everybody that any attacks against Russia will be retaliated. If he claims Donbass is now Russian and the Ukrainians try to take it back (which they will) that is seen as an attack on Russia.

Also, the Russian military doctrines explicitly prescribes nuclear weapons can be used in the case of an attack on Russian territory that cannot be stopped by conventional forces.
And, as Dashenka says, the Ukrainians are going to try and take those territories back. They are theirs under international law.

At the moment, I don't see a way out of this short of a regime change in Russia, and it should at that be a regime change that declares the last decisions of Putin to be illegitimate, possibly with some extra shenanigans around Crimea .

[Humble Scribe]

A more hopeful interpretation might be either (a) that Putin needs an attack to be on Russian "sovereign" territory in order to justify full mobilisation and/or (b) that declaring the parts of Ukraine he has annexed as Russian and threatening escalation is an attempt to get the Ukrainians around the negotiating table.
But then, I remember thinking that the February military build-up was a bluff as well, so the threat of escalation may well be a genuine one.

[Dashenka]

This war only ends with Putin dead and the Russian army obliterated.


There's simply no other way that I can think of for this war to end.



Or in global annihilation.

[TheGlyphstone]

Global annihilation? Extremely unlikely - even Putin at his worst isn't anthropocidal, to the best of my estimates.

Ukraine becoming a set of overlapping radioactive craters? Also unlikely, but much less so - I can imagine him pulling a 'if I cant have it, no one can' sort of move as his final F.U. move.

[Humble Scribe]

This war only ends with Putin dead and the Russian army obliterated.

I strongly doubt either of those is likely to happen. The Russian army defeated in some parts of the Ukraine maybe, but unless someone removes Putin (vanishingly unlikely), he can simply keep feeding boys into the meat grinder. Defence is easier than attack, Ukraine's reserves are not infinite, and its supply of advanced Western weapons will gradually run out. This article estimates that even at conservative burn rates, Ukraine is using up a year of US HIMARS production every month. And no-one is going to cross the Russian frontier, because that leads to your other option.

There's simply no other way that I can think of for this war to end.
Or in global annihilation.

It probably depends upon Russia's two most reliable generals, January and February, and how cold Europe gets this winter, and maybe even the next winter. This strategy think tank suggests: "the more likely objective is to stabilise Russian losses and then to protract the conflict beyond 2023" and hope that the combination of nuclear brinksmanship, fraying tempers among Europe's industry and consumers, and war weariness will push Ukraine towards some kind of peace deal. Ukraine won't like it, but if Europe and the US threaten to turn off the tap of financial and military support, it will have no choice. I personally doubt Europe has the stomach for a long conflict, but I've been wrong before.

On the other hand, another option is for the conflict to settle into a long war of attrition, like it did in the Donbas from 2014-22, and see what happens when Putin finally dies. It needn't, and hopefully won't end in apocalypse.

[Dashenka]

Another way of 'peace' is diplomacy. From both sides. Something neither has seriously tried so far.

It's an impopular choice but hear me out. I'm not saying it's the best way or that I support it, it's just something I thought of. And if some redneck hillbilly like me can think of it, I'm sure others can and have as well.

The whole purpose of the war was to 'liberate' Donbass. There are little to no Ukrainians left in that region and most of the major cities are completely destroyed.

Negotiate that Russia can have Donbass (for now) if and when they leave the rest of Ukraine.


Putin walks away with a victory in his mind, Ukraine finally has peace and can get into NATO. Everybody can rebuild. Russia's economy is so far gone by now that it'll take them decades to recover.
What's left of Donbass is going to costs billions and billions to repair and rebuild and for what? If it's Russia, the people there expect Moscow to rebuild it, but there's no funding or money so they will be left out in the cold.
When Ukraine keeps it, it will likely still be a pro-Russian territory as it has been for years and years. Even if Ukraine claims victory, that doesn't change. So at what cost does Ukraine want to keep it? And with that, the entire western world as well. Because 'we' have boldly claimed that the only Ukrainian borders ever to be accepted are the ones as they were, including Crimea. Threatening Putin to retaliate if he uses nuclear or chemical weapons does what? Nothing. The man knows that. Biden getting his knickers in a twist and telling Putin not to do it, is good for the ratings but does fuck all to stop Putin. Europe banning Russian gas is good for the ratings. Putin doesn't stop shelling Ukraine and sells the gas to China.

It's basically became a cock measuring contest. Look what I can do? No no look what I can do first. I can do it better. Time for the bigheads to leave the table and put the sensible people in play.


When/if the regime changes in Russia, negotiations can begin to give back to Ukraine.


I'm aware it's not a popular decision and one highly unlikely to be done because Ukraine now feel they can 'win'. But the alternative, as far as there is one, is for the world to live in fear of nuclear annihilation and a world economy completely fucked to bits and with sanity levels all over the world already at a low due to COVID, the incoming recession, the fear of war is something we can all do without.

[Azuresun]

Another way of 'peace' is diplomacy. From both sides. Something neither has seriously tried so far.

It's an impopular choice but hear me out. I'm not saying it's the best way or that I support it, it's just something I thought of. And if some redneck hillbilly like me can think of it, I'm sure others can and have as well.

The whole purpose of the war was to 'liberate' Donbass.

Wrong. The purpose of the war was and is the total conquest of Ukraine, and the extermination of Ukranian culture through methods including forced resettlement, forced reeducation and good old-fashioned Soviet mass murder. This is not secret, this is exactly what Russia has bragged they plan to do, and their conduct in the occupied areas confirms this over and over--we're already seeing forced resettlement, annexation and child abduction for forced adoption, not to mention the looting of museums in a bid to destroy Ukranian history. Plus, the invasion started with an attempt to seize Kiev, which is nowhere near that region. "We only want Donbass" was a flimsy excuse trotted out after their initial war of genocide failed.

This is a war of survival, there is no Bothsides. Russia have demonstrated over and over that their idea of diplomacy is "give us everything we want and we won't come back to take everything else, until we decide we want to".

I'm aware it's not a popular decision and one highly unlikely to be done because Ukraine now feel they can 'win'. But the alternative, as far as there is one, is for the world to live in fear of nuclear annihilation and a world economy completely fucked to bits and with sanity levels all over the world already at a low due to COVID, the incoming recession, the fear of war is something we can all do without.

Then if that's what you want, Russia needs to lose and be broken and made an example of before the world. If they get ANYTHING AT ALL that they want as a result of warfare-by-famine and of nuclear bullying, the rest of the world will get that message, and then every tinpot dictator scrambles to get nukes of their own (since they clearly let you attack your neighbours with impunity).

[Oniya]

There's a saying that 'history doesn't repeat, but it really does rhyme'.

The idea that 'We only want this particular portion of your country' was used before.  The concession of that territory as a way to avoid war was also used before.

It didn't work then, either.

[Humble Scribe]

Wrong. The purpose of the war was and is the total conquest of Ukraine, and the extermination of Ukranian culture through methods including forced resettlement, forced reeducation and good old-fashioned Soviet mass murder. This is not secret, this is exactly what Russia has bragged they plan to do, and their conduct in the occupied areas confirms this over and over--we're already seeing forced resettlement, annexation and child abduction for forced adoption, not to mention the looting of museums in a bid to destroy Ukranian history. Plus, the invasion started with an attempt to seize Kiev, which is nowhere near that region. "We only want Donbass" was a flimsy excuse trotted out after their initial war of genocide failed.

I shouldn't get involved in arguments with angry people on the internet at 1am, but you're in the UK too, so here we are.

Russia's initial aim was to knock over the Ukrainian government, install a pliable puppet regime and avoid Ukraine going over to NATO and the EU, and have Russian troops hang around long enough to ensure what I am sure they would have called "a smooth transition of power". It was supposed to be a re-run of Prague 1968. Yes, it was prosecuted with terrible brutality (so was the Prague Spring), many documented war crimes occurred, and there is an ongoing attempt to rewrite history. But to describe that as "genocide" is to cheapen the term. Anyway, that objective crashed into reality about a week into the war. Russia's attempt to seize bits of south and east Ukraine is Plan B, a face saving alternative to admitting defeat. It was not the initial war aim, but it has become the current one.

Then if that's what you want, Russia needs to lose and be broken and made an example of before the world. If they get ANYTHING AT ALL that they want as a result of warfare-by-famine and of nuclear bullying, the rest of the world will get that message, and then every tinpot dictator scrambles to get nukes of their own (since they clearly let you attack your neighbours with impunity).

Well, that wasn't the message when Russia took Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetiya, Chechnya, and eventually Crimea. I see a lot of this kind of rhetoric from people with no skin in the game (except if the nukes start flying). But it ignores demonstrable reality - Russia is a large, resource rich country of 145 million people. It has trade ties with countries that comprise more than half of the world's population (India, China...) who are not part of the anti-Russian bloc and who are happy to ignore western sanctions. Given a couple of years to build pipelines, it will be supplying China with natural gas instead of Europe. Its oil exports are almost unaffected. It is self sufficient in most key raw materials. Its high tech industries are suffering, but it will adapt. It will be poorer. Putin is prepared to accept that, and his people have little choice.

Yes of course, invading other countries on a whim is bad. I marched against our own government when it did that in Iraq in 2003. But you are not going to 'break' Russia. If Napoleon and Hitler couldn't do it, you have no chance. Ukraine (pop 44 million) has even less chance. There is no will in NATO to invade Russia, and it wouldn't work militarily anyway, and it could lead to WWIII. The realistic solution is, eventually, going to be a negotiated one. Of course both sides will push to get a peace on their terms. It may even become a frozen conflict, like Korea. But put aside all of this bellicose bullshit about "breaking" Russia, because that isn't going to happen. Are Cuba, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea 'broken'? They may be shitty places to live, but they are not 'broken', and (aside from Iran) they have a fraction of the resources that Russia does.

To quote Bismarck: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”. Breaking Russia is not attainable. The next best solution is containing it.

[Annaamarth]

...But to describe that as "genocide" is to cheapen the term...

Disagree. It is technically correct by the UN definition.

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; ​
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Under Article 2 subsections E, forcibly transferring children out of the country and establishing education centers to "de-Ukrainianize" them would seem to count.  Subsection C would indicate that attacks intended to destroy civilian infrastructure to induce starvation or exposure conditions would seem to count. Of course, the mass graves of Bucha and Izyum would be covered under subsections A and B.

Under Article 3, that actual act is not all that is necessary to be considered a "punishable act" - when Russian-owned state media extolls the end of Ukrainian identity - culturally and nationally - that counts under section C.  The Russian armed forces of course are guilty under 3A, and by allowing state-managed arms to engage in genocide without restraint or denunciation,l the Russian government would seem to be guilty under 3E - it is complicit at least in its failure to control the military.

What definition are you using?

[Annaamarth]

Well, outstanding. Zelensky just had another little speech.

Of particular note to me:

"Ukraine guarantees every Russian soldier who surrenders three things. First, you will be treated in a civilized manner, in accordance with all conventions. Second, no one will know the circumstances of your surrender, no one in Russia will know that your surrender was voluntary. And third, if you are afraid to return to Russia and do not want an exchange, we will find a way to ensure this as well."

I feel like this resolves a lot of concerns for a lot of people who have worried about the punishment of Russian troops who surrender.

This would be supplemental to other incentive programs of course: I haven't seen any indication of the "Million" surrender program having ended, or still being in play.  No real mention since March/April - but this certainly doesn't replace the surrender bounty law - that's an actual piece of Ukrainian legislation.  If a Russian soldier, sailor or airman surrenders and delivers to Ukraine a piece of war materiel - anything from a cargo truck to a tank to a SU57 to a frigate - that surrender is due a bounty.

[MetroFallout]

It probably depends upon Russia's two most reliable generals, January and February, and how cold Europe gets this winter, and maybe even the next winter. This strategy think tank suggests: "the more likely objective is to stabilise Russian losses and then to protract the conflict beyond 2023" and hope that the combination of nuclear brinksmanship, fraying tempers among Europe's industry and consumers, and war weariness will push Ukraine towards some kind of peace deal. Ukraine won't like it, but if Europe and the US threaten to turn off the tap of financial and military support, it will have no choice. I personally doubt Europe has the stomach for a long conflict, but I've been wrong before.

On the other hand, another option is for the conflict to settle into a long war of attrition, like it did in the Donbas from 2014-22, and see what happens when Putin finally dies. It needn't, and hopefully won't end in apocalypse.

Ah yes, the myth of "General Winter". Absolute fucking bollocks that is. The only reason why winter was a problem was because of one thing that Russia currently lacks in Ukraine and can be boiled down to one single word: Logistics.

The Wehrmacht had extremely fragile and stretched supply lines that kept getting stretched further and further during during Barbossa in the Winter stages. The Soviets ceded land to stretch the supply lines even further and had the benefit of American Lend Lease trucks and other such things (that never gets talked about anymore by people parroting the drivel that the Soviets, and by extension the Russians, pushed after WWII) to ease their own logistical problems as the supply came in thick and fast because of American industrial capacity and logistical ability (the same ability that allowed US troops to have ice cream as part of their luxury rations in the Pacific)

Considering that the Russians are currently really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with mobilization in spite of their logistical difficulty in replacing equipment, do you honestly think that the much more equipped Ukraine that is defending in its own territory cannot overcome winter? The same Russia that had a 40 kilometer/mile long traffic jam due to running out of fuel in the first weeks of this war? With thousands upon thousands of visually identified heavy equipment that'd been captured by Ukrainians?

You are either completely ignorant of the situation at hand in Ukraine or you're willfully choosing to believe that Russia is anything more than a petrol station with nukes posing as a world super power.

[Dashenka]

Then if that's what you want, Russia needs to lose and be broken and made an example of before the world. If they get ANYTHING AT ALL that they want as a result of warfare-by-famine and of nuclear bullying, the rest of the world will get that message, and then every tinpot dictator scrambles to get nukes of their own (since they clearly let you attack your neighbours with impunity).

Like the world did to America after it invaded Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan? Or to NATO when it bombed Serbia into submission? Is that what you mean? Probably not. Wasn't the invasion of Iraq with very similar grounds to why Russia invaded Ukraine?

My point is, the world doesn't need examples to be made to understand what is right or wrong. Everybody knows the US had no right in Iraq or Afganistan. Putin knew damn well there would be consequences for invading Ukraine. Xi Jinping knows there will be consequences when he occupies Taiwan. Tinpot dictators don't really care though. It's the sensible people who have to clean up the mess.

Strong language from Zelenskiy and NATO is just that. Hollow words with promises that cannot be fullfilled, just to gain some popularity or motivation. NATO saying it will never recognise the Russian occupied territories. Then fucking do something about it. Rather than discuss more sanctions and more weaponry (which nobody can properly use in Ukraine because a lack of training and a lack of soldiers) over five star lunches and champagne. Or shut the fuck up and start some diplomacy.

Or continue to live in fear. I have theories but this isn't the time or place for those.


I NEVER said the deal I suggested is one I support. But without NATO interfering on the ground, the chances of Ukraine getting back Donbass fully are slim to none. This is not me wanting Ukraine to lose, this is me being realistic. Russia lost some ground around Charkov but even with the 'scraping the barrel' recourses they have now, they can quite comfortably hold Donbass, Cherson and Zhaporizha and Crim.

If they get Donbass, look at what cost for Russia. But also if the war drags on, look at what cost for Ukraine and the rest of the world.

You are either completely ignorant of the situation at hand in Ukraine or you're willfully choosing to believe that Russia is anything more than a petrol station with nukes posing as a world super power.

I mostly agree but the threat of chemical weapons and nuclear weapons has so far stopped NATO from really getting involved. So NATO is choosing to believe that Russian is anything more than said petrol station.

[MetroFallout]

I mostly agree but the threat of chemical weapons and nuclear weapons has so far stopped NATO from really getting involved. So NATO is choosing to believe that Russian is anything more than said petrol station.

Operative word here being that the nukes are the thing that make them dangerous and the reason why NATO is being careful about this, even if they are dubiously maintained. The Russian military aparatus is mostly currently garbage and a far cry from the halcyon days of Soviet "might" which was built on the back of Ukrainian and Russian brains that has since been drained from Russia ever since the Soviets broke up anyway.

[Oniya]

Ah yes, the myth of "General Winter". Absolute fucking bollocks that is. The only reason why winter was a problem was because of one thing that Russia currently lacks in Ukraine and can be boiled down to one single word: Logistics.

A different theory, which doesn't improve Generals Jan and Feb's impact, is 'Familiarity'.  When other countries have 'invaded Russia in the winter', they were operating in unfamiliar territory and weather conditions  (with the exception of - wait for it - the Mongols).  For Ukraine, 'Russian winter' is just, well, winter, and the territory is their own backyard.

[MetroFallout]

A different theory, which doesn't improve Generals Jan and Feb's impact, is 'Familiarity'.  When other countries have 'invaded Russia in the winter', they were operating in unfamiliar territory and weather conditions  (with the exception of - wait for it - the Mongols).  For Ukraine, 'Russian winter' is just, well, winter, and the territory is their own backyard.

Correct. They are aware of the climate mostly because they live there. What really evens things and even improves it in their favour is Western logistical support of the Ukrainians. They're not lacking in equipment that Russia's burning through.

[Humble Scribe]

You are either completely ignorant of the situation at hand in Ukraine or you're willfully choosing to believe that Russia is anything more than a petrol station with nukes posing as a world super power.

Try reading what I wrote again without creating a straw man. I'm not talking about winter meaning Russia militarily wins the war in Ukraine. I'm talking about it putting such a strain on Europe's ability to keep the lights on that the EU pushes Ukraine into talks. I believe that's Putin's current endgame - if not this winter, then next. Mobilisation gives him the human resources to keep the war going until Europe gets fed up of subsidising it.

I am no expert on the situation in Ukraine, but I've been covering global commodities markets for 28 years and first started writing about Russian-Ukrainian gas disputes in the mid-90s. I am aware of Russia's limitations. But to quote a friend of mine who is an advisor to Ben Wallace, the UK Minister of Defence; "I've spent years trying to convince people that the Russians are not ten feet tall. Now I have to convince them that they're also not three feet tall."

[MetroFallout]

Try reading what I wrote again without creating a straw man. I'm not talking about winter meaning Russia militarily wins the war in Ukraine. I'm talking about it putting such a strain on Europe's ability to keep the lights on that the EU pushes Ukraine into talks. I believe that's Putin's current endgame - if not this winter, then next. Mobilisation gives him the human resources to keep the war going until Europe gets fed up of subsidising it.

I am no expert on the situation in Ukraine, but I've been covering global commodities markets for 28 years and first started writing about Russian-Ukrainian gas disputes in the mid-90s. I am aware of Russia's limitations. But to quote a friend of mine who is an advisor to Ben Wallace, the UK Minister of Defence; "I've spent years trying to convince people that the Russians are not ten feet tall. Now I have to convince them that they're also not three feet tall."

Mobilization will do nothing but stretch his already completely clapped out and only existent-on-paper logistical corps even further. The conscripts right now don't have training, don't have gear and they are either deploying with Mosin rifles or AKM-shaped chunks of rust that you'd need a tetanus shot to even consider looking at.

What makes you think he's got that long.

[Dashenka]

What makes you think he hasn't?

Are there any signs of Putin not being able to hold control over Donbass? He's held Crimea for 7 years so far.

[Humble Scribe]

Disagree. It is technically correct by the UN definition.

[snip]

What definition are you using?

I don't really want to get into a legalistic hairsplitting discussion about this or come across as some kind of apologise for Putin; it's abundantly clear that war crimes have been committed in Ukraine to terrorise the population into submission, and that occupation has been brutal, but war crimes are not (necessarily) genocide. The trouble with "in whole or in part" as a definition is that you could argue that killing even one single person, if it is just because of their ethnic or national identity, is technically genocide. By that definition, *any* war is a genocide, as you're targeting people because of their national identity. If everything is genocide, then nothing is, and we have nothing to fall back on when there is a Holocaust, an Armenia or a Rwanda. Are 500 deaths a genocide, or just a terrible war crime? I don't know. I just feel that leaping to use the term every time someone does something we disapprove of robs it of meaning.

[Azuresun]

Ah yes, the myth of "General Winter". Absolute fucking bollocks that is.

Not to mention, there was this other war that Russia fought in winter, when they invaded a neighbour who also knew how to fight in the cold with a home field advantage, which didn't go super well for them. As in, they suffered 5x the inflicted casualties.

Like the world did to America after it invaded Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan? Or to NATO when it bombed Serbia into submission? Is that what you mean? Probably not. Wasn't the invasion of Iraq with very similar grounds to why Russia invaded Ukraine?

Oh hey, it's the familiar old whataboutisms and BUT AMERICA's. Never far away when someone's being a hype man for Russia.

Or continue to live in fear. I have theories but this isn't the time or place for those.

No, no, please go into detail on your "theories". Let's hear in great detail what you think is "really going on". No vagueposting, let's put those cards on the table.