Avdiivka, Longtime Stronghold for Ukraine, Falls to Russians

Yes I know they're difficult questions. That's one reason I'm hesitant to accept the whole binary 'heads you win, tails you lose argument' to victory in most wars.

As for WW1 & 2? They were not the wars I quoted. Your referring total war on a global scale where all the combatants had to focus their entire national industrial output and workforce on a fight for what was perceived at the time to be national survival. To the leaders and populous of all the nations involved losing meant risking the loss of your national identity to the victor (at least that was the fear). The war in Ukraine isn't that, not by a long shot. (For everyone else except Ukraine that is.) Last time I checked the cost of the war for the US (who is by far and away Ukraine's largest donor) it has so far cost the government about 3% of it's annual defense budget on a per annum basis. NATO's European members? Direct inputs to the war have been even less. The main cost of the war to the west so far has been in the form short term disruption to trade and energy prices but even that has settled down.

So in real terms the war in Ukraine is not a clear and present threat to any of them regardless of who wins. And as I've also noted previously in the event it lost the war in Ukraine tomorrow the survival of Russia as an independent nation isn't a risk either. Not in the slightest, no way, now how. Putin's survival as President? Maybe. But the Russian State itself? Not a chance. So only the survival of Ukraine as an independent state is at risk here. For these reason I don't think the appropriate comparison is WW1 or WW2. And that's why I likened it to the wars Iraq and Afghanistan. In both world wars you cited objectively and at least while the fight was on victory was deemed to be worth whatever price had to be paid. That's not the case for Russia in Ukraine. (And in saying this you have to differentiate between Putin and Russia itself because it's the cost to Russia I'm talking about). That's why I've been judging the outcome in terms of Russia's intended goals when it started the war versus what it's likely to achieve and cost of achieving even that - including the likely on costs in terms of long term damage to it's economy. Hence Iraq and Afghanistan. Both nominal victories, but did the US and it's allies really 'win'?

For Russia however? I think any rational analysis makes their achievements in Ukraine a 'win' for them only in a purely nominal sense like Iraq and Afghanistan. And even then on a far, far worse scale. Not only are the direct costs proportionally far worse than anything experienced by the west in either of the above two wars but because of the significant and almost certain on costs once the fighting in Ukraine is over. Russia only has an economy 1/8 the size of the US or the EU to start with as well as a population that was in steep decline even before the war began and hundreds of thousands of their best and brightest decided to jump ship. Hence my claim that this war will be a massive net loss for Russia.

 

Billy, Billy, Billy, its your (lazy) ass that's making claims it apparently can't back up because if it could it would. So until such time as you pony up the evidence your claims on that point are unproven. That's how debate works Billy.

If I claim Ukraine has an army of flying magical unicorns its preparing to unleash on Russia? I'm the one who has to provide the evidence. Although come to think of it, based on some of your previous claims about the war in Ukraine? Flying magical unicorns might actually be a thing! I'll have to do some research and find out.

See that's how it's done. First you roll up your sleeves do the work then you make the claim, not the other way round.

 

OK I've read you posts on this topic over the past few days and although I disagree with your points, you at least made some, which is far more than 95% of the posters on this forum do. So there is that. I simply don't agree with them for the simple reason is that you are trying to impose a historical analysis from a point of view that we simply don't have available yet. We can look back at the Crimean war and see the after effects on both the British and Russians and draw a conclusion on whether one side or the other eventually benefited regardless of losers and winners.

But the Ukraine war is happening right now and we're not going to have the perspective you seek for decades. What we can do is judge who is most likely to win the actual war, and right now it's Russia by a longshot. Maybe a few decades from now you could right an interesting paper for a historical journal as to how Ukraine was the real winner, but that time is a long period away.

 

You interrupted and got corrected because you were talking out of your ass (seems to be your M.O.)

Here ya go: www.google.com search Minsk Protocols

It's about time to use the ignore feature yet again.

 

I don't think it will take decades to determine the cost of the war for Russia. I'll think we'll know the answer in less than an decade in fact. For the rest yes, we probably are going to have to agree to disagree but that said I would still refute your claim that 'Russia is winning by a long shot'. Russia still only occupied less than one fifth of Ukraine's territory and that's even when you include Crimea and the other areas they seized back in 2014! In real terms, since invading in 2022? Russia has succeeded in seizing what? Maybe another 9-10% of Ukraine's territory at best and still holds no large cities.

And the cost of this success? Almost 15000 fighting vehicles (including 3000) tanks confirmed destroyed, abandoned or captured. And those are only the visually confirmed losses actual losses are estimated to be at least 10 to 20% higher again! In terms of casualties? Their KIA figure is well in excess of 75,000 men with at least something like another 250,000 estimated to have been injured. And while the bulk of these injuries won't prevent the soldiers from returning to combat a still not significant % of those men will never fight again. The losses in tanks alone are devastating because something like 80% of Russia's pre war modernized MBTs have been lost and the bulk of these had imported western tech in their upgrades. Their replacements are older tanks being brought back into service without those enhancements.

In terms of aircraft they've lost more than 100 fighters and 135 helicopters plus at least two irreplaceable AWACs. And while total numbers of air frames on paper still look impressive at any one time something like more than 50% of those are down for maintenance because Russia jet engines and turbines on average only have about half the lifespan (flight hours) of their western counterparts. The Black sea fleet has lost between 21 and 24 naval vessels depending on whose count you believe. Most of those sunk but others out die to the need for extensive repairs and limited repair facilities because the main dry docks in the Russian Naval bases in Crimea is within the strike range of Ukraine.

For Ukraine itself confirmed losses total something like 5200 combat vehicles of all types including about 750 tanks. Ukraine's total casualties to date are estimated at 35,000 KIA (but climbing rapidly) with between 70,000 and 120,000 injured. to date it's lost about 73 combat aircraft and 38 helicopters and had no navy to peak of when the invasion began. All of which means that while Russia certainly has more equipment and manpower and can certainly afford to lose more of both, to date this war has been anything BUT victory by a 'long shot' for them. To the extent Russia is 'winning'?. At best? They are marginally ahead, remembering of course at the start of the war Russia had a force multiple advantage over Ukraine of something lie three to one!

God forbid, but could you imagine the reaction if the USA suffered Russia's losses in men and material in a war today? Would you be calling it victory by a long shot? So with respect I still believe the outcome of this war is undecided. And alas I very much fear that outcome will probably hinge on who wins the Presidency in 2024.

 

Interrupted by what? Corrected by who? No, never mind don't answer.

Instead yes please! Pleassssse ignore me. I'm actually getting a hard-on just at thought of never having to interact with your 'brilliant insights' any more, on any topic ever again! Do it. Do it. Do it!

I'll pay you.

 

You simply can't compare the Russian ability to absorb losses with...really anyone else's. During the Chechen war they lost 30,000 men just in capturing Grozny. I don't think the Russian losses are going to effect Russia in a way that would have already ended the war for the US if it were our war. The Ukrainians likely have the same resilience towards accepting losses but they just have a much smaller population to draw from, which makes their losses more critical. Even accepting your casualty figures (which I don't-we'll likely not find out until after the war) that's a loss that will make it difficult to bounce back in the same way that World War I and II decimated the working age British male populace (which we had discussed previously).

In most cases with war, even if you win, you lose. Americans don't usually get that because we have not had to deal with those kinds of losses since the Civil War and due to a lot of factors, our participation in World War I and especially World War II helped propel us to super power status. Otherwise it's a crapfest, even for the "winners."

But Russia is clearly going to win this, no matter what post war after effects they have to deal with. I've been wondering why you have been fighting so hard to make Ukraine seem like a winner, even though it's clearly not going to win this. I can only assume it's because Ukraine is your team, and you support your team, go team!

But America is my team, so I view the war through those lens, not from the Russian or Ukrainian side. I guess it's a result of not being a sports fan, I'm not prone to the emotionalism of supporting a team that I have no relation to or any stake in. So you can support Ukraine all you want, but they are not going to win this.

 

By way of confirmation yes, the human casualty figures are just estimates albeit estimates calculated by people who do this kind of thing for a living based in part on their expertise and casualty figures from past wars and in part on hard data like for example public funeral notices in the case of Russian casualty figures. The material losses I quoted however are another thing entirely. They are hard data i.e. visually confirmed counts of destroyed or captured vehicles that have been photographed and geo-located. There's a web site that conglomerates these images and verifies the accuracy of the claims. Its called Oryx. If you haven't already done so I suggest you check it out. They set out their methodology and drill even down into figures for things like the number of confirmed drone kills. And they update their figures if not daily then certainly weekly.

In terms of the highlighted statement? We'll see I call 'to early to tell'. If Biden wins and can get the kind of support he wants to give to Ukraine it will be a game changer. If not Europe is still on board and Ukraine still has access to excellent intelligence support. For example it will be extremely difficult for the Russians to mass forces for any kind of large scale/rapid advance and not have it telegraphed to the Ukrainians well in advance courtesy of Western intelligence sources even if their own sources don't detect it.

 

OK so you still think that Ukraine can win the actual war, not just winning the peace or whatever. Well you're likely to get your way since Biden will likely win and the Democrats will likely get the House back, so they'll undo the purse strings on Ukraine. We can ship them everything but people, and that's why it's going to fall apart in Ukraine, no matter how many warehouses we fill over there.

 

Now now Mike, you're talking to someone that actually believes ukie only has 35,000 KIA !

It doesn't matter what you say, you're wasting your time.

35,000

 

I can certainly do without your off-topic homosexual overtures.

 

Another SU34 shot down today over Mariupol ...Bill?

How's this possible....what's RuZzian air defense doing?

RuZzian air defense going down faster than Maria Zakharova in the men's room of RuZzian Foreign Ministry....

 

Both (sort of). I believe there is a high probability Ukraine will avoid being conquered entirely which, for the reasons I've set out previously was the original intention when Putin launched his invasion. I also believe there is a high probability that while doing so they will manage to retain most of the territory they currently hold and that there's a chance they may indeed regain a little more back as part of the negotiations, depending upon what concession Ukraine makes to Putin in return. At worse I think the final map of Ukraine will look little different from what it does now. I have never thought Ukraine would ever recapture all the territory it has lost to Russia since 2014 including Crimea. Assuming they are allowed to join the EU? They will win the peace.

The key issue is the US 2024 election. A Biden win may see renewed support for the Ukraine. A Trump win won't. Importantly however the rate at which Russia is losing equipment vs the rate of new production and the speed with which it is consuming its stockpile of older, still usable vehicles etc means Russia will run down its capacity to keep fighting some time in late 2026 peace if the war continues that long. It's also important to remember that the the west holds some Trump cards to play as well including granting or withholding NATO membership to Ukraine. That could be a concession as well, if only a symbolic one for Putin because doing so won't stop Ukraine being armed with Western equipment or training with NATO member armies etc. i.e defacto membership.

Whatever happens any peace deal will require concession from both sides. For instance Russia already control most but not quite all of the former Luhansk and Donestsk Oblasts . Prior to the war these regions were majority ethnic Russian. One concession Ukraine could make is ceding the small parts of both it still holds to Russia in return for more of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast at the far western end of Ukraine which wasn't majority Russian and which is vital to Ukraine as a defensive buffer. That kind of thing is the victory I'm talking about.

 

Wasn't an offer Bill it was an expression of anticipation, however brief it seems joy. The money is still on the table though. And if you've been following the rest of my exchanges with Mike? They're proceeding quite well on both sides.

 

Your substantive arguments against @Lil Mike are just like the "money on the table"......non-existent.

 

It's a little early to be divvying Ukraine lands, but the fact that it's Ukraine lands that we're talking about go more to my point that Ukraine can't win this (yes yes you've posted amply on what exactly construes "winning" but for the sake of clarity I'm going by the meaning that applied to almost every war until this one)

But because of that who wins the 2024 election matters a lot less than you seem to think. As I've noted, Ukraine can't win no matter how much stuff we give them, so the difference between Biden giving them the world and Trump giving them nothing is simply the difference of some months before Ukraine has to sue for peace. In any case (Unless Macron starts sending in the troops), there is going to be a cease fire, negotiations, and an agreement in which Ukraine loses territory.

That happens no matter who is President. The difference is time and lives.

 

Why? That's a claim you have to prove.

Remember that the clock is ticking for Russia as well. It cannot keep fighting and produce enough equipment to replace material losses at the same time. Nor will the stockpile of equipment they have in storage last beyond 2026. The primary reason we're seeing T-64 tanks for example on the battlefield is that they are are mechanically less complex than (sightly) more modern T-72s and T-80 and tank less effort and time to mobilize. But the older the equipment is the less of it is actually still usable. Something like 30 % of the stockpile is estimated to be 'junk' status (to far degraded to be worth repairing). That's what points to the late 26 deadline. Same for something as simple as artillery barrels. Russia is expending tremendous amounts of artillery ammunition but each shell fired degrades the barrel of the gun that fired it. Result? The barrels wear out and needs to be replaced. Again, the problem is production of new barrels doesn't meet the needed replacement rate. So what to do? Answer? Bring old guns into service from the stockpile and purchase NK shells and artillery pieces. But NK itself also requires a large stockpile of ammo and guns for self defense. It's preeminent advantage in a war with SK revolves around the fact that thousands of artillery pieces on the border are sighted in on Seoul. So again that well will run dry at some point. Military electronics and drones etc? Same problem. demand exceeds production rares. Iran can help but won't solve the problem entirely.

The longer the war continues the harder it will be for nation with a medium sized economy to continue.. Provided the US and Europe continue to support Ukraine because as I said before combined? Their economies are almost 20 times the size of Russia's.

 

Err... Nope! Don't think so. Debate continuing. And just so you know I do have $5 to my name. Which is just about what your worth to me in terms of inconvenience.

 

Do you expect the war to continue beyond 2026? How long can the war last? Are we talking about 2028? 2032? Can the war last 10 years at this rate? Of course you may be right and it keeps going on and on. I thought Russia & Ukraine would be at the negotiating table by the end of 2023 and I was wrong about that, but I do think there is a point reached in which Ukraine simply doesn't have the manpower to mount a defense (which is where they are at, all dreams of Spring Offensives to the contrary).

As for Russia's materiel problem, I fully expect them to exhaust all of their reserve stock, no matter how old their trucks, BMP's, artillery, and tanks are. However Russia does have it's own native arms industry and is expanding their production. I am assuming you think there is a sweet spot of Russian weakness between exhausting weapons and ammo and new production filling the gap. But North Korea and Iran does have their own arms industries and this is an opportunity for them. Everyone needs oil and Russia has got it. My guess is that they will be able to meet their requirements by buying it as their own production increases.

Ukraine on the other hand has no capacity for military production, and it's clients are not increasing their own. Denmark recently donated ALL of their artillery to Ukraine. There is a pretty hard limit to how much NATO members are going to strip down their own militaries for Ukraine. The US has not yet begun a massive increase in our domestic military production to make up the shortfall. We just have a lot more military equipment on hand and in stock to ship over.

As for "proving" that Ukraine can't win, that's based on the relative size of the militaries, populations, and economies, plus where the war is now. You have not yet provided a scenario in which Ukraine pushes Russia out from behind their defensive lines and back behind Russian borders. You are welcome to "prove" they can do that if you like!

 

Back to the old 'our GDP is bigger than yours' argument.

Fast food and social media isn't manufacturing.

Clock ticking? Yeah, for NATO countries. Russia's replacement rate is virtually equal to its loss rate and they are still ramping UP. Most tanks are repaired.
There's plenty of public data on this. Artillery shell production exceeds ALL of NATO by multiples.

You must have got your info from the Pentagon. The same assclowns that said Russia would run out of missiles 20 month ago.

 

Well...they did run short Bill....why else would the Kremlin circus run to the Iranians and North Koreans.

 

A few points. Firstly I didn't ask fore reason why Ukraine 'can't win' I asked you to define victory as you see it for Russia. In your opinion what does a Russian victory look like?

Your're also definitely wrong about the NATO not expanding production either. All of the main players (with the possible exception of Spain I believe) have already increased defense spending and are rearming. I've already noted that the US is expanding artillery shell production 6 fold over the next few years, well it's also ramping up production of PGMs as well. So are it's NATO partners. Germany is in the process of standing up a new armored brigade for instance. I have sources who work in military logistics etc who regularly point to open source news on defense programs and production orders but defense sector news letters and on-line journals are also full of reports on European rearmament to, both plans that have been announced and hurdles that need to be overcome. If you want some more details I can get some or you can look into the figures for yourself. Your choice. In short though NATO is rearming.

Secondly I don't think the war will last to 2026 I think that it could last that long. Hopefully a settlement can be reached before then. I do note however that for a start no-one expected the war to last this long and now the front lines are changing only slowly and with great effort/cost to the attacker. So barring radical change two more years is, I think a realistic possibility if not a certainty. Thirdly, as I've noted before somewhere around the end of 2026 is an estimate only. It defines the point at which (based on currently available information) Russia hits a 'crunch time' in war output due to the likely exhaustion of it's stockpiles of cold war fighting vehicles. Russia is obviously making efforts to increase production of new equipment and munitions in the absence of critical western tech but there are limits on how far it can go in the time available before the used car yard gets emptied. At the moment for instance (and from memory only) pre-war tank production was limited to about 200 or so hulls a year. This was enough to meet domestic orders and foreign sales prior to the war starting but is not nearly anywhere near enough to replace all their losses now. And they face the same conundrum with most heavy equipment/armored fighting vehicles. (Utility vehicles like trucks and supplies of light armaments should be less problematic.) The problem is its not just tanks. They have to replace losses of critical equipment across the board! Everything from tanks and BMPs/AFVs to mechanized and towed artillery, to mobile SAM platforms, EW vehicles, communication and HQ vehicles. You name it they need new ones! And given the confirmed losses to date replacing most of it in the time available will be a virtually impossible task. Even the US couldn't produce 2000 new Abrams in two years on a couple of years notice! Why believe Russia can produce 2000 'new' T-80s and 90s in the same time frame? (And by 'new' I mean not even as good as the ones they've lost in combat because the Russian's can't equip them with the western tech those tanks had).

As far as NK and Iran go? NK they are net importers of most Russian vehicles and military equipment. Iran can certainly help with drones and some forms of short range ballistic missiles and NK can provide missiles and artillery shells (from its stockpiles) plus some tanks but as far as I am aware most of those are domestically made copies of the T-64 or some very old versions of the T-72. And there are limits on how much equipment NK can afford to sell because... well it's ability to ramp up domestic production of heavy military equipment on short notice is 'questionable' I suppose is the polite word.

So assuming consumption of old equipment continues at the current pace and assuming Russia's capacity to ramp up production is limited to realistic levels and assuming Ukraine receives continued support from the West? 2026 or there about is the best estimate I've seem for when Putin has some hard decisions to make. (Actually probably sooner than that because he will need to open negotiations while he still has a cards to play.) Those are a lot of assumptions I know but all I have are the figures and estimates provided experts in these things. My crystal ball still hasn't been delivered by Amazon.

Short answer? Who know when the war will end? I mentioned 2026 as a 'crunch' year, well 2024 is also one for obvious reasons. There a lots of hypothetical events that could shorten or lengthen the war but I don't see many that push it far past the end of 2026. There might be long, drawn out negotiations on a peace deal with tit for tat exchanges at the front that could push everything out into 2027 but high intensity combat seems unlikely for the reasons stated. If Putin really want's to lengthen the war? I suppose he could just go on the defensive permanently and continue the low intensity bombing and shelling of Ukraine indefinitely. But what does that achieve? That's a long term losing game for everyone because absent any real pressure Ukraine can also re-arm and resupply itself and all those sanctions etc will never go away!

One thing is certain though. Whenever the war does end Putin will have to walk away from the table with something to show for it. What that will be is anyone's guess but I'm pretty certain it won't be what he wanted going in and I'm also certain Ukraine will 'win the peace' as you put it. And when Putin kicks the bucket? Well that's another game changing event all of it's own that would also likely reshape the outcome of this stupid war.

 

I don’t know why you would ask me to define victory for Russia when I’ve defined it multiple times in this thread; Russia walks away with more territory under its control than it had at the start of the war. I realize you regard this as some old-fashioned metric which may have made sense in the 19th century, but is wholly outdated now. But this is a war of territory. A war that ends with one side grabbing a lot more territory than it had originally seems a pretty clear metric.

I’m curious how you think Zelenskyy, after the negotiations are done, is going to go on TV, hold up an agreement which gives all of this to Russia…



…and claim that they won? I’m just not seeing it, but it hardly seems worth even discussing at this point. Since you do regard that as a victory, I’ve no argument that would satisfy you.

As for the materiel issue, I happily concede to you all the points you made about the ramping up of both defense budgets and arms. But again, as I’ve already stated, it doesn’t matter how many warehouses we cram full of stuff in Ukraine, ultimately the Ukrainians are not going to be able to field a large, adequately trained force. That’s what they started the war with, now they’ve gone through multiple iterations of less fit troops who are more poorly trained. That situation is NOT going to get better no matter how many tanks, personnel carriers, artillery shells, and ammunition you supply.

Again, these are all points I’ve already made more than once in this thread, so we seem to be in some sort of weird repeat mode. Unless you actually have new arguments, I don’t see how this isn’t done.

 

No, we've just defined our points of difference. You see a Russian victory (or defeat) in purely binary terms. Victory is holding more land at the end of the war than you do in the beginning, doesn't matter if its 1000 square miles or one square foot! If Russia gains 1000 miles it 'wins' and if by chance it loses even one foot of the land it started with back in 2022? Then by default it has lost the war! I on the other had see that as being far too simplistic - for reasons that I've stated. Fact is I don't know of any modern military professional, economist, historian or political scientists who would define 'winning' purely in the terms you do.

And as for the Ukrainian army being poorly trained? Did you sleep through the performance of the Russian Army from the start of the invasion through the next 6 to 8 months or so? Their middle and senior leadership ranks in particular made the Ukrainian army of the day look like hardened professionals. Russian performance was a clown show! The truth is both sides have had to learn by doing and both sides have paid a high price for those lessons. In contrast to the army at the start of the war the Russian Army today is far more experienced and competent. But its also far, far less well equipped. Meanwhile the Ukrainian army is also more experienced but its level of equipment has generally improved. The most significant advantage Russia now holds is numeral superiority and an advantage in fires. That's about it. Ukraine on the other hand has the defenders advantage. So I don't see an easy 'victory' here for Russia if that's what you want to call it and I definitely don't see it as a victory worth having.

BTW your map includes territory held by Russia before this war even started. Try cutting the size of the gains by more than half.

As for 'how you think Zelenskyy, after the negotiations are done, is going to go on TV, hold up an agreement which gives all of this to Russia' The short answer is 'the same way Putin will'.

The longer answer is he won't like doing it and some but not necessarily all Ukrainians will agree and be angered. I suspect however most will just shrug and bear it, just being glad the war is over. Of course it will help that he show how Ukraine is now on its way into the EU and that western development aid and investment funds are going to start flowing in in large amounts (not something Putin will ever be able to claim) and also that NATO membership is on the cards as well. Although that can be bargained away as a sop to Putin if necessary because doing so won't stop the West rearming Ukraine and modernizing it to NATO standards anyway. Russia? It will just continue it's long slow decline into nuclear armed irrelevancy. No one will threaten it but most of the civilized world won't want much to do with it either.

 

Well thank you. This has been an enjoyable discussion. Clearly no minds were changed but I can't say I didn't learn something. Apparently the establishment that's supported this war is prepared to say that Ukraine won no matter how badly it loses. I wasn't really expecting that but it showed that further discussion had become pointless. Usually to have a substantial discussion you have to agree on terms and when it came to the terms of 'victory' and 'defeat,' we never got there.