Russia Invades Ukraine XVI

[AWRTR]

I’m not disputing what you are saying because I have read the same thing in other places. According to what I can dig up, the Russians have lost 580,000 soldiers. That’s significantly more than the US lost in all wars since WWI.

Still, Russia has a population of 147,000,000, so roughly 73.5 million men. I have a hard time understanding why people think they are running out of recruits.

United States: war fatalities1775-2024 | Statista

The American Civil War is the conflict with the largest number of American military fatalities in history.

www.statista.com

It's not that they are running out of recruits for this war necessarily but their demographic trends are terrible. Losing the number of men they have only makes the long term problem worse as I understand it. This war will impact the next. War isn't fought by senior adults. It's fought by young men and the number Russia has is continuing to drop and it doesn't appear it's going to stop. Couple that with their historical tactics and Russia is in deep trouble. They have generally had a meat grinder approach to winning wars. It's worked for them quite a bit, but the meat is running low.

Russia’s Demographic Decline Will Be Deeper, Last Longer, And Hurt More Than Expected – Analysis

On October 20, the Russian state statistical agency, Rosstat, issued a second report predicting that Russia’s population will continue to decline and be down more than seven million people by 2046. Rosstat’s first report came at the end of September and presented estimates that the Russian will...

www.eurasiareview.com

 

[Tidewater]

I’m not disputing what you are saying because I have read the same thing in other places. According to what I can dig up, the Russians have lost 580,000 soldiers. That’s significantly more than the US lost in all wars since WWI.

Still, Russia has a population of 147,000,000, so roughly 73.5 million men. I have a hard time understanding why people think they are running out of recruits.

United States: war fatalities1775-2024 | Statista

The American Civil War is the conflict with the largest number of American military fatalities in history.

www.statista.com

First, the losses are not all killed. "Losses" are killed, wounded and missing. Folks commonly conflate the terms.

I agree with you that Russia is probably not on the verge of "running out of soldiers." There is always another class of 17 year olds about to turn 18. I think folks looking at this compare the losses in Ukraine to the Soviet losses in ten years in Afghanistan, and conclude that 500k losses in two years has to cause more unrest in a smaller Russia than it did in a larger USSR.
Maybe not, however. Russia does a better job at controlling her peoples' access to information than the Soviets did theirs.
As George Kennan who said, “it is the shadows rather than the substance of things that move the hearts, and sway the deeds, of statesmen.” Control what they see, and you control what they think. Control what they think and you control what they do. The Kremlin controls what Russians see very effectively.

 

[JDCrimson]

I am not familiar with the maps, but is it possible for Ukraine to turn South and attack Belgorod? This would almost simulate an attack from the rear of the Russian front.

Also, is Ukraine killing the conscripts in Kursk or just taking them prisoner? It looks like Putin is willing to host Ukraine's for a bit until he sees he is not able to advance forward. Killing some conscripts might change the tide of the war but it might also encourage Putin to escalate the war without retreating as well.

 

[AWRTR]

I am not familiar with the maps, but is it possible for Ukraine to turn South and attack Belgorod? This would almost simulate an attack from the rear of the Russian front.

Also, is Ukraine killing the conscripts in Kursk or just taking them prisoner? It looks like Putin is willing to host Ukraine's for a bit until he sees he is not able to advance forward. Killing some conscripts might change the tide of the war but it might also encourage Putin to escalate the war without retreating as well.

I don't think they have enough troops to take Belogorod. They can cut it off and make it impossible to use it as a jumping off point for troops and logistics in the North.

 

[Tidewater]

I am not familiar with the maps, but is it possible for Ukraine to turn South and attack Belgorod? This would almost simulate an attack from the rear of the Russian front.

Way more terrain to be seized before there is any threat to Belgorod.

I doubt the Ukrainians have the forces.

Also, is Ukraine killing the conscripts in Kursk or just taking them prisoner?

Probably a bit of both.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

First, the losses are not all killed. "Losses" are killed, wounded and missing. Folks commonly conflate the terms.

I agree with you that Russia is probably not on the verge of "running out of soldiers." There is always another class of 17 year olds about to turn 18. I think folks looking at this compare the losses in Ukraine to the Soviet losses in ten years in Afghanistan, and conclude that 500k losses in two years has to cause more unrest in a smaller Russia than it did in a larger USSR.
Maybe not, however. Russia does a better job at controlling her peoples' access to information than the Soviets did theirs.
As George Kennan who said, “it is the shadows rather than the substance of things that move the hearts, and sway the deeds, of statesmen.” Control what they see, and you control what they think. Control what they think and you control what they do. The Kremlin controls what Russians see very effectively.

The hidden part of the problem is that it's your procreationists you're losing. Depopulation is already a problem. They've created a nightmare problem over the next 30 years...

 

[Tidewater]

The hidden part of the problem is that it's your procreationists you're losing. Depopulation is already a problem. They've created a nightmare problem over the next 30 years...

There are a numerous videos on Youtube showing life in Russian villages. Life there is bleak.
One Brit videographer went to a dead manufacturing town. Huge Soviet-era blocks of flats now mostly empty. It seems maybe 10% of the population remains (mostly elderly), eking out a living somehow. Meanwhile bigger cities are more vibrant. The backbone of Russian society for centuries was the farming village. Collectivization killed that and replaced the faming village with the state-run factory town. The end of the Cold War killed that because Soviet industry was horribly inefficient.

 

[Tidewater]

This was interesting.
Russia seizes more than $100M from Google to fund war propaganda campaign: report
Good luck in the future getting foreign companies ot invest inside Russia after this.

 

[Bamaro]

The hidden part of the problem is that it's your procreationists you're losing. Depopulation is already a problem. They've created a nightmare problem over the next 30 years...

The problem started with the overpopulation. Many times the solutions are also problematic, but needed.

 

[Tidewater]

The problem started with the overpopulation. Many times the solutions are also problematic, but needed.

I think Earle was addressing the situation in Russia particularly. I do not think Russia has ever suffered from overpopulation. The Bolsheviks made sure of that (with some help from the Nazis 1941-1945).
Russia's underpopulation problem today is made worse by the departure of young people who are (or might be) interested in having kids.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

It's true that Russia reports roughly 67 million men. The issue for them is the 18 - 34 year old cohort....which is both the age at which those who become fathers do that and the age at which they make the best soldiers.

Trouble is, they were running low on those before the Ukrainian war, and are materially worse off because of not only casualties but also the mass exodus of draft-eligible men who left the country to avoid conscription.

Here's a demographic chart showing a huge reduction in 18 - 34 year-olds today, resulting from a collapse in the birth rate immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They had a brief upswing about 10 years ago, but that didn't last long and they're even worse off now than they were in the 1990s.



Eyeballing another chart, I guesstimated Russian men between 18 and 34 at about 12 - 14 million or so: Male and female population by age Russia 2024 | Statista

So a loss of 550,000+ soldiers is a nasty percentage. Even allowing that the number is KIA, WIA and captured, it's still huge. Even if not killed, how many of the wounded are realistically capable of siring children? How many of those will want to? How many of the captured will elect not to return to Russia after the war?

Plus, keep in mind:
1. The 500,000 casualty figure doesn't include those fighting-age men fleeing the country.
2. The demographic information is Russia's self-reported data....and they lie about ALL their numbers.

Between the two, the actual situation is almost certainly more dire than what's shown above -- which is bad enough in itself.

The Russians might lose in Ukraine or they might win. Ukraine's demographics aren't a lot different, and they had a smaller population to begin with. Never mind what the two sides are saying, I expect a negotiated settlement.

However it ends, I vacillate on whether Russia will (1) use the post-war time period to re-arm and start something else up in a decade or so, or (2) they will simply be unable to fight another war at all.

 

[Tidewater]

It's true that Russia reports roughly 67 million men. The issue for them is the 18 - 34 year old cohort....which is both the age at which those who become fathers do that and the age at which they make the best soldiers.

Trouble is, they were running low on those before the Ukrainian war, and are materially worse off because of not only casualties but also the mass exodus of draft-eligible men who left the country to avoid conscription.

Here's a demographic chart showing a huge reduction in 18 - 34 year-olds today, resulting from a collapse in the birth rate immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They had a brief upswing about 10 years ago, but that didn't last long and they're even worse off now than they were in the 1990s.

View attachment 45230

Eyeballing another chart, I guesstimated Russian men between 18 and 34 at about 12 - 14 million or so: Male and female population by age Russia 2024 | Statista

So a loss of 550,000+ soldiers is a nasty percentage. Even allowing that the number is KIA, WIA and captured, it's still huge. Even if not killed, how many of the wounded are realistically capable of siring children? How many of those will want to? How many of the captured will elect not to return to Russia after the war?

Plus, keep in mind:
1. The 500,000 casualty figure doesn't include those fighting-age men fleeing the country.
2. The demographic information is Russia's self-reported data....and they lie about ALL their numbers.

Between the two, the actual situation is almost certainly more dire than what's shown above -- which is bad enough in itself.

The Russians might lose in Ukraine or they might win. Ukraine's demographics aren't a lot different, and they had a smaller population to begin with. Never mind what the two sides are saying, I expect a negotiated settlement.

However it ends, I vacillate on whether Russia will (1) use the post-war time period to re-arm and start something else up in a decade or so, or (2) they will simply be unable to fight another war at all.

I suspect that, given Russia's history of being invaded over and over, it will not be difficult to sell the population on the necessity of defense. Depending on how this war turns out and who is in charge of the Russian government hereafter, selling the population on launching another aggressive war might be more difficult. On the other hand, Russia has two enduring traditions, one internal and the other external: the have a very high toleration for internal despotism and a great hunger for the land of their neighbors.

As for the demographics of the two countries, Russia may well be hard-pressed to find young men willing and able to sire the next generation of Russians. Ukraine has made a deliberate decision not to draft men under 25. I'm not sure why not, but I suspect it has to do with having a next generation.

This reminds me of one of my favorite anecdotes from the Late Unpleasantness. General D. H. Hill approved a soldier's leave request with the note, “If our brave soldiers are not occasionally permitted to visit their homes, the next generation in the South will be composed of the descendants of skulkers and cowards." One wonders what kind of Ukrainians will be around twenty years from now.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I wasn't aware that Ukraine didn't draft men under 25. I think you're probably right in that they want to ensure another generation.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Russia: Gazprom oil refinery on fire after an explosion in Omsk, around 2,500km from Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828155006429929513

 

[Tidewater]

I wasn't aware that Ukraine didn't draft men under 25. I think you're probably right in that they want to ensure another generation.

I imagine young peoples' social life looks like a weird updated version of the film Logan's Run.

 

[Tidewater]

Russia: Gazprom oil refinery on fire after an explosion in Omsk, around 2,500km from Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828155006429929513

Dadgummit. Darn industrial accidents.

 

[Tidewater]

One of the motifs of Russian politics since the latter half of the 1990s was that the West promised that NATO "would not expand one inch to the east" once Gorbachev agreed to the reunification of Germany in 1990.
In 1999, NATO agreed to allow the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to join NATO, followed in 2004 by Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia). The Russians (first Yeltsin and later Putin) cranked up the propaganda machine for domestic Russian consumption that Western leaders had lied and therefore, Russia was justified in assuring her security by invading her neighbors.
Did the NATO Really Promise Not to Expand Eastward?
This article explores how incorrect the Russian propaganda was. In the discussion, James Baker had said the reunification of Germany would not expand the jurisdiction of NATO's forces one inch to the east. What most took this to mean was NATO countries would not station troops in the former German Democratic Republic's territory. Until 2017, NATO honored that promise. Only after Russia invaded Ukraine did NATO deploy NATO troops from countries further west into the former Warsaw Pact countries and then only at the urgent request of those countries (because Russia had fundamentally altered the security environment in eastern Europe). The Baker-Gorbachev discussion where the "one inch to the east" promise was allegedly made was not the Warsaw Pact (which nobody knew would be dissolved soon) about the admission of free and sovereign nations of eastern Europe to NATO. No one foresaw the demise of the Warsaw Pact so no promises were made about those countries. Nevertheless, the Russians have run with this story.

This shows how is the spreading a pernicious lie (plus the lack of any credible media source to show its falseness). Almost the entirety of the Russian propaganda narrative is built on the substructure of this lie. It is important to contradict falsehoods and to do so, it is important to have information sources that the target audience trusts to be able to do so.

 

[Its On A Slab]

One of the motifs of Russian politics since the latter half of the 1990s was that the West promised that NATO "would not expand one inch to the east" once Gorbachev agreed to the reunification of Germany in 1990.
In 1999, NATO agreed to allow the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to join NATO, followed in 2004 by Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia). The Russians (first Yeltsin and later Putin) cranked up the propaganda machine for domestic Russian consumption that Western leaders had lied and therefore, Russia was justified in assuring her security by invading her neighbors.
Did the NATO Really Promise Not to Expand Eastward?
This article explores how incorrect the Russian propaganda was. In the discussion, James Baker had said the reunification of Germany would not expand the jurisdiction of NATO's forces one inch to the east. What most took this to mean was NATO countries would not station troops in the former German Democratic Republic's territory. Until 2017, NATO honored that promise. Only after Russia invaded Ukraine did NATO deploy NATO troops from countries further west into the former Warsaw Pact countries and then only at the urgent request of those countries (because Russia had fundamentally altered the security environment in eastern Europe). The Baker-Gorbachev discussion where the "one inch to the east" promise was allegedly made was not the Warsaw Pact (which nobody knew would be dissolved soon) about the admission of free and sovereign nations of eastern Europe to NATO. It no one foresaw the demise of the Warsaw Pact so no promises were made about those countries. Nevertheless, the Russians have run with this story.

This shows how is the spreading a pernicious lie (plus the lack of any credible media source to show its falseness). Almost the entirety of the Russian propaganda narrative is built on the substructure of this lie. It is important to contradict falsehoods and to do so, it is important to have information sources that the target audience trusts to be able to do so.

I have mentioned before that I have friends of my wife in the Russian-speaking expat community. One particular couple(wife is Russian, husband is Armenian but carries a Russian passport as well) are thinkng about moving back to Russia if "things get really bad after the election".

I am not one to jump into such testy issues, but I was heartened to hear that someone finally asked them WHY they think they are in danger.

I mean, even if things deteriorate more in US/Russia relations, I think being here in the US is a lot safer place for anyone. Regardless of their opinion of Putin.

Of course, both of them are/were ardent RFK Jr supporters. So that might explain part of their lunacy.

I like them both, but I cannot understand how people can be so deluded. Russian propaganda is so patently false on the surface.

 

[Tidewater]

I have mentioned before that I have friends of my wife in the Russian-speaking expat community. One particular couple(wife is Russian, husband is Armenian but carries a Russian passport as well) are thinkng about moving back to Russia if "things get really bad after the election".

I am not one to jump into such testy issues, but I was heartened to hear that someone finally asked them WHY they think they are in danger.

I mean, even if things deteriorate more in US/Russia relations, I think being here in the US is a lot safer place for anyone. Regardless of their opinion of Putin.

Of course, both of them are/were ardent RFK Jr supporters. So that might explain part of their lunacy.

I like them both, but I cannot understand how people can be so deluded. Russian propaganda is so patently false on the surface.

Russian propaganda is effective. That is why I highlighted the the bit about the medium countering propaganda must be credible in the eyes of the target audience. That latter bit is key if you want to convince anyone of anything. It is also very difficult.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Russia: The Atlas military fuel depot belonging to the State Reserves in Rostov region was struck again this night. Due to ongoing destruction of fuel storage facilities by Ukraine, Russia has been forced to ration fuel, even for commercial passenger jets.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828641172224708708