Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[FrFan]

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by FrFan

[FrFan]

7 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Fromage slapfight!

[visionary]

 

[FrFan]

 

[The 12th Commandment]

19 hours ago, FrFan said:

Mmmm...lardon

[FrFan]

1 hour ago, The 12th Commandment said:

Mmmm...lardon

https://www.kitchenstories.com/en/recipes/tartiflette-french-potato-bacon-and-cheese-casserole 😋

[FrFan]

 

[Riggo-toni]

Ukraine has apparently taken back Severodonetsk.

 

[Riggo-toni]

And another Russian general bites the dust.

 

[DogofWar1]

 

[FrFan]

 

[PeterMP]

Anybody know how many people Russia would have lose until it really started to affect their ability to function as a state.

 

I know the Russian population is in decline and we've heard that they had to do this now because soon they won't have the population to do it.

 

But how far are they really from that point?  Is it 100K, 500K, a million?  Assuming no political pressure or anti-war pressure from the population when do they just to the point that it isn't feasible to continue?

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Anybody know how many people Russia would have lose until it really started to affect their ability to function as a state.

 

Assume part of that depends on your definition of "function as a state".  We talking North Korea, here?  

 

[Riggo-toni]

I imagine if they were to go full mobilization mode the number would be quite significant, but things may have to get more desperate for that, because that would require ethnic Russians being sent in. From what I understand, many if not most of the soldiers are from minorities brought in from poor regions in Asia, which is why Russians in Moscow or St Petersburg support the war.

[DogofWar1]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Anybody know how many people Russia would have lose until it really started to affect their ability to function as a state.

 

I know the Russian population is in decline and we've heard that they had to do this now because soon they won't have the population to do it.

 

But how far are they really from that point?  Is it 100K, 500K, a million?  Assuming no political pressure or anti-war pressure from the population when do they just to the point that it isn't feasible to continue?

 

I don't know if there's a bottom.  Also depends how we define functional state.

 

Now if we're talking militarily in Ukraine, also hard to say, bc there probably isn't a point where they just all throw down their arms and run away.  Rather they'll stall, dig in, lose ground where they can't dig in and probably freeze the conflict.  They have suffered massive losses, so it's very possible they are hitting "culmination" with their present forces now or will soon, but that won't cause a collapse.

 

Mobilization, as Riggo says, would probably be very unpopular, maybe even to the extent of replicating a 1917 scenario.

 

Putin cut a deal with Russians early on; you keep me in power and stay outta politics, and I will bring prosperity.

 

If he announces a mass mobilization he's reneging on that deal.  It's likely why he hasn't done it yet.

[Riggo-toni]

 

[DogofWar1]

Medvedev having a normal one, I see.

 

 

I feel like he's been eternally angry that Putin didn't make him the heir apparent and now he's angry at everyone (except Putin) for that fact.

Edited June 7, 2022 by DogofWar1

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Redskins Diehard]

On 6/7/2022 at 10:46 AM, PeterMP said:

Anybody know how many people Russia would have lose until it really started to affect their ability to function as a state.

 

I know the Russian population is in decline and we've heard that they had to do this now because soon they won't have the population to do it.

 

But how far are they really from that point?  Is it 100K, 500K, a million?  Assuming no political pressure or anti-war pressure from the population when do they just to the point that it isn't feasible to continue?

In WW2 they lost 29 million. Probably not as relevant to today but that is a staggering number. I forget the year, for some reason 1923 sticks out, but 95 percent of men born in that year were KIA by the end of WW2

 

Russian ability to mobilize and mobilize and mobilize some more is a major reason Barbarossa failed

Edited June 8, 2022 by Redskins Diehard

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Redskins Diehard said:

In WW2 they lost 29 million. Probably not as relevant to today but that is a staggering number. I forget the year, for some reason 1923 sticks out, but 95 percent of men born in that year were KIA by the end of WW2

 

Russian ability to mobilize and mobilize and mobilize some more is a major reason Barbarossa failed

 

A few things:

1. That's total Soviet dead and includes civilians and states that are no longer part of the Soviet Union, including an estimated 6.8 million Ukrainians.

 

2.  The military Russian deaths is about 6.8 million in WW2.

 

3.  I'm not sure that the Soviet Union was a functional state during WW2.  They essentially did nothing other than fight the war.  We sent them tons of food and other material (and not just grain but actually food).  I suspect if the Soviets had US level aid that was given to the Russian empire in WW1 that they would have failed as a country.  I don't think they will get the same support from anybody now.

 

4.  I can't find demographic information for before WW2 for the Soviets, but their median age is pretty high now.  And I'm assuming much higher than it was prior to WW2.  You aren't sending a 65 year old to fight.

 

But it is still a big number.  I'd say at least 200K actual military deaths and it absolutely might be more.  But it is also likely lower than the 6.8 million of WW2.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by PeterMP

[tshile]

Russia was content with splitting Poland and working north. They got in the war because Germany attacked them. And among their  greatest strategies was destroying their own ****, so when the Germans showed up there was nothing for them to use for anything. Food, houses, everything just destroyed. Germany fought much of that for worthless land. 
 

Their other great strategies were winter and the will to fight against foreign invaders.

 

The ww2 in color puts out there that hitler changed strategy and went for Stalingrad just as an ego move, and that’s the only reason their invasion got all messed up. 

[visionary]

I remember that Germany invaded USSR initially for the oil...I think.

 

[Renegade7]

On 6/7/2022 at 10:46 AM, PeterMP said:

Anybody know how many people Russia would have lose until it really started to affect their ability to function as a state.

 

I know the Russian population is in decline and we've heard that they had to do this now because soon they won't have the population to do it.

 

But how far are they really from that point?  Is it 100K, 500K, a million?  Assuming no political pressure or anti-war pressure from the population when do they just to the point that it isn't feasible to continue?

 

Japan is more open on the realities of going through a similar situation, better reliable data as well.  China is supposedly going to go through something similar.

 

From my understanding it's not just about a declining population, but a drop in working age individuals to balance the growing aging population.  Think less people paying social security tax for a growing number of people that need it.

 

I don't know what that number is, or the threshold for no longer being functional, but willing to bet Japan has a better comparable and honest answer then Russia or China.

 

One of biggest concerns I have with Russia is how much territory they have that isn't populated at all.  As planet warms and Sibera transitions from tundra to arable, they'd be sitting ducks for invasion if it wasn't for their nukes.

[PeterMP]

15 hours ago, tshile said:

The ww2 in color puts out there that hitler changed strategy and went for Stalingrad just as an ego move, and that’s the only reason their invasion got all messed up. 

 

Stalingrad was strategically important.  It sat on the Volga.  If the Germans could have taken Stalingrad, the Russians would have had to cross the Volga to counter attack.  In an area where there isn't a lot of geographical barriers the Volga represents the biggest one.  So taking Stalingrad would have limited future Soviet offensives.  Also the Volga was important for transporting goods through Russia.  If they could have taken Stalingrad they would have very much limited the Soviets ability to transport goods through their country, including aid from the Allies.

 

Most military experts agree that Stalingrad was a reasonable and maybe even necessary military objective.  Otherwise there were too many avenues for Soviet counter attacks.

 

Preventing an attack on Russia is hard because there are so many avenues that people can attack.  But they also have the ability to give ground and then all of those avenues to attack turn into avenues for them to counter attack.

Edited June 9, 2022 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

I've heard and read there were more natural resources further south of Stalingrad, and that while what's being said about counter offensives may have mattered, it was very much about pride, ego, and sending a message concerning a town named after Stalin. 

 

Have to keep in mind Hitler was a certified drug addict by this point in the war, and thats arguably a bigger reason for him doing stupid **** like invading Russia in the first place and thus eventually losing.