Conflicting reports. Looks like three destroyed, one damaged.
6 Likes
Bump
2 Likes
12 Likes
Isn’t the most basic measurement of success in war control of territory?
So for all the comforting detail in this article (which could also have added expansion of NATO on Russian borders and beyond) its primary theme is wrong. Russia is slowly winning the war.
As to talk of the costs of the war to Russia, I suspect many Russians would take it as a point of pride that they were willing to sacrifice for their motherland and for (real or imagined) suffering nearby Russian minorities.
3 Likes
Ah, these must be the “special weapons” Putin was talking about.
8 Likes
4 Likes
I agree but obviously the nature of the territory itself and what is on it is of vital importance. If it is of outlying significance, not so much. If it is the enemy capital or cultural/political/economic/industrial heartland or has their main cities/population centres, yes.
Principles of war - Wikipedia
Clausewitz also included in the essay general principles of strategy by saying that Warfare has three main objects:
- (a) To conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy; always direct our principal operation against the main body of the enemy army or at least against an important portion of his forces
- (b) To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and to direct our operations against the places where most of these resources are concentrated
- (c) To gain public opinion, won through great victories and the occupation of the enemy’s capital
3 Likes
Worth remembering Russia had control over 27% of Ukraine immediately after they invaded, which is now currently 20% (Ukraine reduced that to 18% in 2023, has lost the rest since). Russia took 518 km2 of land in 2023 at the cost of hundreds of thousands of men, and have taken something like 3x that in 2024 at the cost of even more
Plus every km2 they take extends their supply lines even further which they’ve shown they can’t protect
4 Likes
I think Katz covers this point well.
If
- you are taking ground using mainly bows and arrows and muskets; and
- there is a largely unaffected peasant community who will work the land and pay tax to their new overlord; and
- the invading force can occupy, control the population, extract resources,
=> then war can be profitable.
But Russia is going bankrupt. Their GDP after defence spending (ie available to support the people) is less than ours. They can’t afford to rebuild levelled cities with resistant local populations. They can’t defend an expanded empire. They can’t restore degraded environments.
They will spin the outcome differently, but the economic and social reality is being felt now. Their reduced workforce is a long term economic disaster.
They can’t jump off their war train as this reality of how much they have lost will be too clear to see.
If Russia choose to continue their invasion, it is unclear if they will be met by a Ukrainian army that is well stocked by Europe & US, or will they face a Ukrainian resistance that is resourced mostly from within? The former will bleed them dry quickly, the latter more slowly.
This is the reality of losing 10,000 soldiers each week and reducing industrial capacity.
Your point that their losses are seen as a point of pride, I agree with completely and I think it’s reflected in how they view their heroism in defeating the nazis in WW2. This latest skirmish is spun as defeating the nazis who always come for us from the west, again.
7 Likes
No.
The quote from Clausewitz come close to describe objectives or conditions but not quite; land or resources is what you get AFTER winning the war or as a side effect. What Clausewitz was describing is manoeuvre warfare, except for point (a) which is now turned around and described as not attacking the strength of the opponent but his weakest and more vulnerable points (be them in the physical or moral realm) to then attack their center of gravity ( a source of strength that gives a force the ability to fight) - in the Russians case is their equipment and manpower.
So, in using the manoeuvrist approach (if it is a conscious one), UA is trading space (land) and time in order to attrit and spend the Russian forces; and the sanctions are going after the economy. We have seen this approach having success, and there have been many articles posted here describing the equipment shortages, manpower (resorting to convicts, migrants, and Koreans), and their economy. If UA can hold on, Russia might just collapse by the end of this year. (I might be over-optimistic, but it’s possible)
11 Likes
Is this another one and not the one shot down by themselves?
1 Like
Unsure. Maybe the same one.
1 Like
Russia itself is a great contradiction of Von Clausewitz. Burned Moscow, lost plenty of battles and cities, kept fighting . Athens the same against the Persians.
That article pretends losing a fleet means losing a war.
2 Likes
2 Likes
