136
submitted 1 year ago by doo@sh.itjust.works to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

If anything, russia is showing clear signs of sunk-cost fallacy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

They've already lost what, roughly ten percent of personnel?

[-] novamdomum@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think they've lost about the amount of troops that Napoleon lost in Russia funnily enough.

[-] HootinNHollerin@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Time to banish putin to an island

[-] ahnesampo@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I wonder if Ukraine is willing to lease Snake Island for that.

[-] HootinNHollerin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Too temperate of climate

[-] k_rol@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Please put cameras, many will want to watch that!

[-] HootinNHollerin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Like people watch an eagles nest. I’ll tune in for him eating a raw bird… Maybe trump will join him

[-] StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk 16 points 1 year ago

Doesn't mean anything. They have plenty of more meat to throw in. The horrifying thing about an enemy like russia is that they have no respect for human life and suffering is an integral part of their culture.

The people in charge are more than willing to absorb casualties that are at least an order of magnitude greater than what we've seen so far for their colonial aspirations and the population will let them.

[-] doo@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

Oh, but it does. True, they have no regard for human casualties, but even with their population, they cannot maintain the meatwaves forever.

Let's have a look. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

So, 47% of their population is male. Out of 145 million of bodies they posses, males are 68 million. The percentage of 18-44 year olds is 35. That's 23 million potential soldiers.

Omg, that's one massive army, one would say.

But this is russia, we're talking about.

In June 2009, the Public Chamber of Russia reported over 500,000 alcohol-related deaths annually. They have 1.3% of population dying every year. In 2009 it meant about 1.8 million dead. 25% of those were alcohol related. That's only deaths.

They improved, but an average russian is still a professional alcoholic. Let's assume that a whooping 80% of those 23 millions are actually relatively healthy. That's 18 million potential soldiers.

Still a lot.

But it's still russia.

Apart from alcohol, it's famous for the widespread thievery. I'm not joking. https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82_%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%82?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The big difference is that for last 9 years, Ukraine was at war with russia, while russia was enjoying its second army of the world status. In other words they were stealing as usual.

So yes, one can think that it is impossible to fight against an army of 18 million. But russia started this war with 800k and two years later, lost already half of them, bumped the army to two million and still is making an occasional 200 meters of progress only to lose them in a week.

Ukraine still not losing and not planning to, is what matters.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 year ago

Not quite so. Last time Putin mobilized that cause mass migration and some limited protests. In the mean time some mercenaries went on a day trip to Moscow and he still does not call the war in Ukraine a war.

In other words it is not obvious that Putin can just call more Russian men to the front on a large scale, without causing trouble for himself.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I generally agree, but the devil is in the details. An order of magnitude more casualties would be approximately the entire Russian army and its reservists. It's currently thought that an army loses operational efficacy at 30-40% losses.

[-] StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk 1 points 1 year ago

Looking at WW2 numbers, they still have some way to go and I suppose you don't need to worry too much about defending other borders, as long as you giver a finger over the nuclear suicide button.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Why should we suppose that the current Russian military is as resilient as the Soviet one was?

Come to that, why should we suppose even their nukes are in similar condition?

It's been decades of essentially government by organized crime and kleptocracy in Russia. Their shit is wack, in the parlance.

[-] at_an_angle@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Assuming the Russian army had any operational efficiency to begin with.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 6 points 1 year ago

Half their tanks?

[-] doo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

About 50% of what they had at the beginning two years ago.

this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
136 points (97.9% liked)

Ukraine

8368 readers
744 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW

Server Rules

  1. Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
  2. No racism or other discrimination
  3. No Nazis, QAnon or similar
  4. No porn
  5. No ads or spam (includes charities)
  6. No content against Finnish law

Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS