You must log in or register to comment.

constantmusic t1_j5zpvm7 wrote

If this war takes ‘several years’ that’s bad.


jadeddog t1_j6029ta wrote

Everybody is in agreement that this war is going to last a long time still. Never underestimate Russia's ability to absorb tremendous casualty rates


eetuu t1_j605eub wrote

How many men is Ukraine losing? Will they evantually run out of manpower?


Drgntrnr t1_j608qbq wrote

A lot, but they also have a lot, and a population that is extremely willing to fight. They will be able to get and train people.

Millions fled Russia in the “partial” mobilization, so it seems unlikely to me that they’ll be able to get enough people for a full scale mobilization; especially as the economy worsens, and the war continued to slog on.


Oerthling t1_j60bte5 wrote

What people also tend to forget is that Russia is a huge country with some potentially scary neighbors and regions that might take advantage of the situation if local army presence goes down. So while Russia has more population it also has a lot of border area and regions where they need to keep a strong military presence.

Ukraine OTOH has only 1 country to worry about (plus possibly Belarus, but the Belarusian army is tiny and needed to keep its dictator in power.

Thus in practice the size and population difference is much less relevant than it looks at first sight.


Drgntrnr t1_j60ccpn wrote

And they’ll be able to maintain that defense easily with all the troops they have parked over in Ukraine. No issues defending if you’re not busy attacking.


DlSSATISFIEDGAMER t1_j61n3ek wrote

also worth noting that Russian mobilizations are pulling workers out of the economy which effectively lowers their GDP and puts more hurt on the economy. And it can't take many more rounds of mobilization before it goes into the shitter. Then they might be back to Yeltsin-era levels of economically fucked.


FnordFinder t1_j63f8jd wrote

Not just GDP but it takes tax revenue right out of the governments coffers when they need it the most. It becomes a cycle of self-injury that will only get worse the longer it continues.


Lazorgunz t1_j60njpz wrote

the current trend is that russia gets worse trained and equipped troops while Ukraine gets better trained and equipped troops. I doubt the initially high losses on Ukraine's side where a lot of territorial defense units were holding back the 'best' russia had will be repeated.

Russia's best is long dead, while thousands of western trained troops flood to Ukraine's front lines. Add modern APCs, IFVs and now MBTs, the tech advantage is becoming extremely one sided. Dont forget, even now, Russia has more troops, arti, tanks etc than Ukraine, and the losses have been steadily decreasing in relation to russia's based of best guesses by unaffiliated sources

In 6 months to a year, itl be an Iraq style turkeyshoot.

Ukraine has lost around what russia has, very roughly. so 125k? they have millions of recruits. Last i heard they were still turning people down because they just arent able, even with western help, to train everyone that wants to fight.

Morale for the fight is still sky high in Ukraine. while they have overall less manpower, they wont run out for years yet. were talking several million people still willing but not able to get into uniform


ApostrophesForDays t1_j613g6y wrote

I don't think Ukraine has lost as many troops as Russia has. Perhaps you saw that Ukraine has high casualties and thought that meant "killed"? Because casualties is a broader term that includes killed, but also includes wounded, missing, or otherwise out of action. I could believe Ukrainian casualties are 125k maybe. Many do get wounded. But unlike their Russian counterparts, they often get proper medical treatment and many even get to go back into the fight. Russians get left to die. Likewise, Russians killed is definitely over 100k by now. The rest that counts as casualties is likely an even bigger number.


Lazorgunz t1_j613npn wrote

yea my bad, did indeed use Ukrainian casualyies vs ruzzian KIA

either way, that just further points at the mismatch


WildSauce t1_j614zc2 wrote

France in early 1914 and Ukraine in early 2022 had effectively the same population, about 40 million people. France suffered 1.4 million dead and 4.2 million wounded in WWI. Ukraine so far has suffered somewhere around 100k total casualties.

It is extremely difficult to break a modern nation through sheer body count. You might be able to break the political will to fight, but it would take a very, very long time for this war to burn itself out through casualties alone.


paulusmagintie t1_j61895v wrote

Can't really compare to WW1 or 2 since that was an all out total war with pretty much every country going 100% for 6 years.


torlesse t1_j61vo2a wrote

Umm, Ukraine is in total war. All their major cities are getting bombed, you think some are just relaxing at home like how the Americans were during the 20 year Afghan war?


paulusmagintie t1_j622qtd wrote

WW1 toral War was 60,000 dead in one battle in a day.

They are just not comparable.


MetzgerWilli t1_j666hfd wrote

Those battles were the absolute exception though. Even in WW1 few areas and days saw anything close to 60k deaths


WildSauce t1_j61c7u8 wrote

Ukraine today is in much the same position as France in WWI, being under invasion from a neighbor who poses an existential threat. But I do agree that Russia does not compare, because their people do not have that sort of strong reason to wish for continued war. High casualties very well may lead to the end of the war through political defeat in Russia.


FarawayFairways t1_j610j8o wrote

> How many men is Ukraine losing? Will they evantually run out of manpower?

Casualty rates are often reported as being broadly equal, so it could come down to a crude equation of whether Ukraine can retake territory before Russia would inevitably win a numbers game

At the moment Ukraine has been able to regain territory at a rate to suggest that they can get over the line. If the front deadlocks though, then that becomes a different equation

What happens however if they push Russia up to their border? Does Russia continue firing from the other side? In which case does Ukraine then have to cross the border?


Jacc3 t1_j62psm8 wrote

Neither Ukraine nor Russia seem to show a lack of manpower anytime soon. The issue for both sides are mostly material, which much depends on how aid Ukraine will get and how large Russia's weapon stockpiles actually are.

> What happens however if they push Russia up to their border? Does Russia continue firing from the other side? In which case does Ukraine then have to cross the border?

Ukraine has already been attacking military targets in Russia proper, so that's definitely something they'd continue to do if Russia refuses to give up. Sending troops in any significant number over the border seems unlikely tho.

But I doubt that would be an issue. If Russia would lose the war that hard, war support would probably be quite low in all classes of society.


CDNChaoZ t1_j63ladv wrote

Ukrainians are motivated, down to the last person, be it senior, woman, or child. Russians, not so much.


HouseOfSteak t1_j63mgpd wrote

Are Ukrainian casualty rates including Ukrainian civilians, or just its military?


FM-101 t1_j60hymh wrote

People are fleeing russia because of the war.
People are flocking to Ukraine because of the war

Yes, russia has more people but they are mostly unmotivated and will become even less motivated and willing as time goes on.
For Ukraine its the opposite. In terms of manpower Ukraine will be fine in the end.


Responsible_Walk8697 t1_j60a8q9 wrote

Plus I think no one wants this to end quickly. Russia can be crippled for good, and that’s where this is going.


Shurqeh t1_j60ghpq wrote

you're suggestion is tantamount to the west being happy to spend Ukrainian lives to make sure Russia is down for good. Which is exactly what Russia's propaganda wants us to believe.


Responsible_Walk8697 t1_j60m1ui wrote

I get your meaning, but I don't think Ukraine's agenda is different from the US / NATO / rest of the West.

- If you hear the Ukrainians (meaning their Gov), they are nowhere near ready to sit to negotiate with Putin. For them it's taking their territory back (including Crimea) or nothing. Analysts (for what they might know) think that could take years.

- Russia made a mess in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea (Ukraine) and now Ukraine again. Everyone was hesitant to intervene, but now that they did, it's unclear a quick hack would do.

- There is the precedent of intervening in Iraq, not finishing the job, and the US establishment pushing for a second round. Not sure they will leave the table until Russia has been knocked from old superpower to regional power.

- The US has Russia in mind, but also China. The US has been talking about the "shift to Asia" for 20 years. Multiple latent conflicts (Philippine, Vietnam, Taiwan) could kick off in the future. Crippling Russia has both the benefit of removing one problem off the table, weakening a China partner, and sending a clear message to China.

I cannot see the conflict being brushed under the carpet and forgotten. All participants (except Russia, one would assume) appear to be happy to go on for years if it gives them what they want (a strong Ukraine, a weak Russia?).

Of course they might all decide to have peace talks next week and settle. Who knows. Just not what it looks like...


decomposition_ t1_j60ok06 wrote

I just wanted to point out that Russia started out as a regional power going into this war, Russia never has been a superpower unless you are referring to the Soviet Union.


Responsible_Walk8697 t1_j60skhl wrote

Yes, you are right. There was however a perception that the Russian army was the closest adversary you could have to the US, and NATO still had Russian containment as a role. After this conflict, I doubt that will be tolerated. Whatever peace follows, Russia would have been knocked down enough that it's not a threat / able to project power again. That's what I was meant to say.


Gr33nBubble t1_j61bpwh wrote

Yes. Showing China that there will be a collective response from the free world if they invaded Taiwan, is very important.


Okbuddyliberals t1_j61tjnb wrote

Why would that be bad in the first place?

I mean, bearing in mind that the Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom against a fascist imperialist invader and are doing this freely and eagerly rather than being pushed into it by the west - with that in mind - why would it be bad?

If the Ukrainians want to fight to the last Ukrainian against the Russian menace, what's so bad about the west arming them and benefiting from it?

Seems like it would only be bad if the west was coercing and forcing Ukraine to do this


torlesse t1_j61w3o1 wrote

Happy? Definitely not.

But what are the options exactly? Let Russians over run Ukraine and take over?

Putin started the war and if Russia gets crippled as a result, its all on him.


f3n2x t1_j61qxkj wrote

Russia doesn't have the materiel to continue like this for years, they'll probably be pushed back to the border at some point this year and then we might have a situation like North Korea and South Korea where they're technically at war but nothing really happens.


lil_sh_t t1_j637bzs wrote

You misspelled 'tremendous disregard for life' as 'ability to absorb tremendous casualty rates'.

Russia will be crippled for years to come, as the youth will be as slaughtered as after WW2.

They were conscripting the elderly 6 months after the start of the war already.


go_on_now_boy t1_j60yjx7 wrote

So I guess the Reddit armchair generals were wrong when they said back in July of last year that Russia would be defeated easily.


AllomancersAnonymous t1_j60loy9 wrote

This isn't really a statement that they think the war is going to last years.

The Ukrainian military is 90% Soviet/Russian eastern bloc equipment.

Russia is now forever gone as a supplier for the Ukrainian military. It's NATO or bust from here. There's no plan B.

Norway is saying they're going to be part of that longer term transition.


BrainBlowX t1_j60sns7 wrote

This isn't "the war will last many years." This is "our committment will be for many years".

Stuff like this helps dash russian hopes of Europe "caving" on Ukraine.


green_flash t1_j60hdvj wrote

It's already taken 9 years. It could easily take another decade.


Doright36 t1_j62i0sa wrote

Even if the war ended tomorrow without another loss Ukraine is going to need hardware to shore up their borders to protect against another invasion.

Commitments for long term supplies are not saying they want the war to last that long. Just that they will make sure Ukraine stays well armed in the future no matter what.


UncleGrga t1_j61ypou wrote

This war has been happening close to a decade.


bl0wf1sh t1_j617djd wrote

I'm going to play devil's advocate here: several years is bad for both Ukraine and Russia. But, keeping the war in Ukraine (with only Russia as the other war party) is in Europe's and USA's best interest. And as long as the west is only supplying arms, Russia has a very weak case to get more direct help from / involvement of friendly nations (namely, china and India).

Not my preference at all, to be very clear. I would love it if the Ukrainians chased out the Russians tomorrow and reclaimed their full territory. I also do not allege that western nations don't want to help Ukraine - but they have to think of themselves first.

Yes I know the war is overall bad for Europe. No denying that.


swingingsaw t1_j60autv wrote

The end would likely have nukes deployed so this is good news no nuclear annihilation soon, gives us hopefully a couple of years to start prepping


BrainBlowX t1_j60sr7e wrote

oh shut up.


Get a new script already. Ukraine isn't invading Moscow.


swingingsaw t1_j60tymn wrote

What’s wrong with prepping?


cromwest t1_j60yixd wrote

It's pointless? Why live an extra couple of years on a dead planet?


swingingsaw t1_j60zaph wrote

Bc we wouldn’t be extinct or be sent back to the stone age? it’s not as futile as the movies make it seem. Do your research


Norseviking4 t1_j607ifi wrote

Proud to be Norwegian today.

Glory to Ukraine


Lee1138 t1_j618tlw wrote

Glad we didn't dither further once the ball started rolling.


dont_trip_ t1_j62ybn8 wrote

We have been a fucking embarrassment early on in the conflict with slow responses. Glad it's finally picking up pace. Donate the majoroty of our tanks I'd suggest, we were about to change out the entire stock anyways. We only need to keep a few for the Telemark Battalion QRF anyways.


Norseviking4 t1_j632sa2 wrote

I fully agree, our only potential enemy is Russia and there is zero chance of them opening a front in northern Norway.

So we only really need to keep enough to be able to do our duties with international operations and keep some for training to avoid losing competence.

Everything else, send it to Ukraine.

Hopefully Rødt will fall under the sperregrense again. So embarrasing that they have had this much support with their anti nato, anti west, pro russia stance... Even with all the fire they have been under they still refuse to sign on to weapon aid to Ukraine.


NopetrainToNopeville t1_j5zwwyg wrote

Is there a list of total pledged tanks to Ukraine by now? If so, fucking hope it's a long one.


Kvikkleire t1_j5zz969 wrote

32 Leopards now confirmed for Ukraine: 14 from Germany, 14 from Poland and 4 from Canada.

8 likely from Norway ~4 possible from Portugal (there was no confirmation) ~8 possible from Finland ~8 possible from Spain

list so far, still early days though


Ghozer t1_j600238 wrote

Also 31 odd Abrams tanks too from the US


TROPtastic t1_j60awg0 wrote

Those will be very important, but will take longer to transfer since they need to be stripped of advanced armour and systems (or export versions sourced from Egypt or Saudi Arabia).


Annonimbus t1_j60u022 wrote

I heard that the Abrams that are being sent are new manufactured ones. So it will take time but only because they need to be built.

Correct me please if that is false


TROPtastic t1_j615s24 wrote

I think it's undecided at the moment, since it may indeed be easier to send new, export-ready tanks than to convert domestic ones or find willing foreign suppliers, but production lines in the US are already full.


Imundo t1_j60ekde wrote

The depleted-uranium cannot be removed from existing inventory, the pledged M1 Abrams will be newly-built hulls and M1A2 spec, unlikely these will show up until 2024


Who_DaFuc_Asked t1_j60iglz wrote

So we're basically building brand new Abrams for them with last gen hardware? That's kinda cool


Imundo t1_j60kp3a wrote

Only the armor composition is less than US Army-spec, all the optics, fire control, comms and battlefield management are top-quality


AllomancersAnonymous t1_j60m4g9 wrote

Surely there are surplus export versions without that armor.


Imundo t1_j60od8x wrote

Surplus? no. Poland and Taiwan have placed large orders of Abrams and technically they’re ahead of Ukraine in the queue. Poland will likely allow Ukraine’s order to be processed ahead of their own because they are getting K2 tanks from South Korea


paulusmagintie t1_j618jlx wrote

Does the USA have permission to even sell the Chobon armour? Its a British armour design.


Imundo t1_j66ijw6 wrote

Chobham is the first generation of composite armour, dating back to the 60s, M1 Abrams variants and Leopard 2 use proprietary composite blends that are not covered by UK patents


TROPtastic t1_j61jiwr wrote

It's not confirmed that the Abrams will be newly-built hulls, although that may be the easiest solution. We know that conversion is possible because the US government signed a contract with GDLS to remove and replace armor on US tanks for Poland.

As /u/AllomancersAnonymous alluded to, there are export variants in service with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but it's unknown whether the US will be able to buy tanks back from them.


Supersix15 t1_j61u39r wrote

The U.S. cannot ship the tanks immediately because the U.S. military does not “have these tanks available in excess in our U.S. stocks,” deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters Thursday.  

The Pentagon intends to procure the tanks through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), meaning it will buy the Abrams directly from its maker General Dynamics to then be shipped to Ukraine, a process that “is going to take months,” Singh said.  

She explained that the schedule will give U.S. officials time to train Ukrainian troops on the advanced weapon. 


TheOneAndOnlyPriate t1_j604ah6 wrote

Didn't the netherlands also intend to pitch in with the highest single nation number for leopards? I could have sworn it was mentioned netherlands wanted to give 18


TROPtastic t1_j60capq wrote

Yes, they're thinking to buy the tanks they're leasing from Germany and send them to Ukraine, with the logic that they will best fulfill their purpose of deterring Russia by serving in the war. I think they haven't yet decided to do this.


dragdritt t1_j62lkmv wrote

So after all that fucking noise from Poland they're barely even giving more than Norway??


dont_trip_ t1_j62xzzw wrote

Gotta remember that it's more nuanced than just a numbers game, Poland and Norway have different geographical placement, strategic need and financial situation. The Norwegian tanks are also 40 year old L2A4NO once bought used from Netherlands. They have obviously been upgraded several times, but Norway has been discussing throwing out all 40-50 L2A4 tanks and acquire 80 new L2A7 or South Koreas K2 Black Panther tanks.

Several high ranking officials in Norway suggest donating the majority of the tanks, like 30 ish.


dragdritt t1_j631e02 wrote

Poland is also acquiring new tanks, so the situation isn't as different as you make it seem.


ConfusingTiger t1_j60ygar wrote

Wasn't Spain 50 something


Kvikkleire t1_j611gus wrote

They are, but thy are in dire need for repair before shipment, so hard to say how many will be sent


kneejerk2022 t1_j5zo41i wrote

Several years? NATO needs to rip the bandaid off. Unfortunately this thing is destined to escalate no matter how far they wish to stand back.

Edit: spelling.


joho999 t1_j5zvb8w wrote

War is never over by Christmas, and it always escalates until a winner, no matter what decisions you make.


Frexxia t1_j60a265 wrote

It's over by Christmas. The question is, which year's Christmas?


MindlessVegetation t1_j607p8i wrote

> esculent

That esculented quickly.

Seriously though, agreed.Open up the Spigot on everything that kills Z Soldiers and hasten a UA Victory.


BrainBlowX t1_j60suaa wrote

This is about showing that the country will stand by Ukraine for years.


bubbaeinstein t1_j60nobj wrote

Support Norway. Eat more herring.


Lee1138 t1_j618mms wrote

Can do that by just living and buying more shit tbh. Norway owns approximately 1.4% of all listed companies, so anything that keeps the economy going is supporting Norway.


champagnepuppy1 t1_j60go0q wrote

Also 14 Chally 2s from the UK. So 32 Leopard 2s, 31 M1s, 14 Challenger 2s and like 50 T-72Bs from Morocco via Czechia.


RidingRedHare t1_j60ha35 wrote

Media have reported that the total will be around 80 Leopard 2s. We just don't know yet how many Spain, Finland etc. will send.


autotldr t1_j5zscdi wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 67%. (I'm a bot)

> We are in close dialogue with allies and Ukraine on how Norway can contribute in the best possible way.

> Norway has contributed significantly throughout 2022 and will continue to support Ukraine in 2023, says Minister of Defence Bjørn Arild Gram.

> Norwegian military support to Ukraine consists of donations from our own stock, contributions to international collaborative efforts, donations of equipment straight from the industry and the training of Ukrainian military personnel.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 support^#2 Norwegian^#3 need^#4 military^#5


obsertaries t1_j60qcf6 wrote

I hope someone in the Ukraine government said “tanks a lot!”


Niller1 t1_j62e3e6 wrote

We need to do it too here in Denmark. Can't let our northern brothers one up us like that.


cc69 t1_j60gp97 wrote

I feels bad for Over sized Russian minivan


Connect-Speaker t1_j6176g4 wrote

As Stephen Colbert said:

“This is the first time ‘The German tanks are rolling in’ has been seen as good news!”


[deleted] t1_j61ljcj wrote

That guy in the pic looks like he is about to get liberated.


DavefromKS t1_j61tfhd wrote

How are they feeding all these leopards?


ArcadesRed t1_j63nrm0 wrote

You know how they keep talking about dead Russian troops. But you never see any bodies. Its best to just not ask.


Luke-Jivetalker593 t1_j62ythu wrote

It’s a nice gesture, but I think they’ll need more than 2 tanks.


Rjsrainman t1_j60efgq wrote

What I have a concern about is that we give Putin a heads up about taking action to support Ukraine, we need to give Ukraine weapons first prior to making an announcement to Russia, lk playing Chess ur letting ur giving away ever move,mks no sense, we going to let Russia knowUkraine next battle move,DAM


LurkerInSpace t1_j60s67e wrote

There are a few reasons for it:

  • In countries at peace handing over these kinds of armaments comes under public scrutiny - and public announcements from one country shift public mood in others.

  • Russia would probably notice at least some of the tanks being moved anyway - they require a lot of logistical support.

  • Since Russia can't be invaded for the war to end unfavourably either their morale or ability to fight needs to be crushed. Announcing a shitload of weapons hurts the former, the weapons themselves hurt the latter.

There's also not all that much Russia can do that they wouldn't attempt anyway. For instance, if they were capable of an offensive to pre-empt these deliveries they'd probably launch one anyway even without knowledge of them.

Also, Ukraine and the West have been quite good at misleading the Russians so far this war - for example they were led to believe that a Kherson offensive was imminent, and then were hit with an entirely different offensive at Kharkiv. So there is a good chance a vital piece of the story hasn't been made public.


Noxzen OP t1_j61tig8 wrote

Regarding the last paragraf, Norway sent 22 artillery haubiters M109 to Ukraine in Q2/Q3 2022. The government never said anything official about it, but had to make a statement when it emerged photos of a broken M109 with norwegian camo in Ukraine. Which supports that there’s much happening behind the curtains


rct1 t1_j60t4xp wrote

You do know they have have a space program and satellite imagery and drones and all that stuff right?

It’s really tough to sneak in a platoon of armor.


Tastetheload t1_j61r89x wrote

Its is important to tell them so they don't mistake a bunch of tanks going into Ukraine as direct NATO intervention.


Rjsrainman t1_j61swo5 wrote

Its going to be, no one Country will allow Russia to take Ukraine


Meme_Turtle t1_j606ttr wrote

Several years? Just give them nuke and be done with it. Resulting is going to be the same but faster.


TROPtastic t1_j60dnlo wrote

Nuclear escalation is far from inevitable, despite what Russian propagandists may say about sinking the UK under a radioactive tsunami. Russia knows that China and India won't support any nuclear use in Ukraine, and NATO is certainly not going to take in a non-member state under NATO's nuclear umbrella.


Meme_Turtle t1_j60mh7s wrote

I don't care what propagandists on either side say. I just want the war to be over and this is the fastest way to achieve it.


ValarPanoulis t1_j60rnbw wrote

Plunging the planet in a nuclear winter is one way to end it if you want to be technical.


Meme_Turtle t1_j60uefy wrote

If it's bound to happen it'll happen. Humanity will learn to respect each other or die trying.


DJ3XO t1_j613hbh wrote

Look at Mr. Super nihilist over here.


Ass2Mowf t1_j61uote wrote

Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it’s an ethos.


Nixter295 t1_j61ukjs wrote

Nuclear fallout will affect every other country around Ukraine. Plus it will make things a lot worse for everyone, especially Ukraine.