Hacker News Reader

Comment by jncfhnb | Hacker News Reader

There’s a good point to be made that Russia could probably beat the US in conflicts that are not existential. Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1, the US could still find those losses unpalatable enough to concede whatever context the fight is over. Even if the US would obviously win eventually. Especially if Russia or whoever was running successful disinformation campaigns. But also… we are so close to another inflection point which is fully autonomous drones that can navigate by computer vision to pre determined or opportunistically chosen targets without dependence on things that make them vulnerable like GPS and remote control.

Drones are a big deal but these drones would have basically no counter

Frankly I’m confused why we don’t have these things for big static targets like a drone that independently navigates to a rail line, drops a mine and leaves for the train to blow up next time it shows up.

View on HN

> Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1, the US could still find those losses unpalatable enough to concede whatever context the fight is over.

I’m certainly tempted by this line of thinking. However, it’s important to bear in mind that the Japanese thought the exact same thing during WW2 when they initiated Pearl Harbor. It’s very difficult to predict how the public will react to war.

Perhaps. I think the context is different though. A series of stupid wars has greatly lowered Americans trust in the military.

They seem to do great on the shock and awe, not so much on the occupation part.

The populace in the 90s was pretty well primed with the remnants of anti-vietnam, anti-war messaging. 9/11 changed things very quick.

Very true. But trust was even lower in the military in 1941. Isolationism was the political orthodoxy, and had been for decades. That changed overnight. And the sacrifices the US made during WW2 was astounding. For the duration of the war, the US literally stopped making civilian cars. The military grew ten fold in a matter in months. I question the resolve of the American people to put up with those kinds of hardships, sure, but given recent history I think we discount it at our peril.

The cynical take about the West's slow titration of giving weapons to Ukraine is that it maximizes the amount of time that Russia throws its men into the meat grinder.

Once Russian loses most of its fighting age men, it can't engage in another one of those types of wars for another generation at least.

I think the most likely take here is bureaucratic incompetence though. It’s not like the current administration can even guarantee it will continue through 2025.

That might have been how it worked out if Ukraine successfully fought a war of attrition and Russia fought a war for territory, but it was the exact opposite.

To take Bakhmut as an example, Ukraine kept feeding men into cauldrons long after they should have cut their losses because they had orders to make a stand and fight to the last for every inch of territory. This is where the phrase "meat grinder" originated - it described Russia's plan for capitalizing upon those orders.

Ukraine ended up suffering vastly worse casualties than Russia did as a result - their troops spent most of their time surrounded on 3 sides by a force with overwhelming artillery superiority. The Ukrainian soldiers fed into these cauldrons often died within hours from an artillery strike, usually without even seeing a Russian soldier. Russia tried to keep this process going for as long as possible.

Hence meat grinder.

This pattern of Ukraine prioritizing territorial gains over lives and falling into traps sprung by Russia as a result has been repeated elsewhere across the front line too, and is symptomatic of the failure of the counteroffensive.

That is… the opposite of what has happened. Russia is the one the spent 9 months throwing Russian troops into the Bakhmut meat grinder which had no strategic merit.

Russia is the one that has seen massive attrition on its artillery and is constantly complaining about Ukrainian counterbattery capabilities are far superior.

Ukraine has been very clear that these areas were held to fix and attrite Russian forces. And it worked. The Russian offense culminated with basically nothing achieved and is now on the ropes with Ukraine getting awfully close to gaining fire control on the last train lines leading west in Tokmak.

Russia is the one that is notoriously throwing its men at senseless counterattacks rather than trying to maintain its own defensive lines

Russia has had overwhelming artillery superiority for well over a year. Even the most pro Ukrainian news outlets haven't denied this. Hell, Biden even came out and said that the US had run out of 155mm shells to give Ukraine. This is after a year of fire rates that were 1/3 of what the Russians managed. Again public information.

The offensive was initially supposed to reach Mariupol or Melitopol which would have been a legitimate success. It's ended with a promise to maybe get to Tokmak which will make zero difference strategically. It's failed - completely.

Russia had overwhelming artillery support but it’s completely turned around. Western AND Russian sources say this, with the latter taking the form of complaints about how shitty everything is.

Melitopol being liberated would almost end the war giving fire control over all of crimea’s logistics and making the entire point of the war that siege.

Tokmak will not end the war, but it is THE rail line supplying the west.

If Ukraine had ceded Bakhmut, they'd have to retake it at some point. Taking ground is harder than holding it, especially against a prepared defense. Which we're seeing in the ongoing counteroffensive.

I don't see you proposing an alternative to what the Ukrainians have chosen to do that doesn't leave them with a lot more territory to retake, or ceding a bunch of territory to Russia on a basically permanent basis.

And let's not forget that they're doing their damnedest to attrit Russian materiel all the while they've been fighting to hold or retake territory. Every weapon system they've been given to strike behind Russian lines and destroy materiel, they've used for that purpose. That both reduces Russia's availability materiel, and screws with their logistics by pushing back their various assets and supply depots.

If the goal was to keep territory they'd have been better off taking Russia's pre-war deal - minsk 2, cede Crimea, pledge to stay out of NATO.

Even after that though, I think they should have prioritized lives over territory. Luring Russia deeper into their territory so that their supply lines could be cut and trying to fight maneuver warfare would have worked better than trying to win a WW1 style war of attrition against an enemy 5x the power and equivalent sophistication that is fighting a war of attrition against you.

Russian logistics were only really seriously threatened by HIMARS and only then for a short period (theyve since deployed counter measures). Ukraine only really has the resources to hit propaganda targets behind enemy lines now - Russian logistics are not being threatened in any meaningful way any more.

I would seriously challenge your "equivalent sophistication" statement. The human resources management of Russia's army is below WW2 Soviet's abysmal standard. The russian population is starting to notice.

According to some western sources, yes, but many of these same sources have also made false reports on everything from Russian ammo shortages, missile shortages to total economic collapse before rolling back on them so I wouldn't necessarily put too much faith in them.

I would calibrate the predictions you see from your sources with the predictions that they made 12 months ago. The results may surprise.

There are several technological areas where Russia is obviously ahead of the west - the two most notable being anti aircraft defences (S-400) and hypersonic missiles.

Ok we have very different sources... :+) Mine don't do predictions.

Russian sources complain about ammo shortage on a daily basis.

The Russian economy is struggling but not collapsing yet.

The hypersonic missiles have generally failed to beat western air defenses. The S 400s have been getting blown up with visual confirmation.

> If the goal was to keep territory they'd have been better off taking Russia's pre-war deal - minsk 2, cede Crimea, pledge to stay out of NATO.

I’m curious about how this new deal would have actually stopped Russia from just invading again in the future to take more land.

Ukraine already had prior to 2014 multiple international agreements with Russia where they promised to respect Ukraines borders and sovereignty and that didn’t stop Russia violating them.

In fact this deal seems to be explicitly about allowing Russia to invade again by pledging them to stay out of defensive alliances that would finally stop and prevent Russian aggression.

> Ukraine only really has the resources to hit propaganda targets behind enemy lines now

Ukraine has destroyed one of the submarines that Russia was using to launch cruise missiles at them and has leveled the Black Sea headquarters effectively.

They are doing what Russia keeps claiming and failing to do (hitting decision making centres).

This is the complete opposite of what happened in Bakhmut.

It is worst than this for Russia: demographic decline was already well established before the war starred, the hole this is adding to the reproductive capacity of the russian population is going to be very hard to get out of, so the "another generation" is just not going to be there with the mass of WW2 or WUkrZ.

> There’s a good point to be made that Russia could probably beat the US in conflicts that are not existential.

Russia can't even beat its next door neighbor who is supplied with the US's castoff tech

The US would destroy the Russian forces from a distance, even in non-nuclear combat, it wouldn't even be close.

That’s my point though. It doesn’t need to be close. Russia doesn’t need to be winning for the US to decide it’s not worth it.

Ukraine is suffering attrition at a rate of 1:2-5 in most areas based on stats I have seen (and I feel like trending 5+ lately fwiw). The US would certainly find that to be outrageous if it were US troops dying at that rate for something like the war in Ukraine.

I do think the US could perform with much better stats. But how much better do they need to be? I think not clear.

Russia’s proven to be a lot weaker mind you so they’re not the best example to have indexed on. Much of their capabilities could be annihilated if we just got the fuck on with ATACM and the cluster variety.

It is puzzling, it almost seems like we would definitely have that capability by now…

Russia is far behind in technology though, and it shows. This war is a great tragedy for Ukraine, but a boon to the rest of the word because (apart from showing the murderous face of Putin and the weakness of the Russian army) it is actively depleting it and defers any potential conventional conflict with other neighbors of Russia by decades.

I agree. It could very well cause a reworking of the entire country if the economic burden gets too great.

>Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1 the US could still find those losses unpalatable

The crux of the matter is there are few nations on earth where life has so little value as Russia. Their leadership has no trouble sending or convincing 10's of millions to go and die. It is my belief Americans and Europeans still don't understand this and if this war was to spill over from Ukraine into Europe it would be a disaster no different than WWII. Yes, USA/Europe/NATO would win but it would cost them millions of lives. Putin has already said if I run out of men I will send Women.

>Frankly I’m confused why we don’t have these things for big static targets like a drone that independently navigates to a rail line, drops a mine and leaves for the train to blow up next time it shows up.

I think the West believed that they could just use their air power to destroy these targets but failed to realize that they have never really fought an enemy that had a serious air defense. Iraq was using systems from the early 70's that were easily defeated.The USA doesn't even have a basic drone like the Iranian Shahed drone that could be produce in mass, they also have no answer to stopping them efficiently.

America can not win a conventional war with China, that is a guarantee. The Chinese could field millions of drones and a endless supply of men and with the support of Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc, would have no problems defeating the US/West. The second Americans couldn't buy a microwave, iPhone, or video card and millions of other things, they would lose their minds and surrender......

> America can not win a conventional war with China, that is a guarantee. The Chinese could field millions of drones and a endless supply of men and with the support of Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc, would have no problems defeating the US/West. The second Americans couldn't buy a microwave, iPhone, or video card and millions of other things, they would lose their minds and surrender.

I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or not but, academic discussion aside, Russia cannot even win the war with Ukraine, so it's hard to imagine how they would fare against a stronger enemy with powerful modern weapons.

Well the War in Ukraine isn't over and the USA/West doesn't seem to have the will or resolve to help Ukraine win and any help is purely defensive. As the world has seen, Russia has a disregard for life and a willingness to destroy the civilian population without any kind of conscience. They can simply use this same formula on Europe and perhaps that is why the Baltic's who have a large Russian population already, are afraid.

Lets not forget what happened with the USA/NATO in Afghanistan where a a stronger force with powerful modern weapons was defeated.

Hope I'm full of shit and wrong but I don't have a lot of faith in the USA/West and their resolve and capability when faced with a formidable foe.

I think it depends on what the public feels is at stake.

Russia is already winning in Ukraine.

That's exactly why Biden has been finding it so hard to keep sending weapons - the Republicans would be more or less happy to keep sending them if they were seeing positive results from the counteroffensive but nothing has been achieved.

If weapons deliveries wind down from hereon out then Kiev is toast.

You're wrong, that last thing that is happening is Russia is winning. Russia has already lost, just remember that conflicts like Afghanistan were one of the factors that that destroyed the USSR and Chechnya basically bankrupted them and caused their economy to collapse. The war in Ukraine will more than likely be the end of Russia and it's break up into different countries and nations. It might take up to a decade but it is coming......

Reply on news.ycombinator.com