Comment by jkic47 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkic47 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Actually, I'd say at this point, it is for the donors more than the Ukrainians to decide, since Ukraine wasn't doing too well on its own (see below).

I found an interesting study quoting 400 years of US Military Studies, that claims: "The average advance rate across the Russian front ... is 7.8 km per day – still putting Russia well ahead of pre-1990 historical averages" (this was at the start of the war). 7.8 km per day was well above historic averages of advance against peer forces, suggesting Ukraine's army was not a peer army as the Western media proclaimed, and would likely not have lasted more than a couple of months without western support. https://www.leidensecurityandglobalaffairs.nl/articles/keepi...

NATO weapons slowed the Russian advance down by making Ukraine more of a "peer", at least until the weapons dried up. Now that they have, Russia seems to be steadily and rapidly taking territory back while the West is distracted with Israel and the Houthis.

Ukraine will last as long as the West is willing to give it (expensive) weapons in the middle of an election season. And Russia will gleefully watch us burn taxpayer money while they ensure there is no one left to give those weapons to.

It is for the donors more than the Ukrainians to decide,

You're losing focus here. When I said "It's up to them to decide", this was clearly in reference to the question of whether worse off, by this point, for having made a decision to not simply roll over and let Putin have his way with them ("finding a peaceful solution", in your words). Which, if you don't think they're capable of evaluating for themselves -- you must think they're basically very stupid, as a people. For not being able to make heads or tails such an important matter as that.

Whereas now you're referring to an entirely different decision -- "Whether it makes sense to continue fighting".

So like, okay - you can think whatever you want about that issue. But it's entirely different from the assertion you made where I jumped in -- the assertion that "Ukraine ... is arguably worse off today by the choice they made to engage instead of finding a peaceful solution", offered with absolutely no regard to what the Ukrainians themselves might have to say about the matter.

And for Putin's idea of "peaceful", which you apparently accept without reservation.

[Link to an academic analysis from April 2022]

Very problematic it is to suggest that the above analysis (being limited enough in its own scope) has much, if any, extrapolation to the situation now 2 years later -- when so many things have changed (in some aspects quite categorically) in the interim, on both sides.

For starters: no, you don't just grab a 37-day window at the start of the conflict when one party temporarily enjoyed the initiative and achieved a partial breakthrough; wave a measuring stick around various places at the map, and guesstimate a "velocity"; then conclude their this their intrinsic, operational "velocity", and hence will surely kick in again at some point.

Simply put, this is just now how wars work.

Russia seems to be steadily and rapidly taking territory

Russia has made some notable gains in recent months, on top of Ukraine's vastly larger rebound across the previous year-plus.

But there is no way you can call Russia's recent gains "rapid" by the standards of the current (full-scale) phase of the conflict. They've taken months to achieve, and at very heavy cost. Including the total obliteration of most of those areas now deemed to be suitably cleansed and purified -- and now finally fit and ready for their glorious re-admission to the Russian World.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com