Hacker News Reader

Comment by dukeyukey | Hacker News Reader

Speaking as a non-American who visited for the first time last year:

> But, it's considered taboo to express a love of the USA

American flags _everywhere_' Like seriously, I visited both liberal areas (Seattle) and conservative areas (Spokane's surrounds) and y'all patriotic as _fuck_.

> Wars used to be a way to unify a country...

Also because the US is just not threatened by anyone. I'd hope that going back to being the Arsenal of Democracy for Ukraine (and maybe Taiwan or South Korea if things go bad) would've tied the US together, but man I was wrong there.

View on HN

> I'd hope that going back to being the Arsenal of Democracy for Ukraine (and maybe Taiwan or South Korea if things go bad) would've tied the US together, but man I was wrong there.

I mean, it's not like we need to be rolling out a B-29 every minute or an aircraft carrier a week to defeat Russia there. Just cleaning out some of the stock from the 80's held them off for months. Logistically, the war in Ukraine just isn't very taxing to maintain a psuedo-stalemate. If anything, NATO+ wants to keep this ulcer open for as long as it can in Russia, bleed them white.

At a certain point (probably to a large extent already) Ukraine will simply run out of manpower. Demographically it was in a very poor state to begin with to such a degree they had to keep the MINIMUM age of conscription at 27 and lowered it to 25 a few months ago.

There were only ~2.6 million men aged 15 to 30 and another 3 million in their 30s back in 2022. Around 0.6-0.8 million Ukrainian men have left the country for the EU (18-60, but I assume it's highly skewed towards lower ages).

A significant proportion (probably the majority) of those that remain in the country are not particularly motivated, capable or otherwise keen about going to the frontline. It's hard to tell but looking at estimates > 150k have died or been severely wounded and presumably a several times more suffered lighter injuries.

This isn't WW1/2. Poorly trained and/or highly unmotivated men are not very combat effective and mobilizing such a large proportion of population as back then is not feasible (especially considering that men in their 30s and 40s have been doing most of the fighting). So how long do you think Ukraine can hold out if we extrapolate the casualties rates from the last 12-24 months or so? By the time the West fully ramps up military production it might be too late.

So how long do you think Ukraine can hold out if we extrapolate the casualties rates from the last 12-24 months or so?

I wouldn't know because I don't have their numbers, and unlike you, I don't trust my offhand estimates.

However I will trust the Ukrainians to know, and it seems safe to reason that the more and better arms they have -- the farther off the potential triggering of such a limit will be.

The key consideration to keep in mind here is that for Ukraine, the fight is existential -- while for Russia (as a country, apart from its leadership) it is very much optional. So the limits for what is bearable in terms of any category of loss must be weighted very differently (apart from the what the numbers might say; and assumes we even have reliable numbers, which of course we don't).

So the flip side of your question might be:

"For how many years does Russia want to keep spending 10 percent of its GDP on this little expansionist fantasy project gone horrible wrong? And how does this math change once Putin is gone, or his lights start to dim?"

> and unlike you, I don't trust my offhand estimates.

Yet you're fine with handwaving probably the biggest issue Ukraine is facing (besides the risk of losing western support/Trump winning the election and making a side-deal with Putin).

> However I will trust the Ukrainians to know,

The government probably does. Of course due to perfectly understandable reasons they will not share that information with the Ukrainian population at least until the war is over.

> while for Russia (as a country, apart from its leadership) it is very much optional

Hopefully. But underestimating the resilience of authoritarian/totalitarian regimes (compared to more free/democratic societies) isn't necessarily particularly wise. e.g. the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s was just as senseless (from the perspective of both sides) and even more bloody yet it went on for 8 years with hardly any significant dissent in either country (besides the Kurds the Iraq).

The casualties and overall cost US sustained in the Vietnam war, especially if we adjust by the duration of both conflicts were almost miniscule compared to the cost the Russian society is seemingly willing to pay.

For the sake of simplicity -- I'm assuming Trump won't win at this point (it could happen but the odds are looking quite low). And unlike Trump, the new administration won't simply drop-kick Ukraine or otherwise be in a hurry to cut a dirty deal just to get this thing over with.

Yet you're fine with handwaving

I'm not; I'm saying it's a question I'll trust to the Ukrainians to evaluate and decide for themselves.

That's something entirely different from what you're suggesting that I said.

[Don't underestimate resilience of dictatorships; the Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years]

That's actually an argument for why time is more on Ukraine's side.

If Russia gives up after 8 years, or even 10 or 15 -- then Ukraine will have squarely won.

>I'm assuming Trump won't win at this point (it could happen but the odds are looking quite low

The odds are very much in trumps favor... what kind of rock have you been living under?

[1]https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-20...

Not the one you're living under, thankfully.

One can think of different ways to assess the likely outcome of an election -- but a betting market (with its gigantic built-in biases) would have to be one of the dodgiest.

Meanwhile reliable polls show a steady Harris lead.

How do you think Russia is going to retaliate? Maybe they will help NK and Iran build ICBMs that can accurately hit US city centers. They'd probably do it secretly, so if some US cities ever get nuked by NK or Iran, there won't be a strong case for our going to war against Russia in response (unless the secret leaked).

ADDED. The secret is unlikely to leak if the Russians are careful: they could for example anonymously send technical information on ICBM design to Iranian and NK missile scientists. The recipients might suspect that Russia is the source of the information, and might share their suspicions with others, but second-hand reports of mere suspicions probably won't be considered sufficient justification for our going to war with Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com