Other longterm loss for Russia is the continued destruction of their industries via internal and external attacks, particularly the soft targets of oil refineries, industrial plants, power grid and rail transportation.
Russia’s response to these attacks on military and industrial targets seems to be “send missiles to kill civilians in train stations and apartment buildings.” Which will do absolutely nothing to stop the attacks on their critical infrastructure.
I’m not that optimistic. The Donbas is Ukraine’s industrial heartland. It’s lost the ports of Sevastapol and Maryopoul, and there is still concern about Odessa. If it loses Odessa, then it’s lost all ports and is now dependent on more expensive rail transport. None of that is good for Ukraine GDP, which ultimately is key for Ukraine to keep up the offensive.
While that’s true, you might consider the trivia point that it’s fairly common for countries who recently adopted a technology to have better versions of it than the early adopters.
If Ukraine is able to ward off Russia, they’re going to have no end up foreign funding to rebuild their factories and infrastructure, and that’s all going to be the most modern and most efficient versions of those things.
Oddly, in WW-II the technology that worked for Russia was solid easily produced weapons in massive quantities. What ultimately failed for Germany was producing expensive superior weapons in low quantity. they lost as many Tiger tanks invading Russia due to mechanical issues than in combat. Hitler wasted resources on expensive mega weapons that were always late to the game instead of building more of their very capable weapons.
Oddly we have witnessed the USSR (and now Russia) emulate Hitler’s strategy of mis-allocation of resources. A lot money went into high tech weaponry but not in the field level weapons. And it appears that maintenance is lacking.
The newest nuclear weapon is a case in point. A lot of money went into a missile that’s harder to hit but they have so many nuclear missiles that even a fraction of a fraction of them would ensure total destruction. It was a complete mismanagement of resources.
Depends what “ward off Russia” means? Right now, and for the past 8 years, a big chunk of Ukraine’s industry has been in Russian occupation. Are they going to be able to push Russia out to regain that territory? If not, it’s not a “rebuild” operation; it’s a “build” operation, from the ground up, in western Ukraine.
Ideally, Russia won’t be able to afford to stay there.
I understand. I’m just saying that it’s not just Russia that has money problems.
Running a war is expensive business, especially when you’ve lost a lot of your industrial base, you’re not able to plant your crops that bring in a big chunk of foreign exchange, and your shipping costs may skyrocket if your one remaining port gets blockaded.
Yes, the people of Ukraine are fighting for their existence as an independent country, but that takes a lot of resources.
While I see your point, I’m wondering if the Ukrainians would rather have another photo-op visit (I’m looking at you, Boris Johnson) or a visit from people who can actually do something to help them? The Secretaries of Defense and State might not be as showy as the PotUS but maybe they’re a more direct line to what the Ukrainians actually need right now.
the private conversation was likely recorded with notes taken at the time.
The way that’s phrased is sounds like the entire city of Kviv snuck across the border like a ninja and engaged in sabotage. Ninja city!
Basically another North Korea situation.
I would say the difference is there’s a lot more people in Russia who would openly revolt.
Indeed. It would be exceptionally hard to convince millions of Russians that the western goods and travel that they enjoyed a few years ago never actually existed.
If POTUS or another well-known US politician visited Ukraine the Russians would spin it this being an American war against Russia. Blinken was probably the most appropriate figure the US thought it could get away with.
Not if it’s one of a constant stream of countries who object to the war. It would be strengthened by non-NATO leaders making the trip. The spin doesn’t look so good when a large number of countries object to the war enough to show up in Ukraine.
It’s lost the ports of Sevastapol and Maryopoul, and there is still concern about Odessa. If it loses Odessa, then it’s lost all ports and is now dependent on more expensive rail transport.
I would say the likelihood of Ukraine losing Odessa is fairly miniscule right now. Odessa is more than 325 miles west of Mariupol, and roughly 190 miles west of the Crimean peninsula. The Russians are having a difficult time maintaining their gains in eastern and southern Ukraine, and a new Ukrainian offensive eastward from Voznesensk may complete the encirclement and liberation of Kherson.
Not to mention that hours after Blinken and Austin left Kyiv, the Russians attacked several railroad hubs in Ukraine. To me that sounds like the Russians learned of the visit and were hoping to get lucky by killing some American VIPs who had the audacity to interfere. Their intel was just wrong, or came too late.
True, but there’s also the possibility of naval blockade of Odessa. (Altho’ lessened, now that Moskva is on permanent deep-water assignment.)
Or, they were sending a warning: “If we’d wanted to, we coulda…”
Assuming Russia takes the East and keeps Crimea, could they actually pull off a naval blockade? Ukraine has already demonstrated they could sink a Russian ship, and they may receive longer-range/more-capable anti-ship missiles should the need arise. And they would probably be able to use aircraft, as any incursion by Russian aircraft would be met with violence. If hostilities are ongoing, Turkey would probably bar Russian ships from entering.
What worries me about Ukraine’s long-term chances is this: is Russia continuing to get weaker as the conflict goes on- materiel lost, soldiers demoralized, sanctions biting- or could Russia be close to “bottomed out” already and has nowhere to go but up? With the possible exception of Italy in WW1, a few years in the school of hard knocks is usually enough for sheer selection to produce a return to basic competency. Heck, Putin probably thinks that Russia could return to a self-sufficient command economy if it had to and that this might actually be preferable to depending on the West. Remember that the USSR’s war against Finland was as big a botch as this war, but ultimately Finland lost Karelia to the Soviets.
Sure, certain David and Goliath comparisons with the Winter War are inevitable, but there are some pretty significant differences too. Namely, Ukraine is receiving serious political, economic, and military support from dozens of nations, whereas Finland had nowhere near as much international support.
I’m not an expert on the economic sanctions by any stretch, but I’ve read on various sites that Russia’s economy – and particularly their ability to manufacture high-tech weaponry – is going to be, to quote Leonard from The Big Bang Theory, “an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis” for the foreseeable future.
Russia is rich in various natural resources, but they lack expertise in several manufacturing disciplines (electronic and otherwise). When you’re part of a global economy, that’s not such a bad thing … you can reap the benefits of others’ expertise through trade. When you’re isolated, though – and especially when a portion of your citizenry has become accustomed to a certain standard of living – it’s very difficult to manage and overcome.
Russia, along with China, are probably the only two countries positioned to weather a situation like this; a large portion of the population of both is accustomed to (frankly) getting crapped on by their authoritarian governments. Even so, I don’t think it’s likely Russia will be a major player on the world economic stage any time in the foreseeable future. They were already second-tier to begin with.